Revolution you can believe in
In her game-changing convention speech, Sarah Palin took a swipe at Obama for having been nothing more in his life than a ‘community organiser’.
This prompted the Obama campaign to issue a pained defence of community organisation as a way of promoting social change ‘from the bottom up’. The impression is that community organising is a worthy if woolly and ultimately ineffectual grassroots activity. This is to miss something of the greatest importance: that in the world of Barack Obama, community organisers are a key strategy in a different game altogether; and the name of that game is revolutionary Marxism.
The seditious role of the community organiser was developed by an extreme left intellectual called Saul Alinsky. He was a radical Chicago activist who, by the time he died in 1972, had had a profound influence on the highest levels of the Democratic party. Alinsky was a ‘transformational Marxist’ in the mould of Antonio Gramsci, who promoted the strategy of a ‘long march through the institutions’ by capturing the culture and turning it inside out as the most effective means of overturning western society. In similar vein, Alinsky condemned the New Left for alienating the general public by its demonstrations and outlandish appearance. The revolution had to be carried out through stealth and deception. Its proponents had to cultivate an image of centrism and pragmatism. A master of infiltration, Alinsky wooed Chicago mobsters and Wall Street financiers alike. And successive Democratic politicians fell under his spell.
His creed was set out in his book ‘Rules for Radicals’ – a book he dedicated to Lucifer, whom he called the ‘first radical’. It was Alinsky for whom ‘change’ was his mantra. And by ‘change’, he meant a Marxist revolution achieved by slow, incremental, Machiavellian means which turned society inside out. This had to be done through systematic deception, winning the trust of the naively idealistic middle class by using the language of morality to conceal an agenda designed to destroy it. And the way to do this, he said, was through ‘people’s organisations’.
Community organisers would mobilise direct action by the oppressed masses against their capitalist oppressors. In FrontPageMagazine.Com John Perazzo writes:
These People’s Organizations were to be composed largely of discontented individuals who believed that society was replete with injustices that prevented them from being able to live satisfying lives. Such organizations, Alinsky advised, should not be imported from the outside into a community, but rather should be staffed by locals who, with some guidance from trained radical organizers, could set their own agendas.
The installment of local leaders as the top-level officers of People’s Organizations helped give the organizations credibility and authenticity in the eyes of the community. This tactic closely paralleled the longtime Communist Party strategy of creating front organizations that ostensibly were led by non-communist fellow-travelers, but which were in fact controlled by Party members behind the scenes...
Alinsky viewed as supremely important the role of the organizer, or master manipulator, whose guidance was responsible for setting the agendas of the People’s Organization... Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’[40] The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict’[41] and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘[42] ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’;[43] i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.
Obama’s connection with Alinsky, whom he never met but whom he reportedly idolised, was through two bodies promoting the Alinsky model of community organisation, ACORN and the Gamaliel Foundation. John Perazzo again:
Obama was trained by the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) in Chicago and worked for an affiliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, whose modus operandi for the creation of ‘a more just and democratic society’ is rooted firmly in the Alinsky method. As The Nation magazine puts it, ‘Obama worked in the organizing tradition of Saul Alinsky, who made Chicago the birthplace of modern community organizing...’ In fact, for several years Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method.
But Obama brought a special slant to Alinsky’s radicalism.Far from being – as he has been painted – a ‘post-racial’ politician, Obama’s politics are all about promoting the cause of black people and achieving ‘reparations’ from white society (a perspective through which his whole welfare redistribution agenda is framed). Accordingly, he saw his three-year role as a community organiser in Chicago as mobilising black people for action against their white oppressors. Finding himself hampered in creating an activist network among black churches, he decided to join such a church to give himself more credibility. That’s why he joined the infamous black-power Trinity Church of Christ – a move, it seems, that had less to do with any spiritual quest than as a radical tactic for mobilising the black proletariat.
According to Stanley Kurtz in National Review (subscription required), as a trainer for Gamaliel and ACORN Obama used his influence to secure a major increase in funding for both groups. Kurtz writes of Gamaliel, one of the least known yet most influential national umbrella groups for church-based community organizers:
Gamaliel specializes in ideological stealth, and Obama, a master student of Gamaliel strategy, shows disturbing signs of being a sub rosa radical himself. Obama's legislative tactics, as well as his persistent professions of non-ideological pragmatism, appear to be inspired by his radical mentors' most sophisticated tactics. Not only has Obama studied, taught, and apparently absorbed stealth techniques from radical groups like Gamaliel and ACORN, but in his position as a board member of Chicago’s supposedly nonpartisan Woods Fund, he quietly funneled money to his radical allies -- at the very moment he most needed their support to boost his political career.
Kurtz also quotes Rutgers political scientist Heidi Swarts who, in her book Organizing Urban America: Secular and Faith-based Progressive Movements, lays out the strategy of stealth:
Swarts calls groups like ACORN and (especially) Gamaliel ‘invisible actors,’ hidden from public view because they often prefer to downplay their efforts, because they work locally, and because scholars and journalists pay greater attention to movements with national profiles (like the Sierra Club or the Christian Coalition). Congregation-based community organizations like Gamaliel, by contrast, are often invisible even at the local level. A newspaper might report on a demonstration led by a local minister or priest, for example, without noticing that the clergyman in question is part of the Gamaliel network. ‘Though often hidden from view,’ says Swarts, ‘leaders have intentionally and strategically organized these movements that appear to well up and erupt from below.’
Although Gamaliel and ACORN have significantly different tactics and styles, Swarts notes that their political goals and ideologies are broadly similar. Both groups press the state for economic redistribution. The tactics of Gamaliel and ACORN have been shaped in a ‘post-Alinsky’ era of welfare reform and conservative resurgence, posing a severe challenge to those who wish to expand the welfare state. The answer these activists have hit upon, says Swarts, is to work incrementally in urban areas, while deliberately downplaying the far-Left ideology that stands behind their carefully targeted campaigns.
To avoid seeming like radicals or ‘hippies left over from the sixties,’ Gamaliel organizers are careful to wear conventional clothing and conduct themselves with dignity, even formality. Since liberal social movements tend to come off as naïve and idealistic, Gamaliel organizers make a point of presenting their ideas as practical, pragmatic, and down-to-earth. When no one else is listening, Gamaliel organizers may rail at ‘racism,’ ‘sexism,’ and ‘oppressive corporate systems,’ but when speaking to their blue-collar followers, they describe their plans as ‘common sense solutions for working families.’
If anyone should doubt Obama’s debt to Saul Alinsky, they might ponder this encomium from no less an authority than Alinsky’s own son. In a letter to the Boston Globe, L. David Alinsky wrote of his father’s influence at the Democratic Convention:
All the elements were present: the individual stories told by real people of their situation and hardships, the packed-to-the rafters crowd, the crowd’s chanting of key phrases and names, the action on the spot of texting and phoning to show instant support and commitment to jump into the political battle, the rallying selections of music, the setting of the agenda by the power people.
Barack Obama's training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.
Obama’s questionable links to various radicals are now well-known: the black power racists Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Fr. Michael Pfleger, the former Weather Underground terrorism supporters Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn. On CNN’s Glenn Beck show a few days ago Jerome Corsi, author of Obama Nation, observed:
Obama began his career, his coming out party in 1995, and Ayers and Bernadine Dorn's home. And then for, you know, some 20 years, Obama has been working with Ayers, certainly since 1995, on a series of foundations: the Annenberg Foundation and the Woods Foundation. The boards of directors together, or in the Annenberg Foundation, Ayers created it, and Obama was on it. And together they spent the money of these foundations to implement their radical socialist agenda.
As EM Forster wrote in a somewhat different context, only connect.
When Hillary Clinton was fighting Obama for the Democratic candidacy, her camp implied that the party would be making a terrible mistake in selecting Obama because, unlike centrist Hillary, he was a left-winger. But Hillary is an even more fervent Alinsky acolyte. In their book The Shadow Party, David Horowitz and Glenn Poe recount how Hillary first met Alinsky through a left-wing church group to which she belonged in high school, and stayed close to him until his death. Indeed, so impressed was she with his beliefs that she wrote a 75-page salute to him in her senior thesis at Wellesley College in 1969, which contained excerpts of the not-yet published Rules for Radicals. She wrote:
If the ideals Alinsky espouses were actualized, the result would be social revolution. Ironically, this is not a disjunctive projection if considered in the tradition of Western democratic theory. In the first chapter it was pointed out that Alinsky is regarded by many as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy. As such, he has been feared -- just as Eugene Debs or Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared, because each embraced the most radical of political faiths -- democracy.
That’s not democracy as we know it, more a Marxist conception of people power. On FrontPage, Perazzo writes:
During her senior year, Hillary was offered a job by Alinsky but chose instead to enrol at Yale Law School. Alinsky’s teachings, however, would remain close to her heart throughout her adult life. According to a Washington Post report, ‘As first lady, Clinton occasionally lent her name to projects endorsed by the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), the Alinsky group that had offered her a job in 1968. She raised money and attended two events organized by the Washington Interfaith Network, an IAF affiliate.’
Alinsky was a radical straight out of the Gramsci playbook. In both America and Britain, Gramsci’s acolytes have been conducting a decades-long march through the institutions. In Britain, they have substantially achieved their aim of subverting western morality and changing the face of British society. No political party stands against this. In the US, they have made huge inroads but haven’t yet won. With Palin on one side and Obama on the other, it is now clear that this US presidential election has taken the culture war to the gates of the White House itself.
Previous
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (171)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Popular Blog Posts
Search this blog
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power', published by Encounter.
For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here
Melanie Phillips blog archive
sponsored links
JEWELLERY: C.N.A RUFF LTD
Are you making the right impression?
THE PRESENT FINDER
1,700 Unusual Christmas Presents Request Catalogue 01935 815 195 Quote SPEC10 for 10% discount www.presentfinder.co.uk
OLIVE BRANCH FLORISTS
Pimilco based Florist with online ordering Web: www.olivebranch.net Tel: 020 7630 1868 Fax: 020 7233 8844
Apollo Magazine | Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2012 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
dp damato
September 9th, 2008 8:06pmMs. Phillips is an astounding revelation. What makes her special is her ability to see things clearly. She is absolutely spot on about what is happening in Britain and Europe. Like it or not conservative Britain has to take a stand. Either you will fight the culture war that the Left started (around 1968) or you will have to succumb and obey their diktats. We on the Right in the US were slow to recognize the agenda of the Left, until around 1980. Thankfully we finally woke up and have been fighting an intense rear guard action against the cultural marxists ever since. Tories need to stop droning on endlessly about the economy. The Left long ago recognized that questions about materialism were no longer relevant. Dominate the culture, empower supra national organizations, rigorously enforce speech codes, and relentlessly attack Judeo-Christian values, and you will have achieved a victory that the communists could only dream of. Yet while their agenda is so transparent the Tories insist on debating issues that nobody cares about, and are intent on averting their gaze away from the war that was declared on them. With Labours implosion, now is the time for the British Right to become the insurgent party - to shake things up and expose the EU, the UN and the whole rotten domestic liberal establishment. They would win in a landslide, yet they are strangely fearful of offending their left wing masters. The impulse (that I know the regular Tory voter craves) to strike back at the cultural commissars (a proven winner in US presidential elections) somehow terrifies them. A pity.
neil
September 9th, 2008 8:28pmCome on Melanie. I am instinctively on the other side of the political spectrum to you but I usually read your pieces to help broaden my horizons so to speak.
So that is why I know you are much too reasonable a person to really believe that for Obama, "community organisers are a key strategy in a [game of] revolutionary Marxism" with the ultimate stealthy aim of "capturing the culture and turning it inside out as the most effective means of overturning western society".
Please tell me you haven't become THAT reactionary.
But your last point is spot on though - i.e. that this US presidential election has taken the culture war to the gates of the White House. But I would argue that is very unfortunate - a rekindling of this internecine conflict will distract America from its role as diplomatic leader in the world.
David McAdam
September 9th, 2008 8:37pmAmerica was subjected to a tasteless fruit of this radicalisation of culture in the obnoxious form of third rate 'comedian' Russell Brand during the recent MTV Awards. He effectively used his position as host to support Obama. More significantly, he also abused his position to shamelessly launch a tiresomely predictable and immature rant against George Bush and the Americans in general for electing him. He also implied that American standards were lower than the British. This is a bit rich coming from a native of a country that boasts top place in the West in all that is negative and socially destructive about a society including Brand's hedonist promiscuity. By labelling the President a 'retard' Brand also exposed the bitterness and innate hatred endemic of 'cultural Marxism'. Double standards too. Would he have gotten away with calling or indeed addressed a genuinely cerebrally impaired individual a 'retard'?
The left might be winning the cultural revolution. However, revolutions require popular support. This particular deliberate social upheaval is not winning the population over for it to survive long. As the elite embed the institutions deeper in the Salinsky/Gramsci model, the vast majority of the population meanwhile shifts further and further to the right harbouring increasing resentment towards these unrepresentative social manipulaters as it does so. Time will tell when the elitist Chardonnay glass will break in the UK. Meanwhile, America is faced with the unique opportunity to stem the radical shift taking place there by electing McCain and Palin. I only hope the nation's expectations of the two will be honoured.
Ronnie
September 9th, 2008 8:59pmFor God's sake! What next?
Not only is Sarah Palin the saviour of the West, when I was pretty sure that was Michael Palin's job, but Barack Obama is the world's most dangerous proponent of Gramsci's theory of Praxis because he was once a community organiser. Wow! Does that make Baden Powell a Maoist?
And...
'Alinsky was a radical straight out of the Gramsci playbook. In both America and Britain, Gramsci’s acolytes have been conducting a decades-long march through the institutions. In Britain, they have substantially achieved their aim of subverting western morality and changing the face of British society.'
Who exactly? Which institutions (I know, the 'venemous' BBC)? Are we really to believe that the last 40 years have brought Britain to the very edge of a socialist revolution, a dictatorship of the proletariat, as envisaged by Gramsci and the Communist International?
Then are we to believe that Obama will quickly take the United States of America over the very same cliff?
Give me a break!
In fact give me a very large brandy.
BJ
September 9th, 2008 9:05pmI had never heard of Saul Alinsky but from what I have been able to find out he seems quite an interesting thinker on community campaigning and social justice.
The Gramsci connection seems rather far fetched however, I have not seen any evidence that Alinsky had Marxist affilliations indeed he died in 1972 before Gramsci's writings became fashionable.
One must also be cautious of attributing the common formulations of "Gramscian thinking" to Gramsci himself.
Most of his work is fairly obscure and coded having been written from one of Mussolini's prison cells.
Ironically the resurgence of interest in Gramsci in the 70's and 80's in Britain at least was on the right wing of the labour movement who saw in Gramsci's work a critique of as they saw it the economism and class reductionism of the left of the time.
I suspect the link between Gramsci and culture wars in the USA is also rather silly.
AnotherPerspective
September 9th, 2008 10:08pmMelanie, you have a remarkable talent.
Linking Obama, Alinsky, and Marxism with so little effort or apparent embarassment.
Perhaps next you could link good and evil, darkness and light, heaven and hell, intelligence and stupidity.
I'll check back later. Keep up the good work.
marbury
September 9th, 2008 10:11pmAlinsky wasn't a Marxist, he was an Alinskean. His was a kind of brutal pragmatism: screw them (the bosses/landlords) or they'll screw you. He didn't really have any more ideology than that; he was all about action (hence 'organising'). Obama borrowed Alinsky's emphasis on organising around individual self-interest, but didn't like the divisiveness of his approach (anyone whose seen him give an interview or debate can tell that, for better or for worse, he shies away from conflict). As for the idea that Obama is (secretly?!) trying to mobilise a black prole revolution...well, it's amusing but that's about that.
Huw Thornton
September 9th, 2008 10:11pmGosh, Melanie, powerful stuff! This is a useful corrective to those who say that BO does not really stand for anything.
So he's a revolutionary Marxist as well as a crypto-Islamist. The good news is that, if elected, he'll be spoiled for choice about which way to do down the Western way of life. He may not know which way to turn. We might just survive.
steve
September 9th, 2008 10:17pmPlease, this is the most ridiculous, paranoid, delusional thing I have ever read on this blog. To cite Jerome Corsi as a credible source says it all. The fact that you have not seriously grappled with Palin's contradictions (she supported the bridge to nowhere before she was against it and then kept the money for it while she was governor) while perpetually bashing Obama for similar sins really speaks to a fundamental lack of intellectual honesty on your part. The fact that someone could seriously put forward such a post speaks to how incompetent British commentary about American affairs is.
Ray
September 9th, 2008 10:53pmRonnie - if you want examples of a few more organisations smitten with the Gramscian reflex that Melanie describes, try...
1) On the application form to adopt a child through your local council in the box where it asks you to describe your views about inclusion and diversity, write "I personally find homosexual behaviour objectionable".
2) In the box on an application form to join the Metropolitan Police where you have to state your reasons for wanting to be a police officer, write "I want to help defend the people of London from violent Islamic terrorism".
Let me know whether you ever get to successfully adopt a child or plod down Piccadilly wearing the Queen's uniform.
Charles Van Wert
September 9th, 2008 11:06pmI notice today that Mr. Brown has apparently supported Obama. Speaking as an American voter who does not, I say: if Melanie Philips is with us, who gives a damn who's against us.
Ronnie
September 9th, 2008 11:40pmDavid McAdam, if the left really was winning whatever the 'cultural revolution' is then such as Rupert Murdoch and Silvio Berlusconi would not be allowed to own huge chunks of the western media.
I don't see much evidence of a left wing attack on our values coming from their direction. What I do see is the mindless pap and armchair debauchery produced by their companies. Their impact on our culture over the last 20 years has been massive, left wing...?
Bill M
September 10th, 2008 12:21amPalin wasn't the only one for the Bridge to Nowhere. So were Biden and Obama. DOH!
http://cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/obama-and-biden-voted-for-bridge-to-nowhere,1628/
Verity
September 10th, 2008 12:37amMelanie - You go, girl! Your whole piece has been quoted on LGF.
I have been baffled for over a year now as to why people could not see that there is something sinister underlying Obama. Something chilling. It's not just his politics; there's always been something strangely programmed about him. He's always given me the creeps.
(The hissing little lefties will scamper onto the page, as they have scampered all over blogs in the US, with accusations of "racism"! It's odd that the only people who notice race are the socialists, isn't it? Or maybe not odd at all? Part of the whole pathology?)
Verity
September 10th, 2008 12:41amSteve - I believe Mel was quoting largely from Front Page Magazine? An American publication, I believe?
Anyway, never any point in engaging with a fanatical lefty.
I'll wait for posts from the sane people before commenting again.
PS - Obama's toast. PPS, that wasn't a reference to his skin tone.
Dominic Moore
September 10th, 2008 1:08amWhat has happened to the late, great Democrat party? Since at least the Carter era, they have been about nothing less than “changing” this country to a socialist (if not Marxist) state. In the most recent national elections, the presidential nominees have been getting progressively nuttier: Kerry was nuttier than Gore was, and Obama is even nuttier than Kerry was.
Under the guise of political correctness, I am asked to proclaim malevolent Islam as “the Religion of Peace”. Similarly, I am supposed to act as if the seditious, traitorous, communist Democratic Party is as wholesome and patriotic as Mom and apple pie.
Gimme a break! Obama is an outright Marxist!
goy
September 10th, 2008 1:12amAnyone with doubts about Obama's Marxist agenda can simply check out the 2006 speech his surrogate, Bill Ayers, gave in Venezuela:
http://billayers.wordpress.com/2006/11/
He's gone from blowing up buildings to "reforming" education. Three guesses how.
More here:
http://www.agoyandhisblog.com/2008/08/24/one-hundred-years-of-useful-idiots/
Hilary
September 10th, 2008 1:16amThank you so much for writing this great article.
Steven from San Francisco (really)
September 10th, 2008 1:30amI completely agree. This man scares the crap out of me. He talks platitudes with a reek of Socialism, if not worse. And it nicely resembles how folks like CAIR behave as well. Association INTENDED.
KotOti
September 10th, 2008 1:33amBravo, this take is on the money! I have been waiting for a dedicated writer to put together the true story of what Obama, his mentors and the organizations he influenced were about. This take is lacking the earlier days with Papa's Communist associate in Hawai, Radical, certified molester named Frank Marshal, who shaped much of his persona. There is no accident between the guiding ideology (Socialism now renamed as neighbourliness-his words during an interview with Fox's, Bill Oriley)and his years of association with the first family of American Radicals, who helped to get him into a legal practice and launch his political career (from their home, their family's legal contacts, etc..)
KotOti
September 10th, 2008 2:02amWhat is missing here is the fact that Mme. Clinton, the defated candidate for presidency's graduation paper was a 100 pages document dedicated to the "work" of Sal Alinsky, her mentor from Chicago who offered the ambitous, power hungry student an opportunity to work with him in Chicago, to prove that his theory really works. She knew that in the U.S power comes from law school, where she went, met her beau and later became a contender. Throughout her entire career she tried the Alinsky bag of tricks, for example the secrecy and stealth in which she operated the secret group of Leftist Radicals advising her on the half baked health revolution is a typical Socialist technique, of promoting an idea for the community, using it to gain power and producing a result, different than what it was promoted. Her plan was squarely defeated and subsequently she became a jetting first lady, kissing third world babies, landing in hot zones "under fire" etc...She was put to pasture by a student of Sal Alinsky.
field
September 10th, 2008 2:14amDavid Owen SDP and Labour used to support Miners Strikes and house and feed flying pickets.
Neil Kinnock used to lecture on behalf of the Workers Educational Association and consort with Marxists of all persuasions.
Even Tony Blair was a CND supporting radical.
I think we need to have a bit of balance here.
Obama is a skilled operator. Many ex communists proved skilled operators in British politics e.g. Dennis Healey for instance.
I think one can legitimately criticise Obama for his association with a Black racist church until very recently. Personally I'm rather relieved to here it might have all been a front for his radicalism!
d1carter
September 10th, 2008 2:41amSpot on, I fear...
Kirk Lazarus
September 10th, 2008 2:58amIt's typical that the only comments critical of Phillips' piece use dismissive language like, "Ooooh ... come on! You're not really that reactionary!" This is exactly the problem. People who aren't revolted by these Marxist tactics are either Obama partisans or mocking pessimists who believe in nothing and are willing to see Western society flushed down the toilet, not realizing that the void will be filled by those who won't be so kind to their snarky nihilism. It's any wonder that Britain, as well as the rest of Europe, will come under the Islamic yoke within the next 20 years. In the words of Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali, "If you disagree, that must be met by counter-arguments, not by trying to silence people."
Verity
September 10th, 2008 3:01amAt 9:00 p.m. in a North American time zone, Melanie's piece, which is running on Little Green Footballs, has 499 comments so far.
CK
September 10th, 2008 3:16amMy god Melanie, have you been on the mushrooms again? This is the most delusional piece of claptrap I've read for quite some time.
Blair
September 10th, 2008 4:46amSo Jesus was a Marxist?
Pip
September 10th, 2008 5:35amExcellent article Melanie, shame it will mostly fall on deaf ears.
Rest assured some of us don't have our heads in the sand, as do the Obamanoids.
This man should not be let anywhere near the Whitehouse, g_d help America!
Dick Harmon
September 10th, 2008 6:24amI laughed right out loud. All those dollars from Catholic Archbishops and parishes meakes IAF a great candidate as a CP front. Keep it up. At least you're spelling Saul's name right.
Michael
September 10th, 2008 9:21amMelanie has the right idea, but she is drawing the wrong conclusions. Barack Obama does not want to just launch an attack on Western values and institutions. He wants to dominate the entire world. He is actually a vessel for the overlords of an ancient alien planet. Earth is dommed. That is all.
raymond joseph douglas
September 10th, 2008 9:31amSome foul-mouthed "comedian" by the name of Russell Brand was featured on Five live breakfast show,ranting on at a American audience urging them to vote for the Divine Obama.Apparently he is "the worlds choice for American president".What I would say to my American friends, is to take a cool,hard look at both candidates.Do not be swayed by sentiment or our supposed opinions.Pick who you would consider is the best person to guide you through dangerous times and who will defend your interests.i just wish our politicians were so motivated!
James
September 10th, 2008 9:35amExcellent points, Ms. Phillips. Realize this kind of politicization also has happened in university science departments. The CO2 theory of global warming was twisted into a politically-useful club by hard-leftists, who pound the Western democracies over the head while coming up with long lists of excuses why non-democratic nations should be let off from all responsibility. They also pound the heads of scientific critics of their theory, who are trashed and thrashed down via typical Marxist tactics. Also the HIV theory of AIDS -- accelerated from a mere hypothesis by a few patent-holding virologists, ultimately into a useful head-club by powerful lobbists in the homosexual groups, for their social agenda to heterosexualize a disorder which was then and still is mostly isolated in the unsanitary bath-house sub-culture, along with IV "junk" injectors, and Africans who chronically are sick from bad water and malnutrition. Proofs of infectious HIV have never been documented, but scientific critics of that view have also been trashed and thrashed down by "political activists" working with powerful pharmacy interests. The political left also dominates the so-called "skeptics" groups, like CSICOP, founded by Marxists and possibly funded by Big Medicine -- which goes increasingly socialistic while natural healing methods of authentic grassroots healers gets trashed and thrashed, bad-mouthed and such. Even astrophysics has politically-favored theories where dissenters are clubbed, thrashed and trashed out of their jobs. Also the whole "scientific" criticisms of Iraq war issues, such as the phoney statistics circulated about a "million dead children" from the Iraq sanctions, or the later "600K+" dead Iraqi civilians (several times more than who died in Germany from Bomber Command in WW-II) and now the fake claims about DU weaponry killing millions around the world -- but no mention of Saddam's mass graves or his sponsorship of international terrorism. Etc. All such ideas have "scientists" in the universities fabricating data, getting things published, and when they can do so, using dirty-tricks and back-stabbing methods to trash and thrash down any authentic scientist who dares to point out the flaws and raise an objection. One then sees the spectre of politically-motivated professionals uttering outrageous lies in service of a Marxist mission, while accusing people who tell the truth of being politically-motivated liars, or idiots, or "deniers" (as in holocaust deniers), or even advocating as did Marc Weinberg who ran Canada's AIDS program, to put into prison every scientist who did not agree that HIV was the cause of AIDS. The methods appear very much like the Marxist methods advocated by Alinsky, though truth be told the impulse to smash down one's opponents with deception and fakery, to burn books and pillory heretics, has a much longer history than Marxism.
Roy
September 10th, 2008 10:11amThe Doubting Thomases of this blog exemplify the sleep-walkers of the UK. It typifies the 'it can't be' brigade, the 'oh what rubbish', the 'pull the other one' mentality. It isn't as if the proof isn't far away, the Blairite legacy that Britain is endeavouring to rid itself of, is a clear example of a manipulating political machine, a clear example of people in power using a psychological thought out system to engineer and jockey a popular support into the minds of the masses. Thank God some of us can see through it.
Paul Weston
September 10th, 2008 10:13amMelanie is not paranoid in the least.
There is a huge raft of information detailing what the ignorant refer to as conspiracy theory.
In 10 -20 years it will be mainstream knowledge, but to sneer at it now is to revel in one's lack of knowledge and ignorance.
The ultimate objective of the 60's student revolutionaries was to bring down the capitalist West.
Men like former Home Secretary Charles Clarke, who visited Prague in the 70's as a student admirer of the Soviet regime, overlooking the suicide of 19 year old Czech student Jan Palach, who had set fire to himself in Wenceslas square in an attempt to bring the West's attention to the invasion of Czechoslovakia.
Unable to storm the Winter Palace, men such as Clarke (and Obama) sought to undermine the West by destroying all that had built it: educated, middle class, white, Christian, democratic, heterosexual (in theory if not in practice) males.
Why do you think such people are not just un-represented in the politically correct world, but actively smeared by it?
And who thinks Western Civilisation is the same today as it was in 1950?
I am not sure we can even use the term "civilisation" to describe Western societies in 2008.
Just as was planned. After the destruction... "I shall stand astride the wreckage a colossus" Karl Marx.
Paul Weston
September 10th, 2008 10:14amMelanie is not paranoid in the least.
There is a huge raft of information detailing what the ignorant refer to as conspiracy theory.
In 10 -20 years it will be mainstream knowledge, but to sneer at it now is to revel in one's lack of knowledge and ignorance.
The ultimate objective of the 60's student revolutionaries was to bring down the capitalist West.
Men like former Home Secretary Charles Clarke, who visited Prague in the 70's as a student admirer of the Soviet regime, overlooking the suicide of 19 year old Czech student Jan Palach, who had set fire to himself in Wenceslas square in an attempt to bring the West's attention to the invasion of Czechoslovakia.
Unable to storm the Winter Palace, men such as Clarke (and Obama) sought to undermine the West by destroying all that had built it: educated, middle class, white, Christian, democratic, heterosexual (in theory if not in practice) males.
Why do you think such people are not just un-represented in the politically correct world, but actively smeared by it?
And who thinks Western Civilisation is the same today as it was in 1950?
I am not sure we can even use the term "civilisation" to describe Western societies in 2008.
Just as was planned. After the destruction... "I shall stand astride the wreckage a colossus" Karl Marx.
Stephen Rothbart
September 10th, 2008 10:44amAt first I too thought,'what takeover of the UK?' but then I began to think of the PC world, a legislature that is dominated by Human Rights that gives criminals more rights than their victims and the 'dead white male' syndrome that means it is now unlikely British History will be taught about our past, but more about its racism, Imperialism, and Churchill is an insurance company.
So perhaps we are indeed seeing a major shift and revolution in our status quo after all.
It might even explain Brown's love of Obama!
Worried of Windsor
September 10th, 2008 11:09amIt's much simpler than that. Just look at the name.
Barack Obama - spell it backwards and what does it say?
I'll tell you what it says - AM A BOKC ARAB - that's what it says?
But what is a "bokc"? Does anyone know? Is it code?
Nicholas
September 10th, 2008 11:22amObama is America's Tony Blair. He is the vanguard of lies designed to seize power for the army of mutant socialists hiding behind him.
This is what has happened in Britain. Blair came to power on the promise of change and better government for all the people. But it was the militant Left who triumphed, infiltrating and politicising central and local government civil service establishments, side-tracking tried and tested constitutional processes, establishing quangos, commissars and "policy advisers" to take decisions and impose "solutions" outside the parliamentary process.
The foot-soldiers of this army began the relentless assault on traditional British freedoms, with special and vested interest group pressure for authoritarian laws to stifle protest, debate, free expression and individual liberty. The dogma of Political Correctness, a purely Left Wing ideology, ensured that the legislative repression could not be meaningfully opposed.
The mass media, long infiltrated and manipulated by Leftist extremists masquerading as politically neutral or appealing to the cliquish trendiness of a mild, benign Left of Centre world view, has aided and abetted the British Cultural Revolution. Many programmes and news reports are blatant propaganda to prepare fore a one party state.
Mass uncontrolled immigration ensured that demographics would be changed and the British identity so distorted that the leaders of this conspiracy would be able to call for a discussion as to what Britishness is, re-inventing and manipulating something hundreds of years old to conform to the new Leftist perspective. The imposition of a politically correct mantra of multi-culturalism and "diversity" within establishment institutions and communities underpinned this change.
There has been the manipulation and control of education to impose a political agenda, to groom the young for the Leftist Super State, concealed within the propaganda of targets and results.
Our constitutional Monarch is under threat. The oaths of loyalty to Her Majesty questioned and challenged. Our state religion is under threat, riddled from within by political activists and assaulted from outside by the increasingly demanding sensitivities of imported faiths. Our police service has long since succumbed to politicisation and Political Correctness, increasingly operating as an enforcement arm of the new state rather than as members of the public in uniform.
Devolution, trumpeted as benign "progress" now threatens to break our country apart, to weaken it in preparation for more of the European Union Socialist Soviet Republic's undemocratic controls.
The conservative right, as usual, was playing to the old constitutional gentleman's rules and was completely outflanked and defeated. Even today the conservative right does not realise what is at stake. That without cunning hard-fighting opposition to the Left's totalitarian tendencies the thinking of the right is doomed to destruction, eventually to be outlawed and repressed by the "progressive revolution".
Don't let this happen to you, America, beacon of democracy. Turn down Obama's false promise and stop the fascists lurking behind him. Isolate and destroy them first, before they get the opportunity to do there what they have done here.
Meanwhile Britain needs a new political party, untainted by the extremism of the BNP but more effective at fighting fascism than the wishy-washy Europhile greenery of Cameron. We need leaders who can stand up and challenge the politically correct repression of the Left, who can undermine it and destroy it. The very phrase Political Correctness is an abomination.
Ronnie
September 10th, 2008 11:36amVerity, I thought you weren't going to contribute again until sane people started to comment? Yet there you are at 3:01 am...
Ray, I don't disagree with you but you are very far from proving the existance of an Marxist institutional conspiracy at every level of British society.
Political correctness and Harpersonist vetting is vile, childish and self-defeating. And I can't help mentioning the case of the man in North Wales who was recently spot-fined £50 for smoking in his own vehicle. This petty-minded piecemeal fascism has to be stopped, of that there is no question. But it is not Marxism.
Lets be clear, Marxism is class war, pure an simple. It is the 'struggle' of those who are owned against the owner. Its objective is the victory of the working class over all others, it is about the abolition of private property and the international tools of material exchange.
Gramsci thought that the party of the working class should be structured organically through all of their social organisations. Lenin believed that only a small and ruthless party of committed activists could lead them (probably because its the Russian way). But they were both Marxist revolutionaries, only the method separated them.
Field, there are no, 'Marxists of every persuasion'. There are only Marxists.
Marxism is not political correctness. It is not gay rights, it is not over-tolerant liberalism. It is not represented by Peter Tatchell or Gordon Brown or Neil Kinnock. Nor is it represented by Heads of programming at the BBC, or the Editor of the Guradian or race relations officers in local government. Nor is it present in any of the things that we are told Obama is guilty of, though he may indeed be guilty of them. Marxism is a good deal more serious than that.
Mel's blog offends me because she has decided to insult the intelligence of some of her readers in order to smear a candidate she does not like. Her writing is inaccurate and intellectually lazy in the extreme.
Obama may be defeated in the US presidential election partly because McCain's strategists will have succeeded in painting him as an East Coast elitist and a 'stranger' in the eyes of the silent, rural population of America. It will not be because Mel pretends that he is a Marxist revolutionary from the street of darkest Chicago. He can't be both so perhaps Mel should pause (perhaps even think a little) to decide which scare story she wants to focus on.
Anglicana
September 10th, 2008 11:50amWhatever the truth, America is thankfully sane enough to vote for someone who represents the "known unknown" in the eminently delectable electable form of Sarah Palin (and her brave boss) rather than by wagering it all on the blatantly "unknown unknown" "promises" of someone who is a proud follower of a follower of Lucifer no less !?! The autocrat cat is now out of the bag. And America's long,slow,halting march towards Fascist Left rule, this November,will be definitively brought to an end. And what an interesting historical footnote the fantasy of an Obama victory will turn out to be!
Dee Ranged
September 10th, 2008 12:21pmNicholas:
Yours is brilliant analysis too!
Let's have more in the future.
Louise
September 10th, 2008 12:57pmTo those who doubt the effectiveness of the Marxian ideas set out by Ms Phillips here, look at couple of features in today’s Daily Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1054099/Max-Hastings-What-hope-bring-justice-accused-wanting-destroy-us.html
Max Hastings’ piece reflects on a jury’s failure to convict on the most serious charges at the most recent bomb plot trial:
“We live in a world in which many people, especially the young, are reluctant to believe what they are told by anyone in authority. They are unconvinced that anything, save perhaps climate change, is really serious.
“They half-expect jihadis staring madly out of police identification photographs to turn out to be Rory Bremner or John Fortune doing a turn for a comedy programme. Maybe there were some people who think like that among the Woolwich jury.”
Take what Mr Hastings has said and now link it to Britain’s state-funded broadcaster, the “world-respected” BBC.
This is the organisation that screens countless documentaries on so-called “climate change” and which persistently downplays the Islamist terror threat and the cultural subjugation it hopes to achieve to the extent that it broadcast a three-hour documentary called The Power of Nightmares that argued, in the most stern terms, that the terror threat was exaggerated.
This series was lavished with awards by the media establishment but - unusually for a series that won lots of awards – was never repeated either on a main BBC channel or on one of its digital offshoot channels.
In fact, post 7/7 the BBC never likes to talk about that documentary at all. The reward for the person who made it? Another contract to make another three-hour documentary series that – guess what – spent most of its time slating America.
That is why Ms Phillips writes:
“In both America and Britain, Gramsci’s acolytes have been conducting a decades-long march through the institutions. In Britain, they have substantially achieved their aim of subverting western morality and changing the face of British society.”
Precisely. There is nothing I can do about this. I‘m forced to pay for this “world class” institution to pump this Marxian propaganda out.
One other poster touches on Russell Brand’s propagandist outburst. This is part and parcel of daily life here in Britain and echoes Hastings’ line about “Rory Bremner or John Fortune”. Run with the Marxian grain and you’ll be given top billing – but you can forget about making jokes that challenge it. The Establishment’s attitude is: “You can make light of those who take terror seriously but they won’t give you a level playing field to satirise their lethal folly.”
It isn’t that there aren’t people who are incapable of making a crack at the expense of the jihadists and their useful idiots, it’s just that they know their careers would be doomed if they did. You can forget any work from the BBC and Channel 4 if that’s your point of view.
Want to slag off America and Bush? Sign here. The comics know this and many of them don’t even bother telling real jokes at all. They just launch into political diatribes. Look at the witless Marcus Brigstocke, who is never out of work with the BBC. And then there’s uber-politically correct Stewart Lee (cited in Russell Brand’s autobiography as someone he looks up to – surprise, surprise) who wrote “Jerry Springer – the [Unfunny] Opera”, the bulk of his act is made up of slagging off the West and finding excuses for jihad. He’s just landed a contract at the BBC for a six-part series.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1054090/The-Great-Surrender-How-Britain-given-religious-fanatics-intent-destroying-way-life.html
The second piece I refer to in the Mail underlines the cultural – and that is the key word – manipulation we are subjected to. This AN Wilson on a recent theatre production:
“Marlowe's play Tamburlaine The Great was censored at the Barbican for fear of upsetting Muslims (though the far more offensive The Jew Of Malta by the same Elizabethan playwright saw revivals without any censorship).”
To quote Ms Phillips again:
“Alinsky was a ‘transformational Marxist’ in the mould of Antonio Gramsci, who promoted the strategy of a ‘long march through the institutions’ by capturing the culture and turning it inside out as the most effective means of overturning western society.”
This is how it works. From documentaries, to comedy, to the theatre, this is how their stealthy assault has fanned out. There is virtually no cultural counterweight to this, partly because people fear for their careers and partly because they would be cut off from making a living via BBC or Arts Council money. It’s effectively a Marxian hegemony and as they hijack us, so the Islamists hijack them – the useful idiots will do much of their dirty work for them.
dp damato, I agree with you, but it’s not enough for us to just turn off the TV or withdraw subscriptions, these people are too devious for that. We are forced – on pain of going to prison – if we don’t to pay for this propaganda via a compulsory licence fee.
For us, the cultural war is pretty much over, we’re all slaves to the BBC – there is no escape from that. The question for America is whether it will follow us. It has taken much longer to infiltrate these Marxian ideas over there but once the Left had mastered how to camouflage what they were up to, their mission has been able to advance itself considerably.
As to Ms Phillips, once again, she takes that lancet of a pen of hers and – with pinpoint accuracy – slices open the infection ailing the free world’s body politic and reveals to all the spiteful Marxian maggots beneath the apparently healthy exterior as they chew and spit their way through what’s left of our hard-won freedoms.
And aren’t they just disgusting to look at?
Huw Thornton
September 10th, 2008 1:00pm@ Worried of Windsor -
Nice analysis! Perhaps Melanie could research what "BOKC" means and tell us in a future posting.
It must be something even more dastardly than what she has revealed already.
Schmalinsky
September 10th, 2008 1:40pmObama was trained by the Saul Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) in Chicago. (The Developing Communities Project itself was an affiliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, whose modus operandi for the creation of “a more just and democratic society” is rooted firmly in the Alinsky method.) Alinsky was known for helping to establish the aggressive political tactics that characterized the 1960s and have remained central to all subsequent revolutionary movements in the United States.
In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution” — a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted — a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapse — to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed.
But Alinsky’s brand of revolution was not characterized by dramatic, sweeping, overnight transformations of social institutions. As Richard Poe puts it, “Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.” Alinsky advised organizers and their disciples to quietly, subtly gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to introduce changes from that platform.
One of Obama’s early mentors in the Alinsky method, Mike Kruglik, would later say the following about Obama:
“He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.”
Excerpted from: Barack Obama: An in-depth look at the Democrat candidate for President
For several years, Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method.
Beginning in the mid-1980s, Obama worked with ACORN, a creation of the Alinsky network. ACORN was a grassroots political organization that grew out of George Wiley’s National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), whose members in the late 1960s and early 70s had invaded welfare offices across the U.S. — often violently — bullying social workers and loudly demanding every penny to which the law “entitled” them.
Obama also worked for Project Vote, the voter-mobilization arm of ACORN. Project Vote’s professed purpose is to carry out “non-partisan” voter-registration drives; to counsel voters on their rights; and to litigate on behalf of voting rights — focusing on the rights of the poor and the “disenfranchised.”
For an in-depth look at a host of Barack Obama’s key personal and political affiliations, visit DiscoverTheNetworks’ special feature, Barack’s World. You’re not going to like what you read.
Huw Thornton
September 10th, 2008 1:45pm@ Louise -
I agree with you on the points you make about the Daily Mail articles. But do you need to bring in Marxism and Gramsci to explain what the BBC broadcasts?
I think that in many things they reflect mainstream public opinion rather than mould it. I would certainly agree that often they do not challenge a cosy consensus. They've got a tendency not to rock the boat too much.
And I think that the BBC always has a tendency to lean towards the government of the day, which can be unhealthy.
It would be interesting if there were evidence of some systematic conspiracy to manipulate viewers' and listeners' views. In the absence of evidence, much of the BBC's output looks more like cock-up than conspiracy.
Maven
September 10th, 2008 1:54pmWhat else is Obama hiding? It is unusual for the medical records of a Presidential Candidate not be made public. Obama is a young guy who looks fit (if not a little thin) so what is hiding in his medical records?
Let us not be coy about Ayers. He has already admitted that he was a terrorist who planted bombs and who incited people to violence. Why did Obama say he was a friend? Why did he launch his political career at Ayers house if he knew he was an unrepemtent terrorist? Whay have the Democrats sent 30 lawyers and researchers into Alaska to dig dirt on Palin. Its as if the Democrats were acting like some totalitarian radical mob with their own version of Stasi. And that is what it seems Melanie is describing. Totalitarian Radicals. Obama is like the Woody Allen character Zelig. He's everywhere and everything to all people. He is a mirror reflecting what you want to know and hear, no matter if what he says is contradicted by the next appearance in front of a mirror. The more I learn about Obama the more I find him sinister. Remember, Hitler was charismatic. So was oswald Mosely.
john doe
September 10th, 2008 1:59pmLouise: Thanks for a brilliant and magnificent post, joining the dots and mapping out the malaise in the UK. It is nothing short of tragic and appalling how many many people have surrendered to the authority of the BBC, sacrificed their own ability to think for themselves, relinquished critical discernment and allowed themselves to be brainwashed by this very powerful corporation. Members of my family and friends swallow whole anything the BBC tells them as gospel truth and absolutely reject any challenge to that because it exists outside their BBC frame of reference and so called window on the world. Only yesterday someone I know categorically stated that Sarah Palin is a creationist. How do they know that I asked. They heard it on the BBC so it must be true! I no longer live in the UK and never watch TV. Nobody needs it. A rabbi once said that watching TV is like having an open sewer running through your living room. My advice to anyone anywhere...but especially in the UK....is stop watching it, get rid of it....then no more mind control, no more rage and frustration and no more licence fee. To cease watching TV is a true revolutionary act. It is not just worthless but also downright poisonous. The BBC and its vile self-importance must be boycotted and put out of business.
Margaret
September 10th, 2008 2:17pmBrilliant!
Those who refuse to see the connection of Obama to Alinsky to Gramsci to Marx also refuse to simply look at Obama's friends and associates since before college (Frank Marshall Davis, CPUSA member) and afterwards (Ayers-Dohrn, Rev. Wright and his racist church, Chicago's corrupt political machine of the Left).
Who is there to speak for Obama from his past that he would be willing to acknowledge? No one but his wife!
He ran for office, but hid his real ideas when it came to voting by voting "present."
There is none so blind as will not see.
Marian C
September 10th, 2008 2:26pmMelanie - yet another brilliant article, keep telling it how it really is.
Nicholas
September 10th, 2008 11:22am
Another brilliantly written piece; I agree with every line. Let’s hope that the American electorate are not taken in with Barrack Obama. So many people here in the UK were hoodwinked by Tony Blair, believing he was bringing ‘change’; we got change alright, but not what a good many people were expecting and look at the price we paid!
Frank Pulley
September 10th, 2008 2:55pmSome excellent comments in Support of Melanie's seminal piece; and some expected rubbish attacking it, of course. There would have been two more messages of support from me, based on 50 years of experience fighting the Gramscian Guerrillas (without knowing the full extent of what I was fighting until 2003) if the moderator had not for some mysterious reason spiked them. One was immediately following the post yesterday evening; the second when I visited later in the small wee hours when I found no trace of it. Is there an explanation for this, I wonder?
Btw. if this comment gets posted, One of the points I particularly tried to highlight to amplify Melanie's comprehensive analysis is a link that I posted on two threads on the Coffee House a few days ago, posted by a San Diego Cop circa 2000 who laid out the influence of the Gramsci philosophy in Community policing over there:
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/Community-Policing.htm#dia
it neatly dovetails into Melanie's conclusions.
Many good comments above, as I said, but Nicholas and Louise are particularly worthy of praise. Brilliant synthesis!
As Verity points out LGF are featuring this in a big way, but the commentary over there is a little too superficial to merit much effort to plough through.
Dennis
September 10th, 2008 3:27pmMarxism redacted.
FDR
September 10th, 2008 4:05pmFirst of all, Palin was not putting down community organizaers. Palin was responding to the Obama campaign's attacks on her experience as a small town mayor. She was drawing a comparison between being a mayor and being a self appointed community organizer. I think the left is overreacting to her comments, and its doing so with willful intent.
With that said, the author of this article is pointing out some of the issues with Obama's own background that the American mainstream media has largely ignored. People willing to educate themselves on Obama's background will reach the conclusion that he is not who he professes to be on the campaign trail.
Peter J
September 10th, 2008 4:08pmHuw Thornton,
Most interesting piece and sundry related comments.
"bokc" may equate more closely with "b'okse", in phonetic terms (ie with an extended 'c' sound). This would indicate a nominal relationship to an Arabic tribe from the lower Seegor area, which is somewhere to the South of what is now known as the Dead Sea. Hope this is relevant.
Peter
September 10th, 2008 4:33pmExcellent article. Thank you. At best, Barack Hussein Obama is a Marxist. At worst, he's a sleeper agent for the Islamo-Fascists. Either way, he and his blowhard VP are not what the U.S. needs. EVER. Please say no thank you to Obama Bin Biden, America.
Ian C
September 10th, 2008 4:34pmThe phrase "stealth and deception to cultivate an image of centrism and pragmatism" as quoted here about Alinsky's methods bring to mind the methods of deception expressly allowed by radical Islamism. I see that they learnt that from Fascism as well as Marxism. In the capitalist world we would call it 'strategic planning'!
And in Obama's speech at Denver he orated about people pulling themselves up by their boot straps and that "not much help if you haven't any boots". Alinsky said people "talk glibly of people lifting themselves by their own bootstraps". Obama's inspiration is clearly there - and there are a couple of other of examples if you listened to that speech and care to read around the Alinsky subject as I have luckily had time to do today.
In all, this has been an education in its own right. The piece by Smalinsky at 1.40pm above reflects well what I have learnt (some of your links Melanie do not appear to be linked!).
TGF UKIP I see no comment from you here, but I would think that this is what you have been waiting for or expecting all along - the revealing story about the godhead Presidential candidate who not only is proposing the largest tax and government increases in post 1930's USA but is also a "follower of a follower of Lucifer".
That is not going to play well with Mr & Mrs USA if used selectively and cleverly by no-one associated with the (now) Palin/McCain campaign! It might even become the scandal you seek!
On a more serious note, the objectives of the the Gamaliel Foundation, IAF and ACORN and other such organisations one cannot disagree with. What has clearly happened, now that we have this insight, is that the Alinsky model of creating ort finding worms or 'moles' fro such movements has been probably been happening, consciously and unconsciously ever since the radicals in the 1960/70's faded away. Which is why we have the wishy washy, politically correct, morally equivalent hordes that today drive most parts of governmental life across most of the western world. It has become a universal complaint and we have all been stumped and stupefied as to how it has been able to happen. This type of underhand revolutionary tactic must surely be a large part of the answer.
That it should be uncovered thanks to the candidacy of the frist black man standing for President does not bode well for the future trust of other blacks who are untained by such malign influences. Nor does it bode well for the genuine concerns of these and other organisations whose objectives are legitimate but some of whose tactics are so unprincipled.
Johanna
September 10th, 2008 4:48pmThis is precisely the kind of hysterical nonsense that we have come to expect of Ms Phillips. She seems to see a conspiracy to destory world civilization in every action or utterance coming from anybody who is left of center. It really is time for her to analyse empirically rather than reciting pointlessly from a pre-determined neo-con agenda.
Ronnie
September 10th, 2008 5:08pm'Melanie's seminal piece...' My gob is smacked.
You people really think the left is winning and that Obama is really left wing. You even think that the BBC is really left wing.
I agree that Blair engaged in a curiously Stalinist application of power but it was and remains almost entirely devoid of ideology. You think PFI is left wing?
What seems most apparent about Obama is that he is still searching for who he is and maybe his quest for the presidency will help him find out. In his rather apparent self obsession he resembles Blair but again, I see no evidence of deep ideological belief. Sure, he's been round the houses of ideas in his youth but he doesn't seem to have found anything strong enough to hang his life on. Blair sold himself and for whatever reason lots of people bought it for a while. Obama is doing the same. The threat to the US is vacuousness in the executive branch not revolution.
In Britain we complain about the seemingly normal abuse of power and yet we do absolutely nothing about it, except commune with Mel. Where else would people put up with being spied on to see exactly what they put in their bins? But that is not Marxism, it is madness in its purest form.
Our political system is ineffective and uninspiring, our politicians have generally become full-time robots and our present collapsing government is the most shocking I have ever seen or read about. How long do you think it will be till the next version of a Labour government?
The BBC, far from being the destructive behemoth that many suggest, is a joke. The left destroyed it as an institution and sucked the credibilty out of it. Its news programmes are two dimentional and lazy and it has lost the will to analyse anything in any depth whatsoever. It lives in fear and that has been the engine of its adoption of the edicts of political correctness.
I don't see an imminent victory for the left in any of that, we are not defeated by a titanic left-wing conspiracy, we have completely lost our way. We are screaming to be rebuilt but can't find anyone to do it?
There is a contributor here who tells us that a bunch of Marxists, funded by the global pharmacutical industry, have been attacking homeopathic medicine, if I understood him correctly. What!? It is simply beyond description! There is a real world out there that needs fixing.
The left is in utter chaos, all their ideological bases have been kicked from under them. Its time to stop watching television, the real villian of the piece, who cares who wins Big Brother!
All this fear, paranoia and plain daftness. It won't do... This is like an evening with Alf Garnett.
Molly
September 10th, 2008 5:15pmThank you Ms. Phillips for putting into words what our esteemed "media" here won't mention, and that is the word Marxist. The liberals here are in complete denial as to the motives of Obama because they believe they have found their Savior. The United States is too great a country to be dragged down by the "organizer"
Thanks again,
Molly Vail, Michigan
Joanne600
September 10th, 2008 5:28pmKeep telling it like it is, Melanie. A pity that the majority of your fellow citizens see you as an alarmist. I hope to God they see the light before "Londonistan" comes to pass.
ndm
September 10th, 2008 5:34pmIn one of her swoons to the most underwhelming and underqualified Vice-Presidential candidates ever presented to the American people, Melanie Phillips wrote:
TThe entirety of Melanie Phillips' discussion of Barack Obama could be desctibed as "smears, contempt, condescension, ridicule and every other rhetorical missile." I will call her on her hypocricy.
David M
September 10th, 2008 5:54pmThe Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 09/10/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
http://thunderrun.blogspot.com/2008/09/web-reconnaissance-for-09102008.html
digusted liberal
September 10th, 2008 6:07pmI guess it's no surprise that Frank "effnik mineorifices" Pulley doesn't like Obama.
And I guess my finding his phrase offensive, marks me out a Marxist. At least in these parts.
Well hooray for Marxists if that were true.
As for Melanie, this, like her previous stuff on Obama is very weak. I'm unclear whether she thinks he's a crypto Marxist-Islamist or a crypto Islamist-Marxist.
No doubt someone will put me right.
Frank Pulley
September 10th, 2008 6:19pmAn extract from Fonte's piece (see above) that I forgot to mention:
>"In a related exercise in Gramscian reasoning, Congress in 1994 passed the Violence Against Women Act. According to Democratic Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, the "whole purpose" of the bill was "to raise the consciousness of the American public." The bill’s supporters charged that there was an "epidemic" of violent crime against women. Echoing Catharine MacKinnon (e.g., rape is "not an individual act" but "terrorism" within a "systemic context of group subjection like lynching"), the bill’s proponents filled the Congressional Record with the group-based (and Hegelian-Marxist) concept that women were being attacked because they were women and belonged to a subordinate group. It was argued by bill’s proponents that these "violent attacks" are a form of "sex discrimination," "motivated by gender," and that they "reinforce and maintain the disadvantaged status of women as a group." Moreover, the individual attacks create a "climate of fear that makes all women afraid to step out of line." Although there was no serious social science evidence of an "epidemic" of violence against women, the almost Marxist-style agitprop campaign worked, and the bill passed."<
Interesting that Joe Biden seems already to have been aboard the Gramsci train even back then. Hmmmnn!
BJ
September 10th, 2008 6:33pmThe notion of "Gramsci's acolytes" working their way through institutions to subvert society is laughable.
Gramsci was indeed concerned with a "hegemonic strategy" but at the time of writing he would have been concerned with position of the Italian workers movement in the early decades of the last century in particular the potential for a class alliance with the peasantry.
When his works were rediscovered in the 70's and 80's this was transmuted into an argument that left parties should seek to attract middle class supporters rather than concentrate on their traditional working class constituencies.
This view would have been quite fashionable as a critique of for example, the Bennite Left at a time when it was failing to make much impact.
You would have heard a lot of Gramsci from the circles around the magazine "Marxism Today". In its twilight years quite an influential (and social democratic) publication.
One might argue that there is a very faint echo of this interpretation of Gramsci (replacing the peasantry with the middle class) in the background to New Labour. But New Labour hardly represented a hegemonic strategy of the Left but was rather an adoption of the Right's hegemonic ideas to get elected.
Gramsci may indeed have some interesting ideas for those interested in Marxist theory but the time and circumstances of his writings have always to be remembered.
But still a much more interesting subject than Melanie's usual posts.
Pete
September 10th, 2008 7:01pmExcellent! Thank you!
Colorado USA
September 10th, 2008 9:24pmI can tell you when Obama caused the alarm bells to go off and that was when he announced that he was a "citizen of the world" when he was in Europe. That was a huge turnoff for many of Citizens of the USA. Barack Hussein Obama is a scary guy. For all you Brits who think he is so great, you can have him including all that baggage he has hanging around his neck.
Colorado USA
Joe
September 10th, 2008 9:33pmJohn McCain should simply call out Barack Hussein Obama on this:
"Sir, do you completely agree that socialism and communism are antithetical to, and have no place in America!?"
Joe Adams From USA
September 10th, 2008 10:07pmObama can put red "lipstick" on his days as a community organizer because but it is job-training for young radicals. Melanie is right, or should I say correct. "Community organizers" in the US are usually young college-age radicals, seeking to work with the "people" in order to radicalize them without subjecting them to Marxist jargon. CO to Ayers, to Wright to Chicago-Machine politics to "change."
The change he wants is "radical" leftist change. and using Alinksy-tactics, he tries to masquerade as a refomist. He needs some new lipstick because his cover is finally uncovering his true "faith" in left-wing politics.
AuH20
September 10th, 2008 10:20pmWow! I have discovered that there is intelligent life in the British media!
Go Girl!
Real Carbonneau
September 10th, 2008 10:35pmRight on Melanie. That's the piece of the puzzle I needed. Now I understand. May God have mercy on us. Keep up the good work.
Verity
September 10th, 2008 11:01pmJohanna - The left is set on destroying civilisation. Why, I don't know. They have wrecked Britain in 11 short years. The "long march through the institutions" certainly quickened pace under the evil, conniving Blair.
Disgusted Liberal: "No doubt someone will put me right." I doubt that anyone will have the energy, given that you are unable to figure it out for yourself.
BJ - You may be right. I don't know. But I do know that his "philosophy" and methods were grasped by malign individuals intent on destroying Western civilisation. They've made a bloody good fist of it in Britain, so far.
Navlav8ter
September 10th, 2008 11:20pmIt is remarkable how seemingly intelligent people in the west still yearn for the resurrection of a Marxist state. The failure of the Soviet experiment after 70 years seems not convincing enough. They don’t want to redistribute the wealth they want to control it, and in doing so increase their power over all of humanity. Our rights will be the first to go. Just look at the left’s views on the 1st and 2nd amendments. It is more likely there will be a crèche in the Kremlin this Christmas than in the US Capital. The left, through its legal arm the ACLU would argue that a display of that sort is an indication we are establishing a state religion. Horse hockey…that is a specious argument as long as any religion or atheist group wants to and is allowed to demonstrate their belief’s in or on public property. To say the mere practice of a religion in a public space somehow offends someone and should be stopped for that reason alone sets a scary precedence. If my political speech offends will they stop that? Oh wait they didn’t Obama’s apparachik try to stop WGN radio in Chicago from hosting Stanley Kurtz an Obama critic as a guest on a talk show a few weeks back? And isn’t Obama one of the democrat party cabal that is attempting to re-introduce the “Fairness Doctrine” one of the vestiges of the socialist “New Deal” ruled unconstitutional by the Burger court? Well of course he is. Obama knows best for all of us misguided souls out here in “Fly-Over-Country”
History and science has proven that Marxism, Communism, Socialism whatever its title is a bankrupt ideology and it is doomed to failure. With the reverence the left in this country place on science you would think they would recognize that natural laws will always prevail. Darwin was right in his theory that evolution is based on natural selection i.e. “The survival of the fittest”. You can only suppress superior human intellect, ambition, and yearnings for freedom so long before they explode into a display of uncontrolled enterprise as was witnessed in 1990. It seems 70 years is about all a human society can take of government suppression masked as maternal good will. How gullible the Obamamaniacs are in following him even after you point out his Marxist heritage. His mother was a Marxist, his father was a Marxist, his “uncle” Frank Davis was a Marxist, his initial political benefactor Bill Ayers is a Marxist. Ironic he represents Illinois…Abraham Lincoln had it right when he said “You can fool some of the people all of the time….” America should thank God for Sarah Palin.
Huw Thornton
September 10th, 2008 11:59pm@ Peter J
Your contribution was not only relevant but also completely absorbing - many thanks!
field
September 11th, 2008 12:07amPC ideology overlaps with Marxism but it isn't Marxist. I'd say it's a kind of Christian outgrowth if anything. You certainly find that the princes of the Church tend to be rather adept at it. PC ideology has gain a hold in all aspects of our life. It's based really on two premises:
All diversity is good.
Everyone is of equal merit.
The first is plain wrong. The second is not a bad religious principle, but it can't be applied to real life. Some people are more interesting, talented, able and of value to society than others.
Frank Pulley
September 11th, 2008 12:12amI posted a link earlier to an article by John Fonte an American academic, which the moderator has failed to publish here, so my later addendum to that post (an extract in a later post at 6.19pm, which is printed) to highlight the Biden connection, has no context. I would therefore be grateful if the moderator of this blog would post the link for me:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3484376.html
It's important to know that Melanie's analysis has relevant precedent among American serious political commentators whose views are perhaps less reported than their leftist counterparts by the American MSM.
Sherry Gerald
September 11th, 2008 12:53amFINALLY an article from Great Britain that ACCURATELY describes what's really going on in the upcoming election!
It's Obama the Marxist vs. McCain the Democrat.
Frank Pulley
September 11th, 2008 12:57amBJ
As you seem to believe that Gramsci's philosophy died with him and that the context is irrelevant to today's geopolitical chemistry, I suggest you read this piece by Prof. Jeremy Lester, a leading light in the Gramsci Society - a British academic who has trolled his way through several different universities lecturing in PPE departments and has been employed in African trouble spots under a UN aegis, I believe. Do some research, sirormadam. They may have buried Gramsci 60 odd years ago and Marx before him, but the game goes on. As someone said in an earlier post, "There's none so blind as those that don't want to see."
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:ttxiEXF_C2wJ:www.gramscitalia.it/html/lester.pdf+Jeremy+Lester&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=27&gl=u
Face up to it: the major prize is within their reach and only a month or so away. Let them take it at your peril US citizens. The twin evils of jihad and international communism, currently a marriage of convenience, is the worst threat to Western Civilisation in its history. The fact that when capitalism collapses under the twin threats the current axis of evil, the joint adversaries will then have to fight a war of supremacy among themselves is little comfort to me, even though my time on the mortal coil is fast running out. For those of you in the Anglosphere who still have the prospect of long life and careers ahead of you and are desirous of retaining our traditional culture, freedoms and soverignty, heed the wisdom of Melanie Phillips. Those of you who have a vote in the American election have a grave responsibility not to cede the White House to the enemy. We in Britain who have seen the Long March in progress and at close quarters; who have seen the Gramcian Guerillas occupy the seat of government here; who have watched them cede our sovereignty, beseech you to at least to halt the march at the doors of the White House.
jason Wipf
September 11th, 2008 1:27amHe is simply a Noob. We need more experience for this position. Period.
R.F. Phelps
September 11th, 2008 3:19amStanley Kurtz is probably Obama's most dangerous political foe. Why else would his supporters have tried so hard to suppress Kurtz' WGN interview airing Obama's radical connections?
Verity
September 11th, 2008 4:17amThe left is so delusional. That Obama's not playing with a full deck is obvious, as is the fact that he has been programmed. Sometimes, he has to stop and think. You can hear the cogs grinding. "I've visited all 57 states!" (Oh, wait a minute. I know that's not correct ... but I don't know what's wrong with it ...) "I've visited all 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii." (Oh, wait a minute ... that sounds wrong ...)
Anyway, he's cratering and I don't see how he can regain the big mo' between now and the VP debate on 2 October - three weeks away.
Adam in AZ
September 11th, 2008 4:32amOutstanding! This article is a breath of fresh air for those of us who are skeptical of the Obama messianic cult. Now if we could find a journalist in the USA with some independence and guts who's willing to ask some very direct and uncomfortable questions in a live televised debate, maybe more Americans could learn about the true nature of the "change" Obama wants to bring to this country, and we could ask ourselves if that is really the kind of change we want. But I fear the people do not want to be parted from their illusions.
nellie_c
September 11th, 2008 4:45amThis is a little scary actually. I'm beginning to wonder if Marx was right, his theories just were never applied to the right place and right time.
Shevvers
September 11th, 2008 6:14amAnother excellent piece from Melanie Phillips! Obama is a dangerous wolf in sheep's clothing: let's hope enough Americans are smart enough to realise this and vote for McCain/Palin in November.
Jason
September 11th, 2008 6:36amHAHA! You Brits are so good at dry humor. I mean I'm used to Monty Python and Black Adder, but this is a whole new level of comedy!
GeoffM
September 11th, 2008 8:02amThis guy is going down!
The next few eeks will see more and more on this guy. The liberals are in a spin as so amply demonstrated by the vile attacks upon Palin.
Women are deserting him, the white working man is deserting him, the Chritians ar holding their hands p in horror as will the members of the armed forces.
Only blacks, muslims, media moguls and marxist college lecturers on life tenure will be voting for him at this rate.
He's a busted flush
Rob
September 11th, 2008 11:02amOf course, we’ve lived under a Left wing government in the UK. They have used political cross-dressing to achieve their aims. They worked out that if they let the City folk make their money they could do what the heck they liked – and they were right.
New Labour’s has, first and foremost, been a cultural assault. Once you’ve got people’s minds under control with political correctness you can do what the heck you like. This isn’t some accident.
Tony Blair is not vacuous at all. That was just part of his sleight of hand illusion tricks – and Barack Obama has been a very attentive student. He has quite deliberately let people graft their fantasies on to him with speeches about change and so on.
Says ndm: “TThe entirety of Melanie Phillips' discussion of Barack Obama could be desctibed as "smears, contempt, condescension, ridicule and every other rhetorical missile." I will call her on her hypocricy.”
What are you talking about? Ms Phillips has indeed provided plenty of commentary on Mr Obama but she has never “smeared” him at all.
Barack Obama is a politician and it is his political ideas and what forms the backdrop to those that are what Ms Phillips has commented upon from day one. That is why her focus has been upon figures such as Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko.
How does that compare with the smears on Mrs Palin and her family? They can’t handle Palin herself and certainly couldn’t find figures so repulsive as that trio I’ve just mentioned above and so instead the disgusting Left accused her of posing as mum to hide daughter’s illegitimate child for one of her own children. Talk about going lower than a snake’s navel.
Then they started to mock her pregnant daughter. But is her daughter on the ticket? Of course not. The only issue there is Ms Palin, who is standing by her daughter and will be doing what’s right for the unborn baby – and the Left hate her for it.
Far from “smearing” Senator Obama, Ms Phillips has, as with the post above, given sources for every part of her commentary relating to his character, judgement and political outlook.
If you want to accuse Ms Phillips of smears could you please give us all chapter and verse of these “smears”.
john doe
September 11th, 2008 12:09pmOnly those who have cultivated victim consciousness in the grievance theatre want to vote for Obama....the Marxist Left, feminists, blacks, gays,Muslims. celebrities with low self esteem and so on. They chant 'Obama' at gatherings, surrendering to a personality cult in their despair and loss of faith.
Those who will vote for McCain/Palin enjoy self belief, affirmation of shared sound values, love of their family, culture and nation. They chant 'USA' at their gatherings.
El Dia Octavo
September 11th, 2008 2:12pmMost readers of this piece were not alive in the 1960's or involved in the radical politics of that time. I was. It is important to understand that all forms of progress - social, economic, spiritual, etc. - require ideas to be explored. Debate, discussion, and experimentation are elemental to exploration. This is central to what occurred in the 1960's and 70's: Debate and exploration of ideas that reasonable people felt deserved attention and serious consideration.
As we who were involved in "radical" politics in that era grew intellectually and matured socially and economically, we grew out of the ardently left-wing thinking. As with any debate and exploration process, some ideas are refined into practice and some are cast off as just not worthy of further pursuit. I am concerned that many of the cast-off ideas seem to be recycled by younger people who, rather than looking back and realizing that the bulk of society grew through that thinking and moved on, return to those ideas and reconsider their merit...over and over and over again.
Many of the concepts we explored back in those days remain with me today. For example, I still believe that society owes the physically and mentally disabled a very high degree of personal respect and attention. However, I abandoned the idea of involuntary communalism entirely. As I matured - and as my "radical" compatriots matured – they and I came to understand that quality of life for each individual is an individual pursuit. Individually defined, individually sought. What I find disturbing is that otherwise very bright people - like Obama or Clinton – still want to define "quality of life" for people other than themselves. This is where the left/right debate has stalled: On the issue of whether government should define "quality of life" and, having done so, legislate it into being. It follows then that this election – like all our elections – is about who should get to do the legislating.
This is also where this blog has stalled. Each respondent to Melanie Phillip’s discussion of Saul Alinsky’s practices and the implementation of those ideas by Obama, et al, has a political axe to grind either for or against Obama…as if he is the fulcrum. I do not mean this to be offensive or combative but communalism and socialism are concepts that, by and large, have been discussed, digested and discarded as unworkable. We can debate this some more but it is really pointless – the game is over and the teams left the field twenty-some years ago. But twenty-some years ago, the debate stalled as well.
Therefore, it is not that Mr. Obama represents “change” for he represents nothing; he just wants to do the legislating. Mr. Obama’s followers BELIEVE that he represents change but, as noted above, these ideas have been largely disposed. Therefore, he represents regression – a return to ideas and thinking that is as scientifically and rationally out-of-date as the flat earth society. Moreover, he is smart enough to know that these ideas – this communal, socialist line of reason – has been abandoned. Therefore, Mr. Obama must have another reason for espousing these beliefs. That reason is the accretion of power.
Thus, this election…like all elections…is about obtaining the power to make other people do what you want. Soooo, if this blog and the whole debate are to move forward constructively it is necessary to stop seeing the other side as evil or crazy. Kicking bats at each other is stupid. Permit me to suggest that all the very smart and obviously educated people on this blog…and others…creatively explore what the NEXT idea might be. But I am begging you: please, please, please, please do not revisit “equal opportunity” and “social welfare” and “freedom of choice” and all the other dead dogs of the 1968 Democratic Convention for that whole debate is starting to feel like punishment for my misspent youth.
El Dia Octavo
Rick
September 11th, 2008 2:35pmSome one earlier said - "Unable to storm the Winter Palace, men such as Clarke (and Obama) sought to undermine the West by destroying all that had built it: educated, middle class, white, Christian, democratic, heterosexual (in theory if not in practice) males.
Why do you think such people are not just un-represented in the politically correct world, but actively smeared by it?"
Yes visit the House of Commons and you'll really struggle to find middle-class white males won't you!
Pepper
September 11th, 2008 2:38pmScarey stuff! This is the democrat party today...very scarey!
JoJo
September 11th, 2008 2:39pmI have known this for a while, and I am so amazed that even talk show hosts on the radio in the US have not explained the "Community organizer" racket as has been explained here, they have not explained it at all in fact and simply assume people know who Saul ALinsky is when no one really does. This is a great article and it should be wide spread.
texasguy01
September 11th, 2008 3:34pmWOW! Honest inteligent journalism. Why don't you move across the pond and be a breath of fresh air to us yanks yearning to breathe freely of rational thoughts from our news media. Instead of total Obama cheerleaders. Thank God "yes we Americans can do that freely" for talk radio. It is the voice of America not the CNN,ABC,CBS,MSNBC so often portayed as our voice. Obama needs to be flushed.
Scott
September 11th, 2008 4:59pmWhat is so sadly amazing, as that Obama would not pass a national agency background check to be a government employee.
Verity
September 11th, 2008 5:40pmWell said, John Doe.
Amd also well said to the individual who wrote that Obama may be a sleeper. I have said from Day One that he is a Manchurian candidate. He seemed so disconnected - almost ... puzzled ...
El Dia Octavo - A most interesting post!
Can I just reiterate one more time how deeply stupid it is to have the comments box at the top of the page when most people are posting on the most recent comments at the bottom, and scrolling up through a00 or more comments is highly irritating.
Verity
September 11th, 2008 5:51pmRonnie writes: "Yet there you are at 3:01 am..."
Hold the triumph, old thing! That would be 3:01 Greenwich Meantime where you are. The night was young where I am.
Frank Pulley
September 11th, 2008 6:42pmEl Dia Octavo (should that be El Octavo Dia? Ah well, whatever turns you around).
Thank you for that thoughtful, well-written post.
Perhaps you will allow me to nitpick a little:
You say: "As we who were involved in "radical" politics in that era grew intellectually and matured socially and economically, we grew out of the ardently left-wing thinking. As with any debate and exploration process."
All of you? Perhaps not I fear. Many (perhaps the most idiot of the useful idiots admittedly), not only clung on to the modified Hegelian/Marxist/Gramscian et al. tenets, but propagated them among another generation of useful idiots who can only see salvation from their own deficiencies by tearing down the accomplishments of others (often in cahoots with foreign entities). You yourself say,
"I am concerned that many of the cast-off ideas seem to be recycled by younger people who, rather than looking back and realizing that the bulk of society grew through that thinking and moved on, return to those ideas and reconsider their merit...over and over and over again."
Did they 'return to those ideas' without help?
All my long adult life I have poked my nose into the business of venally criminal and politically subversive groups (in many cases the two proclivities are combined in the same individuals) for a living and pro bono publico (imho). Some of the "we" you mention do mature, some choose the primrose path eventually, but there are few like yourself who become (almost) apostates to the cause. The raison d'etre that hooked them in the first place is a powerful feeling.
I consider myself lucky to have escaped the academic brainwasher, having been obliged in the era of austerity just after the war WW2 that is, to abandon my grammar school education in order to work for my living to supplement the family budget. My interface with the subversive academics and Leftist propaganda ((including the Sino-Soviet garbage) came in the course of policing first the airwaves in a military capacity then in direct confrontation with their front line guerrillas on the streets of London and later in a more proactive role. I agree that much of their effort has been unsuccessful, but the sub rosa stuff has seethed and oozed on through the stealthy Long March. Some of it has reached key positions in the Halls of Academe; the Institutions and Government. Few politicians have escaped its osmosis entirely, it seems to me.
It is right that those of us who have seen the progression of it at close quarters join up the dotted lines, even though some of it is deductive even sometimes speculative. Isn’t that what blogs are for? The subversive networks, inimical to the whole of Western Civilisation are now so complex that few journalists have the intellectual capacity to garner the information and then collate, evaluate, analyse and then disseminate the honed intelligence results in a meaningful and concise way. Melanie Phillips is one of those that can.
Many other journalists and TV hacks from the MSM are clearly actively engaged in the 'great game'.
Otherwise I think your post is thought provoking and I agree with many of the points therein.
Incidentally this is by far the best airing of this topic that I have seen on any UK thread (if anyone knows differently - link please); well done, Melanie, may it continue to roll on.
Frank Pulley
September 11th, 2008 6:47pmVerity
I think you and I had better go to Old Queen Street and take the techie in hand over this scrolling thing. Pete promised he would fix it and hasn't! It is soooo irritating. Other Speccie blogs seemed to have adopted what you suggest, why does this one have to be different? Tch!
BigTires
September 11th, 2008 7:26pmKnowing how ignorant 99% of Americans are about Marxism, history, Socialism, and the like, I truly believe most American Lefties simply want to right an injustice. Clean Air, Clean Water, Child Labor Laws, Equal Pay, Non-Discrimination, Civil Rights - all of these ideals/changes came from the so-called Lefties. I sincerely doubt the people who fought for these changes really had an underlying stealth agenda to topple the West. In fact, it's the Conservative who too often raises the flag of the end of Judeo-Christian Freedom when faced with any form of challenge to the status quo.
Michael B
September 11th, 2008 7:45pmThe several dismissive and generally vapid scoffs in response to Melanie's post are vaguely reminiscent of a certain Amazon customer's review of Leszek Kolakowski's "Main Currents of Marxism." Kolakowski's work is a magisterial piece of scholarship and erudition, as ambitious a single work in the field as I've ever read and one that successfully achieves its ambitious aims in the opinion of many informed critics. Nonetheless, the Amazon customer/reviewer in question simply dismisses it, sniffs at the entirety of it, vapidly and blandly and airily scoffs at it.
Ronnie
September 11th, 2008 10:33pmVerity, good for you, keep it coming at any time. I agree with you 100% about the comments box, especially at my age.
Verity
September 11th, 2008 11:01pmFrank P - El Dia Octavo (should that be El Octavo Dia?. No. It's correct. Despite appearance, dia is masculine.
Yes, the scrolling thing means you really can't respond to two or more fellow posters because it is way too much work checking spelling of their names and checking what they actually wrote if you're quoting them. Big, big bore.
While waiting for the paint to dry on this blog - in other words, waiting for the one diurnal update, I checked into Biased-BBC and G Cooper was there!
A Proud American Conservative
September 11th, 2008 11:06pmDear Ms. Phillips: God Bless You. I want to thank you for explaining how Hillary, and Obama are socialists-in-diguise, as are most of the environmentalists, and assorted Liberals,in the Democratic party.
I've also read your excellent articles on Ms. Sarah Palin. You have an impeccable eye for American Politics, and I'm very happy to have discovered your fine work. I'm voting Palin-McCain, NOT Hussein Bin Biden.
Frank Pulley
September 12th, 2008 12:49amVerity
Thanks for once again furthering my education. One is never too old, I'm happy to say.
G.Cooper! That brings back memories of my cyberyouth; wonder why no sign of GC here? We must invite GC (who may not know of Melanie's change of address and comment resumption) over via BBBC. (I badly needed a gender in that clumsy paragraph - any idea?)
Btw, in addition to LGF running Melanie's Obaminsky thread, Jeff G on Protein Wisdom and Dan Collins on the Protein Wisdom Pub blogs have each covered it bigtime. Some interesting copy:
http://proteinwisdom.com/pub/?p=1517
and
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=13244
and
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=13245
Ecrasez l'infame!
yonason
September 12th, 2008 2:05amThanks Melanie. I already knew some of this stuff in relation to Hillarity Clinton's thesis on her hero, Alinsky, but your in depth analysis is really expanding my knowledge base. Here's some of what I have on Obama's friend "Frank" who is mentioned so fondly in his book.
http://www.usasurvival.org/
Doug G
September 12th, 2008 5:23amas an american I have followed this with major disgust--until mccain brought in palin. that was the rabbit pulled out of the hat that really enegized the repub party. obama cannot do the same---even if biden drops out and he tries to get hillary into the race as vp. in my opinion it would be a fatal mistake to attempt that because then it would be like admitting that he made a mistake on his choice of vp and he can't have that.
the more this thing goes along the more foul aquaintances keep cropping up on obama that are going to hurt him in the long run if the msm ever lightens up and quits handling him with kid gloves. they have made lord obama and have pushed him down our throats to the point that many of us are totally sick of him. every web page, every time you turn on the boob tube his face is right there with that smirk of "I am so much better than you!"
this brainless twit was the best that the democrats could come up with and they are in a streak of bad picks starting with gore and kerry and now obama.
many people won't vote for him--not because he is "black" or muslim descent but because he has no plan, no idea of what to do and no experience other than fouling up and not completing his job. his socialistic/marxist tendencies have started to show and that also has turned off a lot of people. with luck he will not be voted into office. this country is in bad enough shape without his heavy taxes and giveaways to africa and the black population. we also don't need sharia law which I believe he supports although that hasn't really shown up yet.
Catherine
September 12th, 2008 5:35amLove the article - gave me hope. The list of those types which will likely vote for Obama is depressing, especially when you add in the underreported millions of illegals who are encouraged to vote, and vote often, especially by groups such as ACORN and our local drivers' licensing clerk who asks them, in Spanish, if they would like to register to vote. Although part of me thinks we don't have a chance to avert a disastrous Obama win, I will because of the Palin inclusion, be fighting the good fight and sending the checks so future generations will not wonder in whispers from the shadows how we let this happen.
stanley Jerusalem
September 12th, 2008 12:27pmFrank Pulley
Please say what language you are posting in.
It appears to be English - but not as we know it.
I really couldn't understand half of your last contribution, and I would have liked to.
stanley Jerusalem
September 12th, 2008 1:03pmPeter,
To avoid boredom and finger-lag have the comment box at the top AND at the bottom.
One for those commenting on Melanie's piece,t'other on the commenters.
American Voter
September 12th, 2008 4:11pmIt's not even certain old Joe Biden will be casting a vote for the Obama/Biden ticket: he was heard musing aloud just the other day that not only would Hilary Clinton have been an excellent candidate for the Presidency, but that she would actually, he thought, have been a better candidate than himself for the Vice-Presidency. At last, an honest politician!
dave
September 12th, 2008 4:32pmRemember, shiny side out!
(sheesh, what a wingnut!)
Frank Pulley
September 12th, 2008 4:52pmyonason
Thank you very much for that link (and the links that can be reached from that site) Amazing stuff! Why has not more of this reached the MSM? What's your take on that? The CIA documents within the links and PDF files are rivetting. Must try reach the NZ guy and get him to disseminate more on this thread. Much obliged, my dossier needs another folder!
Frank Pulley
September 12th, 2008 5:16pmLove this picture:
http://www.usasurvival.org/ck061903.shtml
Wow! Now that's PMT!
Robbit
September 12th, 2008 6:32pmDo check out the Sermon on The Mount at:
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=2269
Frank Pulley
September 12th, 2008 7:21pmRobbit
Great link. So I gather you're on to this sh*t over the Herring Pond, huh?
Jaime
September 12th, 2008 9:12pmHow is it that Obama is wrong for organizing people who feel like they are being ignored by their government? How is it wrong to encourage them and give them the outlet so speak up for themselves?
Isn't that what America is all about? Making the change you need and want by all means necessary within the law?
lorenzo
September 13th, 2008 1:22amThe most successful Gramsicans in American politics have come from the right. Grover Norquist, famed tax crusader, for example, is explicit about his debt to Gramsci. Gramsci's point is that radicals had to work in existing institutions throughout civil society and come to dominate them, ideologically, as a means to revolution. Think about the major ideological shifts in America. Throughout the 50s and 60s, the right-wing ideology which has been in power in America for much of the past 38 years used to be called "the lunatic fringe"--a sea change of a swiftness Gramsci probably never considered possible in his Fascist prison cell.
Julian Sanders
September 13th, 2008 4:07amThis is the best explanation of what Obama is all about that I have read.
Thank you, thank you,thank you!
Anglica
September 13th, 2008 7:02amBlair 9/10@4:46 a.m. "So Jesus was a Marxist?" No, Jesus came first.
Marxists, like all 'types of Antichrist', twist Christian doctrine and imagery to their own ends. For example, the two systems apparently share the basic tenet of taking from the rich to give to the poor; the difference, however, shows up in the implementation of the ideal.
Haven't checked the Sermon on the Mount link yet - but wouldn't be surprised to find it refers to Freire...
Great posts on here from Nicholas and Frank Pulley. Thanks as usual.
Roy
September 13th, 2008 9:25amJaime, if you don't 'get it', forget it.
logdon
September 13th, 2008 2:16pmWhy I always turn to Melanie's bog is encapsulated in this piece which is well researched, honest and with a pace missing from the dry academic balancing acts which ultimately lead nowhere. Our own political elites and their acolytes are infantilised followers of fashion and the cloying adulation shown towards the 'One' is indicative of how far we have sunk as a nation. They should know better (and probably do) yet nothing, especially fact stops the left/liberal juggernaut in it's inexorable plan to enslave us all to political correctness and a cap doffing deference to what basically is the ultimate destruction of Britain. Individuality is scorned and the party line must be obeyed, look at what is going on within the ranks of Labour right now for proof. I like Palin who seems to offer an open and fresh attitude. As for those cosseted champaign socialists who sneer and snigger, they are the lowest of the low. Harman is intent on creating a class war but her vile hollowness is exposed in a trice. She'd go for a Harvard educated person based on nothing more than colour and superficial affiliation to the people than the real deal. What an indictment of this new breed?
Ronnie
September 13th, 2008 8:58pmlogdon, if Palin were a candidate for Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party here she would be utterly reviled by the very people who are lauding her to the heavens now.
Verity
September 13th, 2008 10:41pmRonnie - that's a terribly naive comment. Britain doesn't produce people like Sarah Palin. She is product of America, American pioneers, and American history. Her people were the ones who opened up the West. We have nothing like this self-reliant, hardy pioneer personality in Britain.
Ronnie
September 14th, 2008 12:40amVerity, that's a terribly terribly naive reposte.
I know we don't have any moose-shooters because we don't have any mooses but how do you know we don't have any self-reliant and hardy pioneers here?
Now I think about it, Verity, where did many of the people who 'opened up the West' originally come from? Perhaps Nick the historian can help us out.
Anyway, I'm guessing that you've not met all of us so you just never know. Maybe there is someone out there busily pioneering at the moment instead of blogging like the rest of us.
What a pity the moderator decided not to publish my response to your crack about my wobbly head. Then you would have seen just how un PC I really am.
Roy
September 14th, 2008 3:04amRonnie and Verity; don't fall out, for I think your both right to a degree. I do think it's possible somewhere in the UK to find sane sounding people. After all we do have Melanie and some followers in this blog. The Americans do have the advantage in that the 'air' breeds outgoing people unafraid to speak up.
Verity
September 14th, 2008 3:16amRonnie -
The people who had the hope, the faith and the incredible courage to sell up whatever they had and embark on a dangerous journey of a month or more, over a dangerous ocean, to a country they had never seen - and there were no photographs 300 years ago; they took the letters they had received by packet, written months before, on faith - were unimaginably brave and daring spirits, and they were spurred on by hope. They were the optimists. They took their fate into their own hands, despite the terrible risk. I have often said all the optimists left Britain and went to America 300 years ago.
They settled the original colonies. Their grandchildren pushed ever West across an unimaginably vast continent. Some of those wagon trains were five miles wide. All moving forward together. Think about it. They put their faith in each other, God, and the future. People took sick and died. Old people died. Babies died. They buried them and moved on.
They pushed on to Idaho, where Governor Palin's family settled. They pushed on to California. And wherever they settled, they prospered. When they came to the Pacific Ocean, they pushed north.
Sarah Palin is an American type that American can relate to. Indeed, she is the personification of a certain spirit of America, which is why she has touched such a chord.
Laughing at her is not a weapon. Her ancestors faced worse jeopardy than the condescending sniggerer of a foreigner.
Americans recognise her.
Ronnie
September 14th, 2008 7:20amVerity, gee thanks, I had absolutely no idea how the West was won. Thank God you moved over there and can telegraph all this new information back to us backward islanders.
I'll pass it on to the King and perhaps he will reduce your tax, or allow you to vote.
I do agree with you that Sarah Palin has struck a cord and I also agree on why that is. My post was intended to show the difference between the USA and the UK. There are Sarah Palin's here but they would not be allowed to get very far. However I think it is the likes of the Daily Mail, ironically, who would lead the attack against her. Unless, of course, her name was Margaret Thatcher, the exception to every rule.
Roy, I agree with you. Fear is the key here. Look at the collapse of the Labor Party now, not even ambition can stir them to action.
At least from the very little we know about Sarah Palin she does seem willing to lead. Our politicians can't even do that any more. They wait for and then follow the focus groups
marc dauncey
September 14th, 2008 10:05amabsolutely barking. revolutionary marxism in an american election? i had to check the date to see whether it was in fact april 1st. top stuff, keep it up.
Verity
September 14th, 2008 3:48pmMarc Dauncey writes, with an air of springing a perceptive witticism on the commentariat: "i had to check the date to see whether it was in fact april 1st."
Gosh, I'll bet you have them rolling around with laughter at the dinner table, Marc! That is so funny!
May I suggest that all the fatuous men who proudly unfurl this "joke" on almost every thread just write "April 1" and leave it at that. We'll take it as read that you were driven by the unusual nature of the post to "check your calendar".
Alas not with Verity
September 14th, 2008 4:22pmVerity's scorn for Mark Dauncey would appear unbecoming if it came from anyone else. Alas not with Verity.
Slagle
September 14th, 2008 8:06pmClarity of vision and logic driven analysis, how refreshing...exceedingly well done. Thank you
Richard
September 14th, 2008 9:32pmWake up people, and do your research. Look at what the political and military leaders had to say during and after WWII about today's society. Near the end of WWII and into the 50's, the Communists boasted how they would overthrow western culture from within. Then like now, there were politicians who fall into three groups. 1. Those in confederate with the Communists. 2. Those against them. 3. Those whou stuck their heads in the sand hoping the problem would just go away.
From a Biblical stance, the prophet Isaiah and John the Revelator warned of the downfall of modern civilization.
Do an in-depth comparison study of the Communist Manifesto and the Humanist Manifesto and their affects on modern society.
There was a time when traitors were executed. Now, they're embraced.
Michael R Oberndorf, RPA
September 15th, 2008 12:39amWhat 20 years ago was modern Marxism, has morphed into global neo-fascism, with its elite proponents viewing themselves as a new aristocracy. They see themselves and their corporate masters as "enlightened" and as such, superior to the masses. These people, should they succeed in grasping power in the US and the countries of the EU, will make the fascists of the 1930s, '40s, and '50s seem like children...
Ronnie
September 15th, 2008 7:23amWell, Michael R Obendorf RPA, I have tried very hard to understand your post. Without you having provided any specific case evidence it seems that you have found a way, at least in your head, of turning black into white.
Marxism, modern or otherwise, cannot 'morph'* into corporate neo-fascism. You either have Marxism or you don't. It doesn't 'morph' into anything else except in the context of a paranoid fantasy. Similarly, corporate neo-fascism can not 'morph' into Marxism.
However, I'll give you a case study of corporate neo-fascism.
A country is invaded by a major world power and its infrastrucure destroyed. When the invasion is completed, the very lucrative contracts to rebuild the country's infrastructure are then given only to large corporations owned and run by friends of the invading country's leaders.
Your turn...
*I'm sorry but when I see the word 'morph' I can only think of Power Rangers.
Pat H
September 15th, 2008 2:24pmVery, very powerful article! People, we do not have long to wake up and take a stand before the light of freedom is extinguished for another thousand years.
whistler
September 15th, 2008 7:46pmSince Senator Obama worked as a Community Organizer for group sponsored by the Catholic church.
"Catholics across the country continue to be outraged by Republican politician Sarah Palin who repeated her smear against Catholic Action by mocking Barack Obama’s service as director of a community group sponsored by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (an arm of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops) and led by eight Catholic parishes on the South Side of Chicago."
http://catholicsforobama.blogspot.com/2008/09/catholics...
Is Ms. Phillips accusing the entire Catholic church of being Communists/Socalists/(followers of Sol Alensky) or just the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on down to Senator Obama?
Dan Grisham
September 15th, 2008 8:51pmListen up folks,
Barack Obama may look good and speak well (when properly coached)but he is still a communist dog that is going to start a revolution.
kcm
September 15th, 2008 9:02pmObama was a community organizer for a Catholic Charity; in the US, community organizing isn't synonymous with Marxism, it is synonymous with Catholicism--Catholic churches and charities make up the lion's share of community organizing here. Even a cursory googling of the topic would have revealed that to you had you been at all curious of the truth.
PS: It is impossible for we Americans to be Marxists in any real sense of that word, because everyone born in America is passionately committed to the idea of private property--to an unhealthy extent. Even us leftists. As my friend in Sweden says, even the left in the US is to the right of the right throughout Europe.
PPS: My country has been raped by the Right for the last 30 years; we are on the verge of collapse, and the last thing we need is President Palin. Please stay out of my country's politics. I am sure there are plenty leftist politicians for you to smear in the uK, such that you needn't concern yourself with ours.
Verity
September 15th, 2008 11:37pmkcm writes: "PS: It is impossible for we Americans to be Marxists in any real sense of that word, because everyone born in America is passionately committed to the idea of private property--to an unhealthy extent."
Barack Obama isn't (except his own), but then he isn't really an American in the normal sense of the word, is he? He's certainly not an Afro-American in that sense of the word, having no shared history with black people in the United States. He also travelled on an Indonesian passport for some time. He was strangely parachuted in. Perhaps he had dual citizenship.
KateA
September 16th, 2008 1:58amThis is a very confused debate. It conflates ideological terms and reeks of hysterical reaction/mania.
What is most striking, is the fanatical blame game. Is it not a fact that the USA has had a Republican government for eight years?
A Republican President has taken the country to war on two fronts, cut taxes for the wealthy whilst depleting reserves and, in the absence of sensible economic planning, the US economy is presently in free-fall.
How, logically, can the present state of the country be blamed on communists, liberals, socialists or left-wing 'radicals'? None of these have formulated government policy.
That Melanie, she of the rigorous intellect and (usually) meticulous research can write: "The seditious role of the community organiser was developed by an extreme left intellectual called Saul Alinsky.. ‘transformational Marxist’ in the mould of Antonio Gramsci", is a perfect illustration of the power of 'reactive' absolutism.
Misinformed 'labelling' and denigration, by association, of the legacy of a truly great American social reformer beggars belief.
What a strange world the American 'Right' appear to inhabit! Those who have 'achieved', or even those who just make ends meet, have no social obligation - apart from religious observance. The 'undeserving poor', i.e. the deprived and ignorant, should know their 'place' - give them ideas and they'll turn into communists and liberals!
Saul Alinsky - whom I have read - was NOT "a transformational Marxist" nor was he on “the extreme left”. He was NOT a disciple of Gramsci – he did not believe in a ‘cultural hegemony’ of the working class but in ‘natural’ conflict – debate and dissent - he was a Jew for heaven's sake; two of those in any room means the dissection of a premise.
Nor did he believe that ALL should have prizes. He understood that the 'American Dream' was only available to those sufficiently informed to 'play the game'. He knew, from personal experience, that the impoverished and uneducated needed teachers, leadership and guidance i.e. 'organisation'.
Were there one grain of evidence that Alinsky (b. 1909) was a communist/lefty/Marxist, he would not have escaped Joe McCarthy. The numbers of Jews persecuted under that particular insanity, one clearly resurfacing, are a legion.
The two great influences on Saul Alinsky's thinking were not Marx and Gramsci but his Orthodox Jewish mother and a revered Rabbi who had supported himself as a woodcutter to finance studies - Rabbi Hillel.
Alinsky detested mindless violence, and the revolutionary tactics of the youth of the time. He understood the pointlessness of violence because it was where he had come from. In his own words:
"The worst hostility was from the Poles ... Every once in a while, it would explode.., hundreds of Poles pouring in ... and we'd get up on the roofs with piles of bricks and pans of boiling water and slingshots ...some on both sides had real guns, so sometimes there'd be fatalities. ...Finally the cops would come.. They were all Irish and hated both, so they'd crack Polish and Jewish heads equally."
After one such incident, his mother took him to the local Rabbi for chastisement. He writes:
That day the Rabbi just looked at me for a minute and then said very quietly: "You think you're a man because you do what everybody does. But I want to tell you something the great Rabbi Hillel said: 'Where there are no men, be thou a man.' I want you to remember that." Saul continues: I've never forgotten it.
This was a man who pulled himself out of the ghetto. He studied archaeology and criminology and worked as criminologist. He saw the hypocrisy in the Madison Ave elite; the middle-class Protestant superiority, and the ignorance inherent in that attitude.
Alinsky's philosophy DID NOT advocate a dependency class living on social welfare. That's Nu Labour!! But yes, he was a social 'revolutionary'; he taught the revolution that comes with knowledge; a change in attitude and behaviours. He believed workers had as much right to information and, in particular, literacy, as any other section of society.
He was indeed a 'radical'. A principled radical, as was Margaret Thatcher, albeit from a very different perspective. Darling of the Right, Thatcher is the great 'radical' reformer; she advocated and facilitated drastic political, economic and social reform; she was a person of strong convictions and principles. So too Saul Alinsky. Strange, in his case, it is now a synonym for subversive, Marxist, communist, or 'violent' revolutionary?
For those waving the term fascist: historically one very clear element of fascist ideology is its ability to rally the people into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe. Fascism requires enemies; racial, ethnic or religious; liberals; communists; socialists, atheists, humanists, the undeserving poor, all these fit the bill perfectly. The communist version has as the enemies landlords, landowners, capitalists. Same song, just two versions.
While I have no allegiance to either party in America, I do, of course, have opinions - I think Obama is clever but intellectually immature. He presents as a naive man driven by his wife and his colour. I fully expect he will be assassinated if he wins.
I am not convinced that Sarah Palin is anything other than, as they say here in Ireland, a 'cute hoor' i.e. a self-promoting opportunist with ambitions beyond her capabilities. Terribly non-pc of course but applied (in the vernacular) to both male and female.
Andrew C.
September 16th, 2008 5:10amSo, kcm, why don't you leave? I'm constantly enduring leftist claims that 'our Left is so Right compared to the wonderful post-Christian European world', yet, you insist upon staying in the country whose values you despise. And you're clearly ignorant if you're unaware of the influence radical liberation theology (which is Marxist ) has had on the Catholic Church, not to mention the Protestant churches.
All of the left wingers here who equate Marxism with only revolutionary communism are ignorant. Marxism is not even solely an economic philosophy opposed to capitalism. It is a philosophy of opposition to Western Christendom, or Judeo-Christian civilization. Cultural Marxism has been far more important than economic Marxism ever was, and the intelligent Marxists, like Gramsci and Alinsky (and Obama bin Biden and Hillary for that matter) always understood this. Leftists who deny this are a) lying or b) too stupid to understand any of this. Makes no difference which to me.
THe problem, dp damato, in England is the Tories are NOT interested in opposing this. The only party I can see that is, is UKIP. And they're probably unknown to many.
All of the clueless lefty posters here have clearly never read Alinsky's Rules for Radicals or any Gramsci if they think they haven't had a tremendous influence on the baby boomer new left. But, what else is new when it comes to the ignorant.
Andrew C.
September 16th, 2008 10:58amKateA-1) THere is no such thing as "sensible economic planning". All govt. manipulated economic planning is terrible; and it's what's happened in the US. Fannie & Freddie took terrible risks precisely because they weren't RISKS! There was always an understanding that the US govt. would have to bail them out via taxpayer. And the bottom half of all American taxpayers pay virtually NO income tax-less than 3%. (A group I'm in, by the way, before you spout how I must be rich)The top 1% (people who make over $300k a year more or less) pays close to 40% of the income tax. THe top 10% pays almost 80% of the taxes. Saying that's "fair" is A) wrong and ridiculous, and b) YES, a MARXIST idea! Ideas matter and have consequences, or don't they teach you that in Ireland when they're filling your heads with gibberish about how we'll assassinate our first black president cause we're so racist and other inane nonsense? And yes, we believe in "social obligation" in America-because of our Christian heritage. Like you once did in Ireland and Britain. Not because the govt. has a right (they DON'T. Period.) to take our money and create a redistribution of wealth that's merely CALLED social obligation. In this country, the Constitution doesn't permit the latter, or at least didn't until the 16th Amendment which should be repealed. Maybe you should try reading it? And, no, you can't name a single Jew (or Gentile for that matter) that was truly and personally "persecuted" by Senator Joseph McCarthy, but I can see you've been indoctrinated on that subject as well. If you ever want to have the wool lifted from the eyes (I won't hold my breath) read Stan Evans's book, "Blacklisted by History".
Frank Pulley
September 16th, 2008 1:37pmAndrew C (5.10 & 10.58)
Well said, both posts.
I'm disaapointed that KateA, who normally writes good commentary on this blog, has fallen for Alinsky's propaganda. Her jibe about >'reactive' absolutism< indicates that she has either not understood what Melanie and most of the commentariat on this post are trying to say, or is being disingenuous.
She writes: "Strange, in his (Alinsky')case, it is now a synonym for subversive, Marxist, communist, or 'violent' revolutionary?"
That has not been suggested here as far as I understand it; rather the opposite. Are we not suggesting that Gramsci and others including Alinsky are proselytising for stealth rather than confrontation and Obama is the latest front for that methodology which has been so successful in plonking a counter-cultural hegemony in Europe, particularly Britain. And while it has been less successful in the US, it would be considered a signal victory if 'The Long Slow March' reached the White House via the Democrats' chosen Presidential candidate (or as Verity has dubbed him, 'The Manchurian Candidate'). I fear that KateA herself has assimilated, by osmosis, vestiges of the counter-cultural word-barrage.
KateA herself states:
But yes, [Alinski] was a social 'revolutionary'; he taught the revolution that comes with knowledge; a change in attitude and behaviours. He believed workers had as much right to information and, in particular, literacy, as any other section of society."
Gramscian ideology indeed. Except that KateA omits the stealth and dishonesty that is necessary to implant communism by subversion and against the wishes of the majority. It is not necessary to be a communist in order to be against untrammeled and rampant capitalistic greed that has led to most recent upheavals in the financial and fiscal free-for-all.
Verity
September 16th, 2008 2:18pmKate A writes accusingly: " Republican President has taken the country to war on two fronts,"
Thank God Republicans are blessed with clear vision and a pragmatic outlook.
I didn't bother to read the rest of your boilerplate Marxism. We've read it all before ... before ... before ... before ......
Andrew C. Heroic. Thank you.
Sally Sechler
September 16th, 2008 4:16pmThis British lady gets it!
We love our Sarah. We see through the Empty Suit guy with his Chicago-style "community organizing."
KateA
September 16th, 2008 4:23pmMust be a quiet day for overt Verity 'victims'. NO Verity. While nuance is not one of your strong points, I do not "write accusingly". I merely state a fact in questioning irrational allocation of responsibilities.
However, ruminations of any kind are unlikely to find favour with you; such is the inflated estimate of your own self-importance.
Please continue to disregard my thoughts. I have as little respect for vulgar, bullying 'superiority' as you have for genuine debate.
Verity
September 16th, 2008 5:44pmKate A writes: "Please continue to disregard my thoughts. I have as little respect for vulgar, bullying 'superiority' as you have for genuine debate."
Certainly, I will continue to disregard your thoughts because I've read them a thousand times before.
"vulgar, bullying, superiority" eh? There speaks someone not sure of their ground.
Obama is dangerous to America and thus, by exension, the structure of Western Judeo-Christian civilisation.
It baffles me that people can plainly see all the incongruities in this individual and simply close their eyes and go: "Blah blah blah blah, I can't hear you."
Obama is a very dangerous man. Infinitely more dangerous than Kruschev or his mates. Because he is fighting to be at the controls of the most powerful nation in the world.
BTW, did it ever occur to anyone that he was chosen (I believe when he was identified when he was young) precisely because he is black and opponents could be silenced by fear of being dubbed "racists"?
He's eerie. He's been programmed.
patricia
September 16th, 2008 6:04pmSarah Palin, is not ready to be the VP of the United States, plain and simple.
You can throw around your pseudo intellectual bullshit all you want. Go ahead say Sarah is great, Obama is a Marxist, the republicans have all the answers, woohoo!
Both sides have their issues. There are no simple POLITICAL answers or solutions. And if you can't see or understand this, wake up!
Go ahead continue to be right. Good on with ya all!
And to the individual picking apart Obama's name and trying to decipher a code. Holy hell. Get a grip.
The US unfortunately is headed for some
Verity
September 16th, 2008 6:13pmThis from the far left, posing as centrist, Washington Post (remember how they got their teeth into Watergate to destroy President Nixon?) written by one Richard Cohen:
What impressed me most about McCain was the effect he had on his audiences, particularly young people. When he talked about service to a cause greater than oneself, he struck a chord. He expressed his message in words, but he packaged it in the McCain story — that man, beaten to a pulp, who chose honor over freedom. This had nothing to do with access. It had to do with integrity.
McCain has soiled all that. His opportunistic and irresponsible choice of Sarah Palin as his political heir — the person in whose hands he would leave the country — is a form of personal treason, a betrayal of all he once stood for. Palin, no matter what her other attributes, is shockingly unprepared to become president. McCain knows that. He means to win, which is all right; he means to win at all costs, which is not.
Hat tip: Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs.
KateA
September 16th, 2008 8:01pmFrank Pulley: Thank you for a thoughtful, courteous, probing response. I am actually a social conservative and a passionate educationalist.
Circumstances alter cases; my experience is such that I recoil from all extreme ideologies and reject violence - verbal or physical.
Publicly confronting, over 30 years, the 'Marxist/fascist' terrorists on both sides of the Northern Irish divide leaves me wary of all absolutes. I still carry the physical scar left by a broken bottle across a shoulder; that incident led to all-encompassing resistance.
It took the form of volunteering - for adult education. I taught tertiary students by day and adult literacy in the evening. Likely one of the most rewarding experiences of my professional life.
As demand grew, I taught history, literature, and basic philosophy. Surely, I am well-read in Gramsci but adamantly oppose his Utopian vision. All are emphatically NOT capable of excellence but the majority, in specific circumstances, can be introduced to a concept of social mobility and, given the tools to help themselves to a decent life.
It was, of course, at this point I first read and admired Saul Alinsky. He wrote from a similar context - ghetto violence.
So Frank, neither 'left' by osmosis nor hypocritically ingenuous; my post was rather a defence of Saul Alinsky, and a genuine enquiry.
I DO find the fury, ego-mania and contempt for conflicting views, reminiscent of the extremes I listened to so often in the past.
That said, I do enjoy a reputation (among students) for provocative questioning and a somewhat sceptical vision - never accept anything at face value, dig for the facts, compare and contrast available information.
Extraordinary to find myself in the role of Rosa Luxemburg!
Me, a practising Irish Anglican, stuffed with family values, a disciplinarian, anti-yob, anti-Islamist, anti unregulated immigration, pro-deportation; an advocate of Rudy Giuliani's enforcement-deterrent strategy for Britain, and denounced as a Marxist/Lefty?
KateA
September 16th, 2008 10:18pmPerchance to dream Verity: "There speaks someone not sure of their ground." You WISH lady! Clinical transference or what?
I did not seek this exchange. I have never commented on your persistent symptoms.
Please be clear: you 'hit on' the wrong 'victim' this time. Let us not pursue it. My natural courtesy does not extend to rude, deluded, narcissistic personalities.
Frank Pulley
September 17th, 2008 12:33amYou know, Kate (can I drop the A, as if my memory serves me right you're the only Kate active on this blog?), I think that if you, Verity, myself - and perhaps even Melanie could get round a table with a large coffee percolator we could eventually thrash this out on amicable terms and come forth with an agreed manifesto. The precursors that we could all bring to the table would be personal experience and collated evidence that is sometimes too voluminous to summarise in a blog post either as the poster or part of the commentariat. I found your story very interesting and it explains your multi-faceted approach to this blog. Having been married to the Irish dimension for 50 years and -ahem - living in sorta sin with it for three years prior to that, I think I understand some of the nuances of your argument. In view of what you write, I shall probe more deeply into the names bandied about here, by Melanie and others including myself. There are other tributaties that are pouring into this watershed from far and wide. Watch this space and future posts on the subject as the US election gets into the vinegar strokes before the climax. The complexity of the Marxist and neo-Marxist networks is profound, as I am sure you understand. There are therefore many antidotes necessary, including my own (at times) rumbustuous approach, often frowned upon by the mediators hereupon, and Verity's full frontal attack, which often gets up the head of steam needed for these - er - debates, to tease out all the facets that make them so lively. Perhaps this is a tall order, but it would be interesting if you and Verity were to continue your debate without the iciness that developed above and thrash out some of your differences, as I have held you both in high esteem as a result of previous posts: in the case of Verity for several years and Kate since Melanie's and the Coffee House blogs emerged from this magazine a few months ago. C'mon, indulge an old man and get to it in an honest debate and let's all learn something; vive la difference and no holds barred!
Frank Pulley
September 17th, 2008 2:54amBetter still, Verity and Kate, do your stuff on Melanie's new post, which seems to have more than fulfilled my uncanny prescience and rendered this thread redundant.
Verity
September 17th, 2008 6:43pmFrank P - you are elegant, as always. There is, though, an edge of malice about this poster. I give you her most recent contribution:
Perchance to dream Verity: "There speaks someone not sure of their ground." You WISH lady! Clinical transference or what?
“I did not seek this exchange. I have never commented on your persistent symptoms.
“Please be clear: you 'hit on' the wrong 'victim' this time. Let us not pursue it. My natural courtesy does not extend to rude, deluded, narcissistic personalities.”
She apparently thinks the intemperate words of a stranger on a blog have the power to change lives.
I'll pass.
You have an Irish wife and are clearly more acclimatised to the temperament than am I!
Had this plea been written by anyone else, I wouldn't have bothered to respond, but we've been blog friends for years and I wouldn't not answer you.
And you are a most engaging peacemaker!
Kind regards.
ILoveAmerica
September 17th, 2008 7:00pmWhat a fantastic article! Melaine Phillips I salute you! The Media in the USA have bought in to this Marxist dogma and mouth these lies with their "change" mantra! They are so blinded by the one that Saul Alinsky dedicated his book to, that they can't see what is being done to them, GRAND MANIPULATION!
Frank Pulley
September 18th, 2008 1:46amVerity
Sigh... Ahh well! Marriages of minds are made in heaven, I suppose. Here we must rub along best we can, spark off each other and move on. Sad though...
Steve
September 18th, 2008 12:14pmThe UK Press is unafraid, unfettered by Party ties. Most of our Press is crack deep in the Democrat Party's back pocket. Great article.
Nico
September 18th, 2008 1:45pmBOKC? You mean you didn't know that it stands for Brotherhood of Knighted Communists?
Do I have to tell you guys everything?
KateA
September 18th, 2008 3:30pmFrank Pulley: Apologies, my brief note of appreciation (yesterday) seems to have disappeared into the ether.
Second time lucky? I can quite see how you 'seduced' my compatriot: that, 50 years ago, was some achievement! Clearly "age shall not diminish such delight". Many thanks.
So, no "malice"; just unambiguous aversion to a well-documented personality type.
Re. 'changing lives': It is a fact that research into youth suicide in Ireland has established a clear link to internet bullying. This is not a abstract premise; hard evidence emerged in 'saved' copies of vicious insults.
"The bitter word exposes only, the soul of the speaker; nothing of the Other". Indeed; but some are 'more fit' to thwart attack.
Finally, "The complexity of the Marxist and neo-Marxist networks is profound". Agreed.
So too the complexity and function and interaction of a huge variety of Protestant 'sects', designated the 'Religious Right', which appear to exercise 'profound' influence. The mind boggles!
But, as time (not much at the moment - Fresher intake) permits, I'm 'digging'. Main reason - Israel.
Jaycob
September 18th, 2008 7:09pmThat is why this country end up today suituation - so many orgaization in town to give and help - all kind of 3id world countries 'love' to be here to receieved + all yax payer by American. who want to work and pay for whole country to feed the world?there is every reason for every things and American is try to do the unreasanable things against the nature - organize something ....give, help ... to the far.... here wear a sun glasse so don't see the need here. it is the 20% of people create the middle class. after the tax add up to the 20% and we shall see all will end up no class of population in the country. will need all organization to support all walk of life because the 20% of high tax can walk and leave to orther place.... this is 'FREE' country. America already product nothing to its own now. who else can import goods/buy 'thing' to the daily life? why is people so blind? some life is not hument at all
Alan
September 18th, 2008 11:38pmThis is the best article I have read regarding Obama's background, how his political philosophy was shaped and what we have in store if he is elected president. I hope this article is picked up by many more major media outlets. It explains many things which are sometimes found in bits and pieces, but never so comprehensively and succinctly stated.
Frank Pulley
September 19th, 2008 3:00pmSacha baron Cohen (aka Jaycob)
V. droll!
Frank Pulley
September 19th, 2008 3:03pmKate
Hmmmnn. Now that should be interesting. :-)
Sizwe
September 19th, 2008 3:35pmWonderful analysis Melanie, pls keep up the good work.
John
September 21st, 2008 5:46pmAll I have to say is , that after eight long years of the Bush regime, the best the Democrats could come up with is Obama, and worse yet, the best the Republicans could come up with is McCain/Palin....the great U.S. of A might be in for a rough ride!
El Dia Octavo
October 14th, 2008 1:29pmFrank Pulley: Your comments were well thought-out and I pretty much agree. Thanks for expanding my thinking - as all good blogs should do.
John Doe: Your comment about the grievance theater is so succinct and artfully crafted that I copied it and emailed to some friends. Astute, clear and brief. A near perfect summation.
Finally, I have to agree that the people the far-left attack most viciously are the people they fear the most. Sarah Palin does represent what a great many leftists fear - normality and optimism. It is been my experience that eccentrics gravitate to eccentrics (not a bad thing...I'm a tad eccentric and have many eccentric friends). The smart ones recognize that they are, to one degree or another, listening to a different drummer but do not confuse personal preference with being correct.
I have a younger brother who is a genuinely nice person. He never has an unkind or rude word for anyone. He is pretty much happy, content, and "fully actualized" although some elitists would say, as an electrician, his blue-collar skilled trade simply cannot be esoteric enough to produce self actualization (they are profoundly wrong). On the very rare occasions when I've been asked who I most admire - who I see as a role model - I see my brother. I have always wanted to naturally be more like him and less like me. I'm not unhappy with myself but I do recognize that there are people out there who just have a positive, forgiving, tolerant, optimistic and peaceful frame of mind - they are just like that pretty much all the time. That's my brother and I admire him greatly. His natural state is happiness. All his life he’s just been pleased to wake up every day and drink in life. He’s got no bone to pick, no self-witnessed cross to bear (although he’s had more than his fair share of grief and burden), and never feels the need to convince someone else of the error of their ways. I must confess…that ain’t me. His eyes sparkle with humor and a smile – the one that plays across his face whenever he sees you – is real and comes from within. Yeah, I’d like to be a little more like that sometimes.
Peace.
George Fogg
October 26th, 2008 3:01amAdolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Tse Gung, were also "local organnizers" if that is indicative of anything.
Nerine
July 2nd, 2009 3:24pmHi guys. To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer.
I am from Marshall and also now teach English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Flea born michael peter balzary on october in burwood, early life michael as flea was then still known led a relatively conventional family."
Regards ;) Nerine.
Shaun Monahan
October 7th, 2009 7:04pmThis has nothing to do with the issues we as a country are facing all you are doing by publishing your views is furthering the racist and elitist views of rich america who have no thought of the less fortunate. All you care about is your sorry excuse of Capitalism which has 3% of the countrys population controling 90% of the $ which is sickening
ceo's of companys used to make 400% more than the base employee now we cant even count high enough to give you an accurate #. And you republicans hink this is good for us. Stop the propaganda and start talking about the issues. If you think its right for someone to suffer cause they cant afford adaquate healthcare than there is no hope for you or this nation. Peoples well being should allways come before dollar signs.
jeb stuart
February 1st, 2010 5:12pmThe analysis makes absolute sense. In the 80's, I was temporarily attending a State MA program in anaylsis. The advisor assigned a book that had radical content and then forbid me from discussing the radical aspects of the author's life, t author assigned was the publisher of "The Radical Left". During the Cold War, there are many professors in higher ed who believe the CIA had nothing better to do than spy on them. Because their work was sooooo 'importando'. They were a joke then and they are a joke now. About as funny as edgy humor in a really cool comedy club. No one want to accept their ideas are passe. "The evil that men do lives after them and the good is often interred with their bones."
xenical sans ordonnance
September 7th, 2011 9:33am2VHDL
Shoulder to the organs causing technique channels then. And in represent all. is is or because it will 200 40 person.
dmmaseoseoseo
December 12th, 2011 3:46pmpsychology paragraphs collapse standardise rolls album hormones grammatical eaten constabulary haystack