The Pre-emptive Socialism of Obamanomics.

Look at Obama's top donors and the people--other than blacks--that supported him most: the white educated class. This is especially true of the Jewish population, the most successful in America which voted 80% for Obama. Jews are not only overwhelmingly liberal but have great influence in media, and they used their power to make Obama president. So, Obama-ism didn't happen because the unwashed masses smashed down the gates of the rich. Rather, Obama-ism is socialism perpetrated by some of the most successful and most educated people in America. Sure, Obama got the bulk of the black vote, Hispanic vote, and some blue collar white vote--as Democratic candidates tend to do. What's striking is he pulled ahead because he got much of the upper-middle class white vote--and Asian vote(another successful group in America).
So, why would rich and successful people support Obama? (1) Fear. The rich and successful are anxioius about the rising tide of envy and resentment among Middle Americans. So, what is to be done? Buy off a radical like Obama and make it seem as though America is now controlled by someone who 'cares for the people'. If a black man is president, there really must be Change upon the land. Rich people have tried to buy off radicals before. Neither Mussolini nor Hitler could have succeeded without the support of the rich; the Italian and German bourgeoisie sensed that people were growing more restless, and therefore, it would be a safer bet to have a 'man of the people' take power--at least nominally--and dole out handouts to calm the unwashed massesive. Hitler, you recall, calmed the people down with public works and jobs. Of course, Hitler also outmanuevered the rich people and brought destruction to Europe. But, Obama is firmly in the hands of the rich who've bought and marketed him. (2) Intellectual arrogance. The educated class sat through many lectures in colleges and read many books written by leftists. Education is a good thing, but intellectuals have a tendency to mistake book learning with actual reality. At any rate, they hold ideals at odds with reality and believe that they must have more power through government to push their ideals or ideology onto all the people. (3) Sheer powerlust. There are many kinds of power but political power is most addictive and potent. Rich people aren't satisfied with economic well-being or power; they want political power,and bigger government means more power in their hands; sure, they have to pay higher taxes, but as they--or their children--will be running government(Kennedies, Bushies, etc), they don't mind. (4) Conscience. Rich white people have swallowed the religion of political correctness and multiculturalism. But, almost all of them know nothing of poor people. They live in highrise condos or in gated communities away from the 'disenfranchised'. By making Obama president and expanding government--which will be run by people of their social status--in the name of helping 'the people', white liberals can feel 'progressive' and 'inclusive'.
We have to start accepting the reality that GOP is no longer the party of the rich and successful. GOP is the party of Joe the Plumbers. Democratic Party, for all its pandering to labor and minorities, is also the party of urban, privileged, highly educated, and very wealthy upper- and upper-middle class. It will become more so since rich people send their kids to elite colleges, and guess who runs those institutions? Also, kids raised in privilege want 'clean' jobs or to follow 'noble' callings in life, and nothing is said to be nobler in our democratic society than 'serving the people'. To serve the people, you need political power. See how clever it is. Liberals serve themselves by claiming to serve the people. Of course, one could argue that a successful businessman creates jobs and opportunities and so on, but he's said to work for 'profit' whereas politicians and bureaucrats are said to work for the 'good of the people'--with taxes taken from successful businesses of course. Anyway, the point is socialism is a worse habit among the rich and successful than among the poor. The poor didn't come up with the ideology of socialism; rich educated people did. It's rich people who've been using socialism to gain power for themselves in the name of the people. And, many people fall for it because it sounds nice and very Christian--help the poor, take care of needy, 'greed' is evil, etc.


Obama-ism is not about the masses tearing down the rich. It's about the rich buying off a radical to push their own agenda. Though Obama acts like a proud black man, he's really just a puppet-boy of the white liberal upper-class. You might call this pre-emptive socialism. Old-style class warfare would be where the masses rise up and tear down the system. In pre-emptive socialism, the rich people buy off mass envy and resentment by propping up a symbolic radical like Obama who will then do as the rich white liberals tell and guide him. Obama knows nothing about economics, so he will fetch when Larry Summers and Tim Geithner tell him to. And, bigger government isn't necessarily anti-capitalist as far as the liberal rich are concerned. More government spending means more contracts for favored private companies. Just as Halliburton found the Iraq War to be quite lucrative, many liberal leaning private companies are bound to make 'obscene profits' from the Obama order.

Atlas Hugged. Why Todays' Leftists and Liberals are the True Ayn Rand-ians.

Today, many libertarians and conservatives recommend that we read Rand’s ATLAS SHRUGGED to understand the true meaning of freedom, individualism, American values, and capitalism. They argue that our society is burdened by big government and an elite that simply does not appreciate the power of capital, enterprise, ambition, risk-taking, and innovation. You’d think that American society is divided into big government socialists on the one side and individualist capitalists on the other. We have this impression of unimaginative and resentful socialists, liberals, leftists, and government bureaucrats manipulating resentment of the masses in order to undermine the Promethean greatness of the enterprising capitalist class. Perhaps, this was closer to reality back in the days of Rand when much of the capitalist class was none to happy with the New Deal and less burdened with the culture of social and historical guilt. . But, this hasn’t been the case for quite some time. The problem today is not the absence of Randians–as there is no shortage of super-capitalists–but, the nature of the capitalist elite.

In practice, economic competition is as ruthless as it had always been. The best students still strive to enter into top universities. Even if most of them play by the rules–as they should–they want to get ahead of the pack. They don’t want to be like the rest-of-humanity. And, once they get into top schools, they want to get all A’s. They want to graduate with honors. They want to be better than their peers. Out of college, they look for the best jobs that offer the most money, power, prestige, influence, pleasure and/or whatever that they find most fulfilling. They want to come up with the new idea or technology that will earn them not only millions but billions. The point is today’s creme de la creme never practice egalitarianism. Some of them may see themselves as promoting or fighting for equality or ‘social justice’ but want to do so from above. Among those really interested in money, there is brutal competition. These are not ‘nice guys’ but ruthless competitors. Being ruthless doesn’t necessarily mean one is unethical or evil, but it does mean that one is hungry, even mad, for power. So, there is no lack of Randians in our society. Just look at business, government, and other endeavors, and they are filled with people who want more money, power, influence, prestige, honor, etc. They are all Randians in practice.

If so, why is the majority of the most successful people in the US liberals or left-leaning? It’s because Randianism isn’t fulfilling as a professed philosophy. It’s one thing to go after great power, money, fame, honor, and etc, but it doesn’t feel noble to claim such self-obsession. The more convenient way to feel morally satisfied and good about oneself is to claim compassion for mankind. So, we have Angelina Jolie who obviously loves being glamorous, rich, narcissistic, making millions per movie, being on magazine covers all the time, and so on–and is utterly ruthless in the Randian school about it. Yet, she’s also holding and kissing African babies and acting like Mother Teresa. It’s not Atlas Shrugged as much as Atlas Hugged. Contrary to what conservatives think, many liberals and leftists are not sheepish or dorky tree huggers or people too beset with guilt to compete and rise in the world. Indeed, the smartest liberals often tend to be far more ambitious, ruthless, cutthroat, driven, power-mad, and money-crazy than most conservatives. A good many conservatives may love guns, rugged outdoors, and manly stuff, but they are no match to the likes of Rahm Emanuel who’s one of the most ruthless operators around. Rahm will do anything to win. He’s no liberal softie. Or, look at Bill Gates or all those liberals in Hollywood or Silicon Valley. You can’t get any more cutthroat or blood than they.
Sure, they say ‘nice’ things and appear ‘soft’ in public–at times anyway–but, they love power and money and have done anything and everything to get it. If we judge people by what they do than what they say, Randianism is alive and well among the liberal elite.

Sure, there are many wimpy gimpy liberals, but they are not the successful ones. The successful liberals often have bigger balls than most conservatives. Conservatives may love to hunt, but that’s easier than what some liberals like to do–mountain climb, cross an entire continent on a bicycle, and travel all around in dangerous countries. Notice that some of the most daring and big-balled journalists have been leftists and liberals. Conservative journalists generally like to stay close to home and spout opinions. Liberal and leftist journalists like to venture into the jungle world of international politics with heavy equipment. It’s no wonder that liberals and leftists dominate the way we see the world. They got the balls to go where most of us will not.

Woodward and Bernstein had big balls. And, look at some of the most daring artists in the modern era. We may hate Oliver Stone, but the fact is he had the balls to go to Vietnam, see the reality up front, and then go to film school and fight his way up the ladder to make the films he wants to make. In practice, he’s been one helluva a Randian even if his politics is closer to Marx. Conservatives and libertarians talk of how daring, free, and gutsy they are, but in practice, the toughest and most badass people in business, technology, arts, media, and etc have been liberals and leftists. Consider the fact that many liberal bitches have the balls to do something wild, daring, and crazy. They’ll travel the world, climb mountains, go to places where even most of us guys will not dare go, and so on. In contrast, your average conservative girl would rather stay home, watch tv, and hug her bible. Who’s more Randian in practice? Of course, not all liberal women are like this. A good many of them are sheep–reasonably successful but not daring or original. And, they have very naive understanding of society since they don’t come in contact with real reality. But, this is true of most conservative women too.

Anyway, there is a ballsy and gutsy side to liberal and leftist Randians–in practice. Many conservatives think liberals and leftists are for internationalism and trans-nationalism largely of white guilt. There is something to this, but it’s equally true that leftists and liberals–the successful ones anyway–support the dissolution of national borders because they figure they’ll always be #1. They figure they are so smart and so great that no matter what happens to America, they will looking down on all of us. In contrast, it is conservative Americans who are insecure and afraid. Conservatives feel that, as middle Americans, they’ll have to compete with newcomers and would prefer not to since most of them don’t have the brains, talent, or balls to rise above the rabble. In contrast, Randian liberals and leftists feel that they and their kids–blessed with higher IQ genes and good schooling–will always be #1. Come to think of it, I don’t think Rand was ever an American patriot. It was not America–its flag, people, heritage, etc–that inspired her as how America could be used as her pet ideological project. She wanted America to lead the way with super-capitalism but she saw it as something for ALL mankind. Her main loyalty was not to America but to her ideological concept of America which was not only radical individualist but radical universalist. It was a blueprint for the whole world. She though Great Men everywhere should be primarily committed to their own supremacy than to their country and people. And, liberals and leftist billionaires feel this way, live this way, and think this way. Of course, what they say is something different. (In a way, she was no more American than she was Russian. Compare her with Solzhenitsyn who had suffered under the communist system a 1000x more. He too came to America, but he always felt a great love and devotion to Russia despite all he had suffered under the communist system. He was born, lived, and died a Russian patriot. Rand felt no love or nostalgia for Russia though she’s been born there. As an American, she tried to impose HER idea of what American should be on all of us than try to learn what America really was. Rand tried to remake America as much as Lenin tried to remake Russia. Lenin tried to remake Russia into a post-national socialist state, and Rand tried to remake America into a post-national playground for her mythic individualist-capitalists. Granted, her ideology was bound to be far less dangerous because it didn’t seek to gain total state power)

So, the dichotomy that libertarians have in their silly minds is all wrong. The world is really not split between the freedom loving, masterful, competitive individualists AND dull, unimaginative, and jealous socialists and their mass followers. Rather, today’s Randians are the ‘socialists’.

But, this is nothing new since rich and powerful people in the West have been Christians for most of European and American history. The rich and powerful are like you and me in this regard–they wanna have the cake and eat it too. They want all the power and money yet they wanna hog the morality and compassion too. When Bill Gates made his billions in the 80s and 90s, people just saw him as the Rich Guy. That wasn’t enough for him so he set up a mega-foundation to dole out money to this cause, that cause, and buy the respect and appreciation of mankind. He makes his money the Randian way but uses it the socialist way. That way, he can be rich/powerful and noble/caring. Of course, acting the savior-of-mankind is just another way to win power and influence. Powerful liberals in government are less likely to inspect his dirty ass, and leftists are less criticize and condemn everything he does. It’s one way of buying off the opposition.

But, I don’t doubt Gates’s ideological sincerity since everyone gets their view of the world from people who write books and the news. And, who controls the mind of the nation? Mostly liberals and leftists, a good many of them Jews. Since Jews are intelligent, even their falsehoods, distortions, exaggerations, and fantasies have a way of sounding true or brilliant. It’s no wonder that so many of the smartest people in the world were taken in by people like Trotsky. They admired Trotsky and favored him over Stalin not so much because Trotsky was less of a radical but simply because he sounded more intellectual and smarter than the ruffian-like Stalin. It’s the cult/conceit of brilliance. Jared Diamond, for instance, is a very brilliant Jew. He’s a lying leftist ideologue and lowlife asshole, but his book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" was provocative and seemingly profound. People like Gates read it–and the books of Jeffrey Sachs–and found a convenient explanation of the world–why parts of it work, parts of it don’t.

On a related subject, one should consult here:

http://groups.google.com/group/neo-fascism/browse_thread/thread/ba8731fc430914dc/3d344ac6e82a6421?hl