How Leftist ideologues Think.

Posted by on May 15, 2012 No comments
Democratic Party Ideology is recycled Fascism

With a few exceptions, the entire ideology of today's leftists is just recycled fascism.

I have set out the case for what the actual motivations of Leftist ideologues are — but Leftists themselves would be very unlikely to salute any of it. It is of some interest therefore to try to see things from their own point of view. And Olavo de Carvalho has done sterling work there.

He deals principally with extreme Leftists (“Revolutionaries”) but points out that the same mentality pervades Leftist “thinkers” generally. He says that Leftists are fixated on a view of utopia. They justify themselves as seeking the betterment of mankind according to quite Christian standards. They want everyone to be loving and sharing to one-another at some future time.

And the fact that they are fixated on this beneficent vision excuses everything that they might do and gives them huge psychic benefits. It allows them to see themselves as kindly and wise even while they lie, cheat and brutalize others in pursuit of their goals. The vision is all and excuses all.

Utopia is of course unattainable but the thinking concerned is a powerful form of self-deception.

Lets consider Leftism in much more detail and focus on Leftist leaders and activists:

Because they are very influential, this monograph will focus primarily on Leftist leaders: Politicians, activists, ideologues, intellectuals, academics and preachers of Leftism generally. And there is no claim that what is true of them is also true of the average Leftist voter. Among the leaders too, there will be a variety of motivations but what the great majority of them say and do can be seen as fitting a common power-seeking and praise-hungry pattern — and that pattern is the one that is of greatest interest here. It will be seen that most Leftist policies can be traced back to that source

It is now clear that Rightists are not systematically opposed to change but that “Western” Leftists seek it eagerly — so attitude to social change is the defining characteristic of the political Left rather than of the political Right. Rightism (“conservatism”) and Leftism are not opposites or mirror images, however, so Rightists in general are neither for nor against change as such. When they do want change, the changes that they favour are usually ones that remove or reduce interference in their lives by others.

Today's Democrat party and their ideology is nothing more than recycled Fascism.

The Leftist’s dissatisfaction with the world about him and his burning desire to change it can come from many sources but for Leftist leaders and other preachers of Leftism in the economically successful “Western” democracies (“liberals” in contemporary North American terms), the major motivation is to fulfil the ego needs of the Leftist himself — needs for self-advertisement, self-promotion, excitement, influence and ultimately power. And the prime source of power is the state, so Leftists love the state.

It was all summed up rather well in the debate over ratification of the U.S. constitution that took place in the 1780s. The debate was between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The anti-Federalists distrusted central government power and could be seen as most akin to the conservatives of today — though both sides would be seen as conservative by today’s standards. With prophetic insight, the anti-Federalist “Brutus IV” wrote what could be seen as a pretty good description of today’s Democratic party leadership:

“…It is not to be expected that a legislature will be found in any country that will not have some of its members, who will pursue their private ends, and for which they will sacrifice the public good. Men of this character are, generally, artful and designing, and frequently possess brilliant talents and abilities; they commonly act in concert, and agree to share the spoils of their country among them; they will keep their object ever in view [government-controlled health care, anyone?], and follow it with constancy [sought since the 1930's]. To effect their purpose, they will assume any shape, and, Proteus like, mould themselves into any form – where they find members proof against direct bribery or gifts of offices, they will endeavor to mislead their minds by specious and false reasoning, to impose upon their unsuspecting honesty by an affectation of zeal for the public good; they will form juntos, and hold out-door meetings; they will operate upon the good nature of their opponents, by a thousand little attentions, and teize them into compliance by the earnestness of solicitation. Those who are acquainted with the manner of conducting business in public assemblies, know how prevalent art and address are in carrying a measure, even over men of the best intentions, and of good understanding. … It is probable, … the powerful influence that great and designing men have over the honest and unsuspecting, by their art and address, their soothing manners and civilities, and their cringing flattery, joined with their affected patriotism; when these different species of influence are combined, it is scarcely to be hoped that a legislature, composed of so small a number, as the one proposed by the new constitution, will long resist their force.”

And that was written in 1787!

The Marxist in Chief, Taking what is not his... (We call this theft... He calls it "Social Justice")

Leftists do not like all changes. Because power is their underlying motivation Leftists/liberals dislike the power-reducing changes that conservatives favour — such as neo-liberal (pro-market) change. Change of that sort threatens the Leftist’s access to power. We also see the primacy of power in the old Soviet system. We saw there that Leftists who had gained power suddenly became very opposed to change. The desire for change is at its base the desire for one particular sort of change: Putting Leftists in power so that they can reshape society into a mould that feels good to them. And why is power sought so single-mindedly? Why the single-minded egotism? At the deepest level, the Leftist leader appears to be psychopathic — with the psychopathic disregard for all norms, morals, standards and ethics in the ruthless quest for personal praise and satisfaction.

It is because of their quest for power that Leftists come into conflict with conservatives. History shows that what has always motivated conservatives is resistance to government power — in particular government encroachment on individual rights and liberties. So conservatives may either favour or oppose change to promote that cause.

A description of the political attitude domain in terms of two dimensions rather than a single Left/Right dimension is rejected here on both empirical and theoretical grounds. The pervasiveness and evolutionary origins of egotism and reality denial generally are also briefly considered below.

The most detailed causal chain proposed for preachers of Leftism, then, is as follows: Psychopathic personality > high ego need > hatred of an indifferent world > need for change > need for power > love of the State

Psychopaths are normally seen as lacking in emotions so it may seem perverse to say that Leftist leaders are both psychopathic and motivated by rage — and it is certainly not asserted that ALL Leftist leaders are psychopathic. Psychopaths are however not totally lacking in emotions. What they lack is normal emotions. And one emotion that they do definitely display is rage — in particular outrage at what they see as poor treatment of themselves by those around them. And Leftist intellectuals in particular display feeling of that sort too. It really burns them up that they are not as well-paid or as influential as successful businessmen, for instance.

Note that I am talking about sub-clinical psychopathy above: psychopaths who are not so extreme as to get themselves into trouble with the law and the mental health system. Most human characteristics exist in degrees so a subclinical psychopath has normal human emotions to some degree rather than a total absence of such emotions. And there are, sadly, various avenues in life where some lack of normal human emotions can be advantageous — anything requiring deceit, for instance. And Leftist leaders need a lot of deceit if they are to persuade people of the benefit in what are actually destructive schemes.

Obama and his Keynesian Idiots’ Economic Fantasy.

Posted by on May 12, 2012 No comments

Keynesian exuberance for the powers of stimulating demand or the ‘consumer’ has been in vogue since the 1930s. It is sheer nonsense which is taught in every school across the globe. Keynesian economics is little more than intellectual pablum used by those in power or by a technocratic and largely illiterate elite to increase their power; enhance government; print money and otherwise destroy normal economic relationships. Keynes’ theory, so believed by professors is in practice a disaster.

Keynes was a left wing wall flower and a member of the deranged Bloomsbury group of inter-World War British pacifists. He was an arrogant theorist who truly believed in the magical elixir of large government and in the technocratic dream of controlling billions of personal, business and economic decisions, to programmatically construct a perfect world order. Keynes gave intellect and jargon filled cover and rationale to politicians and demagogues who would cite his book, ‘The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money’, to justify state interventionism.

According to this theory which has failed in practice every time it has been tried, governments can stimulate an economy through granting consumers, workers and businesses sums of borrowed money. This is termed a ‘stimulus’. This debt or current deficit financing stimulus, is then paid back or retired, when the economy strengthened by consumer spending and business investment, produces a surplus of tax revenues. The stimulus is needed, so argued Keynes, to overcome business cycles, downturns and unexpected events which would decrease jobs, increase unemployment and impact state revenues. By macro and micro-managing economic and production processes, the state, so thought Keynes, would avoid cyclical variations and ensure that the lowest level of unemployment could be maintained. Government power was thus indispensable to full employment and income equality.

There are many problems with such a counter-rational plan to economic management. None of Keynes’ core assumptions make sense when they are analysed either separately or together. Business cycles have historically been caused by governments, and they are usually a response to government policies to increase the size of the state through trade barriers, higher taxation, more spending, more regulation and programs of fear and compliance. The Great Depression, the 70s Stagflation and the current financial crisis are all obvious examples of this fact. Government causing economic malaise would appear to mean that government programs are not the solutions required to either get out of an economic downturn, nor to prevent future derailments from taking place.

The main impact of Keynesian economic stimuli is to increase debt; raise future tax rates and distort the normal functionings of economic markets and personal and corporate decision making. Governments choose winners and confirm losers. The winners will include companies which get bailed out, those receiving welfare, unions and others having their jobs protected, those receiving redistributed incomes and those paid off for political support. The losers invariably include firms both domestic and international who want fair and free trade; higher income families; small businesses who are classified under high income categories; future generations who must pay off the debt; and consumers who pay a higher costs for all products and services.

Under Keynesian philosophy, government and technocrats assume the role of God. Given the poverty of God heads throughout history, this is probably not a noble supposition to support.

Brian Reidl from Heritage Institute wrong an excellent article recently on the fallacy that government spending, or what is termed Keynesian deficit spending, run by God-heads, is beneficial (see Reidl
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/authors.aspx?GUID=220a4261-b3c8-4338-a5be-62bcc3f3b8d3). In this article he makes the following important points about demand-side management and the Keynesian fetish for economic control.

“Government cannot create new purchasing power out of thin air. If Congress funds new spending with taxes, it is simply redistributing existing income. If Congress instead borrows the money from domestic investors, those investors will have that much less to invest or to spend in the private economy. If Congress borrows the money from foreigners, the balance of payments will adjust by equally reducing net exports, leaving GDP unchanged. Every dollar Congress spends must first come from somewhere else.

This does not mean that government spending has no economic impact at all. Government spending often alters the consumption of total demand, such as increasing consumption at the expense of investment.”
When stimulus packages are created the money has to come from someone via taxes, or be printed. Both are net negatives to the economy. Economic growth only results from producing more goods and services (not from redistributing existing income), and that requires productivity growth and growth in the labor supply as productivity not only increases wealth but also wages and wage opportunities.

Historically of course government spending has reduced productivity and long-term economic growth due to some obvious reasons. As government spends more it raises taxes which reduces profits, productivity and wage and job creation. As government incurs more debt through stimulus and demand side packages it reduces the incentive to produce and displaces money by removing the more productive private sector from the economic equation and replacing it with a far less effective state dollar, taxed or printed on government printing press. The inefficiency of government policy in health, housing, education, and general industry are obvious creating huge costs which must be borne by ordinary taxpayers – ineffective solutions at a higher price one can say.

And as Reidl sources and proves:
“Mountains of academic studies show how government expansions reduce economic growth:

  1. Public Finance Review reported that “higher total government expenditure, no matter how financed, is associated with a lower growth rate of real per capita gross state product.” 
  2. The Quarterly Journal of Economics reported that “the ratio of real government consumption expenditure to real GDP had a negative association with growth and investment,” and “growth is inversely related to the share of government consumption in GDP, but insignificantly related to the share of public investment.” 
  3. A Journal of Macroeconomics study discovered that “the coefficient of the additive terms of the government-size variable indicates that a 1% increase in government size decreases the rate of economic growth by 0.143%.” 
  4. Public Choice reported that “a one percent increase in government spending as a percent of GDP (from, say, 30 to 31%) would raise the unemployment rate by approximately .36 of one percent (from, say, 8 to 8.36 percent).” 

It is obvious that Keynesian economics and demand management are tools for fools. Wealth, a better society, a cleaner world, a higher level of development is not coerced by government. It only occurs when free people operating in free markets are allowed to interact and determine the price and supply of various goods and services. Government involvement ensures the opposite and is a theory mired in cultish theological absurdity.

Democrat Voter Fraud Alive and Well in America

Posted by on April 25, 2012 No comments

It doesn’t take a genius to understand exactly why Democrats fight tooth and nail against the simple and virtually universal requirement to show ID to establish your true identity when voting. The reason is painfully simple. Democrat votes are for sale. The politician offering the most money from the public trough wins. Illegal votes virtually always go to the Democrat offering the most free money from the treasury. There is NO other reason to violate the fundamental logic of requiring Identification when voting.

Over 80% of Americans support VoterID law.  over 80% of Americans support congressional term limits.  its no coincidence that these two wishes are universally ignored by Democrat politicians.

This incredible video illustrates the absolute stupidity of the Democrat position… A position that reveals a desperate desire to hang on to their illegal votes, and to blatantly disregard the wishes of ACTUAL American citizens.

Whenever faced with choosing the will of the American people, they decide they would rather go left-wing radical. In the current case in Texas, Obama’s Justice Department has attacked Texas’ voter identification law, saying that Texas has not proven that the law is not discriminatory. Give me a break! Is it too much to ask that someone be able to prove his or her identity before voting?  NO.  its NOT.

This kind of nonsense goes to the heart of the Obama Administration, and their fabricated issues and “Movements” like OWS… that gaggle of children screaming for a new toy from the toy store, and rolling on the floor screaming if they don’t get it… But that’s another article..

In America, the vote is sacred. It’s how our entire system of government runs. Americans vote for the direction they want the country to go, whether through elections of officials, ballot initiatives, or other propositions. In order for the country to run properly, the vote must be respected and must be a pure process.

We read all the time about voter fraud, and its no surprise that when ever we do, its being carried out by a Democrat. ACORN, Obama’s puppet agency, registered thousands of bogus people, and the list goes on and on. It makes perfect sense that if the vote is such an important part of American society, that being able to vote and being able to prove you are who you say your are go hand in hand. Apparently, that’s not what Obama believes… SHOCKER… Obama has proven time and again that he is nothing more than a Marxist Tyrant, and has absolutely zero interest the will of the people, or in the constitution for that matter.


According to a recent report, the “Justice Department is objecting to a new photo ID law in Texas for voters, saying the state has failed to demonstrate that the the law is not discriminatory by design against Hispanic voters.”

Here’s an excerpt from that report:

The department’s head of the civil rights division, Tom Perez, wrote a a six-page letter to Texas’ director of elections saying that Texas has not “sustained its burden” under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to show that the new law will not have a discriminatory effect on minority voters. About 11 percent of Hispanic voters reportedly lack state-issued identification.

Perez wrote that while the state says the new photo ID requirement is to “ensure electoral integrity and deter ineligible voters from voting” the state “did not include evidence of significant in-person voter impersonation not already addressed by the state’s existing laws.”

Perez added that the number of people lacking any personal ID or driver’s license issued by the state ranges from from 603,892 to 795,955, but of that span, 29-38 percent of them are Hispanic.

In the Associated Press story on GOPUSA, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said “the Obama administration is hostile to laws like the one passed last year in Texas.”

Hostile? I’d say that’s an understatement. This is a common sense law designed to protect the integrity of the ballot box. Is that so hard to understand? It’s fortunate that Obama continues to wipe his Ass with our constitution, and as a consequence, drive “Non Leftists” to the voting booth to vote against him in massive waves. When we hurl him out of office this November we’ll preserve our voting rights, strengthen them, and establish once and for all, that you MUST prove your eligibility to vote in this country.  For that matter, we’ll fix the broken system with regard to proving your eligibility to run for office too.

What if the Constitution No Longer Applied

Posted by on April 19, 2012 No comments

By Andrew P. Napalitano

What if the whole purpose of the Constitution was to limit the government?

What if Congress’ enumerated powers in the Constitution no longer limited Congress, but were actually used as justification to extend Congress’ authority over every realm of human life? What if the president, meant to be an equal to Congress, has become a democratically elected, term-limited monarch? What if the president assumed everything he did was legal, just because he’s the president? What if he could interrupt your regularly scheduled radio and TV programming for a special message from him? What if he could declare war on his own? What if he could read your emails and texts without a search warrant? What if he could kill you without warning?

What if the rights and principles guaranteed in the Constitution have been so distorted in the past 200 years as to be unrecognizable by the Founders? What if the states were mere provinces of a totally nationalized and fully centralized government? What if the Constitution was amended stealthily, not by constitutional amendments duly passed by the states, but by the constant and persistent expansion of the federal government’s role in our lives? What if the federal government decided whether its own powers were proper and constitutional?

What if you needed a license from the government to speak, to assemble or to protest the government? What if the right to keep and bear arms only applied to the government? What if posse comitatus – the law that prohibits our military from our streets – were no longer in effect? What if the government considered the military an adequate dispenser of domestic law enforcement? What if cops looked and acted like troops and you couldn’t distinguish the military from the police? What if federal agents could write their own search warrants in defiance of the Constitution? What if the government could decide when you weren’t entitled to a jury trial?

What if the government could take your property whenever it wanted it? What if the government could continue prosecuting you until it got the verdict it wanted? What if the government could force you to testify against yourself simply by labeling you a domestic terrorist? What if the government could torture you until you said what the government wanted to hear? What if people running for president actually supported torture? What if the government tortured your children to get to you? What if the government could send you to your death and your innocence meant nothing so long as the government’s procedures were followed? What if America’s prison population, the largest in the world, was the result of a cruel and unusual way for a country to be free? What if half the prison population never harmed anyone but themselves?

What if the people had no rights except those the government chose to let them have? What if the states had no rights except to do as the federal government commanded? What if our elected officials didn’t really live among us, but all instead had their hearts and their homes in Washington, D.C.? What if the government could strip you of your rights because of where your mother was when you were born? What if the income tax was unconstitutional? What if the states were convinced to give up their representation in Congress? What if the government tried to ban you from using a substance older than the government itself? What if voting didn’t mean anything anymore because both political parties stand for Big Government?

What if the government could write any law, regulate any behavior and tax any event, the Constitution be damned? What if the government was the reason we don’t have a Constitution anymore? What if you could love your country but hate what the government has done to it? What if sometimes to love your country, you had to alter or abolish the government? What if Jefferson was right? What if that government is best which governs least? What if I’m right? What if the government is wrong? What if it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong? What if it is better to perish fighting for freedom than to live as a slave? What if freedom’s greatest hour of danger is now?

 

The Democrat War on Women

Posted by on April 13, 2012 No comments

Thanks to leftist Democrat Hilary Rosen’s vicious attack on Ann Romney claiming that she has never had a “real job”, the conservative base of the GOP is now united in one front, to call out marxist leftism. Ann Romney, mother of 5 boys and a survivor of multiple sclerosis and breast cancer, is a testament to the many mothers who made the selfless service of putting their families first.

The whole notion of a right wing war on women is “invented” by Democrats because it turns out the stimulus “didn’t work out so well.” So in a last-ditch effort to appeal to women voters, Democrat marxists are arguing that Republicans are against women…  Yet another bold faced lie from the left.

Obama would have a tough time campaigning on his economic record with rising gas prices (an average of $7 a gallon on Catalina Island in California). The stimulus didn’t work out so well and Obama has a massive problem.  In the last couple of months the Democrat Marxists have invented a phony war on women.

There is no war on women. There’s a war FOR women.  But unless you fall into lock goose step with the Democrat Marxist view that women must bur their bras, vote for the current leftist retard running for office, then you are at war with women. Democrats are truly mentally deranged.

For the moment, the stream of lies seems to be having a minimal effect, but is rapidly backfiring on Democrats.

Warning… Truth incoming…

The disgusting and untrue Class Warfare narrative that Democrats are trying very hard to create is that it was wrong for Ann Romney to be a stay-at-home mother because doing so is a “luxury” most people can’t afford.  The records show that the “poor” Obama family only earned a combined income of $479,062.00 when their daughters were 4 and 7. By comparison the median household income from 2004-2005 in the United States was $46,071.00.

How did that poor Obama family ever manage to get by on just $432,991.00 more than the average U.S. family? Must have been tough. Barack Obama pulled in $162,100.00 that year (2005) which was a whopping $116,029.00 more than the average U.S. family.

And Democrats are pushing the story that they represent the average American because Ann Romney was privileged?  Hypocrite much?

This goes beyond attacking the wife of a presidential candidate. (Something that Barry called ‘out of bounds’ during his run for the nomination…) This is a vile attack on conservative women nationwide. According to the logic of the marxist left, if you choose to raise a child instead of aborting one, you are less of a woman. We have seen countless, vicious and character attacks on women of conservative ideology. Sarah Palin, for example, was criticized and scorned by the marxist left for raising a child with Down syndrome while pursuing her career. Black conservative women are CONSTANTLY being targeted for their belief in the pro-life movement, small government and for their opposition to Obama’s marxist policies.

Obama wants to vocalize his support for women, but the facts say otherwise. Women employees at the White House make 18 percent less of the median salary as do male employees. According to Amy Sullivan of TIME Magazine, the Obama administration is described as a “boy’s club” and suggested that the president has a woman problem. It is reported that senior women staffers are seen and not heard during policy meetings.

It is an outrage that left wing marxists attack women instead of having a constructive dialogue about the core issues affecting Americans today. The REAL war on women is the economic plight that they are experiencing due to big government spending, high unemployment rate, a raking deficit and a incompetent President who is opposed to job creation that will benefit many women in the U.S. today.

The left’s war on women affects the family as a whole. It is indeed the demonizing of the mother figure, the husband that supports her, and the children that have grown to admire her. This war must be stopped and the best way to put it to a stop is at the ballot box in November… Not just to eject Obama and his marxist regime, but to eject every last Democrat Marxist from our Federal, State, and Local governments.