Barack Obama, the Quintessential Liberal Fascist

The Washington Times ^ | May 12, 2009 | Kyle-Anne Shiver

[Scanian]

"They fear that the development and building of People's (community) Organizations is the building of a vast power group which may fall prey to a fascistic demagogue who will seize leadership and control and turn an organization into a Frankenstein's monster against democracy." - Saul Alinsky responding to his critics, Reveille for Radicals; p. 199

When Saul Alinsky began building his community-organization movement in 1930s Chicago, observers were watching Alinsky with one eye, while with the other eye observing the building of communist and fascist movements in Europe. It wasn't hard then to see in Alinsky's programs at home, elements of the people's revolution from Russia, as well as some of the same "in your face" tactics being employed by Hitler's Brownshirts.

What Alinsky's critics saw was the burgeoning of a national movement, the carefully manipulated construction of people's organizations, which all had two elements in common: (1) a collectivist creed, which denied the existence of personal responsibility; and (2) an amoral dogma, in which all means were justified by an imaginary utopian end.

While most modern Americans remember well Hitler's Holocaust and the Cold War waged by a solid U.S.S.R., many of these same Americans have swallowed some false history regarding the movements that spawned such widespread, horrendous results.

[muir_redwoods]

He’s not a “liberal fascist” he’s simply a fascist. All fascists are socialists; national socialists.

[Scanian]

BIG GOOF! Source id THE AMERICAN THINKER, not the Washington Times

[livius]

In what may be regarded as the most triumphant propaganda victory of our time, fascism has been scrubbed of all its Marxist roots, while communism has been scrubbed of its millions of callous murders.

Another brilliant article from the American Thinker!

[livius]

I think of Obama's liberal fascism as a cancer that attempts to kill the two birds of American exceptionalism with one stone. It is a diabolically appealing Third Way that in the end, if allowed to triumph completely, kills both individual liberty and Judeo/Christian religion with its single stone.

The article goes into a lot more detail about the origins of the Obama cult and I think you do have to distinguish it from earlier fascisms, which were much more direct and visible early on in their development.

[Steely Tom]

BIG GOOF! Source id THE AMERICAN THINKER, not the Washington Times

[wita]

The article goes into a lot more detail about the origins of the Obama cult and I think you do have to distinguish it from earlier fascisms, which were much more direct and visible early on in their development.

I’m not sure how much more visible and direct you would like your Facism, but this one takes the cake IMHO especially for speed. The author’s last name certainly adds a bit of reality to an article in the Freerepublic tradition of keepers.

[Scanian]

Are you able to correct the source? I apologize for the mistake. (Should be The American Thinker)

[livius]

The thing with this fascism is that it is not part of a defined movement. That’s what is different about it.

Hitler, for example, had been an extreme leftist for a long time and then began to develop his own theories and did in fact write about his program and even come up with a name for it. Obama published a couple of ghosted “autobiographies” that are not policy statements.

Obama is essentially riding on the vast wave of liberal organizations that have spent decades building a silent fascism that was just waiting for the right moment and the right figurehead. He was that figurehead (although I think they believe they are using him but he is really using them, because he is a narcissistic megalomaniac, and this may ultimately be the downfall of the whole scheme). They don’t even need to state their program directly and in manifesto form; it is now simply a fait accompli and, in a sense, can adapt in any way the people behind it see fit. This is what actually makes it more dangerous in many ways than more overt, program-driven fascist movements.

This one has been so fast because the ideas were already in place. There was no acceptance curve because most people were already accustomed to “milder” forms of these same ideas and other than a few surprised squawks, they just accepted the extreme version with a shrug.

[wita]

Thanks for the reply, all good points. There is no argument at all about what it is, and no argument about the need to get rid of it, only the means are in question.

[Graybeard58]

A quicker way to get the attention of the mod is by using the “abuse button”, I’ve had to do it a few times.

[Oratam]

He [Alinsky] told them, instead, to go to hear the speech dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever [George H. W.]Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards reading, ‘The KKK supports Bush.' And that is what they did, with very successful, attention-getting results."

At the risk of going off-topic, this reminded me of that awful Westboro "Church" protesting soldiers' funerals and carrying signs reading "God Hates Faggots." Their tactics are very Alinsky-like. Who is funding these clowns?

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Gary Allen in “None Dare Call it Conspiracy” has a simple but clear diagram that explains the type of government and the degree of totalitarianism.

It is just a line that runs from left to right. The left side being totalitarianism, the far right anarchy. He does so to dispel the lie perpetuated by the left that fascism is totalitarian of the right.

This is the lie (I hope this works, I’m creating space with the space bar):

|————————————————————————————|
Dictatorship: Democracy: Dictatorship:
Communism Fabian Socialism Fascism

Here is the real application of the types of government:

|———————————————|————————|—————>
Totalitarianism: Anarchy:
Communism Constitutional
Fascism Republic
Socialism Limited Gov.
Pharaohism
Caesarism

The point is that the constitutional form of limited government affords the greatest liberty without giving in to true anarchy (not the current pop kind which is communism dressed up in black drag).

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Darn. My graph didn’t work. The text all jammed together.

[exDemMom]

You could try putting periods instead of spaces.

[Le Chien Rouge]

Unity is the siren song of tyranny, not the call to genuine progress.

I love this line!!!!

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

OK, exDemMom, I’ll try it with dots.

This is the lie (I hope this works, I’m creating space with the space bar):

|.....................|.....................|..........>
Dictatorship:.........Democracy:............Dictatorship:
Communism.............Fabian Socialism......Fascism

Here is the real application of the types of government:

|................................|..............|.........>
Totalitarianism:................................Anarchy
Communism........................Constitutional
Fascism..........................Republic
Socialism........................Limited Gov.
Pharaohism
Caesarism

The point is that the constitutional form of limited government affords the greatest liberty without giving in to true anarchy (not the current pop kind which is communism dressed up in black drag).

[Bigg Red]

mark

[livius]

I agree. I hope that the Obama fascism will self-destruct when it comes down to a power struggle between Obama and the people behind him - but the question is how many lives it will cost and how much it will damage the US before this happens. I hope it happens soon, when it is likely to do least damage, but I’m not counting on it.

One thing he is very good at, which the article points out and many people point to as a feature of a sociopathic personality, is soothingly agreeing with everybody, regardless of how different his own point of view is, until he has enough power to enforce the latter. Then the options for resisting suddenly become much more limited.

[Texas resident]

Hard to add to that. Had a thought though. Back when GWB was POTUS, the left constantly called him Hitler. But if you look at the histories of Adolf and Barak, there are similarities. Both came from very dysfunctional backgrounds, both had very little accomplishments in their lives, both came from no where to lead the country, both depended on intimidation to get their way, both had an adoring press. Pot calling the kettle black.