Obama's Plans For Civilian Security Force Rings Marxist Bell

[Dimmauk]

Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Obama's Plans For Civilian Security Force Rings Marxist Bell


Earlier this year Barack Obama announced his plan to build a massive "civilian national security force" here in America. It would be just as well funded as the US military.

Obama announced plans for this massive new government organization in July.
The Bulletin reported, via LGF:

"Loving your country shouldn't just mean watching fireworks on the 4th of July," he said. "Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it. If you do, your life will be richer, our country will be stronger."...

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

Unfortunately for America, Barack Obama's security plan is already practiced.
Not in America but in Marxist regimes.
Gusano at Babalu grew up with a civilian national security force... in Cuba:

Basically, what Obama is talking about is creating a Committee for the Defense of Liberal Ideology and Political correctness funded by a half trillion taxpayer dollars. National Security for this crowd is not about stopping terrorists from killing our children. National Security means to teach our children to understand the terrorists and their motivations so that our children can learn how to live their lives submissively so as not to offend the sensitivities of the very sensitive America haters.

Their version of National Security is to force you to act for the common good of society and not in your own best interest. Since this goes against human nature, the half trillion dollar “Civilian National Security Force” will have to force Americans to change their nature and create a new citizen that is self sacrificing and collective in nature-an ant-like new man, like Che's and Fidel's new man.

This concept is eerily similar to the Castroite CDR block snitch network that I grew up with only better funded and more ideologically pure.

Barack Obama promised to build the military tonight in his half hour foreign funded infomercial.
It is not clear if his civilian national security force was included in this plan.





I don't think this will happen, but it is scary how many people beleive he will make us a Marxist nation.

[aurik]

Hi, there exists a perfectly good thread to post this in.

Also, you're wrong.

[Valisk]

National Security for this crowd is not about stopping terrorists from killing our children. National Security means to teach our children to understand the terrorists and their motivations so that our children can learn how to live their lives submissively so as not to offend the sensitivities of the very sensitive America haters.

I lol'd hard at this. And I mean HARD. I'm still laughing.

[Dimmauk]

Hi, there exists a perfectly good thread to post this in.

Also, you're wrong.

Which one, the Palin one, or the Election one? And how am I wrong? I dont think Obama is make us a Marxist nation. You do think that?

[aurik]

Which one, the Palin one, or the Election one? And how am I wrong? I dont think Obama is make us a Marxist nation. You do think that?

I have no idea, but I'm absolutely certain you're wrong!

(This was posted a few days ago in the Palin thread, and discussed briefly)

[Ashira]

What I find scary is how people refuse to see the merit in the *ideas* presented by Marx and such. The philosophies in general do not work, human nature has proven that time and again, nor am I for reconditioning, but I see nothing with just trying to broaden people's minds so they can look you know, somewhere outside themselves for a change. Marxism doesn't mean believing and sympathizing with everyone in the world, for god's sake. But somehow it's okay for US to hate them and their beliefs and why they feel the way they do, but for them to do it to us is godless and heathen and blah blah who cares how many civilians we kill?

Amusingly, isn't it conformity that we all strive for in our daily social lives anyway? Wasn't that like the big thing in high school, all trying to wear the right shoes and clothes and do the right things and like the right music and such? Isn't that the freakin' ideals that the fashion industry is based on? So that's okay, and not acting on your own behalf there so you can be considered popular and beautiful is ok, but attempting to get people to work toward a common good where it may be a little self-sacrificial is evil and rotten. That makes utterly perfect sense.


Aurik: Palin thread is way too long to read, esp if you stopped reading it a month ago. Or more.

[Dimmauk]

People are now linking this and the Black Panther thing that happend today.

[Beckwin]

volunteering is Marxist now?

sure I'm down with Marxism getting credit for good stuff that it doesn't really emphasize uniquely for once.

[Creeps]

Marxism wasn't so bad, stop being pussies

[Aerin]

National Security means to teach our children to understand the terrorists and their motivations so that our children can learn how to live their lives submissively so as not to offend the sensitivities of the very sensitive America haters.

Note: Trying to understand your enemies point of view makes you submissive. Got it.

Also lol haters.

[Maguspk]

ITT People who have no idea what Marx actually wrote about

[Helm]

As a Philosophy major, I had read a good deal of Marx over the years, and I still am surprised by the massive number of people who don't know squat about the theories. Marx would roll in his grave if people began talking about making some sort of 'Marxist/Communist/Socialist' nation. During his own time, Marx himself was irritated with what a number of people had been taking to be Marxism, so much so as to have him remark that as to "Marxists" he wasn't one of them. Personally I think people need to stop being ignorant and spreading these assertions on something they really know nothing about. It is a big streach to even say Obama supports some bastardized version of Marxist policies, and even if he did, so what? Excuse the language, but stop being a greedy fuck. The entire mantra of mine-mine-mine or the blatantly assumed American superiority got old a long time ago.
/endrant

[LD]

There really never was a inherent problem with socialism, it's just it's always associated with communism (no, it isn't the same thing). It's been held as the evil twin to capitalism since the end of WW2 and has always been because all of the nations that supported it were our biggest and/or most contentious rivals. So it was demonized by our government because jingoism was supposed to be the glue that held our country together, rather than simple faith in our government, our fellow man, and the union we've created and continue to support.

It's all bullshit anyway, since if we didn't support a few of the basic tenets of socialism, taxes wouldn't be used for any public works and we'd be in an oligarchical nightmare world where only the rich and super rich controlled law enforcement, construction, firefighters, etc. while leaving the middle and lower classes to rot. As much as that sounds like the system we have now, it's actually worse. Think Judge Dredd or Mad Max.

What we really need right now is a way to put a big, fat choke chain in the rich. Tax percentages more in proportion with what the lower classes pay and keeping them from getting their cash out of the country without at least heavy taxation. Enjoying your wealth is one thing, keeping more than you really need to is quite another.

Also, it'd be awesome and a nice showing of a changed America if we finally just dropped the ridiculous embargo against Cuba. With the way we treat China and Korea, it's the worst kind of hypocrisy. People like to call it such a horrible place, but maybe they wouldn't have such crappy prisons or feel the need to be so defensive with their information if we weren't the dragon hording our spoils waiting for them to fuck up. In fact, Cuba isn't as bad as some nations we support. I remember watching a show about China's management of their people, a man said "In Cuba, if you mind your own business and keep your mouth shut, the government will leave you alone. in China, you HAVE to read this and not read that, etc." Neither are ideal by any means, but imo indoctrination and mental conditioning are the more repugnant practices, and we still trade with China. Also, China has always had a tight hold on the flow of information, it may not be as strong as it used to be, but they still jail anyone they want.

Socialist became the Republican's new 4-letter word to replace Liberal. It was a hollow epithet 50 years ago just as it's been for the last 8 years, but rather than try to dodge accusations and in the process give thm the power they need, someone really needs to ask What the Hell is wrong with Socialism?



Personally, I've always identified as a 'Leftist' rather than a democrat. In the early days, there wasn't much of a difference, but as the years rolled on, it became more and more important to make a distinction.

[Azkarin2]

What we really need right now is a way to put a big, fat choke chain in the rich. Tax percentages more in proportion with what the lower classes pay and keeping them from getting their cash out of the country without at least heavy taxation. Enjoying your wealth is one thing, keeping more than you really need to is quite another.

While I kinda agree with taxation of withdrawing funds from the US its the bolded part I'm at issue with. Who is to say how much a rich person 'needs'? If they've earned it, why should there be a cap on how much they can reap/keep?

[LD]

If you lead a comfortable life with all the perks one expects from your income and you're still hiding as much cash as you can, I'd say you have more than you really need. Also, it's possible even rich people can live a bit beyond their means simply by having less of their income taxed, not to mention the benefits of simply having money: interest, good credit. You're actually charged more if you're poor, which makes sense from a practical standpoint, but it just highlights the inequity.

[guartz]

Marxist? No. This is not marxist.

What it DOES sound like is something that military guy was talking about in TED.

Shit, anyone know what I'm talking about? I'm gonna look for the link.

[Beckwin]

I recall it, guartz, but I think the TED talk was something a little different... more or less a non/para-military "occupation force" comprised of specialized security and restructuring personnel that would go in after the military proper gets done steamrolling a country.

[guartz]

I recall it, guartz, but I think the TED talk was something a little different... more or less a non/para-military "occupation force" comprised of specialized security and restructuring personnel that would go in after the military proper gets done steamrolling a country.

Right, exactly.

Well, if you were a politician, how would you present it? heh

but it does have a eerie similarities. God I wish I could find that Ted video of it.
I wanna rewatch it.

[guartz]

FOUND it.

YouTube - Thomas Barnett: The Pentagon's new map for war and peace

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

[Azkarin2]

If you lead a comfortable life with all the perks one expects from your income and you're still hiding as much cash as you can, I'd say you have more than you really need. Also, it's possible even rich people can live a bit beyond their means simply by having less of their income taxed, not to mention the benefits of simply having money: interest, good credit. You're actually charged more if you're poor, which makes sense from a practical standpoint, but it just highlights the inequity.

So if I started a successful business and made more money than I needed to live my lifestyle, the government should somehow be able to take away my funds because I don't need it all? Who then gets it? What if I want to save for my descendants? Why would I ever strive to make my business better and in turn serve my customers better if there was a limit on how much I could take away from improving myself/business?

While I think there should be a way to tax those who profit wrongfully off other people I'm afraid that any legislation doing so will hurt/inhibit the motivation for people to succeed. I don't think there should a limit on how much people can prosper. As a result I feel like small businesses and entrepreneurship would take a huge hit.