Barack Obama, the Quintessential Liberal Fascist

The Washington Times ^ | May 12, 2009 | Kyle-Anne Shiver

[Scanian]

"They fear that the development and building of People's (community) Organizations is the building of a vast power group which may fall prey to a fascistic demagogue who will seize leadership and control and turn an organization into a Frankenstein's monster against democracy." - Saul Alinsky responding to his critics, Reveille for Radicals; p. 199

When Saul Alinsky began building his community-organization movement in 1930s Chicago, observers were watching Alinsky with one eye, while with the other eye observing the building of communist and fascist movements in Europe. It wasn't hard then to see in Alinsky's programs at home, elements of the people's revolution from Russia, as well as some of the same "in your face" tactics being employed by Hitler's Brownshirts.

What Alinsky's critics saw was the burgeoning of a national movement, the carefully manipulated construction of people's organizations, which all had two elements in common: (1) a collectivist creed, which denied the existence of personal responsibility; and (2) an amoral dogma, in which all means were justified by an imaginary utopian end.

While most modern Americans remember well Hitler's Holocaust and the Cold War waged by a solid U.S.S.R., many of these same Americans have swallowed some false history regarding the movements that spawned such widespread, horrendous results.

[muir_redwoods]

He’s not a “liberal fascist” he’s simply a fascist. All fascists are socialists; national socialists.

[Scanian]

BIG GOOF! Source id THE AMERICAN THINKER, not the Washington Times

[livius]

In what may be regarded as the most triumphant propaganda victory of our time, fascism has been scrubbed of all its Marxist roots, while communism has been scrubbed of its millions of callous murders.

Another brilliant article from the American Thinker!

[livius]

I think of Obama's liberal fascism as a cancer that attempts to kill the two birds of American exceptionalism with one stone. It is a diabolically appealing Third Way that in the end, if allowed to triumph completely, kills both individual liberty and Judeo/Christian religion with its single stone.

The article goes into a lot more detail about the origins of the Obama cult and I think you do have to distinguish it from earlier fascisms, which were much more direct and visible early on in their development.

[Steely Tom]

BIG GOOF! Source id THE AMERICAN THINKER, not the Washington Times

[wita]

The article goes into a lot more detail about the origins of the Obama cult and I think you do have to distinguish it from earlier fascisms, which were much more direct and visible early on in their development.

I’m not sure how much more visible and direct you would like your Facism, but this one takes the cake IMHO especially for speed. The author’s last name certainly adds a bit of reality to an article in the Freerepublic tradition of keepers.

[Scanian]

Are you able to correct the source? I apologize for the mistake. (Should be The American Thinker)

[livius]

The thing with this fascism is that it is not part of a defined movement. That’s what is different about it.

Hitler, for example, had been an extreme leftist for a long time and then began to develop his own theories and did in fact write about his program and even come up with a name for it. Obama published a couple of ghosted “autobiographies” that are not policy statements.

Obama is essentially riding on the vast wave of liberal organizations that have spent decades building a silent fascism that was just waiting for the right moment and the right figurehead. He was that figurehead (although I think they believe they are using him but he is really using them, because he is a narcissistic megalomaniac, and this may ultimately be the downfall of the whole scheme). They don’t even need to state their program directly and in manifesto form; it is now simply a fait accompli and, in a sense, can adapt in any way the people behind it see fit. This is what actually makes it more dangerous in many ways than more overt, program-driven fascist movements.

This one has been so fast because the ideas were already in place. There was no acceptance curve because most people were already accustomed to “milder” forms of these same ideas and other than a few surprised squawks, they just accepted the extreme version with a shrug.

[wita]

Thanks for the reply, all good points. There is no argument at all about what it is, and no argument about the need to get rid of it, only the means are in question.

[Graybeard58]

A quicker way to get the attention of the mod is by using the “abuse button”, I’ve had to do it a few times.

[Oratam]

He [Alinsky] told them, instead, to go to hear the speech dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever [George H. W.]Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards reading, ‘The KKK supports Bush.' And that is what they did, with very successful, attention-getting results."

At the risk of going off-topic, this reminded me of that awful Westboro "Church" protesting soldiers' funerals and carrying signs reading "God Hates Faggots." Their tactics are very Alinsky-like. Who is funding these clowns?

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Gary Allen in “None Dare Call it Conspiracy” has a simple but clear diagram that explains the type of government and the degree of totalitarianism.

It is just a line that runs from left to right. The left side being totalitarianism, the far right anarchy. He does so to dispel the lie perpetuated by the left that fascism is totalitarian of the right.

This is the lie (I hope this works, I’m creating space with the space bar):

|————————————————————————————|
Dictatorship: Democracy: Dictatorship:
Communism Fabian Socialism Fascism

Here is the real application of the types of government:

|———————————————|————————|—————>
Totalitarianism: Anarchy:
Communism Constitutional
Fascism Republic
Socialism Limited Gov.
Pharaohism
Caesarism

The point is that the constitutional form of limited government affords the greatest liberty without giving in to true anarchy (not the current pop kind which is communism dressed up in black drag).

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Darn. My graph didn’t work. The text all jammed together.

[exDemMom]

You could try putting periods instead of spaces.

[Le Chien Rouge]

Unity is the siren song of tyranny, not the call to genuine progress.

I love this line!!!!

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

OK, exDemMom, I’ll try it with dots.

This is the lie (I hope this works, I’m creating space with the space bar):

|.....................|.....................|..........>
Dictatorship:.........Democracy:............Dictatorship:
Communism.............Fabian Socialism......Fascism

Here is the real application of the types of government:

|................................|..............|.........>
Totalitarianism:................................Anarchy
Communism........................Constitutional
Fascism..........................Republic
Socialism........................Limited Gov.
Pharaohism
Caesarism

The point is that the constitutional form of limited government affords the greatest liberty without giving in to true anarchy (not the current pop kind which is communism dressed up in black drag).

[Bigg Red]

mark

[livius]

I agree. I hope that the Obama fascism will self-destruct when it comes down to a power struggle between Obama and the people behind him - but the question is how many lives it will cost and how much it will damage the US before this happens. I hope it happens soon, when it is likely to do least damage, but I’m not counting on it.

One thing he is very good at, which the article points out and many people point to as a feature of a sociopathic personality, is soothingly agreeing with everybody, regardless of how different his own point of view is, until he has enough power to enforce the latter. Then the options for resisting suddenly become much more limited.

[Texas resident]

Hard to add to that. Had a thought though. Back when GWB was POTUS, the left constantly called him Hitler. But if you look at the histories of Adolf and Barak, there are similarities. Both came from very dysfunctional backgrounds, both had very little accomplishments in their lives, both came from no where to lead the country, both depended on intimidation to get their way, both had an adoring press. Pot calling the kettle black.

[nathanbedford]

Be not fooled, America. The movement, which appears most benign is instead the most malignant growth ever seen on our soil. It's a cancer that will kill, and however slowly it grows or however nice it may look on the surface, doesn't change a thing.

If the author had written not another word in this piece she would have rendered a patriotic service to her country. To those of us who have been warning of The Obama Pathology since before the election, this klaxon call to America to defend itself is most welcome. There are few enough in the media with the courage to proclaim what many more see, Barak Obama's epistemology is alien to America and he is a profoundly dangerous man.

I have written many replies and vanities describing the compulsion by egomaniacs such as Barack Obama to play God. By egomaniac, of course, we do not mean that Obama struts and thinks himself superior to everyone else. That may be the case but it is not that kind of narcissism which is so dangerous. It is the ego that drives such men to shape the world at any cost to fit their whim. This is the origin of all tyranny. It is as old as the Old Testament and it is the predictable condition of a man who was utterly rejected the first and second Commandments.

Obama is a would-be tyrant because he would be God.

It is in this context that the author renders another very great service. In the following passage she puts her finger on the spiritual egoism that makes for tyrants:

this Third Way movement for change is as fascist as anything we have ever seen in the USA. As Alinsky described his own "Ideology of Change," the lure is in the claim that the leader has no ideology that would confine his outlook to hard choices between what is moral or immoral, that there are no boundaries set by either religion or politics, that everything can change and the only thing that matters is one's end intention to do something good.

The author has described Obama and it is frightening. There is morally no restraints on his own ambition and any thing he does will be rationalized. The danger of Obama is not that he is an ideologue-although he is certainly that and of the Marxist variety-the danger is that he admits of no other gods before him.

The author performs another service in introducing us to the call of the collective as a motivating force on the left. I have alluded to this in many posts incorporating, for example, Hillary Clinton's commencement speech at Wellesley in which she calls for a more ecstatic experience. The author comments on the power of the call of the collective on the left:

The allure of this mystical unity is so great that its demand to sacrifice reason and thought on the false altar of infantile security is seemingly lost to many. But as Goldberg also reminds us, "unity is, at best, morally neutral and often a source of irrationality and groupthink."

I would add to this observation that many psychologists from William James on have observed: the phenomenon of release and powerful feeling of integration which is obtained when one submits wholly to a force outside of his own ego. The danger, of course, is that one partakes of that which he submits to. So if one surrenders to a cult of Satan, one can expect to take on some very unattractive characteristics. Nevertheless, the act itself, and the repetition of the act, can induce feelings of well-being in the actor. And it is a very strong incentive for people to participate in the Hitler Youth, or a Los Angeles street gang, or a rock 'n roll fan club.

This phenomenon often produces life-changing effects. Perhaps the most famous example in history occurred to the apostle Saul on his way to Damascus. Former President Bush changed his life as a result of a commitment made in the presence of Dr. Graham. Dr. Graham himself testifies such an experience. Hollywood loves to portray these incidences but never in a religious context but always the opposite of what actually occurs. In the Hollywood context the hero resolved to try harder with his own resources because he is confronted with some transcendental reality. The psychological phenomenon works in the opposite context, when the actor submerges his ego into another reality. Hollywood gets it backward.

If that reality is a leftist, collectivist state, we get tyranny.

There is much more in this article which requires thought. I applaud the author for a very great service rendered.

[livius]

I never figured out where the press got that Bush=Hitler stuff from. If anything, Bush was too self-effacing and desirous of reaching accomodations with his left-wing enemies.

But Obama and Hitler are virtually identical case-studies in megalomanic, sociopathic personalities. Blood curdling.

[livius]

It was truly an excellent article. And this should give us all pause:

Unlike the outspoken hatred of private property and religion espoused by communists under Lenin and Stalin, Hitler preferred the more moderate-seeming incremental takeover of private enterprise in the interest of the "common good," and the slow-death of Judeo/Christian religion by chipping away at it and replacing the people's dependence upon God gradually with reliance on the state (Hitler).

Of course, once you get rid of God, you get rid of natural law, fundamental human rights based on it, etc. Not a pretty thought.