Yesterday day on Rush Limbaugh's esteemed Excellence in Broadcasting (EIB) network, the Maha Rushi opined that the administration's visit to the newly befriended country of Cuba was - and I quote - "One small step for man, one giant leap for marxism."
Apart from being hilarious, I think that El Rushbo was making an important point...
That is; that the Regime's lifting of sanctions on Cuba is really, de facto - Marxism. I've gone on in this blog about the dangers of communism and socialism-as-such, so I know when I hear Rush go on about the same concern - I must be on to something. Marxism is, inherently, a foreign ideology. It has always been kept around in the counter culture as a kind of hip European import, yet now it has become a part of our nation's current politik. It's strange that marxist ideology (I can't honestly refer to it as philosophy proper) has become so mainstreamed.
But I suppose that this really points to a larger issue;
Whether or not to deal with - diplomatically - countries that are hostile to Democracy.
This regime has set the precedent, saying "Yes!" to dealing with the rogue state of Iran (whom the Bush administration refused to negotiate with), "Yes!" to nuke deals with the former U.S.S.R., and - currently - is saying "Yes!" to warming relations with an officially communist government. Dealing with dictators is risky business, and I'd wager the Bush team had a great deal of foresight in their refusal to open diplomatic relations with Terrorist States.
And that's precisely what Cuba is - a Terrorist State.
Upon Barack Obama's visit to Raoul Castro's kingdom, the dictator was notably agitated when questioned on Cuba's position of jailing political dissidents.
The marxist leader even shouted at the U.S. press box in an appropriately fascistic and dictator-like fashion. It would be humorous if it weren't so deadly serious.
Barack Obama's policy of appeasement of rogue nations (our enemies) seems questionable...
Why, unless this U.S. Regime is actually - de facto - marxist, would we as the beacon of light for Freedom in the world... Why would we become so friendly with a peoples that are entirely hostile to an average cup o' joe American? I mean, Iran still constantly holds rallies where the crowd erupts in chants of "Death To America!'. Cuba hasn't even considered releasing pro-democracy dissidents from their prisons. Russia obviously want's to be the #1 nuclear power in the world...
Why are we opening diplomatic relations with countries that obviously mean to do us damage?
I suppose Mr. Hussein's next step will be to have a cold one with fucking Ceasar "Commie" Chavez...
It's patently ridiculous, wrongheaded in terms of foreign policy, and an altogether "progressive" approach to foreign policy. But this is domestic democracy united, so I suppose I've drifted - ignorantly - out of concerns nationally and into the drab world of foreign policy.
I apologize...
So returning to what this means for our country;
I believe that "progressivism" is a form of neo-hegelianism brought to our nation's shores in the early 1900's, and this ideology has always been - again, "de facto" - contrary to the will of the sovereign American spirit.
Let me give you a little example of what these early progressives believed:
1) Trained in psychology, the social sciences and economics, the early progressive's in America had the notion of newly emancipated slaves being incapable of living freely, as the constitution clearly states. That went for blacks as well as poor scotch-irish. The enlightened ones knew for a certainty that these - and I quote directly from an early preeminent progressive - "barbarians" needed to be "civilized".
2) Due to the aforementioned academic elitism, the early progressive democrats instituted:
a. Poll taxes and literacy tests for poor blacks and scotch-irish.
b. Segregation of blacks into ghettos (I suppose they thought this ideal would turn out a little better than it did, to give them credit)
c. Economic redistribution through the "Death Tax"; which, according to Buckley, was actually intended to end inter-generational transmission of wealth.
3) These early progressives thought of your average cup of joe American citizen as little more than a means to achieve enlightened ideals, often radically marxist, socialist or even outright communist ideals. I make this point again and again... This kind of ideology has no god given place in our American politik. It is not, as they say, native to this country. Yet bringing the discussion back into the present age, we now find that european style Socialism-as-such is in vogue. Communism still holds it's ground and advances violently within the U.S.A.'s borders. Marxism is an eminent part of many scholarly oxen's repertoire.
These kinds of applications of ideology are quite contrary to thinkers such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. - who all believed in every man's innate and God given right to Freedom-as-such.
And I would say, decidedly, that the ideologies of Iran, Russia and - to a point - communist Cuba stand in even starker contrast.
Why are liberal elites so ashamed to be American?
"For more reading on the subject, follow this link to my uber-fave anti-commie club, the John Birch Society: The John Birch Society ."
- Brendan O'Connell
Founder and member of Domestic Democracy United
RT DDU 2016
SUPERpac
Apart from being hilarious, I think that El Rushbo was making an important point...
That is; that the Regime's lifting of sanctions on Cuba is really, de facto - Marxism. I've gone on in this blog about the dangers of communism and socialism-as-such, so I know when I hear Rush go on about the same concern - I must be on to something. Marxism is, inherently, a foreign ideology. It has always been kept around in the counter culture as a kind of hip European import, yet now it has become a part of our nation's current politik. It's strange that marxist ideology (I can't honestly refer to it as philosophy proper) has become so mainstreamed.
But I suppose that this really points to a larger issue;
Whether or not to deal with - diplomatically - countries that are hostile to Democracy.
This regime has set the precedent, saying "Yes!" to dealing with the rogue state of Iran (whom the Bush administration refused to negotiate with), "Yes!" to nuke deals with the former U.S.S.R., and - currently - is saying "Yes!" to warming relations with an officially communist government. Dealing with dictators is risky business, and I'd wager the Bush team had a great deal of foresight in their refusal to open diplomatic relations with Terrorist States.
And that's precisely what Cuba is - a Terrorist State.
Upon Barack Obama's visit to Raoul Castro's kingdom, the dictator was notably agitated when questioned on Cuba's position of jailing political dissidents.
The marxist leader even shouted at the U.S. press box in an appropriately fascistic and dictator-like fashion. It would be humorous if it weren't so deadly serious.
Barack Obama's policy of appeasement of rogue nations (our enemies) seems questionable...
Why, unless this U.S. Regime is actually - de facto - marxist, would we as the beacon of light for Freedom in the world... Why would we become so friendly with a peoples that are entirely hostile to an average cup o' joe American? I mean, Iran still constantly holds rallies where the crowd erupts in chants of "Death To America!'. Cuba hasn't even considered releasing pro-democracy dissidents from their prisons. Russia obviously want's to be the #1 nuclear power in the world...
Why are we opening diplomatic relations with countries that obviously mean to do us damage?
I suppose Mr. Hussein's next step will be to have a cold one with fucking Ceasar "Commie" Chavez...
It's patently ridiculous, wrongheaded in terms of foreign policy, and an altogether "progressive" approach to foreign policy. But this is domestic democracy united, so I suppose I've drifted - ignorantly - out of concerns nationally and into the drab world of foreign policy.
I apologize...
So returning to what this means for our country;
I believe that "progressivism" is a form of neo-hegelianism brought to our nation's shores in the early 1900's, and this ideology has always been - again, "de facto" - contrary to the will of the sovereign American spirit.
Let me give you a little example of what these early progressives believed:
1) Trained in psychology, the social sciences and economics, the early progressive's in America had the notion of newly emancipated slaves being incapable of living freely, as the constitution clearly states. That went for blacks as well as poor scotch-irish. The enlightened ones knew for a certainty that these - and I quote directly from an early preeminent progressive - "barbarians" needed to be "civilized".
2) Due to the aforementioned academic elitism, the early progressive democrats instituted:
a. Poll taxes and literacy tests for poor blacks and scotch-irish.
b. Segregation of blacks into ghettos (I suppose they thought this ideal would turn out a little better than it did, to give them credit)
c. Economic redistribution through the "Death Tax"; which, according to Buckley, was actually intended to end inter-generational transmission of wealth.
3) These early progressives thought of your average cup of joe American citizen as little more than a means to achieve enlightened ideals, often radically marxist, socialist or even outright communist ideals. I make this point again and again... This kind of ideology has no god given place in our American politik. It is not, as they say, native to this country. Yet bringing the discussion back into the present age, we now find that european style Socialism-as-such is in vogue. Communism still holds it's ground and advances violently within the U.S.A.'s borders. Marxism is an eminent part of many scholarly oxen's repertoire.
These kinds of applications of ideology are quite contrary to thinkers such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. - who all believed in every man's innate and God given right to Freedom-as-such.
And I would say, decidedly, that the ideologies of Iran, Russia and - to a point - communist Cuba stand in even starker contrast.
Why are liberal elites so ashamed to be American?
"For more reading on the subject, follow this link to my uber-fave anti-commie club, the John Birch Society: The John Birch Society ."
- Brendan O'Connell
Founder and member of Domestic Democracy United
RT DDU 2016
SUPERpac
No comments:
Post a Comment