Conservative Refocus

By Barry Secrest

Are we back in the Sixties again?

Social upheaval, wars in diverse places, and even the incessant sound of distant class warfare drumbeats seeming to mark ominous time to the never-ceasing US end-of-days plotlines--which can be seen in story after story and book after book. But then there was also "The One," the Occupy movement's Dark Lord Of the Sloth, Lord Obama, who arrived on the scene for a much awaited inner-beltway dedication to a deserving Father of the modern Civil Rights movement.

A beautiful October day, the monolithic statue of  martyred hero Martin Luther King, Jr., seemed almost alive, as the granite entombed King stonily towered with arms in resolute akimbo. It was difficult to tear one's eyes away from King's pose, ironically rendered in lilly-white, for Heaven's sake. As Obama let spew yet another round of words intended as a soothing verbal lobotomy, impulsively, I kept detecting something familiar in the statue, a certain feeling of deja vu.

Finally, it came to me.

Instead of seeing the ever-familiar Han Solo encased within the mythical element of carbonite, it was now Martin Luther King, Jr. assuming the Lucasonian carbonite freezing position right out of the Star Wars culture, and the eloquent Dark Lord was even there to preside. It was, therefore, rather unamazing to later learn that Star Wars iconic creator George Lucas had heavily contributed to the MLK statue project...you just can't make this stuff up.

But the cherry on top had to be Obama's speech to the gatherers at the MLK christening.  Obama seemed to continually make both vague and outright references to the anti-capitalist movement going on in a city near you , once even stating that, MLK, a devout Republican, would have somehow backed this left-leaning zeitgeist movement, which, by a series of cultural connections, seems to complete the burgeoning Star Wars plotlines. You see, the Dark Lord of The Sloth, indeed, must have his Army, and who better to serve than this grouping of  resolutely ill-dedicated Clones within the Occupy Protests.

Granted, when we speak of Obama's new army of  lounging Leftist clones, we are referring to a decidedly un-diverse grouping of extreme left-wing, non-independent thinking, organizations and individuals who have made their presence and their support known at these Occupy demonstrations. From the Nazi Party (National Socialists Party) to the Communist Party USA, the Workers Party, the Working Family Party, the New Party, Left-Wing Labor Unions-- all have come out in support and have, even more remarkably, evidenced  little if any irritation towards the truly culpable in our government, but rather, the reverse. That being even more power to the government to magnitudinally intensify the bankrupting of America under the auspices of redistribution, while vilifying the only ones who can actually aid in extricating America from its hyper-leftist economic disaster.

A Curiously Fawning Media

These Occupy protests, which began on Wall Street and spread throughout the larger US cities, have for a time even  intensified internationally, but have largely transformed into what could only be termed as a vast social anarchy movement geared largely against banks, the wealthy, and free market capitalism itself, for the most part--as violence has become an either threatened or active component of virtually each larger demonstration. The media, in stark but predicable contrast to its past coverage of the Tea Party, has been curiously fawning in its attention to this latest iteration of the materially-offended, along with, of course, the President and the Democrats in charge. In fact the Axis Press' coverage of the Occupy protests, in nine days, exceeded almost an entire of year of Tea Party stories.

It has become quite obvious in what, at present, seems to be a rapidly devolving world, that the dark forces of the Left have finally emerged into the light, and with a considerable vengeance, one might add. It's not just the Occupy protests alone, either.  In fact, what we appear to be witnessing is a self-absorbed tantrum of epic proportions being acted out by an entire bongo-banging generation of the erroneously enabled and the perpetually confused.

However, the one truly astonishing element to all of this, which would have been unthinkable even one decade ago, is that we now have proud cadres of  Socialists, Marxists, Communists  and even Anarchists marching and lounging throughout our streets, bearing hammer and sickle signs, often even proudly garbed in Oktober Red, in both America and Europe, while seeking to rub our patriotic right-wing noses in it to boot. In addition, the common thread which seems to run through this scraggly patchwork quilt of Leftist hegemonials is the Unions of America, the Left-Wing Capitalists and even radical Islamists of the world, all sauteed in antisemitic-think, piously merging and engaging their contrived and ever-present vitriolic disenchantment to bear.

Interestingly, this particular apocalyptic condition was prophetically foretold when Obama, as the consummate Socialist pre-emergent, burst onto the scene back in 2004 at the Democratic National Convention. On that warm day in July of 2004, Obama's speech held neither the noteworthy nor the remarkable, at the time-- for a garden variety, albeit uncharacteristically, patriotic Liberal. However, when we look back  at his words in this present-day, one particular quote stands out.

Obama stated quite eloquently, to an adulating mass of guiltily hyper-ventilating Leftists, the  following words:

Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin-masters and negative ad Peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes.

Indeed, little could we have possibly known that Obama was rather incipiently referring to he himself at the time.

An Engineered Framework of Decline

In the present day, President Obama has, rather emphatically, laid down the framework of  transforming America into a powerfully divided and racially charged nation where class consciousness, if not outright warfare, is increasingly becoming the rule rather than the exception. The President, while begging from those with both the money and the power to fund his re-election on the one hand, still unabashedly uses the other to commit blow after stinging blow against these same generous recipients of capitalism's blind largess. Obama will further rail at and vilify virtually every capital producing industry in America on the one hand, even while trying to prop up and subsidize those industries which only consume capital and taxpayer money on the other.

So, when we look closely at the odd range of actions as heralded by this bellwether presidency, we can begin to see what appears to be a subtle attempt at re-texturing of American society as a whole. The President has, in one glaringly particular instance, backhandedly downplayed, if not waylaid, individual property ownership--in the form of the American dream of homeownership--by suggesting that it might now be more advantageous to rent rather than to own, even while tightening regulations for "most Americans," making it far more difficult to even purchase a home.  At the same time Obama has blamed his opposition for his signature regulatory snarling which caused these problems in the first place. And that is just one glaring example of many.

So, where did all of this angst and socialized depravity actually come from? Well, it would now appear that the teachings of Marxism and anti-capitalism have taken a tenuous hold on those who have not been fully educated into the dangers of an authoritarian collectivist system. What we appear to be seeing now is a movement by the Left to actually bring back what was once referred to as the Proletariat class, in order to boost the now flailing globalist movement. The Proletariat or the working people were, historically, a social class of low income,  essentially property-less citizens who were initially defined in their existence, back in the days of the Roman Empire, by the Elites of that time. This social class had few if any voting rights due to their lack of property, and, thus, had but a small and limited voice. It was Karl Marx, during his years at the University of Berlin in the early 1800's, who formulated his flawed, but now increasingly academically accepted communist theories, by touting a societal takeover and implementation of Communism by this Proletariat class.  To wit, a certain point of confusion seems to exist when we speak of both Marxism and Communism as if they were two separate and distinct things.

Understanding Marxism and Manipulation Of  The Working Class

The one main thing to remember, when you hear various individuals speak of Marxism and Communism, is that modern-day Communism is normally viewed as the actual implementation of the Marxist theory of a Communist  system by use of the Proletariat class or the workers.  In other words, Marxism essentially defines how to prepare society for and implement a Communist form of government. This is why many often refer to Obama as a a Marxist-- in that he often appears to be paving the way for a more collectivist expression of government, and he was actually trained Alinsky style--in this technique. Remember, also, his views of "spreading the wealth around" by virtue of government alone and community organizing?

Now, we have already noted that the Proletariat is the working class within society, which would encompass most Americans in the modern-day, but Marx's system of government seeks to use the Proletariat to achieve a Statist goal. It's this usage of the Proletariat that becomes of great interest in America's case. In Marxist theory, the Proletariat is the social class of a capitalistic society which does not own the means of production, and, therefore, must trade their labor for wages. It was Karl Marx's view that the Labor class (the Proletariat) and the capitalist class (the bourgeoisie) held conflicting positions in which one wished for wages to be low while the other always wished for wages to be high. This so-called imbalance, along with the rather neurotic need to classify virtually every single individual within a self-defeating hierarchical class system, is that which Marx thought to exploit. It is also where Marx's theory has trouble holding together in our free-market and largely classless American society.

Marxism's ultimate theory of Communism is that which seeks to radically exploit the fact that Capitalism exceedingly profits from the labor of the worker's use of natural resources only, and not necessarily due to the labors, responsibilities and entrepreneurism of the Capitalists business owners themselves. Now, when we view this particular meaning in direct relation to what the Unions within the US have been demanding as the so-called Workers Party, we can begin to see what it is that labor unions are constantly trying to achieve, if not exacerbate, and why also trade Unions will, in their very essence, never, ever be satisfied.  It's not that they aren't being paid enough, nor is that they are dissatisfied with working conditions--it's that they simply don't like being used in order to produce a profit for the Capitalists who own the means of production. In essence, they are jealous that they must work for for a Company owner but then certainly cannot work for ourselves because then they would be of the enemy.

The Dictatorship of The Proletariat

In retrospect, one should remember and derive understanding regarding Obama's peculiar words of angst, when he once stated that working for a private firm felt like "being behind enemy lines."  but here again It all begins to slowly make sense, albeit of the bizarre variety.

But in parsing the ideology of Marx and most Unionists, it is quite obvious that few have ever performed the sometimes miserable job of trying to meet payroll as a Capitalist, nor the often insanity inducing trials of trying to meet some despicable Statist regulation.  One must also remember that when Obama placed the trade Unions in the front position of corporate ownership of GM, the Unions actually balked at being part of perpetual ownership. This would have, in fact, created a dichotomy within the Labor leadership's goal of constantly filching more from the Capitalist class, while demonizing them at the same time. A labor group simply cannot be a  union and a Capitalist owner at the same time; it would be no different than being an Angel and a Demon at the same time--simply unworkable on a practical basis.

So, now that we vaguely understand the basic components of Marxism as applied to our Obama ideologues, along with the fundamental foundations of Karl Marx's arguments, what was Marx's answer to fix this particular non-problem of Capitalism in general? Well, this is where it gets really interesting.  You see, Marx's theory of Communism sought to correct these modern-day non-issues by overthrowing the Capitalist system and installing a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which would espouse free development for all, and that's where Marx's system of government completely breaks down and collapses in upon itself, like a poorly constructed lawn chair as we will see.

According to Marx, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a Communist state in which the working class holds complete control and  political power within a democratic system. So, in other words, We the People would control everything together; is this starting to sound kind of familiar? It was Marx's idea that, while the power to command would lay directly with the people, the only effective means to leverage that power was for a state or controlling government to be assembled and then to control the proceeds of such labor on behalf of the people. In order for this control to effectively happen, Marx felt that the state should, therefore, take whatever it needed from the people in order to pay for its costs of doing business on behalf of the people as an economic necessity.

Foggy Marxist Breakdown

But here it also starts to get just downright comical. You see, Karl Marx actually believed that once all of these diverse things had been handled by the State, whatever was leftover should then be directed back towards the Proletariat and redivided amongst the workers according to each individual's efforts or initial investment. Rarely, in the annals of governmental history, has very much ever been leftover, as we all have rather painfully seen in the last decade, but especially in the last several years, when it comes to government. In fact, it is the reverse that is actually true in our particular Cloward-Piven spending free-for-all.

But when we overview, in summary, the entire idea of Marxism, it seems to ultimately boil down to far less power to the people in favor of the state, or oligarchy, as is commonly the case, but without even a Constitution to protect these same people. Throughout history, virtually any and all government systems tend to breakdown here and there or even altogether at once, in a natural inclination of centralized effort to concentrate power on behalf of the people's naive betterment and to the controlling State, but also at an even greater expense to the people. Which is precisely where America was heading until November of 2010, when the heroic Tea Party came into power.

This was, in addition, why the Founders of America fought and debated month in and month out, after studying history and all governmental systems at length, after having  lived under the thralls of tyranny in perpetuity, from their motherlands, or even in this, their newfound land of opportunity. The Founders intrinsically knew that a pure Democracy, as alluded to under Marxism, but not actually practiced, could only result in quick failure and mob rule, if a setting of natural laws were not both established and adhered to, and natural law is a significant key to liberty that Marx never seemed to understand or account for.

Bring In The Clones

Now, when we bring our present-day Occupy and otherwise Leftists back into the equation, and apply the facets of Marxist Communism or collectivism while also applying  Obama and the Democrat's massive contribution to an increasingly rotting middle class, we can begin to see that our current system of a broad, wealthy and powerful middle class is in rapid but contrived decline. Hereto, we would do well to also remember that when we, in America, speak of the middle class, we are speaking only in terms of degrees of income and property ownership, rather than any sort of perpetual under or over caste system.

However, it would appear that Obama and the radical Democrats of the last three years, along with the excesses of the last five years, are quickly changing this desired paradigm into something else altogether. In fact, the White House and the Democratic Party's avowed support for this left-wing movement, along with their collusive  and impenetrable relationship with the left-wing trade unions and their combative stance against mainstream business,  may prove to be the straw that ultimately broke the camel's back with regard to the inkling of whatever chance they may have retained in the upcoming 2012 elections.

A recent poll conducted by USA today stated that Americans in general lay far more blame on the Federal Government for America's financial mess than Wall Street by a wide margin. In fact, 64% of Americans stated that Washington was more to blame, while only 30% say it was Wall Street or big financial institutions who were more at fault.

This ultimately means that Obama and the Democrats have failed in their demonization of business in America, but this also means that the Conservative media has seen an outrageous success in its stand-alone job of informing Americans as to what the economic failures of the last three years were actually all about.

In essence, Obama has failed yet again, and so too has his left-leaning Media. And this does not bode well for our Occupy collectivists, the Liberal Democratic Party, nor Obama himself  in 2012.

"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor.

Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name — liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names — liberty and tyranny." ~Abraham Lincoln