Posted by
OnceAlwaysaMarine on Sunday, May 24, 2009 2:32:33 PM
The current Democrat-led "change" is a product of Marxist social "Conflict Theory" taught in liberal arts colleges of America as a means of instituting "social justice" in what is viewed as an oppressive capitalist form of government, which espouses that the structure of our form of government, itself, is what is at the root of human oppression and must necessarily be "changed" to allow for "social equality." Barack Hussein Obama is the "Trojan Horse" candidate the one world socialist oligarchs chose, precisely because of his indoctrination and belief in this philosophy, to use his "charm" and "appearance", and so forth, to institute it.
Largely, because of his ability to charm the masses of ignorant and celebrity-loving/worshipping spoiled Americans who after being primed by a conspiratorial mainstream media for the past 6 or 7 years of the Bush administration into a frenzy of hatred for Bush, the war in Iraq, Christianity/morality, and personal responsibility, were ready for "change" and "hope" .
All this coupled with a sense that conservatism was a party-pooper, in the sense that those who held up tradition and morality were a drag on their rights to party down 24-7--"be as gay and freaky as you wanna be; don't want nobody telling me that it's wrong to have same sex sex or dispense with my unwanted pregnancies--ooh, you're so passé--then there's that damn Bible...and Jesus...and all that...man, I just want to be free...."
Like it or not, they voted for "change"...and "change" is what they got. Only, I'm not sure they understood what that "change" would be.
The overwhelming majority of, once, traditional Democrats have little or no knowledge of the philosophies of the people they have been duped into unleashing upon America and it's free-market system. Whipped up in a frenzy of hatred for any and all moral underpinnings of our society, they were tricked under the slogan of "Change" to unwittingly elect a Marxist administration in the purest sense of the word.
Our liberal arts colleges and universities, aided by such individuals as William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and others of their ilk, have been indoctrinating our sons and daughters into policies which constantly bombard them with the notion of the failure to attain success in a capitalist society, such as ours, as to have nothing to do with the individual's poor choices and failure to avail his or herself of the opportunities that freedom and free-market capitalism only makes possible; but that the free-market competitive system of governance, itself, is structured in such a way as to cheat them of the lifestyle to which they are entitled.
This entitlement mentality has been carefully nurtured and tested, first with the black community over the past 40+ years, and has proven to be effective in coercing an entire segment of the population [black people] to accept this notion of themselves as victims of a structural barrier to their ever having a chance to become unghettoized under their own volition and without the largess of the Democrat Party system of a social welfare state. As a result of their allowing themselves to “religiously” support the notion that the Democrat Party view that black Americans are restricted in their achievement of the “American Dream” by a slavery-induced pathological retardation of their ability to succeed, Democrats have themselves become slaves of their own ideology that perpetuates and necessitates the continuing enslavement of blacks to a reliance on victimhood and the welfare state to further the cause of Party power. Ignorant, poor, and angry blacks (whipped into a constant frenzy of moralistic outrage by the likes of Wright, Sharpton, and Jackson, et al.) supplies the socialists with their most loyal voting bloc. They recognize the benefit of blacks as “angry, mostly self-marginalized societal outliers.
Building upon the success of this experiment in population control and political power, the Democrats took it to the next level in 2007-2008 by elevating what they knew was a community organizer schooled in the Marxist social philosophy of Conflict Theory, to unleash their goal of the destruction of capitalism in the U.S. and to insure the ascension of a Democrat-run socialist-collectivist government-as-god type of new world order.
Sound far-fetched?
If it does, it was meant to.
That is why Barack Obama's origins in Marxist social indoctrination was carefully hidden with the collusion of the Democrat-elite MSM throughout the entire election cycle.
I am currently working as a Senior at a university in downstate Illinois seeking a BSW in Social Work, precisely for the purpose of being in a position to battle the beast from within it's own camp. This is where the battle for the hearts and minds of American youth is being fought.
One of the textbooks we are studying, "Human Behavior and the Social Environment, Macro Level, by Katherine van Wormer, Fred H. Besthorn, and Thomas Keefe (2007), in describing the "highly-regarded" social work theory of "Conflict" [of which BHO is obviously an adherent] the authors state:
"Conflict theorists Piven and Cloward (1993) utilized the functionalist analysis method borrowed from Merton (1957) to enhance our understanding of how the social welfare system serves as a societal device for "regulating the poor" in the interest of capitalism. The latent function of social services, from this perspective, thus becomes to preserve the establishment. Piven and Cloward's basic premise, based on their review of social change throughout U.S. history, was that "relief arrangements are initiated or expanded during outbreaks of civil disorder produced by mass unemployment and are then abolished or contracted when political stability is restored" (p.xv).
In other words, the elites in society can be counted on to provide only enough aid, stigmatized at that, to prevent mass disorder and regulate labor.
(Despite their use of functional analysis, Piven and Cloward's perspectives are far more closely aligned ideologically with Marxism than with Parson's functionalist writings.)"
"Payne (2005) refers to conflict theory as radical and socialist-collectivist. Feminist, empowerment, and antioppressive perspectives are included under the rubric of radical, as well as the structuralist, approaches. We discuss the structuralist approach here because it places a strong emphasis on economic and social equality among people."
"These structuralist approaches, so called because the source of social problems is located in the social structure rather than in the individual, were inspired by the radical thinking of the 1970s, but their influence waned, as Payne speculates, with the collapse of communism in the 1980s. Along with the neo-conservatism of modern times and the concordant erosion of the welfare state, there is a renewed interest within social work in effecting social change."
"Structural social work is associated today with and best articulated through the writings of Canadian social work theorist Bob Mullaly...Much like his predecessors, Mullaly (1997), in his book "Structural Social Work," espouses a conflict-oriented view of society and recognizes that one's circumstances and difficulties are connected to one's economic and social position in society (Lundy, 2005). "Structural Social Work" is described by Payne as the major statement of Marxist social work."
"Mullaly's (1997, 2002) vision of social work practice is that it must be anticapitalist. If as social workers we do nothing to bring about progressive radical change, we fail the people we serve; we become part of the problem instead of the solution."
______________________________________________
This should give you a better understanding of what "progressive" liberals in today's Socialist-Democrat Party, under an Obama administration, are trying to implement in the United States as we speak.
You see, under their adherence to these types of theories [Marxist to their core] they have as their belief, that capitalism is bad, and Marxism is the solution.
There, fortunately, are other theories being taught which are just the opposite, but this is what is being bought into by the Democrats in our society who proudly define themselves these days as "progressives."
However, this Marxists Conflict perspective is being taught, now, as the dominant philosophy in our nation’s universities, especially in departments of social work, psychology, philosophy, and sociology.
It is not limited to these disciplines either.
Children are now, thanks to the influence of Mullaly and William Ayers, who is being allowed to oversee the curriculum of our public schools systems as an unrepentant Marxist-liberationist declared enemy of capitalism and the American style of economic system, being systematically indoctrinated into a skillful and careful disdain for this country’s founding free-market principles and the entire Federalist system of government rationale. The very pursuit of individualist freedom on which this country and capitalism were founded, is thence, being portrayed as antithema to a "superior" collectivist social order. Marxist collectivism as being more "just" than Free-market individualism.
When you realize just how pervasive Marxist ideology has been slowly used to indoctrinate our schools, you will be able to better put into context the comments of so-called university professors, like Dr. Douglas, who are completely sold, along with their professional disciplines, on the welfare state.
Thus, their fanatical support for Barack Hussein Obama, a fellow believer.
Marxism 101--Obama style.
Again, one of the textbooks we are studying, "Human Behavior and the Social Environment, Macro Level, by Katherine van Wormer, Fred H. Besthorn, and Thomas Keefe (2007), in describing the "highly-regarded" social work theory of "Conflict" [of which BHO is obviously an adherent] the authors state:
"Conflict theorists Piven and Cloward (1993) utilized the functionalist analysis method borrowed from Merton (1957) to enhance our understanding of how the social welfare system serves as a societal device for "regulating the poor" in the interest of capitalism. The latent function of social services, from this perspective, thus becomes to preserve the establishment. Piven and Cloward's basic premise, based on their review of social change throughout U.S. history, was that "relief arrangements are initiated or expanded during outbreaks of civil disorder produced by mass unemployment and are then abolished or contracted when political stability is restored" (p.xv).”
Herein lies the rationale for the purposeful destruction being initiated by the current Obama administration as we speak. The purposeful creation of an atmosphere of economic meltdown . People wonder, “How can this administration be so stupid as to think their policies will not bankrupt the auto industry, lead to massive layoffs, drive up costs of doing business, and create hardship and loss of security for the middle class? Are they so stupid they don’t know this will be the result of their policies?”
The answer is no. Their belief is that without mass unemployment, no social change can be forced to support a welfare state. Where fatal flaw in their presumptuous philosophy is, is in the assumption that a welfare state is the way to affect positive “social change.”
If welfare programs are contracted or abolished in times of low unemployment and political stability it is precisely because these services are not as much in demand because the people are gainfully employed and, thus, do not require as much welfare! They are aware of this. “Then,” you may ask, “what is their motive in fighting such obvious prosperity?”
Because THEY wouldn't be needed!
The fields of social work, community organizing, politics, psychology, and other so-called “helping professions” have become less interested in “social justice” as they are in feeding on the misery of the culture of victimhood and the underclass they require to legitimize their continued existence as viable professions!
The LAST thing a social worker (community organizer), welfare administrator, or politician wants to realize is a depletion of the number of “victims” by which to justify their continued existence. Absent any obvious "victims," "victims" must be either created, identified, or redefined.
As ghoulish as it may seem, social work(community organizing) and psychology programs thrive on the misery of masses of “victims.”
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn't think you could do before." -Rahm Emanuel, Obama Chief-of-Staff, Nov.21,2008
Obama’s policies will not only serve the purpose of allowing him to buy votes with replacing self-sufficiency with Obama and Democrat-run welfare largess; thus, requiring the ignorant masses of suffering minions to keep him in power once they become addicted to his handouts; it will also provide a steady flow of clients for social workers and the training that universities provide.
This is why Social Work programs, and the university system, is firmly committed to the Democrat Party…they know which side their bread is buttered on!
Liberal societies feed on Marxist ideology…it is necessary for their continued existence.
They are totally invested in the “welfare state” for their funding and it is their raison d’etre’.