It is considered a hate crime to compare Obama to the Nazi leader ---- hogwash
we all know hate crimes were invented to persecute white people http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUGVPBO9_cA On Sep 30, 9:54 am, "M. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > The Anatomy of Blue-State Fascismby Anthony Gregory > "To compare the president to Hitler is not free speech. It is inciting > violence." This is a very common talking point these days on the left. Google > the terms and you will see the theme repeatedly. > It is considered a hate crime to compare Obama to the Nazi leader, or even to > describe more generally his agenda as fascist. Although I recall every > president I’ve lived under being characterized in this manner, suddenly it is > a danger to American democracy for the comparison to be uttered. When Bush > was compared to Hitler, of course the establishment right was hysterical, > too, but the left seems even more willing than the neocons to propose > outright prohibiting such political speech. > Toward the end of the Bush years, conservative Jonah Goldberg came out > withLiberal Fascism, a book attacking the left for their authoritarian > leanings, which was only ironic given that we were living under his favored > Republican administration, a government thatLew Rockwellastutely criticized > for being a real-life example of red-state fascism. Could it be that both > sides have a point, even if they miss the irony? > In fact, the differences between modern liberalism and conservatism are > usually overstated. There are ways in which each side is more fascist than > the other – the right’s seemingly greater devotion to aggressive war and > certain police-state measures, the left’s greater attachment to the economics > of extreme interventionism. > So when Rush Limbaugh lists off the ways in which the left is fascist – > nationalization of banks and industry, mandatory health care, severe > regulation and welfare statism, top-down control of the economy, petty > crusades against smoking and unbalanced diets, the general elevation of the > president to god-like status – he is not far off the mark, even if he ignores > the other elements of fascism, such as executive detention, torture and war, > which he himself embraces. > The truth is, we’ve had something resembling fascism under both parties going > back to at least the Second World War. Those who voted for whoever happens to > be in the White House do not like to hear this, but interestingly become more > receptive to the critique when someone they despise is in office, even if the > policies haven’t much changed. > But the ideological apparatus constructed by the modern American state relies > on a false dichotomy of left and right, and so have the fascist impulses of > the American people been channeled into both parties, with different > rationales underlying each statist program. Now that the red-state fascists > have been out of power for a while, we must work to understand the dynamics > and nuances of a resurgent blue-state fascism. > First, of course, is the managerial "liberalism" that came to dominate > America in the last century. Charlotte Twight has called this system > "participatory fascism" – corporate statism with a democratic veneer. > Egalitarian with a façade of universalism, "participatory fascism" is favored > by both Republicans and Democrats, but the left seems to cherish it more > fully. > Liberals love and take pride in the 20th century, and tend to despise the > 19th century. There is much to love and regret in most eras, but the left > takes ownership in what they see as the great advancements in political and > national affairs that unfolded since the Progressive Era. > The early Progressives managed to hijack both parties, starting with the > Republicans, but today they are more vigorously championed by the left. The > 20th century is seen as the stage of American progress, from a laissez-faire, > backwards republic, to the world’s greatest and ever improving democracy. > First America adopted controls on industry, food and drugs, > telecommunications, communications and transportation. Then the country > advanced by adopting a fledgling welfare state and nationalizing employment, > civil rights and education. With Reagan, so goes the narrative, the process > was reversed, and American society as well as American dependence on federal > power – remember, these are one and the same for some people – began a > decline that was only reversed with the election of Barack Obama. > Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and LBJ, > while unfortunately popular for much of what they did on the right as well, > are the true heroes of the modern fascist left. Consider how many on the left > hated George W. Bush but admired the far worse Harry Truman. By treating Bush > as a unique evil other than a very bad but somewhat predictable figure in an > uninterrupted series of despotic presidents, the left made the same error > committed by much of the anti-Clinton and anti-Obama right. > This relates to the question of whether Obama represents a dramatic shift > toward radical socialism or a further consolidation and solidification of > America’s fascist tendencies. The latter is clearly closer to the truth. > Obama does not seek to abolish private property entirely, nor is he a > consistent egalitarian. He is a Goldman-Sachs socialist, not a Marxist one. > While ACORN is part of the Obama repertoire, so too is the > military-industrial complex, and a much more important one at that. > Although some conservatives say this is the first time they’ve worried for > their country, the left in America is actually quite attached to the > traditions of an earlier time, the 20th century, which they want to restore > in fuller force today. Their trajectory is much sharper than that of the > conservatives, who seem to always want government to be as small as it was > about three years ago, but most on the left cannot be faulted for wanting to > throw out our nationalist traditions: they want to embrace the worst of the > ones that were well in place by the time of the "Greatest Generation": > technocracy, materialist ethics, utilitarianism, managerial corporate > statism, central administration, presidency worship, welfare and all the rest. > The major difference between the left and right in this regard is the right > sees such horrible traditions as tolerable even if somewhat regretful, while > the left absolutely adores them and takes them to their logical extreme. > Leftists also have much more curiosity and interest in every sector of > everyone’s life. If the right has a saving grace, it is that although it > embraces collectivism, it lacks the intellectual ambition to be consistent > about seeking a government solution to every conceivable human problem. The > right wants to keep illegal drugs banned; the left wants the state to keep > tabs on every legal drug you’re using. > A major complication to finding fascism on the left comes in analyzing their > view of war. At least in a superficial sense, leftists are still not quite as > bloodthirsty as rightists. The polls show that most Republicans favor Obama’s > wars while most Democrats are skeptical or opposed. There are even some areas > of policy where Obama is not quite as bad as Bush. > But the leftist position is hardly reliably anti-war. There are exceptions, > of course. The far left radicals and genuine classical-liberal leaning types > like Glenn Greenwald stay principled and will question a war regardless of > the president. But in general, at best, most left-liberals look the other way > while innocent foreigners are slaughtered by U.S. bombs, so long as the > president is advancing domestic socialism on schedule. Healthcare is their > issue right now, not mass murder. It is more a change in emphasis than a full > embrace of warmongering that characterizes the left during Democratic wars. > They might not wear flag pins and spend every day screaming for blood; they > simply ignore the issue. This is documented:the "netroots" progressives, for > example, have almost entirely abandoned the war issue in order to pursue > issues where they can side with the state and their beloved president. > Under Democratic rule, the left-liberal seems to make a calculation: how much > socialism makes it worth living under a lawless state? How many free > government goodies does it take for me to shut up about the Pakistanis and > Afghans being blown to bits? Aggressive war, for most of the left, is at best > one of many issues, and generally not one regarded as nearly as important as > health care or education financing. Their reasoning seems to go: "Killed ten > thousand people? That’s bad. Paid our UN dues? That’s good. Tortured and > spied? That’s bad. Toughened EPA emission standards? That’s good. A trillion > dollar bailout? That might be bad. But Obama also signed the tobacco > legislation. I guess it balances out." > Even under Republicans, leftists rarely go far enough on the war issue. They > believe in big government, the nation-state and its military, they believe in > collective security, the UN, and the founding myths of the post-WWII American > empire, and they believe that there is a stark moral difference between a > president killing in the name of government and private citizens committing > murder. Even under Republicans, most of the left is more opposed to the war > contractors and unilateralism than the war itself, more opposed to the > businesses involved in surveillance than the government ordering the spying, > more opposed to the partisan leader than the institutions he leads. If they > truly ever embraced the full antiwar position, they would see the state for > what it is, an engine of mass murder and totalitarian subjugation of foreign > peoples and the domestic population, and would thus not find it so > distasteful to imply that such an institution would ever have something > called "death panels." > To the contrary, they find it heretical to believe America is not a free > country, at least when its ruled by their own party, and repeat the same > "love-it-or-leave-it" claptrap that could be heard from the neocons in 2004. > They think it irresponsible, even un-American, to use the word "tyranny" in > describing the U.S. government, insensitive to call it a "police state" much > less a "fascist system illegitimately run by a would-be dictator," even > though they were somewhat sympathetic to the exact same dissent under Bush. > Likemost Good Germansof the 1930s, it is not so much that they endorse naked > state aggression, it is just that it’s not on their radar. > But that’s at best. During wartime, left-liberals can be much worse than that > with their guy in power. With the color of international approval or > political correctness, they become energetic supporters of the warfare state. > They will smear those who criticize "humanitarian" wars for being soft on > genocide. They back interventions such as Bill Clinton’s Kosovo killing > spree, cheer on U.S. fighter pilots, and parrot the establishment line on > Iran or whatever the latest boogeyman is. > It is perhaps on the questions of free speech and civil liberties that the > left flip-flops the most when power shifts.Some puritanical and authoritarian > leftist impulsesare constant, but they become much worse under Democratic > rule, since dissent from the state itself is added to the list of verboten > activities. Consider the new Brown Scare they are trying to bring to life. > They flirt with banning "hate speech" – even speech like this very article, > for daring to make comparisons between fascism and the American state. They > smear all criticism of Obama’s domestic policy as "racist." They regard any > talk of secession to be sacrilege, demonstrating their devotion to the > immortal nation-state as a first principle. They find contrived connections > between unrelated violent incidents, such as the murder of abortionist George > Tiller and the murder of the Holocaust museum security guard, as fodder for > their paranoid delusions that the greatest danger to America are the people > on the fringe and least close to power. > So fearful they are of the out-of-power right that they ignore the actual > regime in power, the one with a stockpile of nuclear weapons, a gulag of > millions of prisoners and a printing press to funnel money from the poor to > the rich. Suddenly, the surveillance state is benign and those protesting the > census or stocking ammo in Montana are the real threat. > It is impossible to have a fascist nationalist regime without demonizing "the > other." For Democrats, "the other" can be anyone with working-class cultural > values, a middle-class lifestyle or an upper-class income. It can be > gunowners, homeschoolers, devout Christians or cultural conservatives. It can > be practically anyone who deviates from the bizarre elitist model for > left-liberal living. While the right vilifies anyone who is not "normal," the > left vilifies anyone who is. > On matters like detention and warrantless wiretaps, the mainstream left > becomes silent or supportive as the Democratic administration does everything > bad that the Republicans did. When the Democrats suggest using the Republican > No-Fly list to disarm a million Americans, the left cheers. Few leftists > oppose conscription on principle, meaning that on the fundamental issue of > slavery, they are weak. Meanwhile, personal choices like cigarette smoking > fall under attack. Now we are seeing internet freedom under threat as never > before, as the left-liberal mindset does not inherently distrust the > government in such matters. > Thus, blue-state fascism is a tried-and-true strain of American politics, but > it is worse in its newest incarnation and the more libertarian instincts on > the left, which were nurtured in the Vietnam era, are beginning to wither > away. And 21st-century blue-state fascism is still in its infancy. Hopefully > the left will fracture and those with some old-time liberal leanings will > break off from the statists and join those of us who champion liberty. > Defections from the left were key, after all, in forming the Old Right. But > if the trend continues, I fear we will see most of the left, faced with the > choice of power or liberty, choose as they have for most the last > century.http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory193.html --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
