So are we all unified yet? Has the grand new day of The Brave New World incarnated yet? No? Well it has been one long, curious, bizarre even, campaign hasn’t it. What can one say that a Joe the Plumber becomes public enemy #1 for the Obama DNC MSM mugging campaign, well actually not number one, more like 1b, but why quibble when mentioning the disgusting behavior of those smearing Joe public, Joe citizen.

Of course the operative command given by Obama with his pig-with-lipstick scurrilous smear, merely knowing that, tells us what kind of man he is and what kind of campaign he has run. So the foul behavior shown Joe Public is sadly no surprise, but at least Barack has explicitly told us who the bad guys are in this campaign, Joe Public--you and me, but I think I’ve mentioned that before. Well lets move on shall we.

So I see where Barack says in Canton, well yes I’ve been paying attention, I’ve been posting over at Hugh’s place of late, anyway, Barack says of government in his closing argument speech in Canton, OH (the underscoring is mine):

"It should ensure a shot at success, not just for those with money and power and influence, but for every single American who's willing to work," and

“The choice of this election isn't between tax cuts and no tax cuts, it's about whether you believe we should only reward wealth. Or whether we should also reward the workers ... who create wealth.”

Yea yea, those mean old wealthers, actually he means exploiters, well who did you think wealth was, anyway? Whoever they are they must be the exploiters peppered throughout the USSR’s constitution (er constitutions), which is to say straight out of Marxism Leninism.

Here’s how the 1936 USSR 1936 USSR constitution puts it:

Yes, I know it is difficult, well nigh impossible, to differentiate Obama’s animating world from the USSR’s constitution, which begs the question, but to continue.

Didn’t Michelle Obama complain about not doing “Socially useful work”? Why yes she did. Don’t do what you want to do, what calls to you, but rather what Michelle tells you to do. She disparages careers in corporations (never mind corporations provide a great many of our middle class jobs), careers that are monetarily rewarding, and she tells us which professions are morally and socially useful and which are not. How very Soviet of her.

Reading the constitution or constitutions of the USSR is very illuminating, I recommend doing so. They are indeed infamous documents, that well, you will invariably find corollaries for in the DNC platform, and no doubt hear piped by our intelligentsia, academia, and their sock puppets in MSM. But recall that the USSR and its constitution had a major disconnect, which is to say the constitutions of the USSR were a trick. None of it them were taken seriously, except in so far as they strengthened, solidified, and promoted the totalitarian USSR state.

But I can’t resist leaving without a couple of more fun articles found in their constitution, in fairness, those totalitarian documents are replete with them, but anyway: Article 18 from the 1918 constitution:

Well so much for stay at home parents, people of independent means etc. The state declares, not unlike Obama talking about “every single American willing to work,” that working is our duty, not for our well being, but for the state. Wonderful.

Otherwise stated thusly:

And back to the 1936 constitution Article 73.5:

And there you go, Barack’s vision for the country. Centralized planning, organizing, mandating our enterprise, not as people find use for our research and resources, but as government would have it. Gore must love that above Article, not to mention that other collectivist, ah heck, socialist, Speaker Pelosi.

But to return to Barack‘s Canton speech: opportunity is socialism:

Obama advocates a good ol’ proletariat socialist-workers revolution (through the ballet box of course) and says there’s nothing more American than that.

Really? Beats the hell out of me what America he grew up in. That sounds more like the Soviet Union. But at least with that comment he comes nearer the truth than usual.

Now of course the USSR is a failed state, as in long gone, so here’s news for Obama. The dead, dilapidated, failed economic system is the one Obama favors. But then it has been well established that he is a socialist (for a scholarly presentation of the public record see Stanley Kurtz, archived writings here, and his colleague Andrew McCarthy, archived here). I said that already didn’t I? But then the question, besides being a failed system, is why socialism is a trickster’s system, which is say it stinks.

Of course I can recommend authors like Adam Smith, F. A. Hayek, Milton Friedan, Thomas Sowell and more, and guess what, they get it, and please do read one or more, but that’s not really where I left off on my last long ago post. So where were we?

*******

Right we were talking about unity, which I’ve noticed has made a remarkable comeback.

In his “final argument” speeches (see links above), including the lugubrious infomercial he has refrained this:

We are going to come together (good song by the way), be one nation (I didn’t know we weren’t), be united. He’s going to do what’s never been done; win what’s never been won.

Be united? In what? Well, as it depends upon his election, he must mean he is going to unite us in Government. Government will be our salvation. We’re going to be united in Obama. This isn’t just hubris. This is megalomaniacal hubris. Oh, and it’s socialism. Though we may be talking here more about a post-modern fascist/socialism. A permutation if you will, complete with the cult of personality thrown in.

Which brings to mind that dullard Marxist Lukacs’ quoting of Hegel:

I always wondered where the idea that everything is political came from, or what’s the phrase? “think globally act locally.” Politics here, politics there, politics, politics everywhere. Unity. How singular. Not that Marx or Engels had much use for Hegel’s metaphysics, but determinism as dialectical materialism--yea that’s the ticket. So why did Marx keep talking when he found out he was merely a molecule ordained by history. Just another one of life’s mysteries, or accident, I guess.

But aside aside, how does Obama put it?

You, me, friends, family, community and all are dissolved into government. Government is mom and dad. Gives us allowances. Tells us what to eat and when. Tells us what clothes to wear. When to go to the doctor and where to live. Well that’s the structure of the family, yes? And it is through structure that values are transmitted, yes?

It’s true of course that the Soviet constitution is one of the great hoax’s leveled on any people. Freedom was nowhere to be found, unless in the Politburo, of course.

Conversely, Limited Government, of course, supports the idea that free-will, consciousness, is a good thing, a blessing. And that individuals should be as free as possible to live their lives as they will.

Whereas, Socialism, to the contrary, seeks to constrict free action, free-will, and assumes the idea consciousness is a curse. Individuals should be constrained from living freely. The consciousness of the state is the consciousness and conscience of the individual.

Now of course the system you prefer depends upon whether you understand our creating deity as a trickster or a loving benevolence.

I agree, that is pretty simple, naturally more can be said.

So

So the socialist, the radical, seeks the pre-formation of time and space, or as the song says, “we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden.” Well, what the heck did you think Marx was talking about: A harmonic convergence? Certainly a unity, a singularity, a classless society, yes? Lost class consciousness? No dichotomy. And so utopians like Marx have been trying to map the way back to Eden since forever; To create a single note, which isn’t much of a harmony, but is a radical, albeit a regressive one.

This classless unity disavows transcendence, individual consciousness, in the cause of a leveling unity. No wonder Marx and Engels railed against religion. No transcendence, no individual consciousness, no free-will.

Recall Marx famously framed his vision as a present made of class consciousness, and a future without consciousness--nirvana is an unconscious state, or rather a single-state untranscendent consciousness, yes that is an oxymoron, so rather we should call it what it is, an amoeba.

Unconsciousness being the goal of the American left, it’s little wonder that Senators Obama, Clinton, Reid, Durban, Speaker Pelosi and all the others of their ilk turn to the meanest, densest, grossest expression of Man, government, for our salvation, treating the greater expressions of Man: the economy, the culture, society as though merely derivative appendages. Nothing as it were transcends the single note.

Notwithstanding, consciousness is necessarily a categorical possibility, as it would seem, and as such it doesn’t do so well in a be-all end-all leveling state: free-will to such a thing is indeed a virus, that is if you are on that side of the line, if on mine you call it a cure.

Consciousness, a metaphysical thing, if it is anything at all, conjectures whether this dichotomy, consciousness, profoundly marked in Genesis and elucidated further by Christ, be a trick or a grace, a cursed thing or blessed thing. You need not be Jewish or Christian to acknowledge the rationality of a creating Deity, you need simply believe in consciousness, and consequently free-will, as one depends upon the other.

So we are either the creation of a trickster or a grace.

Obviously radicals, fascists, communists, socialists and sundry by default, at minimum, hold the trickster view and don’t hold much truck for checks and balances. Checks get in the way of a politics of meaning, a politics of hope, get in the way of the “highest” expression of Man, Government. Checks on Government are a bad thing.

The checks and balances enshrined in the constitution. The right to own property (the economy); the right of religious freedom and speech (the culture); the right of free association (society itself). These rights and more as situated in the individual transcend the state and its government. And as we the people are active and express ourselves in the economy, the culture, and in fact constitute society we are the fundamental checks and balances on the state’s government.

Government being the lowest expression of Man can never be as dynamic, productive and creative as the economy, nor can government ever be as expressive, dynamic and creative as the culture, and as if government could ever be the sustaining source of that which it depends wholly upon for its sustenance, society itself, “we the people.”