generic cialis coupon code propecia no prescription order cialis soft tabs viagra 12 generic sildenafil viagra viagra prices free trial viagra where to buy cialis viagra mail order usa cialis buy online buy generic viagra img cialis online generic

Streetwise Professor

January 22, 2013

I Guess the “One Leader” Part Is Taken as a Given

Filed under: Politics — The Professor @ 10:07 pm

Re-reading the Obama quote in my last post, this jumped out at me:

We must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.

While the whole paragraph containing that line is creepily collectivist, that line is two thirds of the infamous “ein volk, ein Reich, ein Furher” slogan, which is truly creepy-especially given the personality cult that surrounds Obama.  A personality cult that was on grotesque display yesterday in what should have been a civic occasion celebrating the democratic process, rather than the individual selected through that process to hold (temporarily)  executive authority.

Are he and his speechwriters so clueless not to understand the parallel?  I certainly hope so, because the alternative would be truly disturbing.

But more generally, I reject the entire premise.  We are not a herd of bovines that needs to be driven in a single direction.  Indeed, the very attempt to do so is doomed to failure.

Again: people associating freely, in firms, private organizations, churches, or what have you-civil society-acting according to their own private lights and own private interests will be much more successful in achieving things great and small than they would be under some central direction.

It is doubly ironic that in that same paragraph Obama mentions Americans defeating fascism, because the fundamental theme of his speech has far more in common with fascism than it does with the traditions of the American Founding.  Which is not surprising, because progressives (and Progressives) have always been deeply critical of the Founders’ Constitution, and because during the 1920s and early-1930s many progressives openly admired fascism, especially the Mussolini variant.

But it is deeply disturbing that Obama, likely ignorantly (for he is truly an ignorant man), explicitly adopts two thirds of a fascist formulation of a political philosophy.

As for the third part, that seems to be the province of the deed, rather than the word.

Print Friendly

19 Comments »

  1. Obama used the term one nation and one people. What a fascist. You should have cited Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism to show how seriously grounded your understanding of fascism is. I’ll give you credit though, reading this blog is probably the best barometer of the intellectual degeneration that characterizes contemporary American conservatism since the National Review became completely unreadable.

    Comment by george — January 23, 2013 @ 8:58 am

  2. Leadership is a funny thing. When did the Executive Branch become synonymous with “deciding what’s best for the country”? From the White House’s own website: “The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet. ”

    I don’t see in there a whole lotta deciding what direction the country should be headed toward. I’m not partisan, but I am skeptical of those who complain about the separation of powers standing in their way.

    Comment by Jack G — January 23, 2013 @ 9:00 am

  3. @george. Thanks for reading! I am so pleased to be the best. Come back regularly to check the barometer and give storm warnings when the pressure drops.

    The ProfessorComment by The Professor — January 23, 2013 @ 5:18 pm

  4. @Jack G. You’ve hit on the “one leader” part that Obama left out of the speech, but definitely leaves in the way he envisions the presidency.

    The ProfessorComment by The Professor — January 23, 2013 @ 8:50 pm

  5. Well, there used to be “one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,” but he dropped off that last part…

    Comment by Catherine Fitzpatrick — January 23, 2013 @ 10:49 pm

  6. With Obama’s inauguration and MLK’s “birthday”, that must have been one hell of a Black Monday for the Tea Partiers.

    Comment by Vlad R — January 24, 2013 @ 3:03 am

  7. “Patria o muerte! Venceremos!”
    /Fidel Castro/

    “Patria o muerte! Venceremos!”
    /Mitt Romney/

    “… one Nation under God, indivisible”
    /The Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag/

    “We must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.”
    /Obama/

    “One Nation, One Flag, One People”
    /An Initiative of the National Association of Basketball Coaches/

    “that line is two thirds of the infamous “ein volk, ein Reich, ein Furher” slogan”
    /The Professor/

    All Reichs are/were Nations. But few Nations are Reichs. Is it Obama’s fault that you, Professor, consider the American nation to be a Reich?

    Comment by Vlad R — January 24, 2013 @ 3:29 am

  8. @Vlad
    A Reich auf Deutsche refers to an empire not a Nation. That is why in translation the full name of the Holy Roman Empire was literally the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. In the Nazi Sense of Reich transfigured the word into Fascistic terms: One People (race), One Empire (over others), and one leader. The point is that O is in this construct the Leader (Auf Deutsche = “Fuhrer”). is O – that is how he sees himself. The Perfesser’s point is the opposite.
    Are you being obtuse?

    Comment by Sotos — January 24, 2013 @ 9:53 am

  9. There is a story that alleges that at some time before the Second World War, Ribbentrop approached then Princess Juliana of the Netherlands, the daughter of Queen Wilhelmina and said words to the effect of “We Dutch and Germans are really one people, so we should have ein volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer”.

    At which Juliana replied “I completely agree, but my Mother the Queen is far too busy.”

    Comment by jon livesey — January 24, 2013 @ 6:01 pm

  10. Darn it, I shouldn’t have read Feinstein’s ban list. Now I have the itch again to buy an FN SCAR 17H, a damn well engineered piece of kit. They included some fine small arms so h/t to whomever put the list together.

    Comment by pahoben — January 24, 2013 @ 8:19 pm

  11. @Sotos:

    So, now you finally understand how stupid The Professor was translating the word “Nation” as “Reich”? Duh! How long did it take you? Or are you bragging that you aren’t quite as obtuse as The Professor? Trust me: given that you mistook Professor’s claim for mine, you aren’t too far evolved.

    Comment by Vlad R — January 24, 2013 @ 8:26 pm

  12. @professor and livesey:

    Why do you guys keep on writing “ein volk” in lower case? Are you trying to prove that you are so smart that you don’t need to respect German orthography? Or is this a statement about German people?

    Comment by Vlad R — January 24, 2013 @ 8:31 pm

  13. Just had a colonel showing an F-16 typical of included in the deal with Egypt. He said it is equipped with a Vulcan 20 mm capable of firing 100 rounds per minute. Dude it is a 100 rounds per second unless it is being derated. Hell might as well throw in a stealth or two.

    Comment by pahoben — January 24, 2013 @ 8:48 pm

  14. @Professor I remember a story a number of years ago about two women admitted to the Navy fighter program. They were the best candidates found and both were Academy grads. Both splashed their fighters near the start of carrier ops and the experiment was over. Do you remember this?

    Comment by pahoben — January 24, 2013 @ 9:02 pm

  15. @pahoben. Oh yeah. I remember.

    The ProfessorComment by The Professor — January 24, 2013 @ 9:40 pm

  16. Vlad – the point is that the Nazi’s Reich was to be one People and one Nation – in other words they changed the meaning Of Reich to be one Volk or Nation. I suspect they use of the word Reich to help spur revanchist feelings over the Second Reich’s fall, and tie into the pseudo historicism and mysticism that surrounded idiots like Himmler, the Thule Society and the like.

    Given Political Correctness and multiculturalism as a creed, the use of Reich and Nation as an equivalency is perfectly correct from the Socialist (National or International) point of view, i.e. Obama’s. Thus the Perfesser’s point stands.

    Comment by Sotos — January 25, 2013 @ 4:11 pm

  17. The good observation and idea that prompted Professor’s post was clear to nearly everyone.

    Comment by pahoben — January 26, 2013 @ 8:32 am

  18. @Sotos > A Reich auf Deutsche refers to an empire not a Nation.

    Actually, it’s “auf Deutsch“, not “auf Deutsche”.

    > the use of Reich and Nation as an equivalency is perfectly correct from the Socialist (National or International) point of view, i.e. Obama’s.

    Don’t use the “straw-man” argument. The idea of “Reich”, “Imperialism” and “Empire” is foreign to Socialists, be they European or North American. In the modern USA, all this suicidal imperialist nonsense that we, libertarians, despise so much – world domination, wars of aggression, occupation of foreign countries, Manifest Destiny, American Exceptionalism, manipulation and removal of foreign governments, the Monroe Doctrine, Drang nach Osten/NATO expansion, New Order/New World Order, etc. – are much more in tune with the Democratic Party than the Socialist Party and much more in tune with the Republican Party than the Democratic Party.

    Comment by Vlad R — January 30, 2013 @ 7:48 pm

  19. > The good observation and idea that prompted Professor’s post was clear to nearly everyone.

    What observation is that? That a Black Democrat President leaves a sour grapes taste in redneck mouths?

    Comment by Vlad R — February 1, 2013 @ 1:40 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress