Thursday, October 30, 2008

Obama is NOT the Most Liberal Liberal to Have Run for Office

On the late day the news was suppressed that a major Obama speech writer has broken rank, rummaging through an rather amusing PUMA blog - Hillbuzz - the winning meme hit consciousness level: Obama is not at all "the most liberal Democrat that’s run for president in as long as anyone can remember" ...

... Obama is NOT a liberal at all!

In "The Hidden Sinisterisms of the O Campaign" we introduced Global Labor, a unionist blogger who is perturbed by the Obama 'authoritarian' influence on education. He asserts that Obama's eduction adviser, Prof. Linda Darling-Hammond - like Ayers - is persuaded of the justice of the 'educational debt', reparations due to black citizens as 'historically oppressed." This theme is classical Marxist dialectic, pointing to the Marx assertion that Capitalism breeds happy peoples because it exports oppression to the Third World (never mind that African Americans are well, Americans).

If Obama doesn't share the Marxist beliefs with his former Chicago Annenberg Challenge board colleague Ayers, then why does he have (or has had) Mike Klonsky serving on the campaign blogs, answering matters pertaining to education and 'social justice', as Global Labor alleges? Both Klonsky and Ayers emerged from the SDS: whereas Ayers started his Weather Underground mob, Klonsky - via the October League - founded the US Communist Party (Marxist-Leninst) (CP (ML)), which was officially sanctioned by the Chinese regime.

The confusion in the political landscape could not be more profound. A leading Dutch magazine came up the other day with "Dutch liberals might become disappointed in Obama, because he is not as liberal as they think he is". That would be because - in order to win American Presidential elections - candidates have to 1. pretend to respect the 2nd Amendment (right to carry arms); 2. support the death penalty; and 3. pretend to be a Christian of sorts. The case is however altogether different.

No, Barack Obama is no liberal, and certainly not The Most Liberal Ever. He's an old fashioned, authoritarian, top down, commie nomenklatura. It's John McCain who's the real liberal, as some would have it ...

Every so often in this blog we make an effort to explain what is wrong with the current entrenched alignment of political parties, and that the American notion of liberals and liberalism is flawed. The last time we made such an attempt was in "Credit Crunch Critical for Survival of Capitalism." The American uptake of liberalism is actually Socialism light, which is directly opposed Libertarianism.

Confused? Luckily we now have the availability of the online Ayn Rand Lexicon in which the matter is explained better than we could ever aspire to. Consider:

"For many decades, the leftists have been propagating the false dichotomy that the choice confronting the world is only: communism or fascism—a dictatorship of the left or of an alleged right—with the possibility of a free society, of capitalism, dismissed and obliterated, as if it had never existed.

The political origin of that notion is more shameful than the “moderates” would care publicly to admit. Mussolini came to power by claiming that that was the only choice confronting Italy. Hitler came to power by claiming that that was the only choice confronting Germany. It is a matter of record that in the German election of 1933, the Communist Party was ordered by its leaders to vote for the Nazis—with the explanation that they could later fight the Nazis for power, but first they had to help destroy their common enemy: capitalism and its parliamentary form of government.

It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of “Freedom or dictatorship?” into “Which kind of dictatorship?”—thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice—according to the proponents of that fraud—is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism). That fraud collapsed in the 1940’s (...) >>>

(...) apparently somebody forgot to inform the West.
"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."
--Michelle Obama, the first lady of zero sum economics

- Filed on Articles in "The Dystopia of Paradise" -


RatePoint Business Reviews