Wednesday, March 14, 2012


Morgan pointed this story out on HKB.

The flyer of the flag had this to say about the uproar over it.

"It leads me to believe that it's not about the flag," she told "Certain elements cannot accept Barack Obama as president."

Let's try a control group for an experiment. Let's compare this one to the group of presidents images that have been used to replace the stars on Old Glory ... oh wait ... THERE AREN'T ANY!!!!

If the same had been done with Bush, the Left and those who support Obama (but I repeat myself) would have screamed "Fascist!"

But it's Obama, so they just call anyone who objects "racist".

It's rather tired, no?

You know what?  (Got another post on this later, but) I had a co-worker honestly ask me the other day "What's Wrong With Socialism"?  Of course, the quick answer is Maggie Thatcher's answer, "Eventually you run out of other people's money".  But I went the "It's incompatible with Human Nature" route.  Digressing, though.

No, what I'd like to point out here that Socialists are Statists, and Statists always seem to go down this route -- replace the old iconography with the new -- and very often that iconography has to do with some cult of personality.   Lennin, Mao, Che, Castro, Mussolini ... Obama ...

Look at the prevailing Obama iconography, and then Google Image Search Communist Propaganda Posters

Coincidence?  No.  It's the mindset of these people.   They're bigger than life.  They're above it all.  Sort of a God.


jeffmon said...

What's wrong with socialism? Socialism requires tyranny. It can not succeed without denying liberty. That is all.

jeffmon said...

If the previous brilliant (albeit terse) analysis is too abstract for you, consider an economic system wherein everyone works, but for no pay. Food, shelter, clothing, and other necessities are provided free.

Sounds utopian, right? We fought a war to stop this in the 1860s. Did we make a mistake?

philmon said...

Nope. Not too abstract ... for me.

But that's another good one.

Cylarz said...

I have never heard the Civil War framed as a conflict to abolish socialism. That's definitely a new twist on it.

If you're going to argue that the root cause of the conflict was a fundamental disagreement over the proper reach of the federal government (and a case can certainly be made for that)...then I'm not sure the good guys won that one.