Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

College Mate: Obama Was an “Ardent” “Marxist-Leninist”

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
With all of the MSM attention on the GOP race, it is imperative that we also maintain a focus on the man who would be king, AGAIN!. Granted this information is not all that new for those who have researched Obamas history, his mentors and his ideology. Furthermore, it just explains even more why he has appointed like minded individuals to serve in key Czar positions like Cass Sunstein et al. Remember, Obama spoke of his affinity for his Marxist professors in his own book "Dreams..."

Now we have the words from his former friend at Occidental College. Not surprisingly, it was Obama's very recent "Coming Out" speech in Osawatomie, Kansas that stirred this discussion once again. (Side note: Osawatomie was also the name of the Bill Ayers fronted Weather Underground Newsletter during their years of domestic terrorism) Coincidence?? That's Ho Chi Minh on the cover





What did Obama say that brought cheers from the Left and jeers from the Right? Among other things, he stated that our relatively free enterprise system not only “doesn’t work” — “it has never worked.”



Well, consider the words of John Drew, a man whom writer Paul Kengor calls “Obama’s Missing Link.” A contemporary of Obama’s at Occidental College three decades ago, Drew says that he himself was a Marxist at the time — and part of Obama’s inner circle. And what does he reveal?

Obama was an “ardent” “Marxist-Leninist” who “was in 100 percent, total agreement with [his] Marxist professors,” said Drew.

In fact, Drew states that while he was a more nuanced Marxist who tried to convince Obama that old-style communist revolution was unrealistic in the West, the future President would have none of it and considered Drew a “reactionary.”


Is Obama any different now than his days at Occidental and Columbia? No! and he has given no indication otherwise to denounce his old way of thinking. He did just the opposite by boasting of his Marxist Professors in his own book. He has never looked back. Similar to his relationship with Jeremiah Wright.


But from Obama we see no visceral contempt for communism. What we do see, however, is a man who just a few years ago had an alliance with former Weathermen terrorist Bill Ayers, who called himself a “small c communist” and was caught on tape saying that 25 million capitalists may have to be killed to advance the Marxist program. Even more damnably, Obama appointed communists to office upon taking power. One of these was Van Jones, another man who called himself a communist; and a second example is former communications director Anita Dunn, who said that Mao Tse-tung — who murdered 60 to 70 million people — was one of her two favorite philosophers.


Don't forget Cass Sunstein, regulatory czar and social engineer, in that last group.


Unfortunately, for some people, this still isn’t enough to see a red flag and menace with regard to Barack Obama. Yet it doesn’t take a behavioral scientist from the FBI to draw proper conclusions from his profile. We have in the President a man who:

1. Had communist Frank Marshall Davis as childhood mentor.

2. Was a flat-out Marxist-Leninist in college.

3. Has no known history of renouncing these views.

4. Later in life built an alliance with a “small c” communist and other assorted radicals.

5. Upon achieving high office, appointed avowed communists to his administration.


So, where does that leave us? It leaves me on high alert as Obama and his handlers continue to reshape this nation and the world in their own image. The BIG question that must be asked is which model is he using for his grand sculpture??

There is no evidence to suggest that Obama has abandoned his former ways other than some political double speak and do as I say not as I do rhetoric. His actions and personal relationships speak volumes.

thenewamerican.com...
edit on 13-12-2011 by jibeho because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-12-2011 by jibeho because: error




posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
So this means that all the people who have been calling Obama socialist were right. Somehow the satisfaction of being right doesn't make me feel any better about this.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
And there is a growing army of communists and socialist all over the world.

Capitalism is dead.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Oh wow, someone from Obama's past actually remembers him...




posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Walks like a duck, acts like a duck, quacks like a duck.... Even his supporters have to question their beliefs after three years. Sure, the ones who take 'Obama' pills see nothing wrong, but all the independents from the last election have to be kicking themselves in the arse for not seeing this.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
He's a puppet mate

It wouldn't matter if he believed that all squirrels should be hailed as our lords and masters, he doesn't have much more power than any other celebrity.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Whats wrong with communism exactly? I can never understand why americans hate marxism so much. Why not take the time to read The Communist Manifesto and try to understand it? Rather than just hate on it because that's the american way......



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Atzil321
Whats wrong with communism exactly? I can never understand why americans hate marxism so much. Why not take the time to read The Communist Manifesto and try to understand it? Rather than just hate on it because that's the american way......

Because it looks great on paper on campus; but somehow just never seems to turn out that way in application. Through all the fancy party speak doubletalk Comrades at the top universally increase their power base and enrich themselves and their cronies at the expense of the people sacrificing for the state.Too much power in the hands of too few. Bloody history will bear this out :

( wait for it.... wait ..for ..it)
"but thats' not "real communism"the book smart apologists all shout back in unison .
Whatever your goodhearted intellect gets from the manifesto: it's a means of consolidating and holding onto centralised power
And turns murderous rather rapidly.


Death to communists.no discussion in mybook.
edit on 13-12-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Atzil321
Whats wrong with communism exactly? I can never understand why americans hate marxism so much. Why not take the time to read The Communist Manifesto and try to understand it? Rather than just hate on it because that's the american way......


Because socialism (derived from marxism) fails every time and is failing before our eyes in Europe as we speak. I don't want that in my nation nor did my relatives who died fighting against its spread.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Atzil321
Whats wrong with communism exactly? I can never understand why americans hate marxism so much. Why not take the time to read The Communist Manifesto and try to understand it? Rather than just hate on it because that's the american way......


They don't have any rational reason and simply disregard everything modern marxists, even the anti-leninist (read: anti-soviet) ones say. They don't make any effort to actually learn political theory and so they have a very primitive/basic understanding, yet still lack knowledge of even the most elementary facts, such as that marxists disagree with each other more than they disagree with capitalism. The person above who thinks there's some "giant growing global marxist movement" would be shocked to find out the actual state of revolutionary left politics - they are fragmented and broken, torn because half of them are the intellectual inheritors of a movement that waged a vicious ideological war against Marxist-Leninists, and the other half are the dregs of Marxist-Leninist groups struggling to remain relevant in a world where even most communists reject their ideas. Marxism-hating Americans who think there's a big communist conspiracy to destroy their country are the product of generations of extremist propaganda being force-fed down their throats by a giant, bloated corporate state doing everything it can to protect itself. If they actually did any research, tried to educate themselves or - gasp! - spoke to real communists, they would realise that there is no way in hell marxists in 2011 could ever organise some sort of conspiracy nation-wide, let alone globally. They are simply too ideologically fragmented and sectarian to even agree on basic ideological issues.

..and realistically, the people who so successfully vilified marxism in the US have done a brilliant job protecting themselves. The very people and organisations who are crushing the American people (read: corporate america) are the ones that the paranoid "communists coming to get us" people protect the most. In many a thread you can find them, viciously defending the corporate state that has driven down living standards, torn apart the bill of rights, and crushed the people under a steel capped boot for decades.
edit on 13/12/11 by Yazman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yazman

Originally posted by Atzil321
Whats wrong with communism exactly? I can never understand why americans hate marxism so much. Why not take the time to read The Communist Manifesto and try to understand it? Rather than just hate on it because that's the american way......


They don't have any rational reason and simply disregard everything modern marxists, even the anti-leninist (read: anti-soviet) ones say. They don't make any effort to actually learn political theory and so they have a very primitive/basic understanding, yet still lack knowledge of even the most elementary facts, such as that marxists disagree with each other more than they disagree with capitalism. The person above who thinks there's some "giant growing global marxist movement" would be shocked to find out the actual state of revolutionary left politics - they are fragmented and broken, torn because half of them are the intellectual inheritors of a movement that waged a vicious ideological war against Marxist-Leninists, and the other half are the dregs of Marxist-Leninist groups struggling to remain relevant in a world where even most communists reject their ideas. Marxism-hating Americans who think there's a big communist conspiracy to destroy their country are the product of generations of extremist propaganda being force-fed down their throats by a giant, bloated corporate state doing everything it can to protect itself. If they actually did any research, tried to educate themselves or - gasp! - spoke to real communists, they would realise that there is no way in hell marxists in 2011 could ever organise some sort of conspiracy nation-wide, let alone globally. They are simply too ideologically fragmented and sectarian to even agree on basic ideological issues.

..and realistically, the people who so successfully vilified marxism in the US have done a brilliant job protecting themselves. The very people and organisations who are crushing the American people (read: corporate america) are the ones that the paranoid "communists coming to get us" people protect the most. In many a thread you can find them, viciously defending the corporate state that has driven down living standards, torn apart the bill of rights, and crushed the people under a steel capped boot for decades.
edit on 13/12/11 by Yazman because: (no reason given)


can you name one large scale example where communism was/is honestly successful for everyone involved?

just one example is all. and some isolated island tribe of 3,000 natives in the middle of nowhere doesnt count because it doesnt translate or apply to a country with 300,000,000.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
A quick look at the history of Jamestown, will help illustrate what happens when incentive to improves ones lifestyle becomes an option. Or, what the consequences of sharing the burden are. Communism has never worked for anyone but those in charge.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
A quick look at the history of Jamestown, will help illustrate what happens when incentive to improves ones lifestyle becomes an option. Or, what the consequences of sharing the burden are. Communism has never worked for anyone but those in charge.


Thank you for bringing up that example! I was just going to add it, but you already have! :-)

If Communism was successful, it would've worked in Jamestown, I firmly believe.

I'm scared at how many people have turned up in this thread to proclaim how awesome Marxism is. Wow.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
John C. Drew is a fraud.

Now he claims to have been a college mate of Obama's? They never went to school together at the same time. By his own earlier he only met Obama twice, and one of those was at a party thrown by a 19-yr old Obama at a house he shared with an exchange student (Chandoo).

This is the same character that had claimed he was Obama roommate in posts to the NY Times and those were proven completely false - they were never roommates. This character is full of baloney.


He's claimed to a former roommate, claimed to have been an actual classmate, then to having only met him twice (and those meetings were very casual and circumstantial) and now claiming he was part of his inner circle?


Dr. John C. Drew has talked about knowing President Obama in blog posts, interviews and tweets. He was never a student at Occidental at the same time, yet describes himself as a classmate. He admits meeting the President just twice. Once for an evening during a visit to California in December 1980, when he was a graduate student at Cornell and Obama was a sophomore at Occidental College, then at a party at Obama’s house at Occidental in June 1981:

“I met him later that same year in late December 1980. At the time, I was in my second year of graduate school at Cornell. I was visiting a girlfriend who was still attending Occidental College who introduced me to him and his friend Mohammed Hasan Chandoo, a wealthy Pakistani student.”

“We had a nice meal, and then we came back to the house and smoked cigarettes and drank and argued politics.”
For the next several hours, they discussed Marxism.

Drew saw Obama again at a party Obama and Chandoo gave in June 1981 at the house they shared.

Drew concluded that Obama thought of himself as “part of an intelligent, radical vanguard that was leading the way towards this revolution and towards this new society.”

Based on spending just a few hours with the President when he was 19 years old, in a relaxed social setting at an age when most students enjoy exploring and trying new ideas and thoughts, Drew concluded the President was and still is a radical Marxist. Drew himself has radically changed his thinking - he once considered himself a Marxist and is now a conservative. But he doesn’t allow that President Obama has changed at all in 30 years. Not only is the President not a Marxist, he no longer calls himself Barry either.


Who Is John Drew?


This page is a result of a recent conflict between myself and John Drew, aka John Drew, PhD, aka Anonymous Political Scientist, on EphBlog.com. EphBlog is a Williams College alumni site which my company hosts and administers on a volunteer basis.

My intent in creating this site is to present some of the unvarnished truth about who John Drew really is, as well as the ultimately flimsy nature and veracity of Drew's extreme claims regarding President Obama's so-called "Marxism".

I personally disagree with much of Obama's agenda and actions, and am displeased with his record. I understand how many conservatives may find Drew's claims appealing. However, intelligent and honest conservatism demands examining Drew's claims about Obama (and about himself) in the light of facts as well as our values.

Lying and distortion are not part of our American values.

Who Is John C. Drew, PhD, 'Anonymous Political Scientist', "Debunker" of Barack Obama as a "Marxist"

The above article goes into depth on Drew's lies and his misrepresentations of his own professional record.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 
I don't realy think it's awsome. I do think parts of it could be incorporated into capitalism to create a better system for everyone. Redistribution of wealth and more social programs to lift people out of poverty ect. But most americans are vehemently opposed to the idea....



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Actually, this is good news for Obama. We all know he is a Marxist, the real surprise is that somebody from college remembers him!!



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Norway, a country often touted as a success story for state sponsored nationalism/socialism (whatever) has a wee crisis right now.
In my thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...
(shameless plug, sorry
)
They have a butter shortage. It's now at @500.00 dollars a pound. Which is a beautiful example of what happens when government controls a resource.

Which leads me back to why it is a bad thing to have a marxist-leninist as president.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Interesting! Just as many inconsistencies with Drew's story as there are with Obama's fable. Must be something in the water at Occidental. Luckily, we still have Obama's words, actions and relationships to connect him with. John Drew Aside!



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Here is the problem we encounter with the 1960s onward Communists. Because of the radical changes that took place in, and reshaped, the Communist movement many can pass themselves off as Neoliberals even without having to advocate the Stalinist economic program. Actually these are the anti-Stalin Communist radicals who came about during the 1960s counterculture movement known today as the ‘New Left’. Its founding father was Herbert Marcuse and the entire New Left was spawned in major part from his ‘Eros and Civilization’ which spread faster than ‘Das Kapital’ because it was easier for the average student to consume.

These are not Stalin Communists like most are trained to think, they are inspired in large part by Lenin and Trotsky. Hell, even the Neoconservative movement has its intellectual roots traced back to 1930s Trotskyites. But the fact is these were anti-authoritarian Communists who devoted much of their time to studies in Sociology, Psychology, and the later ethnic studies. These three groups were hugely influenced by the works of the Cultural Marxists or, Freudian Marxists, who organized within the Institute for Social Research (i.e. Frankfurt School).

They were stumped that Marx’s predictions did not come true during WWI when the proletariat fought for their nation rather than link arms with all the proletariat globally. When Russia became the first authentic Marxist country it should have caused revolutions in every other Western nation, but that did not happen. So several Jewish Marxists got together to find out why, after several years of research they formed the conclusion that the proletariat will not rise up because of the culture.

Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany shortly after they made their findings and kicked them out of Germany where they came to the United States. It was here that they concluded Americans shared the same personality traits that allowed for Fascism to rise in Germany; this was called the ‘Authoritarian Personality’. This they concluded was developed from an upbringing in the bourgeois patriarchal family or, nuclear family, where the acceptance of authority was established by the father figure. Because of this the workers would not rebel against their employers and thus the proletariat revolution would never develop among the Western workers because of their culture.

Gyorgy Lukacs helped draft these ideas after he first implemented them in Socialist Hungary before the Rumanian Army invaded to overthrow the regime; where the citizens did not fight back. They despised the Socialist government mostly because of what Lukacs did in education; he began teaching sexual promiscuity, free love, and contraception to the Hungarian youth which was entirely contrary to established ethics in the society.

With these ideas the Frankfurt School developed Critical Theory which simplified means simply ‘to criticize’. By this they would teach criticism of the entire Western society and its institutions, civil and sacred. Under Roosevelt and Truman two men from the FS were allowed into the army to test their psychological ideas on the Allied occupied Germany. This was a form of re-education of the population based upon their designed techniques which after being tested there were brought back to the United States then spread throughout Western Europe.

Another major contributor to their implementation was Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci who came up with the ‘long march through the institutions’, which was a form of thought already circulating throughout Leninist-Trotskyite circles in Europe and North America. The new era of Communists implemented this by infiltration of critical institutions of Western society; education, media, civil government, military, think tanks, etc… and slowly implemented their ideas in those key areas so as to best influence society.

Well since they abandoned the idea of a working-class proletariat revolution they began to consider alternative. From this they decided that the nuclear family must be deconstructed, that was the most important, then came their new proletariat. This would be made up of rebellious youth (encouraged by sexual promiscuity, atheism, and new age), non-integrated minorities such as racial, religious, sexual, and ethnic, and the importing of mass immigration from third world countries to undermine native wages (causing labor agitation) and tension. From this complete disunity of society they, along with the natural consequences of disunity, tear down the bourgeois economic order causing mass tension and chaos leading the masses into Communism.


How did they get away with it? They developed their own form of speech control (every totalitarian state/society must have one) where if you say/write something deemed offensive to the (un)official dogma then you could be reprimanded through censor, loss of employment, social persecution, name added to a list (i.e. UK), and/or arrested for speech violations. All of this would run under the guise of anti-Fascism, which we saw arise largely during the 1960s with the demonization of all Traditionalist Conservatism and Nationalism as akin to Nazism. We today call this speech/thought control, warned of by George Orwell, ‘Political Correctness’.

So… is Obama a Communist? Probably, but not the kind they want you to think. By saying, he is a Communist they return; how is that, what economic policy has he implemented that is Communist? They can shut you up that way because it is true, he has done no economic policy that is Communist but you are never taught about Cultural Marxism, so how can you argue back? Obama is a Cultural Marxist, just as everyone who has been influenced or is part of the New Left. This was the rise of the culture wars because it is a cultural ideology invented to tear down Western culture to cause mass chaos then herd the masses into Marxism.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.schillerinstitute.org...

edit on 12/13/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Obama is the worst Marxist ever. Any beliefs he had in college are well and truly dead. Because to call him a Marxist today would be no different than to consider Bush an advocate for free markets.

Marxism is awesome btw. Get mad, Capitalist swine





new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join