Subscribe to BrookesNews’ Bulletin
`
Are the Democrats a patriotic party?
Gerard Jackson
Any party that assiduously works to bring about its own country’s defeat — as did hardcore Democrats with respect to the Iraq War — is surely guilty of treason. And it should not be forgotten that President Obama was one of those Democrats. The readiness of Democrats to resort to treason, subversion (it was Teddy Kennedy who offered to help the KGB bring down President Reagan and who deliberately weakened national security) and relentless hate campaigns is a truly repulsive spectacle, and one that America’s politically corrupt mainstream media fully participate in. Compare their refusal to investigate Obama's corrupt Chicago links with their despicable assaults on Palin's family. These people are Democratic activists, not journalists. They are without shame or integrity
Eric Blair (George Orwell) knew a thing or two about treasonous parties and their cultish disciples. He understood that a relentless hatred of the "enemy" (anyone who opposes them) is an essential feature of these movements. They never reason, they never debate. Their basic tactic never changes: destroy the enemy by whatever means available. Being of this mind Democrats hold themselves to be morally and intellectually superior to their opponents.
It follows that those who refuse to get with the program are either stupid or malicious. The thought that they could have perfectly sound reasons for disagreeing with hardcore Democrats is never entertained. It was the same with Marx. It was the same with Lenin — and it is the same with the creepy Lautenbergs, Dodds, Pelosis, Rangels, Conyers, Reids, etc. I also believe that Obama is cut from the same loathsome cloth. He just does a better job of hiding it.
(If I am proved wrong about Obama I shall gladly apologise. However, as this is the same man who supports the killing of infants by denying them sustenance because they committed the crime of surviving an abortion, I very much doubt that I shall have cause to change my opinion).
From this misbegotten belief in their own sense of moral authority there emerges the viciously stereotyped Republican who is subjected to a endless stream of insults, lies, gross distortions and just about every calumny one can think of. This pathological hatred inevitably — as it has done in the case of the Democrats — leads to the conclusion that Republicans deserve to be exterminated. This is precisely how the Nazis felt about Jews and Stalin about the Kulaks. As Vasily Grossman stated it:
[We] were all people who knew one another well, and we knew their victims, but in carrying out this task they became dazed and stupefied… They would threaten people with guns, as if they were under a spell, calling small children "kulak bastards, screaming "bloodsuckers!"… pariahs, untouchables, vermin… They looked on the so-called "kulaks" as cattle, swine, loathsome, repulsive… And there was no pity for them. They were not human beings; one had a hard time making out what they were — vermin evidently. (Cited in Robert Conquest's Reflections on a Ravaged Century, W. W. Norton & Company, 2000, p. 94).
The Communist Party had whipped up such hatred against the "so-called kulaks" that they ceased to be human beings: they were vermin to be exterminated. America is witessing the same phenomenon — albeit to a much lesser degree — where Repubicans are viciously stereotyped and subjected to a constant stream of abuse. These Democrats know they cannot physically, at least not yet, exterminate Republicans but they can damn well try to criminalise their politics. This is why Conyers and his comrades are demanding show trials for Bush and administration officials.
George Orwell could be describing Democrats when he wrote:
By 'nationalism' I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and the whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labeled 'good' or 'bad'. . . . It [nationalism] does not necessarily mean loyalty to a government or a country, still less to one's own country… (George Orwell, Decline of the English Murder and Other Essays, Penguin Books, 1953 p. 156).
I believe Ludwig von Mises was thinking along similar lines when he wrote that
theirs is the attitude of narrow-minded fanatics, who cannot imagine that anybody could be more reasonable or more clever than they themselves. (Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government, Arlington House, 1969, p. 147).
Orwell Observed that a key element of nationalism is group loyalty. Hence Stalinists, Trotskyists, fascists, etc, were loyal to the group and not their country. Whatever advanced the interests of the group was therefore moral, regardless of the consequences for the country. And that it is
inseparable from the desire for power. . . . Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. (Ibid. 156-57).
This describes the Democrats down to a 'T'. Whatever damages the Republicans, regardless of what it would do the country, is a moral imperative. In other words, their loyalty is not to America but to the Party*. Therefore, whatever serves the party is, by definition, good for America. And if that meant stabbing American troops in the back — so much the worse for the troops. This is why Teddy Kennedy saw nothing wrong in prostituting himself to the KGB. This is why the Pelosi's and the Obama's, along with their media and Hollywood supporters, saw nothing wrong in trying to secure a terrorist victory in Iraq, irrespective of how much innocent blood would be shed.
I think the final word should rest with Orwell, a man whose experience and political insights also led him to observe that groupthink leads to a situation where
Indifference to objective truth is encouraged by the sealing off of one part of the world from another, which makes it harder and harder to discover what is really happening. (Ibid. p. 167).
*Robert Conquest wrote that in the Soviet Union dedicated communist officials treated the Party as having an existence outside of its own membership and a power that "doesn't recognize any limitations or inhibitions" on the use of force and which demanded absolute loyalty. Without the Party its members felt they were nothing. (Robert Conquest, The Great Terror: A Reassessment, Oxford University Press, 1990, pp. 110-121).
Gerard Jackson is Brookesnews' economics editor
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 26 January 2009
Then there are the celebrity airheads, the likes of Clooney who have seen and accepted the self-evident truths of what they call liberalism (without a doubt, contemporary liberalism, meaning leftism, is one of the most intolerant movements, along with the Ku Klux Klan, to have ever afflicted America. It is no accident that the Democratic Party gave birth to both movements). They too automatically assume that Republicans must be either evil or stupid, and therefore it is useless to enter into debate with them. Far better, in their view, to scorn and malign them. (Clooney's treatment of the late Charles Hestion was a disgusting example of politically motivated malice in action).