Fabian Socialism is usually identified with a British socialist movement whose principles were to advance democratic socialism via gradualist or reformist, rather than revolutionary, means. I doubt that Mr. Obama is a card-carrying member of the British organization, but his affinity for the ideology articulated in Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals is beyond question to anyone acquainted with his thinking and writing. I haven't seen the film 2016 yet, but I have no doubt it would confirm these claims.
Today Drudge carried a YouTube link to Obama's speech at Loyola University in which he declares: "I actually believe in redistribution." Straight from the horse's mouth. Of course many will find this entirely unproblematic and even applaud the notion, oblivious of the economic auto-destruction it implies. The sub-prime mortgages promoted largely by Democrats were compassionately aimed at providing house ownership for those who were far from being able to afford them. Likewise, our current third phase of "quantitative easing" (QE3) imposed upon us by the Fed is compassionately aimed at propping up an economy and giving the impression of activity (a bump in the stock markets) by pumping new currency into the market at the cost of deflating everyone's currency.
I remember my parents talking about how it took an entire wheelbarrow full of pre-revolutionary Chinese currency, the paper Yuan of the Republic of China following the demonetization of silver, in order to buy a supply of groceries. The American Dollar is well on the way to becoming the 21st Century Yuan. But no worries: we'll all be equal, and drift into collective bankruptcy together. In the meantime, the Chinese have initiated themselves into the mysteries of free enterprise and are collectively on their way to becoming the economic engine of the post-modern world, with the United States as its client banana republic. Have you watched the wait staff at your local eatery attempt to make change for you lately? What do they teach in schools these days?
7 comments:
My ESL book on American culture and history has a chapter called "A Divided Nation" which takes place from the 1846 to the 1865. It has passages about the Gold Rush, the Underground Railroad, the battlefield nurse Clara Barton, a short bio on Abraham Lincoln and a short bio on Frederick Douglas.
While all of these subjects are no doubt important, it skips over the main subject matter of the controversy of the Mexican War, westward expansion, US / Indian relations, the slave state / free state debacle ("Bleeding Kansas," Missouri Compromise, etc.), and the main topic - the freaking Civil War, its causes, course, and consequences. Not to mention mass immigration during this period.
This is an ESL book, but I imagine this is how most American history is taught - a series of little vignettes that blow certain events and people way out of proportion while losing sight of the main historical and political thrust.
As for math - it's racist.
Obama is just a dark Dubya when it comes to redistribution; The Fredo of the Bush Clan swooned whenever any redistributionist slut of a plan lifted her skirt in front of that dimwitted dry drunk.
Not Spartacus, you have a point, and I can appreciate the intensity of feeling, but please watch the language a bit.
Dear Dr. I apologise.
Just because the errand boys of the establishment are worthy of my disgust gives me no excuse to express that disgust with such rebarbative rhetoric.
I hear you, Not Spartacus. The rebarbative language aside, I must also confess to enjoying writers gifted with an impressive arsenal of adjectives. Hence, it's a matter of social discretion more than prissiness. I consistently enjoy your comments both here and elsewhere where I frequently encounter them. Peace, PP.
Philip,
I have seen 2016, and the one element glaringly omitted from D'Souza's piece is any mention of Alinsky and the coronal discharges emanating from him.
God bless,
Chris
Post a Comment