Posts Tagged ‘Communism’

The Return of the Wall

Wednesday, December 12th, 2012

Soviet Union Part Deux

After witnessing the fall of the Berlin Wall, and indeed, the collapse of the entire border frontier between East and West firsthand near the end of my military service, I thought those days marked the final death-knell of communism around the world.  In more than two decades since those days of hope, as it seemed the globe might begin to abandon the plots and schemes of the central planners, what I witnessed is that rather than take the hard-learned lessons forward with us from then until now, we’ve forgotten them.  Discredited and defeated, communism should have been dead, but it’s not gone away after all.  In the last several years, it has made a resurgence, as the generational memories of the terror it brought upon the globe fade, and younger generations fall prey to the song of the socialist sirens.  With communism and its more socially acceptable forms, “socialism” and “progressivism” making a comeback, it should be a surprise to read that the French Prime Minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, announces in spittle-laden bellicosity that the rich fleeing France for Belgium to escape the high taxes should be considered less than patriotic.  Reading the translation of his remarks, one can only wonder how long it will be before France, like the Soviet Union before it, erects walls to prevent its most successful people, or even people seeking simple freedom from leaving.

When one reads of remarks like this, when armed with even a modicum of historical understanding, one must recognize the frightening threat of a return to the darkest days our world has yet known.  How far from Prime Minister Ayrault’s thinking are the gulags and concentration camps?  Certainly, he’s not proposed such a thing…yet.  Still, in the manner of his speaking, one can see the manifestation of the same old demons being raised up, under the same old guise, and with the same ugly motive. Perhaps worst of all, in castigating those wealthy people leaving France, among them notably the famed French actor Gerard Dépardieu, Ayrault’s accusation is that the wealthy who flee are suffering from a lack of generosity.  This is quite obviously a sick attempt at reversing the guilt onto the innocent, but it’s no surprise from a government now headed by President Francois Hollande, who declared infamously that he didn’t “like the rich.”  The reeking pomposity of socialist dictators-in-waiting has never known more hypocrisy.

In our own country, Barack Obama is continuing that same trend, and the long-time leftist slogan “Eat the Rich” seems near to being implemented in full.  At the rate things are progressing toward a complete worker’s paradise here in the United States, it’s only a matter of time before he decides we need a border fence after all, not to keep illegals out, but to make sure that none may leave. As the Europeans continue to build their coming continental concentration camp, from which only the powerful like Hollande and Ayrault will be afforded the chance to flee, Obama is building another right here, and he’s feeding the lap-dog press the same deceptive and hypocritical banter about the rich, as his family enjoys a multi-million dollar holiday in the state of his [alleged] birth. (Like most Marxists, I suspect he was actually hatched.)

How long will it be before we see the return of the barbed wire and fortifications, complete with machine gun nests, not to defend a country, but to keep its enslaved people from leaving?  With the spreading, grotesque mindset of communism once again spreading like black mold on a too-long neglected basement wall, it seems history is poised to once again repeat itself, because while a people may learn a given lesson by living it, they do a poor job of conveying those lessons to their children.  Worse, they pay for their children to be indoctrinated by the very mindset they overcame, and more is the pity and travesty that the education establishment will  have served not as the instrument of our protection, but the weapon by which the communist sappers undermined our cultural and intellectual fortifications.

You might have come to think it is an exaggeration to suggest that those now in power in France could build a wall, but one ought to consider the words of some of their politicians, as quote in the Telegraph:

“Socialist MP Yann Galut called for the actor to be “stripped of his nationality” if he failed to pay his dues in his mother country, saying the law should be changed to enable such a punishment.”

The idea that a politician is seeking to punish people in this way is not a novelty, but it isn’t lost on most conservatives that the underlying meaning is purely tyrannical.  Meanwhile, another government official had this to say:

“Benoît Hamon, the consumption minister, said the move amounted to giving France “the finger” and was “anti-patriotic”.”

Setting aside the fact of this man’s preposterous title, one must wonder at the sheer idiocy of a country that revels in revolution but cannot rise even to defend its own borders.  Being partly of French heritage, I can’t but imagine that my ancestors who came to North America sought the freedoms their countrymen now forsake, and I am mightily grateful that they saw fit to do so, but I am simultaneously disgusted at the fact that so many of their descendants now seem willing to forsake liberty here.  Communism isn’t dead after all, but tempting us to believe it permitted them to make inroads, and I don’t know if they can be stopped.

With darkness and depression enveloping the globe, it is time to remember the wall between East and West, because we may yet see its resurrection on a global scale.  It’s also time to reconsider whether we should have let so much of the wall be destroyed.  Demolishing it meant that the visible scar upon the face of civilization has been removed, and while the wall itself may have gone for a time, the mindset that had built it now thrives around the globe.  If we are to dismantle communism again, it must not be its mere instruments that we remove, but its entire philosophical base. It must be placed and kept on ice like a virus stored as a hedge against the need to redevelop new vaccines in case of a new outbreak.

 

Advertisements

Barack Obama Unmasked: Calls for National Socialism

Thursday, December 8th, 2011

At Least He Now Admits His Aims

Before you discard what I’m telling you as the mere rantings of another conspiracy kook, I’d like you to consider with me what are the facts of President Obama’s speech in Osawatomie, KS, on Tuesday.  Apart from the opening gaffe that I’ve already covered, I’d like to talk to you about the dishonest and irrational pronouncements of this president, and the virtual repeat of history’s worst calamities this man is intent upon recreating.  When I examine his words, and I think about their meaning, it becomes clear where this president is leading us.  If you think the worst regimes of the 20th Century were monstrous, what this man has in store for the American people will shock you when you consider what he’s really advocating.  Most people will hear the applause lines and think this had been just one more political speech, but this speech had been the confessions of a tyrant.   I’d ask you to bear with me as I help you to see the plain truth of it, if you haven’t noticed it already.

The first thing this professional demagogue said was intended to establish his legitimacy via his maternal grandparents.  He spoke about their lives, and the work they did, and he sugar-coated their beliefs.  He used his grandparents as a device of  nationalistic appeal to his countrymen:

“My grandparents served during World War II. He was a soldier in Patton’s Army; she was a worker on a bomber assembly line. And together, they shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over the Great Depression and over fascism. They believed in an America where hard work paid off, and responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried — no matter who you were, no matter where you came from, no matter how you started out.”

Germany wasn’t fascist in strict definition.  Germany was a state dominated by national socialism.  This is the root of the term “nazi.”  The original word that is its root is the German Nationalsozialismus.  With this in mind, it was then surprising to some to hear President Obama say the following:

And in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here to Osawatomie and he laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism. “Our country,” he said, “…means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy…of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.”

You can put a lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. The President here is selling the notion of a “New Nationalism” that he defines as Teddy Roosevelt did.  Roosevelt’s nationalism had a distinctively socialist flavor, as does the President’s.  For those unfamiliar, or who have been misled by generations of revised history, let’s clear something up:  The Nazis were never right-wingers.  The notion of right-wing as we know it in this country is entirely unlike that which is known to Europeans.  In our terminology, right-wingers are conservatives, and libertarians.  In Europe, the right wing is merely a nationalistic slant on the same old socialism.  Obama understands this, and this is why he references Teddy Roosevelt, a man thought kindly by many Americans for his purported streak of independence, but more importantly, for his charge up San Juan Hill.  The truth of the matter may be disconcerting to some Americans, but Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive, little different from Wilson, or any of the others, varying only slightly as the Europeans of the day who were either internationalists(Wilson) or more nationalist(Teddy Roosevelt.)  They were all monstrous leftists.

The cat Mr. Obama here lets out of the bag is that he’s about most of the same things.  He says here that he is in favor of redistribution of wealth in the name of social justice, much like Teddy Roosevelt had been, but also like another monster, in Central Europe arising from the ashes of a post-World War I Germany.  In order to downplay fears, Obama offered:

Now, for this, Roosevelt was called a radical. He was called a socialist — (laughter) — even a communist. But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign: an eight-hour work day and a minimum wage for women — insurance for the unemployed and for the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax.

I wouldn’t laugh too hard.  Roosevelt had become a radical, and he was a socialist, and to an extent, even a communist.  Let’s be clear about another thing, while we consider all of this:  The only difference between Hitler’s Nazi Party and Stalin’s Soviets is that the two were rival gangs within the same broad philosophical and political range.  There’s no difference, in fact, between their theories, because what they all really are falls neatly into a simpler term, popularized by Ayn Rand, and reintroduced to Americans who had forgotten it, or never known it, by radio host Mark Levin in recent years:  Statists.

All of European polity, then as now, consists almost entirely of one form of statist thought or another.  The particular form is irrelevant, because they’re all equally bad in the end.  Statism is best defined as the theory of politics that demands all people must exist for the purposes of the state, as some form of the expression of the will of the collective, or of God.   Theocracy is one form of religious statism, but so is Monarchy(Divine Right, and all of that.)  Secular statism includes Communism, Fascism, and Nazism, but also Democracy.  The Chinese government has now rebranded themselves as State Capitalists.  I’d like you to consider the meaning of that term, because it means simply capitalism as practiced by the state without respect to the notion of individual rights.  Strangely, this concept sounds a good deal like the National Socialism Barack Obama now offers, but there is an excellent reason this is the case:  They are for all intents and purposes identical.

Both concepts are characterized by a diminution of the rights of individuals, and the aggrandizement of the state.  The right of property is in varying degrees eliminated, and ultimately, this always leads to a totalitarian state in order to keep the populace suppressed.  What Obama now offers is no different, if you listen closely.  The President of the United States has just declared that the idea of Capitalism, and Free Markets, is dead:

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes — especially for the wealthy — our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker.  But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked.  It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade.  I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

Not only has Obama told a gigantic lie, but he has rewritten history as well, all in two nifty paragraphs.  For ease, let’s examine them in list form:

  • “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us.
  • “If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes — especially for the wealthy — our economy will grow stronger.
  • “Sure there will be winners and losers.”
  • “It doesn’t work.”
  • “It has never worked.”
  • “I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.”

I don’t know of an economist, anywhere, who has ever suggested the free “market would take care of everything.” This is either a bold-faced lie, or a statement of Obama’s grotesque misunderstanding of capitalism.  To operate, a free market requires the existence of a government to enforce individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and property, and to punish those (and only those) who violate those rights.  The market also won’t take care of you, the individual.  That’s your job.  The market and free-market economists have never made promises to take care of individuals.  Instead, they have said individuals should take care of themselves, and within that framework, the market will allocate resources accordingly.

The idea is not merely to cut taxes and regulation, but the spending that demands ever more of it.  For all the huffing an puffing that emanates from Washington, we’ve seldom seen actual reductions in spending, and certainly, never enough to make a long-lasting systemic improvement.  I would like for this lying, pathologically dishonest president to tell us in which years the total number of regulations in the United States ever saw a net decrease.  Please, name that year.  Even under Ronald Reagan, that was never true, although her certainly did curtail the rate of growth a bit.  Still, I have yet to see any administration leave office with a smaller body of regulations in force than had been upon its inauguration.  He’s lying.

There will always be winners and losers.  That’s life, and that’s nature.  What the president doesn’t want you to realize is how big a role government now has in choosing who those will be.   Redistribution of wealth, his precious socialism, is nothing but the government choosing who shall win or lose.

Here, he tells us free market capitalism doesn’t work, and never has, and pretends we have tried it.  When?  Not in my lifetime.  Not in his.  Not during the life of his parents or grandparents.  No, free market capitalism, to the degree it ever existed has never been known in any substantial degree by any American less that 121 years of age.  How many of those are around?  The simple truth is that since 1890, with the passage of the anti-capitalist, anti-free market Sherman Anti-trust Act, what had been the dawn of full capitalism in America was quickly put on the tracks toward the establishment of a nation of plunder, as per Frederic Bastiat’s description.

President Obama is lying to the American people, and there’s simply no way around that fact.  More importantly, since he wouldn’t be the first proven liar to occupy the White House, he’s proposing what can only be considered the most radical sort of regime for America’s future.  He proposes full governmental engagement in the redistribution of wealth, and his lengthy speech is designed to give cover to it.  Time after time, he ignored the actual historical record in order to present you with lies, mis-characterizations, and thorough revisionism.   What Barack Obama herein offers you is the promise of National Socialism, as he has now freely admitted, but also State Capitalism as the Chinese propagandists now call their system.  What you need to know is that when Barack Obama tells you about his intentions, he’s telling you about the “dreams from [his] father,” an avowed communist.  You can put lipstick on them, eye shadow, and false eyelashes too, but his plan is the same old National Socialist  pig, and so is our president.

His presidency is now itself a national emergency, and escorting him firmly out through the White House gates in January 2013 must be our response, having inaugurated his replacement.  There is nothing that can mitigate in favor of keeping a man in that high office who wishes to undo the whole of western civilization in the name of a failed theory that has accounted for the slaughter of tens or hundreds of millions of people.  Obama must go.