The Obama Tapes

[Gettnitdone]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Obama praising the tangible good work this Bell guy has done i.e. promote equal racial rights in education (at the student and teacher level).
[/quote]

Bell is a racist bigot who went on a “strike” in order to force Harvard to employ a “female of color” because Bell wanted any black female professor employed. Obama joined him and led his strike. Obama was 30-years-old, head of the Harvard Law Review and Obama put Bell’s racist works in his syllabus.

"Not long before this show of affection(hugging Bell,) Bell had been called into the university president’s office to explain why he had sent him a letter filled with violent fantasies - including their own death from a bomb planted in his office by white racists. Bell explained that such extremism is what it would take to get the administration to agree to grant more affirmative-action programs.

Harvard’s honcho wasn’t amused. Bell groused he just didn’t get it. But who would? Apparently his star pupil. And that’s what’s so unsettling.

At the pro-Bell rally, Obama took to the mike as if he were his spokesman. He commended Bell’s “excellence in scholarship,” adding that he “changed the standards of what legal writing is about.” - Investors Business Daily

People are correct that there’s nothing new here. Obama is a scumbag racist and class warfare bigot. We already know.[/quote]

You’re attempting character assassination on Obama by way of assumptions (i.e. on associations) not facts.

Class warfare - maybe; but then again if he’s into class warfare so is every other liberal. Make that statement if you want.

Racist - yeah he hates white people (like his own mother, grandmother and best friends)

[SexMachine]

[quote]florelius wrote:

Really! extreme marxists?

[/quote]

Yes florelius.

You want to try again?

No

the bader meinhoff group in germany or brigade rosso in italy would be correctly called extreme marxist,

Absolutely. They were Frankfurt school Marxist extremists. If you go to the wikipedia entry on the Red Army Faction you will see this under influences:

Philosophers associated with the Frankfurt school(Jurgen Habermas, Herbert Marcuse, and Oskar Negt in particular.)

but the frankfurter guys
where rather dull in comparison, more pencil pushing types than blowing up shit types.

Same with Marx and Engels. They never blew up anything. A pair of pencil pushing dullards.

…not really extreme from my point of wiew.

Yes, advocating class warfare and violent revolution, the abolition of private property and private land, abolition of the right of inheritance, proscriptions of “rebels”, the “abolition of the family” and the construction of an utopian “dictatorship of the proletariat” is not extreme. Whatever you say florelius. How about being a spy and agent provocateur for the Soviet Union at the height of the Cuban missile crisis? Is that extreme?

[SexMachine]

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

You’re attempting character assassination on Obama by way of assumptions (i.e. on associations) not facts.

[/quote]

Nonsense. Obama led his racist strike, promoted his racist writings, used them in his syllabus and urged his students to “open (their) hearts” to Bell’s racist bigotry. Obama was the leading black racist bigot at Harvard.

[quote]
Class warfare - maybe; but then again if he’s into class warfare so is every other liberal. Make that statement if you want.

Racist - yeah he hates white people (like his own mother, grandmother and best friends)[/quote]

Plenty of white radical leftists espouse this crap also. It fits in with the Marxist class warfare ideology about eternally oppressed and exploited poor and minorities. And there’s plenty of minorities who oppose this extremism. So you are correct. It’s not really just about race. That’s just a tool in their arsenal.

[florelius]

Absolutely. They were Frankfurt school Marxist extremists. If you go to the wikipedia entry on the Red Army Faction you will see this under influences:

Philosophers associated with the Frankfurt school(Jurgen Habermas, Herbert Marcuse, and Oskar Negt in particular.)

It doesnt make them( the frankfurter school ) extremist even though some real extemists like what they wrote.

Same with Marx and Engels. They never blew up anything. A pair of pencil pushing dullards.

Nah, more like some of the most important political thinkers of the 1800`s than extremist.
( You cant denie the mayor influence marx and engels have had on everything from the labour movement, academia, the entire world regardless if you like them or not )

Yes, advocating class warfare and violent revolution, the abolition of private property and private land, abolition of the right of inheritance, proscriptions of “rebels”, the “abolition of the family” and the construction of an utopian “dictatorship of the proletariat” is not extreme. Whatever you say florelius. How about being a spy and agent provocateur for the Soviet Union at the height of the Cuban missile crisis? Is that extreme?

If they where true marxist they wouldnt be advocating classwarfare, but rather seing the CLASS-STRUGGLE as an natural component in an class-society, that are going to be there if you like it or not( according to marxist doctrine, even though it is obvious that class antagonism will exist aslong as there are classes, just look at history, there are plenty of examples, the burgeois vs the aristocracy, the proletariat vs the burgeois to name the most resent forms of class antagonism in history ). Now with this wiew of history the marxist choose to take the lowerclasses side in this struggle and again they dont see the need to advocate it, because they believe that it is allready there.

When it comes to violent revolution you are wrong. The marxists dont seek or dream about a violent revolution, but based on observations of revolutions in the era( marxs observations ) all popular upprising for universal suffrage, political rights, liberal constitutions etc where crushed violently by the overlords of that era. So they foresaw a violent revolution because they expect those in power will strike hard against any attempt of establishing the proletarian dictaturship, just as the aristocratic order did to the burgeois struggle back in the 1700s and 1800`s in countrys like Austria, France, the Germanic states to name a few.

When it comes to the abolishment of the private property, then yes that is a wiew that marxists holds and in their eyes an importent step to rid the world of class struggle.

When it comes to the destructioning of the family I dont know enough about that part of marxism to make a substantive comment on it.

The last error you make is to describe the proletariat dictaturship as utopian. The dictaturship of the proletariat is simply reffering to the working class establishing a state that has as it main purpose to protect the common property over the means of productions, just like the burgeois states main purpose is to protect the private property over the means of production according to marxist doctrine. Thats not utopian, its realistic and its on that part the marxist and the anarchist separeted. ( the first socialist international split up because of the tension beetwen the marxist fraction and the bakunist fraction over the state issue ). The communist( the state and class less society ) envision is utopian in my wiew, but die hard marxist dont think so I guess.

Well it ended up in a rant here, but my point is that you are painting marxists whit a very broad brush to make the seem like extremist, but then again from a conservative perception socialism and its flavours are perhaps in nature extremist because it seeks out to create a new order. So prehaps it is a “depends on the eyes that sees” issue.

[SexMachine]

The reason you don’t understand anything about history florelius is because the Hegelian left and their progeny rewrote history and openly advocated historical revisionism:

“In bourgeois society…the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past.” - Marx

“Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion and all morality, instead constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.” - Marx

George Orwell, a lifelong socialist began to realise this:

“He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.”

“Abolition of the family” is from the Communist Manifesto.

And as Lenin said: “there is hardly a word on the economics of socialism to be found in Marx’s work.” Marxism is most certainly utopianism. Amongst other fantasies it posits the spontaneous dissolution of the state via class warfare and the creation of a “workers’ paradise.”

[florelius]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The reason you don’t understand anything about history florelius is because the Hegelian left and their progeny rewrote history and openly advocated historical revisionism:

“In bourgeois society…the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past.” - Marx

“Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion and all morality, instead constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.” - Marx

George Orwell, a lifelong socialist began to realise this:

“He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.”

“Abolition of the family” is from the Communist Manifesto. As Lenin said: “there is hardly a word on the economics of socialism to be found in Marx’s work.”[/quote]

I have a Bachelor in history Sexmachine, so I do think I know and understand some history atleast a tinybit, but good try.

As a scientific field history are never going to be so scientificly pure as lets say biochemistry or as a priori as mathematics. When studying history you have sources( mostly texts, but also archeological findings ) and it is then the individual historian who interpret does texts and findings to create a explanation for a historical occurence or to verify hes own hypothesis or to falsify another historians hypothesis. Now this means that there are a great chance that the historians personal wiews influences the conclusion he comes to, soemtimes without knowing it( think gaddamer and hes hermeneutical circle ) or sometimes delibratly. Aslo most historians wiew history trough a prism or in other words they belong to a tradition within the study of history. Your reference to left hegelianism arent totally correct, but close enough. You where probably meaning to say the dialectical materialism that rightly so are one left hegelian "philosophy" among others. The dialectic materialism are offcourse Marxs version of Hegels dialectic idealism. I want go into here on the difference beetwen them because I assume you know them. Well the point is that it is possible to wiew a historical phenomen trough both of the historical wiews and your conclusion will then offcourse depend on the prism/historical wiew/school etc you choose. This alone are one of the factors that makes it hard to take written history as facts and should therefor be wiewed as possible explanations of historical era`s, occurences etc. Now to get this rant( this reply became a rant to ) progressing or back on track I would say that historical analysis with basis in the dialectic materalism arent wrong becuase of that and arent more suspect than other analysis based on other prisms in the study of history. To end this, I guess you can see it is obvious that I am very influenced by an dialectic materialistic wiew of history and that is because thats the one that makes the most sense to me. I do believe strongly that it is very likely that ideas are not the driving factor in history, but rather the materialistic conditions and that ideas are a reflection of those materialistic conditions.
If you then see me as a revisionist, then so be it.

Anyway hope it made sense, but I am not shure if it does

ps. About the communist manifesto: I have read it several times and cant remember to have read so much about the family in there. I know Engels wrote more on the family in other works, so I would guess most of anything that has to do with the family comes from there.
I know however that Marx wiewed the burgeois marriage as if the f emale where the mans property. If he did find that repulsive I cant help, but agreing with him.

[therajraj]

This whole thread is ridiculous, SM and co have absolutely nothing here. Even if it were a “controversy” he’s already been in office for 4 years. Voters are going to judge him on what he did over his 4 years, not something he said 21 years ago.

[SexMachine]

[quote]therajraj wrote:
This whole thread is ridiculous, SM and co have absolutely nothing here. Even if it were a “controversy” he’s already been in office for 4 years. Voters are going to judge him on what he did over his 4 years, not something he said 21 years ago.[/quote]

Didn’t you read the thread? Not only did I not use the word “controversy” - not sure who else did either - but I also specifically stated that this will be ignored and that it was already known that Barack Hussein Obama is a life-long extremist. You’re projecting again - creating a fiction in order to have a strawman to hack away at.

[therajraj]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
This whole thread is ridiculous, SM and co have absolutely nothing here. Even if it were a “controversy” he’s already been in office for 4 years. Voters are going to judge him on what he did over his 4 years, not something he said 21 years ago.[/quote]

Didn’t you read the thread? Not only did I not use the word “controversy” - not sure who else did either - but I also specifically stated that this will be ignored and it was already known that Barack Hussein Obama is a life-long extremist. You’re projecting again - creating a fiction in order to have a strawman to hack away at.[/quote]

My point here is that it’s being ignored because the video lacks substance. It isn’t being because Obama can get away with anything as you did say. Hypothetically even if there were something here, people would still judge him on his first term not something he said over 2 decades ago.

But you’re right, you didn’t use the word controversy.

[kamui]

Marx, like many thinkers of the 19th century, was a proponent of social evolutionnism.
He believed that, because of and thanks to their internal contradictions, all societies progress through set stages, the last stage being industrial communism.

in 1917, he wouldn’t have supported the bolcheviks.
He would have advocated a “bourgeois revolution” in Russia, a revolution that would have replaced the old feudalism with the next logical “stage of history” : ie… Capitalism.
In his eyes, commumism was the necessary end point of history, not a “political cause” per se.

If he was alive today, he would support BOTH the globalization of capitalist economy and the “globalization of struggle”.
He would be a die-hard proponent of nuclear energy and biotechnology, which he would see as a great way to attain an actual economic abundance, which is the sine qua non condition to progress toward the next “stage of history”.
He would probably think that the welfare state is nothing but a trap set by the upper-class and he would think that liberals and leftists are (not so) “useful idiots”.
He would probably see islamism as an awful archaism that need to be crushed without mercy.
Actually, he would probably support the (re)colonization of the Third World, for similar reasons. (After all, imperialism is one of the “stages of history”, and it’s China’s and India’s turn now).

Maybe the more legitimate children of Marx on this board are not those we would have thought about.

[florelius]

[quote]kamui wrote:
Marx, like many thinkers of the 19th century, was a proponent of social evolutionnism.
He believed that, because of and thanks to their internal contradictions, all societies progress through set stages, the last stage being industrial communism.

in 1917, he wouldn’t have supported the bolcheviks.
He would have advocated a “bourgeois revolution” in Russia, a revolution that would have replaced the old feudalism with the next logical “stage of history” : ie… Capitalism.
In his eyes, commumism was the necessary end point of history, not a “political cause” per se.

If he was alive today, he would support BOTH the globalization of capitalist economy and the “globalization of struggle”.
He would be a die-hard proponent of nuclear energy and biotechnology, which he would see as a great way to attain an actual economic abundance, which is the sine qua non condition to progress toward the next “stage of history”.
He would probably think that the welfare state is nothing but a trap set by the upper-class and he would think that liberals and leftists are (not so) “useful idiots”.
He would probably see islamism as an awful archaism that need to be crushed without mercy.
Actually, he would probably support the (re)colonization of the Third World, for similar reasons. (After all, imperialism is one of the “stages of history”, and it’s China’s and India’s turn now).

Maybe the more legitimate children of Marx on this board are not those we would have thought about.

[/quote]

I dont know if this is directed at me or sexmachine or both, but I will try to respond a bit now and a bit later( havent slepped all night and are a tad sick ).

When it comes to the russian revolution and if Marx would support it or not, it is said that when he where at the end of he`s life he where open to the idea of a proletarian revolution in Russia in a letter beetwen him and a member of the russian socialist party.
I dont know the details of this and are writing this after memory so cant perhaps base to much on it. However I agree that a middle aged marx would have seen it necessary to have a capitalist phase in Russia before they should go for socialism. So I guess we agree on that.

I agree that marx probably would see the welfare state as a way to pacify the working class. I also agree on that he would also probably see the globalization of capitalism as a natural part of the capitalist era. On the islamist thing I am not shure, it is likely that he would wiew both the christian conservatives, islamist and other politico-religious groups as reactionary and therefor an enemy of progress and eventually the emancipation of man from the class struggle, but in witch way he would combat it, I dont know. There is a possibillity that he would se the western invasions and occupations of muslim lands as capitalist warfare with capitalistic incentives and that the explanation of the “war on terror” and a clash between worlds" as propaganda and lies to legitimate capitalist wars. On imperialism I dont know what he would say seeing that it was Lenin who added that to the marxist tradition, but I bet he would read Lenin( who wouldnt read ideological texts based on your own thinking written by others ) and thereby approve the theory or dismiss it. On the the nuclear energy thing I am not shure.

Thats it for now, I see if I can respond more later if it is welcomed, if it is not I want bother.

ps. Havent read Marx in some years, so I am a bit rusty when it comes to him, so bear that in mind if I am mistaken on something.

[MaximusB]

I do not believe that this video was the one that Breitbart had in mind.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

G. Bush cocaine > Obama praising the tangible good work this Bell guy has done i.e. promote equal racial rights in education (at the student and teacher level).[/quote]

If you know anything about CRT, you know that it wasn’t about “promoting equal racial rights in education”. Bell was a radical, and CRT was/is critical of the Civil Rights Movement (the real one).

This video wasn’t much of a bombshell, but get your facts straight. Do you get anything right?

[Sloth]

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I do not believe that this video was the one that Breitbart had in mind. [/quote]

Short of footage showing an ordered assassination, it won’t really matter what he had in mind. The pressing issue is what the Republican candidates think about Limbaugh’s comments.

[orion]

[quote]optheta wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Sneak peak:

OBAMA: 'Open up your hearts and your minds' to racialist prof

“Open your hearts and open your minds to the words of Prof. Derrick Bell.” Those are the words of Barack Obama in reference to the controversial racialist Derrick Bell. Prof. Charles Ogletree, Barack Obama’s mentor said “We hid this throughout the 2008 campaign.” As more is uncovered about Prof. Derrick Bell and his radical views, it will become clear why Prof. Ogletree wanted this video hidden.

This is a man so extreme that, as we’ve reported, he wrote a story in 1993 in which he posited that white Americans would sell black Americans into slavery to aliens to relieve the national debt, and that Jews would go along with it.[/quote]

/sigh

This shit again.

Obama has done nothing that is considered extreme relative to any president so far.[/quote]

Killing Americans without a trial?

Appointing Czars while the Senate was in recess?

Interpret the interstate commerce clause to include economic inactivity so as to make federal rule absolute?

[K2000]

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I do not believe that this video was the one that Breitbart had in mind. [/quote]

I hope not, because this one totally sucks.

[SexMachine]

[quote]kamui wrote:
Marx, like many thinkers of the 19th century, was a proponent of social evolutionnism.
He believed that, because of and thanks to their internal contradictions, all societies progress through set stages, the last stage being industrial communism.

in 1917, he wouldn’t have supported the bolcheviks.
He would have advocated a “bourgeois revolution” in Russia, a revolution that would have replaced the old feudalism with the next logical “stage of history” : ie… Capitalism.
In his eyes, commumism was the necessary end point of history, not a “political cause” per se.

[/quote]

What you say here is true based on a cursory understanding of his writings. But Marx specifically stated on many occasions against what he called “dogmatic abstraction.”

If he was alive today, he would support BOTH the globalization of capitalist economy and the “globalization of struggle”.

Ah…no. Every advanced, industrialised nation on earth would be considered in the capitalist stage - the “epoch of the bourgeoisie” and therefore ripe for revolution. And he advocated a worldwide struggle all along.

He would be a die-hard proponent of nuclear energy and biotechnology, which he would see as a great way to attain an actual economic abundance, which is the sine qua non condition to progress toward the next “stage of history”.

See above.

He would probably think that the welfare state is nothing but a trap set by the upper-class and he would think that liberals and leftists are (not so) “useful idiots”.
He would probably see islamism as an awful archaism that need to be crushed without mercy.
Actually, he would probably support the (re)colonization of the Third World, for similar reasons. (After all, imperialism is one of the “stages of history”, and it’s China’s and India’s turn now).

Presumably when you say it’s “China’s and India’s turn now” you are referring to China’s neo-Colonialist ventures in Africa and elsewhere. He would see that as more evidence that China has reached the capitalism stage and is therefore ripe for revolution.

Maybe the more legitimate children of Marx on this board are not those we would have thought about.

Not asking for names but which type of people support China’s colonialist ventures?

BTW, a few quotes:

Marx on India: “There cannot…remain any doubt but that the misery inflicted by the British on Hindostan is of an essentially different and infinitely more intensive kind that all Hindostan had to suffer before.”

He’s referring to the oriental despots dating back to earliest antiquity. The British East India company was “infinitely” worse apparently.

Marx from an essay entitled On the Jewish Question - all italics his:

'Money is the jealous god of Israel, beside which no other god may exist…The god of the Jews has been secularised and has become the god of this wolrd. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew…The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the trader, and above all of the financier.

The law, without basis or reason, of the Jew, is only the religious caricature of morality and right in general, without basis or reason; the purely formal rites with which the world of self-interest encircles itself.

As soon as society succeeds in abolishing the empirical essense of Judaism - huckstering and its conditions - the Jew becomes impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object…The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.’

Taken up by the Nazis the following century - Nazism and fascism were of course the other great socialist movements of the 20th century.

[K2000]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]optheta wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Sneak peak:

OBAMA: 'Open up your hearts and your minds' to racialist prof

“Open your hearts and open your minds to the words of Prof. Derrick Bell.” Those are the words of Barack Obama in reference to the controversial racialist Derrick Bell. Prof. Charles Ogletree, Barack Obama’s mentor said “We hid this throughout the 2008 campaign.” As more is uncovered about Prof. Derrick Bell and his radical views, it will become clear why Prof. Ogletree wanted this video hidden.

This is a man so extreme that, as we’ve reported, he wrote a story in 1993 in which he posited that white Americans would sell black Americans into slavery to aliens to relieve the national debt, and that Jews would go along with it.[/quote]

/sigh

This shit again.

Obama has done nothing that is considered extreme relative to any president so far.[/quote]

Killing Americans without a trial?

Appointing Czars while the Senate was in recess?

Interpret the interstate commerce clause to include economic inactivity so as to make federal rule absolute?

[/quote]

There is no such title as “Czar” in our government, and by using that term you revealed yourself as a political hack. There’s also nothing wrong with recess appointments, especially when we have a record number of vacancies due to obstruction.

[K2000]

This Derrick Bell “controversy” is EXCELLENT. Bell was an activist for Civil Rights and Equal Rights - his big gambit was quitting Harvard Law School because they wouldn’t hire more Black and female professors (they only had 5 Black law professors and zero female law professors at the time, out of something like 150).

As a Democrat, I couldn’t be happier to see conservatives attempt to RE-FIGHT the same battles they already lost 40 years ago. Great idea, guys! Lets debate civil rights again! Lets debate contraception and women’s rights again! I absolutely LOVE it! Please please please, go ahead and alienate an entire generation of black voters, women voters, and fair-minded voters of every stripe, and virtually guarantee your party’s obsolescence. Awesome!!!

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]K2000 wrote:

This Derrick Bell “controversy” is EXCELLENT. Bell was an activist for Civil Rights and Equal Rights - his big gambit was quitting Harvard Law School because they wouldn’t hire more Black and female professors (they only had 5 Black law professors and zero female law professors at the time, out of something like 150).

As a Democrat, I couldn’t be happier to see conservatives attempt to RE-FIGHT the same battles they already lost 40 years ago. Great idea, guys! Lets debate civil rights again! Lets debate contraception and women’s rights again! I absolutely LOVE it! Please please please, go ahead and alienate an entire generation of black voters, women voters, and fair-minded voters of every stripe, and virtually guarantee your party’s obsolescence. Awesome!!![/quote]

Woo-hoo! Except, wrong.

Bell was the pioneer of Critical Race Theory, a theory that states that American institutions are inherently bastions to preserve white supremacy, and this theory was…wait for it…critical of the actual Civil Rights Movement because the Civil Rights Movement refused to recognize that all the “gains” that were made through these institutions weren’t helpful to blacks.

Black voters no more believe in Critical Race Theory than they do Atlantis. It was (and is) a radical playground for bored academics. As such, criticism of Derrick Bell and CRT is no re-litigating the Civil Rights Movement. Dumb as hell.

Yet another topic K2000 knows nothing about - what’s the count up to now?