Wednesday, February 13, 2008

A Different Perspective

What was said in the boiling pot? What were the key phrases? Were they plans of specificity, that the mind can critique? Or do they represent the vision, hope, motivation for a bright future? Let us examine two texts, where I have selected the hook phrasing:
"But we are all filled with unbounded confidence for we believe in our people and their imperishable virtues. Every class and every individual must help us to found the new Reich."

"The National Government intends to solve the problem of the reorganization of trade and commerce with two four-year plans:"

"The German farmer must be rescued in order that the nation may be supplied with the necessities of life...."

"A concerted and all-embracing attack must be made on unemployment in order that the German working class may be saved from ruin...."

"Within four years the German peasant must be rescued from the quagmire into which he has fallen."

"Within four years unemployment must be finally overcome. At the same time the conditions necessary for a revival in trade and commerce are provided."

"The securing of the necessities of life will include the performance of social duties to the sick and aged."

"Now, people of Germany, give us four years and then pass judgment upon us."
That from the "BERLIN: PROCLAMATION TO THE GERMAN NATION", Feb 1, 1933. All quotes come from the Hitler Historical Museum, a fine apolitical online reference for such material. The next group of quotes this from "BERLIN, CONGRESS OF THE GERMAN WORK FRONT", May 10, 1933:
"Not with any idea of helping the worker -what is the worker of any country to these apostles of internationalism? Nothing at all! They never see him! They themselves are no workers: they are alien litterateurs, an alien gang! . . ."

"There might have been something which could perhaps have opposed these millions and that something would have been the State, had it not been that this State had sunk so low that it had become the plaything of groups of interested parties."

"Bismarck once declared that liberalism was the pacemaker for social democracy. And I do not need in this place to say that social democracy is the pacemaker for communism. But communism is the pacemaker for death - the death of a people - downfall."

"It is the spirit from which efforts spring that helps to decide the issue. There must be no conquerors and no conquered; our people must be the only conqueror - conqueror over classes and castes, and conqueror over the interests of these single groups in our people!"

"I am an independent man, and I have set before myself no other goal than to serve, to the best of my power and ability, the German people, and above all to serve the millions who, thanks to their simple trust and ignorance and thanks to the baseness of their former leaders, have perhaps suffered more than any other class."

"I have always professed that there is nothing finer than to be the advocate of those who cannot easily defend themselves."

"Because I know this people better than any other, and at the same time know the rest of the people, I am not only ready in this case to undertake the role of an honest broker but I am glad that destiny can cast me for the part. I shall never in my life have any greater reason for pride than when at the end of my days I can say: I have won the German workingman for the German Reich."

My comments here are a bit ethereal. The flavor of these words is perhaps changed in translation, salted with English invective. But it is very evident how he has weaved his personal story into the "common thread", the collective experience of the audience, and used that to direct the perspective. It is brilliant, even without knowing the context of each speech, which I purposely left little of.

The scary thing is the systematic picture of the state as the answer. It is the wresting of control from the population, through gentle persuasion. It is the massaging of class envy, the isolation of the opposition, the direct coercion through emotion that strikes to the core of our consciousness. How is this different than the political populism of today? The techniques are the same, the words are similar. The socialist goals are identical, where is the difference?

I would say it is skill and intent. Hitler is gifted with the ability to elevate his story beyond 'rock star' status to verging on the messianic. And his intent does expose itself beyond the simple acquisition of political power. But, given this, the techniques are the same, and I would claim the results of these techniques will always lead to failure, weather world changing, or relatively benign.

The people are deceived and the bright future is not one of individual excellence. Without focusing on the fulfillment of the individual through personal betterment and effort, the approach is doomed to thrash against those who refuse to be suppressed. It is the inevitable result of socialism. The population may be eased into comfortable domination by the central government for a short time, but that is against the human spirit. By these quotes, and knowing the possible result of the government they represent, we should educate ourselves to those who would utilize the same methods.

A Litany of Change

I had to see for myself, "Does an Obama speech really consist of nothing?" So I grabbed one and chewed it up. This is for New Orleans, and is amazingly, full of absolutely nothing! Wow, so I went after the obvious hook lines, just to see them all together. Here you go:
"When I am President, I will start by restoring that most basic trust - that your government will do what it takes to keep you safe.

When I am President, the days of dysfunction and cronyism in Washington will be over.

All of this will cost money.

I promise you that when I'm in the White House I will commit myself every day to keeping up Washington's end of this trust.

That is what is possible if we can trust each other; and if we have the imagination to see the unseen, and the determination to work for it."

Well there you have it. Oh sure there was lots of local flavor in between, with the inevitable rhetoric and empty promises. Even a specific new 4k tax credit for college students. But for the most part, the above covers Obama's complete platform.

First and foremost, your government is there to keep you safe. Then the glorious promise of a functioning D.C., from the most liberal senator currently serving. Something is missing in that one. Next, it will cost money, so "we need more of yours..." Then, he promises to spend that money, which I can believe. Can we see it? Oh yeah, we already have it. Change? What change?

Friday, February 08, 2008

A Discussion that Ends with "Liberal Optimism"

Ok, you know that is snarky sarcasm, and the folowing discussion is equally laced with invective. Don't be offended, it's a rough world. The key here is painting a picture of the political landscape. And what a result at the end... I begin things with this provocation:
Well, I was surfing around a bit, and I had completely forgoten Johny Mac's conservative fiscal roots. Ala Keating Five. It is a disgrace that, what I call conservative, and what the Party assumes is conservative, are two completely different things. John does one thing for the world, he assures a Obama victory in Nov. Baring some hideous screw up or evil Clinton plot against him. However, there was not much choice this year, same as the last .... twenty years. Oh, I voted against that idiot Kerry. But Bush was never my choice for leader, just better than your villiage buffoons. This time around, it is actually quite sad. Hunter is conservative, but no traction. Then give me Fred, but he had no desire or advisers. Rudy was acceptable simply on his executive record and talent, not aligned by the issues. And that's about all she wrote. Oh, I could have pulled the lever for Mitt, but he DOES NOT inspire confidence. And the Huckster, affable as he is, has revealed a severe lack of world comprehension.

Obama can win easily. But he has little skill, and even less experience. Doubtful he can grow up that fast. Going to be a rocky road..... At least the Clintons trust no one.... But they are evil. Possibly the best option now is to see Hillary get the nod. One bright spot, look for another '94 like conservative revolution in 2010. That's about all there is. You all on the left have even less hope. ZERO leadership, coupled with being in power, leads to disaster. You get the same lip service, and the same lobbyists who get what they want done, which has nothing to do with the concerns of the people. Unless it pertains to handouts for more votes, like "stimulus package", "citizenship", and "health care".
What will be the response I wonder?
Odd ain't it. No real conservatives and no real liberals. Wonder what that says about the state of politics in the USA? Well, actually, I like Obama. Great potential there if he isn't eaten up by the corrupt corporations and the criminal DOD bunch. Note how the tune from DOD is changing; less on 'the terrorists are coming' and more going back to the stock enemy, 'the Russians are coming'. Seems we just must have a boogieman or the warmongers won't get their inflated budgets.
Now that was down right placid. No excitement at all. So I tried to light up something a bit more direct:
Here is my question to you sages of the fever swamp. What is the read on Obama as regarding how he will handle lobbyists and corporate influence? He has steadfastly rejected K-Street money, but has gotten back door help in some areas. And the onslaught of 527 groups won't start for another month or so. How does he fair in that realm? It's an unknown, at least to me. With Hill and John, we will get the same old stuff, its completely damning, but so much retread that voters don't seem to care much. But Obama is a hidden target. I can not get any sense. When Hill and Bill went nasty on him, he came off kinda goofy, as if not sure of his own skin. But just the fact that he stayed ethereally positive made the clowns look old and bitter. What do you think?
So you would expect more insight, more politics, something fun. No, this is a strange day indeed. Here we have something with the definite flavor of conspiracy. End of the world nutterdom. Quite amazing that anyone could end up with this world view, but apparently this has become popular. See what you think:
Well. I think we are headed into an economic down turn that could really get nasty. I think we're heading into another rise in fighting and deaths in Iraq. I think we're going to see our purchased allies in Afghanistan drop out and the Taliban gain ground. I think that oil prices will continue to rise. I think that we will see a credit crunch, and soon. I think unemployment will begin to increase rather soon. I think we'll see Russia flex her muscles, and we can't do a damn thing about it. So, a year from now, we're going to see a Democratic President, a Democratic House, a 61+ Democratic Senate and have a lot of work to do to turn things around. As you saw in my list of a day or two ago, a lot of things have to be changed or we are going to lose our Republic and slip into 2ed nation if not 3 nation status.....broke, friendless, powerless, and on the rapid downhill slope. But, my best guess is that very little on my list will actually be accomplished, few even attempted, because the average American has yet to realize and feel what has happened; and by the time they do the disease will prove fatal. Some other people, somewhere else, some time in the future, will have to fight the good fight for freedom, independence, democracy and a republican form of government. We have become dull witted, sleepy, slow, unable to see the rising quagmire of indolence, debt, greed, ignorance and stupidity WE have built and become both the tool and the victim of. We will be remembered as are the Greek City States and the Roman Republic, elegant failures. Systems are, by their nature as systems, self-limiting if they do not adapt and change. a sort of 'social evolution' that is not genetic or biologic, but is intellectual, mental, political and economic. That is, based on man's ability to 'think'. Instead, we have allowed the evils of unrestrained capitalism, militarism, and religion to blind us to rational and progressive thought and ideas. Instead of looking forward our solutions are all looking backward, wanting to go back to a world that never was and can never be. That way lies a dead end. OK, so be it. Let the great Western civilization that arose from the 15th century decline and pass away. Some other people will adapt, change, and emerge as a new and dynamic civilization. Arnold Toynbee talked about civilizations in terms of cycles, tempered by 'crisis and response'. The West, particularly the US, is failing to respond in an adaptive manner to solve the 'crisis'. The outcome, as Oswald Spengler said, is The Decline of the West. We had a good run.
Well. This is the end result of the social humanist mentality. You can come to no other conclusion. Despair, failure, and destruction. The inevitable friend of the Godless. Don't you feel like a long hot shower after slipping into that swamp? A mental shower at least. Go now, and cleanse yourself.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

The New Base: Pseudocons

There was a phenomena beginning in the seventies of democrats who had fiscal conservative (or perhaps libertarian) views voting for Republican candidates. Many were Democrats simply by culture and blood, not by brain power. Their parents held FDR in such high regard that party became part of life, not cognition. This was instilled from the womb, a immutable part of the family, "We're all Democrats..." But things changed, and by Reagan's second term, "Reagan Democrats" were a very large voting block. Reagan reached across the political divide and spread conservative views. His compromises forced liberals to sacrifice socialist ideals.

Jumping forward, there was a revolution in the Congress in '94, where conservative leadership convincingly moved into power. How did they do it? Did they compromise and become more moderate? No, they defined precisely what they stood for, and reached across the political divide to embrace likeminded voters. Conservative political philosophy is able to win politically, and coupled with dynamic personality and leadership (ala Reagan) is guaranteed to succeed.

But in the last ten years, a new force has swelled in the Republican womb. A purely political fetus, a genetic aberration with a seriously ugly head. Born from compromise and the idea that to win, you need the 'moderate' vote, this new movement, the Pseudocons, is sweeping the Republican party. What defines this new core? Populism is its exterior visage, with a murky, shifting interior of muddy values. The values were once clean, clear principals of conservatism. But they have been sullied through expedient arrangements design to "get things done".

By accomplishing objectives the insatiable populist beast is held at bay. But the cost has permanently severed the umbilical cord of this premature movement. Is it old enough to survive? Who can predict the future. Irregardless, for the health and welfare of the mother, it needs to be born now. Will it be a natural birth? Or does it need to be cut out... It appears that major conservative voices are calling for a C-section.

Yes, this 2008 Presidential primary is the context. McCain appears to be gathering support in the Republican primary. He is the de-facto leader of the Pseudocons, the model definition of the philosophy. There is no need to argue about specifics. It's the principal that fits even better than the bad legislation. What principal? That of reaching across the political divide to "work together" and "compromise" on things that are inherently not conservative in the first place.

Notice the difference? Successful conservative movements find ways to look to the future, see positive ways to get others to agree with conservative principals and go in that direction. Pseudocons take conservatism for granted, and move their own philosophy down the moderate road, hoping that the road is wide enough and well paved that the traditional conservative base will travel it by default. But we aren't going up hill. We are not reaching for a higher place. We are descending into the cesspool of populist socialism. There are no true political moderates, just a growing number of popular socialists.

What does this mean for those who are conservative? Should we compromise our principals and choose the "lesser of two evils" by supporting McCain if he is the Republican nominee? I would argue that it is fundamentally wrong in this case. Principal above party must come at some point. Don't sully your own hand, cleaning off the stain might be harder than you think. I realize there are many who will willingly support McCain from conservative ranks. But to those I would ask only one thing, will you re-evaluate you own conservative values? With McCain, you are joining a new movement, you are a Pseudocon voter. Fight against the thought all you want, rant and rail about all the reasons why "we" must win, but realize you have contributed to a illegitimate offspring. A mutant that is unlikely to survive.

cross posted at Red State