Van Jones: Obama's Marxist "Green Jobs" Advisor

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: a real nutter

Originally posted by: Vic
LOL! now even the Sun Tzu's The Art of War is supposed communist doctrine... what a fscking moron! :roll:

Indeed, one of us is a moron and according to a KGB defector it's you. For the non morons here I'll link a video of Yuri Brezmenov - a KGB defector who gave lectures in the early 80's.

Brezmenov explained that all students trained by KGB and in military academies were given copies of Sun Tzu because it was considered a masterpiece of subversion principles. At 5:40 into video he says (paraphrasing) that:

"To implement state policy in a war like manner is inefficient. The highest art of warfare is not to fight at all but to subvert anything of value in your enemies country until his perception of reality is so screwed up that he does not perceive you as an enemy and that your system looks to your enemy as a feasible alternative (better red than dead). The ultimate goal is to take enemy without a single shot being fired...

We rarely need to use guns to kill people and take their country. The cleanest way is to blackmail, pervert, bribe, lie and intimidate the politicians and the media and they will destabilize and disunify their own country for us. Then all we have left to do is to arm the procommunist or simply criminal factions and we have a coup and another "liberated" country. As neat as that."

He is describing the foundation of the culture war and political correctness - as exerted by media and schools that were targeted by subversion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj0Id3BLFco



Brezmenov wrote more about Sun Tzu in his "Love Letter to America"


"The art of duping the masses into doing things to their own disadvantage and making them believe it is "the will of people" is as ancient as mankind itself.

The essence of subversion is best expressed in the famous Marxist slogan, (if you substitute "proletarians" for a more appropriate word): "Useful idiots of the world UNITE!? To achieve the desired effect, the subverter must first make idiots out of normal people, and DIVIDE them, before turning the people into a homogenized mass of useful and united idiots. Tanks and missiles may or may not be needed at final stage. For the time being they are simply the means of terrorizing people into inaction and submission.

500 years before Christ, the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu formulated the principle of subversion this way:

1. Cover with ridicule all of the valid traditions in your opponent's country.
2. Implicate their leaders in criminal affairs and turn them over to the scorn of their populace at the right time;
3. Disrupt the work of their government by every means;
4. Do not shun the aid of the lowest and most despicable individuals of your enemy's country.
5. Spread disunity and dispute among the citizens.
6. Turn the young against the old.
7. Be generous with promises and rewards to collaborators and accomplices."



http://uselessdissident.blogsp...-america-part-one.html


A great interview of Brezmenov is also on YouTube. He explains his background and has lots of photos from KGB days (he worked subversion in India). He's the real deal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otxHEOdvoaM

Yep Obama's a Commie and he's trying to indoctrinate us all, grab your guns:roll:

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GeezerMan
I guess you consider someone like Patrick Moore, the co founder and past director of Greenpeace, who explained that Marxists moved into environmentalism as referenced above, to be a moron too. Go ahead, call him a name, say it fits him, have your laugh, and voila!...you think you won without making a valid point of your own...

I did make a point, and you just affirmed it even. And my point is that you and the OP are not making arguments, you're just using codewords and dropping names and expecting the rest of us to be as filled as terror as you are. Proceed tilting at windmills!

The empty drum bangs the loudest vic and your making quite a racket in your denial of reality. The main point of the thread was that Obama's green jobs "advisor" is a self described Marxist:

""I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist."

He spent many years actively preaching Marxism and revolution:

"In 1994, the young activists formed a socialist collective, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, which held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia.

I'll work with anybody, I'll fight anybody if it will push our issues forward. ... I'm willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends."


http://www.eastbayexpress.com/...0098&showFullText=true


Since you can't escape the fact there are radical Marxists appointed by Obama (another radical) you have tried to do exactly what you accuse others of - not making any arguments (of course you can't). Reading people exploding in insults and braying like mule is boring but its fun to watch people making an ass out of themselves while accusing others of same.

 

[NeoV]

do a google search for 'marxists appointed by Obama' and look at the pondscum list of horrific, completely one-sided websites that host garbage like this.

Obama and his policies aren't the scary thing here.

People like the op, and Geezerman - who actually believe this drivel, and not just a little bit - that's what is truly scary here.

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: NeoV
do a google search for 'marxists appointed by Obama' and look at the pondscum list of horrific, completely one-sided websites that host garbage like this.

Obama and his policies aren't the scary thing here.

People like the op, and Geezerman - who actually believe this drivel, and not just a little bit - that's what is truly scary here.

What's scary is people like you can't accept a guys own words (Van Jones). I am not saying Van Jones is a radical Marxist - he is. Duh.

 

[Steeplerot]

Not trying to split hairs here but the guy said he became a Anarcho Communist, Anarchists oppose the teachings of Marx.
You make yourself look quite ignorant calling a Socialist Libertarian (Anarchist) a Marxist.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Yep Obama's a Commie and he's trying to indoctrinate us all, grab your guns:roll:
[/quote]

Well, its silly to call him a communist, especially in the sense of supporting the Soviet union for example. However, Obama IS a socialist, there really isn't much debate over that. Not the same type of people who you had in Russia, more like what you have in Europe these days. Its not a matter of name calling or anything here, you just look at a dictionary and see what the word "socialist" means verse a "capitalist" and he clearly falls more towards the former than the latter.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Brezmenov explained that all students trained by KGB and in military academies were given copies of Sun Tzu because it was considered a masterpiece of subversion principles. At 5:40 into video he says (paraphrasing) that:

Uh, something being used by communists does not make it communist. if the communists drank milk, is drinkig milk now communist?

Sun Tzu was a writer on strategy unrelated to "communism". Many people of a wide variety of interests have read him.

I'd make an analogy to another old book about strategy or some such that was widely used, but there aren't all that many that come to mind.

Musashi's 'Five Rings', Machivelli's 'The Prince', Plato - Marcu Aurelius - all might be candidates for the analogy, but I'm unaware of any comparable wide use.

So in this case, I'll just stick to the direct point that you are very confused to equate the KGB using The Art of War with it being communist.

1. Cover with ridicule all of the valid traditions in your opponent's country.
2. Implicate their leaders in criminal affairs and turn them over to the scorn of their populace at the right time;
3. Disrupt the work of their government by every means;
4. Do not shun the aid of the lowest and most despicable individuals of your enemy's country.
5. Spread disunity and dispute among the citizens.
6. Turn the young against the old.
7. Be generous with promises and rewards to collaborators and accomplices."

This sounds like the Republican playbook.

1. Ridicule the word "liberal" - in thousands of cases. "There you go again". "Al Gore invented the internet". On and on.

2. Impeach Clinton, cocaine dealings, murdered Vince Foster, Whitewater, etc. Obama likes ot pal around with terrorists, etc.

3. Republicans are incredibly obstructionist to Democrats, 'the party of no', record numbers of filibusters, 'we can't afford Obama's plans', etc.

4. Jeff Gannon, right-wing militias, Karl Rove, Iran-Contra, this one is too easy.

5. Done constantly. Right-wing media spreads disunity.

6. This one is coming - Republicans hate Social Security because it's the most popular government program ever and Democrats get the credit, not to mention they can profit from it if they can privatize it, and so watch, as the baby boomers retire, for Republicans to tell young voters who normally don't vote Republican to oppose older Democrats who are 'ripping them off'.

7. Republicans are happy to promise security and prosperity - but even more likely, since that's not too believable, to wildly attack Democrats as a threat.

They sure take care of their own, though. The radical Federalist Society has taken over our judicial system with job networking; when Bush needed to recruit people to run occupied Iraq, he turned to the right-wing AEI to hire people who had sent them resumes, and for domestic positiont they (illegally) screened them for right-wing politics, they had the K street project to try to force companies to hire right-wing staffers, etc.

Actually, Republican have been following some of the Soviets' tactics for a very long time.

Since the 50's, some on the right have studied and adopted Soviet tactics, and sometimes surpassed them.

Look no further than the sensory deprivation and other techniques used on recent detainees for examples of adopting radical mind control techniques that are harmful.

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Not trying to split hairs here but the guy said he became a Anarcho Communist, Anarchists oppose the teachings of Marx.
You make yourself look quite ignorant calling a Socialist Libertarian (Anarchist) a Marxist.

Yes your splitting hairs. Van Jones used to teach Marxist doctrine - its right in article I linked above. He said in prison that he met Marxists AND anarchists. Nobody said anything and Arachnid Communists or whatever. Jones is also into Mao. Of course if you really understand these ideologies you know none of them are that neat and there are a lot of variations to what people call Marxism.

The one common denominator is the adherents tend to be resentful losers with fat egos and are more cunning than smart - like Obama. What people consider his intelligence is often a reflection of the techniques he learned as part of his indoctrinations. Obama is Marxist street hustler in a nice suit and a veneer of sophistication grated by his affirmative action supported Ivy League pedigree.

 

[Atheus]

Just as a general observation - what's wrong with Marx again? He never hurt anybody. It was Stalin who twisted communism into something distasteful. There's nothing offensive about Marx's actual ideas... unless you're a 19th century factory owner of course...

Originally posted by: GeezerMan
The whole global warming, nature worship, etc. is just a means of wealth redistribution.

This is the most twisted thing I've read since I had a PM conversation with CanOWorms. Lets clarify this - you believe that people who love the natural world (hippies, botanists, gardeners, self-sufficient farmers, hikers, climbers, hunters, fishermen, etc) are attempting to aquire wealth? Why, then, is that also a list of the people who live the simplest lives, and require very little money?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Not trying to split hairs here but the guy said he became a Anarcho Communist, Anarchists oppose the teachings of Marx.
You make yourself look quite ignorant calling a Socialist Libertarian (Anarchist) a Marxist.

Yes your splitting hairs. Van Jones used to teach Marxist doctrine - its right in article I linked above. He said in prison that he met Marxists AND anarchists. Nobody said anything and Arachnid Communists or whatever. Jones is also into Mao. Of course if you really understand these ideologies you know none of them are that neat and there are a lot of variations to what people call Marxism.

The one common denominator is the adherents tend to be resentful losers with fat egos and are more cunning than smart - like Obama. What people consider his intelligence is often a reflection of the techniques he learned as part of his indoctrinations. Obama is Marxist street hustler in a nice suit and a veneer of sophistication grated by his affirmative action supported Ivy League pedigree.

I think you should spend some time looking at what you feel is threatened by these truths you see. What are these commies going to take from you? Are they going to destroy your religion? Are they going to take your money, your way of life, your position, your power? What is it that you fear. The Buddha became enlightened, you know, because he gave up all things, he detached from all his fears and unconscious needs. And Jesus offers you the door that can be entered only on the death of the self. This war you are in is a war within your self.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
The one common denominator is the adherents tend to be resentful losers with fat egos and are more cunning than smart - like Obama. What people consider his intelligence is often a reflection of the techniques he learned as part of his indoctrinations. Obama is Marxist street hustler in a nice suit and a veneer of sophistication grated by his affirmative action supported Ivy League pedigree.

I suggest you run for president then - with your intellect so supirior to Obama's you'd be sure to win...

:laugh:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Yep Obama's a Commie and he's trying to indoctrinate us all, grab your guns:roll:

Well, its silly to call him a communist, especially in the sense of supporting the Soviet union for example. However, Obama IS a socialist, there really isn't much debate over that. Not the same type of people who you had in Russia, more like what you have in Europe these days. Its not a matter of name calling or anything here, you just look at a dictionary and see what the word "socialist" means verse a "capitalist" and he clearly falls more towards the former than the latter.

His policies and appointees do not support your argument, just FYI.

And what are "socialist" and "capitalist," really? Why is it that a trillion or so of govt money spent bailing out private banks is "socialist," but the trillions of taxpayer dollars spent by the previous administration fighting an unnecessary foreign war for the benefit of defense contractors and a mercenary army is "capitalist?" How does this work, exactly?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atheus
Just as a general observation - what's wrong with Marx again? He never hurt anybody. It was Stalin who twisted communism into something distasteful. There's nothing offensive about Marx's actual ideas... unless you're a 19th century factory owner of course...

Your knowledge of Marxism is as limited as the OP's.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atheus
Just as a general observation - what's wrong with Marx again? He never hurt anybody. It was Stalin who twisted communism into something distasteful. There's nothing offensive about Marx's actual ideas... unless you're a 19th century factory owner of course...

Your knowledge of Marxism is as limited as the OP's.

Enlighten me then. What, ultimately, is so offensive about Marx? He was certainly no Stalin, I think we can all agree on that, and had nothing to do with the oppression which took place under Soviet communism.

 

[NeoV]

"grated by his affirmative action supported Ivy League pedigree"

Affirmative action grades too? I suppose he actually cheated on all his exams, and was handed his place and roles there?

give me a break and unplug from your crazy food for a few days

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atheus
Just as a general observation - what's wrong with Marx again? He never hurt anybody. It was Stalin who twisted communism into something distasteful. There's nothing offensive about Marx's actual ideas... unless you're a 19th century factory owner of course...

Your knowledge of Marxism is as limited as the OP's.

Enlighten me then. What, ultimately, is so offensive about Marx? He was certainly no Stalin, I think we can all agree on that, and had nothing to do with the oppression which took place under Soviet communism.

Without Marx, there would have been no Stalin. Nor was it like Stalin acted alone as some kind of 'corrupter of the faith.' There was a logical progression here that lead from Marx to Stalin, particularly with Lenin.

At the most basic level, the fundamental flaw with Marxism is its assumption that the ends justify the means, which was disguised by Marx/Engels with their claims that they were predicting the logical future for humanity as opposed to espousing an ideology. And it's not like Marx came up with anything original either, all he did was take the conservative Christian socialism of the time (which was telling factory workers to leave the cities and return to the communal farms), remove the religion, and replace it with leading philosophies of the time like those of Hegel.
In other words, Marxism's failings are that it teaches that an enlightened group is fighting a noble war against evil, and thus no holds need be (or should be) barred. The result, of course, is that this 'good' becomes just as evil as the evil it was organized to fight. This flaw is far from unique to Marxism, but shared by most ideologies, and the fact the Marx, the great philosopher, chose to overlook this is perhaps the greatest stain on his legacy.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atheus
Just as a general observation - what's wrong with Marx again? He never hurt anybody. It was Stalin who twisted communism into something distasteful. There's nothing offensive about Marx's actual ideas... unless you're a 19th century factory owner of course...

Your knowledge of Marxism is as limited as the OP's.

Enlighten me then. What, ultimately, is so offensive about Marx? He was certainly no Stalin, I think we can all agree on that, and had nothing to do with the oppression which took place under Soviet communism.

Without Marx, there would have been no Stalin. Nor was it like Stalin acted alone as some kind of 'corrupter of the faith.' There was a logical progression here that lead from Marx to Stalin, particularly with Lenin.

At the most basic level, the fundamental flaw with Marxism is its assumption that the ends justify the means, which was disguised by Marx/Engels with their claims that they were predicting the logical future for humanity as opposed to espousing an ideology. And it's not like Marx came up with anything original either, all he did was take the conservative Christian socialism of the time (which was telling factory workers to leave the cities and return to the communal farms), remove the religion, and replace it with leading philosophies of the time like those of Hegel.
In other words, Marxism's failings are that it teaches that an enlightened group is fighting a noble war against evil, and thus no holds need be (or should be) barred. The result, of course, is that this 'good' becomes just as evil as the evil it was organized to fight. This flaw is far from unique to Marxism, but shared by most ideologies, and the fact the Marx, the great philosopher, chose to overlook this is perhaps the greatest stain on his legacy.

Is any of that unique to Marx?

Do you really hold him accountable for Stalin? Shouldn't Stalin be held responsible for Stalin?

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Atheus
Just as a general observation - what's wrong with Marx again? He never hurt anybody. It was Stalin who twisted communism into something distasteful. There's nothing offensive about Marx's actual ideas... unless you're a 19th century factory owner of course...

Originally posted by: GeezerMan
The whole global warming, nature worship, etc. is just a means of wealth redistribution.

This is the most twisted thing I've read since I had a PM conversation with CanOWorms. Lets clarify this - you believe that people who love the natural world (hippies, botanists, gardeners, self-sufficient farmers, hikers, climbers, hunters, fishermen, etc) are attempting to aquire wealth? Why, then, is that also a list of the people who live the simplest lives, and require very little money?

Lenin was a pretty scary dude too, and he was a big adherent of Marx.
I've read some of Marx too, but I don't remember if he got as militant as Lenin.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Turin39789
Is any of that unique to Marx?

Do you really hold him accountable for Stalin? Shouldn't Stalin be held responsible for Stalin?

Stalin didn't act alone. In this case, he could not have done what he did without this highly corruptible philosophy which Marx provided him to control people with.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Turin39789
Is any of that unique to Marx?

Do you really hold him accountable for Stalin? Shouldn't Stalin be held responsible for Stalin?

Stalin didn't act alone. In this case, he could not have done what he did without this highly corruptible philosophy which Marx provided him to control people with.

He didn't provide it 'for' anyone to control anyone, the original philosophy was intended to do quite the opposite - to empower people.

I just don't agree with this trend of using Marxist as some kind of political insult.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atheus
He didn't provide it 'for' anyone to control anyone, the original philosophy was intended to do quite the opposite - to empower people.

Just because something is intended to do a thing does not mean that that is what it actually does in practice.

I just don't agree with this trend of using Marxist as some kind of political insult.

To this, I agree. How about you read some of my other posts in this thread, eh?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Turin39789
Is any of that unique to Marx?

Do you really hold him accountable for Stalin? Shouldn't Stalin be held responsible for Stalin?

Stalin didn't act alone. In this case, he could not have done what he did without this highly corruptible philosophy which Marx provided him to control people with.

He didn't provide it 'for' anyone to control anyone, the original philosophy was intended to do quite the opposite - to empower people.

I just don't agree with this trend of using Marxist as some kind of political insult.

Agree or disagree at your pleasure, but take heed of what Vic said. Most of the great evil in this world is always done in the name of the good, some group of elitists who have the real truth and are therefore called upon by their morality to use any means to defeat their imaginary evil.

How can any sane person not see that the ends justify the means? This is the exact nature of the fanaticism of certainty. This is the temptation that everyone with power must face.

The terrible truth of real truth is that there is only love and the only weapon of love IS love and only he who dies to any claim to have an answer that can be forced can wield it. There is not one single thing you can do for the world to save it except to love and the only work that needs doing is to die to yourself. No pill is so bitter or so sweet.

 

[Steeplerot]

The problem with Marx is that he spoke of a government with full control of the people to guide them through the inbetween phase from Capitalism->Socialism->Communism. The Anarchists and Socialists of Marx's time foresaw that this would turn into another dictatorship that would be much worse then Capitalists oppression of the worker. Lenin and Stalin proved Bakunin right much later on in the next century by realizing the worst fears of Bakunin by creating the one vanguard party highly undemocratic terror state of the SU following Marx's vision of the revolution instead of a grass roots bottom up society. Socialism is alive and well in many countries to this day, the Marxist states have all failed pretty much.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Turin39789
Is any of that unique to Marx?

Do you really hold him accountable for Stalin? Shouldn't Stalin be held responsible for Stalin?

Stalin didn't act alone. In this case, he could not have done what he did without this highly corruptible philosophy which Marx provided him to control people with.

Then frankly I blame Gutenburg and his damn printing press for scaling the means of propaganda and leaving it around for everyone after him to use.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
re-ban winnar

This winnar111?

This is malicious, bigoted troll turd, Kalyan Rachakonda previously banned as GeneralGrievous, lordtyranus, zendari, winnar111, etc.


Kalyan Rachakonda
36 Caroline Drive
Hopewell Township, NJ 08525
(609) 333-0411