Creeping Marxism

[brassmonkey]

I copied this from the UU Bulletin Board area because it is political, and I want to talk about it in a political light.

For those of you who are so simple as to read this and call me an alarmist or extremist, think about what this story says-"government's voluntary land redistribution program." Anything sound familiar about that? Think about Obama and his desire to redistribute wealth. Let's hope they don't try to collect on the 40 Acres and a Mule promise.....

Another thing I've seen is a bunch of people going, "Oh, wow! What have we done?" They've defeated George Bush, but I think many of them are finally realizing that George Bush wasn't running, and now they have a marxist in office. Blacks make up only 13%, or so, of our population, but what did the Nazis make up of the German population-10%? And look at what Hitler was able to accomplish. Scary. If only he could arm them, things in this country would get very ugly. Are you familiar with what happened in Zimbabwe where the blacks had an uprising when Robert Mugabe was elected and took all the white-owned farms and land to so that blacks could exert their dominance? Well, it took some time, but they realized that, even though blacks owned all the land and farms now, they can't farm!!! And they were starving to death, so they begged the white farmers to come back, but by that time all the blacks had stolen all the piping, pumps and anything else of value, and the farms couldn't function, even with the best farmer..

This news was so disturbing that I kept it from 2002, and I could easily see this happening under Obama with all his sickening socialist world support and views, combined with his career of fighting for the rights of black people!

"Staff Reporter
WINDHOEK, 29 August 2002
Namibia President Sam Nujoma has warned white farmers they should comply with his government's voluntary land redistribution program.

WINDHOEK: Local media quotes Nujoma as saying if farmers do not hand over their land it would be taken from them.

Nujoma says his government plans to seize, in accordance with the law, 192 farms belonging to absentee landlords.

In Zimbabwe, the government has ordered 2,900 white commercial farmers to surrender their farms to landless blacks without compensation. Over the past week, the government has arrested at least 200 farmers, who have defied eviction orders to leave their land.

Some information for this report provided by AFP and AP.


(Voice of America News)"


If you're unaware of the viciousness and ignorance that eixists in the seething underbelly of this country in the inner cities, watch this video. I've been watching this whole series, and it's sickening.




Here's one story about the farm theft by blacks once empowered: (pasted below)

White farms 'cleansed' by Mugabe mobs

Last Updated: 12:01am GMT /08/2001

WHEN a mob laid siege to Two Trees farm yesterday, sealing off the property with roadblocks, a carefully planned operation swung into action to sow terror among the white landowners around Chinhoyi.

Barely seven hours later, the owner of Two Trees and 19 other farmers had fled, leaving the mobs in complete control of the area - free to loot the homesteads and assault the black farm workers at will.

It was the latest escalation of President Robert Mugabe's offensive against white farmers, and amounted to the ethnic cleansing of a swathe of Zimbabwe's most fertile region.

The mob violence unleashed against whites on the streets of Chinhoyi 75 miles north-west of Harare, on Tuesday has been spread to nearby farms - shattering the tightly knit rural community. Among those fleeing last night was Les de Jager, the owner of Two Trees, near Lion's Den, about 30 miles north of Chinhoyi. He was driving to South Africa.

Earlier in the day, the mob - with military precision - had sealed off his farmhouse by felling trees across the road. They seized tractors and trailers, loaded them with all of Mr de Jager's fertiliser and drove them away.

Charl Geldehys, the farm manager, confronted the thieves. They shot his dog and then opened fire on him, missing narrowly. He retreated into the homestead, with his wife, Tertia, his sick daughter, Maritia, 12, and eight-month-old baby girl. Neighbouring farmers heard Tertia Geldehys sobbing over the radio.

The family huddled in the homestead with Mr de Jager for seven hours, listening to the baying mob. Their telephone line was cut and only the radio link with other farmers saved them from total isolation.

The siege was broken at 3pm when police finally responded, accompanied by Peter Chanetsa, the provincial governor. Yet the family's ordeal was not over. They were berated by the squatters, while cameras from state television rolled to capture every moment of their ritual humiliation.

Mr Geldehys took his family to a safe house on the outskirts of Chinhoyi. A friend said: "He's in a very bad way. He's just too upset to talk to anyone right now."

The mobs were then joined by hundreds of members of the youth league of Mr Mugabe's ruling Zanu-PF party. A general alert was broadcast to farmers in the Doma-Mhangura area. Hastily packing whatever belongings were to hand, they pulled out of their homes.

As they fled, the mobs moved in. One farmer, who asked not to be named, said: "The squatters went absolutely mad. They stripped the farmhouses. They looted everything they could."

Black workers were rounded up and forced to fill tractor trailers with the looted possessions. Scores were beaten. Jenni Williams, of the Commercial Farmers' Union, said: "Many of the workers have been taken for 're-education'."

This is a Zanu-PF euphemism for the violent intimidation of voters.

Taking the families of workers into account, perhaps 10,000 blacks lived on the farms that have been evacuated. Their fate, in an area dominated by Mr Mugabe's mobs, is unclear. The panic later spread, once again, to the town of Chinhoyi. Lomagundi school, which serves the area's white farmers, closed a day early for the half-term break. A bus that would have driven the children to the town was abandoned. It would have been too easy a target. At the farming town of Karoi, 70 miles up the road, the Rydings school also closed early as a precaution.

When the farmers' union sent a plane over the area north of Chinhoyi at 3pm, the only figures visible in the lush fields were squatters.

Those farmers who remained were huddled fearfully inside their homesteads. None would be named for fear of reprisals. One said: "They're just waiting for us. Its very hard to restrain feelings of fear and anger, especially at night."

*** When President Robert Mugabe's mobs launched their attacks on white-owned farms around Chinhoyi, they would have been inspired by the example of the first heroes of the war against colonial rule.

The small town, nestling amid the lush fields of Zimbabwe's agricultural heartland, is the cradle of the "liberation struggle". Few places have such importance in Mr Mugabe's carefully crafted mythology.

In 1966, a small band of poorly trained guerrillas infiltrated white Rhodesia from neighbouring Zambia and went south towards Chinhoyi, then called Sinoia.

They tried to blow up power pylons and raided a farm, killing Hendrik Viljoen and his wife. Rhodesian forces ambushed them and hunted them with helicopters for most of the next day. All 14 guerrillas were killed.

Mr Mugabe later hailed this defeat as the Battle of Chinhoyi, marking the onset of the bush war against Ian Smith's government. The next serious attacks were not launched until December 1972, when farms around Centenary were raided.

Heroes' Day, the annual occasion on which Zimbabweans remember the dead from the war, falls on Monday. This year is the 35th anniversary of the Battle of Chinhoyi. It is clear why the latest offensive against white farmers has occurred now, and why those around Chinhoyi were singled out.

The war against Rhodesia is known as the Second Chimurenga - "revolution". Mr Mugabe has hailed the campaign to seize white-owned land as the Third Chimurenga and the "final liberation". His inflammatory speeches stoke revolutionary zeal.

Chinhoyi is barely 20 miles from Mr Mugabe's home district, Zvimba, enhancing its significance. White farmers are paying the price for living in the cradle of Zimbabwe.

[homebase]

The way I see it brassmonkey is the people that so readily accepted the Obama campaign message of hope and change are looking to and for government to fix the problems that they (government) created. That is not going to happen. The cheers will turn to tears soon enough.

Obama is not going to turn his back on his major contributors and the very ones that put him in office. Which is not, btw, the voters. Yes, he got the votes but he got the money first!

I don't care who he puts in any office, they will goose step also. The question is, will Obama have the stomach to execute what is required of him? He already changed positions on some issues during the campaign, carefully reworded others. All those poor blacks and many whites and browns for that matter that are looking to him to be their savior are not going to be any richer ... his promises are unsustainable. What they will find as security is low paying government jobs provided they pass all the security requirements and dictates of regulations. For an extra bonus you are going to be able to drop your kids off at your nearest government regulated socialization and indoctrination institution while you have the privilege to live your life of servitude and meager means.



Time will tell.

[homebase]

From Kennedy to Obama: Liberalism's last fling

Writing in the New Statesman, John Pilger refers back to his travels with Robert Kennedy to describe the false hopes offered by those, like Barack Obama, who exploit the appeal of liberalism then present a very different reality.

In this season of 1968 nostalgia, one anniversary illuminates today. It is the rise and fall of Robert Kennedy, who would have been elected president of the United States had he not been assassinated in June 1968. Having travelled with Kennedy up to the moment of his shooting at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles on 5 June, I heard The Speech many times. He would “return government to the people” and bestow “dignity and justice” on the oppressed. “As Bernard Shaw once said,” he would say, “‘Most men look at things as they are and wonder why. I dream of things that never were and ask: Why not?’” That was the signal to run back to the bus. It was fun until a hail of bullets passed over our shoulders.

Kennedy’s campaign is a model for Barack Obama. Like Obama, he was a senator with no achievements to his name. Like Obama, he raised the expectations of young people and minorities. Like Obama, he promised to end an unpopular war, not because he opposed the war’s conquest of other people’s land and resources, but because it was “unwinnable”.

Should Obama beat John McCain to the White House in November, it will be liberalism’s last fling. In the United States and Britain, liberalism as a war-making, divisive ideology is once again being used to destroy liberalism as a reality. A great many people understand this, as the hatred of Blair and new Labour attest, but many are disoriented and eager for “leadership” and basic social democracy. In the US, where unrelenting propaganda about American democratic uniqueness disguises a corporate system based on extremes of wealth and privilege, liberalism as expressed through the Democratic Party has played a crucial, compliant role.

In 1968, Robert Kennedy sought to rescue the party and his own ambitions from the threat of real change that came from an alliance of the civil rights campaign and the anti-war movement then commanding the streets of the main cities, and which Martin Luther King had drawn together until he was assassinated in April that year. Kennedy had supported the war in Vietnam and continued to support it in private, but this was skilfully suppressed as he competed against the maverick Eugene McCarthy, whose surprise win in the New Hampshire primary on an anti-war ticket had forced President Lyndon Johnson to abandon the idea of another term. Using the memory of his martyred brother, Kennedy assiduously exploited the electoral power of delusion among people hungry for politics that represented them, not the rich.

“These people love you,” I said to him as we left Calexico, California, where the immigrant population lived in abject poverty and people came like a great wave and swept him out of his car, his hands fastened to their lips.

“Yes, yes, sure they love me,” he replied. “I love them!” I asked him how exactly he would lift them out of poverty: just what was his political philosophy?

“Philosophy? Well, it’s based on a faith in this country and I believe that many Americans have lost this faith and I want to give it back to them, because we are the last and the best hope of the world, as Thomas Jefferson said.”

“That’s what you say in your speech. Surely the question is: How?”

“How?... by charting a new direction for America.”

The vacuities are familiar. Obama is his echo. Like Kennedy, Obama may well “chart a new direction for America” in specious, media-honed language, but in reality he will secure, like every president, the best damned democracy money can buy.

As their contest for the White House draws closer, watch how, regardless of the inevitable personal smears, Obama and McCain draw nearer to each other. They already concur on America’s divine right to control all before it. “We lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good,” said Obama. “We must lead by building a 21st-century military... to advance the security of all people [emphasis added].” McCain agrees. Obama says in pursuing “terrorists” he would attack Pakistan. McCain wouldn’t quarrel. Both candidates have paid ritual obeisance to the regime in Tel Aviv, unquestioning support for which defines all presidential ambition. In opposing a UN Security Council resolution implying criticism of Israel’s starvation of the people of Gaza, Obama was ahead of both McCain and Hillary Clinton. In January, pressured by the Israel lobby, he massaged a statement that “nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people” to now read: “Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognise Israel [emphasis added].” Such is his concern for the victims of the longest, illegal military occupation of modern times. Like all the candidates, Obama has furthered Israeli/Bush fictions about Iran, whose regime, he says absurdly, “is a threat to all of us”.

On the war in Iraq, Obama the dove and McCain the hawk are almost united. McCain now says he wants US troops to leave in five years (instead of “100 years”, his earlier option). Obama has now “reserved the right” to change his pledge to get troops out next year. “I will listen to our commanders on the ground,” he now says, echoing Bush. His adviser on Iraq, Colin Kahl, says the US should maintain up to 80,000 troops in Iraq until 2010. Like McCain, Obama has voted repeatedly in the Senate to support Bush’s demands for funding of the occupation of Iraq; and he has called for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan. His senior advisers embrace McCain’s proposal for an aggressive “league of democracies”, led by the United States, to circumvent the United Nations. Like McCain, he would extend the crippling embargo on Cuba.

Amusingly, both have denounced their “preachers” for speaking out. Whereas McCain’s man of God praised Hitler, in the fashion of lunatic white holy-rollers, Obama’s man, Jeremiah Wright, spoke an embarrassing truth. He said that the attacks of 11 September 2001 had taken place as a consequence of the violence of US power across the world. The media demanded that Obama disown Wright and swear an oath of loyalty to the Bush lie that “terrorists attacked America because they hate our freedoms”. So he did. The conflict in the Middle East, said Obama, was rooted not “primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel”, but in “the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam”. Journalists applauded. Islamophobia is a liberal speciality.

The American media love both Obama and McCain. Reminiscent of mating calls by Guardian writers to Blair more than a decade ago, Jann Wenner, founder of the liberal Rolling Stone, wrote: “There is a sense of dignity, even majesty, about him, and underneath that ease lies a resolute discipline... Like Abraham Lincoln, Barack Obama challenges America to rise up, to do what so many of us long to do: to summon ‘the better angels of our nature’.” At the liberal New Republic, Charles Lane confessed: “I know it shouldn’t be happening, but it is. I’m falling for John McCain.” His colleague Michael Lewis had gone further. His feelings for McCain, he wrote, were like “the war that must occur inside a 14-year-old boy who discovers he is more sexually attracted to boys than to girls”.

The objects of these uncontrollable passions are as one in their support for America’s true deity, its corporate oligarchs. Despite claiming that his campaign wealth comes from small individual donors, Obama is backed by the biggest Wall Street firms: Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, J P Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse, as well as the huge hedge fund Citadel Investment Group. “Seven of the Obama campaign’s top 14 donors,” wrote the investigator Pam Martens, “consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages.” A report by United for a Fair Economy, a non-profit group, estimates the total loss to poor Americans of colour who took out sub-prime loans as being between $164bn and $213bn: the greatest loss of wealth ever recorded for people of colour in the United States. “Washington lobbyists haven’t funded my campaign,” said Obama in January, “they won’t run my White House and they will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am president.” According to files held by the Centre for Responsive Politics, the top five contributors to the Obama campaign are registered corporate lobbyists.

What is Obama’s attraction to big business? Precisely the same as Robert Kennedy’s. By offering a “new”, young and apparently progressive face of the Democratic Party – with the bonus of being a member of the black elite – he can blunt and divert real opposition. That was Colin Powell’s role as Bush’s secretary of state. An Obama victory will bring intense pressure on the US anti-war and social justice movements to accept a Democratic administration for all its faults. If that happens, domestic resistance to rapacious America will fall silent.

America’s war on Iran has already begun. In December, Bush secretly authorised support for two guerrilla armies inside Iran, one of which, the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, is described by the state department as terrorist. The US is also engaged in attacks or subversion against Somalia, Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Bolivia and Venezuela. A new military command, Africom, is being set up to fight proxy wars for control of Africa’s oil and other riches. With US missiles soon to be stationed provocatively on Russia’s borders, the Cold War is back. None of these piracies and dangers has raised a whisper in the presidential campaign, not least from its great liberal hope.

Moreover, none of the candidates represents so-called mainstream America. In poll after poll, voters make clear that they want the normal decencies of jobs, proper housing and health care. They want their troops out of Iraq and the Israelis to live in peace with their Palestinian neighbours. This is a remarkable testimony, given the daily brainwashing of ordinary Americans in almost everything they watch and read.

On this side of the Atlantic, a deeply cynical electorate watches British liberalism’s equivalent last fling. Most of the “philosophy” of new Labour was borrowed wholesale from the US. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were interchangeable. Both were hostile to traditionalists in their parties who might question the corporate-speak of their class-based economic policies and their relish for colonial conquests. Now the British find themselves spectators to the rise of new Tory, distinguishable from Blair’s new Labour only in the personality of its leader, a former corporate public relations man who presents himself as Tonier than thou. We all deserve better.