Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Remarks on a article

Remarks about the article posted below: 

For many Americans who consider themselves patriots the contents of this article will most likely be offensive. They will find it hard to hear on most every level--impossible, even.

For those of us of the south, who know what the Yankee government did to us on their way to centralizing power and engineering an Imperial America, it is clear that this article's contents is hardly hyperbole.

Indeed, if you will eat your own to achieve by force what you cannot achieve by a free appeal, it is hard to imagine how far you will go when you oppose those who are not your own? 

But, as fate would have it we don't have to rely on our imaginations. We have the historical record. It tells us Post-Civil War American aggression is a vivid landscape of death, torture, and destruction that numbs the mind as it confounds the imagination.

But vivid as it is, this bewildering landscape remains hidden to great masses of Americans. The cloud of statist propaganda over the American mind seems impenetrable. In the moment it probably is. But what will people whose minds are so blinded when it all falls apart?

A good friend of mine, whose father escaped Germany at the end of World War II, told me that when Germany was defeated and it was announced that Hitler had committed suicide, tens of thousands of Germans also committed suicide.

It is not hard to imagine an analogous thing happening here when Reality its self rises up to disabuse the multitudes of their government driven delusions.

One might reasonable ask why American propaganda has been so powerful and effective at deceiving so many of good will and good character. While there is no room here to investigate this question in depth, one thing can and should be said: to live in a land ruled by Hamiltonian statist who can always turn to Jeffersonian platitudes and principles as pretexts for their actions and policies is nothing less than a propagandist's dream.

It's absolutely true, as the article states, you cannot give people a democratic form of government. You can only assist them after they have made it clear they want it by strenuous effort--just as France aided the American Colonists. To do otherwise, to force democracy upon a people is to use this noble goal as mere pretext. And that, indeed, is the reality of the American government now; an evil force, dreaded and feared; shrouded in a cloud of pretexts and a tsunami of pretenses, all dressed up in empty, patriotic sounding rhetoric.

This cannot--CANNOT end well, and when it does end countless innocents will suffer here, just as our government has made innocents suffer in countless other places.

Personally, in thinking about this article, I would be remiss if I didn't note that the litany of victim nations of American brutality listed at the end of the article did not include the Philippines.

Filipinos did not want to be under US rule. They had suffered under Spanish domination for centuries and longed for independence. The defeat of Spain by US troops seem to them as if their moment of liberation had come. It had not. The account of the egregious acts of cruelty and brutality committed by US troops in suppressing the rebellion against US imperialism is beyond description and beyond imagination. In many ways it presages the tortures of the Nazi death camps.

I just heard a TV commercial a few hours ago that mentioned a family that had a proud history of military service. The last family member mentioned joined the military during the Spanish American War--a war ginned up by the lies of US Yellow journalism for the purpose of US imperialist adventurism and nothing more. When I heard the announcer mention the Spanish American War my mind reflexively turned to the Philippines. Then, in almost the same breath, I heard him state the presumed reason for this family's proud lineage of patriotic service: "...Because freedom is worth fighting for."
I almost lost my supper.

As a final observation: how sad it is when we must hear the truth from a reporter from Pravda. Even so, he who has ears to hear, let him hear.

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Is Obama a Socialist? Not hardly.

An Arizona lawmaker recently offended Washington by calling Obama "De Fuhrer" on a Facebook communique. 

This is most certainly highly offensive. I, the Armadillo, personally find it offensive for two reasons.

1. First, I'm offended at such bad German. Obama is not "De Fuhrer." The proper term for Obama is "Der Führer." Oder, als Leute sagen Sie, unser Führer. But even with the proper German this lawmaker is way off base. Which leads me to reason no. 2. 

2. The proper term for Obama is not "Der Führer.  The proper term, as things stand, is "Il Duce." 
Permit me, your humble armadillo, to explain.

We must disabuse ourselves of the notion that Obama is a socialist.This is just stuff and nonsense. 

Obama is a collectivist by any and all means. The means he finds here that was ready and waiting for him in America like a tailor-made glove: cronyism. I make this claim supported by the following understandings:

This is the heritage of full-blown cronyism was the brain child of the Lincoln administration and the Radical Republicans who supported and elected him. Subsequently, it allowed the politicians to establish the Federal Reserve and institute and the so-called "progressive amendments" in early 20th century. Without the Great Consolidator, Lincoln, there never could have been a Teddy Roosevelt or a Woody WoodWilson.

The historical record is clear for all to see: cronyism was rife, taxation exploded, government increased on all levels, and corruption abounded in the decade after Lincoln's impromptu execution--all due to the crony system he and the radical Republicans (Jacobin Whigs) were able to easily set up without any resistance, because those who represented the rights of the people and the states (the southern statesmen) were no longer present. With Jeffersonians gone, Hamiltonians were like blind dogs in a meat house.

The crony system we now have, where businesses are privately owned but politicians and bureaucratic policy makers call the shots, is nothing new. It has existed in countless eras and in sundry forms throughout history. It did no originate with Lincoln. He received it from his idol, Henry Clay, and Clay from Hamilton. Most recently in history,it existed in the form of 18th century British mercantilism.

Henry Clay, Story, Marshall and, preeminently, Hamilton were advocates of this crony, top-down, centralized command and control system. Clay, being a bit inventive, termed it "The American System." There is nothing American about it. This may be the first example of the "new speak" spawned by America's Jacobin revolutionaries--the first example of what we now call "politically correct speech" today.

Clay was the system's prophet, but Lincoln was its full incarnation. In the first two years of his administration the radical Jacobin Republicans passed every bill and policy intended to usher in this crony system that had been resisted and rejected for the previous 70 years. The battle for decentralization was over, save for the shouting.

The past 150 years have just been the inevitable working out of what was enshrined in law in 1861-62. With White vs Texas in 1869, the last nail was driven into the casket of state sovereignty and individual liberty.

Later, in the 20th century this same fundamental arrangement of cronyism came to be known by the term "fascism." You may have heard of it.

That is a system we commonly say is "on the right." Der Führer was a socialist--on the left every bit as far as Stalin. Left/right, Schmeft/right--it makes no difference.
The working idea with both is centralized, top-down, command and control government.

It matters not whether the government owns everything, or allows citizens to retain the appearance of private ownership, while the politicians and bureaucratic policy makers actually call the shots.

The truth, therefore, is this: the one who owns something is the one who has the power and right to call the shots; to run, operate or dispose of it as he or she sees fit!

Therefore, in a crony-fascist system like we have, where the politicians call the shots, they, by virtue of calling the shots become, ipso facto, the actual owners, and We the People, we are their slaves and serfs. Wecome to the Plantation, fellow inmates. Obama is the present plantation owner. What you have you do not own. You only possess it and use it by the owner's discretion and grace. Abuse it in his eyes and you will find it taken from you. Government has enshrined in law a plethora of means by which your disenfranchisement may be effected, and government is watching. 

Have a nice day.

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

A New Name for an Old Slouching Beast?

From a post about creating a litany of "liberal stupidities" on a social site:

"Now, C____, et al, some of you already know, and to others it will come as no surprise, that I consider the War Fare State Neocons as just the flip side on the single coin of progressivism. Stamped on both sides is the image of the early 20th century's two headed American dragon, Roosevelt (TR) and Wilson. 

These two different outlooks are, in reality, one idea working in and being applied to two different, albeit related, venues. That idea is simple: to grow an all-powerful, centralized, command and control, unitary and imperial state. Yes, when it comes to the nuances there is some quibbling between the two factions, but the effects are indistinguishable in the main. 
Obama, who has instituted an agenda more akin to Fascism than socialism domestically, has proven himself multi-talented. It seems he's an equal opportunity abuser, and has also gone in lock step with Neocon foreign policy. Of course, Bush was no piker when it came to domestic waste and overreach, so there's not all that much difference. But BHO takes the cake, as it is said. 

Now, I'm getting to my point, which some of you, no doubt, will find rancorous. ....Sorry.

These two forms, operating out of the pretexts of a false compassion and a false patriotism, have drained us of massive treasure, much blood and one liberty after another, to the point that virtually nothing is now left. (For instance, most of you reading and participating in this thread perhaps think we're here participating in this discussion of sorts protected by the first amendment. Let me disabuse you of such nonsense. We meet here because an all powerful centralized state has not yet seen fit to shut us down--a thing it could easily do by a variety of means. If they so decided there would be next to nothing we could do about it--nothing,at least, in the short run.)'s the liberal stupidity keeping the BOTH sides of "the one coin of liberalism or progressivism" in mind: 

How is it that, year after year, we send our best young men abroad to fight ostensibly for the purpose of winning liberty for others, while we're losing it by the day at home?--and it's all, ALL brought to us by two things that are actually one thing, which I will now give one term: ProgressiCons. Statists would do, but ProgressiCons is more descriptive. 

This to me is the liberal stupidity among the tsunami of stupidities in the ProgressiCon lexicon.

Riddle me this. 

Now, I said it, and I'm glad!