Arbeit Macht Frei

I never thought I'd see the day when the 13th Amendment became less popular than the 2nd among liberals.

All you young voters who cast your ballot for Obama because he's a rad dude who plays basketball and seems like the type of guy who would reduce a possession charge to a small fine, perhaps you should put away the hacky sack next election and take what your Post Modern Feminist Studies professor says with a grain of salt.

Behold the visionary who will put Obama's brand of National Socialism into action: Rahm Emanuel (History has a tremendous sense of irony doesn't it?)



This pretty much speaks for itself. I don't think I have anything really to say.

Wait, yes I do.

I hate to keep beating a dead Prussian, but do any of you misanthropes who voted for Obama understand what's being so cavalierly described here? Forcing every American of military age into a Civilian Defense Corps doesn't set off any alarm bells in your head? This goes far beyond a draft of some fraction of eligible (male) Americans in a time of war. This is every American in times of peace. Who controls these training camps? Who will train these college age Americans? These are the same intellectual giants who believe their Cultural Studies Professor when he tells them that pre colonial stone age North America was vastly superior to modern Western Civilization. They're very stupid and suggestible. If they can't figure out that "The Flintstones" wasn't a documentary series, what BS is Obama going to feed them?

Further more, who will control this army? The President? What power will Congress have? What will this army be doing? Building windmills? Attacking non union shops? Cutting off aid shipments to Kansas because their farmers refused to collectivize? What is the purpose? If another Katrina hits New Orleans, I don't want to be forced by the Federal Government to go help distribute Federal Treasury money to people who A: Live in a coastal city that is below sea level, and B: Are too stupid to evacuate when a hurricane hits.

How would this help against terrorism? If we had had a vast Civilian Defense Corps on 9/11, what would that have done? We could have poured the entire United States Army into Manhattan and it wouldn't have done a lick of good after the planes hit. In fact it would have hindered relief efforts by clogging up the infrastructure. We already have more than enough government agencies to help (hinder?) in case of a natural disaster or terrorist attack. The only way a Civilian Defense Corps could help is by stopping the attack before it happens. So unless Obama wants to arm us and send us about looking for terrorists, he's just whistling Dixie.

Perhaps all Emanuel and Obama want to do is set this Corps to work building bridges, dams, roads, etc. Taxes will be raised, money will be wasted. Its like the TVA except you have no choice. This is the ultimate form of "community organizing". He has the youth of the whole country to do his bidding. Take a moment to think about this. The President of the United States will have an army at his command to do whatever he wants with, without Constitutional restrictions. Think the 3rd Amendment will apply? These aren't "soldiers", its a "Civilian Defense Corps". Even if Congress has some sort of oversight, do you trust them? Have we as Americans come to the point where we trust the Federal Government with this kind of unrestrained power over our persons?

It will truly be a dark day when draft dodgers who flee to Canada are rightly considered patriots. Oh well, I suppose I'll be able to get a deferment by volunteering for ACORN.

Liberty is Doubleplusungood

In case anyone of a conservative bent hasn't realized it yet, liberty is fading in America. Progressive liberals are winning and pressing their advantage. Don't pretend to be shocked when you wake up one morning and find that you're in a fascist Nanny State.

The Arizona Supreme Court is on the verge of banning certain terms from all Arizona State courts. What terms, you ask? Surely they must be crude, vulgar terms that have no place in a court of law, correct? Not quite. Here is the list of potentially outlawed words:

Aliens
Illegal aliens
Resident or non-resident aliens
Illegal immigrants
Illegal immigration
Illegals
Immigration epidemic
Immigration crisis
Immigrant invasion
Pro-illegal immigration activists
Open borders advocates
Anchor babies
Proponents for amnesty

Now we can discuss the horrible implications this policy would have for American security if it were adopted broadly, but I think we're facing something much more sinister, and idea that goes beyond the immigration debate. This isn't about winning a debate, this is about stopping a debate. Elements of the liberal movement are literally banning language that is opposed to their ideology. The Newspeak of Orwell's dystopia was largely created by culling the language of politically incorrect words and phrases. How is this any different? If one political group or ideology control the language, how do you argue against them? How do you debate an idea when you're forced to concede the language of your argument at the outset?

Americans and conservatives in particular need to come to a realization and fast: An increasing proportion of the American left are becoming openly fascistic. "Fascist" itself has been coopted by the left. No longer does fascist refer to a Statist who sees totalitarian limits on freedom of speech, the press, and association, among other civil liberties, as preferable in a well run progressive/socialist state. Now days, of course, "fascist" refers to any conservative who happens to have drawn the ire of liberalism. I'm pained to admit that most Americans don't realize that fascism is an offshoot of progressivism, and it doesn't always come with jack boots and patriotic songs. It does however, come with less freedom and more State control over as many aspects of a citizen's life as possible. Controls, for example, like words you may or may not use to refer to undocumented persons who have broken Federal law to enter this country and the issues related to them.

The right had better wake up and prepare for a fight. Otherwise one day when they do choose to stand and fight, they'll find that words have literally no meaning to the left or the American public we'll need to persuade.

Can "Soft" Fascism Become "Hard"?

Great Britain is rapidly becoming a case study in what Jonah Goldberg calls "soft" or "nice" fascism. A new study at the University of Surry on the impact of food on climate has recommended the rationing of meat and milk:

"People will have to be rationed to four modest portions of meat and one litre of milk a week if the world is to avoid run-away climate change. . . total food consumption should be reduced, especially 'low nutritional value' treats such as alcohol, sweets and chocolates.

It urges people to return to habits their mothers or grandmothers would have been familiar with: buying locally in-season products, cooking in bulk and in pots with lids or pressure cookers, avoiding waste and walking to the shops. . ."

Now, why is this fascist? If you're familiar with this blog, you know that I routinely accuse the environmental movement of marxist intent, and this certainly fits the bill: Returning to the habits of of our grandparents, throwing off the "wasteful" conveniences capitalism has wrought, actually reducing our standard of living for the benefit of the whole. These are all marxist tenants, but fascist?

Fascism and marxism are interconnected, sister ideologies. They both seek State control of the economy, as well as all other aspects of its citizens lives. They are both leftist. I cannot emphasize this enough. Now this study is particularly fascist because of the moral equivalent to war this study seems to be giving the "fight" against "run-away climate change". This is a favorite fascist tactic used by Mussolini and Hitler. Create a crisis to control the people. We must ration ourselves. We must sacrifice. We must trust the State. Some freedoms are now counterproductive to the greater good:

"Tara Garnett, the report's author, warned that campaigns encouraging people to change their habits voluntarily were doomed to fail"

So the State must intervene. The citizens should no longer be allowed to "voluntarily" choose what they wish to eat, where they wish to travel, what they drive, etc.

"(the report says) 'Study upon study has shown that awareness-raising campaigns alone are unlikely to work, particularly when it comes to more difficult changes.'"

We can no longer trust the people to know what is good for themselves. Big Brother --or in this case, Loving Mother-- must intervene.

Now, all western democracies have a certain degree of "soft" or "nice" fascism. But I believe Britain is much further along. The British are already the most watched society in the world. Add in the naziesque attack on cigarettes and personal responsibility, and you have a disturbing trend in British society. The State is taking more and more control over the citizen's life. I wonder whether or not Britain will make the turn from "soft" to "hard" or what you may call a more "classical" fascism. There is a rapidly growing, unassimalated, islamic population in Great Britain who are at odds with British culture, tradition, and government. Something's going to give. If this continues, I believe there's a chance of a civil war. If the muslims prevail, you could have a militant islamic state. What if the Anglo-Saxons prevail though? The framework is already there for a traditional fascist state. Throw in open, violent conflict with a completely different cultural and racial segment of society, and I fear you may end up with fascism everyone can recognize.

This is all speculation, and Britannia may well pull herself back before she goes over the edge --there's already a backlash against the environmentalist burden imposed the British-- but the founders in America who committed treason rather then be denied the inherent rights of the "Englishman" would be appalled over what it means to be one today. There must be consequences. I just wonder what they'll be.

This Isn't Dirty Harry's San Francisco

Over in San Francisco, Mayor and Stalinist Gavin Newsom has proposed fining people $1000 if residents don't properly sort their trash for recycling. Seriously. Is their anyone who still can't see the fascism inherent in the green movement? San Francisco has sunk far deeper into liberalism than the rest of the country has, but this is the direction the greenies and politicians like Obama and Pelosi want to take us in. I don't think a lot of Americans realize this. I have always refused to set foot in that God forsaken place, but maybe now I'll visit just to dump trash.

Obama and the "F" Word

Jeffry Lord has penned the most succinct description of the Totalitarianism Obama represents that I have thus far read:

"To start there would be no more driving SUVs. No more Rush. For God's sake absolutely no driving your SUV while listening to Rush. No more eating whatever you want. Definitely no keeping your home as warm or as cool as you prefer. No capital gains cuts because they are unfair. Your guns will be banned. And if you have a different opinion on global warming? All those lofty supporters of rights for terrorists are going to strip every oil executive in America of theirs in a heartbeat, live and in living color.

Is anyone paying attention here? Today the targets are talk radio, oil, SUVs, or guns or debates on global warming and so on. But what about tomorrow and the day after that and the day and years after that? What freedoms will next be targeted with that deadliest trademark of an Obamalander -- moral superiority? What do we have when the sole purpose of the government as run by the chilling principles of Obamaland is to "use the political process" to remove freedoms large and small one by one by one?

Someone needs to speak it plainly.

The word is fascism."

Do I truly have to seriously contemplate voting for John McCain?

Does Yelling "Heil Hansen" Produce Too Much Carbon?

Anyone who doesn't believe that the environmental movement has become a haven for anti-capitalist types like Communists and Fascists needs to take a good look at NASA scientist James Hansen's testimony today before Congress. According to The Guardian he plans to call:

"for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer."

Regardless of your opinion on climate change, this is Stalinist. Outlawing your opponent's opinion and making free speech a high crime "against humanity and nature" is a bald faced tyranny that I'd hoped would stay relegated to Canada. Oil companies doing too well refuting your points? Just make fossil fuel apology illegal. Much easier to make your case when you make your opponents out to be the moral equivalent of the Nazis. Stalin first found this handy when he branded Trotsky and any other Communist he found inconvenient a "fascist". Now those found inconvenient are branded "deniers" which implies a moral equivalence that I hope outrages anyone who had a family member killed in a Nazi death camp.

There is a deeper point here however, and one that must be understood in order to see where this is leading. Like many global warmists, Hanson is screaming that "radical steps need to be taken immediately if the 'perfect storm' of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable." This is a favorite global warmist tactic. There is no debate to be had, the crisis is now. "Deniers" are merely filibustering and wasting what little time we have left. Society must unite under the government for a superhuman effort. Hansen says "the new US president would have to take the initiative analogous to Kennedy's decision to go to the moon." Global warmists didn't invent this tactic, its been in use since the days of Woodrow Wilson. Use a crisis -- real or imagined-- and exploit it to expand the powers of government and unify the State into one combined will. Wilson did it during World War One, FDR during the Great Depression and World War Two, Kennedy with Space Program, LBJ with the "War on Poverty". What Americans need to be perfectly clear on is what ideology underpins this line of thought. Manufacturing a crisis in order to unify the collective will behind the leadership of the State is a Fascist method of governing. I cannot emphasize this enough. Anytime a crisis is given the moral equivalence of war (as the global warmists have given the fight against "climate change") and there is a call to abandon selfish interests (your SUVs) and unite in common cause with the State, it is fascism. From Wilson's "War Socialism" to LBJ's "Great Society", national calls to action have been right out of the fascist play book. Even the "War on Drugs" is at its heart fascistic.

While Ike may have seen the costs of putting a man on the moon as a boondoggle, this green effort has more ominous consequences than 25 billion dollars to stick it to the Soviets. This crisis is created by the celebrated "American way of life". Its our cars, our food, the temperature of our homes, even the light bulbs we use. This call for Americans to work together on a new "Manhattan Project" or "Apollo Mission" to combat "climate change" is a permission slip for the government into the life of the private citizen that would make Hitler drool. This is a back door attack on capitalism and must be recognized as such. Capitalism itself isn't directly questioned, just its results: unfettered access to fossil fuels, oil company profits, bigger cars, private jets, unlimited travel, larger homes, cheap light bulbs, cheap anything really. Instead of our affluence coming at the expense of the "proletariat", it now comes at the expense of "Mother Earth". For a self described middle-of-the-road conservative, James Hansen has certainly let himself become the pawn of big government socialists.

Give it the Ol' Prussian Try

NBC's Brian Williams to graduates in Columbus Ohio:

"...I come here today with a request for the Class of '08: We need you to fix the country -- and I'm sorry to ask this of you. And I'm deadly serious and we really do. I am 49 and on behalf of my generation, I'm so sorry, the Internet is so cool we got sidetracked. I can burn an hour on Perez Hilton like that. And I know I speak for a lot of you: WebMD, very cool, except anything I've ever punched in comes back “thyroid cancer."

This on its own is fine, well, not fine, but no more than typical liberal drivel about fixing the country that conservatives have supposedly run into the ground. However, when you combine it with what he says later, something emerges:

"Dial in and pay attention, and I say that as part of a group we all have to start thinking and acting as one. There are, as of this week, 117 million blogs in the United States. One more time: 117 million blogs. And I stand here today as one of them. And what do most of us bloggers talk about? Us. And the problem is we need to start talking about us, all of us. We need to start thinking of us as the collective, the United States that we used to know. It's going to require a lot of work."

This is fascist. I'm not calling Brian Williams a racist or an anti-Semite. Most people don't realize that fascism doesn't require racism. I don't think Brian Williams is evil, I don't even think he knows he's extolling fascism, but the fascist undertones are clear. When Williams asks us all to start thinking and acting as one, he's unwittingly using a fascist talking point. Subvert the individual, emphasize the collective will. Don't worry about yourself, worry about the Nation. Combine this with what he said earlier about fixing the country, and you have an appeal to fascism. Rejecting partisanship in order to come together as one body politic, one nation, to correct whatever "wrong turn" society has made with one collective will is a call to action right out of a Mussolini speech.

People don't realize how much political discourse in this country and around the world is rooted in a fascist line of thought. I'm sure Mr. Williams was just trying to give an inspiring speech and as far as I know he's a decent human being, but I think its important to point out the totalitarian instincts that lurk below the surface in our supposedly free, liberal, western society.