Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Sargon of Akkad: Interviewing Steve Bannon- 'Bannonism: The Revolt of The Little Guy'

Source:Sargon of Akkad- The Steve Bannon interview. 
"Steve Bannon, Ex-Trump chief strategist, lays out what's behind Brexit and Trump's populist revolts, Kavanaugh, #MeToo​, #TimesUp​ and more."

From Sargon of Akkad

This is a good way to talk about Nationalists and nationalism, because they're Nationalists and then are Nationalists. Similar to there are Socialists and then are Socialists. Not all Nationalists are Nazis and not all Socialists are Communists. As someone who is not a Socialist or Communist and strongly dislikes both, I would tell you Steve Bannon is a Nationalist, but in the best sense. As someone who loves his country ( in this case America ) and believes his number job is to look out for America and stand up for America regardless of what the rest of the world thinks or does about that.

Source:Sargon of Akkad- Steve Bannon 
Steve Bannon, comes from a small town, blue-collar mindset which is now a solid percentage of the Republican Party now with most big city and big metro Americans either Democrats, Independents, or right of center Republicans especially on economic and foreign policy, but want nothing to do the Nationalists and Christian-Right when it comes to social policy.

Source:Sargon of Akkad- Interviewing Steve Bannon 
And Nationalists in the Bannon sense not the Nazi or right-wing Socialist sense, view people that they see as the elite who went to the top Northeast schools in America and come from money and probably inherited a good deal of money, who've worked in and out of government and when they're not doing that they're working for think tanks or professors at elite colleges, Bannon Nationalists view people of this background as the problem with America.

Bannon Nationalists, view elitists as people who looked down on people who physically work hard for a living, work hard just to pay their bills and mortgages, who don't live in or outside of a big city like Washington, New York, Boston, San Francisco, etc, people who frankly wanted Hillary Clinton for President who Hillary represents.

The 2016 presidential election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, was essentially blue-collar Nationalists represented by Trump. And white-collar elitists represented by Clinton. A big reason why Trump defeated Clinton, is because the Clinton elitist wing of the country was in charge for America for a very long time. And the Trump blue-collar folks felt left behind and believed they were losing their America. Some would argue that part of that had to do with cultural, racial, and ethnic reasons and I would agree with that as well.

To say this is not your father's Republican Party anymore, would be like saying that if you jumped in a lake there is a high percentage that you'll get wet in the water. It would be one of the worst cases of stating the obvious since it was announced that water is wet. The country club Republican Party that were Conservatives and in some cases Progressives even that were primarily interested in economic and foreign policy, is still around, but on life support in the Republican Party. Today's Republican Party is based in the South and small town Midwest and rural America in general. And that's what the Steve Bannon's of the world represent in American politics. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress.

Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Democratic Socialist: 'Right-Wing Socialism and The Lies of Friedrich Hayek'

Source:Democratic Socialist- Right-wing socialism is not an Oxymoron. 
"Rightwing Socialism and the lies of Hayek"  

"An unimpeachable classic work in political philosophy, intellectual and cultural history, and economics, The Road to Serfdom has inspired and infuriated politicians, scholars, and general readers for half a century. Originally published in 1944—when Eleanor Roosevelt supported the efforts of Stalin, and Albert Einstein subscribed lock, stock, and barrel to the socialist program—The Road to Serfdom was seen as heretical for its passionate warning against the dangers of state control over the means of production. For F. A. Hayek, the collectivist idea of empowering government with increasing... 
Source:Amazon- One of leading voices and leaders for Libertarians. 

From Amazon

Just before I get into what I believe right-wing socialism is and actually what I know it to be I just want to make a personal comment here. For all you YouTube fans and even die hards, doesn't the guy in this video sound a lot like Sargon of Akkad who also has a YouTube channel and is also British? Just thought I throw that out there.

Yes, there is such a thing as right-wing socialism and right-wing Socialists. And that might sound like calling someone a Libertarian-Communist or a Progressive-Conservative, Marxist-Anarchist, or any other two labels that you want to put together that sound as out as place as a tuxedo at a biker bar, heavy metal concert at a library, skunk at a wedding or in a church or whatever example you want to use. But there are two forms of authoritarian socialism with one being left-wing and the other being right-wing. Communism, is left-wing authoritarian socialism and nationalism whether it's Nazism or anything else is right-wing socialism.

National socialism otherwise known as Nazism is right-wing socialism that came about in Germany in the 1930s under the leadership Adolf Hitler and you don't need to be a history major or even buff to know about Hitler and what he and his movement represented.

"National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), more commonly known as Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsiɪzəm, ˈnæt-/),[1] is the ideology and practices associated with the Nazi Party – officially the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP) – in Nazi Germany, and of other far-right groups with similar aims.

Nazism is a form of fascism and showed that ideology's disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system, but also incorporated fervent antisemitism, scientific racism, and eugenics into its creed. Its extreme nationalism came from Pan-Germanism and the Völkisch movement prominent in the German nationalism of the time, and it was strongly influenced by the anti-Communist Freikorps paramilitary groups that emerged after Germany's defeat in World War I, from which came the party's "cult of violence" which was "at the heart of the movement."[2]

Nazism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and Social Darwinism, identifying the Germans as a part of what the Nazis regarded as an Aryan or Nordic master race.[3] It aimed to overcome social divisions and create a German homogeneous society based on racial purity which represented a people's community (Volksgemeinschaft). The Nazis aimed to unite all Germans living in historically German territory, as well as gain additional lands for German expansion under the doctrine of Lebensraum and exclude those who they deemed either community aliens or "inferior" races.

The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both international socialismand free market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concept of class conflict, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism and sought to convince all parts of the new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the "common good", accepting political interests as the main priority of economic organization."

Nazis ( or right-wing Socialists ) not only believed in a superior country that being Germany, but a superior people including superior race and ethnicity and believed that Germans were superior to Jews and other non-ethnic Germans in Germany and broader Europe. They were literally not just fascists, but fascist terrorists that believed that non-ethnic Germans didn't have a right to live in Germany. But it wasn't just that they hated people of other ethnicities and America Nazis hate people of other races as well, but they hated anything that liberalism and liberal democracy stood for including integration, multiculturalism, individualism, individual rights, personal freedom, private property, property rights, free speech and press, etc and unfortunately I could go on.

But we're still talking about Socialists and socialism here and they were people who hated private property, corporations, multinational corporations, the centralization of wealth, big banks, etc. They were right-wing populists, but right-wing Socialists as well. To call Adolf Hitler a Liberal or Conservative would not only be an insult to both Liberals and Conservatives since he was neither, but also evil and racist serial genocidal murderer, but it would also be an insult to facts and reality. It would be like calling Ron Paul perhaps the face of American libertarianism in America a Communist or Socialist. It would have no relation to reality, but not all Socialists are democratic and not all of them are left-wing either. Nazis and other Nationalists around the world are right-wing Socialists. Socialism has never been burley left-wing as an ideology."

Nazism according to Wikipedia

Just before I get into what I believe right-wing socialism is and actually what I know it to be I just want to make a personal comment here. For all you YouTube fans and even die hards, doesn't the guy in this video sound a lot like Sargon of Akkad who also has a YouTube channel and is also British? Just thought I throw that out there.

Yes, there is such a thing as right-wing socialism and right-wing Socialists. And that might sound like calling someone a Libertarian-Communist or a Progressive-Conservative, Marxist-Anarchist, or any other two labels that you want to put together that sound as out as place as a tuxedo at a biker bar, heavy metal concert at a library, skunk at a wedding or in a church or whatever example you want to use. But there are two forms of authoritarian socialism with one being left-wing and the other being right-wing. Communism, is left-wing authoritarian socialism and nationalism whether it's Nazism or anything else is right-wing socialism.

National socialism otherwise known as Nazism is right-wing socialism that came about in Germany in the 1930s under the leadership Adolf Hitler and you don't need to be a history major or even buff to know about Hitler and what he and his movement represented. 

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on Blogger.

Friday, October 12, 2018

Mao Zedong: Chinese Communism

Source: Five Prime- Chinese Communist Leader Mao Zedong on communism 
“In which John Green teaches you about China’s Revolutions. While the rest of the world was off having a couple of World Wars, China was busily uprooting the dynastic system that had ruled there for millennia. Most revolutions have some degree of tumult associated with them, but China’s 20th century revolutions were REALLY disruptive. In 1911 and 1912, Chinese nationalists brought 3000 years of dynastic rule to an end. China plunged into chaos as warlords staked out regions of the country for themselves. The nationalists and communists joined forces briefly to bring the nation back together under the Chinese Republic, and then they quickly split and started fighting the Chinese Civil War. The fight between nationalists and communists went on for decades, and was interrupted by an alliance to fight the invading Japanese during World War II. After the World War II ended, the Chinese Civil War was back on. Mao and the communists were ultimately victorious, and Chiang Kai-Shek ended up in Taiwan. And then it got weird. Mao spent years repeatedly trying to purify the Communist Party and build up the new People’s Republic of China with Rectifications, Anti Campaigns, Five Year Plans. the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution. These had mixed results, to say the least. John will cover all this and more in this week’s Crash Course World History.” 

Source:Crash Course- talking about the history of Chinese Communism.

From Crash Course 

“In its post-revolutionary period, Mao Zedong Thought is defined in the CPC’s Constitution as “Marxism–Leninism applied in a Chinese context”, synthesized by Mao and China’s “first-generation leaders”. It asserts that class struggle continues even if the proletariat has already overthrown the bourgeoisie and there are capitalist restorationist elements within the Communist Party itself. Maoism provided the CPC’s first comprehensive theoretical guideline with regards to how to continue socialist revolution, the creation of a socialist society, socialist military construction and highlights various contradictions in society to be addressed by what is termed “socialist construction”.

While it continues to be lauded to be the major force that defeated “imperialism and feudalism” and created a “New China” by the Communist Party of China, the ideology survives only in name on the Communist Party’s Constitution as Deng Xiaoping abolished most Maoist practices in 1978, advancing a guiding ideology called “socialism with Chinese characteristics”.

North Korea ( or as I call them the Communist Republic of Korea ) is really the last standing among the pure communist states around the world now. They’re the only communist state where everything and all the power in the country is centralized with the Communist Party and central government. The People’s Republic of China, has had a functioning hybrid capitalist economic for about 40 years now, while still maintaining some state-owned industries and they still qualify as a communist state because of their not just lack of free speech and a free press, but they still don’t have free speech or any free press.

The Chinese Communist State, still owns and operates all the domestic media in the country. And of course opposition parties to the Communist Party are still outlawed. But even personal freedom with people being able to move freely around the country and make their own basic personal and even economic decisions for themselves in the country and being able to travel abroad, is on the rise and has been growing in China since they’ve moved in a capitalist first world direction economically and culturally the last 35-40 years.

Mao Zedong, is one of the last of the pure Communists as someone who believed int total state-control of the society and not just the economy to work on behalf of the people so no one would be rich or poor. This is what Communists and Socialists are talking about when they say they want a classless society where no one is rich or poor. And they believe you achieve that by putting the central state in control of all the economic resources of the country. And that everyone would be taken care of as long as they follow the communist rules of society. Meaning you don’t disobey the communist regime and speak out against it or be politically active against it. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger.

Monday, October 8, 2018

The New Republic: Bryan Mealer: 'The Struggle For a New American Gospel'

Source:The New Republic- TNR: not very liberal anymore.
"God first appeared to me in a photograph. I was six years old. A deacon in my family’s Pentecostal church called me over one morning and pulled out a grainy photo from his suit pocket. It was taken from an airplane window, he said. Out past the wing, suspended in the clouds, was the faint image of a man. “That’s Jesus,” he told me."

From The New Republic

"What is the history of the freedom of religion as outlined in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution? How is this freedom enforced? How does religious policy manifest in the real world?"

Source: History- Thomas Jefferson: one of our Founding Liberals.
From History

As someone who grew up in an Atheist family where both my father and mother were Atheists at least when I was growing up, (I believe Mom is more of an Agnostic now, but Dad if he could would probably outlaw religion and has more of a communist view of it) I've never been very religious at all.

I grew up with hardcore Atheists during a time when the Christian-Right was becoming very powerful in America politics at least within the Republican Party and with Republicans who represent a lot of fundamentalist Christians, so I grew in Maryland just outside of Washington in the 1980s and early 1990s and got to see both fringes when it comes to religion in America.

But because I come from Atheists and have seen what religion looks like from the other side, I'm not in love with either camp and I'm not religious, but I'm not ready to say God doesn't exist and religion in itself is a bad thing.

As a Liberal if there any religious values I believe in its do unto others what you would do to you. Meaning treat people the way you want to be treated. And if that's not good enough for you there's always a backup plan which is treat others the way they treat you. If someone is a jerk ( to be kind ) to you, you can be a jerk to them. But don't be a jerk just because you want to be a jerk, or you are a jerk and if you are a jerk, reform your ways and learn how to treat people properly.

The other religious value and this is I believe probably best liberal value out there along with free speech and racial and color blindness is live and let live. Meaning you make your bed in life and live with the consequences and responsibilities from making your own decisions, but you let others do the same thing and don't try to micromanage people especially adults. Which gets to the last reason I'm not religious which is you don't see religions that tend to believe in these things even from the Left.

From the Right all you basically get now a days at least from what's reported is that homosexuality, women's liberation, personal freedom and individualism in general are ruining America. From the Left, you just get a lot of social democratic propaganda that for a government to be moral it must take care of the poor and that somehow being wealthy is some type of sin.

If there were or is and perhaps someone who is smarter than me when it comes to religion knows this better than me, but if there is a religion that preaches the liberal values that I just mentioned before, even though I don't believe in God, I could probably get into that religion myself and at least want to check out that house of worship and hear preachers talk about the value of live and let live, do unto others what you would do to you, racial and ethnic tolerance and not just for minorities, but for all people all races and ethnicities, as well as traditional religious values like helping the needy help themselves through charity.

As a Liberal I don't believe in God because as a Liberal I believe in reason which tends to be out of line with faith. Faith about belief and believing in something even if you can't see it because the facts and evidence don't back it up. Reason of course is about evidence and believing in what you can actually see for yourself. But I don't believe you have to believe in God to be religious, but just believe in a certain set of religious and moral values that others believe in as well. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

Thursday, October 4, 2018

C-SPAN: Booknotes With Brian Lamb- Irving Kristol: 'What is Neoconservatism's Writings On Politics, Economics & Culture'

Source:C-SPAN- Brian Lamb, interviewing Irving Kristol in 1995. 
“Neoconservatism is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s. Many of its adherents rose to political fame during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. During the George W. Bush administration, neoconservative officials at the Department of Defense and Department of State played a major role in promoting and planning the invasion of Iraq.”


From Wikipedia

"Reflections of a Neoconservative: Looking Back, Looking Ahead (1983)"
Source: Contemporary Thinkers- Neoconservative Irving Kristol 
From Contemporary Thinkers 

"Neoconservatism is a political movement that was born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party and with the growing New Left and counterculture of the 1960s, particularly the Vietnam protests. Some also began to question their liberal beliefs regarding domestic policies such as the Great Society. Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, including peace through strength, and are known for espousing disdain for communism and political radicalism.[1][2]

Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Bremer. While not identifying as neoconservatives, senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of American influence in the Middle East. Many of its adherents became politically influential during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, peaking in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[3]

Critics of neoconservatism have used the term to describe foreign policy and war hawks who support aggressive militarism or neo-imperialism. Historically speaking, the term neoconservative refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist left to the camp of American conservatism during the 1960s and 1970s.[4] The movement had its intellectual roots in the magazine Commentary, edited by Norman Podhoretz.[5] They spoke out against the New Left and in that way helped define the movement."

From Wikipedia

I agree with the Wikipedia definition as far as where neoconservatism and Neoconservatives come from which was in the 1960s as a response to the growing New-Left ( Socialists ) inside the Democratic Party, who opposed the Cold War and the United States opposition to the communism and also disagreed with Progressive Democrats on the New Deal and Great Society and believed that those progressive programs didn't go far enough. And wanted to move the Democratic Party and the American economy in a socialist direction. So back in the 1960s and 70s, Neoconservatives were essentially Progressive Democrats who moved away from the Democratic Party because of the emerging McGovernite Far-Left in the Democratic Party.

But what I would add to this is that Neoconservatives aren't just hawks on foreign policy who oppose communism and other authoritarian ideologies around the world. They are very hawkish on foreign policy and national security, but tend to be more progressive at least compared with Goldwater Conservative-Libertarians in the Republican Party on economic policy, as well as civil rights and other social issues. Instead of calling for the elimination of the safety net like the New Deal and Great Society, Neoconservatives believes in reforming those programs with private market principles and making those programs better.

Welfare to Work from the 1990s, is a Neoconservative idea and you could also argue that it's Progressive as well.

Supply side economics where you cut taxes deeply, but don't pay for them with either budget cuts or raising tax revenue, is another Neoconservative idea.

The George W. Bush Administration was made up of primarily economic and foreign policy Neoconservatives. The 2003 Iraq War, the 2002 No Child Left Behind education reform, Medicare Part D which was an expansion not cut in Medicare that gave is the prescription drug benefit in Medicare, these are all Neoconservative ideas and proposals.

Not arguing that Neoconservatives are Progressive Democrats, they are former Progressive Democrats who are still in sync with Progressives when it comes to foreign policy and national security, but tend to be more hawkish than Progressive Democrats and believe that liberal democracy is such a great thing that it needs to be promoted around the world even though military force. The 2003 Iraq War is a perfect example of that.

But Neoconservatives are not Conservatives at least in the constitutional and Conservative-Libertarian sense as people who want to eliminate the safety net and regulatory state. Neoconservatives believe in a public safety net, but that it should be run with private market principles and used to move people to economic independency and even believe in the regulatory state and having commonsense regulations when it comes to the environment, worker and consumer safety, and tend to support civil rights laws.

Neoconservatives aren't Conservative-Libertarians on social issues or economic issues, and't aren't fiscal Conservatives either. But people who want a strong, functioning, but limited government that is used to just do the basics and help people improve their own lives. And tend to be Federalists when it comes to social and economic government programs. Perhaps Progressive Republicans, would be the best label for Neoconservatives in America. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.

Wednesday, October 3, 2018

Ron Paul Liberty Report: 'Republicans Responsibility For Socialism's Comeback'

Source:Ron Paul Liberty Report- U.S. Representative Dr. Ron Paul, Libertarian, Texas 
"According to a recent Reuters/Ipsos survey, 70 percent of Americans, including about 50 percent of Republicans, support Medicare for all, the latest incarnation of single-payer health care. Republican support for a health plan labeled “Medicare for all” is not surprising considering that Republican politicians support Medicare and that one of their attacks on Obamacare was that it would harm the program. Furthermore, the biggest expansion of Medicare since its creation — the Part D prescription drug program — occurred under a conservative president working with a conservative Congress." 

From the Ron Paul Liberty Report

I think the way I would look at this would be to go back to George W. Bush's Administration. where Republicans with help from Congressional Democrats expanded the Federal role in public education in 2002. And then instead of reforming Medicare in 2003 a Republican Congress with some help from Senate Democrats and no help from House Democrats, expanded Medicare in 2003 with the prescription drug benefit in Medicare.

I'm not calling President George W. Bush a Socialist, but to argue that he was a Conservative doesn't sound right either. He expanded the Federal Government almost across the board except when it came to the regulatory state where his administration almost had an hands off approach when it came to government regulations of the economy. And you could argue that Ayn Rand approach to government regulations contributed to the 2008 financial crisis that lead to the Great Recession, with the Bush Administration being asleep at the wheel while American banks and investors were making irresponsible investments on Wall Street that they couldn't cover the losses for.

I believe the real reasons why socialism is making a comeback in America, has to do with President George W. Bush and his handling of the economy that you could at least argue is at least partially responsible for the Great Recession of 2008-09 and young Americans getting stuck with the bill for that economic collapse and finding themselves either with college diplomas, but are unable to find jobs that makes them financially independent or having to work multiple jobs just to pay their bills. Along with have college loans that they can't pay back that are eating away at their income.

And then you have people like Senate Bernie Sanders ( the only self-described Socialist member of Congress ) come along and make all sorts of promises of government being able to do this and that for the people and all of these new government services and expansion of current government services are going to be free and young naive people thinking that sounds cool ( or awesome ) to them and they get behind someone like a Senator Sanders and back his message of socialism.

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat
Source: U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960