Wednesday, July 25, 2007

LEFTISTS ARE ESSENTIALLY ELITISTS WHO SUPPORT THE IDEA OF A "RULING CLASS"


NEWSMAX: Hillary Clinton: I’m Not a Liberal

Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton ran away from the "liberal” tag during Monday night’s Democratic debate, claiming instead that she is a "progressive.”


Early on in the CNN/YouTube-sponsored debate, a California resident posed these questions on his video:

"Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word ‘liberal’? And would you use this word to describe yourself?”


Hillary answered:

"You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.


"Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.


"I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.


"I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.


"So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that's the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics.”


Progressive, progressive, progressive. Yeah, sure, right... SHE IS FULL OF IT!
DON'T BE FOOLED!

REMEMBER: Marx felt his revolution would lead to a "DICTATORSHIP of the proletarian", not the democracy "of the people, for the people and by the people."

Marxism merely sought to exchange the dictatorial rule of one class over everyone else, with the dictatorial rule of another class over everyone else - seeking to replace the aristocracy with a politburo of intellectuals, (who would act on behalf of the "common good", and not their own - HA!).

All Leftist political movements - which all seek to centrally control free-markets and hence make them un-freemarkets - therefore must seek to curb personal freedom - the freedom to make and buy and sell what you want for the price you want - and replace that with the judgments of an elite - for whatever THEY think is the common good. Not what you think is right and good for you. Not what the freemarket decides is good. WHAT THEY SAY IS THE "COMMON GOOD."

Reducing the freedom of people cannot logically be called "progressive."

Progress can only be thought of as expanding the freedom of people.

That's why - since 1775 - all Leftist movements are ESSENTIALLY REACTIONARY.

The American Revolution was the last truly progressive revolution. It brought human rights and democracy into the world, stating that legitimate rule could only come from consent of the governed because we are each ENDOWED with right by the Creator; they are not deemed to us by the state.

People who want an elite (and not the freemarket) to determine the "true price" of oil or of tangerines or of labor are not "progressives"; they are neo-Marxists who should be consigned to the dustbin of history along with Mao & Red China and the Lenin & the USSR.

What makes it worse is that these neo-Marxists actually are in denial about what has a;ways been and remains the primary cause of MOST of the TRUE PROGRESS on the world: the greatest PROGRESS - in living standards and lifespans - has come in capitalist freemarket countries.

IN FACT, only after Red China largely abandoned Marxism and adopted freemarkets did it go from a starving economic basketcase to a food-exporting economic POWERHOUSE.

If that wasn't proof enough, the so-called "progressives" could look at Zimbabwe - which made the opposite journey. And look at Venezuela which is starting down the same so-called "progressive" Marxist path - the "road to serfdom", and will UNDOUBTEDLY have the same results.

If Leftist or liberal policies were truly progressive - as Hillary would like you to believe, then the USSR and "Red China" and North Korea and Cuba and Zimbabwe would be thriving.

Think about it. Don't fall for it. The Left is reactionary. Period.

[Others blogging this: here and here and here. AND DON'T MISS THIS ONE EITHER!]

No comments:

Post a Comment