March 9, 2009

V

I'm going to start with this, but I don't want to waste the above picture on just this topic, so I'm going to continue after getting this one out. The AP just reported that Rush Limbaugh said the health care bill would end up being named after Ted Kennedy (I don't even think he said "The Swimmer") and the leader of the DCCC proclaimed the remark outrageous and reprehensible. Why? What in the hell is outrageous or reprehensible about that? And what would they say if they saw my "Ted Kennedy's Car Has Killed More People Than My Handgun" bumper sticker? What if it were called the "Drunken Asstard Who Let Kopechne Die in Chappaquiddick Memorial Health Care Bill"? I mean, if it were me making a slam, I'd make one. What Rush allegedly said isn't even a slam AT ALL.

But it was a lie; he wasn't the one who said it. He was quoting these people who are actually working on the bill, and say that it WILL be named as such...and nothing about it was considered outrageous or reprehensible. These people are genuinely sick. And liars.

On to other things, brought up by the V mask. I had been leery to see that movie - there was an assumption there that it would likely be similar to the Handmaid's Tale - those dystopian future visions of what happens if the conservatives are in charge. Which is kind of odd because we already know what happens if the totalitarian conservatives are in charge - we saw it with Hitler. The difference between that and the leftist totalitarianism is who gets labeled dangerous and who gets favored as good. Other than that, totalitarian is totalitarian, and it doesn't matter fuck-all which brand you get - it destroys individual liberty, it destroys the economy which is so necessary to individual liberty, it causes anguish, starvation, death, camps and gulags wherever it goes.

So I was rather pleasantly surprised that in large part the movie avoided committing to one or the other brand of totalitarian fascism - left or right. They gave a nod to it being rightist of course (the story of Valerie) but overall, it could have been either or, and that was...honest. Now how is it that the swaying throngs of big government sycophants, most of whom love that movie, still don't GET it? That it. doesn't. matter. who's the petty tyrant or the dictator - the results for US are the same!? Why are they so eager to fellate their new dictator overlords instead of moving as far away as possible from these absolutely unprecedented power grabs? The cognitive dissonance - my God how it burns.

7 comments:

Larry said...

To the idiots the political spectrum begins at communism and ends at fascism.
The actual spectrum, of course, runs from anarchy to totalitarianism; fascism and communism are both totalitarianist.
Ask some leftard what the difference is between socialism and fascism is. I'll bet they don't know.

AnnieMcPhee said...

I asked the other day and got some lame, half-ass reply about Nazis owning the *means* of production...it meant nothing. Though I guess it was better than sputtering, "Bbbbut Hitler was a fascist, not a socialist!" You are exactly right, though - fascism and communism are on the same end of the spectrum (if we're going with a spectrum; it's good enough) with anarchy on the other side (which may devolve into any one of many various systems like feudalism, etc.) Totalitarian is totalitarian, period. Notice how the left was screaming about Bush and his big power grabs...I was too, knowing that if he were really grabbing all that power that even if he had no intention of misusing it, the day would come when someone else would come in and use it...all the while claiming he was for "change." Obama ain't tearing down any of those power structures that have grown up over the last 8 years; he's just grabbing massive amounts more and using the ones that are there. Including the surveillance they were so up in arms about.

I thought it was important to address the fact that there's no difference to we the people which totalitarianism we get - it's all the same anyway. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

phthaloblu said...

So very true. I'm reading Liberal Fascism right now. Amazing how the left has put it's spin on fascism to seem like it is an invention of the right. I think that any time one group tells another group of people how to live their lives and spend their money, it is fascist. Doesn't matter whether it's right or left. It's wrong.

AnnieMcPhee said...

That's a good book, Pthaloblu - Travis sent it to me and I was impressed with it. Let us know how you like it!

I know Jonah Goldberg is pretty universally despised among the leftists I read lol. Wonder why?

Larry said...

It's interesting to note that the Bolsheviks didn't destroy the mechanisms of state that the Czar left behind either. They just took them over.
My biggest complaint over legislation like the Patriot Act (and indeed, over every thing that causes self-righteous people to ask "What do you have to hide?") is that too much power is concentrated in too few hands. That and the legislation was not well debated or understood by the legislators, kind of like the "Spendulous Plan" recently passed.
Imagine your avowed enemy having the power you crave for yourself. Because if you consolidate too much power into too few hands, sooner or later it will happen.

Stephen T. McCarthy said...

Hello, ANNIE ~
I saw where you had posted a comment to Geekmeister (a "I Can Has Cheezburger" friend of mine), and I traced you here to your Blogspot blog.

In quickly skimming some of your posts here, it seems that you and I may be essentially on the same page, politically speaking.

However, I wish to make two quick (by my normal standards) comments regarding this particular Blog Bit in which we evidently don't see exactly eye-to-eye:

I think it is a common misconception to think of Hitler and the Nazi party as representing "conservative totalitarianism."

The Marxist type of Socialism is generally thought of as "Progressive" or Leftist because it represents a break with the long established Judeo-Christian status quo.

The National Socialist German Workers' Party was no less "socialistic", but was simply another brand of liberal socialism, following more closely the socialist principles of Keynes rather than Marx. However, because Nazism opposed Communism (the Marxist brand of Socialism), it has been wrongly labeled as the extreme right version of totalitarianism, in contrast to Marx's/Lenin's extreme left totalitarianism. But I don't see why it should be considered "conservative" when it too meant to alter the status quo.

I think this mislabeling blurs the fact that both systems were but two warring fingers of the same "Left hand", and I would contend that BOTH Communism and Nazism would be more properly viewed as anti-Judeo/Christian liberalism in slightly different forms.

If you're at all interested, I think you'll find a rather insightful article that loosely addresses this idea here: http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/european/271-hitler-and-christianity

Lastly, it seems that we aren't quite on the same page when it comes to the movie "V."

I saw it for the first time just a couple of weeks ago. It came recommended by a lawyer friend of mine. In fact, she gave me a copy of it. I have seen it only once, so admittedly, I may have missed some important details (what with the English accents and all!) I do intend to view it again before too long.

But upon initial viewing, I found it to be more anti-Conservatism than you did. For one thing, it definitely meant to slam politically conservative Christians. Note that whenever God is mentioned or symbolized, it is with a negative connotation:

There's the demagogue Prothero who claims an affiliation with the principles of God during his television rants. (Was this meant as a slick swipe at Rush Limbaugh? Perhaps. But I'm OK with that.) And then there's the Catholic priest who likes little girls. The ways of "God" seem to be claimed as the property of the Right Wing fascists in power in this movie.

I hardly think it's any coincidence that the suppression of gay marriages/relationships and Islamic writings are portrayed as the domain of the Right Wing fascists in this film. We are, after all, living in a time when our Judeo-Christian culture is under attack from Muslim terrorists and today the opposition to gay marriage is mostly a fight being waged by Right Wing Conservatives who, by and large, see themselves as "Christians."

In other words, the Conservative Right seems to represent evil in this movie. If there were any allusions to liberal fascism counterbalancing this idea in "V", they slipped past me in my first viewing.

At any rate, you're clearly a thinker, and I will check back in on your Blog from time to time.

May you Bless And Be Blessed!

~ STMcC
<"As a dog returns to his own vomit,
so a fool repeats his folly."
~ Proverbs 26:11>

AnnieMcPhee said...

I can't object to anything you've said here, Stephen. Except possibly to note that with the Nazi party, there was a good deal of social conservatism - Kinder, Kirche, Kuche et. al. (That isn't to say I'm not socially conservative, by the way.) So when you're discussing things like that with the left, they have a lot of trouble with disctinctions and can't possibly see the Nazi party as anything other than far right-wing extremism; I have found it useful to point out what I did in my post; that it makes little to no difference how you want to label totalitarianism - it has the same effect on people living under it. Oftentimes at least this is something that most people can understand.

As to V, I have only seen it once in its entirety as well; I'm sure you're right. The character and much of what he said could apply equally to any kind of totalitarian regime, which is kind of what I focused on.

I wonder if our difference lies in the fact that I tend not to focus on social conservatism because there's a sharp difference between my personal and political beliefs there? Which may also be the case with you, I'm not trying to imply anything - just that most of the people I have met of late don't share my personal beliefs and so they don't come up that often. But feel free to bring all of that up and don't worry about comment length; it's just not a problem. There are only a few of us and we have time to discuss it :)

By the way, thanks for coming here from ICHC - I've really been enjoying the captioning; it's a pleasant pastime.