Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Is Obama’s Socialism Essentially of the Right or the Left?
As a pragmatist and student of history, Obama knows well enough that capitalism produces wealth and that modern socialism essentially amounts to taxing the private sector to maintain the bureaucratic state. Few people on the Left would argue for socialism as means of production as well as for distribution. Most people agree that capitalism produces far greater wealth than any other system and also does a better job of distributing good and services. Even so, there are certain goods and services that aren’t conducive to profits, and so the state provides those services with tax revenues from the private sector. Conservatives would like to keep the public sector as small as possible while liberals want to expand it as large as possible. Even so, conservatives believe in the need for the public sector, and liberals believe in the importance of the private sector–without which there would be no tax revenues.
So, Obama is not a communist who wants to abolish private property or capitalism; he wants to tax it as much as possible without killing it. A modern socialist sees capitalism like a mule; if the socialist kills it, then the socialist has to do all the lifting for himself; if the socialist lets it run wild & free, the mule will do what it wants to do, and the socialist will have no means to power; so the socialist seeks to derive as much labor from the mule without seriously exhausting and killing it. Obama is a socialist who wants to tax capitalism(golden goose)as much as possible without destroying it and expand the size of government as much as possible without it having to take on the burdens of production. (Fundamentally lazy and jive-ass, Obama wants to take credit by working with other people’s wealth than actually doing any productive work on his own.)
But, the key question remains. Is Obama’s socialism rooted in rightist sentiments or leftist ideology? In other words, is Obama committed to socialism because he sees it as a positive for black people or because he thinks it’s morally good for all of mankind? The Right tends to be tribal or nationalistic whereas the Left tends to be universal and ‘inclusive’ or embracive. If Obama embraced socialism mainly because of its advantage to blacks, he would qualify as a (black) national socialist–a rightist. If he chose it as a universal good, then he would be a leftist or internationalist(or trans-racial or trans-ethnic)socialist. The German National Socialists were clearly socialists of the Right. Hitler thought his brand of socialism would make Germany prosperous and strong. He didn’t care for non-Germans. Malcolm X too was a national socialist(or perhaps ‘social nationalist’ is a better term). Malcolm X simply thought socialism would be more empowering for blacks. It was a matter of tribalism. Indeed, it could be argued that many communist movements of the world were forms of national or right-wing communism or communist nationalism. People like Mao, Ho, Castro, and many others opted for communism largely or initially because they thought it would make their nations or their peoples stronger and more independent. Though there was an internationalist component in communism, each communism was a national communist or communist nationalism at the end of the day.
On these terms, the only true leftists have been the white Western Left because they adopted socialism in the idea of helping non-white people and creating a more equal and socially just world. People like Malcolm X and Ho Chi Minh(and today’s Islamists)may be allied with the Western Left against capitalism, but ONLY white leftists are sincerely trying to go beyond boundaries of race and nation. Other groups espouse socialism or certain tenets of socialism because they see it as an advantage to ‘my people’.
So, it begs the question, to what extent is Obama truly a global socialist or a black nationalist? As a post-racial or trans-racial figure(at least in the public perception), of course he cannot be as blatantly honest about his racial feelings as Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan, or Rev. Wright has been. But, would Obama be a socialist if most blacks were successful capitalists, and if capitalism advantaged blacks over other groups? Isn’t socialism useful to blacks in America and Africa because it amounts to wealth transfers from Europe, America, and Asia to the black regions of the world? It’s about white and Asian wealth going to black people. Whites may feel leftist in giving to blacks, but blacks feel awfully right-wing when they take from whites. Blacks are thinking, "yeah, honkey, gimme mo’ gimme mo.’" It’s all about BLACK interests.
We tend to equate the Right with only the white right, but all forms of nationalism, clannishness, tribalism, and such-ism are actually essentially right-wing. Socialism may be leftist in the sense of seeking a degree of equality among the populace, but socialism can also be tribal or nationalist. It can be about ‘my people’. It can serve the cause of rightism.
My guess is Obama is cleverly manipulating white leftism based on guilt and moral confusion to serve what is essentially a black socialism or black national socialism or black social nationalism. In this sense, Obama is a lot closer to Hitler than we might think, at least in the sense that both figured that statist socialism is better for their people than rampant individual capitalism which favors the rootless, cunning, and unscrupulous capitalists. For Hitler, such people were the Jews. For Obama, they are white people. But, Obama was able to take advantage of the division within the white community. On the one hand, you have powerful rich white conservatives. On the other, you have powerful liberal Jews. Both sides are vying for dominant position, and Obama allowed himself to be used by the Jews by using the Jews in turn. Jews, ever so clever, nurtured, brought up, and bought Obama so that Obama the black social nationalist is forever indebted to the Jews. Jews fear the nationalism of the goy population. Jews couldn’t buy Hitler in the 1930s as Hitler had a large non-Jewish power base. But, Jews have been able to buy Obama the black nationalist. Obama is useful to the Jews because he’s part of minority racial group in America. As such, Obama’s national socialism cannot reach the kind of power and critical mass that German National Socialism did. Jews know full well that Obama’s black or nationalist ambitions will be checked by the fact that the majority of people in America are not black. If US were 90% black, Obama would not feel so indebted to the Jews. He would know that he can rely purely on black power to gain total power for himself and his people. He would not have to play running boy to the Jews. But, blacks make up 15% of the US population. With black power alone, Obama could not have gone far. He needed the help of Jews who are superrich, own most of the media, run Hollywood, are immune to criticism, and control the way we think/feel through their influence in education and government. So, that was the compromise between Obama and the Jews.
Anyway, are Jewish socialists leftist socialists because they helped a person outside their race or ethnicity? There may indeed be a degree of idealistic internationalism and universalism in Jewish socialism, but if we look at it more closely, we see that Jewish socialism is also largely tribal or nationalistic. Jews are pretending to care for ‘disenfranchised’ minorities to use them against the white gentile majority by invoking historical guilt and social/moral shame(which is ironic since Jews are by far the richest and most powerful single ethnic group in America). Also, Jews are using Obama to fool the world that US is not run by Jewish interests. Gee, how can Jews be powerful when Obama has Palestinian friends and was raised as a Muslim? Jews, ever so clever, fooled a lot of people. Jews, fearful of anti-Jewish black leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, are also trying to wean blacks away from thug black politics to a defanged ‘nicer’ politics as embodied by Obama. These Jews are cunning and clever as hell. Many people know what the Jews are doing, but as Jews run the schools and media, most people are afraid to say it because you get called an ‘anti-semite’ and then found yourself blacklisted from all successful positions in society. If anything, white gentiles need to stick together like Jews stick together. Jews gave us Obama-as-President. Most Jews are our enemy. We cannot forgive the Jews, or most of them anyway. We must do everything to bring down Jews and their interests. And, when Jews suffer, we should laugh with glee... just as Jews laugh with glee when we suffer. NY Times laughs at the white victims of illegal invasion crime in the Southwestern states. Jewish media almost never cover stories about black rape of white men or black violence against white men. Jews cover those stories up just like they bury the plight of Palestinians.
Obama, having been raised by his radical leftist white mother, may indeed be both an ideological socialist and a black national socialist(or black social nationalist). His mother told him that white people are evil, greedy, and stole the wealth of non-whites. That explains why Obama’s socialism isn’t ONLY black-oriented but people-of-color oriented. He told his cousin that Asian-Indians in Kenya are actually fellow victims of white imperialism. And, Obama spent enough time in Ivy League universities to soak up all the ideological leftism. But, there is a crucial difference between a black person and a white person adopting socialism. A white person who adopts ideological socialism feels that he owes others and must abandon all sense of white-ness and white power. In contrast, a black person or a ‘person of color’ who adopts ideological socialism feels that he is owed and that he must embrace his ethnicity or racial identity more strongly than ever. Among whites, Jews think and feel like the ‘people of color’, which is why Jewish socialists are different than other white socialists. Jewish socialists can be both ideologically leftist and Zionist-nationalist. And, Jews can go on and on about Jewish pride, heritage, identity, power, and so on. And, any criticism of Jewish power or influence makes all Jews pull together into a phalanx. So, the only socialists who are genuinely leftist–anti-tribal and working for the interests of other peoples–are white gentile socialists(or perhaps only white gentile straight male socialists since women are allowed to embrace female power and gays can pursue their narrow gay agenda). Indeed, notice that even most ideologically liberal and leftist Jews–so-called socialists–are not bothered by the fact that Jewish capitalists own much of the media, Hollywood, academia, banks, and so on. As far as they are concerned, it’s Jewish power, even if capitalist. And, would black socialists be worried if more blacks became billionaires and owned giant corporations? No, as long as it amounted to Black power, blacks would love it–just like Chinese communists love and are proud of the fact that overseas Chinese are superduper rich. So, most blacks who adopt socialism do so out of
Black interest, not in the interest of abstract socialist principles. Gentile white socialists sacrifice tribalism to serve socialism, whereas black socialists make socialism serve black power. If socialism favored or empowered non-blacks whereas capitalism favored or empowered blacks, you bet that most blacks would be pro-capitalist and anti-socialist. (One may ask why so many Jews are socialist when capitalism has made them so rich. There are three main reasons. 1. Culture of intellectualism makes many Jews want to think lofty ideas and serve noble causes than roll up sleeves and give into sleazy greed. Karl Marx was typical of this. For all their idealism, these kinds of Jews are fundamentally arrogant, lazy–at least when it comes to productive work–, and parasitic. But, because of the Moral aspect of Jewish tradition, even capitalist Jews respect socialist Jews, just like ancient merchant Jews respected the prophets and rabbis. 2. Jews fear that the masses of goyim will grow jealous of Jewish wealth. So, Jews want to at least appear generous and caring by yammering about ‘social justice’. 3. Also, socialism, though it may tax Jewish wealth, also empowers Jews since a socialist state is run by intellectuals, many of whom are Jewish. So, socialism puts intellectual Jewish children of Jewish capitalists into positions of power. So, even as socialism is supposed to help the people, the people who end up with most power in government are the Jews.)
There is a famous circle showing that the far right converges with the far left, but this concept is rather misleading. More often than not, it was a case of people with rightist passions using leftist ideas for right-wing purposes. It’s not like Hitler became like Stalin because he pushed to the extreme right. Rather, Hitler used elements of socialism from the very start to strengthen German nationalism.
Hitler didn’t end up socialist at end of the day but employed it from the beginning. And, Stalin used elements of nationalism to bolster the power of communism. Hitler didn’t become communist-like because he pushed more to the right; rather he employed socialist programs because he thought they would strengthen German bonds of unity. In any case, even if the circle theory is true, it only points to the Means, not the Values and Ideology–differences of which remain crucial to the nature and future of both radical right and radical left societies. Ideology matters because it means Jews could amass tremendous power in the USSR to kill millions of people while millions of Jews would die under Nazism. And, despite some of the similarities, Nazi Germany and Soviet Union had far more differences.
Obama is a megalomaniac opportunist as well as a black nationalist and socialist, and so he was willing to work with the rich powerful influential liberal Jews to get as far as he did. He knows he cannot be his own man. The only way Obama would be able to do everything he wants is if US were a majority black nation. Then, he would have the kind of power over the entire nation that black politicians have over their mostly black districts. He wouldn’t have to rely on Jewish money and white votes to stay in power. He could fully come out of the closet and pursue his brand of socialism for that he deems good for black people. (Of course, if US were mostly a black nation, it’s likely that a rowdier and crazier black guy would be president than Obama who lost to Bobby Rush in a Congressional race in a mostly black community. Most blacks voted for Obama over white McCain, but if blacks were given a choice between Obama and a wilder black dude, good many would go with the latter. Indeed, look at the fall of Mbeki and the rise of Jacob Zuma in South Africa.)
People generally think socialism is leftist, but this isn’t true in all cases. It’s leftist in the sense of communal sharing of the wealth, but it must be stressed that only radical socialism–communism–is fully egalitarian. Italian Fascist socialism and National Socialism were not egalitarian. Though the state did provide certain services and programs for the people at large, the concept of hierarchy was sacro-sanct in both. Indeed, both systems used socialism not to level the field but to maintain the hierarchy. The bourgeoisie who supported Mussolini or Hitler hoped to buy off the unwashed masses by offering certain concessions, programs, and favors. The New Deal had a similar goal; it was not to destroy capitalism and rich people but to save them lest the masses grow angry and revolt during a prolonged depression. And, the global rich elite that runs the United States is trying to do the same through Obama. Those who think Obama is some communist is a missing the point. He is essentially a black nationalist socialist who’s in the pocket of the global Jewish elite. He knows he has to curb his black nationalism; essentially, blacks will get more handouts for supporting the power of the liberal Jews. Rich liberal Jews hope that it will be enough to pacify and satisfy the blacks. And, since so many working and middle class Americans lost out in the New Global Order, the idea is that Obama’s expanded social programs will pacify us with stuff like universal healthcare and other goodies. Of course, the rich will have to foot the bill, but what do they care? In the new global order, they can make profits undreamt of 20 yrs ago. They can make gazillions. They have more money than they know what to do with. And, they want to preserve and even expand the global system which made them so rich and powerful. But, the New Order has left many working and middle class people out. How do you win these people over to globalism or at least pacify them? With the second New Deal which offers them some goodies and bread-n-circuses so that they won’t grow desperate, angry, and rise up.
If socialism can be rightist or at least serve the interests of right-wing passions, capitalism can have a leftist effect– at least for an industrious people. If leftism is about transferring wealth from the rich to the poor, global capitalism or ‘free trade’ has done it better than communism. American wealth has been flowing to China and India under the ‘free trade’ regimen. To be sure, this kind of wealth transfer can only occur when the poor nation is made up of talented, disciplined, and industrious people. In other words, African nations cannot take or earn our wealth this way. They can only rely on global socialist welfare as most Africans are stupid, lazy, uncultured, and/or confused. But, for industrious Asians–Chinese and Indians–, global capitalism has lead to leftist results. (To be sure, Chinese and Indians worked and toiled for their wealth and didn’t take handouts, the staple of leftism.) Both China and India grew at the expense of America and EU, the traditional rich zones. And, recall that Germany grew at the expense of Great Britain in the late 19th century and early 20th century thanks to British adherence to Free Trade. Germany had been an economic Johann-come-lately but caught up quickly by practicing both capitalism and socialism centered around nationalism while Great Britain stuck to free trade though it was allowing other nations to take advantage of Great Britain. It led to wealth flowing from richer Britain to less developed Germany which eventually came to pass ahead of Great Britain. So, capitalism can help the poor to get rich and even richer than the original rich. Indeed, it was capitalism that empowered Jews in America. Jews arrived poor but amassed a huge amount of wealth. Capitalism turned poor Jews into rich Jews. There is something leftist in this notion because capitalism transferred wealth from a rich nation to its poor members who eventually grew rich. Of course, Jews worked and earned their wealth, but it was made possible by capitalism. Jews were not given all that wealth–as happens under socialism–but worked for it in a system that allowed freedom and success to hardworking people. So, capitalism, far from being the ideology of ONLY the rich, can be a system that transfers wealth to the poor in record amount of time. We need only to see the rapid rise of Spain, Chile, South Korea, Taiwan, China, and India under capitalism. Of course, capitalism favors the industrious, energetic, and enterprising, but more businesses created also means more jobs, opportunities, and goods/services to even the less energetic and inventive people. Capitalism is the only free economic system that grows the pie even as capitalists take a bigger piece of it.
Capitalism/free trade need not be a zero sum game with total winner and total loser. Both parties can benefit through free trade by complementing and coordinating each other’s advantages and disadvantages. China is technologically backward but has a lot of people willing to work for peanuts. US is technologically advanced but has expensive labor. So, both nations have much to gain via trade. The problem is China cheats when it comes to free trade, practicing a mercantile economy. Meanwhile, though Americans benefit with cheap goods, America has been buying far more from China than vice versa. The great imbalance was bound to lead to major problems, and it certainly made the current economic meltdown more possible. Because China didn’t buy from us but merely piled up a tremendous amount of trade surplus and lent it to us in the form of cheap money, it led to speculation and other craziness and finally the meltdown.
Anyway, if we define rightism as tribalism or nationalism(though there are other ways to define it), then we must understand that capitalism isn’t necessarily rightist or nationalist. Indeed, no ideology–not even communism–has done more to promote internationalism and globalization than capitalism. The Iron Curtain was oppressive, but each Eastern European nation(even non-Russian Soviet Republics)maintained its cultural uniqueness and national identity. In contrast, EU, under a social-democratic-capitalistic regimen, is an entity that erodes away cultural and national barriers. And, observe how the American economy have been melded with that of China through international capitalism. Just look at what free trade capitalism has done to the border between US and Mexico.
And, consider the amount of our wealth that has flowed to Mexico and China in the past 15 yrs.
So, capitalism can lead to ‘leftist’ results.
And, it must also be said that leftists thrive under a capitalist system more than any other system. Under communism, a bunch of leftist radicals rule the nation but all other forms and strains of leftism are suppressed or eradicated. As a result, only a SINGLE leftist group takes power while all other leftists and ‘progressives’ get it in the neck. Only under a capitalist system can communists, anarchists, socialists, and other such radicals all enjoy liberty and thrive. As such people tend to hit the books, deal with intellectual ideas, and earn college degrees and seek jobs in journalism, they gain cultural hegemony and come to shape the way we see the world, think about ourselves, and the kind of values we embrace. Indeed, most leftists generally do better even under an autocratic capitalist system than under communism. Most Spanish, Italian, and Chilean leftists were safer under right-wing regimes than dissident leftists trapped in communist run nations. A deviant socialist could get killed in the USSR, Red China, and North Korea. Under communism, you could only be a ‘correct’ kind of leftist as permitted by the state. In contrast, even most right-wing nations tolerated leftist radicals as long as the latter didn’t make too much trouble.
Anyway, it’s time for white people in America and around the world to consider ideologies other than pure capitalism or individualism. The idea that free markets is synonymous with white power or survival is pure bunk. I’m not against free markets, but economics is a separate issue from race and nation.
After all, ANC ditched communism in the early 90s and embraced free markets. Mandela didn’t take power as a communist but as a market pluralist, and his successor Mbeki stuck to capitalist principles. So, what did that do for white people in South Africa? It led to aggressive and angry black power and loss of white power just the same. And, if capitalism is always so great for white power around the world, then why didn’t capitalist white nations in Europe and America stand up for whites in South Africa? How come most American and European capitalist companies boycotted South Africa? How come the governments of white capitalist nations applied sanctions on white ruled South Africa?
And, why is it that the richest people in America are liberal, leftist, anti-white-power(even if they are white), and often happen to be Jewish(and anti-American or supportive of anti-Americans)?
It goes without saying that capitalism is the best economic system if done right by a cultured population. But, the results of capitalism can be just as leftist, suicidal, or ruinous for white folks. And, the example of National Socialism (Germany) shows that socialism can also be rightist. And, examples such as communist China and Vietnam shows that socialism can be used as a nationalist or rightist weapon. China and Vietnam implemented leftist or egalitarian programs in their own countries, BUT men like Mao and Ho adopted communism mainly as a means for national(rightist)power. They did so out of love of their own country and with conviction that communism would strengthen China or Vietnam AGAINST other nations. In this sense, they were right-wing communists, or leftists devoted to right-wing nationalism.
So, is Obama a right-wing socialist or a left-wing socialist? I would say he’s essentially a right-wing socialist(black social nationalist) in the garb of left-wing socialism because he has to fool white people that he’s looking out for ALL of us when he really cares mostly for black folks.
And, we must also ask, ‘is American capitalism leftist or rightist?’ If ‘free trade’ ideology leads to loss of national sovereignty, weakening of white power & unity, open borders, crass Hollywood sewage teaching our kids to practice miscegenation and accept ‘gay marriage’, then our capitalism is anti-white and pro-leftist; and, we need to oppose it. No, not oppose all of capitalism. Rather, we must not assume that capitalism is ALWAYS or NECESSARILY pro-white, pro-American, pro-conservative, pro-rightist. We need to develop a new kind of fascism that utilizes both capitalism and socialism for the benefit of the West, White People, right-wing ideology and sentiments.