THE REVOLUTION WAS(Profound essay on the New Deal- LONG READ)

Roosevelt Myth ^ | 1938 | Garet Garrett

[21twelve]

Yeah - good stuff. This could be Obama speaking:

“In one of his Fireside Chats, after the first six months, the President said: “Long before Inauguration Day I became convinced that individual effort and local effort and even disjointed Federal effort had failed and of necessity would fail, and, therefore, that a rounded leadership by the Federal Government had become a necessity both of theory and of fact.”

[randomhero97]

definitely bump this

[listenhillary]

Bump
Bump
Bump

[listenhillary]

Bump

[tet68]

Bump for later.

[dcwusmc]

Re-bump.

[listenhillary]

BTTT

[listenhillary]

You have been pinged to this because of your interest in “Stealing Capitalism”. I won’t ping you again after this. One time deal.

This is the story of FDR’s takeover by someone who experienced it first hand. I recommend printing it out as it is very long. It is chilling how closely Obama is following this game plan.

It is so important that we understand our history as this sure as hell was never taught by any of my history teachers.

Anyway, enjoy and be sure to pass it on.

THE REVOLUTION WAS (Profound essay on the New Deal- LONG READ)
Free Republic link - http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2185147/posts

Snip from link

The first, naturally, would be to capture the seat of government.

The second would be to seize economic power.

The third would be to mobilize by propaganda the forces of hatred.

The fourth would he to reconcile and then attach to the revolution the two great classes whose adherence is indispensable but whose interests are economically antagonistic, namely, the industrial wage earners and the farmers, called in Europe workers and peasants.

The fifth would be what to do with business — whether to liquidate or shackle it.

(These five would have a certain imperative order in time and require immediate decisions because they belong to the program of conquest. That would not be the end. What would then ensue? A program of consolidation. Under that head the problems continue.)

The sixth, in Burckhardt’s devastating phrase, would be “the domestication of individuality” — by any means that would make the individual more dependent upon government.

The seventh would be the systematic reduction of all forms of rival authority.

The eighth would be to sustain popular faith in an unlimited public debt, for if that faith should break the government would be unable to borrow, if it could not borrow it could not spend, and the revolution must be able to borrow and spend the wealth of the rich or else it will be bankrupt.

The ninth would be to make the government itself the great capitalist and enterpriser, so that the ultimate power in initiative would pass from the hands of private enterprise to the all-powerful state.

[70times7]

PFLR

[Albertafriend]

Thanks! This looks like very interesting reading.

[dalebert]

thank you....ping me anytime

[listenhillary]

Bump

[Cacique]

btt

[TigersEye]

Thank you for directing me to this. It took about three hours but I read it all. It's like a blueprint for everything that 0bama and his cadre are engaged in. Obviously FDR was following a blueprint of a plan for usurpation of power that he had learned from someone else.

As I read it in places I felt like I was reading a fictional novel, like a book by Ayn Rand, but then the familiar names, places and acts were invoked which brought it back into focus that this was all the reality of the treason FDR committed. Every bit of it a factual piece of our history. And is being recommitted again with the hopes of greater success.

It's working and nothing the Republicans, Libertarians or conservatives is doing even recognizes what is going on much less has a chance of defeating it. Very little anyway. The Progressive's plan has us all fighting with ghosts while they steadily accumulate power.

"And when the "gold eases" went to the United States Supreme Court — the unreconstructed court — the judgment was one that will be forever a blot on a certain page of American history. The Court said that what the government had done was immoral but not illegal. How could that be? Because the American government, like any other government, has the sovereign power to commit an immoral act."

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

[dsc]

How amazing it is that so many still regard that commie scumbucket as the great leader that brought us out of the Great Depression.

[meadsjn]

bump — right over the Fiscal Cliff.

[immadashell]

PING

[quimby]

Thanks for the link, 21twelve. Scientific technic seems more religion than science. God bless and help us.

[21twelve]

Thank you for the reminder of this thread. For the longest time I would cut and paste from it, as EVERYTHING that our government does NOW can be compared with this great essay from 1939 on the New Deal. I truly believe that Obama treats the New Deal like Christians view the Bible. An inspiration, a “how to” manual, etc.

I figured there would be a parallel from this essay on the Bundy Ranch affair. And there is:

“Business is in itself a power. In a free economic system it is an autonomous power, and generally hostile to any extension of government power. That is why a revolutionary party has to do something with it....Always in business there will be a number, indeed, an astonishing number, who would sooner conform than resist [49 out of 50 ranchers in Bundy’s county?], and besides these there will be always a few more who may be called the Quislings of capitalism. Neither Hitler nor Mussolini ever attempted to liquidate business. They only deprived it of its power and made it serve.

How seriously the New Deal may have considered the possibility of liquidating business we do not know. Its decision, at any rate, was to embrace the alternative; and the alternative was to shackle it.

In his second annual message to Congress the President said: “In the past few months, as a result of our action, we have demanded of many citizens that they surrender certain licenses to do as they please in their business relationships; but we have asked this in exchange for the protection which the State can give against exploitation by their fellow men or by combinations of their fellow men.”

“....There, unconsciously perhaps, is a complete statement of the revolutionary thesis. It is not a question of law. It is a question of power. There must be a transfer of power. The President speaks not of laws; he speaks of new instruments of power, such as would provide shackles for the liberties of the people if they should ever fall in other hands. What then has the government done? Instead of limiting by law the power of what it calls economic autocracy the government itself has seized the power.”