Wednesday, November 18, 2009


It has been pointed out that I use those words interchangeably sometimes. Yeah, I know. Sloppy. But please remember that I'm just an "ignorant redneck" ( according to our not-to-be-questioned nation's leaders). The reason I do that is that the first three have much, much more in common than the founding values of our nation, and that all three, taken to their logical end, lead to Totalitarianism. To my mind, what's the difference. Big deal.

Hayek, author of "The Road to Serfdom," saw this during the rise of Hitler:

The persecution of the Marxists, and of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National “Socialism” is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final fruit of the anti-liberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in Germany since the later part of the Bismarckian era, and which led the majority of the German intelligentsia first to “socialism of the chair” and later to Marxism in its social-democratic or communist form....

It would, indeed, hardly have been possible for the Nationalists to advance fundamental objections to the economic policy of the other socialist parties when their own published programme differed from these only in that its socialism was much cruder and less rational. The famous 25 points drawn up by Herr Feder, one of Hitler’s early allies, repeatedly endorsed by Hitler and recognized by the by-laws of the National-Socialist party as the immutable basis of all its actions, which together with an extensive commentary is circulating throughout Germany in many hundreds of thousands of copies, is full of ideas resembling those of the early socialists.

But the dominant feature is a fierce hatred of anything capitalistic-individualistic profit seeking, large scale enterprise, banks, joint-stock companies, department stores, “international finance and loan capital,” the system of “interest slavery” in general; the abolition of these is described as the “basis of the programme, around which everything else turns.” It was to this programme that the masses of the German people, who were already completely under the influence of collectivist ideas, responded so enthusiastically.

This is a point also well brought out in one of the most indispensable books for understanding the new left and Obamunism, "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg.

More from Hayek:

Let us by all means endeavor to increase opportunities for all. But we
ought to do so in the full knowledge that to increase opportunities for
all is likely to favor those better able to take advantage of them and
may often at first increase inequalities. Where the demand for "equality
of opportunity" leads to attempts to eliminate "unfair advantages," it
is only likely to do harm. All human differences, whether they are
differences in natural gifts or in opportunities, create unfair advantages.
But since the chief contribution of any individual is to make the best
use of the accidents he encounters, success must to a great extent, be
a matter of chance.


Liberty not only means that the individual has both the opportunity and
burden of choice. It also means he must bear the responsibility of his
actions. Liberty and responsibility are inseparable. Liberty, by definition,
also produces almost nothing but inequality in life, while demanding
equality of opportunity and treatment. From the fact that people are
inherently different it follows that, if we treat them equally they will
achieve unequal results, thus the only way to place them in an equal
position would be to treat them unequally.

So how to plan the perfect society where there are equality of results when there is inequality in human kind? Control.

Even the striving for equality by means of a directed economy can result only in an officially enforced inequality - an authoritarian determination of the status of each individual in the new hierarchical order.

Who is qualified to wield such power as necessary? How can it be wielded by a group of different people that disagree, that contend?

A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers.

ANY system whose goal it is to eliminate inequality of results, can only lead to Totalitarianism.

Think about this stuff and then look at our government. We have a President that has the necessary narcissism to believe that he is a God, who actually encourages that belief through his cult of personality, and thinks that he is able to bring about heaven on earth. And so he begins to bring about hell.

To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm.

Might have something to do with all them there tea party people gettin' so bent outa shape.

We can all be free, or well can all be equally slaves, given what our masters tell us that we need, subservient and wholly dependant on their whims.

There's no other option.

No comments: