Saturday, April 4, 2009

My Administration is The Only Thing between You and the Pitchforks























Obama introduces brutality into our public conversation!

As this becomes more apparent, people will be compelled to choose: Dictatorship, Force and Brutality OR the Rights of Free Men!
__________________________________________________________

Capitalism and altruism are incompatible. Make no mistake about it - and tell it to your Republican friends: capitalism and altruism cannot coexist in the same man or in the same society.

Tell it to anyone who attempts to justify capitalism on the ground of the "public good" or the "general welfare" or "service to society" or the benefit it brings to the poor. All these things are true, but they are the by-products, the secondary consequences of capitalism - not its goal, purpose or moral justification. The moral justification of capitalism is man's right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; it is the recognition that man - every man - is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others, not a sacrificial animal serving anyone's need.

There are only two means by which men can deal with one another: guns or logic. Force or persuasion. Those who know that they cannot win by means of logic, have always resorted to guns.

If service and self-sacrifice are a moral ideal, and if the "selfishness" of human nature prevents men from leaping into sacrificial furnaces, there is no reason - no reason that a mystic moralist could name - why a dictator should not push them in at the point of bayonets - for their own good, or the good of humanity, or the good of posterity, or the good of the latest bureaucrat's latest five-year plan. There is no reason that they can name to oppose any atrocity. The value of a man's life? His right to exist? His right to pursue his own happiness? These are concepts that belong to individualism and capitalism - to the antithesis of the altruist morality.

No man or mystical elite can hold a whole society subjugated to their arbitrary assertions, edicts and whims, without the use of force. Anyone who resorts to the formula: "It's so, because I say so," will have to reach for a gun, sooner or later.


(Ayn Rand, "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World", Philosophy: Who Needs It, 1989)

5 comments:

principlex said...

Listening to the words and images used by our leaders is one of the ways to tell where we are going - provided another powerful public voice does not refute and combat those words. Also if the words are directed to a particular group of people then it sets up an us vs. them dynamic in the culture.

Although I have seen some comments to blogs and online news columns which contained phrases like "get a rope" or "cling to your guns", this is the first time I've heard such words conveying such a powerful image from a public voice.

Obama, by using such language, cannot be counted on to defend a man's rights in a court of law, which he has already proved by his Administration putting the bonuses in AIG's bailout bill and then reversing himself and acting publicly outraged that the businessmen would be so "greedy" as to even want them - no matter the economic context in which it is possible to attract men to work for AIG.

Obama is not a man who upholds rationality and leads people accordingly. (His calm delivery with the aid of a teleprompter is not rationality. It is a carefully crafted emollient which soothes those that who ask no questions.) Instead he is a dogmatic man counting on his orchestrated mobs and goons (The ACORN minions and his soon to be instituted corps where people are conscripted to be indoctrinated and forced to perform public service according to the government's edicts.) to "prove" his case in the street.

(If there be any one rapacious hunger "walking over corpses" to have his desires, it is Obama. He is the current ultimate example of greed, by his own undefined but guilt-inducing intended meaning, in this country. His medium is not money, an honorable instrument of voluntary exchange, but political power, which in Obama's case, means the ultimate control of the use of the gun, in the absence of objectivity, to force people to his will.)

Obama is a dictator, pure and simple, and he has shown time after time that individual rights and the rule of law mean nothing to him. He loves throwing them aside and disrespecting their rational purpose in principle. This was the purpose of his "community organizing" and he is following the same purpose now.

How he will contain the forces he is in the process of unleashing without recourse to rationality is something that remains to be seen. He's set himself on a course that will require him to go all the way.

Given that there is no middle ground between force and reason, he is the first US President to overtly proclaim and initiate "war is the answer" within the confines of the United States.

Didn't Lincoln declare such a course, you may ask? Yes, he did. For what? The union.

I'm asserting that Obama is declaring such a course for the "disunion." He offers no workable ideal that people could be for. Irrational "fairness" is not it.

He further shows his disregard for America by shaking hands with European leaders to override American sovereignty (authority) over its own laws by transferring control to an international body to administer economic dictatorship. Your salary, unless you are completely underground, will be ultimately dictated by Brussels.

This, if it stands, is the end of individual initiative which means the end of creativity, new ideas, new inventions, your purposes, your life except as a means to or in the unchosen confines of someone else's ends. Obama is instituting universal slavery, i.e., where someone else sets the terms for your life without your consent, and his tool, the Democratic Party, is the Party of Slavery.

The silver lining in all of this is that this kind of political battle, which is the final act of philosophical ideas that catch hold in a society, has been in the cards since the early days of the last century. (Its roots are the philosophical ideas found in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason published in 1781) Further, there are plenty of people who voted for him who are capable of assessing the facts and changing their minds.

The real battle is this: Who is the final moral authority in your life? You or not you?

Back to Shakespeare: "To be or not to be? That is the question."

Obama says he is the one, "the man." I don't THINK so!

Robert said...

This is an excellent discussion and I agree, the appropriate term to describe Obama is "dictator". Since he has been running for President, he has always implied that having the Presidency means he owns the country. Now he owns the financial services industry and the auto industry and they are his to do with as he pleases...which will be to create a "green" society managed by his friend George Soros. Don't think Soros is not well-invested in the Medical Services industry. I'd almost bet he is. All that money he stole from selling short in the stock market last October (which gave Obama the Presidency) will be invested where? How about "green" companies, insurance companies, and medical services. Just watch. And I'll bet there will be a nice exemption for Soros' hedge fund in all this regulation that the G20 is creating for off-shore companies. Their sites are squarely set on looting those companies now.

I don't think it is a coincidence that ACORN fostered voter fraud on behalf of Obama, that as an organization financed by the government, it has taken a firm stand for Obama, in violation of all propriety and fairness. It is also, no coincidence that the AIG bonuses were requested by the Obama Administration and that the protestors who showed up at AIG employees' houses were from ACORN and the unions. We'll see them again, when Obama creates his "mirror" police force of specially indoctrinated green-shirted stormtroopers. Tea Party, here I come.

principlex said...

The truth about O's remark is that it is his typical manipulation. There is no one in America after bank executives with a pitchfork. The people who threatened AIG employees were ACORN people - an Obama Administration orchestration.

So, the statement should have been: "My Administration is after you with a pitchfork."

principlex said...

Since publishing this post, a friend referred me to this article,

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?p=61168%3Cbr%3E,

which explains what the pitchforks mean in terms of the political philosophy and tactics that President Obama has embraced throughout his lifetime.

principlex said...

This pitchfork incident proves one thing: Obama has a mobster mentality.

You park your car and a kid or man comes up wanting money to protect your car. "I'm the only thing between you and having your car ripped off. Pay me." Tell me that is any different in principle than what Obama said.

It is known as a racket - a protection racket. Mobsters and criminals engage in this kind of activity.

Obama is one nasty, disgusting, hideous president - egregiously unbecoming of anything resembling the honor we demand of him as the holder of the office of President.

How long anyone will still try to maintain respect for him after this remains an utter mystery to me.