Friday, November 20, 2009
United We Slave: The National Fascist League Backs Obama Policy
The Obama administration is running a left-wing sweep on the National Football League. Recently, the political correctness police banned Rush Limbaugh from partial ownership of the St. Louis Rams, and now the White House has released a new video that has the NFL backing the seemingly benign Obama program "United We Serve."
What are we to make of this hilarious yet disturbing propaganda, which has Obama running a crossing route and catching a lofty toss thrown by New Orleans quarterback Drew Brees? Are we to infer that Obama is also a Saint?
There is practically nothing more conceivably antithetical to the left's worldview than American football. This makes it a sitting target, kind of like Barack Obama coming across the middle on Ray Lewis. [How would Obama talk his way out of the reality that he would get smoked?] The left is therefore working to co-opt the NFL and put it in the service of socialism.
One might object that the NFL has partnered with "charitable" organizations in the past. The league has maintained a long and mutually beneficial relationship with The United Way. But United We Serve is no charitable organization, it is a political policy designed to get Americans used to the well-established socialist dream of everyone working for free. Sounds like slavery - with a smile.
For those who believe this is no more than right-wing pontification, observe the language on the White House "blog" describing United We Serve: "It's going to take all of us working together to build a new foundation for America and it will happen one community at a time." Yeah, kind of like ACORN - does the NFL want a piece of that action? [Furthermore, did we just survive a nuclear holocaust that the mainstream media didn't report? Or is the White House simply describing the economic after-effects of government intervention into the housing market?]
There is always the possibility that the NFL is simply clueless and sees nothing wrong with inviting a politically divisive figure to serve as representative of the league. But what is not believable is that the Obama administration is simply promoting a seemingly worthy cause in good faith. Obama is targeting the NFL and watering down its cultural significance with the leftist ethos of altruism, because the NFL represents a defiance of the socialist narrative virtually en toto.
Does anyone think that leftists fail to grasp how important professional football is to American culture? The NFL has all the traits that effete modern liberals despise. There is capitalism, manliness, and competition - making the league a perennial institution of solid American values so provocative that neomarxist shock-troops cannot help but try to co-opt it.
Professional football is an inherently conservative institution. Teaching both individual greatness and teamwork, football brings out the best in men through competition.
Best of all, in football results matter. This makes a football game a test of two teams: There is a superior team and an inferior team on any given Sunday. This black or white, up or down way of evaluating superiority clashes mightily with the left's morally relativist worldview.
The National Football League is also a powerful indictment of the Marxian myth that there are two classes in a capitalist society, haves and have-nots, and that the former class unremittingly and perpetually exploits the latter. Professional football players come from all socioeconomic backgrounds (in fact usually lower and middle class ones) and they work their butts off to make the most of their talent; there is no free ride, and no excuses here. The NFL, without any affirmative action policy and simply through the standard of open competition, confirms an argument that conservatives have been making for years: That a true market is colorblind. In the NFL, the rule is simple: Either you are a great football player or you are a fan.
Football players sell themselves and their unique set of skills to the NFL - and if successful, they become millionaires. The ultimate reason they become millionaires? Because the middle class has the time, the technological means, and the money to financially support the game.
The NFL constitutes a running threat to the leftist narrative. The Gramscian march through all the institutions of the culture in order to subvert the economy continues, and professional sports is merely the last of American bastions to resist the left's creeping program.
Here's a hail Mary, keep the ubiquitous President Obama and his socialist program out of my Sundays. If you think Tea Party activists are bad, you haven't seen thirty thousand angry Cleveland Browns tailgaters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Since when are conservatives all consumed with competition? Do you think competition drove the sweetheart deal Bush got when he was in a jam down in Houston before he was governor?
"United We Suck."
Mr Anonymous, however hard you try, you will not Bush-lovers here. You're asking the wrong person. Bush is just a milder version of Obama. Compassionate conservatism is a moderate version of socialism.
"will not find Bush-lovers."
There’s one thing that I disagree with, though. I think charity is wrong not only when used by either Obamaoists or Bushite idiots for political purposes but INHERENTLY wrong. Aiding someone you value IS NOT charity. Aiding someone you don’t value IS charity and represents AN EVIL, not a good.
ReaganX, we may be conceiving of charity differently. I've always preferred church charity, the validity of religion being a separate point, becausea person seeking help had to face the people who he was asking help from. The person, if he was normal, usually felt an obligation to return the favor or get his act together - at least if his conscience was worked on enough through church attendance. Secondly, charities like the Salvation Army go by the philosophy of helping people to help themselves. The Salvation Army helped my grandfather when he arrived to the U.S. from Germany and they gave him a place to stay, practice good hygiene, and helped him get a job. After that, my grandpa would donate to the Salvation Army each year to help those who were in a similar position as he was when he arrived. This is not exactly like "no strings attached" charity, it is more about promoting human dignity than dependence. The government welfare state, on the other hand, promotes dependence and a sense of entitlement to the fruits of other people's labor and is thus obviously more reprehensible. Then there are the leftist "charities," which are neomarxist propaganda mills straight from the Frankfurt School, such as the Sierra Club and Greenpeace (a former president and co-founder of Greenpeace admitted that the reasoning behind Greenpeace was 100% politically driven rather than environmentally driven and eventually he became frustrated with how far left it was becoming and thus quit). The leftist charitable organizations promote altruism through charities to coax people into valuing 'joinerism' more than rational self-interest. It is essentially a way of prepping people for slavery.
First, I believe that in many cases religious charity also follows the no-strings-attached model. At least my experience shows that. Second, the more moderate version of charity that you’re describing is just a different type of the same phenomenon. I do admit that in some rare cases, if you can afford it, you can help a person out of pure humanism, as it were. This especially applies to emergencies. However, most charities, even the moderate ones that you mentioned, treat the entire human life as one uninterrupted emergency. I don’t see why such charity is necessary and I cannot see anything beneficial in it. At least in a civilized and relatively free society, in an overwhelming majority of cases one can earn one’s living and has no need to resort to charity, even to the moderate kind. If he does resort to it, he aspires to the unearned and lays a claim on others’ lives. If he subsequently allows others to lay a claim on his life through the same mechanism, it doesn’t absolve him.
I believe the difference between these two kinds of charity is basically the same as the difference between social democracy and communism – in essence, they’re the same. The pure “self-help” model is earning money through your own effort. The pure “no-strings-attached” model is the radical version of charity. The moderate kind of charity is just a mix between those two.
This is one of the reasons why I hate Christianity – Christian charity was the prototype of the welfare state from the very beginning. And even a degree of coercion was involved – since the tithe paid to the church was mandatory.
Yes I hear this all the time from conservatives that "Bush was not truly one of us!", it is a convenient dodge.
I don't know about others, but I'm not even a conservative. I'm an Objectivist. I can't even imagine anything that Bush and Objectivism have in common.
As far as conservatism is concerned, it's a pretty vague word. As to "economic conservatism", Bush's policy was anything but, because he presided over one of the largest expansions of big government in U.S. history. As to "social conservatism", it's just hideous bullshit that I have never espoused.
Conservatism is a term that only makes sense in a specific context. Objectivism is much more explicit philosophically. Anonymous, you might be confusing conservatism from an American constitutional point of view (which I favor) with neoconservatism, which I vehemently oppose.
Post a Comment