"Fascist ethics begin ... with the acknowledgment that it is not the individual who confers a meaning upon society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human character of the individual. According to Fascism, a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified at once, and this need of rising the State to its rightful position."
[align=right][/align][align=right]
[Mario Palmieri, "The Philosophy of Fascism" 1936][/align]
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."
[align=right][/align][align=right]
[Hillary Clinton, 1993] [/align]
"When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man?" [align=right][/align][align=right]
[Henry David Thoreau][/align][align=right][/align]Well there you go. A few different opinions on the value of the individual and individualism. This Thoreau character (look him up) seemed to recognize the primacy of the individual. You really can't say the same for European fascists andour possiblenext president of the United States, the smartest woman in the world, Hillary Rodham.
Have you been listening to Hillary? I'm not asking if you've been hearing her. The question is have you been listening? Have you taken her words, sat down and absorbed them? Have you looked for the nuances? Have you tried to read between the lines? Remember her "I want to take those profits" rant after Exxon Mobile released their FY 2006 profits? Listen, folks. Hillary ..
the real Hillary ... is starting to emerge from her den. If you listen ---
really listen --- you aren't going to like what you hear.
Read those quotesup topagain. Notice that our possible next president is right in there with the fascist pre-WWII leaders of Europe in her rhetoric. Hillary-the-anti-individual is on the prowl.
Hillary played her anti-individual cards yesterday in Manchester, New Hampshire. She was speaking to a group of high school children who attend what is basically a technical high school. In other words, unless I miss my guess, you won't find these young people filling out a lot of college admissions applications. A perfect place to play the class warfare game.
Hillary Rodham seems to have developed a bit of a code phrase for her anti-individualist philosophy. Much like eco-radicals have decided that global warming should now be called "climate change," Hillary has now decided that a society based on the value of the individual should henceforth be referred to as an "on your own" society. The phrase "on your own" certainly exemplifies the concept of individuality. It implies that each and every person in this country is an individual who carries the primary responsibility for their success or failure on their own shoulders. Well, a big-government liberal can have none of this! Haven't we learned that it is the government, nor the individual, who bears the primary responsibility for whatever measure of success the people are to achieve in their lifetimes?
Hillary exemplifies the essential difference between a liberal and a conservative. The conservative believes that the individual lives for themselves while the liberal believes that the individual exists to serve society. Conservatives believe that the individual should be free to act freely and independently so long as they don't violate the rights of others; liberals believe that for the individual to act freely and independently IS a violation of the rights of others ... a violation of the basic human rights of the other members of society who somehow have developed an enforceable claim to a portion of the lives of their fellow men.
In short, conservatives, and especially libertarians, believe that the individual owns himself. The liberal believes that the individual belongs to society, an entity to be exploited for something called "the common good." The libertarian believes that the best thing a person can do in this life is to live their own life in responsible and self-sufficient manner so as not to impose a burden on others. The liberal believes that we have a duty to live our lives for the benefit of others or for society. To do anything else is to be "selfish" or "greedy."
You need to read between the lines here. You need to digest what this lady is saying! Hillary Rodham is presenting herself and her philosophy on freedom and individual rights to the entire country. Her "on your own" usage is nothing less than a negative reference to individualism. Her reference to an "we're all in it together" society represents her strongly held belief in collectivism. You're not in this for yourself. You don't matter. You're in this for society. You exist to serve the needs of your fellow men, with government your life's choreographer.
Listen, listen hard, listen well! Absorb. don't just taste the words. Digest them. Hillary is talking.
Yesterday Hillary said that Bush's "ownership society" is really nothing more than an "on your own" society. Ownership. Now that is a solidly individualistic concept, isn't it? Ownership means "This is mine. Not yours. Not ours ... mine. I created it. I earned it. I -- an individual -- own it, and it can't be taken away." Well, there will be none of this "ownership" stuff for Hillary! No! She says "I prefer a 'we're all it it together' society." Translation? "You don't own it. We own it. It's not yours. It's ours. We're all in this together."
Follow the path through Hillary's darkened woods a bit further. If the concept of ownership and the ownership society is to be replace by a great, warm and wonderful collectivist "we're all in it together" society, what does this say about your property? More particularly, what does this say about the wealth that you create by sacrificing portions of your life to hard work? Why .. that stuff isn't yours! It's ours! Remember? We're all in this together! And this is where "fairness" comes into play.
Hillary used the "F" word a few times yesterday at this tech high school. She told the students that we needed to be "pairing growth with fairness" And just what is fairness to Ms. Rodham? Don't we deserve a definition somewhere along the line? Perhaps "fairness," to Hillary or any of her Democrat-socialist comrades, means not so much whether a person is free to apply themselves, to work hard and to make good decisions in order to acquire wealth, as it does whether or not the wealth is spread properly among the people. Remember -- Democrat rhetoric would lead one to believe that wealth is distributed, not earned.
So here is Hillary Rodham telling these high school students that "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."
Ah ha! There you go! It takes government to be fair! And just how does government bring fairness to favor our land? Through the exercise of its unique ability to use force to accomplish its goals, that's how! Taxes! Fairness is brought about when the government redistributes income! Just as Democrats want to create an artificial, government enforced balance of opinions on the airwaves, so Hillary wants to create an artificial, government enforced balance of wealth in the people. The methodology is simple. Take from those who have, give to those who have not.
Hillary complained about the gap between the rich and the poor in yesterday's speech. Look, the rich keep getting richer in our society because they keep doing the things that make them rich. Ditto for the poor. Democrats, Hillary Rodham in particular, have a different perspective. The rich keep getting richer because they're operating as individuals. These people are operating "on their own" and not participating properly in an "all in it together" society. But, since fairness requires the "right government policies" it is perfectly OK just to step in, seize some wealth, and redistribute it. Ownership? What ownership? You say you worked for that money and it is yours? What? Do you really think you're "on your own" here?
Tax increases. Here they come. Not because they're necessary for our economy. Not because the government needs the money. Remember, our economy is growing and federal government revenues are actually rising faster than federal government spending? Tax increases? For what? Come on, folks? Aren't you listening? To make things fair! That's for what!
Hillary certainly knew her audience yesterday, though she may have misunderestimated their ability to understand her policy initiatives. She did tell them that she wanted to expand the hideous Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC is no tax credit, my friends. It's welfare. An income redistribution payment. From those who achieve "on their own" to those who have not. The "on your own" types sacrifice property for the "we're all in it together" at the bottom of the economic food chain crowd.
This woman is dangerous! Perhaps the most dangerous politician in America. This is a woman who believes that America is great because of its government, not because of the dynamic of individual freedom, economic liberty and the rule of law. She casts wealth redistribution in the light of "fairness" and decries the concept of ownership. Her attacks on individualism are clear, as is her affinity for "we're all in it together" collectivism. Her professors had it right. Socialist.
[align=center]
[/align]
DID I HAPPEN TO MENTION THAT THERE WAS A WAR ON INDIVIDUALISM?
