The evidence for Neocommunism

American Thinker ^ | October 9, 2007 | James Lewis

[TheThinker]

I think Obama is a neocommunist like his idol, Saul Alinsky. As the article states, the goal is to "create a ruling class with huge power over ordinary people." Doesn't this seem like a recurring theme with today's "liberals"? So what we have now is a world that has two dueling ideologies bent on controlling the United States and the rest of the world. Guess who's stuck in the middle?

[ducdriver]

Read the foreword by Whittaker Chambers in his book Witness and you will find that he understood communism not so much a movement but more as a religion. One need not be a member of the Communist Party to be a communist. Maybe neocommunist is a good term for it, but it must fundamentally be seen as a religion, where man replaces God. He sees it as the ongoing struggle as first described in Genesis. In fact, the whole book is a great read, and Chambers is a gifted writer.

[TheThinker]

I am certain that followers of neocommunism believe in it with faith more than reason, giving it an almost religious feel. They aim to change the world into a utopia without any unequal treatment without regard to distinct differences and the toil and industriousness of the individual. This blind allegiance has put neocommunism’s architects in control and that’s all they want, control.

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[Blind Eye Jones]

Good article but it presents no solutions. Take back the university should be the obvious move, but it’s hard to counter the religious impulse of communism that appeals to idealistic youth. TV trains us to feel — not to think — and Hollywood and the MSM are good at manipulating people’s feelings. Obama’s election is the text book example of that kind of manipulation. What to do as the country continues down the path towards the left? You don’t see the Dems raising any alarms and everything is hunky dory to them. So the job of right is to fight and imform people... good luck with that if they can’t get their act together.

[TheThinker]

What I'm trying to do is define Obama and the geopolitical context of his ascendancy. People have to understand what is going on before they can act. Also, I have always believed that an informed populace is less likely to be manipulated, particularly if they know the stakes. The stakes are very high now, higher now than any in my lifetime.

[TigersEye]

Excellent excellent article!

[MathDoc]

Good article but it presents no solutions.

Actually, I see the choice of vocabulary as one solution. Just as "neoconservative" became both a diminishing label and a perjorative, "neocommunist" can do the same. By identifying the real problem with the modern left and giving them a label that helps the less informed to recognize the danger they pose, this starts us on the path to a solution.

Calling Obama a communist doesn't work because communists are evil, and Obama is a nice guy offering "hope" and "change". Calling him a neocommunist may be more effective, although we may need a slightly different label that serves the same purpose without looking like it was copied from "neoconservative".

[Albion Wilde]

Ping!

[jonrick46]

“To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good... Ideology - that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination...”

——Alexander Solzhenitsyn

[gargoyle]

...Communism, a religion. OK. One need not be a communist to be a member of the Communist Party. Or religion. Neo-religious, fundamentalism. “Neo-ism”? Now I'm scared..

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Agree..but what do you do with an electorate that doesn’t know who the ruling party of congress is at present, who didn’t know Obozo’s running mate’s name?

the masses are asses...who said that famous quote?

[Bellflower]

ping

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

"The NeoCommies may not be conspirators, but they are heirs to an international political movement that was built on conspiracies. "

And mind control.

[iopscusa]

Good summary of what the definition of the New/Old Left. NeoCommunism fits well. The problem IMO is that the March through the Institutions has been successful and to reclaim our Individual Rights will likely take a full blown confrontation. This election has made such a confrontation a 1000x’s more difficult. We face the NeoCom’s with the combination of the Clinton and Chicago elements along with the internal/external enemy, Islam.
And a disjointed Right/Conservative leadership. Any ideas on an approach?

[Hardastarboard]

Good article but it presents no solutions.

Agreed one hundred percent (with one exception - see below). As much as I love Rush Limbaugh, and listen to him and many other conservative talk show hosts every day as much as I can, NONE of them have given us even the slightest hint as to how to turn this tide. We have to have a strategy, and work it hard in order to avoid slavery.

Down the road it's quite possible that the EU will turn Hard Left, and junk soft socialism. And it's not impossible that it will turn Hard Right, like the Nazis.

This WAS a great article, right up until the author threw in this clinker. Calling the Nazis "right wingers" is an old, and by now transparent trick to mislead the uninformed as to the near identical nature of Nazism and Communism. I expect better of an author this well informed.

[Earthdweller]

"This WAS a great article, right up until the author threw in this clinker. Calling the Nazis "right wingers" is an old, and by now transparent trick to mislead the uninformed as to the near identical nature of Nazism and Communism. I expect better of an author this well informed. "

Totally agree with you.

[mek1959]

You state the salient point to all of this; "NONE of them have given us even the slightest hint as to how to turn this tide. We have to have a strategy, and work it hard in order to avoid slavery.",

One has to follow your statement with a simple "why"? Why aren't real solutions being posited?

1. Fear - Perhaps our conservative leaders are just plain ole' afraid. They've been intimidated for so many years now, accused of being Nazis, homophobes, wingnuts, fill in the blank that they're just demoralized. They'd prefer to pontificate and tinker instead of posing solutions.

2. Lack of conviction - One has to admit that in our current state of affairs, throwing around titles such as "neocommunist" or flat out "Communist" takes some cajones...real conviction that they are who we accuse them of being. Also, you have to be prepared to immediately be accused of being a "wingnut" or "radical". I'm not a big fan of Rick Warren, but did you see Ann Curry's interview? That's what's in store for anyone of a national stature to start calling "a spade a spade."

3. Magnitude - maybe, just maybe, the consequences of a solution are just to darn big or grave to get their minds around. Thus, they're questioning themselves on the solution.

4. Lack of belief - It's a bit surreal to really assess how far we've fallen, the libs really do own all the major cultural influencers (media, Hollywood, academia, public schools, medicine and now politics). I myself, as I ponder solutions find this recurring phrase in my head "this is unreal, am I really reading the times right"?

Thus, I don't know if anyone is going to really pose a solution that fixes all this mess. My hunch is that I doubt it. Absent a national leader really calling for change, we'd all better prepare for the worst. What this guy (Obama), in cooperation with Pelosi and Reid will do before we can regain power (assuming we can) will not be able to be undone. The genie is out of the bottle and he ain't going back in without a fight. And let's be honest, conservatives are not ready for a fight...we're too busy working, taking care of our families and generally being responsible citizens. Attributes COMPLETLY recognized by our enemies.

[wintertime]

As much as I love Rush Limbaugh, and listen to him and many other conservative talk show hosts every day as much as I can, NONE of them have given us even the slightest hint as to how to turn this tide. We have to have a strategy, and work it hard in order to avoid slavery.

Except for Michael Savage none call the enemy by name: Communism and Marxism.

Rush rarely identifies the problem as Marxism or communism. He consistently uses the words "liberal" and/or "leftist".

The problem is like a cake with icing. While Rush does an excellent job on analyzing current topics, it's like taking a knife and smearing a new design on the icing on a rotten communist cake. Rush consistently ignores the corrupt communist cake and has a lot of fun and many laughs smearing the liberal icing.

I find it very exasperating.

[CharlesI]

I’ve been saying this for years. The people that call themselves liberals are nothing more than elitists with a form of Marxism as their agenda.