Video: Democrats Ecstatic About ‘Belonging to the Government’
This came out of nowhere yesterday, and within 24 hours a previously unknown ideological rift has erupted: the videos below expose for the first time a fundamental distinction between the leftist/progressive mindset and the conservative/Tea Party philosophy.
As was widely linked yesterday after Drudge featured it, the Democratic Party showed the following bizarre 15-second clip on The Big Screen at the Democratic National Convention:
“Government’s the only thing that we all belong to.”
The conservative blogosphere blew a gasket at the complete reality-inversion of the Democratic worldview. Tea Partiers and small-l libertarians and constitutional conservatives railed We don’t belong to the government — the government belongs to us!
But now a new video has emerged to put the fear of Big Brother in you. The folks at RevealPolitics walked around the convention asking Democratic delegates how they felt about “belonging” to the government. The interviews were probably originally intended to show delegates alarmed and repulsed by their own party’s tone-deaf propagandizing. Instead, what the interviewers came away with was a bone-chilling peek into an alternate universe in which slaves love their chains.
Watch it and weep:
When asked by the interviewers how they felt about belonging to the government, the Democrats gave these jaw-dropping answers:
Interviewer: “The only thing we all belong to is the government. How does that make you feel?
Democrat #1: “We all do belong to the government, if you’re a US citizen.”Democrat #2: “I think regardless of where you grow up, or regardless of where you live, you’re gonna be owned by someone at some point. So — I think the American government so far has been a fair government and I don’t necessarily hate that I’m owned by them at this point.”
Democrat #3: “Who knows? I haven’t never had a other feeling, so I can’t tell you how it feels not to belong to the government.”
Interviewer: “We don’t all necessarily belong to the same religion but we all belong to the government.”
Democrat #4: “I absolutely agree with that.”
Interviewer: “Yeah? That we all belong to the government?”
Democrat #4: “Yeah.”
Interviewer: “How does that make you feel. Are you excited by that?”
Democrat #4: “Yeah!”Interviewer: “How does it feel to belong to the government?”
Democrat #5: “It feels like one big happy family to belong to the government because if we feel that way, we’re more safer, we feel the government should be able to help us, and be able to take care of us.”Democrat #6: “It feels great. Sincere.”
Until this moment I had just assumed, apparently quite naively, that Democrats and liberals deep in their hearts of course loved freedom, and only appeared to embrace the incipient totalitarianism of “big government” Democratic politics because they were actually unaware where Nanny-Statism leads, blocking out any consciousness of the downside of collectivism and purposely putting on the Happy Face Blinders. Back when I was a liberal that was my sin as well: absolutely refusing to acknowledge any potential flaw in my political philosophy.
But this video reveals a horrible new truth: They do know that Big Government leads to a nation of slaves — and they’re glad about this fact!
(I had also assumed that the interviewed Democrats might point out that there are subtle variations in the definition of the phrase “belong to,” and that the video shown on the Big Screen may have simply been trying to say that we all “belong to” the government in the same sense that we might “belong to” a club, and didn’t mean to imply that we “belong to” the government in the way a slave “belongs to” its master.
But no! Almost every single one of the interviewed Democrats willingly interpreted the phrase “belong to” as being synonymous with “owned by,” and gave their enthusiastic approval to being owned by the government. Only a few of the interviewees didn’t make it clear whether or not they were speaking of “belonging to” a big club known as the government; the rest openly conceded that they are owned by the government.)
If we thought that Obama’s “You didn’t build that” speech exposed the fundamental difference between the progressive and conservative worldviews, this new video rips open an entirely fresh chasm between the parties, a chasm which until this morning I didn’t know even existed.
If that‘s the way they really feel — embracing their chains, grateful to be enslaved — then things are much much worse than I even imagined.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
(Orwell captured it first, Democrats.)
Interestingly, leftists are the same world over.
And, it is also noteworthy that leftists embrace gov’t ownership in the same manner as their Islamist cohorts! The need for centralized power, as opposed to individual rights is striking. It cements their anti-American ethos.
This is one reason why I keep beating the drums over the RED/GREEN alliance. Even though both want the end goal to come out differently (one wants a nation free of religion, the other one controlled by it), the same totalitarian ideology intersects both.
See ‘http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/06/30/israels-failure-of-leadership-its-lack-of-statesmen-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/06/30/israels-failure-of-leadership-its-lack-of-statesmen-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/07/01/leftist-dogma-the-same-world-over-freedom-loving-people-beware-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki-32-2/.
I think you in particular will appreciate this Zombie Classic post from two years ago — pay close attention to the illustration/chart:
The Real Political Spectrum
They can spin all they want. pontificate all the want, promise all they want.
They cannot escape the facts-
” With 22.4 million households using food stamps, fully 15 percent of the American population is on the program. ”
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/record-46-million-americans-food-200000079.html
Zombie, VERY succinct link.
Thanks.
I’m not sure if this is the right place, but I’d like to comment on your chart. I think the libertarians should be at the exact opposite of the Constructed vs Innate scale, right next to the anarchists. To put it simple, the anarchists want to be the children inside Lord of the Flies novel, only where everyone will be nice and kind to each other for whatever reason. The libertarians want all the same, except instead of the ecumenical large-heartedness there is an “adult tutor” who would not allow harming each other, and will do nothing else. And why, why exactly the government in the libertarian utopia will do nothing else, why it wouldn’t try to seize as much power, as it can, like every government (naturally) ever did? The only way – if the government will be composed of selfless, altruistic people with no interests other then the public interests. So, the anarchists want a civilization of living saints, while the libertarians want ruling cast of living saints, who will protect humanity from its own nature. Both sounds equally constructed to me.
Zombie,
That acid test was had me start following your blog in the first place. Keep up the good work of needling out the fallacies of political movements!
This election can’t possibly be close. With two idealogies so thoroughly incompatable competing there’s no “lesser evil” to choose from, it finally comes down to fundamental worlview.
This is going to be a landslide, one way or the other. I hope America chooses freedom.
I don’t see it that way. Everything I’ve seen is that the split is pretty close, on precisely this point. (I seem to be the only conservative who wasn’t surprised by this ad.)
Sometimes it seems we’re evolving into two different species. The question is, can we remain one nation under these conditions? I’m starting to think the answer is “no.”
We’ll find out in November. About the only good thing I can say is that the mask is off, and the ugly face of Progressivism is there for all, even the befuddled, to see.
Oh, it will be one nation all right, but with a restricted franchise. (^^^)
Sadly, I feel the same way, George. The Nation may devolve into two in time. I don’t know if it will be in our lifetime, but I’m sure it will happen with the people becoming further divided. However, it’s not like I’ve been the diplomat, since I believe my side is right and I know it is simply irrational to try to claim the middle ground and act like both of two mutually exclusive worldviews can be right at the same time.
…can we remain one nation under these conditions? I’m starting to think the answer is “no.”
Both Ben Franklin and Ronald Reagan made it clear, we are always just one generation away from not keeping it.
People with the fundamental belief that we are govt. chattel against the founders clear expositions should be run out of this country and have their citizenship revoked. The only reason the dems can hold power is because the money laundering of taxpayer dollars through nanny state organization that often hold their memberships hostage. It’s time to follow the money and fix this. It will take an awakening.
I admit that I am still a bit in shock at the willingness of Those Who Are No Longer Our Countrymen to accept and worship their chains. That said:
This election cannot possibly settle anything. What we see is not a political viewpoint, it is a religion that is totally incompatible with the acceptance of the existence of Freedom anywhere; akin to Marxism or Islam.
If we should win the election [if they allow an election]; do you think that these debased creatures will accept the result? Or that their masters will? If they should, by thievery or the decadence of the American people, win; do you think that free Americans will long endure what the slave culture will impose without rebellion?
This is pretty much probative that civil violence is in our future no matter what.
Subotai Bahadur
One thing is certain – these people are unfit to live in a free society.
Highly recommend Kenneth Minogue’s The Servile Mind for some remarkable insight into those whose will-to-submit perfectly complements the murderous ambitions of the those driven by the will to power.
“And may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
XvR
My reaction was the same as yours. What surprised me the most was that after MSM yapping heads screaming that every word coming out of any Republican mouth was a code-word for slavery, the Blacks interviewed didn’t seem at all concerned about the thought of being the chattel property of someone else.
Why are so many people so happy to be slaves?
Because they view themselves as children and want a daddy figure who will, in the end, make everything all right.
This isn’t new. Remember the Pony Tail Guy at the 1992 presidential debates who asked the 3 candidates (Bush 41, Clinton and Perot):
The focus of my work as a domestic mediator is meeting the needs of the children that I work with, by way of their parents, and not the wants of their parents. And I ask the three of you, how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, expect the two of you, the three of you to meet our needs?
Being an adult is hard work. You’re expected to make decisions for yourself and to live with the consequences of those decisions. Some people would prefer to stay children where others take care of life’s messy details.
No, actually, I don’t remember Pony Tail Guy at all. (Though I was pretty tuned out of politics way back when.) Do you have a video link for this debate question?
Try this, Zom. It is a bit long but this contains a video of the incident Larry J. is referring to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzuIOzXv624
Thanks!
Read Ernest Becker. He talks about this at length. Man naturally wants a leader to make him safe…from the shaman to Louis XIV. Of course, Zarathrusta will have none of that.
To many, freedom is scary. It involves risk and responsibility. Entirely too much like real life for their tastes.
“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you…” Samuel Adams
As I’ve said many times — Democrats have never forgiven Republicans for ending slavery. What I didn’t know, is that they didn’t just want to OWN slaves, but to BE OWNED.
(And does this explain the lefts’ collective tolerance of “human trafficking”? ACORN helped a guy out who was setting up an underage slave brothel; Planned Parenthood doesn’t report statutory rape as they’re required; Holder’s DOJ refuses to investigate slave trading…)
And don’t forget this:
Occupy Oakland protests in FAVOR of child sex trafficking.
I had a feeling I was leaving something out.
Is there *ANY* objection to these people from the left?
Oh, and one final thing I forgot to put in the post:
I had also assumed that the interviewed Democrats would angrily try to claim that there are subtle variations in the definition of the phrase “belong to,” and that the video shown on The Big Screen was simply pointing out that we all “belong to” the government in the same way that we might “belong to” a club, and didn’t mean to imply that we “belong to” the government in the way a slave “belongs to” its master.
But no! Almost every single one of the interviewed Democrats willingly interpreted the phrase “belong to” as being synonymous with “owned by,” and gave their enthusiastic approval to being owned by the government. Only one or two of the shorter interviews could be with Democrats operating on the assumption that they “belonged to” a big club known as the government — it was hard to tell in those instances. The rest openly conceded that they are owned by the government.
Absolutely bizarre.
Sadly, not that bizarre.
When you want to dedicate your life to Hedonism, you’d much prefer to be ‘owned’ by a ‘benevolent sugar daddy’ who will pay for all your ‘needs’ so you can spend all your time chasing after sex, drugs, and [insert artistic endeavor here].
The next logical step is that, since we didn’t “build” our educations, we owe the government for them. The USSR took that idea literally when they finally let Jews emigrate to Israel in the ’80s, for a price. The Israeli government had to buy them from the USSR in the form of compensation for their educations.
Back to the USSR…
It’s a new low but perhaps not unprecedented, remember the contrast between freedom being either freedom-of (opportunity) or freedom-from (hunger).
In ancient rome
There was a poem
About a dog
Who found two bones
He picked at one
He licked the other
He went in circles
He dropped dead
Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom from choice
Is what you want
Here’s the video:
Devo – Freedom Of Choice
And here’s an explanation about the specious “ancient Roman poem” (which is actually a conflation of two different parables).
I just hope the government can protect me from the horrible fates described in all this pointy-headed literature, needing to understand and decide stuff.
This mindset is little different from that seen in North Korea, differing primarily in degree of devotion to the Dear Leader. In both cases, it’s due to a lifetime of propaganda and brainwashing.
“You must love Big Brother. It is not enough to obey him; you must love him.” George Orwell – 1984
The corollary of the will to power is the desire to submit.
Death’s their destination…
I believe the phrase they are looking for is “Moo!”
The self-proclaimed “99%”, trans-ladies and trans-gentlemen.
Are you referring to that second person interviewed at 0:39 – 0:46 in the video? Yeah, at first I thought it was a woman too, but as s/he continued to speak, I realized it was a dude (of sorts).
I think that was more likely a hormone disorder than a conscious attempt to be transgender.
Not expressly, just a happy accident.
I was more just tying onto other DNC themes in general (in particular, Misandry Fluke’s rising star, and her continuing crusade for government-funded abortion, contraception, eugenics, and sex changes).
Just trying to be inclusive!
“We here highly resolve that these empty chairs shall not have been graded incomplete in vain, that this divided nation, under ….(blank), shall have a new birth of that will be aborted at will; and that government on top of the people, inside the people’s business, surrounding the people, shall not answer nor be accountable to anyone on this earth. YOU did not build this. Trope and Chains…you misheard us the first time around. Trope and Chains”
No wonder people used to be shocked when I observed that I had sworn and oath to protect and defend the Constitution and that conceivably to honor my oath I might one day have to become an enemy of my government.
I just thought they didn’t like to think about such broad philosophical implications but now I see they couldn’t comprehend such concepts.
The oath we swore is durable. There is no expiration date. Those who oppose it do, however, have an expiration date.
I think we’ve got some happy little fascists here. All good flows from the State. All goods belong to the State. There is nothing apart from the State.
And in Barack the Sun King’s eyes, “L’etat, C’est Moi.”
All good flows from Barack the Sun King, All goods belong to Barack the Sun King.
The Unknown Citizen
—W. H. Auden
(To JS/07 M 378 This Marble Monument Is Erected by the State)
He was found by the Bureau of Statistics to be
One against whom there was no official complaint,
And all the reports on his conduct agree
That, in the modern sense of an old-fashioned word, he was a saint,
For in everything he did he served the Greater Community.
Except for the War till the day he retired
He worked in a factory and never got fired,
But satisfied his employers, Fudge Motors Inc.
Yet he wasn’t a scab or odd in his views,
For his Union reports that he paid his dues,
(Our report on his Union shows it was sound)
And our Social Psychology workers found
That he was popular with his mates and liked a drink.
The Press are convinced that he bought a paper every day
And that his reactions to advertisements were normal in every way.
Policies taken out in his name prove that he was fully insured,
And his Health-card shows he was once in a hospital but left it cured.
Both Producers Research and High-Grade Living declare
He was fully sensible to the advantages of the Instalment Plan
And had everything necessary to the Modern Man,
A phonograph, a radio, a car and a frigidaire.
Our researchers into Public Opinion are content
That he held the proper opinions for the time of year;
When there was peace, he was for peace: when there was war, he went.
He was married and added five children to the population,
Which our Eugenist says was the right number for a parent of his generation.
And our teachers report that he never interfered with their education.
Was he free? Was he happy? The question is absurd:
Had anything been wrong, we should certainly have heard.
Thank you for that quote.
Here is another from the National Socialist Workers Party over seventy years ago.
“We ask that government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within the confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: … an end to the power of financial interest. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. We demand … the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state, and municipal governments. In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our system of public education…. We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents…. The government must undertake the improvement of public health — by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor — by the greatest possible support for all groups concerned with the physical education of youth. [W]e combat the … materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good.”
Sounds familiar? It should. Feel free to discover for yourself which organization ran on this political platform and who is running on it today.
I’ll give you a hint: The Obama Party!
‘Cause you belong to the government
You belong for your rights
Living in a nation of darkness, beneath the scary lights
You were born to the government
That’s what makes you elite,
It’s in your blood, its in your moves
You’re a man/woman/LBGT of the street
When you said goodbye
You were on the run
Tryin’ to get away from the things you’d done
Now you’re back again
And you’re feeling strange
The foodstamps are still coming, but nothing has changed
You still don’t know where you’re going
You’re still just a face in the crowd
‘Cause you belong to the government
…
This actually explains a lot — since these people expect the government to control their lives, it makes more sense why they get SO worked up when other people disagree with them about how the government should be run. We’re trying to control their lives! I wouldn’t like that either.
But then, I’m not stupid enough to think the government should be in charge of my decisions, either.
Slavery by Consent Pt.4 (The SIN)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=47jqtTMkZWc
Reality Check: 1 on 1 With President Obama, How Does He Justify A Kill List?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrRuNOaNYME&feature=plcp
Ronald Reagan said this over 40 years ago—notice a similarity to today?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EvFQLhqWPQ&list=HL1346850731&feature=mh_lolz
When the sheep begin to run the herd the wolves are ecstatic.
While one guy at the end did explicitly state he felt like he was owned by the government, the others did not indicate one way or the other their definition of “belong to”. So, ascribing it as ownership but their lack of denial of that isn’t the same as them all stating they’re glad to be owned. If they’d been asked that explicitly, it would have been interesting to see how they responded.
Oh, but now I contradict myself by remembering that they have stated they got their rights from the government, not from God….
So many issues…
I think you’re still in a bit of denial. The one guy, for example, who said “Who knows? I haven’t never had a other feeling, so I can’t tell you how it feels not to belong to the government,” was obviously talking about being owned by the government; his words sound exactly like the words of so many beaten-down slaves in the pre-Civil War era. The pro-slavery advocates in that time correctly pointed out that, if you asked the slaves themselves how they felt about their lot in life, very few vocally expressed an active desire for freedom. Why? For two reasons: One, the obvious one, was that they were afraid that they’d get punished by their masters if they spoke of wanting freedom; but secondly, and more significantly in relation to this post, it was because they had never experienced freedom in their entire lives, and had no idea what it felt like, and so could not even tell if if it was preferable to slavery.
Also note that after 1865, many slaves refused to leave the protection and familiarity of the plantation; many had to be bribed away with promises of “40 acres and a mule,” while others simply stayed on to pick cotton in the exact ame place where they had been picking cotton their whole lives, the only difference now being that they were being paid (a pittance, but paid nonetheless) to do the work. Since they used that pittance to buy the necessities that they were previously getting for free as part and parcel of being enslaved, the end result was that even after the war their lives were pretty much the same as they had been before the war.
This obviously was not true for all ex-slaves, but it was more common than people nowadays want to admit.
What this all reveals is that physical slavery slowly becomes a slavery of the mind. This is what the Black Power advocates so angrily pointed out in the ’60s, and in many senses they were correct: Many in the black community were still acting like it was 1866, and wanted to be taken care of by their masters. And that tradition is continued today by the “progressives” who want an Entitlement Nation to enslave the minds of not just ex-slaves but everyone else as well.
One guy explicitly states he knows he’s owned and some of the folks sound like they think it means owned, but it’s not as damning as if they’d explicitly stated it. It would also have more impact if that guy who knows he’s owned spoke earlier in the video, but that’s just my opinion.
I think the video, as it stands, allows Debbie Wasserman Shultz too much wiggle room. I’d rather she had none, but she lies so unconvincingly that any story makes her seem the fool.
Oh, and +1 for using an actual historical example.
I recall seeing a news story right after the USSR collapsed from some village. One guy was taking full advantage of his new freedom buying up govt. land and gear. He was hiring locals to farm and ship his new business. Doing quite well for himself. His next door neighbor was beside herself w/ anger. An old woman who musta been a teen when the Czar fell. She could just not understand why this guy had any right to his new found success and she’d been there her whole life and if anyone had a right to this success, it was her.
Same kinda thinking.
Well said. Fear of the unknown was and is a big obstacle. Some slaves welcomed freedom, others weren’t so sure. They weren’t necessarily worried about losing their “free” food, shelter and clothing. They were afraid of losing their entire sense of “normal” – of who they were and how life worked. Yankees were strange aliens come to turn their world upside down. Some people prefer the security of an abusive relationship to the fear of striking out on their own.
I think the people in your video believe that the Republicans are the aliens trying to destroy their “normal.” We’re no longer talking about practical matters – food, shelter, clothing. We’re talking existential stuff – “Who am I and what is the world?” I’m not sure it’s a subject for rational debate.
Almost half of all Americans pay no income tax. Almost 50 million Americans get food stamps. Millions get welfare, Medicaid, housing assistance and a host of other “entitlements”. To them, the Democrats are the Party of Free Stuff. They fear Republicans want to take away their free stuff, so naturally they’ll vote for Democrats. Their vote counts exactly the same as ours and if the trends continue, they’ll soon outnumber us.
“What this all reveals is that physical slavery slowly becomes a slavery of the mind.”
Exactly, Zombie.
According to Jewish tradition, when the ancient Israelites left Egypt after being slaves to Pharaoh for over 200 years, they did not immediately enter the Promised Land, but instead wandered in the wilderness for 40 years, until the entire generation died out and was replaced. One of the main reasons for the delay was that the “slave mentality” had to first be eradicated before the nation could assume responsibility for its own affairs. Ultimately this could only be accomplished by generational change.
Let’s hope it doesn’t have to take us that long.
It will take a lot longer than forty years to fix the slave mentality in this country. We don’t have enough wilderness to wander around in.
I see some pushing the belong as membership
Unless you are a member of the British political party whom the Queen asked to form a government, how can an American be a member of government or the government or a government. You can be a member of the administration, you can be a member of Congress, you can be a member of various boards and commissions but in America, how can you be a member of government?
“The government is the only thing we all belong to.”
The original German for this was, “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer”.
A normal American might have said, “The nation is the only thing we all belong to” but only a full blown fascist would have said, “The government is the only thing we all belong to”
Aha! Exactly right. We belong to communities, not to city governments. We belong to the nation, not to the Federal government.
“Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato.”
Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.
Ha! Thanks! That was the Mussolini line I was trying to remember in my comment about fascists. This is literally how the Democrats view government. It’s the wrong way for an American to view government.
And who likes to (mis)use the word “Fascist”?
I am a life-long registered Democrat, and while I voted for Republicans in the last two elections, and will probbaly do so again, primarily because, in addition to the fact that Obama seems to be genuinely incompetent, I believe he is an Islamist-enabling anti-Semite who would sell Israel down the river in a heartbeat if he thought he could get away with it, as well as being a spineless appeaser who kowtows to our enemies while giving our friends and allies the back of his hand, this “we all belong to the government” panic is really more than a little disingenuous.
The person making the original statement clearly meant “we all belong to the government” in the sense of “we all belong to the same club”, not in the sense that we are slaves of the government. When people jojn a club, they do not become the property of the club, they ARE the club. What he obviously meant was that while we all may be of different religions, races, or political persuasions, we all, as Americans, cooperate in governing ourselves. That is a genuinely American idea, and sceaming “Democrats are Communist slaves!” is more than a little ridiculous.
He could have chosen a more felicitous way of putting it, and while it is quite obvious that Democrats and Republicans have a different view of how, to what extent, and in what areas government should intrude on our lives (the Republicans, in general, seem to want the government to stay out of their wallets while the Democrats want it to stay out of their bedrooms), this is not proof a a gigantic gulf in Weltanshauung that people are making it out to be.
Some Republicans, myself included, want the government to stay out of the bedroom as well. I could care less with whom someone plays hide the sausage. Stay out of my wallet, stay out of my bedroom, stay out of my soda machine and lunchroom. I would say that makes me a libertarian, but that tends to include too many things that sound crazy to me.
‘Vox Populi, vox Dei.’ properly translated:
‘My God, how did we get into this mess ?!?
– Heinlein
The US is a Republic: The voters elect representatives
who are supposed to be better able to govern than the
average Joe; When this proves not to be the case,
we have to let them go.
The “He” you refer to is not some random guy whose impromptu words were broadcast to the convention: He was imply a paid actor narrating and reading aloud a script given to him by the Democratic party of North Carolina (the video was produced by the local Dems, not by the national Obama campaign; but Obama & Co. did approve of its broadcast, so in a sense they are responsible for its content). And that script must obviously have been carefully written and rewritten and edited and vetted, as all political statements are these days. Thus the Democrats consciously chose this ambiguous terminology, and I think it was done purposely to leave open both interpretations.
Also note this: When Todd Akin said “legitimate rape,” he also was making (in this case an impromptu) verbal gaffe that was also based on a word-definition that could be interpreted two different ways: He obviously meant “legitimate” in the sense of “actual” or “indisputible,” whereas his opponents successfully harped on the other definition of “legitimate,” i.e. “being allowed by law,” which made him look like a fool. Now, did the Democrats hesitate to base their entire subsequent campaign on this willing misinterpretation of his words? Yes indeed. The first day of the Dem convention, from what I hear (I didn’t watch it), was all about rape and abortion and contraception and all the other Akin-derived social issues. And this scandal was based on the off-the-cuff remarks of one man, himself an outcast within the Republican party, and not a scandal based on the carefully vetted script of the party itself, as is the “government owned” scandal.
And yet this behavior on the part of the Democrats is OK, whereas a much more solid “alternative definition” scandal is not?
I’m not saying this behavior on the part of the Democrats is OK. I’m just tired of obvious distortion. Democrats are just as guilty of it as Republicans, and as a voter, I’m sick to death of it.
It is disgusting for Democrats to make this election all about a woman’s “right: to get a state-funded abortion, that is, an abortion funded with MY TAX DOLLARS just because some Neanderthal yutz said something stupid. F**k that. It’s one of the reasons I’m not voting for Obama. If you want to kill your child, fine. Just don’t ask me to pay for it.
I cannot be a big L Libertarian either. Government needs to be paid for and I am willing to pay my share if I believe that my tax money is being wisely and effectively spent. I jusr don’t trust Obama to do that. He’s as much of a practitioner of crony capitalism as any “Fat Cat” Republican. Here again, though, he’s just incompetent at it. I mean, Solyndra? Come on.
Then we’re 99% in agreement.
But as I noted in an earlier post, “ The Ultimate Takedown of Obama’s ‘You Didn’t Build That’ Speech,” you are falling for the liberals’ dishonest misprepresention of small-l libertarianism:
When you say “I cannot be a big L Libertarian either. Government needs to be paid for and I am willing to pay my share if I believe that my tax money is being wisely and effectively spent,” you are accepting as true the progressive lie that libertarianism = anarchy.
Perhaps I should have said “Big L Libertarian” in scare quotes, then. I was replying to “Not So Sure” who said he wants the government “out of his wallet”. This is impossible unless he really does want to build the roads and be the police and the firefighters all by himself, or pay someone to do it. When we pay the governemnt taxes we are paying for a job we want them to do. The question is: what is that job?
Anybody who really, truly believes in “no gvernment” is either mentally deficient, a raging lunatic, or a misanthrope. Human societty cannot exist without some form of government. If people are honest, the ONLY argument is about the proper size, scope, and responsibility of that government.
I wish people would talk about that instead of deliberately misrepresenting what the “Other Side” says. It is just plain dishonest.
And I mean that in the most bipartisan sense.
What we have here is, if not a willful distortion, a linear-assumption fallacy. The faulty logic goes, “Some is good, therefore more is better,” and assuming that doubling the input gives you results that are twice as good. However, common sense tells us that most things in life that we need are non-linear. There is such a thing as too little and too much. At some point, increasing the input (in this case, government) begins yielding diminishing returns, and eventually yields negative returns.
This video should help people understand the total government left (both Marxist and Fascist), the limited government American Revolution, and no government anarchy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw
What “distortion”? They said it. They meant it. They EMBRACED it.
He could have chosen a more felicitous way of putting it, and while it is quite obvious that Democrats and Republicans have a different view of how, to what extent, and in what areas government should intrude on our lives (the Republicans, in general, seem to want the government to stay out of their wallets while the Democrats want it to stay out of their bedrooms), this is not proof a a gigantic gulf in Weltanshauung that people are making it out to be.
Well, but then again maybe it is, and is more of a Freudian slip than you’re saying. LOOK at the other words and behaviors of the people involved.
You’re arguing that what is meant is the social contract that we all accept, and yet, look at the overreach even in Rousseau in the name of that contract. There is the implication that in signing that contract, you abide by whatever it says. That’s not what representative government is all about. Republicans do NOT see the government as something we belong to, it is NOT a club we have joined involuntarily or voluntarily. It is some ugly old buildings, and some blase civil servants, and the necessity to get the streets paved and get rations to soldiers in the field. That’s not a club. Even shared interests is not a club. One can maintain individuality and still cooperate.
What I’m describing is EXACTLY a giant gulf in the Bremsstrahlung, or whatever that other word was.
>>>>”Belong to… in the sense of ‘belonging to the same club”.
Yes, indeed. Just like his “sin is not agreeing with my values” meant, clearly, that sin *for him* is not to agree with his own values, not Exactly.
Which is exactlt the problem: we don’t all belong, or want to belong, to the government’s club; and some of us think sin is not just refusing to follow one’s obesessions.
“We all belong to the Government” is just a continuation of the paragraph, “You Didn’t Build That”. If 50.01% of the voting block has succumb to the government instead of their religion, family values (instead of the village to raise your children nonsense),self reliance, self initiative, personal pride, drive, accomplishent, success at whatever not necessarily work and the pursuit of happiness then we truly are in decline. The good news to counter the DNC, there are developers that signed a deal to set up communities like new nations in Honduras. Let’s hope the developers are free thinkers and not from Chicago, New York, San Francisco et al.
Does the government belong to you or do you belong to the government?
The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
Studies have shown before now that “liberals” are hive creatures always wanting to belong to a collective rather than stand on their own. Volumes have been written about this but it basically boils down to they are afraid to be on their own and do for themselves. They prefer someone telling them what to do, what to think, what to like and not like, and particularly someone giving them free stuff.
Honest original thinking risks getting them booted from whatever collective they have joined and so it is a risk they will not take. Indeed you can see this in the utter hostility to any original thought which happens across their path. Just like at their hate toward religion, well Christianity at least, or anyone who differs in opinion on abortion, gay marriage, or especially The One.
But then totalitarian governments like ours is becoming depends on herdlings like them just as surely as they kill genuine free thinkers and lovers of liberty. Given time, we could end up down the same road as Russia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc. It will simply be the matter of degree. Will the hive be sated with just the conservative leadership or will it demand more blood still? The herdlings will gleefully go right along with all the purges, just as has happened before.
Your hive comment brought to mind a leftist, utopian building project in Arizona, between Phoenix and Flagstaff, that literally looks like a hive of human-sized cells scattered among other buildings. Arcosanti, I believe it is called. It is oh-so-green, ssssssustainable, avant garde(though two generations old), communistic … and unliveable.
I went to Arcosanti in the late 70s during a high school class trip. They had unpaid college volunteers making clay bells for sale. I wonder how it worked out?
Project Gun Runner (Fast and Furious) was launched under the orders of President Barack Obama with the knowledge of Attorney General Eric Holder. Deputy Attorney General David Ogden announced the Obama Administration’s new and aggressive ‘comprehensive plan’ on March, 24, 2009. The plan was aimed at disrupting gun trafficking between the United States and Mexico. Full C-SPAN Video Link 3-24-2009
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/MexicoBorstart=800
Anita Dunn
Obama campaign
In April 2008, it was announced that Dunn, who had joined the Obama campaign in February, would be the director of communications, policy and research operations for Obama for America, where she held the title Senior Adviser and was one of the major decision makers of the Obama campaign. She was featured as one of four top advisers (along with David Axelrod, David Plouffe, and Robert Gibbs) in a 60 Minutes interview held after then President-elect Obama’s November 4, 2008 victory speech at Grant Park, Chicago, Illinois. She was described, in the 60 Minutes interview, as, “a relative newcomer who handled communications, research and policy.”During the presidential transition of 2008-09″, Dunn trained White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs
Mao Tse Tung “Favorite Philosopher”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi1zg2NOCn8
‘I seem to be the only conservative who wasn’t surprised by this ad’
That’s the fundamental difference between conservatives and libertarians; whether or not they would be surprised by this.
I’ve had hard-core leftists tell me to my face that they reject the entire Jeffersonian concept of unalienable rights. They think the idea that you’re born with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is ridiculous. As far as they are concerned, all rights are granted to you by society, probably through some political process.
So this video doesn’t surprise me at all.
Zombie, whoever you are: Why don’t you make another video in which you ask these DNC delegates where they think our rights come from?
I didn’t make the interview video in the first place — it was made by RevealPolitics.com, of which I am not a part.
Also, I’m in California now, not at the convention.
Also, I never initiate what goes on in my political YouTube videos (e.g. by asking a question or whatever); I just record what is already in the process of happening performed of their own volitions by the people I observe.
Add those all up and: Nope, I wont be making a new video! But someone else should make it — most definitely.
Am I the only one who sees the irony in African Americans (at least some of whose ancestors were presumably slaves) saying that they were OK (neigh happy) with being owned by the government? (Don’t bother answering of course this is a rhetorical question). I guess its off one plantation and on to another….
Jews, sadly, have that same tendency. In spite of the Shoah, and the totalizing government that created such a murderous happening, they support totalizing governments. I can’t think of any time in recent american history when the Jewish vote went for the small-government candidate. Can you?
Against individualism, the progressive Obama conception is for the progressive State; and it is for the individual only in so far as he coincides with the progressive State. Obama conceives of the progressive State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived in their relation to the progressive State. The Obama conception of the progressive State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.
All hail, Barack Obama, the new Mussolini
Feds Say Mobile-Phone Location Data Not ‘Constitutionally Protected’ BY DAVID KRAVETS 09.05.12
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/feds-say-mobile-phone-location-data-not-constitutionally-protected/
To Herr Hussein Obama and the demofascists the state is all powerful and the individual is state property — slaves –in the 19th century jargon.
What would Lincoln or Jefferson think of this political abomination, this political Halloween ad, about the American people belonging to the government, from the gates of hell?
These Are The Prices ATT, Verizon and Sprint Charge For Cellphone Wiretaps
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/04/03/these-are-the-prices-att-verizon-and-sprint-charge-for-cellphone-wiretaps/
TSA Moves On From Your Underwear to Your Starbucks BY KIM ZETTER 09.05.12
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/tsa-moves-on-from-your-underwear-to-your-starbucks/
Here is the political platform statement these delegates of the Obama Party are agreeing to:
“We ask that government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within the confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: … an end to the power of financial interest. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. We demand … the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state, and municipal governments. In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our system of public education…. We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents…. The government must undertake the improvement of public health — by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor — by the greatest possible support for all groups concerned with the physical education of youth. [W]e combat the … materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good.”
The people of the National Socialist Workers Party belonged to the government too and were owned by that Party. They just gave away their rights, liberty and freedom to the government or as they called it in the 1930′s the STATE.
If these people knew what they were agreeing with in the statements of the Obama Party compared to the NSWP would they want to really be owned by the government or be part of that kind of family legacy?
I’ve always wondered how decent German people in the 30s could allow Fascism. I never would of thought I’d live to see it happening here.
“It had long been realized that the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism. Wealth and privilege are most easily defended when they are possessed jointly. The so-called “abolition of private property” [Communist Manifesto] meant in effect the concentration of property in far fewer hands than before… In the years following the Revolution it [The Socialist Party of Oceania] was able to step into this commanding position almost un-opposed because the whole process was represented as an act of collectivization… It had always been assumed that if the Capitalist Class were expropriated Socialism must follow; and unquestionably the Capitalists had been expropriated. Factories, mines, land, houses, transport, everything had been taken away from them; and since these things were no longer private property it followed that they must be public property. Ingsoc [Socialist Principles of Oceania], which grew out of the earlier Socialist movement and inherited its phraseology, has in fact carried out the main item in the Socialist program with the result; foreseen and intended beforehand, that economic inequality has been made permanent.” George Orwell – 1984
“The individual is only a cell… power is collective. The individual only has power in so far that he ceases to be an individual… If he can make complete utter submission; if he can escape from his identity; if he can merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all powerful… Can you not understand that the death of the individual is not death; the Party is immortal… The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others… We are different from all the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we’re doing… Power is not a means, it is an end… The object of power is power… Always there will be the intoxication of power… We are the Priests of Power.” George Orwell – 1984
“It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole … that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual.” Adolph Hitler
“Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand.” Karl Marx
It’s really simple: they’re all children. Not nice, well-behaved children, but children who are embarrassing to take anywhere. Who hold their breath until they turn blue. Who threaten that they will kill themselves unless someone doesn’t fix this right now!
When a leftist tells me he’s a patriot, I always ask, “Of the Soviet Union, right? Too bad. They don’t want jerks like you, either. In fact, they shoot jerks like you.”
They usually reply, “But they get free medical care.” Again: IDIOTS!
ASK My Ukrainian immigrant workers how that worked out. When Chernobyl went up they were told to close their windows and drink LOTS of vodka, to cleanse their livers! One of my friends had been a Major in the Army, and even he laughed. He said, “The right to medical care is not absolute! It is merely free to stand on a line to be seen. If you want treatment, you need to get the doctor on the side and give him a ‘gift”.
Still, he thought the Chernobyl advice good. If you’re going to die painfully, drunk is WAY better than not.
If somehow every single Democrat disappeared off the face of the Earth, who would miss them?
Not I, my friend. Not I.
Lesley Gore on the government.
No, not slaves who belong to their masters, but children who belong to and are taken care of by their parents. These arrested development type reject freedom because they can’t handle it. They reject freedom because its harder than being kept. They reject freedom because it means they have to take care of themselves. The reject freedom because means you only have yourself to blame.
Or, more disturbingly, they reject freedom because they want to be the parents of everyone. Pelocy, Bloomberg, Mrs. Obama, they all seek to tell us not to run in the house and to eat our vegetables. Freedom means choosing how big your sugary drink is, all by yourself. freedom leaves no room for the nannies, and that’s bad for their job security.
I choose freedom because I want to make my own choices. And I will accept the consequences of those actions. Down with nannies!
Speciation. The subtle changes in neural wiring would occur first.
Ellsworth Monkton Toohey
This is the divide: Some people believe we belong to the government. Some of us believe the government belongs to the people.
Slavery or liberty. Which will it be?
– build that Tower for Nimrod, Dems.
Equivocation, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation) as in ‘We belong to the Republican party’, or ‘We belong to the church down the street’. I can’t even say ‘Nice try, though’.
Ozzy, that may fly if you’re trying to say “we all belong to the United States of America” as an citizen. That may fly if you’re a politician or a government employee saying that you belong to the government. However, you can’t get away with calling it equivocation when people are saying that they, as CITIZENS, belong to the GOVERNING BODY of the Nation. Most importantly, they literally don’t…in any fashion. They are not a part of that governing body. And, from the answers these people gave in their interviews, it didn’t come off that they felt a sense of “togetherness” by belonging to the government, but a sense of security in being owned by people they perceive to be better equipped to take care of them, even to the degree of actually using the word OWNED.
I fear the real agenda is to change our definition of patriotism from loyalty to country to loyalty to government. This would be a frightening and very dangerous outcome. When I think of patriotism my thoughts include the founding ideals and the sacrifices and contributions of all the generations since. It’s about the ingenuity of past generations, and (let us hope) the opportunities of future generations. It’s more than a geographic location.
I do think that an increasing number of citizens make no distinction between country and government. I suppose it means just as much to them to pledge allegiance to the healthcare bill as to pledge to the flag. Indeed, i fear some would be more willing to pledge allegiance to their favorite new regulation or bureaucracy.
In further clarification, I can accept that the phrase used in the video was simply put very badly and this was even the most likely case. However, the responses of the interviewees show that they, regardless of what the video intended, believe they are owned and controlled by the government and that it’s a good thing.
Exactly. It’s a virtual certainty that the makers of the video used “-belong to-” in a SANE sense, but it’s obvious that the interviewees took it to mean they are the personal property of the US government, and they’re HAPPY with this.
During the 2008 campaign, I was so struck by this behavior that I ordered some books explaining the attitudes of the slave-holding class in the Antebellum South. Of course, there was a large element of exploitative money-making, and contempt for black people. However, there was also a consistent theme that the slaves needed to be taken care of, that it would be cruel and heartless to leave them to fend for themselves, that the plantation was like one big happy family (with clearly defined roles of who were the parents and who the children), that it was a moral obligation to take care of the slaves, that this obligation required exerting whatever power was necessary to make sure the slaves did not do anything bad for themselves, and so on.
I see that I was completely correct, and it makes me very sad.
I see a great deal of kitman in our future.
There was also an influential albeit small minority of pro slavery advocates who urged that the benefits of slavery be extended to non blacks : the pro slavery advocates tried to convince the owners of factories and mills in the Northeast to impose chattel slavery on the workers in their mills. They also wanted the USA to conquer Mexico, Cuba, and possibly all of Central and South America, to extend slavery and its benefits to ‘the masses’ there.
A few even went to the extreme of declaring that large plantation owners should impose slavery on the poor whites living around their plantations. Just HOW they thought this could be accomplished I do not begin to comprehend.
Zombie and I have both come to the same strange realization. We left the liberal side of things because the liberals are nasty towards those who disagree and are naive in their beliefs. What we didn’t know was that the American center-left took a nose dive into the totalitarian far-left right about the same time we left them behind. Maybe we both saw this coming, subconsciously?
Back in my young liberal days, I was even a sort of Democratic Socialist. I believed Marxist ideas could exist in tandem with democracy. But, back then I still believed we put politicians in to work for US and that the governments job was to serve US. It never entered my left-addled mind to believe that I was there to serve the government. I’m astounded that this has come to be the norm.
The Southern plantation owners forgot this: A slave may still be tempted to break a chain of iron around his wrists, but a chain of gold around his neck will hold him forever.
If you don’t eradicate or reeducate both the master and the slave, there will be no true progress, and they will hold fast to their chains until they can find someone new to attach, though they’ll use a different name and system of honorifics suitable to the spirit of the day.
Shun them openly until they drop their chains and show themselves ready to live as free men.
This is the result of a demoralized society. People want to be taken care of because they have never been able to take care of themselves. These selfish people want us to pay for their personal welfare. They are okay with pedophelia, rape, murder, and suicide. These people have been brainwashed by our government, teachers, & parents alike. It is all so very sad. They cannot even see when their leaders are leading them to the sinking sand…..
Zombie, It is hard to imagine that you did not know that the Libs want us all to be enslaved. They have been enslaved for several election cycles now. The chains are no longer made of iron. They are made of cloth. Soft and supple. They do not cut our wrists. They do not make us want to struggle. We are well cared for by our masters and they only ask that we be good little sheep when it comes time for the shearing.
The reason that I say that our chains are made of cloth is, because our fiat money is printed on a special felt not paper.
They seem to feel happy to belong to the government as long as it’s led by the Democrats. So, all together now: “The People and the Party are one”! Perhaps they will chant that old communist slogan tonight.
“Unmutual!”
The Prisoner – Patrick McGoohan – Episode: A Change of Mind
I do not belong to the government; I am a free man!