Framtiden i frälsningens och glädjens rike

Mises om den goda imperialismen, den socialistiska imperialismen i, ”Nation, Socialist Imperialism”:

[…] Socialist imperialism outdoes every earlier imperialism in scope and depth. The inner necessity that has caused it to arise, rooted in the essence of the socialist gospel of salvation, drives it to fundamental boundlessness in every direction. It cannot rest before it has subjugated the entire inhabited world and before it has annihilated everything reminiscent of other forms of human society.

[…] Modern socialism does not come forth in propaganda as a rationalist demand; it is an economic-policy position that presents itself as a doctrine of salvation in the manner of religions. As an economic-policy idea it would have had to compete intellectually with liberalism; it would have had to try to invalidate the arguments of its opponents logically and to turn aside their objections against its own doctrines. Individual socialists have done that, too. By and large, though, socialists have scarcely bothered themselves with scientific discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the two conceivable systems of social production. They have proclaimed the socialist program as a doctrine of salvation. They have represented all earthly suffering as an emanation of the capitalist social order and have promised, with the implementation of socialism, the removal of everything painful. They held the capitalist economy responsible for all shortcomings of the past and present. In the state of the future all longing and hoping will be fulfilled; there the restless will find rest; the unhappy, happiness; the inadequate, strength; the sick, cure; the poor, wealth; the abstinent, enjoyment. In the state of the future, work will be a pleasure and no longer a torment. In the state of the future, an art will flourish of whose magnificence ”bourgeois” art gives no idea, and a science that will solve all riddles of the universe without remnant. All sexual need will disappear; man and wife will give each other happiness in love that earlier generations never dreamed of. Human character will undergo a thoroughgoing change; it will become noble and spotless; all intellectual, moral, and bodily inadequacies will fall away from mankind. What flourishes for the German hero in Valhalla, for the Christian in God’s bosom, for the Moslem in Mohammed’s paradise?socialism will realize all that on earth.

[…] In this sense, comparing socialism with Christianity was thoroughly justified. Yet the Kingdom of Christ is not of this world; socialism, on the contrary, wants to establish the kingdom of salvation on earth. Therein lies its strength, therein, however, its weakness too, from which it will collapse some day just as quickly as it has triumphed.

Direktiv 10 – 289 and The World of Anthem

Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard: Can’t We All Just Get Along?

[…] Mises explained that when the value of money is artificially inflated by a government the economic “bust” that follows the economic “boom” is inevitable.  These cycles are unnaturally created by continued government intervention and would not occur in a truly free market economy.  The only “medicine” is for the government to stay out completely and let the free market work itself out.  Mises explained that interference by a coercive government will lead to more interference. This interventionist practice by a government will lead to unforeseen consequences that will tempt the government to intervene again and thus starting an unintended chain reaction of consequence and intervention.

Smått profetiskt när man tänker på Obamas politik och USA:s ekonomiska slow-motion-kollaps som uppenbarligen försöker överträffa den europeiska ekonomiska onda cirkeln av politiska åtgärder för varje ny Boom-Bust-Cykel i den artificiella, centralstyrda ekonomin.

[…] “most people know in a vague, uneasy way, that Marxist economics are screwy. Yet this does not stop them from advocating the same Marxist economics … The root of the whole modern disaster is philosophical and moral. People are not embracing collectivism because they have accepted bad economics. They are embracing bad economics because they have embraced collectivism.

”… go fjord yourself, OK?”

En av höjdpunkterna är vid tidsindex 4:20 om Newsweek magazines ”Cover Story” om världens tre bästa länder att leva i.

– The Big Speech, fortsättning >>> – (”… muslims will want to go to the moon when Jews set up Israel there. We gonna start speek candidly to each other about this shit, or we´re gonna get blown up again…”)

En värld, grundläggande principer, och den där konstitutionen

Dagens en-poängskurs i samhällsvetenskap.

Nånting är allvarligt fel på dem som inte kan ställa upp de grundläggande principer som Allen West redogör för vid 1:40 in det här klippet.

Då är de tyvärr inget annat än sådana som Alfonzo Rachel sablar ner i det andra klippet. Och, nej, CBC, står inte för Communist Black Caucus.

Liberalism vs. Socialism

Apropå de tendenser till socialism som en rad konservativa skribenter i USA ser i alla nya kreativa förslag till releringar av ekonomin och alla lån/bidrag till banker och företag så vill Alan Wolfe på The New Republic likväl hävda motsatsen i artikeln ”Obama vs. Marx”.

Obama är inte socialist. Vi är inte på väg mot en ny global socialistisk era. Socialism och Liberalism är två skilda politiska arter som står i direkt konflikt med varandra avseende deras målsättningar för hur samhället skall ordnas för medborgarna. Alan Wolfe reder ut de historiska vindlingarna samtidigt som han försvarar Obamas handlingar:

[…] But all these commentators–right, left, and middle–may want to take a deep breath. We aren’t headed for an era of socialism at all, since socialism is not a natural outgrowth of liberalism. Liberalism is a political philosophy that seeks to extend personal autonomy to as many people as possible, if necessary through positive government action; socialism, by contrast, seeks as much equality as possible, even if doing so curtails individual liberty. These are differences of kind, not degree– differences that have historically placed the two philosophies in direct competition. Today, socialism is on the decline, in large part because liberalism has lately been on the rise. And, if Barack Obama’s version of liberalism succeeds, socialism will be even less popular than it already is.

[…] It is true that European societies are committed to an active role for government and that a number of their public policies, such as national health insurance, owe something to the socialist tradition. But the roots of the European welfare state are much more complex than is commonly acknowledged. European ideas about government have Christian as well as socialist origins. Two great papal encyclicals–Rerum Novarum (1891) and Quadragesimo Anno (1931)–spurred Catholic countries to adopt the idea that government should protect the rights of workers and that society has an obligation to help all.

[…] Given all this, it’s no wonder that liberalism is experiencing a comeback in Europe. The revival of liberal sentiment is as much a reaction against both Christianity and feudalism as anything else.

[…] In the United States, liberalism is the alternative to which we turn when conservatism fails, just as in Europe it is what people look to when socialism sputters, Christianity no longer appeals, and the old feudal statism appears moribund. Liberalism has always been more comfortable finding its place between the extremes than mimicking either one of them.

– Alan Wolfe

¤ ¤ ¤      ¤ ¤ ¤      ¤ ¤ ¤

En irriterande känsla infinner sig dock när jag läser Alan Wolfes artikel, nämligen den att han (amerikanerna) ändå på nåt sätt inte begriper det här med Liberalism och frihet (de har tappat sina egna historiska rötter), eftersom de varken befunnit sig i den totalitära maktsfärens skugga, som Sverige, eller än mindre, som folk, i dess omedelbara och skoningslöst handfasta strupgrepp. Jänkarna ser inte och känner inte nyanserna lika tydligt och lätt som vi, historiskt förtryckta, européer.

Liknelsen blir tydligast när Vaclav Klaus ställer sig upp i EU-parlamentet och kritiserar det som han ser att EU håller på att utvecklas till. Ingen kan slå honom på fingrarna faktamässigt, allt han säger är sant eftersom han upplevt den kommunistiska statsfascismen på nära håll. Han ser nyanserna, tendenserna och likheterna med det gamla systemet. Skamset reser sig istället åhörarna upp i sina bänkar och går ut och beskyller Klaus för att i princip svära i kyrkan. Så var det med den yttrandefriheten.

Här tolereras ingen intolerans!