For The People? or “Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it is raining.”

To the New Right, (The Tea Party, The Libertarians and the GOP),

“Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it is raining.”

I find your rhetoric to be appalling. You talk about being Patriots and observing the Constitution of the Republic and quoting “for the people” and then…

You talk about “redistribution of wealth” being such an awful thing. Your patriotic websites are flooded with “Obama is a Communist” and this and that because he stated to “spread the wealth around” and other such comments. Personally, I believe the legacy of J. Edgar Hoover lives on – in the labeling of any Black person that stands up as a “Communist Threat.” Maybe Obama was talking about “spreading the wealth” in the name of opportunity? Can’t use context all the time, though, huh?  (Like how Sarah Palin chooses to use context for Limbaugh saying “retards” but Rahm Emanuel is some type of monster for saying the same thing?) In any case, I’m not debating President Obama’s legitimacy or any other conspiracy theories when what we see is that President Obama has not taking any opportunities to nationalize anything, or restructure, or redistribute.

What I want to ask is, do you stand FOR Plutocracy?

Over the past ten years, the gap between the richest 8% of the United States and the poorest 80% has grown exponentially…and continues. The working class has had wages and benefits drastically reduced while those at the top increase their income levels…. and options for the bottom 80% are constantly decreased as well . . . so, how exactly does support of this process to maintain not constitute support of aristocracy and corporate Plutocracy? Who are for the working class and the average American? Those that want executives to maintain their wealth by bleeding the workers?

80% of the United States’ citizens are The People that shoulder a majority of the debt in America and benefit the least.

You are FOR THE PEOPLE when you support corporatization of the United States into a Plutocracy, where the Aristocratic class full of Plutocrats that define laws based on corporate interests? This seems to be, not only counter intuitive, but manipulatively false.

How can you be FOR THE PEOPLE when you are against social programs that help the disenfranchised people (such as Health Care)?

The reality is, the Tea Party and the Libertarians have been complaining about more limited government. We have seen a steady progression of what private corporations do when left to their own devices:

• The real estate market imploded due to a lack of oversight and regulation.
• The financial markets collapsed, due to the real estate implosion and a lack of oversight and regulation.
• The employment levels have plummeted faster than the jaws of the militias in Montana the day Obama was elected President, due to the collapse of the real estate markets and the financial markets, due to lack of oversight and regulation.
• Banks folded left and right, due to lack of oversight and regulation.
• Comcast continues to piss off 100 new customers a day, due to lack of something. (I made that number up.)
• The Gulf of Mexico is being deluged with oil, because of a lack of oversight and regulation.
• Fishermen are now out of work indefinitely, due to the oil spill, which was due to lack of oversight and regulation.
• Mexico is now in a state similar to Somalia, due to a lack of concern from their neighbor.
• Over the past decade, the wealthiest, top 8% of all Americans have continued to profit, while the bottom 80% have continued to increase debt and financial burden while decreasing their income levels… but continue to consume to profit the top 8% and the subsequent 12% below them.
• The United States education rate is far below most of the rest of the Developed World.
• The life expectancy of Americans has dropped well below many Developed nations.

All is not lost, though:  America hast he largest prison population in the world!
U – S – A !

And you claim to be FOR THE PEOPLE when you are against real reform and oversight?

The United States has a government FOR THE PEOPLE and the best way to be FOR THE PEOPLE is to let corporations continue to profit while destroying the environment and reducing wages and life expectancy for more than 3 quarters of the population of the country?

What violates the notion of a government FOR THE PEOPLE more than a government that is for Corporate Interests?

Let’s be honest… do you really think Dick Armey cares about THE PEOPLE?

This is the man who wrote a book about “What the flat tax will do for you.”  Well, it will make the rich much richer.  I guess it can turn the United States into a Utopia like Boznia or Russia.  Beautiful Serbia and Kazakhstan are what America should be!

And yet, using colorful language and great anti-intellectual intellectual chatter, somehow laborers in America think that Dick Armey and FreedomWorks are the “Patriotic Spirit” of America.

I’m sorry, but I’ve been sitting on my hands for far too long, and I have been researching these Tea Party and Libertarian and FreedomWorks websites for a while and I am disgusted.  I’m sick of words being twisted and the Real Americans are turning to the people who profit the most from their suffering to save them from their suffering.

I do not mind a difference of opinion, but don’t lie to me.  “Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it is raining.”  Do not pretend you are FOR THE PEOPLE when you support an agenda that leads to Aristocracy and Plutocracy.

And most of the people that tout these praises of the New Right barely even have a clue as to what they are so adamantly in favor of in the first place.

The reality is:  These are hard working people that just want a decent life. They don’t care about labels.  They don’t care about policy.  They just don’t want to make someone else rich while they suffer.  They want a fair chance to be happy and make their families happy, or just pursue happiness.

For some reason, these hardworking people tend to believe that Dick Armey and Sarah Palin are the ones that care about them.  It is very similar to the way WalMart is being sued by the state of California for overcharging employees for benefits so that they apply for MedicCal (Medicaid).  So, WalMart increases profits and the taxpayers shoulder the burden?  That is FOR THE PEOPLE?

If you want to discuss why President Obama is [this] or [that] then first explain to me how “smaller government” and “lower corporate costs” is FOR THE PEOPLE. Explain to me how less accountability from the wealthy top 8% is FOR THE PEOPLE.  (When I say explain it, I mean, really – actually explain the logic that states the division between rich and poor in America that keeps growing is somehow beneficial to the larger, poor majority.)  Honestly, I see your side of the argument and I see how it exploits the people.

Label me whatever you wish.  Call me a “Communist.”  Call me a “Marxist.”  Call me a “Socialist.”  Call me a “Liberal.”  I really don’t care.  Just give me a break.

You are about as much FOR THE PEOPLE as King George III  or the Weimar Republic was FOR THE PEOPLE.

Tags: aristocracy, Constitution, corporation, corporatism, Dick Armey, environment, fascism, For The People, Freedomworks, Gulf, libertarian, Marxism, neoconservative, neofascist, New Right, Obama, oil spill, Patriotism, patriots, proletariat, sarah palin, Tea Party, working class
Category Definitions |

“Rise of the New Right”

I was able to view Chris Matthews’ brief documentary on the “Rise of the New Right.”  My immediate  impression was that it was far too brief to give any detail.  It was only one hour.  Basically, Matthews’ discusses the rise of the Tea Party Movement.

A true, in depth view of the Rise of the New Right would have started before Reagan and discussed the theory that originated with a Pastor that “Satan wrote the Constitution” and the movements that ensued much before Reagan.  The rise of thought in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (C.E.) that the United States was a nation of Provincial Divinity.  (Long after the “Founding Fathers” had dispersed.) Also, and in depth documentary would have had to spend a good several hours just on Freedomworks, which I intend to discuss soon in the future.

I have already found a few critique of Matthews’ documentary that are in defense of the Tea Party.  None of them really respond to the specific critiques of the Tea Party Movement, namely that there was none of this outrage (from the same people) during the President G.W. Bush Era.

Watching the Tea Party footage, I thought of several things.  First, an anecdote:

I was in downtown Walnut Creek one evening, about a year ago.  I had a fresh latté and it was dusk, so I decided to go for a walk.  I happened to be near the park and hear a lot of commotion, so I ventured over to see what was going on.  I did not know at first that it was a Tea Party Rally.  I did notice the people in the park were not people that I have typically seen in this California version of Stars Hallow.  There was a man in the gazebo shouting and people with mullets were cheering.  There were confederate flags dispersed among the sea of Don’t Tread On Me flags, and lots of denim jackets with no sleeves.  I immediately felt like Richard Pryor in Bustin’ Loose, only I had no pointy hood and robe to wear.  I was in the middle of this mess.  The orator was screaming how President Obama was a muslim communist bent on destroying the country and other such nonsense.  The agitation and anger and lean towards violence were palpable.  I was genuinely frightened.  I guess I should point out that I grew up outside of Camden, New Jersey… so I don’t frighten easily.

I tell that story to demonstrate what this movement feels like to an outside observer.  And I can’t help but wonder how America would feel if this was a minority.  I would point out that the Black Panther Party used the Constitution and legal rights to stand up against a racist system, yet are regarded as “equals to the KKK” by much of White America.  And, in reality, the BPP were a small movement compared to the also small Tea Party Movement.  What if there were this many Blacks or Latinos that picked up guns and had public demonstrations about how “This government does not represent us!” or “taking the country” to a more representative government?  What if Latinos that are American Citizens in Arizona felt tired of being singled out and asked for documentation and decided to carry weapons and stage militia training to fight the “tyrannical government”?  Quite obviously, they would not have support of a majority of the Tea Party movement.

I mean, really, Black Americans’ ancestors constructed the White House, and most of the government buildings for the United States.  They have fought and died for this country.  Where is the concern for the Black community and the equal representation?  What about the Chicano population?  The Indigenous population?  If ANYONE has a claim to a lack of representation as American Citizens, would it not be these groups?  If they did mobilize and chant seditious commentary in the streets, how long would that last?  In the 1950s, Black Americans chanted in the streets peacefully for equal rights and were attacked with dogs and firehoses . . .

Well, the New Right claims they are not racist.  They claim their problem with President Obama is a number of things.  Most of them are actually not true.  They claim he is not an American citizen… but he is an American Citizen.  They claim he is Muslim . . .  so what?  They claim he is a racist . . . really?  I could go on, but these people are just raving loons and not worth the time.  None of these critiques are valid.  (I do find people on the far left have some VERY valid critiques of President Obama, but everyone ignores them, and I will too, as to not feed the raving loons.)

(more…)

Tags: commentator, conservative, Constitution, equal rights, fascism, fascist, Glenn Beck, neocon, neoconservative, New Right, sarah palin, Tea Party, United States
Category New Right |

The Fascist New Right

There are a lot of terms flying around today, especially in the political sphere.  They include, but are not limited to:  Socialist, Communist, Racist, Nazi, Fascist, Lib, Liberal, Teabagger, and Thug.  These terms are seemingly used by any, and everyone, with reckless abandon.  The problem is, that when you actually have a reason to use one of these terms, it gets dismissed.  I have noticed a lot of attention on Goodwin’s Law.  The concept that, “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.“  This is quite humorous.  At the same time, this does not mean the comparisons are not valid.  I find a strong correlation between Fascism and the New Right. (The Conservatives of today, be they Tea Party, Tories, or National Front.)

Sometimes the Left does propose Socialist ideals, or at least borderline socialist ideals.  “Universal healthcare” could be considered more Socialist than Capitalist.  There is no secret that I think they should stop pretending.  I personally think they should say, “We aren’t concerned with who developed this idea.  We are concerned with something that works.  This isn’t a new concept, and the countries that use it are doing quite well with it.”  Farther, they should point out, “As Americans, we should be trying to do it better than other nations, not avoiding it.”  On the same hand, while I am not a big fan of Fascism, I do not contend to use “Fascist” in this entry as an epithet.  The New Right has Fascist ideology and Fascist goals. Fascism is also not democratic.  So, in some way, I am claiming the New Right are anti-democratic.

I want to reiterate, that I am not claiming the New Right are Fascist to drive a farther wedge.  The goal here is to really examine what is going on.

There are a few things that strike me as odd with the rise of the New Right in the past year or so.  When Barack Obama was elected President, a new wave of protest swept through the nation.  There are tangible threads that weave through this new tapestry that seriously concern me.  Especially as the numbers are growing.  Just last night, the Tories in England got back a large portion of British Parliament.  So, let’s look at Fascism and see how it relates to American Conservativism.  (Fascism is quite complex as an ideology.  This is not an academic journal, so I am just using Wikipedia as my reference for any information on Fascism that are listed here.  I do not believe that Wikipedia is the absolute authority on the subject, or even the best authority, but I’m trying to keep this as short as possible, so… I accept that flaw for the time being.)

First we have the basic ideology of Fascism:

• Fascism is a “radical and authoritarian, nationalist political ideology.  Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives, values, and systems such as a political system and the economy.“

If you were to go to a Tea Party website, such as the Tea Party Patroits‘ website, you would see, their “Core values” are “Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets.”  – “organize the nation on corporatist perspectives, values and systems such as political system and the economy.”

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. . . . They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism.  In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they claim that pluralism is a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.  They advocate the creation of a single-party state. . . . Fascists reject and resist autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists’ nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated. They consider attempts to create such autonomy as an affront and threat to the nation.

That’s a long block, I know.  I felt it was spelled out better than I could reword it.
The Tea Party and their cohorts have been extolling the virtues of “What makes America great” and that the “Liberal Elite” want to destroy them and make the US culture a multi-cultural, pluralist society that will lead the nation into ruin.  Arizona just passed a law that will fundamentally restrict autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups that are not considered part of the nation.  It will also penalize anyone who refuses to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated.  They definitely find immigrants with foreign customs to be an “affront and threat to the nation.“

“Fascism is strongly opposed to core aspects of the Enlightenment and is an opponent of liberalism, Marxism, and mainstream socialism  for being associated with failures that fascists claim are inherent in the Enlightenment.”
I was just looking at Al-Sonja Schmidt (who I have much to say about in a future time) and there were a lot of references to Marx, Socialism, Black Nationalism and such.  To get the whole trifecta, she said that President Obama was influenced by Marx and is a tyrant.  (He has a foreign sounding name, is pluralistic, and a product of the Enlightenment.)

I don’t think it is really worth spending much time on how the New Right feels everyone should stay in the Cold War and we need to start the Red Scare back up.  I have spent enough time on this ridiculous garbage.

THE CORE TENANTS OF FASCISM:

Nationalism is probably one of the most obvious core tenants of Fascism.  I also highly doubt any Conservative would decry that Nationalism is not a massive “core value” of their ideology.  Is it even worth examining farther?  The real question is if people truly understand the true meaning of Nationalism.

Fascists saw the struggle of nation and race as fundamental in society, in opposition to communism’s perception of class struggle.  The fascist view of nation is as a single organic entity which binds people together by their ancestry and is a natural unifying force of people.  Fascism seeks to solve economic, political, and social problems by achieving a millenarian national rebirth, exalting the nation or race above all else, and promoting cults of unity, strength and purity.

(more…)

Tags: AFA, Al-Sonja Schmidt, American Family Association, anti, apartheid, Arizona, brown shirts, Burning Fence, Central Valley Tea Party, chicano, Christian Right, conservative, Constitution, economy, equal rights, fascism, fascist, gay marriage, Glenn Beck, illegal immigrant, immigration, labels, lawrence auster, Left, liberals, mexican american, musolini, Neo-Conservative, Neo-Fascism, neocon, neoconservative, New Right, racism, racist, right, sarah palin, status, Tea Party, Teabagger, Tory, UK, United States, white dominance, zombies
Category New Right |

Rule of the “Elite”

(This came up in a comment today, and I have been meaning to address it.  So, I will do so now.)

Sarah Palin makes a big deal about the “Elite.”  The Media Elite, the Washington Elite, the American Elite.  When pressed who she means, she backpeddles and says “it’s about anyone who thinks they are better than someone else.”  This is a two pronged issue.  (Really, a three pronged issue.)  The first is the implication, the second is the actual message.  I’m going to start with the second.  (And we are going to basically ignore the fact that “Elite” in political science is pretty Marxist in nature.)

Who are these people who think they are better than other people?  Are NBA players “Elites”?  What about PGA Tournament winners?  What about Jeopardy winners?  Olympic gold medalists?  I mean, they won.  Doesn’t that make them the “best”?

If someone obtains a PhD in a subject, they took more then a summer course on the topic at their local community college.  Any Doctorate requires intense years of research, study, examinations, and whatever.  (I know – “and whatever” – is such a bogus description, but I really don’t want to go into a detailed description of the Doctoral process at University.)  Shouldn’t we assume that someone with a doctorate in a subject knows the subject better than those without it?  I mean, first you need a primary education, and then throw on 3 to 6 to 8 or more years of study on top of that… intense study.  It is not just a piece of paper, it is a lot of work.

I use this example often, because I like it:

• When I need to get my car fixed, I find a mechanic.  I typically want to find a competent mechanic, one that knows how to repair cars as best they can.  I might even use a specialist.  Like if I have an accident, I go to an auto-body repair shop, instead of a break specialist.
• When I want my teeth worked on, I see a dentist.  I want a dentist that knows teeth and knows the best way to fix them.  I prefer a dentist that is focused on saving my teeth and causing me minimal amounts of pain.
• If I have a brain tumor, I want a neurologist.
• If i have a heart attack, I want a cardiologist.
• If I am a criminal defendant in court, I want a criminal defense attorney.
• If my toilet is broken, I want a plumber.

What I don’t want:

• I do not want a dentist repairing my car.
• I do not want a mechanic removing my brain tumor.
• I do not want a civil trial attorney fixing my toilet.
• I do not want a plumber giving me open heart surgery.

Why then do I want Joe the Plumber deciding economic policy over economists?  Why do I not want people who study international relations deciding foreign policy?  Why do I not want people who have advanced degrees in Constitutional studies deciding what is a violation of the Constitution and what is not?

That is what this “anti-Elite” message says… the innuendo is that these people are the “ELITES” and they are destroying us.  Are we supposed to have no specialization of services?  Everybody just do whatever you want?  I do not think anyone would agree with that.  But there are two areas that everyone feels they are an expert, and that experts are idiots… in politics and religion.

(more…)

Tags: aristocrats, Constitution, economy, elite, elitism, equal rights, Independents, Joe the Plumber, liberals, libertarians, marxist theory, neocon, neoconservative, rights, Ron Paul, sarah palin, social, Tea Party, Teabaggers, United States
Category Definitions |

The Need For Cohesion

[I have already discussed on the Left in the United States is really pretty "center Right" in the global scheme of politics.  But for the sake of this piece, we will consider the Democratic Party the "center Left."  Although I find this problematic, I just have to accept it.  Considering the Right (GOP) is farther right then the DNC, we will consider the Democratic Party to be "Left."]

Yesterday, I mentioned that I was not happy with Adsense, displaying ads such as Newsmax and anti-minorities links.  I logged into Facebook yesterday, and there was an advert to “remember in November” to “stop Obama and Obamacare.”  I don’t have a problem with allowing the Conservatives to advertise their views.  Quite contrarily, I agree with it.  Everyone should be given a venue to espouse whatever concept they wish.  (I did go to UC Berkeley, and even enjoyed the elderly, black man that would scream “Jesus wants you to be a racist!”,  the man who would scream about the Jewish Armageddon that was about to descend upon us, or the man with the anti-petrol sign that would just say to everyone “Your mother loves you.”)  But, I see these massive campaigns against the Democratic party, and all leftists.  Someone is feeding the Tea Party a steady stream of propaganda (Fox).  On the left, there is no cohesion.

You have the center-Left Democrats, that support a more Keynesian economic platform, than a Hobbesian “Free Market.”  You also have various Socialists, Communists, Marxists, Anarchists, and whatever other “Left” leaning ideology you can imagine.  None of these groups work together.  The Democratic Party wants no association with Ultra-Left ideology.  So, everyone left of center ends up a “marginalized fringe.”

Farther, there is no cohesion within the Ultra-Left.  The Socialists won’t work with the Marxists or the Communists.  The Black Nationalists won’t work with any other Socialists, Marxists, Communists, Anarchists, etc.  It all goes on, because everyone gets hung up on minutia.

The problem with this is that many of the primary goals of ALL of these groups is the same.  Fair labor rules, fair market regulation, equality under the law, equality in the workplace, elimination of poverty, healthcare for every citizen.  (These are just key issues, but I find there are many, many more commonalities.)  Do the Marxists want to marginalize the Latinos in America?  Surely not.  If anything, the Marxists and Socialists care just as much about fair labor rules for Latino/Chicano laborers as any other group, maybe more.  Do the Marxists or the Socialists promote racism?  Obviously not, how is that equality under the law?  Do the Anarchists support any inequalities at all?  Not in my experience.  Do the Democrats want more social stratification?  Less aid to the poor or impoverished families?  Does the DNC want less fair workplace environments, hiring policies and legal treatment?  I highly doubt it.

All of these groups have a common “enemy.”  I do not use “enemy” as a loaded term.  This is not a war.  This is not about violence, or any physical means of attack.  Its an ideological enemy.  Conservativism believes in aristocracy, class stratification, unfettered corporate progress and a “free market.”  EVERYONE on the left opposes these things.  Why can’t everyone on the Left stand against these things?  Why can’t the DNC ask the rest of the Left for support?  Well, there is one reason.

McCarthyism, and the Cold War in general, did a number of the American psyche and created memes against keywords.  As soon as the word “Socialist” or “Communist” is espoused, the Tea Party loads their guns.  The pundits on Fox and Friends decide to launch an all out attack to tear them down, and the DNC ultimately loses votes.  I understand this problem and empathize with it.  But, I really need to say, “so what?”

Pay for advertisements to explain that you don’t care if it is considered “socialist” to do something, because it is what is fair.  Explain that your goal is govern, not run a business.  Our rights are not a corporate “mission statement.”  There is no profit motive for guaranteeing equal rights under the law, the freedom to assemble, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, etc. Get the Anarchists and the Socialists and the Communists and everyone else in the Ultra-Left to support you.  Any Socialist or Marxist can explain plenty of things FOR you.  They will be the first to point out they are anti-fascism.  (Fascism is far right – this is a fact, and as debatable as gravity.)  They will also be the first to point out they are not Left Liberals.  They also can be valuable allies.

To everyone else on the Ultra-Left:  Stop fighting over ideological bullshit while your primary goals are being squandered. If you truly believe you are right, would you rather convince the Democrats that you are right, or a Tea Party rally?  Who is going to benefit you more?  If you want to promote Black Nationalism, is that ever going to happen with the GOP in power?  With the Tea Party roving around Virginia with loaded weapons?  If you are a proponent of a Socialist economy, are you ever going to convince the Far Right this is plausible?  Would you rather they be in charge?  Your lack of support for the Democratic Party is only hurting you, and everyone else.  Your fragmentation only farther marginalizes you and makes you irrelevant.  You are becoming your own worst enemy.

(more…)

Tags: african-american, anarchists, anti, black, chicano, commentator, communists, conservative, discrimination, equal, equal rights, equality, labels, labor, labor laws, latino, liberals, neocon, neoconservative, New Right, racism, racist, Radical Left, rights, social, socialists, southern poverty law center, status, white dominance
Category Radical Left |