By Rich Kozlovich
Daily I get material from correspondents who like me ...they're newsies. One of these correspondents stores articles on issues and has been sending them to me. Here's her latest offering, and I think a good one considering the leftist insanity being imposed on the nation.
Let's start with this one from Jonah Goldberg. After Jonah Goldberg wrote Liberal Fascism, which was great, he didn't get much right after that, well, he finally got something right.
a natural human tendency to think that because you can't stand the
other guy "or gal" he or she must therefore be your ideological
opposite. The Brown Shirts (Nazis) and Red Shirts (Communists) weren't
philosophical antipodes, they were Coke and Pepsi fighting for the same
slice of the radical market by changing their recipes ever so slightly.
I've written over and over again that fascism and communism are leftist concepts, and are two sides of the same coin. The only thing "right" about fascism is it's to the right of communism. But I really like the Coke/Pepsi menu comparison much better as it lends a depth of thought, because it hints at the never ending changes adopted by the left. Yesterday's leftists sacrosanct thoughts are tomorrow's sacrilege, constantly changing themselves into Angels of Light, all the while being demons of darkness.
Then there's this blather from "From the eminent liberal scholar Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr." Not Right, Not Left, But a Vital Center". With a lot of history and entirely too much rhetoric, in too long an article, he states everything is too complex, so no simple solutions will work. Nothing is right and nothing is wrong, so do everything you can to hold to the middle of the road. And as he said all this to come to the conclusion, don't do anything that means anything, ending with this bit of fuzziness.
The problem of United States policy is to make sure that the Center
does hold; and this can be done only by supporting it against all
blandishments and all threats, from whatever direction they may come. The
best must recover a sense of principle; and, on the basis of principle,
they may develop a passionate intensity. We cannot afford to loose the
blood-dimmed tide ever again.
The "blood-dimmed tide"? But here's what all this blather he spewed out really means! Whatever happens, we must never have a moral position we must defend against leftist aggression against the American identity, the American economy, the American culture and the Constitution. It's the cry of the left to the right.....Please be quiet about our immoral excesses and treason, in order that we may destroy the nation without interference, or will will arrest you as domestic terrorists. The key? Never let them have any power or resources that allow them to implement tyranny.
Politically, it is
heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go
wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama's point of view, since it
gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without
having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.
That's the beauty of socialism....for socialists. I means never having to say your sorry, but they're stupidity lingers on, negatively impacting humanity forever. Thirty years after Jimmy Carter we're still suffering from his incompetence, and the long term consequences of the Obama administration are still with us and I hate to think what the long term unfixable damage Biden is doing.
As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces,
the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a
protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as
the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with
its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism,
with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie.
Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and
racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical
liberalism and Marxism.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s
economic processes through direct state operation of the means of
production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination
of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property
explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their
property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority
conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the
state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism
left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic
activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism
controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.
In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace.
Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
Again from Thomas Sowell, Socialism for the Uninformed noting:
Socialism sounds great. It has always sounded great. And it will
probably always continue to sound great. It is only when you go beyond
rhetoric, and start looking at hard facts, that socialism turns out to
be a big disappointment, if not a disaster.
While throngs of young people are cheering loudly for avowed
socialist Bernie Sanders, socialism has turned oil-rich Venezuela into a
place where there are shortages of everything from toilet paper to
beer, where electricity keeps shutting down, and where there are long
lines of people hoping to get food, people complaining that they cannot
feed their families.
With national income going down, and prices going up under
triple-digit inflation in Venezuela, these complaints are by no means
frivolous. But it is doubtful if the young people cheering for Bernie
Sanders have even heard of such things, whether in Venezuela or in other
countries around the world that have turned their economies over to
politicians and bureaucrats to run.
Then there's this piece, which is long and tedious, but it defines the
THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM.
As you review these definitions ask yourself.....where are we in
relationship with this? Here's my thought.
DANGER, DANGER WILL
Post a Comment