Neo-neocon, “‘Misunderstanding’ the Ayers connection: the coverup of the coverup:
[…] The unanswered question is how Ayers, with not only his “unrepentant†terrorist past but his far Leftist present agenda became an influential educator. Whatever the answer (and we have not gotten it yet), the evidence is clear that for many years Barack Obama was his confederate and supporter in that endeavor and has covered up that fact. The media is now assisting in that coverup, and the Republican Party is not hitting hard enough at the real issues that need to be uncovered.
Here’s the program, folks, in Ayers’s own words, spoken just two years ago in that oh-so-progressive country, Venezuela:
An idea of what Ayers has in mind for America’s schools was provided in his own words not 40 years ago when Obama was eight years old, but less than two years ago in November 2006 at the World Education Forum in Caracas hosted by dictator Hugo Chavez.
With Chavez at his side, Ayers voiced his support for “the political educational reforms under way here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution. . . . I look forward to seeing how . . . all of you continue to overcome the failures of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane.â€Â
Ayers told the great humanitarian Chavez: “Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions large and small. La educacion es revolucion.†It is that form of socialist revolution that Ayers, and Obama, have worked to bring to America.
We are seeing now the fruit of that program of transformation in an electorate that cannotâ€â€or will notâ€â€see what and who Obama is, or perhaps doesn’t much care. America’s educational system has already been heavily compromised by Ayers-like goals and methods. If you want to know what sort of education Ayers espousesâ€â€and has been advocating for many decadesâ€â€read this excellent summary by Sol Stern.
Neo-neocon points then to Ayers’ Teaching for Social Justice, reviews for which, she points out, sound remarkably similar to an Obama campaign speech.
Over the past several weeks I have been making the argument that Obama is, in some ways, the boat that is being rushed ashore by the perfect storm (historically and contextually speaking) of New Left / Alinsky-Gramsci “progressivism” — a transformed and polished repackaging of earlier failed attempts by Ayers and his New Left cohort to restructure the “establishment,” the improvement coming by way of mainstreaming radical socialist / materialist ideas, inserting them (and the New Left itself, by way of the far more positive-sounding “progressivism”) into the planks of the Democratic party platform, and hiding the controversial ideology that spawned them in value-laden terms that appeal to those who’ve been taught to help bring about “change” — as if change as an end in itself is somehow unquestionably positive, an implied argument made even stronger by its ties to activism, which we’ve been conditioned to think of as proactive and selfless (but which, as others beside me have pointed out, is often the feel-good rallying cry behind smash-the-system fascism).
Of course, that conditioning is part and parcel of the entire game — which is why I’ve consistently named the insinuation of progressive ideas into the institutional structures of education as one of the chief tactics in an overall “progressive” strategy to undermine classical liberalism from within, and why I’ve focused so closely on the grounds on which a society, joined by a social contract, collectively determines meaning — both how it is grounded (if at all) and who is responsible for deciding upon it.
My own interests have prompted me to concentrate on how the way we come to believe interpretation works influences the very epistemological paradigm under which as a society operate; but that is a rather broad and abstruse field of hermeneutic study, one that necessarily looks at linguistic assumptions, and so it often proves too abstract to gather much attention.
The ideas explicit in the arguments for Teaching for Social Justice, on the other hand, are tailor made for a more direct critique — and speak directly to ideas of pedagogy that were supported by Barack Obama through his CAC stewardship.
Neo-neocon argues that it is these arguments that should be highlighted by those wishing to connect Ayers and Obama in a way that Americans might find troubling. Which is to say, instead of concentrating on Ayers’ radical past, those worried about his connection to Obama should be more concerned with the ways he’s sublimated his destructive tendencies toward brick and mortar into equally destructive tendencies towards minds he wishes to mold into the worker bees of glorious revolution against the capitalist system he pretends to despise.
Discuss.
Jeff, 30-second political ads and re-pre-re-rehearsed talking points and sound bites don’t have the time to explain why Obama’s beliefs are a poison to what most Americans hold dear – besides American Idol and Dancing with the Stars.
After all, this new change and hopiness will all be for the better. I’m absolutely certain none of it will suck!
oh. NPR was really excited about Venezuelan education around that same time. Discipline and teamwork!
“..hose who’ve been taught to help bring about “change† as if change as an end in itself is somehow unquestionably positive,..”
And Goldberg pointed out repeatedly that one of the principals of Fascism is “Action!”.
For a while now I’ve said that the linkage to Ayers should focus more on their common failed attempt at educational reform, through the vehicle of the CAC, than in Ayers radical-chic past.
Their efforts at CAC, eschewing any focus on actual learning-such as reading and writing, to openly indoctrinate parents, student, and teachers in the tenets of social justice, identity politics, and multi-culturalism speak volumes about how they think this country is fundamentally flawed as well as how they think that it should be changed.
In addition to being a demonstration of their patronage of radicalism, it also shows how they would trade our children’s education and their future, as well as our nation’s, in return for political power; all in the name of the revolution.
I often refer to Obama’s support among young voters as being their Pavlovian response to a dog-whistle they’ve been taught to recognize through the public school system’s cirriculum. What really is important about the Obama-Ayers connection is the role that both have played in the evolution of that cirriculum from one of learning to one of indoctrination.
I’m guessing by all the shrieking and wailing from the vampires means that this spike must have hit home. I’d keep hammering it.
The MSM is going to continue to cover for BHO. The only way that will be effective is to do end-around the MSM by going to a BHO apperance, asking him about his connections to his face, and then uploading his response to Youtube. Drudge will take care of the rest, provided that the questions are good enough. See my name’s link for the details.
At the same time, Palin should concentrate on the long laundry list of questionable associations, naming them off one-by-one. And, she stress that BHO hasn’t been forthcoming about his past.
Oddly enough, last night I awoke with an idea for a YouTube video (except that I have no skillz):
Narrator: One man wrote a book …
Image: Karl Marx, Das Kapital
N: Another man turned it into a Plan …
I: Lenin, with superimposed Give me four years to teach the children, and the seeds we have sown will never be uprooted (or whatever the exact quote was)
N: And one man became the leader of a great revolution.
I: Stalin, looking Slightly Upward (typical Soviet poster)
N: One man wrote another book …
I: Saul Alinsky, Rules For Radicals
N: … which another man has turned into a Plan …
I: Bill Ayers, s/i quote from speech linked here
N: … which may result in One Man …
I: Obama, looking Slightly Upward
N: … becoming the leader of another great revolution.
I: those two video clips of The Chirren Singing Obama’s Praises.
N: Is this what we want for America?…
ok this is me going to a Baracky rally with my video camera so I’d say we can check that one off the old list
brb
We’re trying to win an election by appealing to undecided morons. Such people are more likely to be swayed by pictures of bombed buildings than by treatises on how Ayers wants to brainwash schoolkids. Cynical but effective.
…as if change as an end in itself is somehow unquestionably positive…
This idea is also expressed by Alinsky who rhetorically situates his “Ideology of Change” within the larger flow of history, which on Planet Progressive consists of an endless series of revolutions and counter-revolutions. On this counter-factual retelling of history he justifies his will to power as a process as natural as the tides and the seasons.
But unlike many of today’s progressives, Alinsky recognized, but was untroubled by, the fact that change was not an unalloyed good, that each change brought negative consequences with it, and that ultimately the revolutionaries became The Establishment, shot through with all of the corruptions of the previous establishment that the revolution sought to overthrow.
Neo’s right: it’s not what Ayers did in the 1960s, it’s what he’s been doing with Obama lately.
But McCain lives in the Beltway Bubble, and like all of its denizens, he radically misjudges how the rest of us live and think.
I’ve already made a few videos *about* BHO and so have many others.
I’m referring to asking Barack Obama questions to his face and getting his response on video. If the question is good, he’ll probably look very bad.
If you don’t have or can’t bring a video camera, then bring a pocket tape recorder, making sure it has OK audio. That’s how the “bitter” comment was brought to our attention, and that seems to have had some kind of an impact.
There are other videos of BHO being asked (weak) questions here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0zfEXqND_s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbV8duHcXX0
The first question was asked by a fifth-grader.
Not cynical enough. There’s a thing that used to be called “projective identification.” It’s hard to explain. But–
How many American fans did Bin Laden have in August of 2001? Few thousand. Then he showed us some pictures of some bombed buildings, and he gained millions. (He did.)
Basically, that’s it.
But don’t worry about it. No one who hates his mommy is going to be Presid…er, uh, psychoanalysis is discredited.
Yeah. That one.
It is interesting – so many reportedly intelligent people want the revolution so that they can be top dog, yet they forget the lessons of the French and Russian revolutions – that the revolutionaries end up with the ‘red widow’ and the mass grave too. Really adolescent thinking, that it won’t happen to them, yet time and again, they end up there.
There can only be one Stalin or Napoleon; but innumerable Trotskys and Robespierres.
I decry the stealth nature of Obama’s campaign and believe he will make a terrible president but are we not, to some extent, making the same assumptions that his supporter’s are making? That voters are just too stupid to figure out what’s going on? America can become (more) socialist by choice, can it not? Especially, if enough dead people vote, that is. Is it unconstitutional?
It’s like Ace says: Hey MSM! Ayers is not a former radical you dumbasses. He’s a former terrorist!
Ayers has been given the keys to the public school curriculum, so he doesn’t need to set off bombs anymore in order to get attention. He has a captive audience every day in the nation’s schools.
Which is one of the reasons that most nations pith their traitors within days of capture. The good ol’ US of A? Not so much.
– In the twenties, AH flooded Germany with truckloads of counterfeit money. A friend of mine who worked there at the time told me that they got paid each friday with shoe boxes of Deusche marks.
Yeah, actually. I’d say “private property shall not be taken for a public use, without just compensation”, plus the Thirteenth Amendment, make socialism a non-starter.
Unless they just decide to convict us all of some crime or another to take what they want.
@18:
Sorry, BBH, but that counterfeit scheme must have been in the alternate universe where FDR gave his Fireside Chats on TV. During the twenties, Herr Hitler was a guest of the government, dictating Mein Kampf to Rudolf Hess in Landsberg Prison.
Even so, I believe the Weimar Republic was pretty much churning out bank notes at the max rate during that period.
Assuming the seizure of property. You all have a lot of guns. Slippery slope arguments aside, Canada is fairly socialistic and somehow many people still own homes. What just happened in the “buy out” is as socialistic as all get out so you’re already there, btw. It becomes a matter of degree.
It was a while after AH was freed obviously. I failed to finish the post.
– The idea was to attack the financial foundations of the country, prior to the great Socialist movement being implemented. Case book overthrow tactics.
– Look around you. Anything look familiar. The ends can be accomplished in a myriad of ways.
[…] got this idea for a movie I am thinking about pitching to Hollywood. See, the idea is this radical dude gets […]
If you don’t have or can’t bring a video camera
You can get a Flip video camera for about a hundred bucks. They’re slightly larger than a pack of smokes, run off regular AA batteries, and take video that’s easily good enough for web applications.
I carry one with me everywhere I go.
Obama is so incredibly radical, he hasn’t actually DONE anything radical. Yet. Muahahaha!
Give me a break. Between this and the nonsensical and wholly unsubstantiated rumor that Ayers wrote Obama’s book (HA! Sorry, let that one out) and the oh-so-serious bullshit pontificating over what that might MEAN if it were REALLY true, well, in a word – crazy.
Obama is so incredibly radical, he hasn’t actually DONE anything radical.
-Born alive infant protection act.
-Vote to defund troops in the field.
-Global poverty act
po-te-weet. I’m bored and hoot is a riot.
But, I thought Obama hadn’t done anything as a congressman. You guys, can’t get your lies straight.
-Born alive infant protection act (Illinois state legis.)
-Vote to defund troops in the field (Senate)
-Global poverty act (Thank God hasn’t passed yet, or ever)
He still hasn’t done anything of substance, but it doesn’t mean he didn’t try. Incompetent, sorta like Ayers.
All that work being clever and subversive and shifty. And now what do we get? Dubya taking equity stakes in banks. Social control of the means of production!
We are seeing now the fruit of that program of transformation in an electorate that cannotâ€â€or will notâ€â€see what and who Obama is, or perhaps doesn’t much care.
The Leftists ignore by design and they’ve convinced so many fellow travelers that they should ignore as well. Facts are hard things, facts in context might make people think and with thinking comes responsibility. The Left is all about luring followers with the promise of freedom from responsibility.
I just wrote about the Paglia piece JeffG had earlier and even quoted Jeff. Two of my resident lefties refuse to even address the points… they chirp “Palin is not a feminist and anyways, she is just dumb.” They CANNOT address the points because it contradicts their narrative. Like Ayers, they trump their ideology in public but refuse to engage any questioning of it, turning any dissent as a indication that the dissenter is evil, stupid or both. As I stated
That is Ayers, or Chavez or Castro or Saddam… or any number of grasping authoritarians of the Left. They know what is best for you, they will be happy to take care of you, just give up YOU to them.
Oh! “Anything of substance”. Gotcha. Doesn’t sound too radical to me. It’s his mind thoughts that Jeff has tapped into or intercepted or inferred. And these, hey, super-radical. What a fucking load.
Darleen, this Palin chick was made for you. Two peas in a pod you are.
hoot
“accomplishments” … look it up. Obama has done precious little with his life except be precious.
and people sneer “Beauty Queen” at Gov. Palin. heh.
Obama is so incredibly radical, he hasn’t actually DONE anything radical.
Prove it. Release his records at Columbia. Answer questions about what he did for ACORN. Release the records and answer questions about the school reform projects he funded with Ayers in Chicago.
I am Sarah. Her story is my story.
There is an army of sarahs out there.
It’s his mind thoughts that Jeff has tapped into or intercepted or inferred.
Actually it’s called reading you knuckle-dragging pinhead, you should try it sometime.
Yeah, that’s the ticket – Obama sought out leftists and radicals during college, went to work with leftists and radicals after he got out of college, got into Harvard with the fundraising help of leftists and radicals, and then was hired by leftists and radicals to be their lawyer and sit on their executive boards handing out millions of dollars.
But, by golly, he fooled them all, and he isn’t a radical himself.
Gimme a break, Barack isn’t a Socialist. He’s probably more likely a true Bolshevik. Just like Frank taught him to be.
oh, someone’s been talking to Phil Graham again.
Did he ever tell us who the hell that was, maggie?
no, SBP. he’s not my mom.
Maybe someone should tell him that Baracky isn’t his mom.
– Hes probably one of Ayers buds using a pen name
Fuck, hoot. Kill yourself. Seriously, you are truly a retard. There have got to be hundreds of real “wingnut” right wing sites out there. Please troll them. They’re more your speed.
– Shut up thor
education is the motor-force of revolution. . . .
Suicide vests to follow.
I know, children. It is hard. Mustering enough hate to fight off a single troll. Darleen knows how to do it, though. She leads by example. “We are all Sarah Palin, now!” That’s the kind of crazy I’m talking about. Anyone else? Maybe some more idle thoughts on who really wrote Obama’s book? Stalin and Hitler are still possibilities. Or Satan himself? I mean, it would be irresponsible NOT to speculate.
Say, hoot: who is “Phil Graham”?
We are just tired from cleaning up after you, hoot. That was a helluva pile of stupid you left behind.
We are just tired from cleaning up after you, hoot. That was a helluva pile of stupid you left behind.
How many Courics did it weigh? It could be a record!
It is pretty rich calling me stupid when this crew is buying into the idea the Ayers wrote Obama’s book. That’s sorta beyond stupid, though. More like vapid. Another word I’d use is “Darleen”.
Who is “Phil Graham”, hoot?
oh, that’s a hoot!
hoot=stupid ∞
Note that I didn’t say “we are all Sarah Palin, now”.
hoot like his amoral Leftist brethren and their handmaidens, boutique feminists, are scared shitless of the demographic of women who they have derided, dismissed, called “inauthentic”, marginalized and ignored. I and so many others, see our own individual stories played out to one degree or another in Gov. Palin. We reject the Left demand that our primary relationship be with the State. We are women who make choices for ourselves, that please ourselves, that are fully grown adult choices.
hoot is a nasty child who scrawls insults on the web the way a child scrawls a nasty word on a neighbors fence.
hoot is scared and lashes out. hoot believes an Obama/Pelosi/Reid “victory” will finally wipe out the hated adults around him.
But we aren’t going away.
“We are all Sarah Palin, now!†That’s the kind of crazy I’m talking about.
Be careful, hoot, or you might crack your mirror.
I’m startng to get a bit unhappy with the idea that a Saul Alinsky disciple could be the next CinC of the United States Armed Forces. I foresee a vast new number of Under Secretaries of Defense with “Diversity”, “Environment”, or “Education” in their titles. Hopefully we will still be able to do some actual combat ops or training and preparation for combat.
I may have to write something up on this for the Pub this weekend. See, Jeff, you are inspiring already.
Oh failhoot, you provide ample comedy while failthor isn’t around.
The PURITY OF ESSENCE(tm) of our trolls is what fuels their righteous anger. I mean, facts? Discussion that amounts more to spewing Obamalot talking points? Actually living up to some of their leftist ideals about not being racist, misogynistic facktards? Inconsequential. Belief is what counts.
Darleen wrote:
hoot is a nasty child who scrawls insults on the web the way a child scrawls a nasty word on a neighbors fence.
Except that hoot will likely not get caught and spanked and/or grounded for his actions. Though I think this has been touched on before either by Jeff or by one of the pub authors.
And if he did get spanked, it would likely be consensual. And filmed for late-night HBO consumption.
:B
…my SAN score isn’t too high, Pellegri. Please have some consideration.
O_o;;
“Boutique feminism rejects marriage/children/capitalism because that interfers with the basic goal of the Left … that an individual’s primary relationship should be with the State, not with God or Spouse or Child.”
And yet, Palin was paid by the state to be a mother: per diems for staying at home. Behold, the future of feminism once the state owns the banks!
PURITY OF ESSENCE(tm)
Pellegri – I am going to borrow that one, if you do not mind.
Brilliant. I apologize for picturing you with your arms crossed under your ample bosom while you watch that … ;-)
meya never fails to bring Teh Stoopid
Why you gotta play the bosom card JD?
stoopid? True it is rather simple, but that’s its brilliance. Pay moms to stay at home. Maybe even tax free. We’ll have to start slowly, so first just moms that work for the state.
That’s wrong on so many levels that I can only stare in wonderment at the layers of idiocy.
Pay moms to stay at home. Maybe even tax free. We’ll have to start slowly, so first just moms that work for the state.
We already do that meya. Its called DFACS in Georgia.
For middle-class mom’s, I have a better idea, how about we lower the tax burden on the family so mom doesn’t have to work.
And yet, Palin was paid by the state to be a mother: per diems for staying at home
WTF? Do you work at being this stupid or does it just come naturally?
For middle-class mom’s, I have a better idea, how about we lower the tax burden on the family so mom doesn’t have to work
B Moe, you can’t have that because it shifts back the responsibility of what’s best for the family TO the family…and it might actually encourage intact, two-parent families. Heaven forfend…!!…
because of the HETERONORMALITY!!! (cue the sound of horses screaming)
The more I read of Jeff’s “serious†posts, the more I think his writing is too tedious even for academics. But Jeff doesn’t have to worry.
And yet his posts routinely get several hundred comments, while your pearls of wisdom are lucky to get one or two.
Maybe O! will institute a Blog Fairness Doctrine to fix that, huh?
This Caric fellow seems a bit bitter about something.
Lighten up, pal. I’m less uptight than you, and I am in Iraq. I mean, if you had been shot at or such, I’d understand all the kvetching and snippiness, but I think I am safe in assuming that nobody has tried to lob a mortar shell on your head in the past few months, eh?
Aw. Jaysus! da perfesser is postin’ while in his cups again! Sum(belch) poteen an he’s thinkin’ hes Abba bleedin’ Eban fer fooks sake. Ya fookin’ git! Holymarymother’o’god if yer got any lamer we’d hafta shoot ya! Call the fookin knacker. This ones dun.
Fookin’ canker, whats yoo are.
[…] help us all. h/t Jeff Goldstein, “Russian Dolls” crossed from […]
[…] ‘MISUNDERSTANDING’ the Ayers connection: the cover-up of the coverup …. […]
Who?