Posted on 01/27/2011 10:58:33 AM PST by cj in tx
One of us had to do this, right?
Here are, in order, Putative President Obama's State of the Union Address, Rep. Paul Ryan's (WI) official GOP response, and that of Rep. Michele Bachmann (MN) for the Tea Party (Express).
I meant for my comments to be very sparing, but succeeded in making them very atypical. As you know, these speeches are about what politicians sort of think they can get away with, before the public, the media, and even the twittering tongues and tingling legs of the pundits. In other words, they are conventional and sanitized, to say the least.
But, you, the reader of an article such as this, are not likely satisfied with even the prettiest, laundered, and ironed out veil over the body politic. We want the naked truth, "warts and all," as Lincoln said to the portraitist. We know this crisis America faces is not just about monstrous debt and debilitating taxes. We see, more and more, that it is about competing versions of a globally orchestrated and controlled society, well in process of being foisted upon Sovereign American Citizens.
The predominant version at present is Marxofascist, that is, it is authoritarian, statist, and collectivist, with varying degrees of a show of enforced egalitarianism -- enough to bring along the few among us, whose sense of fairness has turned traitorously envious and invidious.
But this version of controller, especially after the 2010 elections and in preparation for 2012, must hide their neo-Marxist desires. They can't exactly tell you they intend to keep following the Trotsky-Gramsci-Alinsky-Cloward-Piven-Weathermen model, to collapse a sovereign and free American economy and society, now can they?
No, instead, here is what they say.
The second version of how America must "progress" to face the world's challenges is that of the Whigs, er, Republicans, but they also face a deep internal split, don't let them hide it. They can't spell reality out to America, not really, not just because of the punditry and so many Americans' poor state of readiness to hear the truth; no they can't spell it out, because that would out many of them.
Those are the closet, Star Trek globalists. Like the now deceased Gene Roddenberry's version of the future, they see the world coming together under global governance where, without even a hint of theologic, philosophic, or scientific explanation, power ceases to corrupt and absolute (universal) power becomes universally benign. Did I say Roddenberry? I could have meant Rockefeller.
They don't want you to know that any enforcement of such an "ideal" destroys authentic America, dismisses Citizen Sovereignty, and reduces our nation by the least common denominator with the tyrants and tyrannies of the world.
But, they will hit that Cloward-Piven crowd ("I think I've heard those names -- who are they, again?" they may ask) over the head as silly, Keynesian budget busters that are simply incompetent and too starry-eyed, themselves, to be allowed to govern. Well, make that to be allowed to govern, except in a Star Trekkie, bourgeoisie-nice manner, arm-in-arm with themselves. Cum by hya my Lord indeed, and please afford some wisdom.
Here is the wisdom of the GOP who do big things like compromise on major financial regulations that continue to give Big Manipulators cover and assure the SEC is made unaccountable to the People through immunity to Freedom of Information Act filings.
But there is a large and growing populace of self-educated Americans, whose sense, sensibility, and ultimate sophistication exceed both the anti-American dupers and their sheepish dupeniks, alike.
They know that America is not essentially about Paul Ryan's "limited government," but about liberty within a politic of self governance, recognizing and adhering to the popular sovereignty provided by Providence, through the American Revolution. And that is what "American exceptionalism" really means -- not that we are ahead in the world, but that unique on the earth, a nation arose whose entire populace have the Divine Right of Rulers, working governance out among ourselves as equals under the law. That is what makes us the "last, best hope" and as ontologically close to a "classless society" Utopia as it gets in a fallen world.
Further, we understand that the Utopians of this world and the controllers who manipulate them see, accurately, that a Sovereign America of Sovereign People are the major impediment to their "progressive" aims. They have seen the enemy and it is us. Hence, the Cloward-Piven strategy to bring about the failed state of America and hence, the shadow government of czars and bureaucratic councils (in the Russian language, soviets) ready to do the bidding of a world all too ready to bail out a too-big-to-fail America. That is where we seem to be headed.
That animus explains not only the exploited and manufactured crises and the kleptocratic redistributionism of the varying forms of Marxism and fascism aimed at Americans -- it even explains how, at heart, the wishful thinkers of the notion that freedom may exist in the world without popular sovereignty, so often align with them. America must be managed, controlled, manipulated, and nudged away from its solid foundation, in order for the planners and controllers to move it to a place where it can be a tame member of the league of... united... nation... states. And, of course, that means regulating and managing each of us.
Many see this, more and more, but who is willing to... just... say it?
Representatives Paul Broun (GA) and Michele Bachmann got GOP-reprimanded by the GOP-nice and had to issue GOP-apologies, over two years ago now, for warning of the Obama regime's Marxism. Alas, they knuckled under, yet who else has even stepped that far along, in telling the truth?
The names of Allen West and Rand Paul come to mind, also Sarah Palin, though her education must continue, if she is yet prone to support the Law of the Sea Treaty. That is not a knock on her, though. All of us must continue learning.
Well, there are others who have explained elements of our true crisis, but we hardly expect State of the Union Date Night to be the occasion for telling America about our deepest, clearest reality. At least Rep. Bachmann is able to spell out some of those assaults upon our economy and liberty, if not their ideological and yes, conspiratorial causes -- and summon some honest passion.
The videos are embedded in the original article.
I think there are very few in the new GOP House majority who have the stomach for real cost-cutting efforts. They’ll bluster and talk big, then they’ll cave at crunch time, claiming it was a victory to keep the $1.5 trillion dollar annual deficit. Nothing will be done until there is an actual collapse of the American currency.
Why none of the SOTU speakers gave us “the real nitty gritty.”
Videos of the speeches also presented.
I think Paul Ryan did a great job, but Michelle Bachman did a better job on the key economic issues.
As for whether allowing both Republican and Tea Party responses divides the opposition, I think that’s all lamestream media noise. Joe Walsh, one of the new Tea Party supported congressmen from Chicago made that criticism yesterday saying “we are all Republicans after all”.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The key to the next election will be Conservatives, Independents and disenchanted Democrats, and that’s where the Tea Party comes in.
Why not just call it what it has always been called throughout history: oligarchy.
All nations at all time throughout all history have been oligarchies. They pretty themselves up by claiming to be "divinely ruled", "communist" or "democratic", but it all amounts to the same thing:
A small group of people climb to the top of the pile and want to stay there. In order to stay there they have to mollify the masses so they come up with some ideology or bumper sticker to get everyone to go along.
Leftists delude themselves by thinking that the current oligarchs are all rightwing corporate fascists. Rightists delude themselves by thinking that the current oligarchs are Gramscian marxist intellectual bureaucrats.
As always the oligarchs are nihilistic power seekers who will wield whatever mumbo-jumbo they feel is most likely to keep them at the top.
Is the populace leaning left? Well then throw them a few bones in the form of "investment" in education, health care, and welfare programs. Is the populace leaning right? Well than cajole them with lower taxes and support for "entrepreneurship".
It's just one big farce. At least the leftist and rightist pundits are making a living off the dialectic. Some of them may have deluded themselves into believing they are actually moving the debate one way or another. I'm sure that most of them in their heart of hearts know, however, that they are just keeping the volleyball in play to keep the masses distracted.
All that we amateur pundits get out of this whole charade is a feeling of superiority: We're not like those idiots at Daily KOS! Of course they're just as self-satisfied at being not as stupid as those idiots over at FreeRepublic.
The good news is the oligarchs have learned they can get more out of us with carrots than sticks. So there is no need to fear a return to the gulags. That experiment was tried a few times and failed every time. The current experiment of bread and circuses was tried in Rome. It seemed to work for quite some time, and seems to be working OK for now. But there are some barbarians banging on the gates, so the oligarchs might have to try a few new tricks to keep the party going longer.
But, upom what will their votes be based?
Oligarchies ALWAYS run out of minds...and out of ideas...
Very generalistically, you have a good point.
Leftists delude themselves by thinking that the current oligarchs are all rightwing corporate fascists. Rightists delude themselves by thinking that the current oligarchs are Gramscian marxist intellectual bureaucrats.
Granted the power lords have tended to get together, from Rockefeller to Mao, but it is a mistake to think that fascism has to do with the right, on the political spectrum. Mussolini's fascism was state controlled life, in all of its fineries. To that, Hitler injected labor-run enterprises, from the bottom-up, as well as state-run, from the top down (anarcho-syndicalism, hence NAZI's black and red colors). That is where Obama, Ayers, Jarrett, and Van Jones are. Also, Soros, Strong, and Gorbachev -- and the U.N.
The move of globalist oligarchs is as it has been in the bulk of the 20th Century -- to get behind the Marxist, collectivist movement and push. The cor
“As for whether allowing both Republican and Tea Party responses divides the opposition, I think that’s all lamestream media noise. Joe Walsh, one of the new Tea Party supported congressmen from Chicago made that criticism yesterday saying ‘we are all Republicans after all’”
That’s ture. Most political parties go through it at all times, and especially during heightened times, when the dreaded “extremes” overtake the mainstream. Democrats as a matter of habit exploit the far left vote while maintaining as members so-called Blue Dogs. Why shouldn’t Republicans be able to do the same?
This becomes a problem, admittedly, when the minority faction gains control before their time. A problem for those who think political parties exist for no other reason than to win (now!), that is. I can’t say it was beneficial for Goldwater to run in ‘64 or McGovern in ‘72. Not for the Republicans and Democrats, respectively, of those years. But it was for later years.
Interesting conversation.
I like the phrase “elitist communists” or “an elitist Marxist state” to describe who they are and what they want. Neo-communists.
They usually only depart from their antecedents of 1917 in “form.”
The post-modern gulag, the post-modern Police State, the post-modern personality cult—all occur to the same effect of the 20th century version but are all delivered in a more “polite” guise.
Someone pointed out that the Obamacare death panels will really be computer matrixes that determine whether you get treatment or not, meds or not, live or die. (With a database link to check which candidates you contributed to before choosing your doctor!)
Or, sure, call it fascism. Kind of takes the form of the superintendant of the prison camp. Sophie’s Choice presented to her as a printout—or an entry on Facebook! Or an interactive phone app! “Press one for your son, two for your daughter. And have a nice day.” Who can possibly complain when its not only civil but automated too!
Final generation 20th century Marxism ended up being Ceaucescu and the demented rumbles in the country dachas, when the son was allowed to rape the watresses in the kitchen while first feeling up the ministers’ wives as they supped alongside their utterly neutered husbands.
Bernadine Dohrn is really not much of a departure with her wonder at the slicing up of pregnant women as part of the general bacchanalia.
All kinds of terminology would be appropriate. The fact is, though, they’re all completely sick.
Re: post #5
Excellent post! I recommend it to all.
I am reminded of the movie “2001”.
HAL: “Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye. ...”
My bet is that Huxley is more right. I just hope my girlfriend(s) will be sufficiently pneumatic.
Even just a year ago I would have agreed with you that fascism is definitely a leftwing phenomenon and that it was important for conservatives to try and make this clear to the public at large.
Lately, however, I am not so sure. I am more and more certain that Russell Kirk was onto something when he claimed that a true conservatism was free of ideology and based, instead, on a set of principles that didn't always march lockstep in the same direction.
There are those, especially the "young Turks" among conservatives that view conservatism as an ideology: a pristine and well-ordered theory that can answer any and all political questions. I think, however, that a conservative ideology might actually look something like fascism.
Conservatives value families and all of the intermediate organizations that people join to meet their economic and social needs. But what if you took this love to its ideological and nonsensical conclusion? Wouldn't you want the entire state to be a sort of family to which every other institution was treated as a family member? Wouldn't you want the entire nation to work together to solve its problems and meets its needs?
Conservatives are found of work and business enterprise. Taken to its ideological and nonsensical conclusion we must value the businesses that got our family to where it is, i.e. the current corporate powers that be. And as long as they are willing to play by the family's rules they are supported by the state so that they compete against the corporations of other nations.
Conservatives are fond of traditions, patriotism, and all of the other things that fascists like to cloak themselves in to appeal to the masses. The patriotism of a conservative is a loyalty to the state which includes opposition when the state is headed in the wrong direction. The patriotism of a fascist is the blind loyalty of an ideologue.
Rather than fascism being a leftist abomination, I think it is more the characateur of a rightist ideology. Fascism is what happens when conservatives try to dot all the I's and cross all the T's and be "philosophically correct".
There are those, especially the “young Turks” among conservatives that view conservatism as an ideology: a pristine and well-ordered theory that can answer any and all political questions. I think, however, that a conservative ideology might actually look something like fascism.
As it evolves, I suppose the word conservative loses clarity rather than gaining it. That happens to many words and ideas. After standing alone, they begin to slouch.
But Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative is the event around which most First Generation conservatives formed their views—as well as reading Buckley. I know those two were my way in as a teenager.
The first pillar of conservatism as defined in Conscience (and by Buckley too) was anti-communism. It was opposition to an ideal rather than perfected idealism that galvanized us back then.
I personally HATE “right” or “right-wing” because those are mainly invectives hurled by the Left—as is the word “capitalism,” a cuss word invented by Marx.
A good phrase that has occured in recent lore is “tea party patriot.” I absolutely like that. First of all, because the tea party attendees made the phrase themselves with no help from Marx or the New York Times. Plus, it hearkens to a VERY meaningful event — the Boston tea party — without which there would have never been any “conservatives” in a place called the USA.
The thing being preserved in this phrase is a spirit rather than a vestige—real revolution and a willingness to put it all on the line to achieve it.
None of this really requires a lot of ideology since the phrasing is itself a call to action. It’s kinetic. It’s really easy for me to say I’m a tea party patriot and know in a moment whether I’m in good company or not. It’s really better stuff than a “theory of man” or the world or some such.
“I think Paul Ryan did a great job, but Michelle Bachman did a better job on the key economic issues.”
I agree. Bachmann informed voters, plainly and clearly, that socialism is NOT working.
Palin said that Ryan and Bachmann complimented each other, and they did.
Soooo....we should all just kill ourselves?
... or become Oligarchs, and hire a sufficient number of bodyguards.
I would suggest it is more important to understand what truly divides the GOP.
Actually, conservatism and liberalism never did make thorough sense and are now anachronistic, to boot.
The right and the left are more essentially, what Beck portrays.
The Right is about the sovereign and free moral agent (and requires individuals with moral compasses, who govern by rights, as laid out by America's founders and their philosophical/theological antecedents (Locke, Sidney, etc.).
The Left is about, as Mussolini said, if I'm not butchering it, "all for the state and nothing but the state." That is the result of altruistic government empowerment, since power tends to corrupt the powerful to gain more.
Alas, the essential message of this commentary seems to have gone in one ear and out the other, at least here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.