Back to Back Issues Page
Refuting Obama, the American Politician, who is a Professional Revolutionary.
September 24, 2011
Subscribers Newsletter

Refuting Obama.

Vic Biorseth, Saturday, September 24, 2011

(This article, Refuting Obama, is another right-column gathering of material, this time refuting what Obama says, and identifying what Obama actually is. Look to the article links in the right column on this page for the details.)

Comrade President Barack Hussein Obama, peace be upon him, is in truth a professional revolutionary, of the type represented by such historical figures as Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. He follows their pattern exactly. If you look back at their lives, you will find that neither of them ever did anything for a living; they started no business, and they held no job, other than some menial and quite temporary thing. They lived off the largess of other revolutionaries and sympathizers, and off of the benefits of bureaucracy, which is to say, off of other people’s tax dollars.

Political opponents and conservative talk-radio hosts often point out Obama’s total lack of business experience, but I haven’t heard any of them mention the fact that he never even held any meaningful job for any length of time, and never even worked for a living like everybody else. Obama, like Marx, and like Lenin, is above work; he is an elitist, he is special, and as a very special elitist, the world just owes him a living. Work is beneath him. Obama not only doesn’t know the first thing about business, he doesn’t know the first thing about doing productive work. He never had to work, because he is so very special.

He got a step up over others in getting into better schools, and a step up in getting better grades in those schools, strictly because of his race, and his knowledge of how to game the system. He went to school on government grants, which openly provided racial privilege to minorities at the expense of non-minorities. He was employed as a Marxist academic by other Marxist academics, and he was employed by professional revolutionaries as a Communist organizer. I mean community organizer. And all of these activities were funded in whole or in part by various American bureaucracies, meaning, of course, American tax dollars.

His whole life was steeped in Marxism, racism, hatred of Western Civilization, and a personal sense of very special elite-ness. His first book was an auto-biography, done before he had done anything, while he was still quite young and certainly not accomplished at anything! Most auto-biographies are written by old men of accomplishment; this one was written by a self-centered Marxist brat who was still wet behind the ears.

If you doubt Obama’s Marxism, or his racism, or his sense of being so very special, then read the Obama Ethos page, which is a carefully and objectively constructed examination of Obama’s own written words. And, read the various articles linked to in the right column of this page. His own written and spoken words have told us exactly what he is.

Let’s look briefly at two of his chief Marxist predecessors.

Karl Marx was not successful in his life, in that he never became dictator anywhere. All of the 50 – some Communist-inspired revolutions of 1848 eventually failed, for the simple reason that a popular revolution must be popular, and none of his revolutions had any real popular support. If a popular revolution is not popular, then it must be somehow forced upon the population, which would make it something other than a popular revolution; a coup, perhaps.

No Marxist “popular revolution” ever enjoyed the informed support of the majority of any population, and that may be Marxism’s fatal flaw. The professional revolutionary hopes to stir the masses into revolution, and then, in the confusion, find a way to kill or arrest the ruler and assume control; or, failing that, for some part of the “revolution” to succeed to the point of inviting him in, or at least allowing him in, to assume control of the government. That didn’t happen in any of the violent uprisings of 1848.

Marx’s newly published Communist Manifesto, in 1948, only succeeded in stirring small minorities to greed, class envy and class warfare, and to riot and revolt against the standing system. Good violent rhetoric can always do that much. What it showed, by its failure, to all would-be Marxist revolutionaries, is that, if a whole population or a large majority of a population cannot be induced to join the revolt by rhetoric and argument, then it must be induced to obey the revolution by terror. 1848 marks the year of both the beginning of Marxist class warfare, and the beginning of an ever increasing Marxist-revolutionary dependency on ever increasing levels of violence and terror.

Vladimir Lenin was the first Marxist professional revolutionary to successfully assume control of a nation. The success of this “revolution” in Russia was perhaps due more to chance, the application of terror and the determined effort of a pitifully few revolutionaries who were increasingly driven by absolute desperation. Among the teeming population of gigantic Russia, the committed revolutionaries never numbered more than about 15,000.

Lenin opposed the Great War (1914 – 1918) because, in his view, it was being fought for the wrong reasons. He thought that it was using the lower classes to fight for bourgeois causes; he believed that a legitimate World War should be fought by all workers, against all bourgeois, all across the world. This fact alone proves my contention that even the best and brightest among Marxists has fatally flawed thinking. This idea of the need for strictly class – based world-wide war against the owners of property has never, ever been popular, and never will be popular; nevertheless, Lenin firmly believed in it, and couldn’t ever fully understand why everyone didn’t believe in it.

Lenin and other professional revolutionaries inspired discord, riots and chaos in Russia, and reaction caused Lenin to flee into exile. In early 1917 some of these riots and demonstrations, ostensibly due to hardships brought on by the Great War, but in truth inspired by Marxist agent provocateurs, induced Czar Nicholas II to abdicate. His rule was replaced by a combination of a provisional government made up partially of parliamentary officials and partially of a revolutionary council, or Soviet, representative of workers, soldiers and peasants. As soon as he learned of it, Lenin returned from exile to resume the revolutionary activities that caused him to be exiled. He fought for “all power to the Soviets” to eliminate any parliamentary or other representation in government.

In the October Revolution of 1917, Lenin made his first public appearance since his exile, to a thunderous welcome at the Congress of the Soviets, where he quite simply took control of the Congress, and dictated the organization of the new government. The position of head of the government was offered to Trotsky, who declined, and Lenin became the head of the government.

The revolution, even at this point, was not a sure thing. Lenin’s government represented a tiny minority among the vast population of Russia; most that knew about it opposed it, and the overwhelming majority of the population didn’t even know it had happened. The “mass media” communications of the day, the way a government communicates to a people, involved the new developments of the radio and the gramophone; most Russians did not have radios or gramophones. Soldiers in the field, who were preoccupied fighting for their lives, only knew that there was a new government, but not much about it.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks called out desperately for the rest of the world to join in their great revolution, and for others to come to the aid of the Russian revolutionaries, because they already had such a strong foothold in such a great nation. This was touted as the singular, great opportunity for Marxist revolution to have a success. As it became increasingly evident that other revolutions were not forthcoming, and that no one was coming to their aid, Lenin and his revolutionaries grew increasingly desperate.

A failed assassination attempt in August 1918 left Lenin gravely wounded, but he survived, and the state-controlled news of the event strengthened his popularity sufficiently for him to feel powerful enough to take absolute control, which he did. If he had died from his wounds, the revolution in Russia might have died with him, and he would have been just another footnote in history.

Lenin unleashed a new terror campaign; all political Parties were outlawed and the Soviets (the Communist Party) became the sole political authority. In this “Red Terror” Lenin ordered the deaths of all non-Communist ministers and civil servants, over 700 White Guards, the Czar and the whole Romanov family, including all potential heirs to the throne.

There was no turning back at this point.

You know (or you should know) the rest of the story. The Russian civil war, what Robert Conquest called “War Communism” went on for many years, between the Reds and the White Russian counter-revolutionaries. They would eventually loose, because they were essentially leaderless and disorganized, after Lenin had all of their leadership killed. The point is that Lenin harbored no particular love for Russia, or for any nation; what he sought was an end of nations, in the rather stupid Marxist ideal. He was totally enamored with the idea of total power, and the punishment of the bourgeoisie. If it took terror, and the virtual destruction of the Russian nation, to accomplish his goals of acquiring total power and punishing the bourgeoisie, then he would use terror and the destruction of his nation.

Comrade Barack Hussein Obama, peace be upon him, is a professional revolutionary dropped from the same mold as Marx and Lenin. Not only is he a Marxist, which is to say, opposed to the idea of private property, nations, sovereignty, borders, etc., but he also absolutely despises America, Western Civilization and white people. I do not say these things lightly; read the articles linked to in the right column of this webpage for my evidences. Of course, when any Marxist rails against property or wealth, he excludes his own property and wealth. The whole notion of becoming absolute ruler includes the benefit of the possession of absolute power, great wealth and vast private property.

In two and a half years or his Presidency, Comrade Obama has proved beyond any doubt that Marxists don’t have the first clue of how to properly govern a decent nation. What he really needs is absolute control, and the ability to run a terror campaign to bring the population into absolute submission; failing that, he cannot hope to fulfill the Constitutional responsibilities of his job, because he simply doesn’t know how to do that. He isn’t smart enough to be President of a great Constitutional Republic. He needs to completely bypass the Constitution to rule America; in our eyes, he would then be ruling improperly; nevertheless, he would be ruling, and since he would be making the rules, he would be ruling properly.

To that end, he is instigating all manner of problems and planting all manner of seeds of chaos and crisis, in many different areas of American and world society, bypassing or side-stepping the Constitution at every opportunity. Printing too much money; borrowing too much money; spending too much money; giving too much money; bailing out too many private business and foreign government entities; using executive orders, appointed “czars” and expanded bureaucratic regulations to strangle coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear energy, transportation, trucking, farming, retail business, timber; etc., etc., etc. He is alienating the allies of America and forming alliances with the enemies of America. He encourages revolution, chaos and crises in foreign lands all round the world.

As one who hates Western culture, he opposes the Judao-Christian Ethos of America, and abides instead by what I have called MPAV. He has demonstrated the ethos of BMDFP and Democrats. He seldom speaks of Christianity except in terms that are either negative, or in terms that pervert Christianity. He only speaks of Islam in glowing terms. Like a good Democrat, he supports the government suppression of any Christian religious exercise in public, in direct violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of religious exercise. There is to be no public prayer by any Christian.

Following the Democrat Party standard, he seeks to turn our national Judao-Christian morality upside down, in order to destroy it. In the new Democrat morality, sodomy, for instance, is not a sin; instead, saying that sodomy is a sin, is a sin, and immoral. Perhaps even a sign of mental illness, known as homophobia. Perhaps it should be a crime. And, sodomy is not a perversion or in any way unnatural; it is quite natural, despite what mathematics has to say about it. After all, what do mathematicians know about anything? Marxists always know best. Besides, scientific consensus – not science, but consensus – says that sodomites are born, not made. Anyone who says otherwise is outside the consensus, and therefore automatically wrong, regardless of what actual empirical evidences might have to say about it.

How did he get elected? Good question. There are several factors that got Obama elected, but probably the biggest single thing was the absolute, immediate and unquestioning support of the thoroughly Marxist SLIMC, which more or less morphed into Obama’s own personal propaganda wing. He didn’t really have to do anything to get their support; the SLIMC had gone Marxist before Obama was born, and it recognized one of its own and supported him from the beginning. Promoting Obama with lies and political spin was an automatic, knee-jerk reaction of our Marxist mainstream media.

We have spoken elsewhere in this site about the many Fatal False Premises and various Global Consensual Frauds that have been spoon-fed to children in public schools, to citizens through “spun” news and entertainment, and to college students through corrupted higher education. Many if not most of these outright fraudulent theories have become woven into public consciousness to such a degree that they are automatically taken to be true despite concrete contradictory evidences. Here, I will talk about only two of them, which, rightly or wrongly, I consider to be chief among them in leading people to think and vote in the Marxist (i.e., Democrat Party) direction. Of course, there are many others, all of which were either invented by or co-opted by Marxist politicians and revolutionaries, to further the cause of “transforming” America and the world into one big dictatorship.

Property Is Theft. The false notion, using Orwellian Newspeak, that Property is Theft, should be seen at first glance to be stupid on its face. But it isn’t. It is a clever lie, designed to promote envy, jealousy and the beginnings of class warfare. On yet another point, it seeks to turn Judao-Chrisitan morality on its head. It implies that the one who has property is guilty of the sin of greed by mere dint of ownership of property. It simultaneously implies that the one who is now made envious and jealous of the one with the property, and who now thinks he has a right to that person’s property, is not guilty of the sin of greed.

Here’s what I said about it in the Fatal False Premises page:

Property is theft is a fatal false premise. Property is not theft. Property is merely property. Stealing property is theft. This is a Proudhonian piece of Socialist lunacy designed to destroy peace and order in society, to induce class warfare, promote both guilt and envy and to destabilize society. The notion that ownership equals theft flies in the face of Thou shalt not steal and Thou shalt not covet, which firmly establish the right of man to personal private ownership of something, and to continue to own it. Be it flocks and herds, be it land, be it a pair of socks, or even an idea, it is his to be held, sold, given or disposed of as he wills, at his pleasure, and his alone.

This false premise is now so deeply imbedded in Democrat, Liberal, Progressive thought, and so ingrained in the psyches of American educators, journalists, celebrities and politicians that it is seen as a truism, an axiom, something just automatically taken for granted. Nobody even thinks about it.

And that’s the problem.

Anyone who is rich is automatically seen to be greedy. Anyone who is envious is not seen to be greedy. This is Egalitarianism at its root. There are branches and sub-branches; for instance, those who inherit wealth are seen to be somehow undeserving, because they, personally, didn’t earn the wealth. But, neither did the ones who envy and covet the wealth. The wealth belonged to the benefactor, to dispose of it as he saw fit, and he chose to bequeath it to the inheritor, by right of ownership of personal property.

It makes many gullible people into unhappy citizens if not potential revolutionaries. Property Is Theft promotes another underlying lie, which is that “Wealth” is a fixed and permanent thing, and that some have more of it at the expense of others. But, wealth is not fixed; it is continually changing. Marxists would have us believe that some small percentage of people own most of the fixed wealth, and most people don’t have their “fair share” of it. So a new definition of fairness enters the arena, and the world is seen to be unfair so long as anyone owns anything someone else does not own. So, fairness is no longer seen as equality before the law, but rather equality in ownership of property. Fairness is no longer equality in opportunity, rights and remedies, but rather equality in stuff.

This brand of fairness, of course, requires a new authority – perhaps a dictator – to fairly distribute property, and wealth, and stuff. Of course, that has never happened in all of human history, and it will never happen. It cannot happen, because wealth is not a fixed pie to be divided up, and because no dictator could be trusted with the job if wealth were a fixed pie to be divided up.

Proponents of Property Is Theft will loudly point out that some small percentage of the population earns or owns some large percentage, perhaps 20% or 25% of “the wealth,” but they will de-emphasize or lie about the fact that one percent of the population bears half of the nation’s tax burden, and that half of the population pays no taxes whatsoever.

They simply begrudge anyone having any more than anyone else.

Peace At Any Cost. This is the seemingly Christian, peace-loving, peace-promoting inclination to support the disarmament movement. It got its biggest boost on this side of the Atlantic in the ‘60s peace movement. But, where did it originate? Here’s what Professor Libor Brom described it, as quoted in the Marxist Fundamentals page.

Lenin, the founder of the first Communist state, put it simply: "First we will take Eastern Europe, then the masses of Asia. We will encircle the last bastion of capitalism, the United States of America. We will not need to fight. It will fall as a ripe fruit into our hands." And, "We must practice coexistence with other nations, until we are strong enough to take over by means of world revolution.... We are not pacifists. Conflict is inevitable. Great political questions can be solved only through violence.... It is inconceivable that Communism and capitalism can exist side by side. Inevitably one must perish.''

Rykov, Lenin's successor in the Council of Soviet Commissars, corroborated: "It is our duty to inculcate in the minds of nations the theories of international friendship, pacifism, and disarmament, encouraging their resistance to military appropriations and training, without ever relaxing our own efforts in building our military equipment.''

Manuilsky, a prominent Soviet professor at the School of Political Warfare, said: "The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. We shall begin by Launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends."

And Khrushchev, a more contemporary Soviet prime minister, said: "We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find out they have Communism.''

Today, Marxism-Leninism represents a most complex and powerful doctrine developed by Communist theoreticians and practitioners in every corner of the world. 'Its universal library offers dynamic political weapons and comprehensive theories, diversified approaches and seductive slogans. On one side of the globe, there is the Yugoslav moderate theory of reformed Communism and participative economy which lures masses into socialism. On the other side of the earth there are Chinese slogans which are more productive in inflaming a Communist revolution.

Marxism-Leninism is particularly effective on the semantic level where it exhibits a devastating duality. It lulls its adversaries to sleep, while at the same time it mobilizes its followers to revolutionary action. The Communist International's Seventh Congress concluded that open use of revolutionary terminology does not promote the Marxist-Leninist drive for world domination. Therefore, "revolution" has been changed into "liberation," "world conquest by the proletariat" has been changed into "peace and socialism," "armed seizure of power and liquidation of the bourgeoisie" has been rephrased to read "peaceful and gradual transition to socialism.''

Even the word "Communism," which every revolutionary is so proud of, has been changed into "progressive, "anti-Fascist" or "liberal." Further, to confuse their adversaries, the Marxist-Leninists have devised a new language which uses old words in the basic vocabulary. When they say "imperialism arouses the wrath of the people and digs its own grave," they mean "through our manipulation of the local Communist parties, and with a vast auxiliary corps of dupes ; and sympathizers, we so arrange matters that the free enterprise system and democracy are destroyed from within. All we need to do is push it into the grave."

Now, many of the people you see with the famous peace symbol on shirts, jackets and cars are just dupes of Marxism-Leninism; but some of them are professional revolutionaries. Some of them are anarchists in disguise. Very few of any of them love America. Most of them see America as some kind of war monger, at least, and perhaps even imperialist. They have swallowed the whole Communist Party Line.

This is the lie that feeds the disarmament movement. This is the lie that makes Ron Paul a true fool of Marxism. Everything he says makes perfect sense, until he begins to talk about national defense. Then, on that single point, he betrays a naiveté that could potentially get us all killed, or get us all conquered.

National defense is just like personal gun ownership, or self defense. If you will not defend yourself, your family or your property, nothing else matters. Similarly, if the nation cannot or will not defend its internal integrity, its territory or its allies, nothing else matters, for we are doomed as a nation.

The peace movement people – some of them – believe that if we unilaterally disarm, and if we throw away our guns, everyone else will do that too. If we are nice to everyone, everyone will be nice to us. If we disarm, Russia will disarm, and China will disarm, and Islam will disarm. There is no evil in the world.

It just doesn’t get any dumber than this.

The real problem is that Comrade Obama, peace be upon him, has no problem with disarming us completely. He has no problem with gutting our military. John Boehner has already helped him toward that end, with his last “compromise” with Obama’s Marxist goals, by setting up the six-member deficit panel who will end up gutting national defense when they can’t find any other way to reduce the deficit. Which will mean moth-balling aircraft carriers and laying off untold thousands of servicemen and women, to the wild cheers of peacniks, Moslems and Marxists everywhere.

Look to the links in the right hand column of this webpage. Comrade Obama, peace be upon him, has no particular interest in winning reelection; if he wins, fine, but he will be happy to wait in the wings until America comes crashing down. For the sake of the Democrat Party, he may step aside and let someone else (Hillary, with Billary as Vice President?) step into the race. Or, he may ride it out, win lose or draw. He’s more interested in bringing America down than in the things more typical politicians concern themselves with. He wants to be ruler, not President.

Even if we were invaded or bombed and conquered, so long as he survived, he would stand a better chance than most at being established as a puppet ruler here, which means that he could still be among the top tier candidates to eventually rule the world. He would have no problem “converting” to Islam if need be, and praying with his butt up in the air, so long as he was a high-level dictator of some sort.

Bottom line, Obama despises America and everything she stands for. He is, of course, a MEJTML and a politician; he will do or say anything to achieve what he wants to achieve. For him, the ends justify the means. You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. He would love to tell us to shut up and get on the cattle car. The hardest thing for him to do is to pretend to love America; in fact, he cannot do it. He cannot wear an American flag lapel pin; he cannot stand respectfully with his hand over his heart at the national anthem; he cannot properly recite the pledge of allegiance. He simply cannot bring himself to do these things.

He hates Capitalism, liberty, America, white people, rich people who are not Marxist, and Jews. Any positive sounding remarks he ever has to make about Israel or the Jews will be said only for the purely political needs of the moment. He will not defend Israel, and he will not defend the Jews against their mortal enemies. Indeed, he may be one of their mortal enemies.

What next? Marxist professional revolutionaries always strive for chaos, disorder and anarchy, so that force can be used to restore order. In the best possible scenario, from the viewpoint of the would-be future dictator, the situation would be deemed by all to be so bad as to require a declaration of martial law and the suspension of the Constitution. If that ever happens under this regime, the Constitution may never be restored. It will be the end. It will mean the fundamental transformation of America.

Comrade Obama, peace be upon him, has planted and is planting all sorts of inflammatory seeds to bring about disruption, disorder, chaos and riot. Government hindrance of production and distribution of all sorts of fossil fuel contributes to people not being able to heat or cool their homes or driver their cars, and to trucks not being able to supply grocery stores. Purposeful failures of government sponsored and government forced bad mortgage loans contributes to potential massive foreclosures and homelessness. Many large business enterprises are now in danger of bankruptcy thanks to strangling government regulation and taxes, contributing to even more massive future unemployment. Cutting of various entitlements contributes to bringing unions and others out into the streets to riot, as in Europe. Purposeful incitement will bring out students, with racists, anarchists and revolutionaries in among them.

It’s hard to say how far this will go. Our job is to not be incited into violent participation. We – the Tea Party people – are the clear majority. The racists and the anarchists, the union thugs and the lower-level professional revolutionaries will burn and loot, and flash-mob, and do their best to disrupt. The ultimate goal of much of this is to get you and me to retaliate, and organize ourselves to violent counter-action.

Don’t do it. Don’t fall for it. Let them burn themselves out in their local skirmishes and riots, fighting against the local police. They will lose. Leave it to the police. The local police already know who the local trouble makers are, and they will get better and better at shutting these events down quickly. Stay out of it. Us getting involved is what they want. We are the ones the higher-up professional Marxists hope to crack down on.

We – you and I – form and represent the majority thinking, in civilian life, in all branches of the military, in the various police forces, including even the Secret Service. That means that there are huge numbers of Americans who swore a solemn oath of office to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Let Comrade Obama take a step too early, or a step too far, toward suppressing the Constitution, and see what happens to him and his regime.

There has been a great awakening to the Marxist threat in America, thanks to Comrade Obama, peace be upon him. That’s what the Tea Party is all about. I believe we are now significantly more than our usual conservative / religious third of the population, and we are growing. The more outrageous he and his Party becomes, the more our movement grows.

Stay calm. Be prepared. Be not afraid. Let freedom ring.

Do not reply to this automatic email.

Respond to this article at the link below :
Refuting Obama.

This article and coRefuting-Obamamments may be found on the web site at the link below:

Visit Vic Biorseth on FaceBook at the link below:
Vic on FaceBook

Back to Back Issues Page