Monday, April 26, 2010

Democracy is Socialism. Socialism is Democracy. Any Questions?

The apparent incredulity of self-styled progressives that the tea party is a "grass roots movement" (as opposed to radical environmentalism, a true grass roots movement) stems from the left's strident belief in redistributive justice and its perfect association with "democracy"; all democracy being of course "socialist democracy" ("liberal" democracy being a canard for us men and women who work and prosper in capitalist "false consciousness").* By the left's demented version of "reasoning," there cannot be a "democratic" movement based on individualism, since individualism is just a fraud of the founders and corporations to keep us divided against ourselves and immobilized in the face of capitalist "exploitation" (in translation from Newspeak, against companies that provide us jobs and products to buy).

What the left is seeing in front of them in the tea party movement must be truly surreal - Constitutionalists protesting on behalf of individual rights - not spoils, perquisites, social welfare programs, bailouts, revenge against banks (there is a bit of that, but most involved are oriented enough to see the government is the prime mover of the bailouts), or some other exclusive group benefits. Why, that is what democracy is for! If the government doesn't divvy up the spoils for client groups, where are the people going to turn, to themselves and the market? Scofflaws, to be sure. You see, to the left, individualism is theoretically impossible to mobilize in spontaneous self-organized protest (as a Tocqueville or Hayek or Knight has described), it must therefore be another collective "ism": Racism, fascism, corporatism...etc. orchestrated by the puppet masters of people who are literally incapable of thinking for themselves (all knowledge being social knowledge extracted from the collective consciousness, a sort of metaphysical Encyclopedia Brittanica as it were...).

So as the race fire keeps racing due to the actions, and more importantly, inactions, of the supreme agitator Barack Obama, it is lost on the squishy left that the radicals' intention is to realize the racial antagonism that has only flourished in the rhetorical under our great uniter. While many think the blase recourse to decrying a vast white-wing conspiracy is a form of defense against melanin-challenged oppressors the likes that charmed Harvard scholar and U. of Chicago lecturer Barack Obama has sought to escape from (does everyone here know that the greatest donor to the founding of the U. of Chicago was John D. Rockefeller?), it is actually a well-worn socialist strategy that goes back to the pioneers of revolutionary manipulation, namely, the young bolsheviks (also, incidentally, the name of an indie ska band out of L.A.).

Many forget or have missed the page in history that the Russian "Revolution of 1905," which Lenin called the Great Rehearsal, was fueled largely by ethnic and racial conflict, not by socialist ideology, per se. The upheaval of that period was punctuated by the massacre of thousands of Christian Armenians by Muslims who were unwittingly armed by the hapless Tsar Nicholas II. These conflagrations (quite literally in oil-drenched Baku) were generally prodded along by the Georgian Robin Hood and future mass murderer known as "Koba," in that day, Iosef "Stalin" Djugashvili.

Am I saying that Barack Obama is Joseph Stalin? No, I am saying he is Barack Obama. And we best sleep with one eye open, because when a sitting president starts ever so gently pushing for racial "minorities" to "get in the face" of the other citizens - the knocking on the door of the hell-bent radical left starts getting that much louder.

*Editorial notes
1. For clarification on the political concept of democracy, see Reagan X's "The Founding Fathers Against Jacobinism."

2. What most people refer to as "liberal democracy" usually implies individual rights, such as private property rights and freedom of association.


Reaganx said...

Btw, my upcoming report for the libertarian conference I mentioned before is devoted specifically to the Founding Fathers’ struggle against democracy, which was espoused by some Anti-Federalists. Though the Anti-Federalist movement had some upsides (such as the struggle for the Bill of Rights), some of its members were actually quite close to French revolutionaries and modern leftist radicals - they believed in social equality but not so much in individual rights. Though they sought to limit the power of the federal government (which is good), they were predisposed to grant absolute, gigantic authority over the individual to the states (which is extremely bad).

Free Speech Czar said...

Awesome. Look forward to reading your report when you are finished with it. Highly recommend Jackson Turner Main's "The Anti-federalists: Critics of the Constitution."

There are other good sources here: