RoR: Forum

"he feels like he is a brother to those who are revolutionaries"

Geez, you think? Maybe that was why he had those Che lookin' campaign posters...

Post 21

Saturday, October 9, 2010 - 9:24pm

Ed,

You said, "...understanding an evil better (in terms of how it got created) doesn't make it any less of an evil."

I've never said claimed otherwise. I'm trying to understand the principles that Obama works from and to get a better understanding of the way he views things.
----------

You said that he is unprincipled. I disagree. He is an ideologue - he has principles - bad ones. He isn't a pragmatist or without set beliefs. His principles are evil, and one of his ethical principles (again, evil) is that it is okay to lie and decieve on behalf of his ideals.
-----------

You said, "But no true Marxist is 'democratic'."

That's true. But many of their true believers think that democratic socialism is possible, and it just hasn't been done right yet. Take a look at this quote from a socialist, whose paper is titled, "Socialism and Democracy":

"The authors of the Communist Manifesto linked socialism and democracy together as end and means. The �self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority� cannot be anything else but democratic, if we understand by �democracy� the rule of the people, the majority."

But we know that they only support democracy if it supports collectivist control of the means of production and redistribution of the wealth.
---------------

You said, "I'm pretty sure that all 'smart' Marxists would do these things [Alinsky/Cloward/Pivens tactics]. It seems to be a distinction without making any kind of a difference."

No, before the Fabian socialists and the Progressive movement there were different 'rules' - different tactics. If you just lump them all together you lose lots of useful information and don't understand what is going on nearly as deeply. And today's progressives frame their arguments differently then those at the turn of the century.

Post 22

Saturday, October 9, 2010 - 9:46pm

Michael,

He accepted a book from Chavez (a revolutionary), but returned the gift of a bust of Winston Churchill to the Queen (remember England's colonial history and Churchill's part in colonial Kenya - where Obama's father was jailed for anti-colonial opposition).

It was Bill Ayer's living room where he had his party to celebrate his entry into politics. He had been following the career of Van Jones, the communist revolutionary since the nineties before bringing him into the White House. The most frequent White House visitor was Andy Stern, former union boss of SEIU, who's favorite sayings are "Worker's of the world unite" and "If we can't convince them with the power of persuasion, then we'll convince them with the persuasion of power... and we know where they live." In his first book he said that at Columbia University he sought out the Marxist revolutionaries. His grandfather, his father, his mother, and his teenage mentor were all self-avowed Marxists. And he spoke very highly of his pastor, Reverend Wright whose Black Liberation Theology which is a form of revolutionary Marxist philosophy.

Post 23

Sunday, October 10, 2010 - 11:37am

Steve,

You said, "...understanding an evil better (in terms of how it got created) doesn't make it any less of an evil."

I've never said claimed otherwise. I'm trying to understand the principles that Obama works from and to get a better understanding of the way he views things.

Okay, but I'm working off of the Randian principle: 'Don't take great pains to work to understand an evil. After the first non-sequitor, reject it outright.'

You said that he is unprincipled. I disagree. He is an ideologue - he has principles - bad ones. He isn't a pragmatist or without set beliefs.

But this is poor wording. Obama is guided by Alinski's R's-for-R's, subtitled: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. Alinski's -- and, by extension, Obama's -- pragmatism shows up in the book in quotes like:

... all values and factors are relative, fluid, and changing ..." (xv)

and

"Let us in the name of radical pragmatism not forget that in our system with all its repressions we can still ..." (xxi)

[italics mine]

And furthermore, all people -- pragmatists included -- have a set of beliefs.

... one of his ethical principles (again, evil) is that it is okay to lie and decieve on behalf of his ideals.

Okay, but this "principled unprincipledness" does not qualify as being principled. That's like saying someone is "truthfully untrue" or "morally immoral" or "thankfully unthankful" or "certainly uncertain." It involves a contradiction -- and, therefore, does not exist. A principled Obama does not exist. What we, instead, have, is a person masquerading as being principled for the sake of expediency and ruthlessness.

It is the same story we've had in politics for 4000 years. There isn't anything "special" about Obama. Obama isn't a "new" and "improved" brand of evil -- that is merely the new & improved propaganda shining through.

No, before the Fabian socialists and the Progressive movement there were different 'rules' - different tactics. If you just lump them all together you lose lots of useful information and don't understand what is going on nearly as deeply. And today's progressives frame their arguments differently then those at the turn of the century.

Yes, but you run the risk of "chasing them out on a limb" or of "wrestling with a pig in the mud" if you work too hard to understand their as-advertised peculiarities (i.e., their marketing or branding of themselves). This was Rand's problem with 'Liberals vs. Conservatives' (soft-statists vs hard). It misses the point.

The point hasn't changed in 4000 years. The point is statism vs. individualism.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/10, 11:39am)

Post 24

Sunday, October 10, 2010 - 2:59pm

Regarding when I said this:

The final reduction (or expansion) is when the utilitarian says from a podium:

"The whole world is better off, if we work together to harm these folks over here (while pointing at the Star of David, or at the cowboy riding the missle, or whatever)."

I didn't realize it at the time, but the day before, the New York Times (page: A 28) interviewed the top policy advisor (George Hacker) at the Center for Science in the Public Interest regarding a ban on using food stamps for sugary drinks:

"The world would be better, I think, if people limited their purchases of sugared beverages," Mr. Hacker said.

Which can almost be re-worded to the following:

"The whole world is better off, if we work together to use force to limit mutually-consentual trade between these folks over here." [while pointing at the Coca-Cola company and its patrons]

:-)

Ed

Post 25

Sunday, October 10, 2010 - 3:00pm

Ed,

I don't appear to making any progress here. Let me just summarize a couple of points and then let it go.

As to whether a person operates on principles or not isn't obvious. A person could do this: 1. Experience current situation, 2. feel-emotion, then 3. act,

Or, a person could typically use this model: 1. Experience current situation, 2. examine political principles relative to current context, then 3. act.

That second model is generalized to account for statists or for Capitalists. It covers everyone who has a set of political principles - including Obama.

Then the question is what are the principles. And I believe they are the anti-colonial form of Marxism as colored by academic progressivism and Black Liberation Theology.

You say it does no good to understand this example of evil. I say that going into battle without knowing your enemy is a foolish move that will cost you.
----------

You said, <>"The point is statism vs. individualism."

Then why not throw away all of the other words. We would no longer need Theocracy, Communism, Marxism, Dictatorship, etc. The goal is a political structure best suited for individualism. But you are not likely to succeed when you are doing battle with people that hide their agenda and give you false reasons for their actions and when the result of the battles will depend upon your success in marshalling your resources versus all of their efforts and you don't know what they are doing because you don't understand them.

Know thy enemy.

Post 26

Monday, October 11, 2010 - 5:07am

Steve:

Re: Post 22 - I am well aware of all of those connections, and thanks for continuing to bring them to light. He understands the playbook well.

Post 27

Monday, October 11, 2010 - 9:58am

"Know thy enemy."

From the article:

In the first chapter's opening paragraph, Alinsky writes, "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."
(Edited by Mike Erickson on 10/11, 11:53am)

Post 28

Monday, October 11, 2010 - 10:21am

Steve,

As to whether a person operates on principles or not isn't obvious. A person could do this: 1. Experience current situation, 2. feel-emotion, then 3. act,

Or, a person could typically use this model: 1. Experience current situation, 2. examine political principles relative to current context, then 3. act.

That second model is generalized to account for statists or for Capitalists. It covers everyone who has a set of political principles - including Obama.

But that contradicts what we earlier agreed upon, which was that Obama was an emotionalist (acts on emotions). My point is that Obama uses the first model personally, but projects a propagandized picture of himself as using the second. On this view, you believe the propaganda and I don't.

Ed

Post 29

Monday, October 11, 2010 - 11:46am

Ed,

I don't think you can understand Obama at all without reference to the principles he acts on. This is what I said about emotionalism: "...as is the case with those who adopt Neocolonialism, the focus will nearly always be in attacking the alleged colonialists. And that last item smacks of emotionalism." His political position will constantly guide his emotional reaction. His emotionalism, such as it is, can only be understood with reference to the principles. They determine where emotions come into play. He feels anger at the 'oppressors'- he feels a satisfaction and glee when he takes down an 'oppressor' or when he fools people or manipulates them to get what he wants.

No, I don't believe the propaganda. I parse it and examine it to build a picture, a view, of Obama that tells me what the underlying principles are. He has made statements about redistributing the wealth - I find them to be consistent with actions he has taken, people he has chosen to associate with, and other positions he has supported. He has said that he supports free-enterprise, but I find that to be meaningless rhetoric - propoganda, because it doesn't match his actions, the people he associates with or the other things he has written. What he says and what he believes sometimes match and sometimes don't.

I think your utilitarian argument is off a bit and doesn't fit as well as the other explanations, and that it conflicts with your argument that he is primarily an emotionalist. Which predominates? How do you justify your argument that he has no underlying principles that inform his agenda?

Post 30

Monday, October 11, 2010 - 8:31pm

Steve,

He has made statements about redistributing the wealth - I find them to be consistent with actions he has taken, people he has chosen to associate with, and other positions he has supported. He has said that he supports free-enterprise, but I find that to be meaningless rhetoric - propoganda, because it doesn't match his actions, the people he associates with or the other things he has written.

Right. When he "likes" the principle (when it jives with his emotions), he states it and acts on it. But when he "doesn't like" the principle -- and, if calculation reveals it'd sway masses -- he states it and pretends to act on it.

It's Machiavellian utilitarianism. All actions, even lies, are viable under this kind of unprincipled consequentialism (i.e., utilitarianism).

I think your utilitarian argument is off a bit and doesn't fit as well as the other explanations, and that it conflicts with your argument that he is primarily an emotionalist. Which predominates?

Emotionalism dominates. He's a petty tyrant (i.e., no different than any other tyrants).

How do you justify your argument that he has no underlying principles that inform his agenda?

His mind is a junk-heap of unwarranted assumptions, floating abstractions, blinding fear, all-that-jazz. He thinks and uses principles on whim. I know you've heard this stuff before (from Rand). It just needs to be applied to Obama. Everybody makes a choice to consciously adopt a philosophy or passively accept one.

Obama, not having built any character or moral virtue, has passively accepted a panalopy of philosophical principles floating in and among others around him -- based on nothing more than the pure whim to do so. When it comes to thinking, he is lazy and irresponsible. He is like an anti-Galt, a whim-worshipper masquerading as a mature leader.

Ed

Post 31

Monday, October 11, 2010 - 8:46pm

Ed,

I think you underestimate him. And I don't think you understand him. You description would have fit Clinton who had an emotional attachment to feeling powerful and the adrenaline rush of taking risks. He had progressive principles but he would toss them aside to keep the power.

Obama isn't like that. He will lie - but in service of his progressive agenda. He will do almost anything, except give up his battle to achieve progressive goals. He is an ideologue. He doesn't use principles on whim, he is calculating and deceptive and manipulative - to achieve his principle. He is disciplined in ways that Clinton wasn't. Clinton was smarter and in better touch with realities, but it was because he wasn't as wed to Marxist principles. Obama isn't lazy.

You are underestimating him. We still don't know if he has a capacity for use of violence to transform our country. And we don't know what his belief is set regarding the reality of getting away with violence or massive fraud to impose his principles.

Post 32

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - 6:26am

Steve,

He doesn't use principles on whim, he is calculating and deceptive and manipulative - to achieve his principle.

Right, he adopts them on whim, and uses them like a cold, calculating utilitarian -- which is what I have been saying (and you've been ignoring) ever since you first corrected me in this thread.

You are underestimating him. We still don't know if he has a capacity for use of violence to transform our country. And we don't know what his belief is set regarding the reality of getting away with violence or massive fraud to impose his principles.

My view of Obama does not leave (by an underestimation) any of these possibilities out. Violence is the last resort of a scoundrel, and he's a scoundrel.

Ed

Post 33

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - 7:37am

How are you guys defining "violence"? Physical harm? Overt or implied threat of use of force? Just curious about your viewpoints and exploring a bit.

Thanks

Post 34

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - 8:24am

Here's a clue: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-base-20101008,0,3160644.story

"A Republican majority in Congress would mean 'hand-to-hand combat' on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy, President Obama warned Wednesday."

Post 35

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - 10:17am

Ed,

Look at how you are using language. You said, "Right, he adopts them on whim, and uses them like a cold, calculating utilitarian -- which is what I have been saying (and you've been ignoring) ever since you first corrected me in this thread.." [emphasis mine]

'Whim' and 'calculating' are opposites in this context. And as I remember you were also arguing that Obama is an emotionalist which doesn't exactly jibe with the "cold, calculating" part.

I haven't been ignoring you. I have been disagreeing.
----------

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you started this thread by saying that Obama was motivated by the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. I disagreed and I explained why and I gave examples.

Post 36

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - 10:25am

Michael,

Where I used the word "violence" in this thread I meant it to be the initiation of physical violence, and/or threat to initiate physical force. And in this context, when wondering about how far Obama would go, it would include knowingly, willingly inciting the initiation of physical force by others (like the Unions, ACORN, etc.) and ignoring physical force initiated or threatened by others (like where the Justice Department chose to not complete the prosecution of the new Black Panthers for what they did at that polling station).

Post 37

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - 10:49am

Then I believe that he has displayed his willingness to use force already in several of the ways and manners in which you describe Steve. Thanks for the clarifications.

Post 38

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - 1:49pm

Steve,

Let me try something. I'll try to distill both of our arguments. After reading them, you can then comment on whether I'm off base.

Ed's argument
Obama is a regular left-liberal, choosing all of his values based on nothing more than existential whim -- and then coopting utilitarian reasoning in order to implement them inside of a political system.

Steve's argument
Obama is not a regular left-liberal, he's "different" or "special." What makes Obama different or special is what makes him dangerous. What makes Obama different or special is that he is a staunch ideologue.

Considering your argument, have I distilled it down to its essentials? If so, then I would disagree with it.

Communist propaganda explains the failure of communism by pointing to a 'personality' (e.g., Stalin). The explanation given (for why communism failed) is that the 'man-in-charge' wasn't enough of an ideologue. Instead of being a 'pure' ideologue for communism, the man was found to be some sort of a power-lusting autocrat. But communist propaganda states that pure ideologues exist, just that they haven't been found yet -- so communism can still succeed: when we find the 'pure' ideologues to implement it.

Don't evaluate results of the public policy of communism -- the communists say -- but instead, look at how 'pure' of an ideology the 'man-in-charge' has (and evaluate from there).

This is what you are doing with Obama.

Islamo-fascists are thought to be pure ideologues. Anybody willing to blow himself up seems pretty hell-bent on something. But closer inspection reveals that Islamic Imams never blow themselves up. Islamic Imams never have their children blow themselves up. In fact, when examined, it turns out that in order to get loyalty from potential suicide-bombers, Islamic Imams kidnap the bombers' families and ransom their families' lives based on whether the suicide-bomber completes his task or not.

Even Islamo-fascism in not a pure ideology.

Rather than examine the junk-heap, hodge-podge, disarray of discombobulated ideas floating around inside the heads of the irrational, I say we should examine and evaluate their policies -- and judge them harshly based on the results of those policies.

More often than not, results can be predicted accurately (before even giving the policies a "fair try"). This is because human nature doesn't change. In a few short years, we can start to judge politicians for the mere proposal of policies which we already know to be merely untried failures (or inherently rights violating).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/12, 1:53pm)

Post 39

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - 3:09pm