Ame®icano;1626761 said:
Do you think she would still have a job if she said Hitler instead of Mao?
No. Quite frankly I don't. That doesn't have anything to do with the principle itself it's just that though Hitler (as fucked up as this is going to sound) only killed 12 to 14 million people in the highest estimates I've seen. This is because Hitler is sort of the known center piece for genocide awareness worldwide, AND the massive Jewish influence on the American media plays a part in this as well. Mao is not as well known as hitler in the US except for amongst the more educated individuals, those who have gone to college and studied different philosophies and lines of thought and therefore the statement holds alot less baggage.
That brings up another point that those who are college educated especially those educated in higher level schools have a much larger tolerance level for statements about Mao, Lenin, Trotsky, etc because these individuals and others are studied indepth in the curriculum. Which is why I don't think she's a Maoist, but she simply studied Mao and finds him interesting. IDK if I'm overanalyzing but I can't help to wonder why a Maoist would openly support Maoism at a graduation at a Roman Catholic High School. I could SEE if this was a venue like a California Green Party local convention, but it's not. From what I saw it looks to me like dry college-educated irony. I think it would be dumb to say if you are planning on a career in politics, but as a political strategist (or a media political hype man) not so much. She was trying to create a rhetorical a parallel between Mao and Mother Teresa. The students seemed to be educated enough literary strategy to get it, and we have to remember she's a communications director, this woman is skilled in the art of literature, english, writing. She may have used a parallel that in the context made sense but if viewed in light of her being an important person in white house staff may raise eyebrows.
Ame®icano;1626761 said:
It suggests in unarguable language that admiration for commie mass murderers is just fine with this administration, and while not explicitly stated, might be a requirement.
Clearly not so. Barack Obama is not a radical communist or black nationalist. But I've said this before and I'll say it again I did not believe in 2008 that this nation was mature enough to handle Barack Obama as President of the United States. I'm being proven right time and time again. Van Jones is an example of this, and I'm going to say this in the most respectful and least condescending way possible. The election of the first black president brings with it a serious hallmark, the entrance of African Americans into the mainstream political arena of the United States.
Now within the African American community moreso then within any other minority community there have been drastic changes over the past few years. Integration has begun after 40 years of stalling to take full hold, African Americans are more and more leaving the inner cities and moving into the suburbs. You have large suburbian communities such as Prince George's County outside of DC, baldwin Hills outside of LA, Lithonia outside of ATL that are predominetly African American. African Americans have historically been influence in only two classes in America the lower and the upper, now we've entered the middle. 1/4 of the black workforce is in some form middle management.
Now the President brings with him a new discussion and new reality, because there is a small element of African American society, like within all minorities of radical black nationalists that still exist. They are like most radical movements (including white supremecists) amongst the poor and the poverty rate amongst African Americans is 36.7% so, that's a small minority of a small minority. There was a larger element of radicalism during three crucial periods in our nation's history, the 1920s (when Marcus Garvey led the back to Africa movement), the 1960s (black panther party, Black Liberation Army), and the early 1990s. There are alot of people that lived during these times there were radicalized. During the 60s this was especially so, this was during the time when segregation was ending in the south and horrible autrocities were being commited by police against African Americans and other civil rights leaders. Not a great time in US history.
This is the era President Obama was in college during. Alot of these individuals who were radicalized decided rather then to use violence they were going to get educated and be social activists and lawyers so on and so forth. These individuals and others abandoned their more radical ideas which they followed in their youths to make positive change are a crucial part of the African American community. These are the black community's intellectual class, many of them educated in Ivy League schools. President Obama is not a black communist however he has like any other person works within the inner city that includes mayors, council workers, even governors of states like New York and Illinois have had to work with people who at one point in their lives were radicals.
This is the main problem that occurs during the process of full integration distrust. Van jones at one point was a communist. Does this mean that the Communist Party USA is using him to form some sort of mass conspiracy? No. It means that he was appointed to a position to do a specific job in the white house because the white house feel's he's the best guy to do it, becuase of his expertise on greens jobs and his advocacy for it. Glenn Beck's theory is supported by a chalk board on which he puts people's faces next to each other and says there see they're all connected... and therefore all communists. The same way they tried to tie Governor Rendell to Farrakhan. There is no documentation there are no statements made, no witnesses just Glenn Beck and his chalk board. My question is what evidence is there that the Obama Adminsitration has been collaberating with the Communist Party in any way shape or form in order to form policy based on the Communist Party USA's platform. When I see that I'll believe it. Until then it's hyperbole and it completely misses the point.
The Communist Party has zero direct influence over public policy. The Green Party probably has more leverage and that's pretty damn sad. Like I said just because there might be a communist or two working in the SEIU or the ACLU for that matter does not mean that the organizations are working for the communist party. Just like just because someone in the NRA may be from one of those extremist state separatist militias doesn't mean that the NRA works for them. This nation has to come to place of maturity where this Glenn Beck stuff isn't just listen to and don't just sit back and make up conspiracy theories because we see people's faces next to each other on chalk boards. My biggest fear is that this new level of integration has caused a back lash of misinformation thanks to the Beckites of this world, even Alex Jones has expressed serious concern about Beck. He is unneccesarily divisive.
