**A Post from Shifra**
For the past four years, I have spent altogether too much time thinking about POTUS and his henchmen… er… advisors. But with everything POTUS and his minions associates have pulled on us – the list is endless – sometimes it feels like a daily assault. And, the narcissism, the lies, the projections – well, it’s enough to make a psychologist’s head spin.
And so, I think about these clowns Democrats a lot. (e.g. Biden: alcoholic? early dementia?) I also spend way too much time on Twitter. Give me an Obama-themed hashtag, and I’m there: e.g. #LinesFromObamaMovies:
“I love the smell of taxes in the morning.”
But ever since Obama’s now infamous “You Didn’t Build That” babbling speech, I have been reading the pundits’ pronouncements on the meaning of O’s drivel words, and the consensus seems to be that O has no respect for entrepreneurs, he has no understanding of how business works, he favors Big Government.
But something about this does not quite compute for me. Because does he *really* believe what he said? Does he *really* think that Tony Rezko got his millions thanks to the Illinois highway system and a nice kindergarten teacher? Does he not think that he became POTUS because he is oh so smart? (As I recall, when Harry Reid complimented O on his speech, he did not say, “Harry, I was able to give a great speech because I had this really cool lunchbox at school, and it gave me a lot of self-esteem, so I want to thank the lunchbox factory, and ..” Nope, he said, “I have a gift, Harry.”)
When it emerged that Elizabeth Warren had road-tested the speech several months ago, I looked closely at the text of her speech:
“You built a factory, and it turned into something terrific or a great idea: God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
OK, typical Liberal-speak.
But Obama’s speech was much more than just a shout-out to Big Government. It was so rambling, so unfocused (Ok, it was so TOTUS-less). But I think that in the process, something slipped out, and created a firestorm.
I think he was talking about Collectivism vs. Individualism.
Collectivism is defined as the theory and practice that makes some sort of group rather than the individual the fundamental unit of political, social, and economic concern. In theory, collectivists insist that the claims of groups, associations, or the state must normally supersede the claims of individuals. Key thinkers include Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin, Joseph Stalin, and Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov Lenin.
Political or moral individualism is the theory that individuals should be left, as far as possible, to determine their own futures in economic and moral matters. Key thinkers include Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick, John Locke, and Herbert Spencer. — From the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
“It is collectivism that is the unrealistic expression of utopian belief systems. In its worst form — the state — collectivism is the institutionalized exertion of violence to compel living beings to behave contrary to their natural self-interest inclinations. So strong are the motivations for individual preferences that the state must resort to attacks upon the very nature of life to satisfy the ambitions of those who see others as nothing more than resources to be exploited for such ends.” – Butler Shaffer.
And of course, Ayn Rand:
“Totalitarianism is collectivism. Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group — whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called `the common good.´ Throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing `the common good.´ Napoleon `served the common good´ of France. Hitler [was] `serving the common good´ of Germany. Horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by `altruists´ who justify themselves by — the common good.”
So, we have come full circle. Four years ago, many of us heard “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” And we shuddered. Some chose to ignore his words. But I think now, many more know what the words really meant.
And just think. In 96 days, I will offer my new #LinesFromObamaMovies: “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain in the White House.”
Because we won’t have to, anymore.
“It Takes A Village”, to me, is the perfect example of the ‘Collective’ mindset.
posted 8/2 630pm Texas[Borg Hive]Time
What can I say Shifra? You leave me speechless, which is fine, cause you said it all! Brava!
As I’ve said before, “You did it with help” is a fine speech from a pastor, a rabbi, a spiritual adviser, with the emphasis on the word adviser. That is, yes, we do need a reminder to be humble, to not let our hubris get the best of us. But an adviser has no coercive authority beyond his ability to exert social pressure and to stir our consciences. On the other hand, when a political leader employs that rhetoric, he’s angling for power. He’s moving to seize assets and exert controls. He’s establishing the framework by which new intrusions will be established and accepted.
So, since we keep getting back to context: There wasn’t anything wrong with what Obama said per se. But, coming from a political leader, these are chilling words indeed.
It’s hard for people like myself to relate to this, but I find that with liberals they take what their own champions say too literally. Perhaps that’s just a way to deflect, but I see it pretty often. “No, read his speech. What he said was…”
“Okay, I get all that, but think about the implications…”
“No, you’re being paranoid. He’s just reminding people that billionaires couldn’t have gotten where they did without the great infrastructure that the government created.”
Oh, so basically he’s saying conservatives take great infrastructure for granted. I don’t. I’m quite conscious of our infrastructure. I know that I pay taxes to pay for it, and I’m glad to have it. They don’t think, however, about where the financing for this “great” infrastructure comes from. If you listen to Donald Trump, who’s seen the world, our infrastructure isn’t so great anymore, compared to China’s. In fact, progressives have it backwards. China didn’t start with great infrastructure. Not by a long shot. It was only by providing a friendly environment to business, and access to their markets, that they raised the funds needed to build it.
Here’s another thing. I also know I pay taxes for things that have nothing to do with infrastructure, but rather are part of progressive social programs. They’re not for education, or feeding the poor, either. They’re for social engineering. They’re for funding programs that take away land rights in rural areas. They’re for “densification” programs that are intended to herd people into cities. They want to eventually expand this sort of regime into marginalizing suburbs as well. These programs will not continue to make us great. Already, a significant amount of our taxes are just going to what are essentially pension programs. That’s not infrastructure. I guess the best you could say about it is it’s “thanks from a grateful nation” to our elderly. That thanks is getting ever more expensive, though. I wonder how long the young will abide it. There’s a lot that Obama left out in his “analysis.” That goes for Elizabeth Warren as well.
Thank you Shifra, been right with you fighting these people and this horrible president more than day one every single day! Another great article, I love it, thank you. I just read Obama is suing to stop our great military stuck in that hell hole from voting!!! Its disgusting, he’s just horrible. I’m back on twitter with a new acct, I can’t change my avatar on my tablet though, @1234TAMjeanee 🙂
Well, that was short lived, kicked off twitter AGAIN! I LASTED 2 DAYS hmmmmm?
O’DB is a product of elitist-academia of the left. Most professors in academia from the left are delusional losers because they think their brilliance should have tenure and they should be paid the highest salaries in society. This is why elitists hate the free-market and capitalism. Free-markets and capitalism gives ‘common people’ the chance and ability to excel and earn tons of money, property and freedom. Deep down, the elitist-academic is not just jealous but envious. The elitist-academic hates seeing ‘uneducated non-ivy league peons’ achieve a higher status and standard of living than them. Jealouy is resentment over other peoples success or advantage; in the case of O’DB and other leftist-elitists; envious persons want to maliciously TAKE what a successful person earned. Speading the wealth or taking the fruits of other’s labor. Because, in DB’s mind, they didn’t earn that.
I used to hear Rush talk about this, and I couldn’t quite get it. Now I do. I’ve realized that a flair for intellectual pursuits likely does *not* lead to material wealth, because I like to focus on the details and analyze them. What I like most is not what most other people like. If I were to come up with something I liked, and tried to sell it, it likely would not sell well, unless I were to find some deep pockets somewhere, and sell a few units for a lot of money. Other academics likely feel similarly. They find academic pursuits fascinating. They’re often misunderstood when they advocate for something or other that’s within their bailiwick. They don’t make a lot of money, because what they want to pursue has little to do with what most people want. However, I am pretty sure there are some (perhaps many) who feel that what they do is worth more to society than they are given credit. They feel undervalued. They see those less intellectually inclined who strike it rich, and they feel there’s an injustice. Where I differ with them is I *don’t* feel I’m more deserving of it than other people are. I recognize that others worked hard fulfilling others’ needs and desires. If I’m misunderstood, it’s because there aren’t enough people who know what I know, or I need to translate it into layman’s terms somehow.
What these academics want is a non-market-based system, one where some authority will determine who should get paid what, because they’ll know better. BS. If such a system were put in place, sure, some academics would make a lot of money, but only those who serve the political purposes of the planners. Not all academics would fit in that category, and so would still get the short end of the stick.
Another winner Shifra! Thankfully, Barry’s own words(#youdidntbuildthat)has done what we mere mortals couldn’t; they bit him in the butt, went viral and caused him to spend A LOT of money and time to revise and explain his remarks. No one’s buying it…the thrill is gone. Congratulations on your well deserved new gig on the Live Wire Team.
Excellent post, Shifra.
Since my web name is based on; All for One, One for All, I have to comment here.
The contextual meaning of the above phrase is, the military protects the individual and to do that the military must support each other. No where in there is the clause, All for All, because you can’t remove the individual from life and liberty.
This is where I see the collectivists warping the idea. The collectivists say if you support us, we’ll support you, and we’ll be one big happy family. But the collectivists demand support their way and no other. If you’re out of line, then we can’t be one big happy family, and you’re the one out of line. Individuals have interventions, collectivists have re-education. All for All.
Dennisl59 – yes! Excellent point about Hillary’s book. I was thinking of mentioning it in post…
Thanks, TAMS, for your very thoughtful responses. Once again, #TAMSrock 🙂
Thanks, Shifra. It’s just amazing how many people – even on our side – continue to subscribe to the collective propaganda. After all, it’s “for the children”. (Thanks for the reminder, Dennis.) Never mind that we are bankrupting their future.
Rob_W: When my kids were little, *that* was the line I used when I bought junk-food to feed my own too-sweet tooth: It’s “for the children.” 🙂
LOL!
Works for me.