So apparently once-famous author Terry McMillan has decided that, because Republicans are obviously against Barack Obama, they are racists and compared them to Hilter by Tweeting "Republicans are behaving just like Hitler did." Besides the obvious inanity of this statement (a group of well over 10 million individuals behaving like dictator), there is a reflection of a complete lack of understanding on Ms. McMillan's part. However, this lack of understanding is actually rooted in a poor education on the roots of socialism and fascism, and this poor education has led to a common misconception that fascism is a "rightist" movement, while socialism is a "leftist" movement. Hence, Ms. McMillan and other progressives, can claim that Republicans, and most especially conservatives, are fascists and "Nazis", while Glenn Beck and other conservatives can equate President Obama and progressives with Stalin, Mao, and other socialists (well, at least Beck has a point: Obama is an official member of the New Socialist Party...).
First, we'll look at fascism. Benito Mussolini is noted as the father of fascism, as he founded the Fascist party in the early 1920s. What is particular about the fascists is their use of nationalism and a proud history to promote the concept of the welfare of the state over the welfare of the individual. Such a sentiment was actually at odds with the "left-wing", meaning the socialists and communists, whose idealists dreamed of a world-wide communal utopia with everyone living in equality. The nationalist-based State-first mentality is a hearken to the absolutist monarchies of the not-too-distant past. When one looks at France after the fall of the Ancien Regime, nationalism and pride for the greatness of France is often linked with "conservative" monarchists. Ditto for Italy, Germany and Spain. Thus, it is no surprise that Hitler's National Socialist Party would gain support from military veterans and conservative elements of the German society. This is particularly true when one considers that in contemporary Germany, the Weimar Republic was extremely liberal in that Germans had always had a monarch, or another strong single leader (Bismarck). In Mussolini's Italy, nationalism likewise appealed to a conservative, or right-wing demographic, especially since the socialists in Italy rejected any and all nationalist or country-first action or sentiment.
Socialism, since its inception, has always been associated with the left. While fascism used elements and themes linked to traditionally conservative views (strong central government, nationalism), socialism was derived from "new" and "enlightened" ideas that shunned traditional ideologies. While not universally atheist, socialist originators were essentially secular, whereas conservative and traditional ideologies were based on Judeo-Christian religious tradition. Likewise, where as conservative and traditional economic models were based on private-property and private ownership, socialism was not.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Friday, June 8, 2012
Tinfoil Hat time
Okay, so in Wisconsin, we've seen a major break with precedent: an incumbent governor survive a recall election. This is the first time in American history that that has every happened.
First, a little necessary background. Gov. Scott Walker (elected in 2010) got in trouble because he curtailed some issues public workers unions would be allowed to collective bargain on, despite the fact that he said he was going to do those if elected. After said reforms were passed, the public sector unions (very strong in Wisconsin) went ballistic (even as Gov. Walker's reforms were saving public employees' jobs and saving the state money). Strikes and demonstrations (the unions had to hire out people to demonstrate, as their union workers were busy or didn't want to), along with threats of physical violence toward the Republicans who voted for these reforms, were organized and carried out by the unions. Around this time, President Obama threw his support behind the union bosses in several high profile pictures and events.
Egged on by the union antagonists, the Wisconsin people agreed to a recall vote against Gov. Walker. Nearly 12 months later, Walker won, handily (it wasn't close by any means). Of course, those on the left are attempting to rationalize why such a heartless and evil hater of the working man and middle class could possibly have won so big against the forces of Justice. A few have thrown out the cheating thing, but faced with the fact that heavily Democratic Madison, WI had a 119% voter turnout, that argument can't be effectively raised. So, the progressives and Democrats have begun focusing on MONEY. Their argument: the cause of Right was undermined by the massive amounts of money that the evil rich people sent to Gov. Walker's campaign.
As I have been reading about this, something hit me. President Obama was conspicuously present during the initial outpouring of support for the unions. Since the recall campaign began in earnest, however, the President was conspicuously ABSENT, sending only a little supportive Tweet to the Democratic challenger, Milwaukee Mayor Barrett. Then, this meme about being outspent (ratios vary between 5-1 to 8-1) surfaces. What is interesting is that the whole being outspent thing was essentially vocally promoted by Obama's campaign coordinator, Jim Messina. The Obama campaign has now been using the money disparity to raise funds for his own campaign.
This got me thinking:
Could it be that this whole Wisconsin recall affair was orchestrated by the Obama camp to further Obama's own ends? Could the selection of Tom Barrett (who lost to Walker in 2010) over the pro-union candidates been designed by Obama to ensure a Walker victory? Could Obama have influenced potential donors NOT to donate to Barrett's campaign?
My reasoning is, I think sound. 1) Obama's been in the tank for unions since he entered the political arena, so it makes no sense that he'd withdraw his support now. 2) The statistic concerning the ratio of funding is based on the report of an essentially non-partisan group with a historical link to George Soros (a progressive billionaire who funds socialist, progressive, and other far left causes, AND is the de facto owner of the Democratic party). 3) Obama's rise to prominence and his election had a heavy Soros hand in them. 4) Obama is now using the failed recall effort to drum up his own funds. 5) [and perhaps most incredibly relevant] Obama is a Chicago politician, who has used Chicago thuggery and corruption to get his way in the past.
This doesn't mean that I necessarily think that Obama definitely orchestrated this. It could also be that Obama was afraid to put his stamp of approval on Barrett when he wasn't sure if Barrett would win. It could be that Obama thought that the election was in the bag already. Whatever the case may be, I think it not only possible, but probable, that Obama was some how involved in this whole event.
First, a little necessary background. Gov. Scott Walker (elected in 2010) got in trouble because he curtailed some issues public workers unions would be allowed to collective bargain on, despite the fact that he said he was going to do those if elected. After said reforms were passed, the public sector unions (very strong in Wisconsin) went ballistic (even as Gov. Walker's reforms were saving public employees' jobs and saving the state money). Strikes and demonstrations (the unions had to hire out people to demonstrate, as their union workers were busy or didn't want to), along with threats of physical violence toward the Republicans who voted for these reforms, were organized and carried out by the unions. Around this time, President Obama threw his support behind the union bosses in several high profile pictures and events.
Egged on by the union antagonists, the Wisconsin people agreed to a recall vote against Gov. Walker. Nearly 12 months later, Walker won, handily (it wasn't close by any means). Of course, those on the left are attempting to rationalize why such a heartless and evil hater of the working man and middle class could possibly have won so big against the forces of Justice. A few have thrown out the cheating thing, but faced with the fact that heavily Democratic Madison, WI had a 119% voter turnout, that argument can't be effectively raised. So, the progressives and Democrats have begun focusing on MONEY. Their argument: the cause of Right was undermined by the massive amounts of money that the evil rich people sent to Gov. Walker's campaign.
As I have been reading about this, something hit me. President Obama was conspicuously present during the initial outpouring of support for the unions. Since the recall campaign began in earnest, however, the President was conspicuously ABSENT, sending only a little supportive Tweet to the Democratic challenger, Milwaukee Mayor Barrett. Then, this meme about being outspent (ratios vary between 5-1 to 8-1) surfaces. What is interesting is that the whole being outspent thing was essentially vocally promoted by Obama's campaign coordinator, Jim Messina. The Obama campaign has now been using the money disparity to raise funds for his own campaign.
This got me thinking:
Could it be that this whole Wisconsin recall affair was orchestrated by the Obama camp to further Obama's own ends? Could the selection of Tom Barrett (who lost to Walker in 2010) over the pro-union candidates been designed by Obama to ensure a Walker victory? Could Obama have influenced potential donors NOT to donate to Barrett's campaign?
My reasoning is, I think sound. 1) Obama's been in the tank for unions since he entered the political arena, so it makes no sense that he'd withdraw his support now. 2) The statistic concerning the ratio of funding is based on the report of an essentially non-partisan group with a historical link to George Soros (a progressive billionaire who funds socialist, progressive, and other far left causes, AND is the de facto owner of the Democratic party). 3) Obama's rise to prominence and his election had a heavy Soros hand in them. 4) Obama is now using the failed recall effort to drum up his own funds. 5) [and perhaps most incredibly relevant] Obama is a Chicago politician, who has used Chicago thuggery and corruption to get his way in the past.
This doesn't mean that I necessarily think that Obama definitely orchestrated this. It could also be that Obama was afraid to put his stamp of approval on Barrett when he wasn't sure if Barrett would win. It could be that Obama thought that the election was in the bag already. Whatever the case may be, I think it not only possible, but probable, that Obama was some how involved in this whole event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)