Finally, Change We Can Believe In

Those of us who are self-appointed advocates -- who expend our efforts trying to persuade a few more people to our political point of view -- must sit back in slack-jawed wonder when the great American public makes one of its great roars, as we all have been hearing in town hall meetings across the country.

In the animal kingdom, it is the lion that has the loudest roar. Scientists say it is made as a warning to advertise the animal's presence. Are you listening, Washington? The current American public's roar certainly is being heard around the world. Consider the following lead from Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper a few days ago:

"It was a scene of breathtaking political theatre. Arlen Specter, the veteran Pennsylvania senator, stood in stony-faced shock as one of his constituents delivered a furious tirade just a few feet away. 'One day God is going to stand before you, and he's going to judge you and the rest of your damn cronies,' bellowed the senator's grey-bearded adversary in an encounter replayed countless times on American television. 'Then you will get your just desserts.' Minutes later, a woman prompted a standing ovation with her emotional outpouring. 'I don't believe this is just health care. This is about the systematic dismantling of this country,' she said, her voice quaking. 'I don't want this country turning into Russia, turning into a socialised country. What are you going to do to restore this country back to what our founders created, according to the Constitution?'"

Usually, for a nation's public opinion to be heard so far and wide, violence must be involved. Earlier this year, the people of Iran were heard -- but at the price of the government murdering its citizens, shooting demonstrators in the face and violently suppressing the crowds in its capital city. And voices were heard in Tiananmen Square in China in 1989.

But only in America does the political significance of a peaceful public voice reach such magnitude, because here we change power without violence. Yet the media and many Democratic congressional leaders have responded to this peaceful outpouring of passionate opinion by first claiming the crowds were hired by lobbyists. (So far, the only evidence of rent-a-mobs was a Craigslist ad offering up to $600 a week for pro-Obamacare demonstrators to turn up and demonstrate.)

Then, when it became obvious that no one can organize the size and the manifestly sincere passion of so many people (and the polls proved the public believed the people), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused those American people of being "un-American" and "carrying swastikas," while The Washington Post ran an article making fun of the unstylish clothes the people were wearing.

On Sunday, administration officials started backing away from their demand for a public insurance requirement. That's nice. But it is very possible that something much bigger is afoot. As the woman said at the town hall, "I don't believe this is just health care."

Bailouts to banks, huge stimulus payoffs to special interests, nationalization of auto companies, trillions in new debt, the ideological taxing of our great carbon energy supplies, unconscionable deficits stealing from our grandchildren, Washington talk of health rationing, forced abortions, compulsory sterilization, eugenics. Are you all Eurosocialists now? What the hell is going on in Washington?

Maybe, just maybe, the woman is right. Maybe the national roar is a cri de coeur from the heartland to the capital -- just the beginning of a national vomiting of alien ideas being shoved down the national throat by a left-wing Congress.

To those congressmen who oppose the horror: This is no time for timidity and compromise. Let your political courage match the passion of the people.

And to all the Washington politicians in Congress, advice from another generation's poet:

"Come senators, congressmen

Please heed the call

Don't stand in the doorway

Don't block up the hall

For he that gets hurt

Will be he who has stalled

There's a battle outside

And it is ragin'.

It'll soon shake your windows

And rattle your walls

For the times they are a-changin'."

The real change is to come home again, America.

People are now realizing just what the word "Progressive" means. The leftists needed a new name in America when the voters permanently soured on the direction "liberals" were pulling the country.

These super-liberals who call themselves "PROGRESSIVE" espouse a new form of government that is actually a synthesis of two previously existing government forms: Communism and Fascism.

When many use the word “fascist” they are simply using it as a pejorative. When people were calling Bush “fascist”, that was simply a smear. When I challenged them to define fascist, and they were unable to respond, I educated them. That reduced them to calling him monkey instead. Dear Leader has been RULING as a fascist (most recently demonstrated by his town hall antics) as I will demonstrate.

However, when using "Fascist" here, i is NOT using it as a pejorative. It's an attempt to describe as accurately as possible the system of government they espouse and are trying to bring about. I ran into a problem, though, when researching the question.

I excerpt part of http://open-encyclopedia.com/Fascism as a base for the analysis.

The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that

exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and
espouses nationalism and sometimes racism or ethnic nationalism. ,

... The purpose of the government under fascism proper was to value itself as the highest priority to its culture in just being the state in itself, the larger scope of which, the better...

... The Nazi movement spoke of class-based society as the enemy, and wanted to unify the racial element above established classes. The Fascist movement, on the other hand, sought to preserve the class system and uphold it as the foundation of established and desirable culture...

...Fascism rejects the central tenets of Marxism, which are class struggle, and the need to replace capitalism with a society run by the working class in which the workers own the means of production. ...

[Fascism includes] capitalism ... This was a new capitalist system, however, one in which the state seized control of the organization of vital industries.

Look at the agenda the Progressives have undertaken since gaining control of Congress in 2006, and indeed before that time. Control of business, reduction of personal liberty, using propaganda and censorship to suppress opposition, social regimentation, higher taxes which again reduces personal liberty, expanding national government everywhere, even severe regimentation passing laws about light bulbs and on and on. Much of their agenda and methodology is VERY fascist.

However, bullet points 1 & 4 give us a problem whether we use nationalism or racism. Progressives certainly never goad people into a frenzy by extolling the virtues of the United States so are not nationalists in the typical sense of the word. They don’t use racism that way, either- they merely use it as a pejorative. Thus, we are not quite accurate in equating Progressivism with Fascism.

A digression concerning Nazi (National Socialist) vs. Fascist: Nazi is a subset of Fascist, but that subset does not include any more Progressive traits than Fascist.

What actually is needed to describe Progressives is Fascism that is NOT nationalist, at least nationalism in the sense of promotion of their nation as superior.

They are not Socialist (Marxist), either. When have you EVER heard a Progressive politician or any of the Democrats extol the virtues of having a classless society? Certainly they don't desire that for themselves or their rich donors! They are definitely in favor of a classes, with themselves in the highest class.

This brings up the following, from the same main source: http://open-encyclopedia.com/Communism

In terms of socio-economic systems, communism and socialism are two different things. For example, socialism involves the existence of a state, while communism does not...[and] abolishes private ownership altogether.

I’ve heard it argued that Communism has never been implemented, as a result. Apologies to Marx and Engels, but it is the supporters of communism who make that argument. Communism as it is now defined requires that there be NO “state”.

This helps us gain some ground. Communism shares this major feature of "no state" with Progressivism! So, where are we now?

These super-liberals, including Dear Leader and those who are currently running congress, have been pushing CapNTax, ObamaCare, apologies for the US, making nice with sworn enemies, international law, eliminating military superiority, etc.. In nearly EVERY area of our culture or economy that they have been pushing most fervently, they push for a leveling of the US with other nations, and attempt to remove national differences and boundaries. These fit with Communism, except that they have NO DESIRE to eliminate "classes" of people, or that the state OWN business- they only wish to CONTROL business as in Fascism (they have stated that they don't want to run the banks or auto companies) and they don't mind that their favored elites are billionaires, just as in fascism. Like fascism, they desire to control individual thought and behavior and forcibly suppress dissent.

Either we stipulate that the “whole world” is the “nation” for Dear Leader et al, to accurately describe their government philosophy, and state they are "ONE-WORLD FASCISTS", or we need a new word to describe their desired governmental system.

A word that would accurately synthesize their thinking is:

CommuFascist

The important point, though, is that whether this philosophy is labeled CommuFascist, or “Progressive” or One-World Fascists, analysis reveals that Dear Leader, Pelosi, and these super-liberals are espousing a MORE EXTREME FORM of Fascism and VERY extreme form of liberalism. Dear Leader is a “one-world” Mussolini.

Far from being pejorative, analysis reveals I was being generous when I was describing them as Fascist, not pejorative. I might be calling them something more extreme instead, “Progressive” or equivalently, CommuFascist.

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.

Μολὼν λάβε