If you have watched or listened to Glenn Beck lately your first thought would be comparing Obama to FDR is not a good thing. But those on the left view FDR as almost God like. I’m glad Obama wasn’t president when WWII broke out. His dithering and appeasing foreign policy would have been disastrous for the U.S. & the world.
I think every day Jimmy Carter thanks God for Obama. Now Jimmy isn’t the worse president ever.
Not remotely comparable to either one of them. Hoover was an engineer and executive who ran Russian relief efforts; also a man of broad intellectual interests. (he and his wife Lou translated the classic late-medieval work on mining–a very long book–from Latin into English, just for fun) FDR was an optimist who gave every appearance of actually *liking* Americans, and who was willing to wage serious war against evil regimes.
Sui generis – and I hope someone’s had the common sense to break the mold.
2010 – 65 years after The Bomb:
Hiroshima as a big prosperous city of homes, businesses, and bright lights…
2010 – Detroit, Michigan looks worse than Hiroshima, and looks like it will take much longer to recover (and may not).
Progressives (and subversive actions) are more damaging than nuclear bombs
HH
(New record!)
There is only one US president whose competence rates comparison to Odumbo, Jefferson Davis.
Even by those standards O is unique (I looked up sui generis, thanks for making me more literate). In fact, assuming the US survives this guy (that may be a presumptuous statement) how will US history describe him and what excuse will be given for his election?
Obama will be remembered in a whole new category. Idealochistic. The deadly mixture of both idealism and masochism together in an attempt to pull off the Free World’s murder suicide.
Well, to point out the obvious, Jeff Davis was president of the Confederate States of America. So he was an “American” president, but not a “U.S.” one.
I’d say that Obama comes closest to James Buchanan in terms of incompetence and inability to satisfy anyone on either side. While Obama enrages his base for continuing to follow many of Bush’s antiterrorist policies, his economic policies give little comfort to the Right. Nobody is happy. Buchanan was in a similar position as the country descended into partition, then civil war. In the end, his own party didn’t even renominate him.
I think it is safe to say that had The Won been president in 1940, we wouldn’t have been drawn into the war, as we wouldn’t have embargoed oil shipments (and other war material such as steel) to Japan.
India falls, so does the USSR, and we wake up surrounded on both sides of the oceans in about 1946. von Braun feverishly working on a new missile that could go across continents, and others working on fission weapons.
I’m pretty sure Einstein’s letter would have fallen on large, but deaf, ears.
Sui generis- is he a generous swine (with other people’s money)?
Both FDR and Obama attended Harvard Law, and Columbia
Both Are Progressives who presented as Democrats
Both Surrounded themselves with Communists / Socialists / Progressives
Both Are charismatic populous leaders
Both Pursued and were in offices during times of economic crisis which they exacerbated for Progressive ends
Both regarded the Constitution as an outdated piece of inconvenient paper
FDR appointed the first Czars, and Obama (and Bush) extended them (FDR 11, Bush 32, Obama 40 (with more like the Asian Carp Czar on their way).
Both Appointed Supreme Court judges like Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, whose constitutional philosophy can be summed up as “the constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.”
Both Elections were “Realigning Elections”
Both had record unemployment
Both had wild stock market gyrations as a response to their policies
Both had youth corps, FDR National Youth Administration, Obama Americorps, “which provided part-time work to millions of high school and college students”
One had the CCC, the other created a Green Jobs initiative, “Call it the new Civilian Conservation Corps. — Robert Reich”
Both created “Brain Trusts”, see Newsweek “Obama’s Brain Trust”
-A new series from the Council on Foreign Relations…
[see many more brain trust articles in Science news, Huffington post, Wapo, NPR, Bloomberg, etc]
Both talked about a “Second Bill of Rights”, a set of “positive rights” as Obama has said, and FDR said in his 1944 State of the Union Address. Many which also parallel the positive rights as delineated in the constitution of the Soviet Union. [the efforts of the state to get housing for all is the implementation of such and idea sans its prior establishment, which makes establishment easier.]
Both immediately moved to centralize power to their selves, FDR with currency control, Obama with moving the census bureau into the executive department from the commerce department.
Both vilified business men as the first scape-goats in a long list of them. “rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence.… The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. FDR”
Both spoke of the “forgotten man”…
Both partially nationalized dominant industries of their time (the difference), FDR with the Tennessee Valley Authority, Obama by using state money to buy stakes in auto companies (and banks).
Both created laws/policies that inflated costs during hard times, FDR with Agricultural Adjustment Act hitting food, Cash for Clunkers now hitting the car market. Both programs forced businesses to destroy product as a way of raising prices.
Both expanded the concept of state support through redistributing wealth (communism/socialism/progressivism), FDR creating social security, Obama with Universal Health Care
Both were Times Man/Person of the year, FDR 1932, 1934, 1941. Obama, 2008.
[They are both in the company of Hitler (1938), Stalin (1939, 1942), Khrushchev (1957), Khomeini (1979), Truman (1945, 1948), Eisenhower (1944, 1959), Kennedy (1961), LBJ (1964, 1967), Nixon (1971,1972), Carter (1976), Reagan (1980,1983 with Yuri Andropov), Bush Senior (1990), Clinton (1992,1998), Bush Younger (2000), Charles Lindberg (1927), Generalissimo and Madame Chiang Kai-Shek (1937 (Taiwan has a different view of them than we do)), Corazon Aquino (1986), Walter Chrysler (1928), and many more…]
Both had a thing regarding colonialism
Both were/are obtuse as to Eugenics and funding the programs by other means for the same PROGRESSIVE ends (new socialist man, perfection of man in utopia, etc).
Two movements developed in response to these fears. Both considered the nation a “race” that could be strengthened by keeping the birth rate of the “fit” (the affluent) above that of the “unfit” (the poor). They differed only in whose birth rate they wanted to change. (teddy decried the use of birth control as “criminal against the race”)
The strain that became dominant was the one the feminists liked more, as they had their roots in the free sex movement (ergo their goals vs common women’s desires and the huge split that is ignored). This group, rather than preventing abortion and birth control, thought to support and promote it, while forcing the birth rates of the unfit by controlling the conditions and culture of these groups.
Eugenics without birth control seemed to me a house
built upon sands…The eugenicists wanted to shift the
birth-control emphasis from less children for the poor
to more children for the rich. We went back of that and
sought to stop the multiplication of the unfit.” Sanger
it was in the 30s, with FDR that they became permanently normalized and pretty much ignored as to what they were doing in the larger scheme of things (still ignored as its not trendy to pay attention to it, ie not PC).
Under FDR programs funding state control, and his great relationship with hitler and stalin as to their common ideas, ideals, and goals. The great depression was a opportunity for them to place clinics in urban poor areas (still 4X more there now), and facilitate eugenics under many other means, which changed and evolved to keep up with the conditions of the times.
With the shoa becoming public knowledge, the division between the two programs had to be clear. The Nazi used a ‘positive’ approach, while the feminists used “negative” approaches. Birth Control Review (Sangers Newsletter), praised the Nazi birth control and population programs (as they also returned this favor). Sanger and feminists were represented at the world Population congress…
Its interesting to read the Ethel Remington Hepburn papers…
Ethel Remington Hepburn’s early career was on the vaudeville stage, where she formed a lifelong friendship with legendary performer Eva Tanguay. She later became a professional writer, as well as the mother of ten children. She was a long-time supporter of access to birth control.
[the connection to Katherine Hepburn is interesting… Hepburn was born in Hartford, Connecticut, the daughter of suffragette Katharine Martha Houghton (1878 — 1951) (an heiress to the Corning Glass fortune and co-founder of Planned Parenthood) and Dr. Thomas Norval Hepburn (1879 — 1962). // They kind of bury the history, unless you do a bit of digging… // (makes her movies like adams rib more than just parts)
I digress too much…
Both Obama and FDR have a dislike of Jews… see Arthur Schlesinger
If I go on and it gets longer I will be lynched…
I think every day Jimmy Carter thanks God for Obama. Now Jimmy isn’t the worse president ever.
Bullseye. I’ve thought that many times. Jimmy’s off the hook.
Not remotely comparable to either one of them. Hoover was an engineer and executive who ran Russian relief efforts; also a man of broad intellectual interests. (he and his wife Lou translated the classic late-medieval work on mining—a very long book—from Latin into English, just for fun) FDR was an optimist who gave every appearance of actually *liking* Americans, and who was willing to wage serious war against evil regimes.
Another bullseye.
If I had to choose a Dopperlganger, it would be latter-day (but before the stroke) Woodrow Wilson. Dangerously idealistic, politically inept, woefully naive. Segregates the armed forces and then by being outmaneuvered by prostrate European powers helps to plant the seeds of WWII through his ineptitude.
Although the very most apt Presidential comparison, in so very many ways, is Sukarno.
Hoover was an internationally known mining engineer with a string of groundbreaking accomplishments including success at commercial ventures. He has little in common with empty suit Obama.
Artfldgr
You are really good!
That reminds me of something. You know how Barry taught some courses on law so he’s a “professor”? Guess what, Hoover taught engineering courses so I guess that means he’s a professor too. Apparently he was so good at it his lectures got turned into a text book, “Principles of Mining” and it apparently became the standard text book on the subject. In a way you could argue he’s more entitled to being called professor than Barry is.
“One of the outstanding features of the present conference is…that these two great movements, eugenics and birth control, have now come together as almost indistinguishable.” Dr. Fairchild BCFA meeting “Race Building in a Democracy,” 1940
Birth Control Review, Sangers newsletter, also pointed out this meeting also created the fund drive for “The Citizens Committee for Planned Parenthood.”
[where wealthy people could give money to fund the practice of facilitating the reduction of the unfit through free clinics, and negative social conditions]
Planned Parenthood was the product of that union..
Hiding and distancing itself, and renamed from its “negro project” days, by public relations and social engineering to spin things and save a key progressive social engineering program.
[ergo obamas breaking his promise as to funding]
Sanger hired D. Kenneth Rose as public relations consultant Rose recommended that they drop “birth control” from their name and use “planned parenthood” instead. Sanger objected, but “In 1942 the new organization changed its name to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). It was the only national birth-control organization until the abortion-reform movement that began in the late 1960s.”
reading the hepburn stuff you see how they worked to place articles in newspapers, and other magazines, and even start magazines. all this reaching back even farther to Lucifer bringer of light, the paper of Moses Harmon which later became American Eugenics…
(if your going to have free love sexual utopia, its a downer that so many people are not pretty, have sex hangups, etc. no?)
New language came with the new name. Old arguments based on heredity and
racial stock disappeared, tainted by their association with Nazism. The new
rhetoric focused on the environment, and birth control clinics became family
planning centers. But the movement’s basic tactic, using poverty to force the
poor to have fewer children, remained unchanged.
Gordon explains:
Furthermore, in its new emphasis on health, Planned
Parenthood continued its eugenic traditions. Class, or
income level, now replaced “stock” as the determining
criteria, but many planned-parenthood arguments rested
on the assumption that the children of the poor would
be less healthy than the children of the rich; and since
they did not suggest that better nutrition or medical
care could change these health destinies, their arguments
continued to reinforce hereditarian views.[20]
of course womens studies completely erases these facts, and the correspondence with hitler, and so on.
how else could they retain the most powerful state control over demographic breeding?
[and by couching it as trendy, and a womans right, they get an army of women to support their own familial lines extinctions – which fulfills the old unchanged goal of more for the fit (nancy pelosi has 5 kids), less for the unfit (middle class/poor being demographically changed)]
In 1943 Sanger founded an organization
dedicated to the forced sterilization of the “unfit.”
Before World War II, groups promoting sterilization and immigration restriction had an agenda much like that of birth controllers. Because, of their efforts, laws permitting the forced sterilization of people judged “unfit” were passed in some 37 states. In its never overturned 1927 Buck v. Bell decision the Supreme Court declared such laws constitutional.
cant have progressivism without the progressives goals, and you cant replace all other goals (change), with progressives goals, if progressivism is allowed to evolve and change as well.
so they are unchanged in goals, only methods, means, and social engineering.
“Sterilize all the unfit, among whom I include all fundamentalists.” Laski to Holmes…
its pertinent as the mask was lifted a bit by the Obama administration in its selections and appointments and funding. Pelosi says govt contraception will help the economy as funding for “family planning services” was inthe stimulous package.
and one only has to collect the quotes from the current progressive caucus members to get that they are with the program, and its negative ends, and willing to facilitate the social enginnering means of finding some excuse that will stick.
let me show it in another way.
a parent takes a gameboy from their child as a punishment for a time…
social engineering is what the child does to get the toy back before the terms or conditions have been met. its just a collection of saying and leveraging anything you can think of as an acceptable reason.
but i will be bored without the toy
i learned my lesson, can i have it back
i will hold my breath
its dark in the car, can i play a little?
but X mother doesnt take the game away from Y
i will scream
this is the debate of the left..
the social engineering as a method to sell us on a goal in some form that makes it pallatable… and distancing from unpallatable forms.
so they turn dead sliced burnt cow, into succulent sizzling steak, and we are too dumb to note how its the same thing. in fact we will then spend endless tracts on how its not the same.
even though its the same organization, same ideology, same people, same goals, same forms, same methods, and all that is different is the language and social engineering angles, which avoid real debate (which they lose).
just to show they have the SAME idea of fit and unfit and how it helps them…
“Well, the family planning services reduce cost,” Pelosi answered. “They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those — one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.”
after wwii, they went from forced, to voluntary… but thats the point.. as the latter is combined with the state controllign the outcome of peoples lives by design.
disenfranchise, high taxes, etc..
mix with voluntary pre paid services..
and you get what?
the SAME end as picking the same people and marching them off.
EXCEPT that the public doesn’t scream about it, as Stalin pointed out that one death is a tragedy, but 50 million abortions is a statistic.
WHICH mothers? black mothers? middle class white mothers? they wont break it down in a way that will let you know the targets, that would be racism to do that. convenient.
“The recession appears to have started in late 2007, and declines in births in 2008 and 2009 would be consistent with that,” the CDC said.
the spin doctor that changed the name wasnt the first!!! Dr. Lydia DeVilbiss suggested it first in 1938!
but that was prior to the programs of the progressives and their link to hitler, stalin and mussolini… AFTER That and the publics reaction was clear, they didnt agree with the progressives, this social engineering was taken up.
It was all these laws and programs that prevented Jews from immigrating, and exposed such. Many would die in the death camps beause of these laws.
[edited for length by n-n]
sorry… the sources are massive, and my crumbs end up being meals not morsels. sorry 🙁
1. Bravo, renminbi!
2. OT but in the ballpark: Michael Lewis’s portrait of Greece describes where Obama is taking us economically and socially.
3. I refuse to forget that “compassionate” conservatism was the overture to the Obama tragicomedy.
Eh – HH or FDR? I agree with Neo. BO is one of a kind, and with luck, the only one. His fate will be to serve as a bad example.
a very interesting read that is out there in many copies is: “Medical Science Under Dictatorship” The New England Journal of Medicine
the guiding philosophic principle of recent dictatorships, including that of the Nazis, has been Hegelian in that what has been considered “rational utility” and corresponding doctrine and planning has replaced moral, ethical and religious values.
the following is tweaked a bit from the original
when you read it, remember the quote from Pelosi above, the promotion of Social Justice, the desire to remove the opposition, the experimentation on the public under the guise of social programs or services, etc.
propaganda was highly effective in perverting public opinion and public conscience, in a remarkably short time.
In the medical profession this expressed itself in a rapid decline in standards of professional ethics.
we have passed through this with Dr Planka (if true), Cass Sunstein, Obamacare, etc..
Medical science in Germany collaborated with this Hegelian trend particularly in the following enterprises:
The mass extermination of the chronically sick in the interest of saving “useless” expenses to the community as a whole;
we have this with the higher abortion rates for the economically disadvantaged, and those disenfranchised and frustrated by progressives.
However, we have the soft form, where opportunity and conditions, move masses of people to make similar choices (reinforced by media: how can you bring a child into a world like this? too many people will make global warming. humans are a plague, constant doom and gloom. culture games which once accepted make classes unemployable, and so facilitate ends)
The mass extermination of those considered socially disturbing or racially and ideologically unwanted;
in a soft version these are erased from history, attacked with their attackers not getting punished the same. separation of church and state… unequal treatment. disparate impact, etc.
the individual, inconspicuous extermination of those considered disloyal within the ruling group;
throwing people under the bus following Bukarins first rules for revolutionaries.
and the ruthless use of “human experimental Material”
new math? no child left behind? title IX? ADHD pathologizing boys behavior? Social programs? redistribution? etc..
propaganda barrage was directed against the
traditional compassionate nineteenth-century attitudes toward the chronically ill, and for the adoption of a utilitarian, Hegelian point of view
by other names, expediency and pragmatism, materialism, utilitarianism..
Adults were propagandized by motion pictures, one of which, entitled “I Accuse,” deals entirely with euthanasia. This film depicts the life history of a woman suffering from multiple sclerosis; in it her husband, a doctor, finally kills her to the accompaniment of soft piano music rendered by a sympathetic colleague in an adjoining room.
any one see “Million dollar baby”?
of course if you don’t know “i accuse” its hard to say we are doing the same thing, but softer, no?
want to see the long line normalizing these attitudes permanently? [much to the knowing of the older people, the refugees of history, and other bad places]
From Dark Victory with Humphrey Bogart to You Don’t Know Jack (2010)..
note how many come about 10 years before policy, about the time that the children watching and taking it in, become young adults.
The Event (2003)
The Hours (2002)
It’s My Party (1996) The English Patient (1996)
The Last Supper (1994)
My Life (1993)
The Switch (1992)
Last Wish (1992)
Dying Young (1991)
A Woman’s Tale (1991)
Longtime Companion (1990)
The Right To Die (1987)
Murder or Mercy? (1987)
When The Time Comes (1987)
The Ultimate Solution of Grace Quigley (1985)
Do You Remember Love (1985)
An Early Frost (1985)
Right of Way (1983)
Six Weeks (1982)
Whose Life Is It Anyway? (1981)
On Golden Pond (1981)
A Matter of Life and Death (1981)
look at the actors and actresses, the most progressive.. and tick off how many reflect the sanctity of life and preservation, or how many whose themes are, a person under duress of circumstance makes it easier on themselves, and the people around them, by leaving early for the choir triumphant, or even which ones bring up most religions negative view on such.
[edited for length by n-n]
Dont worry Obamacare will pay for any thumbs injured or strained using the scroll bar to pass over the effort.
I’ll say that Obama has the sloth of James Buchanan, the ineptitude of Jimmy Carter (but with the ideology of a Noam Chomsky brain transplant). I regret to say that if any state wishes to secede from the union, or any foreign country wishes to take American citizens hostage, this may be the optimal moment to do it.
As for the anti vs. pro FDR thing… I have a major disagreement with the Glen Beck* view that all Progressivism was bad to begin with, ab initio **. Progressivism was a broad ranging idea that encompassed everything from regulating working conditions, to giving women the vote, to (notwithstanding Woodrow Wilson’s hyprcrisy) ending racial segregation. There was bad as well… both bad people and bad ideas . . . but as far as I see, it only got as bad as it is now following the 1960s, when the New Left’s Marxism overthrew the pro-American centrist liberalism of the previous generations.
*For the record, I like a lot of what Glen Beck does, and i disagree with some of what he does. I think, for example, that his recent rally was great, and wish I had been there.
**Theres my Latin phrase for the day.
“Regarding these zones, we must conduct a deliberate policy of negative population growth. Through propaganda measures, especially by means of the press, radio, cinema, handbills, short brochures, educational statements, and the like, the population must be convinced over and over again how harmful it is to have a lot of children.
The costs ought to be cited, and then what could have been bought instead.
The great dangers to women’s health that can arise in childbearing could be spelled out, and so forth.
Along with this propaganda, large-scale propaganda must be issued for contraceptives.
Neither advocacy and dissemination of contraceptives, nor abortion, should be illegal.
The establishment of abortion facilities should be positively promoted.
Midwives and assistant medical officers, for instance, can be trained as abortionists….
It is obvious that by systematic application of the above measures, considerable success can be achieved in weakening the substance of the people.”
Is that the abortion eugenics movement here in the US? Germany?
hard to tell if that was written today, or way back…
why is that so?
it was written by Erhard Wetzel, April 1942, as comments on the Generalplan Ost…
that, they were to use sex, abortion, and all that to insure control of russians. (the two words i left out were racial, and russian)
this idea comes straight from american progressives, to hitler, then to russia, THEN back to the US to be implemented here, or rather, to support those who werent succeeding here any more, and make it popular and trendy, and implement exactly the same thing here spinning it all as a social goodness.
and whatever happens, they NEVER teach you about these key people, their writings, etc. OTHERS yes, but not the key stuff that clearly lays out ends and shifts in means when prior means fail.
Where the Nazis’ overpopulation propaganda spoke of Lebensraum, today’s Malthusians talk about “Spaceship Earth.”
Those deceived by the terminology think “sustainable development” means development that is actually sustainable in the long run, in the sense that it can proceed uninterruptedly for the benefit of humanity and without damage to the human environment. Such development of human society is only possible through constant further creative development, in which new scientific discoveries and their technological application define totally new raw materials and raise the productivity of human labor by orders of magnitude. But it is in order to prevent this that the concept of “sustainable development” was concocted.
the advocates of “sustainable development” seldom say precisely what they mean by it. It in fact requires a permanent depression in the industrialized nations of the North and an enforced backwardness in the developing nations, under the U.N. triumvirate of GATT, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.
ergo many meetings and Obama redistribuing wealth to prmote abortion and eugenics in these other countries.
they just gave the United Nations Population Fund 50 million dollars… and the above was being written about the fund back in the 90s when bush was the evil one.
but i case you havent noticed, its both sides playing the middle for fools.
Artfldgr,
I’m impressed but then I’m a sucker for volcanic explosions and tsunamis – as long as nobody gets hurt. Thanks for the show AND the information.
Vladimir Lenin
Mike, along those same lines, I see the Obamas as kind of like Juan and Eva Peron of Argentina. On the surface they were popular due to the cult of personality, but anyone who knew what they were looking at knew that they were up to no good. They took Argentina from the 10th richest nation in the world to a 3rd world country in their 20ish year reign. And they continue to be venerated.
J.L.
read about moses harmon, lillian harmon, and other things that are not comonly known. your idea that it only got bad is a common fallacy. its the false story of a person who strays and has hope of coming back. all false.
Moses Harman (October 12, 1830 — January 30, 1910) was an American schoolteacher and publisher notable for his staunch support for women’s rights. He was prosecuted under the Comstock Law for content published in his anarchist periodical Lucifer the Lightbearer. He was arrested and jailed multiple times for publishing allegedly obscene material. His daughter, Lillian Harman, was also a notable anarchist.
what were Marxists before socialism and communism as defined by marx, and reworked by engels and funded by whom?
Harman has been credited as one of the founders of what became the eugenics movement. “He gave the spur and start to this effort.
Through his journals, Lucifer, the Light Bearer, later re-christened The Eugenic Magazine, encouraged by a small circle of earnest men and women, he dug down below the surface endeavoring to bring forth a stronger and better type of men”
one of the founders of the eugenics movement, heavy into womens rights, free love… hat top to lucifer like saul alinsky…
still think that they had a good period? this is 1830, before Das Capital was a manufactured payola hit (what do you think the wealthy fundnig engels did with the manuscripts?)
all these women and men of this period went to college (while denying women could go).
His daughter added the free love, sexualizetion of yuounger people, abandonment of god, sexual orientation should be different, communal child raising (to facilitate more sex), abortion (to facilitate more sex), no morals (to faciliate more sex).
a kind of turning of the wealthy elite into a bachanalia of sex and drugs and loose relationships, in which their wealth mitigates the huge damage.
that is, if the common follow the wealthy, let the wealthy take on bad habits, which the common take up and leads to the destruction of them since they have not the money or coordination to mitigate. even better if the whole thing is a kind of hat tip ruse that upon closer examination would reveal.
i wonder what people today would think of such passages as to the progressives like lillian?
let me know if this next passage doesnt sound like liberal trolls today
The problem is a difficult one to deal with in the existing condition of society, where the most outrageous wrongs are possible because the people are economically enthralled and are the slaves of the grossest religious and moral superstitions. It is at once manifest that the ignorance fostered by the dominant powers in church, society, and the State is responsible for at least nine-tenths of the suffering resulting from the association of the sexes, both in and out of marriage.
Exactly the same…
but this was said in an “ An Age of Consent” Symposium (1896), by lillian harmen.
there was no period where what they thought of in 1820s sex communes (and anti christian groups), did not think different points than today.
what changes is that they keep playing with things and then keep modifying the methods as they discover what they do, or in desperation of a fix.
the whole idea is to create the utopia they think would be right.
but have you noticed that they dont describe it, so that this utopian vision is filled in by the slaves making it that dont put the pieces together.
its a two class system. elite over victim slave class. its what religious would call a satanic group, but atheists would say is the morals of a world in which there is no oppressive morals or ethics.
given the period and the most pleasurable thing you can have, sex the nintendo of its day relegated to sacred things, is to be unleashed, unlimited, and that any whim or desire, even if it requires a victim, is to be ok. as that would be utopian to those on top.
fill in a few more things, then imagine the polices youwould need to faciliate that…
a victim class of hypersexual beings from childhood to adult..
a underclass of able people who work but own nothing (slaves).
Asymetric rule of law, whats for me aint for thee
complete control over the underclass so they are available to work, be victims, etc. totalitarian, authoritarian, etc.
class stagnation and the removal of creative destruction to prevent new kings on the hill.
restriction and tracking of the common man, and improvement of his breed for qualities of pacifism, lack of response to insults, interchangeable in skills and ability to prevent elite from fighting over the better ones, or using them over others.
destrjuction of the victim classes power bases, and abilities to control their destinies and so prevent removal of these that play this game.
its jsut switching your position and view from one on the bottom trying to make sense, to one on the top, and not nice, who actively work towards these things (they are a minority).
removal of education, and history. to facilitate the illusion in the population of class permanency. this is the way it is, this is the way it will be, this is the way its always been… an endless loop that never changes…
all of these concepts should seem familiar, and uncomfortable… the latter being the indication that you have been had.
nothing has changed at all, which is why yo9u can read this stuff from then, and then read today, and sans key words and changes of turns of prhase, not know when they were written or whether they apply to yesterday or today.
Anna,
It really is “The Obamas” in a sense. Both are America-hating ingrates who were given everything and hate the givers.
The only thing they ever did right, their one and only redeeming quality is that they raised good children and were a good marriage.
They only, however, know how to destroy things. They expect privilege and freebies, but after that their only goal at all is the break things.
That’s what they are. That is what they do. Their principle of being at this point is to “get the man”. They’ve a ghetto philosophy of resentment and loathing.
Artfldgr Says:
“its the false story of a person who strays and has hope of coming back. all false.”
Not exactly. I would liken it to the rotting of a fish. . . a fish that once had both meat that could nourish as well as bones that could choke . . . good (womens rights) and bad (eugenics) . . . but which now is a rotting inedible mass, stinking and attracting flies.
But I’m open to convincing… suffice it to say that we both agree that today’s “progressivism” is something that must be thrown out with the garbage.
article cuts are from iFeminists.com
Feminism employed blatantly white supremacist arguments to further suffrage, pointing out that white women would add to the white vote since they were more likely to vote than minority women.
This argument was adapted to counter the fear of enfranchising immigrant women.
[snip]
For similar reasons, the feminists called for an elitist, limited suffrage; even the former abolitionist, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, supported literacy tests as a pre-requisite for the vote. As Susan B. Anthony and Ida Husted Harper commented:
“… the worst elements have been put into the ballot-box and the best elements kept out. This fatal mistake is even now beginning to dawn upon the minds of those who have cherished an ideal of the grandeur of a republic, and they dimly see that in woman lies the highest promise of its fulfillment. Those who fear the foreign vote will learn eventually that there are more American-born women in the United States than foreign born men and women; and those who dread the ignorant vote will study the statistics and see that the percentage of illiteracy is much smaller among women than among men.”
how nice.. the american sufferage movement was a white supremicist movement who did not want the vote for ALL women, but white women. which was perfectly aligned at the time with the racist woodrwo wilson, the later racist FDR, and obama too as racist (calling others such) .
as feminism grew it became increasingly “respectable” in its attitude and goals. Eugenics and social purity reform, both popular causes, became a staple of mainstream feminism. Social purity campaigns included raising the age of consent, the reformation of prostitutes, censorship of obscenity, and the advocacy of birth control through restraint. As Linda Gordon commented in Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right:
“The closer we look, the harder it is to distinguish social-purity groups from feminist ones. Feminists from very disparate groups were advocates of most major social purity issues . . .”
so is it any wonder that Sanger communicated with Hitler? and their anarchist roots with the free love movement, insured that about that time they started blowing up innocent people to change things. which is why today they have a warm spot for terrorism… which to their followers makes little sense.
today, they have social engineered corrections to public perception, but changing how YOU think doesn’t change how THEY think, only how you think they think, which is the point.
the crucial difference of the post-Civil War feminists seemed to be their willingness to enforce morality through law. While the abolitionist feminists, who were largely Quaker, believed that the individual must be free to find salvation and perfect the soul, later feminists wished to take choice out of morality issues. Among the many implications of this key difference was the post-war feminist tendency to look toward the state for purity rather than toward the individual.
and with all that lined up, they were open to be reverse subverted, and so aligned with totalitarianism, and no other end, even if there sometimes seemed to be to those who never read these works.
When the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified (1920), some considered it a pyrrhic victory. For one thing, by 1920, 28 of the 48 states already had full or presidential suffrage for women, and the overwhelming majority of women outside of New England and parts of the South could vote if they chose to. More importantly, the mainstream movement had abandoned its ideological framework from which it could have proceeded systematically beyond suffrage.
so did the suffragettes feminists get women the vote as they claim today?
or, did they take credit for things already happening, by pretending to hasten them along?
hitler paid close attention to all this… which is why he talks about the masses as having a womens way, and so forth… in weimar, women had the vote before women here, and it was these women whose desire to control morals with the legal court that ligned it all up.
and here in the US, its the desire of women to use the power of the big man (this time the state not their mates) to control morals, leads to the progressive totalitarianism we have now.
today we get the social engineered missive of having to save feminism because of all they gave us.
but read above, then say, if that’s the case, then did they give us this? and if they didn’t, what does that mean to the justification depending on it, to save the cancer?
the idea that through coalitions one group of free people can force another group of free people to comply is INANE… buit something women have no problem with, like believing that avocado and fruits have age reducing ability, and ugly things dont (sympathetic magical thinking as a norm).
the idea that the points that the femniists won, were ideas like slavery that were numbered anyway, is lost on modern people who somehow believe the trope that without them, we would have gotten here to 2010 and not had the vote.
the idea is not to look too carefully, and attack those that do, as liars…
and abortion and eugenics? In 1889, a woman who had just risked her life in a dangerous self-induced abortion wrote to the libertarian periodical, Lucifer the Light Bearer (1883-1907), pleading:
“I know I am dreadful wicked, but I am sure to be in the condition from which I risked my life to be free, and I cannot stand it … Would you know of any appliance that will prevent conception? If there is anything reliable, you will save my life by telling me of it.”
do most women know the facts around these landmark events? or do they know vague myths loosely based on them?
do women know the truth as to the number of abortions leading to death prior to roe V wade? its touted as a huge number, just as feminists have increased the number of women supposedly persecuted by the catholic church as witches in the SPANISH inquisition.
the church opened up there records, it was 300, and mostly all men since the accuser got the accused property. 300, became 100,000 witches, which now is millions of women. and it ALL fits the line from lillian harmons missives!
the number of deaths a year from abortions prior to its legalization, was actually very low. VERY few people practices immorality as a constant fare like today, and so very few had the problem. the santity of life, a preventor to lillian and moses dream of free lust as free love would not happen if children were around, even if adopted.
Moses Harman insisted that woman’s self-ownership be fully acknowledged in marriage and other sexual arrangements.
which is fine and good as an idea to evolve and be worked out, but the forced version was more useful in destroying the common man for power reasons.
its led directly to the result we have today that feminsits are completely confused about.
and who was Josiah Warren, author of True Civilization (1869) that Ezra and Moses were all connected with?
Josiah Warren (1798-1874) was an individualist anarchist, inventor, musician, and author in the United States. Biographer William Bailie regarded him as the first American anarchist, and the four-page weekly paper he edited during 1833, The Peaceful Revolutionist, was the first anarchist periodical published, William Bailie,[1] an enterprise for which he built his own printing press, cast his own type, and made his own printing plates
oh.. the first american anarchist, soft revoltionary, etc.
but wait… thats not all… wait to you hear what is key.
In 1825, Warren became aware of the “social system” of Robert Owen and began to talk with others in Cincinnati about founding a communist colony.[4] When this group failed to come to agreement about the form and goals of their proposed community, Warren decided to join Owen’s community at New Harmony, Indiana. The Cincinnati colony was attempted without Warren’s involvement, but failed.[5] Warren traveled by flat-boat from Cincinnati, arriving in New Harmony in early May, 1825. By 1827, he had returned to Cincinnati, convinced that the complete individualization of interests was necessary to cooperation. He considered Owen’s experiment “communism,” which he rejected in no uncertain terms, but he developed a warm and lasting respect for Robert Owen and his sons. One of his earliest writings, published in The March of Mind in 1827, attests to this, as do later writings
yes.. thats right. the first communist society!!!!
and when did das kapital come out? later.
so where did marx, engels, the europeans like hitler and stalin and later mao get all their ideas from?
moses, ezra, josiah… new harmony…
obama reminds me of the South end of a North bound horse including the flies which are his cabinet.
Oh my bad you asked which historical figure,that would have to be Castro.
Oh again my bad between FDR and HH I would say FDR.
this is decades AFTER the progressives, and it was marx that took their ideas and formed them into a new social order, a new world order, to replace the capitalism which destroyed the old world order aristocracy…
and put the genie back into the bottle.
Critics have argued that Utopian socialists who established experimental communities were in fact trying to apply the scientific method to human social organization, and were therefore not Utopian. For instance, Joshua Muravchik, on the basis of Karl Popper’s definition of science as “the practice of experimentation, of hypothesis and test,” argued that “Owen and Fourier and their followers were the real ‘scientific socialists.’ They hit upon the idea of socialism, and they tested it by attempting to form socialist communities.” Muravchik further argued that, in contrast, Marx made untestable predictions about the future, and that Marx’s view that socialism would be created by impersonal historical forces may lead one to conclude that it is unnecessary to strive for socialism, because it will happen anyway
Perhaps the first utopian socialist was Thomas More (1478-1535), who wrote about an imaginary socialist society in his satire Utopia, which was published in 1516. He apparently coined the word “utopia”.
Saint-Simonianism was a French political and social movement of the first half of the nineteenth century, inspired by the ideas of Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon (1760-1825). His ideas influenced Auguste Comte (who was, for a time, Saint-Simon’s secretary), Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, and many other thinkers and social theorists.
Robert Owen (1771-1858) was a successful Welsh businessman who devoted much of his profits to improving the lives of his employees.
His reputation grew when he set up a textile factory in New Lanark, Scotland, co-funded by his teacher, the liberal Jeremy Bentham, and introduced shorter working hours, schools for children and renovated housing.
He wrote about his ideas in his book A New View of Society, which was published in 1813, and An Explanation of the Cause of Distress which pervades the civilized parts of the world in 1823.
He also set up an Owenite commune called New Harmony in Indiana, USA. This collapsed when one of his business partners ran off with all the profits.
Owen’s main contribution to socialist thought was the view that human social behavior is not fixed or absolute, and that human beings have the free will to organize themselves into any kind of society they wished.
or how others wished, because we are blank slates and have no natures. we are programmable and a result of our enviornment.
sound familar?
to thinkthat modern society is being collapsed into a failed idea that was dominant and sprang as an aside to american freedom is incredible.
we are talking less than 50 years from the signing of the new declaration of independence, to a movement that would enslave mankind and rewrite natural life into a centrally commanded administrated planned state (all by committee/soviet)
the different scary things you see were variations on how to IMPLEMENT and make work these unworkable ideas. (well unworkable for the whole, not the few)
the baby does not look like the man..
but the baby becomes the man
to deny they are the same is to remove this progression, and replace it with what?
an inability to see what and where things come from, and so an inability to prevent the planting of the seeds of destruction, and the weeding out of the missed growth
Buchanan because BHO comes before a terrible storm and is incompetent to calm the storm, even were he not oblivious to it.
That said, he’s mean-spirited and inept enough to give Wilson a good run, prissy arrogant enough to rival Jimmy Carter, and obstinately wrongheaded after the FDR way.
Artfldgr:
You can go back even further to the French Revolution, where the first notions of “Left” and “Right” were defined by the seating arrangement in the National Assembly. It was also from this era that sprang a great many of the communistic ideas which later were picked up by the international left. There were any number of people and groups attempting crackpot experiments, such as that in New Harmony, and any number of people and groups proposing radical ideas that were bad.. and which had catastrophic results. You listed several, and I join you in agreeing that they were bad.
But I think there is enough of a difference between such people, and other progressives such as those in Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party (which concluded their convention with “Onward Christian Soldiers”), or Christian influenced individuals like William Jennings Bryan who, while flawed (and while associated with Wilson), were not Communists, Marxists, or anything of the sort. Comparing the bad Left with the rational, well-grounded reformers who still were called Progressives is like comparing Jonas Salk to quacks like Lysenko just because they both went under the title “scientist.”
In any case, I again agree with you as to where we are today… out with this rotting pile now called “progressivism.”
It was also from this era that sprang a great many of the communistic ideas which later were picked up by the international left.
As long as we’re handing out historical opprobrium, we mustn’t neglect Rousseau. Arguably he has earned pride of place as a progenitor of progressivism. (Pardon the alliteration!)
Anna, you are correct that the tendency to continue Peré³n’s statist/dirigiste solutions derailed Argentina’s long term economic growth.One detail: Peron was President from 1946 to 1955, and 1973-74. His second wife Isabel was President from 1974 to March 1976. Some comparisons between Obama and Peré³n follow.
Both saw no problem with playing rough to get things done. Suffice it that Peré³n’s first encounter with power was as labor minister in a military coup government. Had Peré³n played nicer with the church back in ’55, he might not have been deposed. Obama: look at what happened to Obama’s opponents in Illinois, from Alice Palmer to Ryan.
Both supported statist solutions. Peré³n: wage and price controls, and nationalization of the railroads, which were much bigger in 1945 than now. Obama: nationalization of GM, Chrysler, student loans, and the impending nationalization of health care.
Several differences. I see the support for Obama as being wide, but not deep. Support for Peré³n was wide and deep. A generation after he was deposed in a coup, he returned to cheering crowds. I do not see worshipping crowds in the same degree when Obama is out of office. He was hyped, people fell for the hype, and they are gradually realizing it. Many voted against Bush while they voted for Obama.
While Evita was definitely subordinate to her husband, she was a higly valued and very powerful member of the Peré³n team. I would liken her to Dick Cheney or Karl Rove in the Bush Administration. While Michelle may have pull behind the scenes, in the same way that LBJ often consulted Lady Bird, we do not see that on the outside. Evita basically did what Obama does now: perpetual campaigning. She was always on the stump for her President husband, even after he was elected. She also served as her husband’s informal pollster. What are the people thinking, Evita? After Michelle alienated many people early and often, she was pulled off the stump, for the most part. She doesn’t make many public appearances any more- as opposed to photo ops at the beach.
You can still find people in Argentina, nearly 60 years after Evita died, who adore her. That would never happen with Michelle. The best people can say about Michelle is that when muzzled appropriately, she doesn’t lose support for the POTUS. While Michelle gets the opposition angry with remarks like “a mean country,” she doesn’t similarly get her side cheering. Evita was certainly polarizing. The rich of Barrio Norte hated her. But the masses, the “descamisados,” worshipped Evita. One reason for Juan Domingo Peré³n’s initial loss of power was that after Evita died, he lost both his primary spokesperson and his main de facto pollster.
While Obama would most likely approve of a cult of personality as strong as what Peré³n had, he is a piker compared to Juan Domingo Peré³n.
One difference is economic. Obama took office in recession. Peré³n took office with the coffers bulging from selling wheat and meat during the war but not being able to import manufactured goods. This will affect how people remember you, and how effective your solutions are.
Here is the Marcha Peronista [Peronista March/hymn] Some interesting lines: “He won over the people , fighting against Big Capital…. Peré³n, Peré³n how great you are, your’e worth so much. You are the first worker…. For this great Argentine who worked without stopping so that love and equality reigned over the country.”
One improvised line of the Peronista March, not heard in this version is, “Hijo de puta o ladré³n, queremos Peré³n,” translated as “Son of a whore (S.O.B.) or thief, we love Peré³n.”
Art,
You’ve really taken your egocentric style to a new level.
I see Obama and Michele as the Duvalier family in Haiti. They will leave office saying to themselves that we did it for the people and wondering why the people are not awe struck with them. They both have the same sense of entitlement and dislike for their own nation’s citizens.
If one listens to many in the administration threatening businesses and people if they criticize the government it might vaguely remind one of the “Tonton Macoutes.”
Forgot to add that we might very well resemble Haiti after they get through with us.
Which historical figure…
…does Obama most resemble: Hoover or FDR?
Hannibal … but without any of the talent.
I agree with neo, Obama is sui generis. I’ve had the thought in the last few days–very unsettling, I can tell you–when I see his face (don’t listen to his voice anymore, like some others here), that we don’t actually have a president. Whatever else he is, a president he is not. This is a very odd and frightening thought.
Artfldgr makes a lot of interesting and informative points (as usual) and draws nearly persuasive parallels with FDR. But I’m not sure I’d agree with the notion of Thomas More as the first utopian socialist, although it’s true that he coined the term “Utopia.” By his very coining of the term, he showed his grasp of its unreality–it means “Nowhere” or “No Place.” I’ve also understood that the concept of a perfect order in society through government, though not the term itself, originated with Plato. Anyway, as far as the connection with More is concerned, I think people tend not to satirize concepts in which they have actual faith and whose implementation they would support. And More was, after all, enough of a committed Christian to die for his beliefs, which probably didn’t include socialism.
O.B., I think there is never a need to pardon alliteration!
Also I am with you on Rousseau, and with J.L. on the French Revolution, one of the great smashings of all time, and whose destructive ambitions remain with us.
For a bit of humor about that awful time, I often remember that Norman Podhoretz, according to his own account, first heard of the Jacobins when he was a young man, in a political meeting or some such, somewhere on Manhattan’s Upper East (?) side a number of years ago. He had not heard of these Jacobins before, and thought the references being made were to philosophical/political categories known as “jackal bins.”
Speaking of Rousseau and such, here’s a parlor game for the bloody-minded:
if you could go back and blow the brains out of one historical figure, who would it be?
Rousseau? Hegel? Marx? Lenin? Hitler? Mao? Other?
For my part, Rousseau would be high – very high – on my list, with Hegel close behind him.
My reasoning: those two worthies potentiated the malfeasance of the remainder of the candidates above.
Without Rousseau, and his intellectually bankrupt babbling about man in the state of nature, the human race would have been spared a great deal of misery inflicted in efforts to regain a paradise that never existed.
Mohammed. Definitely.
if you could go back and blow the brains out of one historical figure, who would it be?
I’m most drawn to putting a bullet hole in Lenin, because he was the one who put into practice the bad ideas of Marx in full-blown totalitarian form. Without Lenin, there would arguably be no Soviet union, and without the Soviet Union, arguably no communist bloc. Also, without the example of Soviet totalitarianism, no fascist “reaction,” thus no Hitler… nor would there be a Maoist imitation of Lenin, thus no Red China.
Now, I’m thinking… what about Marx…. would there not have been a USSR, and Red China, and all that without Marx?? Would there have been a Lenin without Marx?? I wonder, because even though the ideology of Lenin and Mao and the others is called Marxism, it could still be argued that what Marxists attempted had already been tried during the French Revolition… all the totalitarian elements, and the effort to remake human nature, with disastrous results… …. so, would a Lenin, lacking Marx, have simply reached back further to… who.. Engels?? To Reausseau?? To any number of other socialists that Artfldgr named?
So, I guess I’ll go with Lenin… getting rid of him is the surest way to have put a kink in the chain of atrocious “revolutionary” experiments… or so I think.
Engels??
I meant Hagel
Hmmmmmmm…… maybe the one that needed the bullethole was Robespierre????
Occam’s Beard if you could go back and blow the brains out of one historical figure, who would it be?Rousseau? Hegel? Marx? Lenin? Hitler? Mao? Other?
I will sidestep the question and instead make a point about coups. Had failed coupsters been executed in the past century, or imprisoned for life, instead of governments being so merciful and forgiving by releasing them from prison, the world would have been a lot better off. Consider the following failed coupsters who later took power: Hitler, Castro, and Hugo Ché¡vez.
Directly answering the question of Occan’s Beard with who is on the list, I would agree with JL and go for Lenin. Or the German official who put him on the sealed train back to Russia from Switzerland.
I did not go for Marx or some such intellectual who only wrote books because regardless of Marx, Russia was in upheaval in the last part of the 19th century.To get an idea of that, read Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina or Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons. Ideas of Anarchist, Socialists, Freemasons, Marxists- what have you- were circulating around Russia at the time. The ideology was just something on which to hang the dissatisfaction that permeated Russia. A psychopath will adjust any ideology to fit his goals and interests.
This perfect society built by government business was obviously started by someone who never went to a DMV or had to try and get business licence’s.
the effort to remake human nature
This is why I plump for Rousseau. His “Man in a state of nature” nonsense convinced the weak-minded that ills resulted from contemporary society perverting Man’s true nature, and thus by reforming society we could reform — and thereby return — Man to his “original state,” per Rousseau. (For my part, I, following Hobbes, say those wanting to see Man in a state of nature need only consider any prison or city with a breakdown of civil order.)
The line from Rousseau to New Socialist Man is direct. Without Rousseau, Marx would probably have found some other way to sponge off of others, perhaps by playing three card monte on a street corner, and Lenin would have been a garden variety guttersnipe, probably a used car salesman or personal injury lawyer.
Mohammed. Definitely.
Turfmann, good choice, who for some reason didn’t cross my mind. Without meaning to give offense, much as golden retrievers have a predilection toward hip dysplasia, it seems the Semitic peoples generally have one toward mental problems (e.g., Old Testament prophets would now be considered schizophrenics; few other cultures took so seriously the ravings of those hearing and seeing things/people could/did not). I view Mohammed (and Freud, albeit in a different context) as a reflection of that predilection, which has generated so many religions. Therefore I suspect that if not Mohammed, there would have been another nutjob warming in the bullpen. But a good choice, nonetheless.
Hmmmmmmm…… maybe the one that needed the bullethole was Robespierre????
Robespierre was the instrument (I almost wrote “tool,” even more appropriately), not the prime mover. A healthier society — i.e., one not infected with philosophical error — would never have permitted a Robespierre to rise much above ratcatcher.
I will sidestep the question and instead make a point about coups. Had failed coupsters been executed in the past century, or imprisoned for life, instead of governments being so merciful and forgiving by releasing them from prison, the world would have been a lot better off.
Excellent point. Stringent methods — applied early and dispositively — could have precluded a lot of misery later.
I did not go for Marx or some such intellectual who only wrote books because regardless of Marx, Russia was in upheaval in the last part of the 19th century.
True, but removing the philosophical underpinning provided by Marx would have reduced Lenin and the Bolsheviks to the level of junta, and prevented that junta from propagating in time.
(This is why, for my part, I worry less about non-ideological dictatorships that those buttressed with an ideological foundation. When an Adolf/Papa Doc type goes to his reward, such as it is, fundamental change can occur fairly readily. When a Lenin goes to his (“Damn, it’s hot down here!”), someone of the same philosophy takes his place.) The intellectuals matter.
This perfect society built by government business was obviously started by someone who never went to a DMV or had to try and get business licences.
LOL! Yesterday, having to revise my business license, I went to the city offices.
They had no record of my business – despite my business license in my hot little hand.
But I’m sure government healthcare will work out just fine. Just as sure as I am that it’ll save us lots of money.
if you could go back and blow the brains out of one historical figure, who would it be?
I left off whoever came up with the designated hitter rule. My bad.
“”if you could go back and blow the brains out of one historical figure, who would it be?””
Seeing as our anscestors were decent people but ruthless when need be, chances are anyone we pick was actually 3rd or 4th string sinister material back in the day.
OB, I’m with you. Rousseau. Closely followed by Hegel.
The rest is decoration.
Mohammed. Definitely.
Yup. He’s right at the top of my list also. Rousseau is a good choice, as are any of the founders of communism, but compared to Mo the Pedophile, many of history’s other villains pale to insignificance.
Rasputin
Artfldgr (post # 1), ROTLMAO!!!
What historical figure does the Indonesian Imbecile resemble? Boy, that’s a tough one. Can’t say Hitler or Stalin, as they were both nationalists, which Obama is most certainly not.
I’d have to agree with Occam’s Beard and go with Wilson. Wilson was a racist progressive, as is Obama. Wilson was for the League of Nations (which the Senate rejected); Obie loves him some UN. I actually think Obie will go on to become the first American Secretary General of the UN. After all, Obie received a Nobel peace Prize for no actual achievement but possible future achievement. So why not the UN? Now wouldn’t that be just p(r)eachy?
But if I have to choose between the two choices provided: FDR. Hands down.
I agree with turfmann: Mohammed would be the historical person that I would vote out of existence.
If a fictional character can be historic in the sense of a collective cultural memory, then, Chance Gardener.
A mix, really. But not of them, of their coffee boys.
Mussolini
Castro
Occam’s Beard Says:
September 10th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
if you could go back and blow the brains out of one historical figure, who would it be?
I left off whoever came up with the designated hitter rule. My bad.
LOL. And seconded.
I’m surprised no one’s mentioned Harding.
Neo: I’m surprised no one’s mentioned Harding
Since you brought up Warren Harding I will once more bring up my unintended research comparison of Obama with Warren Harding. Two years ago I compared the experience of then-Senator Obama with the experience of other Senators who became President. By the metric I chose, here is How Obama scored:
No Vice-President Experience
No Cabinet Experience
No House of Representatives Experience
No Governor Experience
No Military Officer Experience
Obama had no experience at all in the above categories. There were fifteen Presidents before Obama with US Senate experience. Only one scored a zero like Obama. That would be Warren Harding, nobody’s model of a great President.
At least Warren Harding had some executive experience in running a newspaper. The only “executive” experience Obama had was chairing the Annenberg challenge, which consisted in doling out research money that didn’t achieve its goal of improving the Chicago public schools. IOW, Obama was a failure at his previous “executive” experience.
When I have brought this up in other blogs, some have made the comment that in some respects Harding wasn’t as bad as believed. For example, he did nothing about the recession that was in place when he assumed office, and the economy righted itself. We don’t need no stinkin’ Stimulus!
What about the principle that people get the government they deserve?
I’m as critical as it gets, but this twist of killing some historical figure even makes me wince.
Prior to the leader in time and in logical sequence are the led. There is something to be said for this, and I have said it many times and I believe it is true:
Obama is NOT our main problem. Our main problem is much harder to deal with because there are 69m people who voted him into office.
That means we have 69m people, at least, who are the sort of people to vote for a monster of a human being and a President who hates our country.
Can that problem be solved at all? It will take years. It is analogous to the Jews wandering in the desert for 40 years until that generation dies off. We may need something like that unfortunately. It is only a wicked generation that voted for Obama. There are no excuses. We gave him the keys.
Solid observation Mike Mc, 60 years of prosperity and peace (Viet-Nam and Korea were not significant wars, the homeland was untouched and never threatened) have breed an immature electorate who could not tell the difference between a presidential election and an American Idol competition, hence the choice of a sexy young minority over a worldly old warrior.
Considering Obama’s popularity is still close to 45% I am afraid it will take a great deal more pain to truly mature the electorate. And perhaps a new generation; there are many seniors who vote Democratic because they still see the party of HST and JFK instead of Henry Wallace.
It’s about America having morfed into a nation of “effete intellectuals” (the people, not leaders) who no longer care to make things.
And that’s true. Manufacturing is scarce, and we have a bunch of metrosexual lawyers.
We once built the Empire State Building in a year. Now nine years after 9/11, there’s still no building and if we ever get one it will stink.
Men are gone. Males are feminized. The end of that story is so predictable it’s not even funny. It feels good at first. Then America itself becomes what ghettos are now, without government subsidies since we’ll all be poorer.
A late thought, and an interesting question: Which historical moment does the country most resemble? 1859, or 1939? The electorate is divided, and intensity is high. Are we on the edge of a new civil war? Or are we united in ways that aren’t immediately evident, and ready to allow the Left to solidify legislative and executive gains?
We are not united like 1939. Not even in that galaxy. We have never been more divided except for what you mentioned.
We are in an “us or them” fight with the enemy within.
Are we on the edge of a new civil war?
The Republic is on the edge of a partial break-up or dissolution. There are something like 4 major lines of serious and irreconciliable disagreement between many of the States and the feral government and between a large section of the People and the feral government. Those issues have all been exacerbated by the demeaning of America and American values, by the feral government and leftists, and by the insane expansion of that same feral government to try and takeover just about everything they could get their hands on.
Or are we united in ways that aren’t immediately evident, and ready to allow the Left to solidify legislative and executive gains?
No and no. The problem is simple: There is no parity between right and left. They are not mirror images of each other. Leftists can live under conservative government since conservatives are federalists who allow liberals to make their own liberal states into whatever socialist hellholes they want. If they want forced health insurance and mandates, then they can get it in their own states. ANd the liberals have done just that.
However, conservatives cannot live under liberals in the federal government, since liberals prefer a national government to a federal one and do not allow states much latitude in anything. Liberals must force others to live the way liberals declare – you must accept gay marriage, you must recycle (and the recycling cops will make sure), you are mandated to buy health insurance, and only the types we tell you, … Liberals don’t let conservatives have conservative states, to a good extent because liberal ideas, like all Ponzi schemes, always need more suckers to put new money in.
This lack of parity between the left and right was kept to a minimum, but with the advent of the Indonesian Left and the absolute lunatics running the dems, the country is quickly becoming unlivable for conservatives. Add to this all the antagonism that the White House and Dems are engaging in against the American citizenry and it is not a pretty picture.
That’s how I see it, at least.
progressoverpeace,
Leftists can live under conservative government since conservatives are federalists who allow liberals to make their own liberal states into whatever socialist hellholes they want. . . . However, conservatives cannot live under liberals in the federal government, since liberals prefer a national government to a federal one and do not allow states much latitude in anything.
Spot on! Conservatives allow liberals to be @ssholes while liberals are @ssholes who tolerate no conservatism.
And I’m shamelessly stealing that ‘feral government’ phrase.
Progressoverpeace: Amen!
Tolerance is practiced only by American Conservatives. The Left is like Islam, demanding tolerance but granting none.
The electorate is divided, and intensity is high. Are we on the edge of a new civil war? Or are we united in ways that aren’t immediately evident, and ready to allow the Left to solidify legislative and executive gains?
I fear that it could go either way. I understand the most negative forecasts as to where this country is going, and yes, I do dread that we are headed for something very bad. I don’t want to hide my head in the sand… I really do want to look at these possibilities in the face without blinking.
However, I suggest that there is a possibility for it to go the other way. Although we are divided, we are not divided equally. As is often stated by many pundits (Sean Hannity, Dick Morris, and others) this is essentially a Center-Right country. The majority of the people may not be entirely on the conservative side, but they are definitely closer to the conservatives than to the Berkley-esque clique that liberalism has now become. This allows for a coalition which unites the Right with Center-Right to form a conservative majority. The left can remain a cantankerous, embittered minority, albeit one with some influence in certain enclaves, such as Hollywood and the so-called intelligencia.
The key is getting those “independents”, most of whom are Center Right. As much as this may sound like a repetition of the “conventional wisdom,” I think it is essentially correct. Contrary to what some have said, I do not necessarily think this requires a “watering down” of conservatism. While I dont think most “independents” are not full-blown odealogical conservatives, conservatism fits much better with the common sense mentality of most independents.
Which historical moment does the country most resemble? 1859, or 1939?
I’ll try for a positive view.. I think we could be at a combination of 1946, 1966, and 1994. All three were years when the public, fed up with bug-government liberalism, gave the Republican Part big wins in Congressional elections. I say “a combination” because I think it will be even bigger than those three years… the perfect storm that Obama and the Dems have created will cause a tsunamis to come against them.
The additional questions are: what will 2012 be like? Will it create a reversal for the right, as it did in 1948, or a stalemate, as it did in 1996? Or will it foreshadow a win? (1968, sort-of) And will it change anything?
Part of the key is to win the 2012 presidentail election, and what is needed is a good communicator… Chris Christie of New Jersey is more and more looking like such a person. I’ve said it before: Christie-Palin 2012. This sounds like mundane electoral politics, but its at the center of changing things and getting us away from the clift that is wide open before us. In this way, 2012 could be another 1980… a watershed moment.
Lastly, even if the Dems are defeated at the ballot box, will the Republicans have the motivation to change anything? I realize that past history looks grim in this regard… but think of this: Reagan did change things around, not so much in domestic policy, but he did wonders in foreign policy, which was the primary danger then. Further, while many conservatives feel disappointed by the 1994 Republicans, its important to remember that they revoked federal centralized welfare, an effort at rescission that had not occurred before. This can be an example for further action.
A late thought, and an interesting question: Which historical moment does the country most resemble?
In my darker moments, I’d say Spain 1934. Reds had taken over the government, and overestimating their strength, set about implementing socialism/communism and destroying traditional Spanish culture (most notably by attacks on the Church, including murdering many priests), until the Nationalists fought back.
This coming election will be critical historically, either way. We’ll either turn away from the Reds’ agenda – as I fervently hope – or likely follow Spain’s trajectory.
Christie-Palin would be a tough ticket to beat.
julia nyc wote “Christie-Palin would be a tough ticket to beat.”
I used to say that the only way the Republicans could lose in 2012 would to run a Nazi-Pedophile. Although that is probably no longer the case in that such a ticket could probably win easily today Palin would be of greater service to a campaign by being a Secretary of Interior candidate than vice-President. Mitch Daniels has an excellent resume as a deficit beater. Christie is too new. No one has heard of Barbour.
The good news is that the era of voting for candidates because they are young and good looking may be ending. (caveat to H.L. Mencken’s observation that no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public).
Mitch Daniels has an excellent resume as a deficit beater. Christie is too new. No one has heard of Barbour.
Bob, I haven’t heard of Mitch Daniels or Barbour. But Christie is a sensation. If only he had some community organizer or state senatorial experience under his capacious belt… /g
Mike Mc. if the crux of the linked article was that the market is going to hammer the idea that “niceness” as a goal then I agree. “Interesting times” may be upon us as the Chinese curse goes. I wonder how a generation of spoiled brats will react?
Hoover did have an apology tour around Latin America…
OCCAM, if you could go back and blow the brains out of one historical figure, who would it be?
The man who invented the pencil, and so allowed Hitler, Gramsci, Diderot and many others (including Rousseau i think) to write while they were locked away.
Without Lenin, there would arguably be no Soviet union
I told Bukharin he wouldn’t be remembered…heh…
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
FDR
[shortest post evah!]
If you have watched or listened to Glenn Beck lately your first thought would be comparing Obama to FDR is not a good thing. But those on the left view FDR as almost God like. I’m glad Obama wasn’t president when WWII broke out. His dithering and appeasing foreign policy would have been disastrous for the U.S. & the world.
I think every day Jimmy Carter thanks God for Obama. Now Jimmy isn’t the worse president ever.
Not remotely comparable to either one of them. Hoover was an engineer and executive who ran Russian relief efforts; also a man of broad intellectual interests. (he and his wife Lou translated the classic late-medieval work on mining–a very long book–from Latin into English, just for fun) FDR was an optimist who gave every appearance of actually *liking* Americans, and who was willing to wage serious war against evil regimes.
Sui generis – and I hope someone’s had the common sense to break the mold.
2010 – 65 years after The Bomb:
Hiroshima as a big prosperous city of homes, businesses, and bright lights…
2010 – Detroit, Michigan looks worse than Hiroshima, and looks like it will take much longer to recover (and may not).
Progressives (and subversive actions) are more damaging than nuclear bombs
HH
(New record!)
There is only one US president whose competence rates comparison to Odumbo, Jefferson Davis.
Even by those standards O is unique (I looked up sui generis, thanks for making me more literate). In fact, assuming the US survives this guy (that may be a presumptuous statement) how will US history describe him and what excuse will be given for his election?
Obama will be remembered in a whole new category. Idealochistic. The deadly mixture of both idealism and masochism together in an attempt to pull off the Free World’s murder suicide.
Well, to point out the obvious, Jeff Davis was president of the Confederate States of America. So he was an “American” president, but not a “U.S.” one.
I’d say that Obama comes closest to James Buchanan in terms of incompetence and inability to satisfy anyone on either side. While Obama enrages his base for continuing to follow many of Bush’s antiterrorist policies, his economic policies give little comfort to the Right. Nobody is happy. Buchanan was in a similar position as the country descended into partition, then civil war. In the end, his own party didn’t even renominate him.
I think it is safe to say that had The Won been president in 1940, we wouldn’t have been drawn into the war, as we wouldn’t have embargoed oil shipments (and other war material such as steel) to Japan.
India falls, so does the USSR, and we wake up surrounded on both sides of the oceans in about 1946. von Braun feverishly working on a new missile that could go across continents, and others working on fission weapons.
I’m pretty sure Einstein’s letter would have fallen on large, but deaf, ears.
Sui generis- is he a generous swine (with other people’s money)?
Both FDR and Obama attended Harvard Law, and Columbia
Both Are Progressives who presented as Democrats
Both Surrounded themselves with Communists / Socialists / Progressives
Both Are charismatic populous leaders
Both Pursued and were in offices during times of economic crisis which they exacerbated for Progressive ends
Both regarded the Constitution as an outdated piece of inconvenient paper
FDR appointed the first Czars, and Obama (and Bush) extended them (FDR 11, Bush 32, Obama 40 (with more like the Asian Carp Czar on their way).
Both Appointed Supreme Court judges like Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, whose constitutional philosophy can be summed up as “the constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.”
Both Elections were “Realigning Elections”
Both had record unemployment
Both had wild stock market gyrations as a response to their policies
Both had youth corps, FDR National Youth Administration, Obama Americorps, “which provided part-time work to millions of high school and college students”
One had the CCC, the other created a Green Jobs initiative, “Call it the new Civilian Conservation Corps. — Robert Reich”
Both created “Brain Trusts”, see Newsweek “Obama’s Brain Trust”
-A new series from the Council on Foreign Relations…
[see many more brain trust articles in Science news, Huffington post, Wapo, NPR, Bloomberg, etc]
Both talked about a “Second Bill of Rights”, a set of “positive rights” as Obama has said, and FDR said in his 1944 State of the Union Address. Many which also parallel the positive rights as delineated in the constitution of the Soviet Union. [the efforts of the state to get housing for all is the implementation of such and idea sans its prior establishment, which makes establishment easier.]
Both immediately moved to centralize power to their selves, FDR with currency control, Obama with moving the census bureau into the executive department from the commerce department.
Both vilified business men as the first scape-goats in a long list of them. “rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence.… The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. FDR”
Both spoke of the “forgotten man”…
Both partially nationalized dominant industries of their time (the difference), FDR with the Tennessee Valley Authority, Obama by using state money to buy stakes in auto companies (and banks).
Both created laws/policies that inflated costs during hard times, FDR with Agricultural Adjustment Act hitting food, Cash for Clunkers now hitting the car market. Both programs forced businesses to destroy product as a way of raising prices.
Both expanded the concept of state support through redistributing wealth (communism/socialism/progressivism), FDR creating social security, Obama with Universal Health Care
Both were Times Man/Person of the year, FDR 1932, 1934, 1941. Obama, 2008.
[They are both in the company of Hitler (1938), Stalin (1939, 1942), Khrushchev (1957), Khomeini (1979), Truman (1945, 1948), Eisenhower (1944, 1959), Kennedy (1961), LBJ (1964, 1967), Nixon (1971,1972), Carter (1976), Reagan (1980,1983 with Yuri Andropov), Bush Senior (1990), Clinton (1992,1998), Bush Younger (2000), Charles Lindberg (1927), Generalissimo and Madame Chiang Kai-Shek (1937 (Taiwan has a different view of them than we do)), Corazon Aquino (1986), Walter Chrysler (1928), and many more…]
Both had a thing regarding colonialism
Both were/are obtuse as to Eugenics and funding the programs by other means for the same PROGRESSIVE ends (new socialist man, perfection of man in utopia, etc).
Two movements developed in response to these fears. Both considered the nation a “race” that could be strengthened by keeping the birth rate of the “fit” (the affluent) above that of the “unfit” (the poor). They differed only in whose birth rate they wanted to change. (teddy decried the use of birth control as “criminal against the race”)
The strain that became dominant was the one the feminists liked more, as they had their roots in the free sex movement (ergo their goals vs common women’s desires and the huge split that is ignored). This group, rather than preventing abortion and birth control, thought to support and promote it, while forcing the birth rates of the unfit by controlling the conditions and culture of these groups.
Eugenics without birth control seemed to me a house
built upon sands…The eugenicists wanted to shift the
birth-control emphasis from less children for the poor
to more children for the rich. We went back of that and
sought to stop the multiplication of the unfit.” Sanger
it was in the 30s, with FDR that they became permanently normalized and pretty much ignored as to what they were doing in the larger scheme of things (still ignored as its not trendy to pay attention to it, ie not PC).
Under FDR programs funding state control, and his great relationship with hitler and stalin as to their common ideas, ideals, and goals. The great depression was a opportunity for them to place clinics in urban poor areas (still 4X more there now), and facilitate eugenics under many other means, which changed and evolved to keep up with the conditions of the times.
With the shoa becoming public knowledge, the division between the two programs had to be clear. The Nazi used a ‘positive’ approach, while the feminists used “negative” approaches. Birth Control Review (Sangers Newsletter), praised the Nazi birth control and population programs (as they also returned this favor). Sanger and feminists were represented at the world Population congress…
Its interesting to read the Ethel Remington Hepburn papers…
Ethel Remington Hepburn’s early career was on the vaudeville stage, where she formed a lifelong friendship with legendary performer Eva Tanguay. She later became a professional writer, as well as the mother of ten children. She was a long-time supporter of access to birth control.
[the connection to Katherine Hepburn is interesting… Hepburn was born in Hartford, Connecticut, the daughter of suffragette Katharine Martha Houghton (1878 — 1951) (an heiress to the Corning Glass fortune and co-founder of Planned Parenthood) and Dr. Thomas Norval Hepburn (1879 — 1962). // They kind of bury the history, unless you do a bit of digging… // (makes her movies like adams rib more than just parts)
I digress too much…
Both Obama and FDR have a dislike of Jews… see Arthur Schlesinger
If I go on and it gets longer I will be lynched…
Bullseye. I’ve thought that many times. Jimmy’s off the hook.
Another bullseye.
If I had to choose a Dopperlganger, it would be latter-day (but before the stroke) Woodrow Wilson. Dangerously idealistic, politically inept, woefully naive. Segregates the armed forces and then by being outmaneuvered by prostrate European powers helps to plant the seeds of WWII through his ineptitude.
Although the very most apt Presidential comparison, in so very many ways, is Sukarno.
Hoover was an internationally known mining engineer with a string of groundbreaking accomplishments including success at commercial ventures. He has little in common with empty suit Obama.
Artfldgr
You are really good!
That reminds me of something. You know how Barry taught some courses on law so he’s a “professor”? Guess what, Hoover taught engineering courses so I guess that means he’s a professor too. Apparently he was so good at it his lectures got turned into a text book, “Principles of Mining” and it apparently became the standard text book on the subject. In a way you could argue he’s more entitled to being called professor than Barry is.
“One of the outstanding features of the present conference is…that these two great movements, eugenics and birth control, have now come together as almost indistinguishable.” Dr. Fairchild BCFA meeting “Race Building in a Democracy,” 1940
Birth Control Review, Sangers newsletter, also pointed out this meeting also created the fund drive for “The Citizens Committee for Planned Parenthood.”
[where wealthy people could give money to fund the practice of facilitating the reduction of the unfit through free clinics, and negative social conditions]
Planned Parenthood was the product of that union..
Hiding and distancing itself, and renamed from its “negro project” days, by public relations and social engineering to spin things and save a key progressive social engineering program.
[ergo obamas breaking his promise as to funding]
Sanger hired D. Kenneth Rose as public relations consultant Rose recommended that they drop “birth control” from their name and use “planned parenthood” instead. Sanger objected, but “In 1942 the new organization changed its name to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). It was the only national birth-control organization until the abortion-reform movement that began in the late 1960s.”
reading the hepburn stuff you see how they worked to place articles in newspapers, and other magazines, and even start magazines. all this reaching back even farther to Lucifer bringer of light, the paper of Moses Harmon which later became American Eugenics…
(if your going to have free love sexual utopia, its a downer that so many people are not pretty, have sex hangups, etc. no?)
of course womens studies completely erases these facts, and the correspondence with hitler, and so on.
how else could they retain the most powerful state control over demographic breeding?
[and by couching it as trendy, and a womans right, they get an army of women to support their own familial lines extinctions – which fulfills the old unchanged goal of more for the fit (nancy pelosi has 5 kids), less for the unfit (middle class/poor being demographically changed)]
In 1943 Sanger founded an organization
dedicated to the forced sterilization of the “unfit.”
Before World War II, groups promoting sterilization and immigration restriction had an agenda much like that of birth controllers. Because, of their efforts, laws permitting the forced sterilization of people judged “unfit” were passed in some 37 states. In its never overturned 1927 Buck v. Bell decision the Supreme Court declared such laws constitutional.
cant have progressivism without the progressives goals, and you cant replace all other goals (change), with progressives goals, if progressivism is allowed to evolve and change as well.
so they are unchanged in goals, only methods, means, and social engineering.
“Sterilize all the unfit, among whom I include all fundamentalists.” Laski to Holmes…
its pertinent as the mask was lifted a bit by the Obama administration in its selections and appointments and funding. Pelosi says govt contraception will help the economy as funding for “family planning services” was inthe stimulous package.
and one only has to collect the quotes from the current progressive caucus members to get that they are with the program, and its negative ends, and willing to facilitate the social enginnering means of finding some excuse that will stick.
let me show it in another way.
a parent takes a gameboy from their child as a punishment for a time…
social engineering is what the child does to get the toy back before the terms or conditions have been met. its just a collection of saying and leveraging anything you can think of as an acceptable reason.
but i will be bored without the toy
i learned my lesson, can i have it back
i will hold my breath
its dark in the car, can i play a little?
but X mother doesnt take the game away from Y
i will scream
this is the debate of the left..
the social engineering as a method to sell us on a goal in some form that makes it pallatable… and distancing from unpallatable forms.
so they turn dead sliced burnt cow, into succulent sizzling steak, and we are too dumb to note how its the same thing. in fact we will then spend endless tracts on how its not the same.
even though its the same organization, same ideology, same people, same goals, same forms, same methods, and all that is different is the language and social engineering angles, which avoid real debate (which they lose).
just to show they have the SAME idea of fit and unfit and how it helps them…
“Well, the family planning services reduce cost,” Pelosi answered. “They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those — one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.”
after wwii, they went from forced, to voluntary… but thats the point.. as the latter is combined with the state controllign the outcome of peoples lives by design.
disenfranchise, high taxes, etc..
mix with voluntary pre paid services..
and you get what?
the SAME end as picking the same people and marching them off.
EXCEPT that the public doesn’t scream about it, as Stalin pointed out that one death is a tragedy, but 50 million abortions is a statistic.
dont believe that his is the game?
Economy giving U.S. women pause about motherhood?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6882NJ20100909
WHICH mothers? black mothers? middle class white mothers? they wont break it down in a way that will let you know the targets, that would be racism to do that. convenient.
“The recession appears to have started in late 2007, and declines in births in 2008 and 2009 would be consistent with that,” the CDC said.
the spin doctor that changed the name wasnt the first!!! Dr. Lydia DeVilbiss suggested it first in 1938!
but that was prior to the programs of the progressives and their link to hitler, stalin and mussolini… AFTER That and the publics reaction was clear, they didnt agree with the progressives, this social engineering was taken up.
It was all these laws and programs that prevented Jews from immigrating, and exposed such. Many would die in the death camps beause of these laws.
[edited for length by n-n]
sorry… the sources are massive, and my crumbs end up being meals not morsels. sorry 🙁
1. Bravo, renminbi!
2. OT but in the ballpark: Michael Lewis’s portrait of Greece describes where Obama is taking us economically and socially.
3. I refuse to forget that “compassionate” conservatism was the overture to the Obama tragicomedy.
Eh – HH or FDR? I agree with Neo. BO is one of a kind, and with luck, the only one. His fate will be to serve as a bad example.
a very interesting read that is out there in many copies is: “Medical Science Under Dictatorship” The New England Journal of Medicine
the guiding philosophic principle of recent dictatorships, including that of the Nazis, has been Hegelian in that what has been considered “rational utility” and corresponding doctrine and planning has replaced moral, ethical and religious values.
the following is tweaked a bit from the original
when you read it, remember the quote from Pelosi above, the promotion of Social Justice, the desire to remove the opposition, the experimentation on the public under the guise of social programs or services, etc.
we have passed through this with Dr Planka (if true), Cass Sunstein, Obamacare, etc..
we have this with the higher abortion rates for the economically disadvantaged, and those disenfranchised and frustrated by progressives.
However, we have the soft form, where opportunity and conditions, move masses of people to make similar choices (reinforced by media: how can you bring a child into a world like this? too many people will make global warming. humans are a plague, constant doom and gloom. culture games which once accepted make classes unemployable, and so facilitate ends)
in a soft version these are erased from history, attacked with their attackers not getting punished the same. separation of church and state… unequal treatment. disparate impact, etc.
throwing people under the bus following Bukarins first rules for revolutionaries.
new math? no child left behind? title IX? ADHD pathologizing boys behavior? Social programs? redistribution? etc..
propaganda barrage was directed against the
traditional compassionate nineteenth-century attitudes toward the chronically ill, and for the adoption of a utilitarian, Hegelian point of view
by other names, expediency and pragmatism, materialism, utilitarianism..
Adults were propagandized by motion pictures, one of which, entitled “I Accuse,” deals entirely with euthanasia. This film depicts the life history of a woman suffering from multiple sclerosis; in it her husband, a doctor, finally kills her to the accompaniment of soft piano music rendered by a sympathetic colleague in an adjoining room.
any one see “Million dollar baby”?
of course if you don’t know “i accuse” its hard to say we are doing the same thing, but softer, no?
want to see the long line normalizing these attitudes permanently? [much to the knowing of the older people, the refugees of history, and other bad places]
From Dark Victory with Humphrey Bogart to You Don’t Know Jack (2010)..
note how many come about 10 years before policy, about the time that the children watching and taking it in, become young adults.
The Event (2003)
The Hours (2002)
It’s My Party (1996)
The English Patient (1996)
The Last Supper (1994)
My Life (1993)
The Switch (1992)
Last Wish (1992)
Dying Young (1991)
A Woman’s Tale (1991)
Longtime Companion (1990)
The Right To Die (1987)
Murder or Mercy? (1987)
When The Time Comes (1987)
The Ultimate Solution of Grace Quigley (1985)
Do You Remember Love (1985)
An Early Frost (1985)
Right of Way (1983)
Six Weeks (1982)
Whose Life Is It Anyway? (1981)
On Golden Pond (1981)
A Matter of Life and Death (1981)
look at the actors and actresses, the most progressive.. and tick off how many reflect the sanctity of life and preservation, or how many whose themes are, a person under duress of circumstance makes it easier on themselves, and the people around them, by leaving early for the choir triumphant, or even which ones bring up most religions negative view on such.
[edited for length by n-n]
Dont worry Obamacare will pay for any thumbs injured or strained using the scroll bar to pass over the effort.
I’ll say that Obama has the sloth of James Buchanan, the ineptitude of Jimmy Carter (but with the ideology of a Noam Chomsky brain transplant). I regret to say that if any state wishes to secede from the union, or any foreign country wishes to take American citizens hostage, this may be the optimal moment to do it.
As for the anti vs. pro FDR thing… I have a major disagreement with the Glen Beck* view that all Progressivism was bad to begin with, ab initio **. Progressivism was a broad ranging idea that encompassed everything from regulating working conditions, to giving women the vote, to (notwithstanding Woodrow Wilson’s hyprcrisy) ending racial segregation. There was bad as well… both bad people and bad ideas . . . but as far as I see, it only got as bad as it is now following the 1960s, when the New Left’s Marxism overthrew the pro-American centrist liberalism of the previous generations.
I have been for the most part pro-life for most of my life . . . but it should be noted that it was not just the left that supported Planned Parenthood , as can be shown by the existence of a Barry Goldwater award by that organization’s supporters.
*For the record, I like a lot of what Glen Beck does, and i disagree with some of what he does. I think, for example, that his recent rally was great, and wish I had been there.
**Theres my Latin phrase for the day.
“Regarding these zones, we must conduct a deliberate policy of negative population growth. Through propaganda measures, especially by means of the press, radio, cinema, handbills, short brochures, educational statements, and the like, the population must be convinced over and over again how harmful it is to have a lot of children.
The costs ought to be cited, and then what could have been bought instead.
The great dangers to women’s health that can arise in childbearing could be spelled out, and so forth.
Along with this propaganda, large-scale propaganda must be issued for contraceptives.
Neither advocacy and dissemination of contraceptives, nor abortion, should be illegal.
The establishment of abortion facilities should be positively promoted.
Midwives and assistant medical officers, for instance, can be trained as abortionists….
It is obvious that by systematic application of the above measures, considerable success can be achieved in weakening the substance of the people.”
Is that the abortion eugenics movement here in the US? Germany?
hard to tell if that was written today, or way back…
why is that so?
it was written by Erhard Wetzel, April 1942, as comments on the Generalplan Ost…
that, they were to use sex, abortion, and all that to insure control of russians. (the two words i left out were racial, and russian)
this idea comes straight from american progressives, to hitler, then to russia, THEN back to the US to be implemented here, or rather, to support those who werent succeeding here any more, and make it popular and trendy, and implement exactly the same thing here spinning it all as a social goodness.
and whatever happens, they NEVER teach you about these key people, their writings, etc. OTHERS yes, but not the key stuff that clearly lays out ends and shifts in means when prior means fail.
Where the Nazis’ overpopulation propaganda spoke of Lebensraum, today’s Malthusians talk about “Spaceship Earth.”
Those deceived by the terminology think “sustainable development” means development that is actually sustainable in the long run, in the sense that it can proceed uninterruptedly for the benefit of humanity and without damage to the human environment. Such development of human society is only possible through constant further creative development, in which new scientific discoveries and their technological application define totally new raw materials and raise the productivity of human labor by orders of magnitude. But it is in order to prevent this that the concept of “sustainable development” was concocted.
the advocates of “sustainable development” seldom say precisely what they mean by it. It in fact requires a permanent depression in the industrialized nations of the North and an enforced backwardness in the developing nations, under the U.N. triumvirate of GATT, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.
ergo many meetings and Obama redistribuing wealth to prmote abortion and eugenics in these other countries.
they just gave the United Nations Population Fund 50 million dollars… and the above was being written about the fund back in the 90s when bush was the evil one.
but i case you havent noticed, its both sides playing the middle for fools.
Artfldgr,
I’m impressed but then I’m a sucker for volcanic explosions and tsunamis – as long as nobody gets hurt. Thanks for the show AND the information.
Vladimir Lenin
Mike, along those same lines, I see the Obamas as kind of like Juan and Eva Peron of Argentina. On the surface they were popular due to the cult of personality, but anyone who knew what they were looking at knew that they were up to no good. They took Argentina from the 10th richest nation in the world to a 3rd world country in their 20ish year reign. And they continue to be venerated.
J.L.
read about moses harmon, lillian harmon, and other things that are not comonly known. your idea that it only got bad is a common fallacy. its the false story of a person who strays and has hope of coming back. all false.
Moses Harman (October 12, 1830 — January 30, 1910) was an American schoolteacher and publisher notable for his staunch support for women’s rights. He was prosecuted under the Comstock Law for content published in his anarchist periodical Lucifer the Lightbearer. He was arrested and jailed multiple times for publishing allegedly obscene material. His daughter, Lillian Harman, was also a notable anarchist.
what were Marxists before socialism and communism as defined by marx, and reworked by engels and funded by whom?
Harman has been credited as one of the founders of what became the eugenics movement. “He gave the spur and start to this effort.
Through his journals, Lucifer, the Light Bearer, later re-christened The Eugenic Magazine, encouraged by a small circle of earnest men and women, he dug down below the surface endeavoring to bring forth a stronger and better type of men”
one of the founders of the eugenics movement, heavy into womens rights, free love… hat top to lucifer like saul alinsky…
still think that they had a good period? this is 1830, before Das Capital was a manufactured payola hit (what do you think the wealthy fundnig engels did with the manuscripts?)
all these women and men of this period went to college (while denying women could go).
His daughter added the free love, sexualizetion of yuounger people, abandonment of god, sexual orientation should be different, communal child raising (to facilitate more sex), abortion (to facilitate more sex), no morals (to faciliate more sex).
a kind of turning of the wealthy elite into a bachanalia of sex and drugs and loose relationships, in which their wealth mitigates the huge damage.
that is, if the common follow the wealthy, let the wealthy take on bad habits, which the common take up and leads to the destruction of them since they have not the money or coordination to mitigate. even better if the whole thing is a kind of hat tip ruse that upon closer examination would reveal.
i wonder what people today would think of such passages as to the progressives like lillian?
let me know if this next passage doesnt sound like liberal trolls today
The problem is a difficult one to deal with in the existing condition of society, where the most outrageous wrongs are possible because the people are economically enthralled and are the slaves of the grossest religious and moral superstitions. It is at once manifest that the ignorance fostered by the dominant powers in church, society, and the State is responsible for at least nine-tenths of the suffering resulting from the association of the sexes, both in and out of marriage.
Exactly the same…
but this was said in an “ An Age of Consent” Symposium (1896), by lillian harmen.
there was no period where what they thought of in 1820s sex communes (and anti christian groups), did not think different points than today.
what changes is that they keep playing with things and then keep modifying the methods as they discover what they do, or in desperation of a fix.
the whole idea is to create the utopia they think would be right.
but have you noticed that they dont describe it, so that this utopian vision is filled in by the slaves making it that dont put the pieces together.
its a two class system. elite over victim slave class. its what religious would call a satanic group, but atheists would say is the morals of a world in which there is no oppressive morals or ethics.
given the period and the most pleasurable thing you can have, sex the nintendo of its day relegated to sacred things, is to be unleashed, unlimited, and that any whim or desire, even if it requires a victim, is to be ok. as that would be utopian to those on top.
fill in a few more things, then imagine the polices youwould need to faciliate that…
a victim class of hypersexual beings from childhood to adult..
a underclass of able people who work but own nothing (slaves).
Asymetric rule of law, whats for me aint for thee
complete control over the underclass so they are available to work, be victims, etc. totalitarian, authoritarian, etc.
class stagnation and the removal of creative destruction to prevent new kings on the hill.
restriction and tracking of the common man, and improvement of his breed for qualities of pacifism, lack of response to insults, interchangeable in skills and ability to prevent elite from fighting over the better ones, or using them over others.
destrjuction of the victim classes power bases, and abilities to control their destinies and so prevent removal of these that play this game.
its jsut switching your position and view from one on the bottom trying to make sense, to one on the top, and not nice, who actively work towards these things (they are a minority).
removal of education, and history. to facilitate the illusion in the population of class permanency. this is the way it is, this is the way it will be, this is the way its always been… an endless loop that never changes…
all of these concepts should seem familiar, and uncomfortable… the latter being the indication that you have been had.
nothing has changed at all, which is why yo9u can read this stuff from then, and then read today, and sans key words and changes of turns of prhase, not know when they were written or whether they apply to yesterday or today.
Anna,
It really is “The Obamas” in a sense. Both are America-hating ingrates who were given everything and hate the givers.
The only thing they ever did right, their one and only redeeming quality is that they raised good children and were a good marriage.
They only, however, know how to destroy things. They expect privilege and freebies, but after that their only goal at all is the break things.
That’s what they are. That is what they do. Their principle of being at this point is to “get the man”. They’ve a ghetto philosophy of resentment and loathing.
Artfldgr Says:
“its the false story of a person who strays and has hope of coming back. all false.”
Not exactly. I would liken it to the rotting of a fish. . . a fish that once had both meat that could nourish as well as bones that could choke . . . good (womens rights) and bad (eugenics) . . . but which now is a rotting inedible mass, stinking and attracting flies.
But I’m open to convincing… suffice it to say that we both agree that today’s “progressivism” is something that must be thrown out with the garbage.
article cuts are from iFeminists.com
Feminism employed blatantly white supremacist arguments to further suffrage, pointing out that white women would add to the white vote since they were more likely to vote than minority women.
This argument was adapted to counter the fear of enfranchising immigrant women.
[snip]
For similar reasons, the feminists called for an elitist, limited suffrage; even the former abolitionist, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, supported literacy tests as a pre-requisite for the vote. As Susan B. Anthony and Ida Husted Harper commented:
“… the worst elements have been put into the ballot-box and the best elements kept out. This fatal mistake is even now beginning to dawn upon the minds of those who have cherished an ideal of the grandeur of a republic, and they dimly see that in woman lies the highest promise of its fulfillment. Those who fear the foreign vote will learn eventually that there are more American-born women in the United States than foreign born men and women; and those who dread the ignorant vote will study the statistics and see that the percentage of illiteracy is much smaller among women than among men.”
how nice.. the american sufferage movement was a white supremicist movement who did not want the vote for ALL women, but white women. which was perfectly aligned at the time with the racist woodrwo wilson, the later racist FDR, and obama too as racist (calling others such) .
as feminism grew it became increasingly “respectable” in its attitude and goals. Eugenics and social purity reform, both popular causes, became a staple of mainstream feminism. Social purity campaigns included raising the age of consent, the reformation of prostitutes, censorship of obscenity, and the advocacy of birth control through restraint. As Linda Gordon commented in Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right:
“The closer we look, the harder it is to distinguish social-purity groups from feminist ones. Feminists from very disparate groups were advocates of most major social purity issues . . .”
so is it any wonder that Sanger communicated with Hitler? and their anarchist roots with the free love movement, insured that about that time they started blowing up innocent people to change things. which is why today they have a warm spot for terrorism… which to their followers makes little sense.
today, they have social engineered corrections to public perception, but changing how YOU think doesn’t change how THEY think, only how you think they think, which is the point.
the crucial difference of the post-Civil War feminists seemed to be their willingness to enforce morality through law. While the abolitionist feminists, who were largely Quaker, believed that the individual must be free to find salvation and perfect the soul, later feminists wished to take choice out of morality issues. Among the many implications of this key difference was the post-war feminist tendency to look toward the state for purity rather than toward the individual.
and with all that lined up, they were open to be reverse subverted, and so aligned with totalitarianism, and no other end, even if there sometimes seemed to be to those who never read these works.
When the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified (1920), some considered it a pyrrhic victory. For one thing, by 1920, 28 of the 48 states already had full or presidential suffrage for women, and the overwhelming majority of women outside of New England and parts of the South could vote if they chose to. More importantly, the mainstream movement had abandoned its ideological framework from which it could have proceeded systematically beyond suffrage.
so did the suffragettes feminists get women the vote as they claim today?
or, did they take credit for things already happening, by pretending to hasten them along?
hitler paid close attention to all this… which is why he talks about the masses as having a womens way, and so forth… in weimar, women had the vote before women here, and it was these women whose desire to control morals with the legal court that ligned it all up.
and here in the US, its the desire of women to use the power of the big man (this time the state not their mates) to control morals, leads to the progressive totalitarianism we have now.
today we get the social engineered missive of having to save feminism because of all they gave us.
but read above, then say, if that’s the case, then did they give us this? and if they didn’t, what does that mean to the justification depending on it, to save the cancer?
the idea that through coalitions one group of free people can force another group of free people to comply is INANE… buit something women have no problem with, like believing that avocado and fruits have age reducing ability, and ugly things dont (sympathetic magical thinking as a norm).
the idea that the points that the femniists won, were ideas like slavery that were numbered anyway, is lost on modern people who somehow believe the trope that without them, we would have gotten here to 2010 and not had the vote.
the idea is not to look too carefully, and attack those that do, as liars…
and abortion and eugenics?
In 1889, a woman who had just risked her life in a dangerous self-induced abortion wrote to the libertarian periodical, Lucifer the Light Bearer (1883-1907), pleading:
“I know I am dreadful wicked, but I am sure to be in the condition from which I risked my life to be free, and I cannot stand it … Would you know of any appliance that will prevent conception? If there is anything reliable, you will save my life by telling me of it.”
do most women know the facts around these landmark events? or do they know vague myths loosely based on them?
do women know the truth as to the number of abortions leading to death prior to roe V wade? its touted as a huge number, just as feminists have increased the number of women supposedly persecuted by the catholic church as witches in the SPANISH inquisition.
the church opened up there records, it was 300, and mostly all men since the accuser got the accused property. 300, became 100,000 witches, which now is millions of women. and it ALL fits the line from lillian harmons missives!
the number of deaths a year from abortions prior to its legalization, was actually very low. VERY few people practices immorality as a constant fare like today, and so very few had the problem. the santity of life, a preventor to lillian and moses dream of free lust as free love would not happen if children were around, even if adopted.
Moses Harman insisted that woman’s self-ownership be fully acknowledged in marriage and other sexual arrangements.
which is fine and good as an idea to evolve and be worked out, but the forced version was more useful in destroying the common man for power reasons.
its led directly to the result we have today that feminsits are completely confused about.
What have we come to when middle-class girls see whoring as a career choice?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1310348/Girls-like-Jennifer-Thompson-Helen-Wood-whoring-career-choice.html
[edited for length by n-n]
and who was Josiah Warren, author of True Civilization (1869) that Ezra and Moses were all connected with?
Josiah Warren (1798-1874) was an individualist anarchist, inventor, musician, and author in the United States. Biographer William Bailie regarded him as the first American anarchist, and the four-page weekly paper he edited during 1833, The Peaceful Revolutionist, was the first anarchist periodical published, William Bailie,[1] an enterprise for which he built his own printing press, cast his own type, and made his own printing plates
oh.. the first american anarchist, soft revoltionary, etc.
but wait… thats not all… wait to you hear what is key.
In 1825, Warren became aware of the “social system” of Robert Owen and began to talk with others in Cincinnati about founding a communist colony.[4] When this group failed to come to agreement about the form and goals of their proposed community, Warren decided to join Owen’s community at New Harmony, Indiana. The Cincinnati colony was attempted without Warren’s involvement, but failed.[5] Warren traveled by flat-boat from Cincinnati, arriving in New Harmony in early May, 1825. By 1827, he had returned to Cincinnati, convinced that the complete individualization of interests was necessary to cooperation. He considered Owen’s experiment “communism,” which he rejected in no uncertain terms, but he developed a warm and lasting respect for Robert Owen and his sons. One of his earliest writings, published in The March of Mind in 1827, attests to this, as do later writings
yes.. thats right. the first communist society!!!!
and when did das kapital come out? later.
so where did marx, engels, the europeans like hitler and stalin and later mao get all their ideas from?
moses, ezra, josiah… new harmony…
obama reminds me of the South end of a North bound horse including the flies which are his cabinet.
Oh my bad you asked which historical figure,that would have to be Castro.
Oh again my bad between FDR and HH I would say FDR.
Das kapital came out in 1860s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kapital_titel_bd1.png
this is decades AFTER the progressives, and it was marx that took their ideas and formed them into a new social order, a new world order, to replace the capitalism which destroyed the old world order aristocracy…
and put the genie back into the bottle.
Critics have argued that Utopian socialists who established experimental communities were in fact trying to apply the scientific method to human social organization, and were therefore not Utopian. For instance, Joshua Muravchik, on the basis of Karl Popper’s definition of science as “the practice of experimentation, of hypothesis and test,” argued that “Owen and Fourier and their followers were the real ‘scientific socialists.’ They hit upon the idea of socialism, and they tested it by attempting to form socialist communities.” Muravchik further argued that, in contrast, Marx made untestable predictions about the future, and that Marx’s view that socialism would be created by impersonal historical forces may lead one to conclude that it is unnecessary to strive for socialism, because it will happen anyway
Perhaps the first utopian socialist was Thomas More (1478-1535), who wrote about an imaginary socialist society in his satire Utopia, which was published in 1516. He apparently coined the word “utopia”.
Saint-Simonianism was a French political and social movement of the first half of the nineteenth century, inspired by the ideas of Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon (1760-1825). His ideas influenced Auguste Comte (who was, for a time, Saint-Simon’s secretary), Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, and many other thinkers and social theorists.
Robert Owen (1771-1858) was a successful Welsh businessman who devoted much of his profits to improving the lives of his employees.
His reputation grew when he set up a textile factory in New Lanark, Scotland, co-funded by his teacher, the liberal Jeremy Bentham, and introduced shorter working hours, schools for children and renovated housing.
He wrote about his ideas in his book A New View of Society, which was published in 1813, and An Explanation of the Cause of Distress which pervades the civilized parts of the world in 1823.
He also set up an Owenite commune called New Harmony in Indiana, USA. This collapsed when one of his business partners ran off with all the profits.
Owen’s main contribution to socialist thought was the view that human social behavior is not fixed or absolute, and that human beings have the free will to organize themselves into any kind of society they wished.
or how others wished, because we are blank slates and have no natures. we are programmable and a result of our enviornment.
sound familar?
to thinkthat modern society is being collapsed into a failed idea that was dominant and sprang as an aside to american freedom is incredible.
we are talking less than 50 years from the signing of the new declaration of independence, to a movement that would enslave mankind and rewrite natural life into a centrally commanded administrated planned state (all by committee/soviet)
the different scary things you see were variations on how to IMPLEMENT and make work these unworkable ideas. (well unworkable for the whole, not the few)
the baby does not look like the man..
but the baby becomes the man
to deny they are the same is to remove this progression, and replace it with what?
an inability to see what and where things come from, and so an inability to prevent the planting of the seeds of destruction, and the weeding out of the missed growth
Buchanan because BHO comes before a terrible storm and is incompetent to calm the storm, even were he not oblivious to it.
That said, he’s mean-spirited and inept enough to give Wilson a good run, prissy arrogant enough to rival Jimmy Carter, and obstinately wrongheaded after the FDR way.
Artfldgr:
You can go back even further to the French Revolution, where the first notions of “Left” and “Right” were defined by the seating arrangement in the National Assembly. It was also from this era that sprang a great many of the communistic ideas which later were picked up by the international left. There were any number of people and groups attempting crackpot experiments, such as that in New Harmony, and any number of people and groups proposing radical ideas that were bad.. and which had catastrophic results. You listed several, and I join you in agreeing that they were bad.
But I think there is enough of a difference between such people, and other progressives such as those in Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party (which concluded their convention with “Onward Christian Soldiers”), or Christian influenced individuals like William Jennings Bryan who, while flawed (and while associated with Wilson), were not Communists, Marxists, or anything of the sort. Comparing the bad Left with the rational, well-grounded reformers who still were called Progressives is like comparing Jonas Salk to quacks like Lysenko just because they both went under the title “scientist.”
In any case, I again agree with you as to where we are today… out with this rotting pile now called “progressivism.”
As long as we’re handing out historical opprobrium, we mustn’t neglect Rousseau. Arguably he has earned pride of place as a progenitor of progressivism. (Pardon the alliteration!)
Anna, you are correct that the tendency to continue Peré³n’s statist/dirigiste solutions derailed Argentina’s long term economic growth.One detail: Peron was President from 1946 to 1955, and 1973-74. His second wife Isabel was President from 1974 to March 1976. Some comparisons between Obama and Peré³n follow.
Both saw no problem with playing rough to get things done. Suffice it that Peré³n’s first encounter with power was as labor minister in a military coup government. Had Peré³n played nicer with the church back in ’55, he might not have been deposed. Obama: look at what happened to Obama’s opponents in Illinois, from Alice Palmer to Ryan.
Both supported statist solutions. Peré³n: wage and price controls, and nationalization of the railroads, which were much bigger in 1945 than now. Obama: nationalization of GM, Chrysler, student loans, and the impending nationalization of health care.
Several differences. I see the support for Obama as being wide, but not deep. Support for Peré³n was wide and deep. A generation after he was deposed in a coup, he returned to cheering crowds. I do not see worshipping crowds in the same degree when Obama is out of office. He was hyped, people fell for the hype, and they are gradually realizing it. Many voted against Bush while they voted for Obama.
While Evita was definitely subordinate to her husband, she was a higly valued and very powerful member of the Peré³n team. I would liken her to Dick Cheney or Karl Rove in the Bush Administration. While Michelle may have pull behind the scenes, in the same way that LBJ often consulted Lady Bird, we do not see that on the outside. Evita basically did what Obama does now: perpetual campaigning. She was always on the stump for her President husband, even after he was elected. She also served as her husband’s informal pollster. What are the people thinking, Evita? After Michelle alienated many people early and often, she was pulled off the stump, for the most part. She doesn’t make many public appearances any more- as opposed to photo ops at the beach.
You can still find people in Argentina, nearly 60 years after Evita died, who adore her. That would never happen with Michelle. The best people can say about Michelle is that when muzzled appropriately, she doesn’t lose support for the POTUS. While Michelle gets the opposition angry with remarks like “a mean country,” she doesn’t similarly get her side cheering. Evita was certainly polarizing. The rich of Barrio Norte hated her. But the masses, the “descamisados,” worshipped Evita. One reason for Juan Domingo Peré³n’s initial loss of power was that after Evita died, he lost both his primary spokesperson and his main de facto pollster.
While Obama would most likely approve of a cult of personality as strong as what Peré³n had, he is a piker compared to Juan Domingo Peré³n.
One difference is economic. Obama took office in recession. Peré³n took office with the coffers bulging from selling wheat and meat during the war but not being able to import manufactured goods. This will affect how people remember you, and how effective your solutions are.
Here is the Marcha Peronista [Peronista March/hymn] Some interesting lines: “He won over the people , fighting against Big Capital…. Peré³n, Peré³n how great you are, your’e worth so much. You are the first worker…. For this great Argentine who worked without stopping so that love and equality reigned over the country.”
One improvised line of the Peronista March, not heard in this version is, “Hijo de puta o ladré³n, queremos Peré³n,” translated as “Son of a whore (S.O.B.) or thief, we love Peré³n.”
Art,
You’ve really taken your egocentric style to a new level.
I see Obama and Michele as the Duvalier family in Haiti. They will leave office saying to themselves that we did it for the people and wondering why the people are not awe struck with them. They both have the same sense of entitlement and dislike for their own nation’s citizens.
If one listens to many in the administration threatening businesses and people if they criticize the government it might vaguely remind one of the “Tonton Macoutes.”
Forgot to add that we might very well resemble Haiti after they get through with us.
Which historical figure…
…does Obama most resemble: Hoover or FDR?
Hannibal … but without any of the talent.
I agree with neo, Obama is sui generis. I’ve had the thought in the last few days–very unsettling, I can tell you–when I see his face (don’t listen to his voice anymore, like some others here), that we don’t actually have a president. Whatever else he is, a president he is not. This is a very odd and frightening thought.
Artfldgr makes a lot of interesting and informative points (as usual) and draws nearly persuasive parallels with FDR. But I’m not sure I’d agree with the notion of Thomas More as the first utopian socialist, although it’s true that he coined the term “Utopia.” By his very coining of the term, he showed his grasp of its unreality–it means “Nowhere” or “No Place.” I’ve also understood that the concept of a perfect order in society through government, though not the term itself, originated with Plato. Anyway, as far as the connection with More is concerned, I think people tend not to satirize concepts in which they have actual faith and whose implementation they would support. And More was, after all, enough of a committed Christian to die for his beliefs, which probably didn’t include socialism.
O.B., I think there is never a need to pardon alliteration!
Also I am with you on Rousseau, and with J.L. on the French Revolution, one of the great smashings of all time, and whose destructive ambitions remain with us.
For a bit of humor about that awful time, I often remember that Norman Podhoretz, according to his own account, first heard of the Jacobins when he was a young man, in a political meeting or some such, somewhere on Manhattan’s Upper East (?) side a number of years ago. He had not heard of these Jacobins before, and thought the references being made were to philosophical/political categories known as “jackal bins.”
Speaking of Rousseau and such, here’s a parlor game for the bloody-minded:
if you could go back and blow the brains out of one historical figure, who would it be?
Rousseau? Hegel? Marx? Lenin? Hitler? Mao? Other?
For my part, Rousseau would be high – very high – on my list, with Hegel close behind him.
My reasoning: those two worthies potentiated the malfeasance of the remainder of the candidates above.
Without Rousseau, and his intellectually bankrupt babbling about man in the state of nature, the human race would have been spared a great deal of misery inflicted in efforts to regain a paradise that never existed.
Mohammed. Definitely.
if you could go back and blow the brains out of one historical figure, who would it be?
I’m most drawn to putting a bullet hole in Lenin, because he was the one who put into practice the bad ideas of Marx in full-blown totalitarian form. Without Lenin, there would arguably be no Soviet union, and without the Soviet Union, arguably no communist bloc. Also, without the example of Soviet totalitarianism, no fascist “reaction,” thus no Hitler… nor would there be a Maoist imitation of Lenin, thus no Red China.
Now, I’m thinking… what about Marx…. would there not have been a USSR, and Red China, and all that without Marx?? Would there have been a Lenin without Marx?? I wonder, because even though the ideology of Lenin and Mao and the others is called Marxism, it could still be argued that what Marxists attempted had already been tried during the French Revolition… all the totalitarian elements, and the effort to remake human nature, with disastrous results… …. so, would a Lenin, lacking Marx, have simply reached back further to… who.. Engels?? To Reausseau?? To any number of other socialists that Artfldgr named?
So, I guess I’ll go with Lenin… getting rid of him is the surest way to have put a kink in the chain of atrocious “revolutionary” experiments… or so I think.
Engels??
I meant Hagel
Hmmmmmmm…… maybe the one that needed the bullethole was Robespierre????
Occam’s Beard
if you could go back and blow the brains out of one historical figure, who would it be?Rousseau? Hegel? Marx? Lenin? Hitler? Mao? Other?
I will sidestep the question and instead make a point about coups. Had failed coupsters been executed in the past century, or imprisoned for life, instead of governments being so merciful and forgiving by releasing them from prison, the world would have been a lot better off. Consider the following failed coupsters who later took power: Hitler, Castro, and Hugo Ché¡vez.
Directly answering the question of Occan’s Beard with who is on the list, I would agree with JL and go for Lenin. Or the German official who put him on the sealed train back to Russia from Switzerland.
I did not go for Marx or some such intellectual who only wrote books because regardless of Marx, Russia was in upheaval in the last part of the 19th century.To get an idea of that, read Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina or Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons. Ideas of Anarchist, Socialists, Freemasons, Marxists- what have you- were circulating around Russia at the time. The ideology was just something on which to hang the dissatisfaction that permeated Russia. A psychopath will adjust any ideology to fit his goals and interests.
This perfect society built by government business was obviously started by someone who never went to a DMV or had to try and get business licence’s.
This is why I plump for Rousseau. His “Man in a state of nature” nonsense convinced the weak-minded that ills resulted from contemporary society perverting Man’s true nature, and thus by reforming society we could reform — and thereby return — Man to his “original state,” per Rousseau. (For my part, I, following Hobbes, say those wanting to see Man in a state of nature need only consider any prison or city with a breakdown of civil order.)
The line from Rousseau to New Socialist Man is direct. Without Rousseau, Marx would probably have found some other way to sponge off of others, perhaps by playing three card monte on a street corner, and Lenin would have been a garden variety guttersnipe, probably a used car salesman or personal injury lawyer.
Turfmann, good choice, who for some reason didn’t cross my mind. Without meaning to give offense, much as golden retrievers have a predilection toward hip dysplasia, it seems the Semitic peoples generally have one toward mental problems (e.g., Old Testament prophets would now be considered schizophrenics; few other cultures took so seriously the ravings of those hearing and seeing things/people could/did not). I view Mohammed (and Freud, albeit in a different context) as a reflection of that predilection, which has generated so many religions. Therefore I suspect that if not Mohammed, there would have been another nutjob warming in the bullpen. But a good choice, nonetheless.
Robespierre was the instrument (I almost wrote “tool,” even more appropriately), not the prime mover. A healthier society — i.e., one not infected with philosophical error — would never have permitted a Robespierre to rise much above ratcatcher.
Excellent point. Stringent methods — applied early and dispositively — could have precluded a lot of misery later.
True, but removing the philosophical underpinning provided by Marx would have reduced Lenin and the Bolsheviks to the level of junta, and prevented that junta from propagating in time.
(This is why, for my part, I worry less about non-ideological dictatorships that those buttressed with an ideological foundation. When an Adolf/Papa Doc type goes to his reward, such as it is, fundamental change can occur fairly readily. When a Lenin goes to his (“Damn, it’s hot down here!”), someone of the same philosophy takes his place.) The intellectuals matter.
LOL! Yesterday, having to revise my business license, I went to the city offices.
They had no record of my business – despite my business license in my hot little hand.
But I’m sure government healthcare will work out just fine. Just as sure as I am that it’ll save us lots of money.
I left off whoever came up with the designated hitter rule. My bad.
“”if you could go back and blow the brains out of one historical figure, who would it be?””
Seeing as our anscestors were decent people but ruthless when need be, chances are anyone we pick was actually 3rd or 4th string sinister material back in the day.
OB, I’m with you. Rousseau. Closely followed by Hegel.
The rest is decoration.
Mohammed. Definitely.
Yup. He’s right at the top of my list also. Rousseau is a good choice, as are any of the founders of communism, but compared to Mo the Pedophile, many of history’s other villains pale to insignificance.
Rasputin
Artfldgr (post # 1), ROTLMAO!!!
What historical figure does the Indonesian Imbecile resemble? Boy, that’s a tough one. Can’t say Hitler or Stalin, as they were both nationalists, which Obama is most certainly not.
I’d have to agree with Occam’s Beard and go with Wilson. Wilson was a racist progressive, as is Obama. Wilson was for the League of Nations (which the Senate rejected); Obie loves him some UN. I actually think Obie will go on to become the first American Secretary General of the UN. After all, Obie received a Nobel peace Prize for no actual achievement but possible future achievement. So why not the UN? Now wouldn’t that be just p(r)eachy?
But if I have to choose between the two choices provided: FDR. Hands down.
I agree with turfmann: Mohammed would be the historical person that I would vote out of existence.
If a fictional character can be historic in the sense of a collective cultural memory, then, Chance Gardener.
A mix, really. But not of them, of their coffee boys.
Mussolini
Castro
Occam’s Beard Says:
September 10th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
LOL. And seconded.
I’m surprised no one’s mentioned Harding.
Neo:
I’m surprised no one’s mentioned Harding
Since you brought up Warren Harding I will once more bring up my unintended research comparison of Obama with Warren Harding. Two years ago I compared the experience of then-Senator Obama with the experience of other Senators who became President. By the metric I chose, here is How Obama scored:
No Vice-President Experience
No Cabinet Experience
No House of Representatives Experience
No Governor Experience
No Military Officer Experience
Obama had no experience at all in the above categories. There were fifteen Presidents before Obama with US Senate experience. Only one scored a zero like Obama. That would be Warren Harding, nobody’s model of a great President.
At least Warren Harding had some executive experience in running a newspaper. The only “executive” experience Obama had was chairing the Annenberg challenge, which consisted in doling out research money that didn’t achieve its goal of improving the Chicago public schools. IOW, Obama was a failure at his previous “executive” experience.
When I have brought this up in other blogs, some have made the comment that in some respects Harding wasn’t as bad as believed. For example, he did nothing about the recession that was in place when he assumed office, and the economy righted itself. We don’t need no stinkin’ Stimulus!
What about the principle that people get the government they deserve?
I’m as critical as it gets, but this twist of killing some historical figure even makes me wince.
Prior to the leader in time and in logical sequence are the led. There is something to be said for this, and I have said it many times and I believe it is true:
Obama is NOT our main problem. Our main problem is much harder to deal with because there are 69m people who voted him into office.
That means we have 69m people, at least, who are the sort of people to vote for a monster of a human being and a President who hates our country.
Can that problem be solved at all? It will take years. It is analogous to the Jews wandering in the desert for 40 years until that generation dies off. We may need something like that unfortunately. It is only a wicked generation that voted for Obama. There are no excuses. We gave him the keys.
Solid observation Mike Mc, 60 years of prosperity and peace (Viet-Nam and Korea were not significant wars, the homeland was untouched and never threatened) have breed an immature electorate who could not tell the difference between a presidential election and an American Idol competition, hence the choice of a sexy young minority over a worldly old warrior.
Considering Obama’s popularity is still close to 45% I am afraid it will take a great deal more pain to truly mature the electorate. And perhaps a new generation; there are many seniors who vote Democratic because they still see the party of HST and JFK instead of Henry Wallace.
I agree with you Bob, and well put.
There is also this aspect if you care to read: http://rpc.blogrolling.com/redirect.php?r=54fff8ee11d95733d4f47b8ebc860420&url=http%3A%2F%2Fstuartschneiderman.blogspot.com%2F
It’s about America having morfed into a nation of “effete intellectuals” (the people, not leaders) who no longer care to make things.
And that’s true. Manufacturing is scarce, and we have a bunch of metrosexual lawyers.
We once built the Empire State Building in a year. Now nine years after 9/11, there’s still no building and if we ever get one it will stink.
Men are gone. Males are feminized. The end of that story is so predictable it’s not even funny. It feels good at first. Then America itself becomes what ghettos are now, without government subsidies since we’ll all be poorer.
“hence the choice of a sexy young minority
Obama? The guy that looks like the black Vulcan character in Star Trek Voyager ???
I’m still waiting for BHO to do that Spock salute with his fingers.
Apparently, I’m not the only one that noticed the similarity. . .
http://allotherpersons.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/separatebirth.jpg
http://allotherpersons.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/barack-tuvok-11.jpg
http://www.photochopz.com/gallery/data/500/Lieutenant_Commander_TUVOK_OBAMA_BLOG.jpg
A late thought, and an interesting question: Which historical moment does the country most resemble? 1859, or 1939? The electorate is divided, and intensity is high. Are we on the edge of a new civil war? Or are we united in ways that aren’t immediately evident, and ready to allow the Left to solidify legislative and executive gains?
We are not united like 1939. Not even in that galaxy. We have never been more divided except for what you mentioned.
We are in an “us or them” fight with the enemy within.
Are we on the edge of a new civil war?
The Republic is on the edge of a partial break-up or dissolution. There are something like 4 major lines of serious and irreconciliable disagreement between many of the States and the feral government and between a large section of the People and the feral government. Those issues have all been exacerbated by the demeaning of America and American values, by the feral government and leftists, and by the insane expansion of that same feral government to try and takeover just about everything they could get their hands on.
Or are we united in ways that aren’t immediately evident, and ready to allow the Left to solidify legislative and executive gains?
No and no. The problem is simple: There is no parity between right and left. They are not mirror images of each other. Leftists can live under conservative government since conservatives are federalists who allow liberals to make their own liberal states into whatever socialist hellholes they want. If they want forced health insurance and mandates, then they can get it in their own states. ANd the liberals have done just that.
However, conservatives cannot live under liberals in the federal government, since liberals prefer a national government to a federal one and do not allow states much latitude in anything. Liberals must force others to live the way liberals declare – you must accept gay marriage, you must recycle (and the recycling cops will make sure), you are mandated to buy health insurance, and only the types we tell you, … Liberals don’t let conservatives have conservative states, to a good extent because liberal ideas, like all Ponzi schemes, always need more suckers to put new money in.
This lack of parity between the left and right was kept to a minimum, but with the advent of the Indonesian Left and the absolute lunatics running the dems, the country is quickly becoming unlivable for conservatives. Add to this all the antagonism that the White House and Dems are engaging in against the American citizenry and it is not a pretty picture.
That’s how I see it, at least.
Spot on! Conservatives allow liberals to be @ssholes while liberals are @ssholes who tolerate no conservatism.
And I’m shamelessly stealing that ‘feral government’ phrase.
Progressoverpeace: Amen!
Tolerance is practiced only by American Conservatives. The Left is like Islam, demanding tolerance but granting none.
The electorate is divided, and intensity is high. Are we on the edge of a new civil war? Or are we united in ways that aren’t immediately evident, and ready to allow the Left to solidify legislative and executive gains?
I fear that it could go either way. I understand the most negative forecasts as to where this country is going, and yes, I do dread that we are headed for something very bad. I don’t want to hide my head in the sand… I really do want to look at these possibilities in the face without blinking.
However, I suggest that there is a possibility for it to go the other way. Although we are divided, we are not divided equally. As is often stated by many pundits (Sean Hannity, Dick Morris, and others) this is essentially a Center-Right country. The majority of the people may not be entirely on the conservative side, but they are definitely closer to the conservatives than to the Berkley-esque clique that liberalism has now become. This allows for a coalition which unites the Right with Center-Right to form a conservative majority. The left can remain a cantankerous, embittered minority, albeit one with some influence in certain enclaves, such as Hollywood and the so-called intelligencia.
The key is getting those “independents”, most of whom are Center Right. As much as this may sound like a repetition of the “conventional wisdom,” I think it is essentially correct. Contrary to what some have said, I do not necessarily think this requires a “watering down” of conservatism. While I dont think most “independents” are not full-blown odealogical conservatives, conservatism fits much better with the common sense mentality of most independents.
Which historical moment does the country most resemble? 1859, or 1939?
I’ll try for a positive view.. I think we could be at a combination of 1946, 1966, and 1994. All three were years when the public, fed up with bug-government liberalism, gave the Republican Part big wins in Congressional elections. I say “a combination” because I think it will be even bigger than those three years… the perfect storm that Obama and the Dems have created will cause a tsunamis to come against them.
The additional questions are: what will 2012 be like? Will it create a reversal for the right, as it did in 1948, or a stalemate, as it did in 1996? Or will it foreshadow a win? (1968, sort-of) And will it change anything?
Part of the key is to win the 2012 presidentail election, and what is needed is a good communicator… Chris Christie of New Jersey is more and more looking like such a person. I’ve said it before: Christie-Palin 2012. This sounds like mundane electoral politics, but its at the center of changing things and getting us away from the clift that is wide open before us. In this way, 2012 could be another 1980… a watershed moment.
Lastly, even if the Dems are defeated at the ballot box, will the Republicans have the motivation to change anything? I realize that past history looks grim in this regard… but think of this: Reagan did change things around, not so much in domestic policy, but he did wonders in foreign policy, which was the primary danger then. Further, while many conservatives feel disappointed by the 1994 Republicans, its important to remember that they revoked federal centralized welfare, an effort at rescission that had not occurred before. This can be an example for further action.
In my darker moments, I’d say Spain 1934. Reds had taken over the government, and overestimating their strength, set about implementing socialism/communism and destroying traditional Spanish culture (most notably by attacks on the Church, including murdering many priests), until the Nationalists fought back.
This coming election will be critical historically, either way. We’ll either turn away from the Reds’ agenda – as I fervently hope – or likely follow Spain’s trajectory.
Christie-Palin would be a tough ticket to beat.
julia nyc wote “Christie-Palin would be a tough ticket to beat.”
I used to say that the only way the Republicans could lose in 2012 would to run a Nazi-Pedophile. Although that is probably no longer the case in that such a ticket could probably win easily today Palin would be of greater service to a campaign by being a Secretary of Interior candidate than vice-President. Mitch Daniels has an excellent resume as a deficit beater. Christie is too new. No one has heard of Barbour.
The good news is that the era of voting for candidates because they are young and good looking may be ending. (caveat to H.L. Mencken’s observation that no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public).
Bob, I haven’t heard of Mitch Daniels or Barbour. But Christie is a sensation. If only he had some community organizer or state senatorial experience under his capacious belt… /g
Mike Mc. if the crux of the linked article was that the market is going to hammer the idea that “niceness” as a goal then I agree. “Interesting times” may be upon us as the Chinese curse goes. I wonder how a generation of spoiled brats will react?
Hoover did have an apology tour around Latin America…
OCCAM,
if you could go back and blow the brains out of one historical figure, who would it be?
The man who invented the pencil, and so allowed Hitler, Gramsci, Diderot and many others (including Rousseau i think) to write while they were locked away.
Without Lenin, there would arguably be no Soviet union
I told Bukharin he wouldn’t be remembered…heh…