 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » Getting a handle on Communism...that did NOT die with... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| tooly... |
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The Communists have never aimed at the conversion of great masses of
people to Communism. Their whole concept is that of a small party,
compact, mobile, disciplined and dedicated, consisting largely of an
intellectual elite. It is the task of this small group to utilize
scientifically the social forces that move and direct the masses of
the people so that the Communist Party may come to power over them,
and impose forcibly the Communist program. The program of Communism,
then, is to recruit into the service of the Party great numbers of
individuals MOST OF WHOM ARE UNCONSCIOUS THAT THEY ARE SERVING THE
COMMUNIST PURPOSE.
The Heglean 'Dialectic' is a dynamic by which future 'world socialism'
is to 'evolve' through steps and processes, a complex hammering away,
in which periods of recoil will anesthesize resistance to think
communism has gone away, but only the period of cocked position to
strike again...and again and again, in however way the changing
dialectic calls for. Therefore, the dialectic is not a thing so much
as a process, by which the inevitable fall of capitalism is
accomplished which leads to socialism and then communism. The
participants will often be unknowing to the greater vision of world
communism, but enamoured in their myopic gentile cause at hand engaged
with social justice rationalization of one sort or another [minority
rights, feminism, gay rights, environmentalism, immigration, and a
whole basket of liberal causes], while blind to the gentle prods of
the greater vehicle as driven by the central clandestine party.
The evolutionary process runs its gamut through liberalism, come
progressivism, to social democracy, to socialism...and then finally
communism.
To the Leninist Bolshevik, these stages are nothing more than the
steel frames being erected for the final structure by way of
revolution that is INEVITABLE.
And it would be inevitable, but for an informed public. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bigfletch8 at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 9:50 pm, tooly <rd... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote:
[quote]The Communists have never aimed at the conversion of great masses of
people to Communism. Their whole concept is that of a small party,
compact, mobile, disciplined and dedicated, consisting largely of an
intellectual elite. It is the task of this small group to utilize
scientifically the social forces that move and direct the masses of
the people so that the Communist Party may come to power over them,
and impose forcibly the Communist program. The program of Communism,
then, is to recruit into the service of the Party great numbers of
individuals MOST OF WHOM ARE UNCONSCIOUS THAT THEY ARE SERVING THE
COMMUNIST PURPOSE.
The Heglean 'Dialectic' is a dynamic by which future 'world socialism'
is to 'evolve' through steps and processes, a complex hammering away,
in which periods of recoil will anesthesize resistance to think
communism has gone away, but only the period of cocked position to
strike again...and again and again, in however way the changing
dialectic calls for. Therefore, the dialectic is not a thing so much
as a process, by which the inevitable fall of capitalism is
accomplished which leads to socialism and then communism. The
participants will often be unknowing to the greater vision of world
communism, but enamoured in their myopic gentile cause at hand engaged
with social justice rationalization of one sort or another [minority
rights, feminism, gay rights, environmentalism, immigration, and a
whole basket of liberal causes], while blind to the gentle prods of
the greater vehicle as driven by the central clandestine party.
The evolutionary process runs its gamut through liberalism, come
progressivism, to social democracy, to socialism...and then finally
communism.
To the Leninist Bolshevik, these stages are nothing more than the
steel frames being erected for the final structure by way of
revolution that is INEVITABLE.
And it would be inevitable, but for an informed public.
[/quote]
Marx was under the impression that the UK would be the birth place of
Communism, because of their position in the industrial revolution, but
as you pointed out, it was the uneducated peasent class that
fascilitated the movement.
The equivalent (and hardly distinguishable) in the more educated
classes, is fascism, but they are both old lables. Anyone who thinks
the New World Order is not on the agenda of the illuminati have their
eyes tightly shut, and neither lables fit the philosophy of this
movement.
Like all ideals, reality has a habit of getting in the way, but of
course, those with ideals of today have learned much from the past..
Also in reality, very few wouldnt be in favour of the end of
starvation, alarming infant mortality, and third world related dire
poverty and ellimination of wars etc.... which would appear on their
manifesto.
BOfL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| 1Z... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 6 Nov, 13:50, tooly <rd... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote:
[quote]The Communists have never aimed at the conversion of great masses of
people to Communism. Their whole concept is that of a small party,
compact, mobile, disciplined and dedicated, consisting largely of an
intellectual elite. It is the task of this small group to utilize
scientifically the social forces that move and direct the masses of
the people so that the Communist Party may come to power over them,
and impose forcibly the Communist program. The program of Communism,
then, is to recruit into the service of the Party great numbers of
individuals MOST OF WHOM ARE UNCONSCIOUS THAT THEY ARE SERVING THE
COMMUNIST PURPOSE.
[/quote]
Actually, *you* are serving the Martian Freemason
Neo-Con Lizard conspiracy and *you* don't
even know it.
Idiot. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| 1Z... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 6 Nov, 15:01, "bigflet... at (no spam) gmail.com" <bigflet... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]illuminati
[/quote]
Idiot. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tooly... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 12:13 pm, 1Z <peterdjo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On 6 Nov, 13:50, tooly <rd... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote:
The Communists have never aimed at the conversion of great masses of
people to Communism. Their whole concept is that of a small party,
compact, mobile, disciplined and dedicated, consisting largely of an
intellectual elite. It is the task of this small group to utilize
scientifically the social forces that move and direct the masses of
the people so that the Communist Party may come to power over them,
and impose forcibly the Communist program. The program of Communism,
then, is to recruit into the service of the Party great numbers of
individuals MOST OF WHOM ARE UNCONSCIOUS THAT THEY ARE SERVING THE
COMMUNIST PURPOSE.
Actually, *you* are serving the Martian Freemason
Neo-Con Lizard conspiracy and *you* don't
even know it.
Idiot.
[/quote]
Why has Obama not explained why he appointed a known professed
Communist as this Green Czar [Van Jones]? Why has Obama not explained
why he invites profound marxist intellectuals like Robert McChesney to
the White House to help in devising internet strategy [net
neutrality]? How does he explain close council like Valerie Jarrett
and her ties to Chicago socialists [ie SDS radical Marylin Katz]. How
does he justify appointing someone like Mark Lloyd as diversity chief,
who espouses shut down of opposition media and praises people like
Hugo Chavez and his marxist takeover of Venezeula? How does he
explain people like Anita Dunn who openly says she 'turns to Mao Tse-
Tung' for her council? And this is just off the cuff; there are so so
many questions this president needs to explain to the American people.
But..no one asks [from the mainstream media]. CBS, ABC, CNN...and the
Obama whore, NBC...all remain totally silent; don't even ask the
questions.
Why is this? Because these stories are not newsworthy? Could you
imagine the swamp of news reporters if Bush had appointed even one
nazi sympthsizer [even if by mistake, lack of good vetting etc] to
some outlying insignificant post in the hinterland?
But Obama's appointments are not MISTAKES...but very deliberate and
braisenly OPEN. Valerie Jarrett says they were watching Van Jones for
some time [in approval] for example.
Or could the lack of media instrospection into this administration be
the result of decades of 'Grand march through the institutions' that
have changed the mindset of unwary elites. I doubt Charley Gibson
sees himself as a communist sympathsizer, yet he exists among peers,
producers, writers, directors, and owners that set a 'stage' of
mindset that has become a form of 'groupthink'...a profound blindness
and refusal to SEE.
Obama himself is on record as saying he 'saught out marxist
professors' in hid education; he taught saul alinsky methods while at
ACORN.
Any rational inquisitive mind SHOULD be clearly cognizant that this
President IS A MARXIST at the least...and most likely COMMUNIST
SYMPATHSIZER by ideal. Every action Obama has made so far, especially
economic, ratifies this assessment.
Below are some excerpts that might explain why the elites are turning
away from the obvious:
&&&&
a) "Communism may be dead [sic], but the leftist (Marxist) ideology is
still alive and well. Thomas Sowell (Hoover Inst. Economist) recently
said: 'Marxism...continues to flourish on American college campuses,
as perhaps nowhere else in the world.' Sowell's remark is corroborated
by a 1992 conference, 'Marxism in the New World Order: Crisis and
Possibilities,' held at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Only 300 were expected to attend, but 1,500 registered. Nearly all
were professors. The conference's attendees were diehard believers of
Marxism, not realists who recognized that the most inefficient, cruel,
and inhumane socioeconomic system had come to an end." Alvin J.
Schmidt, The Menace of Multiculturalism, p. 25.
b) "The situation in the universities was appalling. The Marxists and
socialists who had been refuted by historical events were now the
tenured establishment of the academic world. Marxism had produced the
bloodiest and most oppressive regimes in human history-but after the
fall, as one wit commented, more Marxists could be found on the
faculties of American colleges than in the entire former Communist
bloc. The American Historical Association was run by Marxists, as was
the professional literature association, whose field had been
transformed into a kind of pseudosociology of race-gender-class
oppression." David Horowitz, Radical Son, p. 405.
c) "Conservatives who had been historically vindicated by the
Twentieth Century's epic struggle against Marxist totalitarianism were
generally consigned to obscurity, while radicals who had denigrated
and betrayed Western freedom-political hacks like Angela Davis,
intellectual commissars like Antonio Gramsci, and embittered nihilists
like Michel Foucault-were given places of honor in the academic
canon." David Horowitz, Radical Son, p. 406.
d) "According to reliable sources, some ten thousand American college
and university professors freely identify themselves as Marxists. To
this number can be added thousands of others who strongly sympathize
with left-wing political and social values. Paul Hollander writes,
'Even if the majority of the students in the nation today do not
subscribe to this mentality, large and vocal portions of their
teachers do, especially in the humanities and social sciences. My own
discipline, sociology, has, for example, been quite thoroughly
politicized and probably a majority of its practitioners take this way
of thinking for granted.' This army of radical professors has more
than a dozen Marxist journals at its disposal, which it uses to repeat
familiar diatribes against America, capitalism, economic freedom, and
whatever else the Left happens to despise at the moment." Ronald H.
Nash, Why the Left Is Not Right, p. 37
&&&&
It is from these backgrounds our new elites are being graduated into
the society, and have been indoctrinated to think ONLY in certain
ways, when it comes to minorities, liberalism, multiculturism,
feminism, gays, and other pet projects of the left...all strategically
moulded to instill new marxist/socialist acceptance [under the
precepts of this so called, Social Justice]. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tooly... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 4:42 pm, John Stafford <n... at (no spam) droffats.net> wrote:
[quote]In article
e6ca2e0f-34ca-4013-b5b0-2ffa01658... at (no spam) j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
tooly <rd... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote:
Why has Obama not explained why he appointed a known professed
Communist as this Green Czar [Van Jones]? Why has Obama not explained
why he invites profound marxist intellectuals like Robert McChesney to
the White House to help in devising internet strategy [net
neutrality]? How does he explain close council like Valerie Jarrett
and her ties to Chicago socialists [ie SDS radical Marylin Katz].
I swear, Tooly, anything you cannot understand is Communism or Socialism
to you.
[/quote]
I repeat...why are these questions NOT being asked Obama? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Stafford... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 6 Nov, 13:50, tooly <rd... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote:
[quote]The Communists have never aimed at the conversion of great masses of
people to Communism. Their whole concept is that of a small party,
compact, mobile, disciplined and dedicated, consisting largely of an
intellectual elite.
[/quote]
Karl Marx would disagree. He hated the intellectualization of his
philosophy. He ranted against such. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tooly... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]I repeat...why are these questions NOT being asked Obama?
Because they are not questions. They are pieces of innuendo.
If you were familiar with the works of the people you noted... well,
that's probably not possible. Perhaps it is all over your head. Pity,
because much of their concern is for persons who cannot understand the
dynamics of the ultraliberal fascists who you think are just Free Market
enthusiasts.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
George Orwell wrote that 'the sin of nearly all left-wingers from 1933
onwards is that they have wanted to be anti-fascist without being anti-
totalitarian.'
McChesney, for example, is keen on seeing corporate ownership of new
media, and then incriminates it as reason for declining
journalism...and then theorizes that the solution is government
control as part of dismantling captialism itself "brick by brick".
But the TRUTH...the bald faced absolute TRUTH...is that corporate
moguls like Rupert Murdoch have only seen markets that were not being
'served' by supply...ie a decidedly biased leftward media that simply
was painting very biased pictures in their reporting of the news.
People are not stupid. What we see in talk radio and FOX news is not
coporate fenanglings...but people VOTING WITH THEIR FEET. If people
don't buy the product, don't stay tuned...it goes out of business
[like Free America did].
That is the magic of free markets...they exist by the WILL OF THE
PEOPLE. The very idea of government control is absolutely counter to
American traditional foundation, freedom in general...and is
TOTALITARIAN IN SCOPE. So who does not understand something here?
McChesney, reknowned Illionois professor, surely does not; is another
insane liberal who wants to blame everything except reality...ie his
libral view itself. Yet, there is a cabal of new instigators being
brought together under this President that promises to "transform this
society"...to what? Socialism...that's what!!! Obama wants to
redistribute wealth [probably in pronounced hidden agenda to serve HIS
people].
[hmmm...but that's another dialectic talking point really...where
communism uses 'conflict' [to promote it, to egg it on, as part of the
evolutionary process toward the final revolution and world order]...ah
crap...it goes so so deep...and back many decades to understand well;
this stuff has been in the works for decades and most of us, on all
sides, are just useful idiots. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bigfletch8 at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 1:14 am, 1Z <peterdjo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On 6 Nov, 15:01, "bigflet... at (no spam) gmail.com" <bigflet... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
illuminati
Idiot.
[/quote]
Because you bring up Martians, and Lizards, and associate such views
with real observable, and even predictable events, you are either the
idiot,in denial, or just too frightened to look at the vast amounts of
valid information indicating what is going on.
I bet you believe that a rickety old man, living in a remote cave
somewhere is capable of terrifying the most powerful nation in
history, forcing them to invade resource rich countries,(at huge
profits to the likes of Rumsfeld) who have had a culture that dates
back many times their existence.
That the most powerful financial institutions can cause financial
havoc, while their directors are collecting even greater fortunes, and
their organisations get bailed out by the taxpayers, all under the
auspices of a private company answerable to nobody, and not even
subject to government audit, but 'supply and control the money'.
Throw in global warming/CO2 nonsense (by the way, last decades global
'tragedy' waiting to happen, the ozone hole, is now repaired...thanks
to nature), and you have a country who are willing to watch their
constitution being torn up in front of their eyes.
Even a lizards eyes could see that, but only if they are open.
Your view doesnt surprise me, because if such views were not in the
majority, such steps to a 'one world government' could not happen.
BOfL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Stafford... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article
<e6ca2e0f-34ca-4013-b5b0-2ffa01658a32 at (no spam) j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
tooly <rdh11 at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote:
[quote]Why has Obama not explained why he appointed a known professed
Communist as this Green Czar [Van Jones]? Why has Obama not explained
why he invites profound marxist intellectuals like Robert McChesney to
the White House to help in devising internet strategy [net
neutrality]? How does he explain close council like Valerie Jarrett
and her ties to Chicago socialists [ie SDS radical Marylin Katz].
[/quote]
I swear, Tooly, anything you cannot understand is Communism or Socialism
to you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Stafford... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article
<75cc5cc1-c443-406f-a21f-972315c41559 at (no spam) g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
tooly <rdh11 at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 4:42 pm, John Stafford <n... at (no spam) droffats.net> wrote:
In article
e6ca2e0f-34ca-4013-b5b0-2ffa01658... at (no spam) j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
tooly <rd... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote:
Why has Obama not explained why he appointed a known professed
Communist as this Green Czar [Van Jones]? Why has Obama not explained
why he invites profound marxist intellectuals like Robert McChesney to
the White House to help in devising internet strategy [net
neutrality]? How does he explain close council like Valerie Jarrett
and her ties to Chicago socialists [ie SDS radical Marylin Katz].
I swear, Tooly, anything you cannot understand is Communism or Socialism
to you.
I repeat...why are these questions NOT being asked Obama?
[/quote]
Because they are not questions. They are pieces of innuendo.
If you were familiar with the works of the people you noted... well,
that's probably not possible. Perhaps it is all over your head. Pity,
because much of their concern is for persons who cannot understand the
dynamics of the ultraliberal fascists who you think are just Free Market
enthusiasts. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Shrikeback... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 2:31 pm, John Stafford <n... at (no spam) droffats.net> wrote:
[quote]In article
75cc5cc1-c443-406f-a21f-972315c41... at (no spam) g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
tooly <rd... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Nov 6, 4:42 pm, John Stafford <n... at (no spam) droffats.net> wrote:
In article
e6ca2e0f-34ca-4013-b5b0-2ffa01658... at (no spam) j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
tooly <rd... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote:
Why has Obama not explained why he appointed a known professed
Communist as this Green Czar [Van Jones]? Why has Obama not explained
why he invites profound marxist intellectuals like Robert McChesney to
the White House to help in devising internet strategy [net
neutrality]? How does he explain close council like Valerie Jarrett
and her ties to Chicago socialists [ie SDS radical Marylin Katz].
I swear, Tooly, anything you cannot understand is Communism or Socialism
to you.
I repeat...why are these questions NOT being asked Obama?
Because they are not questions. They are pieces of innuendo.
[/quote]
They are not mere innuendo. Van Jones certainly blathered
communist cliches in his early showbiz career back in Berkeley,
and freely admitted to his flirtation with flaky communist
groups. Morton Kondrake wrote a column about how this sort
of thing is not the kiss of death in politics, but his signature on
the 9-11 Truther petition was, because Marxism is dead.
I remember a number of people pointing out how many
neo-con advisers were reformed Troskyites (back when
being a commie meant something.)
[quote]If you were familiar with the works of the people you noted... well,
that's probably not possible. Perhaps it is all over your head. Pity,
because much of their concern is for persons who cannot understand the
dynamics of the ultraliberal fascists who you think are just Free Market
enthusiasts.
[/quote]
"Ultraliberal fascist" is a Newspeaky oxymoron, and
as such is double-plus ungood. Free speech is
free speech. McChesney is a part of the anti-free speech
movement. That makes _him_ the fascist, in my ACLU-
leaning view, You are either with the First Amendment,
or you are against it, and no amount of obfuscatory
"intellecual" blather can hide that.
Something strange has happened in the US. When I
was a youth, it was primarly right-wing groups that
fought against free speech (aside perhaps from some
fascist fems, such as Wymmin against Pornography--
who said, "I don't want to see nicer boobs than mine, and I
certainly don't want my husband seeing them, but isn't
it fun to talk about?") Nowadays, the hostility to free
speech, at least among elites, seems to be coming
primarily from the Left.
This is how you tell a leftist from a liberal: leftists despise
free speech. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:24 am
|
|