“It’s very similar to Weimar Germany, the parallels are striking.” Here, too, there is a tremendous disappointment with the parliamentary system, pointed Chomsky interviewing on Truthdig.
“The United States is very lucky that no honest and charismatic figure has appeared, and if this were to happen this country would be in real trouble for the frustration, disillusionment and the justified anger combined with the absence of a coherent response,” he concludes.
In Germany, he recalls, an enemy was created to explain the crisis which was the Jew. “Here they are the illegal immigrants and blacks. We will say that white men are a persecuted minority. We will say that we must uphold and defend the honor of the nation. Military force will be exalted. There will be blows. This could be converted into an undeniable force. And if it takes place, it will be more dangerous than Nazi Germany. The United States is a world power … I do not believe that this is far from happening,” he says.
Once again–this is another example of a Leftist accusing the Right of what they themselves are engaged in. If our country was not in such dire straights and the open malignancy of the Left so visible since they have been in control–0ne might think all hope is lost.
Chomsky is attempting to do what the Left in America has been trying to do for the last 108 years; paint the Conservative Right with the paint-brush of the very extremism the Left promotes–in order to shield themselves from the spotlight of their own nefarious legislations, beliefs, and destructive philosophies. Via his statement above–he is clearly paving the way to paint the next Republican President as…Hitler. And since I’m fairly certain Obama will be a one-term President–this may happen sooner than later.
In his book, “Liberal Fascism”, Jonah Goldberg states:
“Certainly, to suggest Hitler was conservative in any sense related to American conservatism is lunacy. American conservatives seek to preserve both traditional values and the classical liberal creed enshrined in the Constitution. American conservatism straddles these two distinct but overlapping libertarian and traditionalist strains, whereas Hitler despised both of them.”
It has been well-known for decades that the Democrat Party is the party of, by, and for government. To say that this party represents the Constitution, freedom, capitalism, federalism or anything else remotely “American”–is as ridiculous as Maxine Waters (D) trying to convince America she is not a Socialist–especially since most of America by now has witnessed the video of her little slip-up in Congress when she actually and quite by accident used the word “socialize”.
I am pushing for all of my conservative and libertarian friends and allies to continue their efforts in outing the Democrat Party for what they have become by continuing to call the party–the Socialist Democrat Party; it’s time we get this moniker to stick so that everyone understands what they are signing up for (a creep towards collectivism) when aligning themselves with this party.
The Republican party has it’s own problems which I will not go into here. That’s a discussion for another time. My focus will remain on the Left–since that is where most of the destructive policies America has experienced have come from. These people have gained far too much control and influence via the circumvention of the Constitution through the bureaucracies and agencies they have created.
Certainly, the very notion that Conservatism–the limitation of government in the classically liberal sense–has anything to do with Nazi Germany is completely ludicrous. I think the Left has been successful in promoting this false history due largely in part to the strong national defense strain that tends to run through conservatives. The Left takes our support of the military and their efforts at protecting the nation and they promote it as a flirtation with militaristic fascism. While I personally believe that both parties have used national security and in some cases going to war as an excuse to grow government–I also believe it is possible to promote the limitation of government here at home while maintaining common sense military protection from threats over-seas.
Chomsky has stated that his “personal visions are fairly traditional anarchist ones, with origins in The Enlightenment and classical liberalism” and he has praised libertarian socialism.
Would someone please explain to me what the hell “libertarian socialism” is? The very term itself is a contradiction!!! Wikepedia did precisely that since they had that term linked to an explanation. As I absorbed Wikepedia’s explanation–I rejected it as completely ridiculous and an attempt at intellectual pretzel-tying. In part, they say:
Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a desirable synthesis of social equality and freedom could be achieved, at least in part, through abolishing authoritarian institutions which control certain means of production.
Libertarian socialists abhor authoritarian institutions. Can I then dare to ask the fairly obvious question based on the definition above? If you have someone “abolishing authoritarian institutions which control certain means of production”–then isn’t the person, persons, or political group assigned to do the “abolishing”–authoritarian? Frankly, this sounds to me like more left-wing liberal “we must hide who we are and what we’re doing so no one notices” bullshit. We’re really doing it in the name of freedom–but, boy! Do we still hate that capitalism!? Yes, sir!
Completely free laissez-fair capitalism…is the only thing that keeps men free. It is precisely when men try to control it that you begin to have tyranny; whether it is a soft or hard tyranny is irrelevant. Tyranny is tyranny.
Chomsky draws a parallel between what we’re experiencing in America now with Weimar Germany. Well…yes. We are. And certainly liberal Republicans like George W. Bush and some others in Congress helped get the ball rolling…however, the Democrats simply picked up that ball and ran with it and continued doing the damage…on steroids!!! Weimar Germany devalued their currency to the point where it was practically worthless. If that was a bad thing…then something tells me that Obama and his Socialist Democrat henchmen should have done the opposite and cut spending and stopped printing money to cover programs this country can’t afford–but, that is not what they did.
He finally takes blacks and immigrants and equates them to the Jews of Nazi Germany. As an Objectivist, I don’t often bring God and faith into politics as I prefer to win my political arguments with reason, however–I hope to GOD–the black community in this country continues to wake up in regards to the damage that has been done to them via the dependency cycle placed upon them by the American Left. As for illegal immigrants–they are illegal. We simply want immigration laws enforced to contain the violence and anarchy being foisted upon our nation by incompetent politicians who refuse to do so–either because of favors promised from business or because they need a new base from which to become or stay elected.
On the racism of the Left, Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” has this to say:
One last point about diversity. Because liberals have what Thomas Sowell calls an “unconstrained vision,” they assume everyone sees things through the same categorical prism. So once again, as with the left’s invention of social Darwinism, liberals assume their ideological opposites take the “bad” view to their good. If liberals assume blacks–or women, or gays–are inherently good, conservatives must think these same groups are inherently bad.
This is not to say that there are no racist conservatives. But at the philosophical level, liberalism is battling a straw man. This is why liberals must constantly assert that conservatives use code words–because there’s nothing obviously racist about conservatism per se. Indeed, the constant manipulation of the language to keep conservatives–and other non-liberals–on the defensive is a necessary tactic for liberal politics…The ground must be constantly shifted to maintain a climate of grievance. Fascists famously ruled by terror. Political correctness isn’t literally terroristic, but it does govern through fear. No serious person can deny that the grievance politics of the America left keeps decent people in a constant state of fright–they are afraid to say the wrong word, utter the wrong thought, offend the wrong constituency….
There are only three basic positions. There is the racism of the left, which seeks to use the state to help favored minorities that it regards as morally superior. There is racial neutrality, which is, or has become, the conservative position. And then there is some form of “classical racism”–that is, seeing blacks as inferior in some way. According to the left, only one of these positions isn’t racist. Race neutrality is racist. Racism is racist. So what’s left? Nothing except liberalism. In other words, agree with liberals and you’re not racist. Of course, if you adopt color blindness as a policy, many fair-minded liberals will tell you that while you’re not personally racist, your views “perpetuate” racism. And some liberals will stand by the fascist motto: if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Either way, there are no safe harbors from liberal ideology. Hence, when it comes to race, liberalism has become a kind of soft totalitarianism and multiculturalism the mechanism for a liberal Gleichschaltung. If you fall outside the liberal consensus, you are either evil or an abettor of evil. This is the logic of the Volksgemeinschaft in politically correct jargon.
I would like to suggest to Mr. Chomsky that he go back to math class. Apparently, for him, two plus two does not equal four.