Why Obama is Possibly a Communist Mole
Throughout history, conspiracies have taken place that threatened the very life-blood of governments and peoples. The Catalinarian Conspiracy, taking place in the first century B.C.E., was a very serious plot to overthrow the Roman Republic. Such a plot prompted the great thinker Cicero to state the following:
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor—he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation—he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city—he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared…(42 B.C.E.)
Certainly, one cannot accuse Cicero of being a dotty old fool. But his statement neither proves or disproves the claim that such a conspiracy exists in the United States. That being said, a prescient mind familiar with neomarxist theory and experience with both the media and academia would be hard-pressed to deny that there is an astonishingly large cohort of intellectuals with no sympathy whatsoever for the American system of Constitutionally limited government.
It should be conceded that a concerted group effort to undermine, destroy, or “fundamentally transform” a legitimately founded government using means of infiltration and deception is by definition a conspiracy, and in this presentation, with the intent to commit high treason. But what else could one make of the Alinsky doctrine of “boring from within,” or the Gramscian strategy of a “long march” through the institutions of the country, capturing them and using them to move the country in a hard-left direction?
On Proving a Conspiracy
There are numerous conspiracy theories on the Internet regarding all manner of topics. They vary in quality between the provable, the plausible, the unfounded, and the just plain crazy.
What is a conspiracy? The following is a dictionary definition:
In order to decisively judge something as true or false, hard and undeniable evidence is generally required. But there is also the circumstantial manner of proving a theory, which requires numerous facts that fit very closely a given pattern, with little if no contradictory evidence presented, and very weak alternative hypotheses.
Conspiracies exist. Not all conspiracies are true. Subversion is real. But not everything one disagrees with ideologically is an example of willful subversion. These are a few necessary disclaimers, lest one believe that the following is a one-sided presentation of the facts. It is. That is necessary when one has a theory, regardless of what it is.
President Obama may not think of himself as a communist, narrowly defined. He may not even have any knowledge of being part of a “conspiracy,” and would indeed laugh at the notion. I find the claim that the president is both open about his aims and forthright in his associations hard to believe, but it is not a necessary part of the argument to belabor what Obama thinks or doesn’t think. Nothing that follows here entails mind-reading – only a willingness to look into the evidence presented and to debunk it point-by-point, or otherwise to formulate a stronger alternative hypothesis, which is substantiated by more than hearsay.
Not everything presented is immediately falsifiable, which is an important part of sound theory. But when something is held out as merely “plausible,” as opposed to verifiable, it will be openly admitted as such.
The following is not comprehensive, as it is merely a blog post, and not a full-length, explicitly documented book.
A Sketch of the Communist Connection Argument
Here is what I think is the “terrible truth” about Mr. Obama.
Obama is a symbol and was plausibly conceived as such (if one might believe that Obama Sr. targeted Stanley with ulterior motives, a convincing dynamic) between a drifting progressive white woman of questionable judgment and a known Marxist Kenyan living in a Third World country. The USSR ran ‘active measure’s all over the world; meaning, its intelligence agencies targeted governments for destabilization. Involved in this process was a long campaign of cultural infiltration and subversion. Barack’s father may have been targeted by the KGB for an ‘active measure’ to be run against the United States — either in Kenya (helping him to get to Harvard) or afterwards.
Once Obama was born, his background suggests one of ingrained “rootlessness,” which was marked by shifting parental, cultural, religious, and perhaps even sexual contexts. This background leads to a narcissistic personality complex, where one may believe he is transcendant over his environment and one where the subject forms very weak personal attachments. When combined with the Alinsky doctrine of using people as a means to an end, we have a political operator of Obama’s genus [sic].
But let’s back up. The central causal link between Barack Obama and the USSR’s intelligence agencies would most likely be Frank Marshall Davis. FMD had the verifiable communist party pedigree to be a KGB contact – this is the smoking gun all American patriots should seek out, first and foremost. President Obama effectively concedes that “Frank” is FMD in his ghost-written book “Dreams.” Obama’s literary skills do not suggest that he was alone writing his biographies (Weather Underground terrorist and now esteemed English professor William Ayers, who lived in Obama’s neighborhood in Chicago, may have had more than a small hand in crafting them.)
Obama’s lived an extremely charmed life, and apparently with no merit to warrant it. This is partially a reflection of affirmative action practices, but certainly there is enough to suggest more. How did he pay for Harvard? Clues suggest that he was sponsored by Rashid Khalidi, a Saudi agent, using oil money. How did he become editor of the Harvard Law Review? He certainly left no paper trail to justify it.
Obama’s political life becomes even weirder and grayer once coming to Chicago. He was a radical community organizer, often working side-by-side with known communists in the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). There is documented evidence of his membership in the DSA-offshoot New Party, which was also communistic and would use fusion tactics in conjunction with Democrat Party affiliation to win elections in Illinois, until the practice was banned by the courts.
The man had serious hardcore left contacts with world communist backgrounds, like Alice Palmer and Valerie Jarrett, the latter’s father Vernon Davis a card-carrying communist who knew FMD.
But the overarching theme is that Obama’s background is akin to what KGB agents called a “legend” – a contrived biography with just enough murkiness and just enough substance to be a fertile ground for psychological warfare, disinformation tricks, conspiracy-mongering, and the like. Obama’s symbolic stature as a “unifier” leading America to transcend its (racist) past makes any attack on him an attack on hope and change and unity and on and on. Only a “racist, bigot, homophobe” would do such a thing; ergo, attacking Obama makes someone a racist, a bigot, and a homophobe. That’s Critical Theory. That’s the Neomarxist strategy.
Most Americans Will Deny The Plausibility of Such a Theory for Emotional Reasons
Furthermore, although the evidence is overwhelming that Obama is a communist, a situation that most Americans refuse emotionally to accept, one will never be able to prove this sufficiently to anyone short of Obama admitting it on live television. Even then, millions would refuse to believe it. We have been sold a big lie, and as Hitler understood, that is very hard to debunk with reason and evidence. People want to believe in what Obama’s saying, and he looks so nice, and speaks so well! They can’t get past the superficial facade and probe into his past. Obama has a phantom background, and the evidence that must be necessarily cherry-picked for signs of his radicalism, such as his provable associations with the America-damning Jeremiah Wright and the literal flamethrower William Ayers, can always be explained away by something – guilt by association, for example. Well, how many communists, black liberation theologians, and other radicals does a man have to run with before an observer gets the gist that the man is a communist – especially one who admits he chose his friends carefully?
There are other ways of explaining away examples of communist leftist associations in Obama’s radical past, but the problem is, you can’t explain away it all. What the substantiable evidence indicates is a “pattern of behavior” that matches his known past. When you have such a strong overlap in current behavior, current associations, past behavior, past associations, and an accumulated record of statements that suggest to you that someone is who he appears to be; that’s what one should adjudge, until contradicting evidence is presented. I see no reason to believe that Obama has any feeling for America, its traditions, or its Constitution beyond sheer lip service. Nearly everything in his past and in the present points otherwise.
Obama’s willful conduct domestically and in terms of foreign affairs point to the programmatic unraveling of the strictures of the U.S. Constitution. His concessionary and disadvantageous actions towards China and Russia in particular are very troubling to say the least. We need to begin looking more earnestly for smoking guns of the president’s associations with communists in his past, in his current administration, and with other known fellow-travelers around the world.