Skip to comments.FREE: Glenn’s expose on Barack Obama and his “fairy tale” story
Posted on 05/16/2012 12:16:27 PM PDT by Lucky9teen
Do not miss The Glenn Beck Program every night on GBTV for more episodes like the free one above. From now until November, GBTV will be the one place exposing the truth behind this administration.
Last week on GBTV, Glenn ran one of his most popular and important shows an episode dedicated to peeling back the mask of Barack Obama. On what will be only the first in a series of specials that will focus on the President, Glenn focused on the lies that Obama and his inner circle have told in order to create the narrative of a man who represents hope and change when nothing could be further from the truth. Barack Obamas story as told by the media has been one of half-truths, cover ups, and outright lies. His story is a fairy tale to help accomplish one thing: the fundamental transformation of the country.
This episode is not full of conspiracy or crackpot theories. These are the Presidents own words placed side by side with the fairy tale the media and the White House have been selling the country since 2008.
This is the true story of Barack Obama in his own words and it is a story he would rather remain untold.
The Blaze has summarized much of this research in Part 1 and Part 2 of their expose on President Obama.
Viewers, it is important that you share this information with your friends, family, and concerned Americans across the country. We have made this episode free so you can spread it out to as many people as possible. We are relying on you to spread this information. If you want to change the country, you have to take action and share this information!
1) Click Like on the Facebook icon at the top of the page (at the link) so it appears in your newsfeed.
2) Copy this link http://bit.ly/KsQT4Q and tweet it out, share it on Facebook, Twitter, and e-mail it
3) Embed the video at the top of the page (at the link) on your blog or news site
4) Print out the research from The Blaze for people who dont want to watch the video
This needs to be spread far and wide, IMO...so more people can be aware of the ENEMY TRAITOR in OUR White House.
It could be argued that if then-presidential candidate John McCain had truly assailed his rival Barack Obama over his exhaustive collection of dubious dealings and less-than-scrupulous friends (think: Davis, Khalidi, Pflager, Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Said, etc.), he just might have taken the election. Instead, McCain chose to keep above the fray although few are clear as to why bringing up substantive and valid concerns over the first-term senators past constituted otherwise to the Maverick-camp. Now, President Obama is three years into his first term as president, and his campaign for reelection has officially kicked off with a record-setting $15 million celebrity-fundraiser hosted by devotee George Clooney.
If the presidents true history continues to be replaced by the alternate narrative he has constructed for himself; if his fact, rather than fiction-based life is swept under the carpet again, he will likely retake the Oval Office.
With this in mind, Glenn Beck dedicated his Thursday evening broadcast to reviewing the staggering array of inconsistencies, embellishments and manufactured lies perpetuated by the president over the course of his political career.
His life is complete fiction, Beck said. Lets review the non-fiction version before we go any further:
In Part II of this report, we will briefly profile some of the presidents more questionable deeds, but in order to provide proper context, consider the following cast of characters who helped to shape Obamas life and mindset.
Dreams from an anti-colonialist father
It is difficult to understand what truly moves the president without understanding who his father was. In his book, The Roots of Obamas Rage, Dinesh DSouza described in painstaking detail, an unsavory character who womanized, abused, drank excessively (killing a man in one drunk-driving incident, losing both of his legs in another, and later killing himself in yet another), abandoned his eight children at various points in their lives, married thrice without ever having divorced his first wife, and advocated taxing income at a 100% rate. Unbelievably, the man described is not a work of fiction. He was President Barack Obamas father.
Barak Obama Sr. (spelled without the c) was a Harvard economics graduate student from Kenya and despite the presidents insistance that his paternal lineage comprised humble stock, Barak Sr. was actually from a prominent and wealthy farming family. His father, Hussein Onyango Obama, was also an observant Muslim who chose the Arabic name Barak because it means blessed.
In an article written for the East Africa Journal in 1965, Problems Facing Our Socialism, Barak Sr. explained that in the wake of colonialism, socialism was necessary to ensure national autonomy for Kenya. The question, he wrote, is how are we going to remove the disparities in our country, such as the concentration of economic power in Asian and European hands . . .? [emphasis added]
Obama Sr. went on to insist that theoretically there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100 percent of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.
DSouza explains the significance:
Absurd as it seems, the idea of 100 percent taxation has its peculiar logic. It is based on the anti-colonial assumption that the rich have become rich by exploiting and plundering the poor; therefore, whatever the rich have is undeserved and may be legitimately seized.
Recall now that the presidents book is titled Dreams From My Father, not Dreams Of My Father. In the memoir, Obama described longing to emulate his senior, writing, it was into my fathers image, the black man, son of Africa, that Id packed all the attributes I sought in myself.
DSouza also noted those close to Obama Jr., including his grandmother Sarah Obama, agreed with the passage. She told Newsweek, I look at him and I see all the same things he has taken everything from his father . . . this son is realizing everything the father wanted.
While some might argue that it is implausible to think the president would seek to live-out the dreams of a deeply flawed man who callously abandoned him, human nature and psychology dictates otherwise. Even into adulthood, we often seek the approval of our parents sometimes even the ones that withhold love because theirs is the affection we most desire gaining. True, one cannot hold the president responsible for the sins of his father, but that does not mean he doesnt still seek his approval.
All the while, Obama dimisses the influence his father had on him. Yes, it is possible that the president is so repulsed by his fathers life that he would reject everything the man ever stood for, but then why would his own memoir read as a tribute to the dreams his father never had the opportunity to realize?
Were not in Kansas anymore: Stanley Ann Dunham
Not a tremendous amount his known about the woman with an unusual first name who married Barak Obama Sr., some say, to spite her racist father. But what we can glean from various accounts provides relevant insight into Obamas upbringing and influences.
After moving several times as a child, Stanley Ann Dunham eventually settled in progressive Mercer Island, just outside Seattle. She attended Mercer Island High School, a place that distinguished itself by having a former Communist Party member serve as chairman of the islands school board. But that is not where the leftist connections ended.
According to the American Thinker, Dunham attended her high schools anarchy alley, where philosophy courses on Karl Marx were offered. The academics leading the effort were Val Foubert and Jim Wichterman, both reportedly of the Marxist Frankfurt School and who taught critical theory to students that included curriculum on the rejection of societal norms, and attacks on Christianity and the traditional family. Dunhams peers considered her an inquiring mind and it is said that she grew to become part of the lefts intelligentsia.
After her family moved to Hawaii, Dunham attended the University of Hawaii at Manoa where she studied anthropology. It was in her Russian language class that she met the future presidents father, who would later leave Dunham and their new child, Barack Jr. to attend Harvard. Eventually the two divorced (though some claim they were never married in the first place) and she went on to marry Indonesian Lolo Soetoro, who worked as a government relations executive for an Oil company. While Soetoro was a Muslim, accounts differ as to the level of his observance. In 1967 the family moved to Jakarta, Indonesia. Obamas memoir paints Soetoro as an even-tempered man who became increasingly interested in Western culture while Dunham became increasingly interested in Indonesian and other world-cultures. Inevitably a rift was formed.
According to Dr. Rich Swier, Dunham moved between Indonesia and Hawaii twice more before traveling the world to pursue a career in rural development that took her to her Ghana, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Nepal and Bangladesh. She also traveled to China and Pakistan and by 1992 earned her Ph.D. in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. Her 1000-plus page dissertation, according to Swier was titled: Peasant blacksmithing in Indonesia: Surviving and Thriving Against All Odds.
What perhaps bears mention is that President Obama has portrayed his mother as a simple girl from Kansas when she was in fact anything but. He has also credited her with providing him with his political world view.
Mentored by a Communist
After Barack Jr.s family re-relocated to Hawaii, he found another mentor. In his book Dreams From My Father, Obama often and affectionately mentioned his dashiki-wearing role model from whom he sought both career and personal advice. While it is clear this father figure played a pivotal role in the young Obamas life, the mystery-man is only ever referred to by his first name: Frank. Given the history, most believe the person in question is none other than the late Frank Marshall Davis a man publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA).
Recalling his friend, Obama wrote: It made me smile, thinking back on Frank and his old Black Power, dashiki self. In some ways he was as incurable as my mother, as certain in his faith, living in the same sixties time warp that Hawaii had created. But by that point in time, Frank was far from the harmless throw-back characature Obama painted him to be that is of course assuming his last name was Davis. National Reviews Paul Kengor revealed that after moving to Hawaii Davis launched a Communist publication espousing the virtues of the Soviet Union. Kengor wrote:
Davis served as an editor and writer for a Communist-line publication, the Chicago Star, in the 1930s. I next learned that the Midwest native had flown thousands of miles away to Hawaii to take up permanent residence, just when American Communists were looking to launch a publication there, namely the Honolulu Record. Subsequently, Davis wrote a weekly column for that publication.
Kengor went on to reveal that with the determined help of research assistants, he obtained Davis weekly column, Frank-ly Speaking and that its contents mirrored perfectly Soviet propaganda.
All the while Obama has denied his Frank is the same Frank.
After his 1960s-style awakening with Frank, another influential figure found his way into Obamas life. In fact, Reverend Jeremiah Wright is the man credited with having led the community organizer to Christianity. A member of Wrights Trinity United Church in Chicagos South Side for 20 years, so influenced by the controversial pastor was Obama, that he even named his other book, The Audacity of Hope, after one of the reverends sermons.
Wright is of course best known for espousing anti-Semitic and anti-Western sentiment, once declaring that Americas chickens had come home to roost in the wake of the September 11 attacks. To Wright, the U.S. had brought the worst terrorist attack in history upon itself by perpetrating crimes against humanity across the world.
We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye, Wright blasted. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards.
Wright practices and preaches a form of Christian ideology rooted in Marxism dubbed Black Liberation Theology, which operates with the mindset that members of the black community are still subjugated by white, racist oppressors. Those oppressors can range from a single individual to a head of state or even an entire government or geographical region (i.e.: The West).
With a victimhood mentality deeply entrenched in the collective mindset of the movement, Black Liberation Theology preys upon and seeks to reignite past resentments within the black community, thus fomenting a racism of its very own. While this tactic is certainly anathema to tenets of Christian brotherly love, it does not seem to stop Wright from fanning the flames of hatred. In fact, Black Liberation Theology condones violence so long as it is wielded by the oppressed in their struggle to remove inequities (whatever those might be).
In an analysis of the theology, Ron Rhodes writes: The removal of inequities is believed to result in the removal of the occasion of sin [i.e., the oppressor] as well.
In other words, assaulting, even killing your perceived foe is considered a good deed by Black Liberation standards.
Despite this, President Obama sat in the pews of Wrights church for 20 years while the incensed
preacher spouted a steady stream of anti-Semitism and 9/11 conspiracy theories, proclaimed the HIV virus was an invention of the U.S. government to infect and ultimately annihilate the black populace, vehemently opposed interracial marriage and post-segregation assimilation, and praised the dictatorships of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez. Wright is also friendly with fellow-Chicagoan and radical Louis Farrakhan.
All the while, Obama claimed ignorance, suggesting he was absent the days Wright delivered his more piquant declarations and dismissed his spiritual adviser of 20 years as a kind of crazy uncle that you may love, but take with a grain of salt. Wright must have been none-too-pleased.
Launching his career with the help of Marxists and domestic terrorists
Another point of contention has been President Obamas ties to notorious domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, who many believe was instrumental in launching Obamas political career. Leader of the radical Weather Underground, Ayers has railed against capitalism and the establishment for nearly half-a-century, often resorting to physical violence to carry out his goals. Aside from organizing typical protest demonstrations (some of which turned riotous), Ayers is perhaps best known for orchestrating a series of bombings: at the New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, the Capitol Building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972.
You might also recall that Ayers Days of Rage demonstrations in which he incited aspiring revolutionaries to kill all the rich people including their parents served as inspiration for the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Where does a resume like that take you in life? The halls of academia, of course. Ayers served as a distinguished professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago from 1987 to 2010.
No one knows the exact origins of their relationship. Perhaps it was through Frank Marshall Davis, or Obamas parents, or the fact that he lived merely three blocks away that Obama connected with Ayers in a seemingly profound way. Whatever the case, the 1960s radical must have taken a shine to the Obama as he is credited with helping him gain admission to Harvard and, in 1995, along with his wife Bernadine Dohrn, organized meet-and-greet gatherings at his Chicago home to introduce the aspiring state-senator to their inner-circle of friends political allies (including fellow Marxists Alice Palmer and Quentin Young). Evidence also strongly suggests Obamas memoir, Dreams From My Father, was in fact penned by Ayers.
Obama has brushed off the level of his involvement with Ayers but in his book, Fugitive Days: Memoirs of an Anti-War-Activist, Ayers admitted the tie:
In 2008 there was a lot of chatter on the blogosphere about my relationship with Barack Obama: we had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fundraiser at my house, where Id made a small donation to his earliest political campaign.
It is also worth noting that Ayers father Tom is said to have given Obama his first professional break, yet the president claims to have never met him.
All the while, the president has trivialized his relationship with Ayers, begrudgingly admitting to have attended a political event at his home, but that he had no clue of the Weather Underground nor Ayers history as a domestic terrorist.
In part two of this special report we will review some of the presidents political actions and associations that likely reflect the influences he acquired from this strange and controversial cast of characters.
The entire Obama administration along with the American left has heaped praise on the president for his daring and brave decision to send a Navy SEAL team into an Abottobbad compound to assassinate 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden. In fact, Obama has even used the accomplishment as the crux of his latest campaign ad a move even liberal mediaite Arianna Huffington deemed despicable. Yet in April it was revealed that then-CIA Director Leon Panetta drafted a memo that included an escape clause for the president should the operation go awry [emphasis added]: The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRavens hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out.
In plain-speak, Obama chose to blame the military, through a patsy in this case, Admiral McRaven should the mission to kill bin Laden fail. Does this sound like something a Commander in Chief would or should ever do? The Wall Street Journal adds:
Moreover, the president does not seem to have addressed at all the possibility of seizing material with intelligence valuewhich may explain his disclosure immediately following the event not only that bin Laden was killed, but also that a valuable trove of intelligence had been seized, including even the location of al Qaeda safe-houses. That disclosure infuriated the intelligence community because it squandered the opportunity to exploit the intelligence that was the subject of the boast.
While it comes as no surprise that a politician might go to great lengths to protect his or her own image, a wartime president overseeing one the most redemptive moments for America in the wake of 9/11 (and who surely took the credit for all the glory) while at the same time plotting to use the military as a scapegoat in the event bin Ladens takedown was botched, is beyond the pale by just about anyones standards.
Disdain for troops or plain indifference?
Considering Obamas OBL-escape clause memo, it seems clear the value he places on military is questionable. While a U.S. president serves many roles during his or her term in office, their greatest responsibility lies in being Commander in Chief of the nations armed forces. It is perhaps for this reason more than any other, that the presidents gaffes, flubs, and insults where Americas servicemen and women are concerned are so egregious. Recall that nearly one year ago, speaking to the U.S. Armys 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, the president announced that a soldier (who had died serving in Afghanistan) was in fact alive. In his speech, he recalled a time when he awarded the first Medal of Honor to someone not receiving it posthumously. However, the deceased Jared Monti did receive the medal posthumously. Then, back in 2009, Fox contributors Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer criticized the presidents lack of leadership and reverence for soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan when they revealed that in a 20-minute long speech, the president did not use the word democracy once even though America established the only functioning democracy among the 22 Arab states. The two also noted that the Commander in Chief did not treat soldiers as warriors, bur rather as victims. We lost a lot of good men and women in order to establish a democracy, Krauthammer said. And he, as commander-in-chief, did not even acknowledge that.
There was another gobsmacking incident where the president displayed what even mainstream networks dubbed a shocking display of insensitivity. During a press conference to address the 2009 Fort Hood shooting in which 13 people were killed and another 29 injured by an Islamic ideologue, the president set aside compassionate eloquence to give a shout out to Dr. Joe Medicine Crow that Congressional Medal of Honor winner. He spoke for some three minutes before ever mentioning the shooting or those who paid the ultimate price.(Related: Do You Know Anybody Like Obama? Becks Latest Expose Could Go Down in History)Obama also came under fire after refusing to visit wounded troops, presumably because there was no photo-op in it for him.
Now recall that Obamas father was a staunch anti-colonialist. With this in mind, it might make sense that the president insisted on returning to Britain, our staunchest ally, the bust of pro-colonialist Winston Churchill even though the move was an insult of epic proportions. The bust had been a loaned gift in the wake of September 11, meant to show the U.K.s solidarity with America in a most grievous time. But this was not the only time Obama snubbed Britain. In fact, the Telegraphs Nile Gardiner pointed out that this world-class statesmen has delivered no less than 10(11 if you count the embarrassing iPod for the Queen incident) beyond-the-pale insults to the nation with whom we supposedly shared a Special Relationship. Below is a list of how the ever-diplomatic Obama has handled that special relationship:
a lead role in the NATO alliance at Britains expense, granting it one of two supreme NATO command positions Allied Command Transformation (ACT).
It is difficult to think of another president who has ever treated Britain in such a disdainful way but this is likely a nod to the influence of Obamas father. Some speculate that Obama blamed Churchill for suppressing Kenyas Mau Mau rebellion in which Hussein Onyango Obama was allegedly tortured. However, author Diana West notes that Churchill didnt become prime minister for the second time until the end of 1951 and that the Mau Mau Rebellion didnt begin until the end of 1952, one year after Obamas grandfathers release. She added that returning the Churchill bust likely indicates a more an open breach in the Western continuum out of which a new orientation toward the Third World will become increasingly apparent. In other words, Obama seeks to strengthen the U.S. relationship with the Third World while downgrading the relationship shared with other world powers particularly ones viewed as colonialists like Britain.
Breaking with Israel
Following his lead with U.S.-Britain relations, President Obama has been no friend to Israel either. Friends with those who consider the Jewish State the biggest obstacle to peace in the region, the president snubbed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in much the same way he snubbed brown when refusing to share dinner with the Israeli leader. This of course seems small in comparison to the monumental sell-out that occurred when Obamas declared to the world that Israel should return to its 1967 borders. Nevermind the fact that there are no such borders but rather armistice lines, and that in either case, they are equally indefensible.
Of course, no mention of the presidents stance on Israel would be complete without mentioning his former instructor and friend, the late Edward Said. The pro-Palestinian activist and Columbia University professor openly condemned Israel, which he considered to be an illegitimate, colonialist state.
There is that word again: colonialist.
Said frequently bemoaned the plight of the oppressed Palestinians and was even a member of the PLOs Palestinian National Council throughout the 1970s and 80s. He inevitably stepped down in 1991, allegedly in protest to the Oslo peace accords and to what he considered Yasser Arafats unduly moderate stance toward Israel. In 1998 Obama attended a speech by Said in which the scholar called for a campaign against settlements, against Israeli apartheid.
Given Obamas apparent animus towards nations he deems colonizers, it comes as no surprise that he has abandoned one of Americas greatest ally, indeed the greatest ally in the Middle East. When examining the presidents view on Israel it also becomes clear why his administration supports the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood a group whose own cleric recently declared that it was sending an army of martyrs to establish a Caliphate in Jerusalem.
Ironically, administration official James Clapper infamously declared that the Muslim Brotherhood is in fact secular. Meanwhile, a new barrage of rocket-fire into Israel has begun emanating from the Sinai. But perhaps that is just a coincidence.
Voting against legislation that would ensure life-saving measures were taken to aid infants born alive after botched abortions
Outside of foreign policy, Obamas actions at home are equally puzzling. It sounds like a line from the trailer of a horror movie, yet a September 2000 report from the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee observed that physicians at Christ Hospital in Illinois used induced labor as a means of aborting healthy late-term fetuses and infants with non-fatal deformities and that many of these babies ended up surviving the procedure only to be left to die. Many of these babies have lived for hours after birth, with no efforts made to determine if any of them could have survived with appropriate medical assistance, nurse Jill Stanek testified.
Another nurse, Allison Baker, testified that these live-born infants were being deposited in soiled utility rooms where they were left to expire and Stanek recalled when an infant was accidentally thrown in the garbage, and when they later were going through the trash to find the baby, the baby fell out of the towel and on to the floor. The testimony continued in much the same gruesome fashion, after which a piece of legislation was introduced that would require physicians administer all life-saving measures possible when these botched abortions occur. MCCLPAC explains the bill:
Legislation was then introduced to require appropriate care for abortion survivors. The Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) defined as legal persons every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. Further, born alive was defined as the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
While this all sounds reasonable, Obama was the sole opponent of the legislation not once but twice, the second time was during the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002. His reasons for voting against the bill, as laid out in an article by Stanek, include that it would: add undue burden to the mother; is a legal trick to define a fetus as a person (if a person then the aborted infant would be subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution); it would interfere with a doctors judgement; that there was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony; it was all a ploy to derail Roe v. Wade. Regardless of his reasons, it bears repeating that Obama was still the only person who voted against the legislation. When one thinks of the Complete Lives Systemof Obamacare, this stance, too, might make sense.
Another of Obamas contradictions stems from his stance on same-sex marriage. He claims to be a practicing Christian, and that his faith shaped his view that marriage is something that can only be shared between a man and a woman. Obama has since changed that tune several times in fact the latest instance being his declaration that same-sex marriage should be legal. Examine the inconsistency: The Blazes Billy Hallowell reported that in 1996 the then-state senator candidate affirmed his unequivocal support for gay marriage. I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages. But by 1998 Obama, during another election cycle said he was undecided on the issue. Then, during a senate campaign debate in 2004 with Alan Keyes, Obama said that marriage is between one man and one woman and that he does not support gay marriage. Hallowell adds:
In 2004 (yes, another election year), Obama took a more middle-ground route, as he publicly supported domestic partnerships and civil unions. He also took the opportunity to say that, unlike his statement in 1998, he did not support gay marriage. I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws, he said. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about primarily just as a strategic issue.
I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage, he said. But I also think youre right that attitudes evolve, including mine.
During his announcement in May, 2012, Obama cited his gay and lesbian friends, soldiers and staffers as inspiration for the change of heart. He also explained that it was his Christianity that helped him to see that people in committed relationships should be allowed to marry. To the contrary, many believe the president was motivated by politics, rather than faith, especially given the suspect timing of his declaration.
During his expose, Beck noted a series of other seemingly unfathomable acts committed by either the president, his friends or members of the White House. From the administration member who declared that NASAs primary goal should be Muslim outreach to a first lady who once said that she was never proud of her country until her husband was elected president; from the president saying that the U.S. Constitution needs to become a photo-negative in order for it to make sense in todays world, to an administration official declaring that our enemies are not terrorists nor jihadists the list reads like something out of a fiction novel. And indeed that is what Beck said: Obamas life is a work of fiction.
I'm going to say this for the blue zillionth time: for some reason "socialism" outside the United States seems very, very different from socialism in the United States.
Outside the United States socialism is a means of achieving and maintaining national independence and sovereignty. It is patriotic, nationalistic, and almost xeonophobic--a sort of John Birch Society for the oppressed. Even in white countries like Ireland and Scotland socialism blends with patriotism and nationalism, often claiming it will end "foreign rule" and a "phony independence" where the government is actually ruled by "foreign bankers in another country" (sound familiar???).
Meanwhile inside the United States socialism seems to stand for destroying the country, submerging it in a "one world government" (what's gonna happen to all those other countries that socialism restored sovereignty to?) and even for a self-hatred that is downright sick (right now the United States and Israel seem to be the two countries that "should never have been founded").
Has anyone other than myself ever noticed this discrepancy? In America, socialists burn the national flag and mock the national anthem. In Ireland they wave the flag and would scream bloody murder if someone wanted to replace The Soldier's Song with some mushy sentimental lyric. Can anyone imagine a militant IRA or SNLA nationalist burning the Irish flag or the Saltyre?
This simply makes no sense. Socialists in and outside the US may share an economic philosophy but otherwise they appear worlds apart. Outside the US socialist economics is supposed to be "patriotic," to make the country truly free of "foreign bankers." In America socialism is allegedly secretly run by foreign bankers who can only be defeated with capitalism.
When someone intentionally alienates people (as with burning the flag) I immediately think of a foreign "heel" in a professional wrestling "angle." Why do American socialists spit in their countrymen's faces while socialists elsewhere celebrate their countrymen and culture?
Socialism seems to be the outside world's version of the American "patriot movement." And our "patriot movement" seems to be the actual American counterpart of socialists elsewhere . . . not the self-hating American "left."
It's probably simply a matter of degree. The meaning of the word socialism is:
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
On the other hand, Marxist socialism is:
the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Europeans who have passed the stage of socialism into communism wave flags only because their dictators force them to do it.
Yes, but can you imagine a Communist dictator of a Communist USA forcing Americans to wave the American flag?
Ireland doesn't have a dictator, but they have lots of flag-waving, patriotic, nationalistic socialists. Or is that national socialists?
ZC: Yes, but can you imagine a Communist dictator of a Communist USA forcing Americans to wave the American flag?
I can, if the "fundamental transformation" had been achieved and America had moved from capitalism to socialism to communism, that is. The flag Americans would be waving would look slightly different than it currently does and its meaning would have changed significantly. Perhaps something like this:
However, I imagine perhaps it would include a color change to black, red and green as is the "African-American" flag:
ZC: Ireland doesn't have a dictator, but they have lots of flag-waving, patriotic, nationalistic socialists. Or is that national socialists?
If they are national socialists, they are essentially Nazis without the stigma and stain of antisemitism, no?
Is it making any more sense now?
How many people are aware of the fact that our "patriot movement" is in fact the successor to the late nineteenth century Populist left who supported William Jennings Bryan? The Bryanites were Bible-thumping Southern and Western socialist farmers who hated capitalist pig Eastern Bankers. Their descendants today are Bible-thumping Southern and Western capitalist businessmen who hate "Illuminati-Insider" Eastern Bankers.
Does this make my point any clearer?
Yes. Think of "socialists" as malignant Straussians: "Whatever works". Instrumental, deeply cynical, power-besotted, "socialism" is in fact a mass of operational propaganda that deserves as much intellectual attention as the ravings of Josef Goebbels, and for the same reason.
Analysis of "socialism" should always be a Machiavellian analysis of the state of play of the "socialists" and their path to power -- absolute, unanswerable, totalitarian power. Ideological issues, contradictions, and "messages" to the masses should be totally ignored as distractions and disinformation.
I question the identification of Southern Populists as "socialists". Some urban "Progressives" might have been, but socialism has always moved hand-in-hand with Central European statism, through the importation of Forty-Eighters (socialist Germans) and socialist German Jews (the same ones Hitler exterminated right after the Anschluss), all of whom were statists in some degree or other.
A populist believes in the People, a statist in the supremacy of the State. Jeffersonian rural populists were anti-statist and, because bankers were pigs-at-the-trough statists and access-capitalists (Hamiltonians in other words, whose beau ideal was "Empire without the King"), the populists opposed them both before and after the ravages of the gold standard led them to embrace Free Silver and William Jennings Bryan.
My grandfather worshipped Bryan; he also was a "lunch-bucket Democrat" and Al Smith man (because Smith was Irish Catholic, like him), and not an urban socialist/prog/Communist. He spat on such people, despised the people around FDR and especially Eleanor. He said, significantly, that he voted for Franklin Roosevelt once.
No, Jeffersonian populists were not statist socialists, German-style. They didn't like empires, and they didn't like banks that liked empires. Neither did Jefferson or Jackson.
Jefferson and Jackson were not statists; William Jennings Bryan and his followers were.
You do realize I'm an avowed Hamiltonian? Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists were the prototypical American conservatives, unlike the Jacobin sympathizers who opposed them.
Hamilton, who was always "working the treadles of slower minds" ..... nobody's republican, ever. Always thinking of the New York commercial and banking interests, sent to the Philadelphia Convention as a torpedo, a one-man hit squad to articulate the New York "Interests" with singularity of purpose, and screw the little men. Burr should have shot him in 1787; later on was too late.
The "Bill of Rights" has been an unmitigated disaster. Thanks to the "antifederalists" we now have the United States Supreme Court horning in every time someone utters a prayer at a football game or some principal edits the "f-"word out of a student newspaper. Thank you, "anti-federalists!" We're so much better off now!
Hamilton, who was always "working the treadles of slower minds" ..... nobody's republican, ever. Always thinking of the New York commercial and banking interests, sent to the Philadelphia Convention as a torpedo, a one-man hit squad to articulate the New York "Interests" with singularity of purpose, and screw the little men. Burr should have shot him in 1787; later on was too late.
And the "yeoman farmers" Jefferson and Jackson were landed aristocracy (Jefferson born that way; Jackson worked his way up to it) with nothing "yeoman" about them. For people who celebrated "the little guy" they sure didn't seem to be "little guys" themselves. But that didn't stop them from preaching class warfare against "rich bankers and businessmen" just like their wealthy descendants in the Dem party today!
The anti-federalists also supported the French Revolution and were in contact with subversive foreign elements just as their Democrat descendants are today. All this support for bloodthirsty revolutionaries from plantation patriarchs who claimed to be champions of "the little guy!" Thank G-d Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and the other Federalists stood firm against the Jacobin propaganda emanating from the plantations!
The great ideological turmoil of our day comes from liberals becoming Hamiltonians and conservatives becoming Jeffersonians. If it were in my power (and it's not) it would be the other way around.
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.