Why So Serious?

It's odd and even pathetic when Democrat pundits and politicians bristle at the label or mere notion that they're behaving like socialist. It's even more bizarre when Democrats like Nancy Pelosi accuse opponents of government run health care as Nazis carrying swastikas. After all, its modern day democrats who espouse socialism and its principles. Maybe, not in name, but in virtue no less. So why so serious Nancy and friends when confronted with the connotation of socialism? I'll tell you why. Its their dirty little secret. That's why. They are socialists. Most Americans were being cordial with the statists; mine and Mark Levin's new name for liberals, out of fear of being labeled extremists. Well the time is late to worry about extremist labels because, according to Dick Durbin and fellow travelers all of us in opposition or with questions and concerns about "Obama-Care" are now apparently enemies of the state. Watch what you say folks or you may be turned in to the administration for high treason. The community organizer is offended at communities organizing. Against him of course.

However, it still begs the question. Why do democrats shy away from the socialist label? Most progressives are or lean leftward which seems to always tilt towards statism and socialism. It can even be argued that the current health care bill is riddled with fascist platitudes straight from Germany's 1930's National-Socialism Party platform. Read the bill, as those concerned citizens often chant at numerous town hall meetings. The reason statists are so afraid of the socialism banner is because the label will stick and already has like an unwanted bumper sticker. Always hard to get off and leaving a nasty sticky residue that never seems to wash off. Progressives can't be honest about what they really want for the country because the American people don't want any of what they have to offer. Let's see what I can rattle off the recent list of Obama's policies: government-run banks, insurance companies, auto companies. Proposals to mandate and run health care and don't let us forget the energy industry and Cap & Charade. This administration is more efficient than the Jesuits at the height of Catholicism. Their tentacles are stretching to influence all the major choke points of our society. Only I'd be more at ease to see dark frocked and balding Jesuits running the nation than the current regime.

Fact of matter it was in the 60's that the progressive crowd touted socialism in the Marxist form. It was then that shouts of "the long march to the institutions" amid a sea of NVA flags could be heard from the newly established pleather-upholstered lounges named in honor of Angela Davis. "Seize the language" was another favored slogan and that they did. PC would make Orwell blush and its rampant at today's universities and infects everyday society. "Turn-speak" is exactly what Pelosi and her crew practice daily. Accuse you're opponents of exactly what you are doing or have done in the past. Hence, the astroturf protester smear. How did statists come to claim and cloak themselves under the mantle of liberalism? Sorry to educate you lefty, but you're no liberal and I'm no Barry Goldwater. I'm liberal. Me and other conservatives who believe in less taxes, limited government and a strong Federal government in accordance with the Constitution, i.e...a strong defense. That's true liberalism in the Jeffersonian sense. So for now on call your fellow progressive what he or she truly is and believes. Statists.

This leads me to another question. Why do modern day statists (progressives) lean towards fascism? That's right, I said it! It was none other than H. G. Wells that coined the phrase Liberal-fascism. Jonah Goldberg argues this very well in his book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. It was Wells who was an intellectual proponent in the 1930's for a "world brain" that would unite humanity and make all of mankind's life easier: over-lorded by a ruling elite who knows better. Sound familiar? Only the brand of fascism that swept up Europe wasn't the Aldous Huxley type in which you'd be smothered with a hug and given great assortments of pharmacopoeia to cope daily. Unfortunately, it was Adolf Hitler's brand of liberal-fascism with an iron boot in one's face minus the fantastic pharmacopoeia to deal with the bleating headache after wards. Oh well, in the progressive world all things can't be perfect. It's another great question to ask ourselves though. How long does the mechanism of "nanny-ism" wear off before the iron boot comes out of the closet and the push becomes the shove. People are neither sheep nor stupid, forever in need of government's perpetual aide. Freedom beats within the breast of every individual and eventually they start to say we don't want any of what a ruling class has to offer.

Fascists were socialists were they not? National-Socialist Party (Nazi) rings a bell. Nazi ideologist Gregor Strasser stated vehemently that Nazis were deadly enemies of capitalism. They also took over banks, farms, health care, energy and environmental issues and the like. Communism was good on paper but by the 1930's it was a total joke under Stalin. The Soviet government owned all the capital and it was disastrous. Regressive backwardization and intellectual midgetry convinced the Nazis there was a better socialist way, fascism. This new idea was about the government telling the private sector what to do, not owning it, for the business owner has all the headache and burden that comes with ownership. The ruling inner circle can dictate what they can and can't do while siphoning off huge profits for themselves with out all of the hard work involved. Its obvious to mention government intervention has a strong propensity for a cornucopia of malfeasance and chicanery. That's an abundance the state produces with consistency. The Soviets and Nazis proved this point well.

Today's liberals [statists] often champion fascist policies. The current health care bill in debate is laced with terminology that smacks of eugenics. Phrases such as, "non-participating persons", "life valuation", "end of life counseling" and "cost effectiveness and analysis" is concerning. Its one thing to discuss issues and the surrounding ethics involved, but when the government has this in a bill we should have need to worry and question. Its not the governments responsibility to insert itself between you and your health care provider. Especially, when appointed so-called Czars such as John Holdren and Cass Sunstein hold views well out of the mainstream. Don't believe me refer to Holdren and co-author Paul Erlich's 1977 book Ecoscience. In it he espouses compulsory abortion, adding sterilants to drinking water and a governing world regime to limit population and distribute the world's resources. Statements he's never denied to this day. Sunstein, another Alice in Wonderland "wunderkind" touts a second Bill of Rights in one of his ridiculous compendiums. You know the second Bill of Rights that the Soviets and Nazis had also. The rights to good paying jobs or sustainable wages, free and unlimited health care, college education and mass illegal immigration. Basically, it's a Bill of Rights granting the state unlimited powers to smother its people from cradle to grave. He also favors animals being able to bring suit against humans, which was in another 2004 book he wrote. Sorry sir, me and a lot of other folks are just fine with the Bill of Rights we have now. You know, that one which says "we the people" have a right to tell you and government to get off our backs. I wish it was all fantasy out of a Frank Miller comic, but Obama has more Czars than Russia had in 450 years. Talk about chilling. This is all further emphasized in statists like Hillary Clinton's speeches and writings. She believes that "families are not private non-political units whose interests subsume those of children". According to her "children are born into a state of crisis requiring urgent state intervention". Sound familiar again. Crisis is to a progressive as heroin is to a junky. At least she rejects the label of liberal and prefers "progressive". Well they say recovery is a slow process, at least she's taking steps to be honest with herself and others.

So to finally answer the question why so serious? Its not government's job to make end of life decisions or put prices on people's heads according to their life expectancy or to socially engineer citizen's behaviors. Soviets referred to this as 'command economies" I'm sorry I used to get a life meter displayed to me while playing video games. I don't need to be seeing a real time life meter now. I only have a fun meter and that's beginning to peg as we speak. So I say to all concerned Americans like me that it's time to seize our language back. When debating with left leaning friends or family politely refer to them by true name: statists or if they prefer progressives. Refer to yourself as a liberal. If that isn't good enough for them then call yourself a Jeffersonian or Burkeian liberal. Tell them where real liberalism originated. You know those famous 17th and 18th century individuals. Enlighten them to Locke's Tabula Rosa theory, Hobbsonian nightmare scenarios and Rousseau's either nor principles. Educate them that real fascism came from the left and is communism's first cousin removed. If they get angry apologize and let them know that being called a statist is always better than being called a "fascist". We conservatives can speak from experience.