Candy-Coated Fascism

October 8, 2009 7:46 PM

We can roughly divide American opinion about Barack Hussein Obama into four categories: First there are those, including me, who have studied his background, his long-term associates, his possibly ghostwritten autobiography "Dreams From My Father," his statements in unguarded or candid moments, and his admiration for political strongmen like Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega, and who consequently see him as a Marxist. Precisely, I view Obama as a "grad-school Marxist," meaning that he has the ideological stance of an advanced student of Marxist theory, but not a ruthless, hardened Marxist like Mao Zedong or Nicolai Ceausescu.

The second category of opinion, based on Obama's love of cozying up to compliant corporate executives, giving them other people's money with one hand, while extorting their earnings with the other, see Obama as a fascist like Mussolini. The author Jonah Goldberg has written a book about liberal fascism, which I have not read yet, but which I presume solidly makes this point about Obama.

The third category of opinion is that Obama is a fiscally responsible Christian centrist who has made history by becoming the first African-American to be elected to the White House. This is the image that Obama's supporters have worked so hard to promote, in spite of enormous evidence that it is untrue.

The fourth category merely sees Obama as Black, beautiful, with rock-star appeal, who talks like an educated white man with cadences of a liberal preacher. People who think this way would rather not think at all and are largely influenced by their friends and the "mainstream" media.

Concerning the third and fourth categories, they explain Obama's ability to maintain an approval rating of as much as fifty percent up to the time I am writing this. I expect that rating to go down eventually, but in my opinion the first two categories of opinion about Obama are more important.

I believe, therefore, that the question of whether Obama is a Marxian socialist or a a fascist is very much worth answering, and I believe I have the answer:

The main distinction between a fascist and a Marxian socialist is that the fascist permits property to be held in private hands, whereas the socialist believes in communal or collective ownership of property, especially such property as factories, farms, and industries. (The most important of the "means of production," the mind of the producer, is largely ignored by Marxists and fascists.)

The problem that all Marxian socialists have is that some property must remain in private hands, or there will be nothing to mooch or loot. A dead goose will lay no golden eggs, and a dead cow cannot be milked. Lenin realized this when he implemented his "new economic policy" in 1921, and of course the People's Republic of China, has been promoting extensive, yet forcefully limited private enterprise since the demise of Mao Zedong.

Another way of looking at this, is that every Marxian socialist must create a fascist state in order to have any productivity at all. Why, then, don't Marxists simply admit that they are fascists and leave it at that?

The answer is what I have called the candy coating in the title of this blogpost. Marxists, from Stalin to Hugo Chavez, customarily rail against fascism, and love to equate fascism with capitalism. While creating fascist states by brute force, in their speeches they denounce fascism and promise the standard utopian Marxist pie in the sky as a justification of their actions.

So what does this imply for Barack Hussein Obama? Simple: Believing in Marxism and spouting Marxist rhetoric to his "progressive" supporters, he is otherwise inevitably turning the United States of America into a fascist state, because he has no other choice as a Marxist. A purely Marxist state, much as Obama might sincerely want to create one, cannot work for long, and never has done so in history.

Yes, Obama is a Marxist, a wannabe socialist, and a fascist. America must rid herself of his influence, the sooner the better.