A Simple Solution To The Dear Leader Problem
By Ted Baiamonte Comments: bje1000@aol.com (10/23/06)
All we have to do is get together with 15 or so of our biggest military allies, go to the "Dear Leader" and tell him to hand over the nukes or prepare to die because we won't have insanely churilish genocidal maniacs threatening the world with WMD or starving millions of people to death. The only problem with that solution is that we don't have 15 big military allies; in fact we don't even have one ally, big or small, who would help us militarily solve the "Dear Leader" problem. As incredible as it is, despite being the world's most successful nation ever on many levels, freeing millions and millions of people in other countries in two world wars and the Cold War, being the world's policeman, and always offering to do more, we do not have any allies. On top of that, the world's newspapers are filled with virulent declamations against America and George Bush in particular and virtually none directed toward the genocidally insane "Dear Leader"?
This is a man who has been quite content to starve a whole nation to death and leave those adults still living 2-3 inches shorter than they would be with a less homicidal nutrition regimen. The whole world is now filled with neurotic loons who have tremendous passion about hating America and George Bush, but very little for the whack bird Dear Leader Kim Jong Mentally IL. Isn't that surreal? How is it possible?
How can the world be turned so upside-down? Actually it's not. With the exception of Republican America, human gov'ts throughout history have always engaged in war, slavery, and genocide as their major activity. In fact, virtually all nations on earth were formed as a result of wars whose termination demonstrated nothing whatsoever but who won the war, and, to a far lesser extent, who had the most bloodthirsty soldiers and most productive economy. Might made right. All of them owe their evolved, genetic predispositions to war, slavery and genocide; so we should anticipate their declination of the freedom we seek to spread as they remain enamored of and take strange comfort in their long standing and deadly normalcy.
To make matters worse, not only do they have a genetic predisposition toward hatred, war, and the powerful gov'ts necessary to implement these sad predispositions , but on top of that they have a great shame about having been saved by America from certain death at each other's bloodthirsty hands throughout the 20th Century. To add further humiliation, America seemed to be propelled by the philosophy of freedom, which sadly was and to this day remains mostly impregnable to their limited conceptual Old World IQ's. It seems the cultural, economic, artistic, and personal benefits of freedom were and are very hard for them to reconcile with their failed traditional ways.
America had the audacity to challenge their homicidal, deadly status quo, save their lives, give them a rational gov't, an economic system, and way of life. But with such hubris came shame and resentment. Yes, they were ambivalently happy that we took care of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, and for them but still these were men who to a large extent represented them, and rose to power in large part with their help. Their rule was to a real extent all in the family; a family into which America intruded. When we took out the Hitler-like Saddam Hussein it was not another pure act of American goodness to them, but rather another reminder of their failed homicidal past. When Bush said "mission accomplished" and it seemed that the mission was indeed accomplished they were humiliated by America's superior goodness once again , and when the war went went badly it was their dreamed for opportunity to pretend that America freedom was somehow not so good after all.
Even if one acknowledges that George Bush has been relatively less modest about American greatness and responsibilities than his predecessors, in the scheme of human history his hubris is infinitely trivial compared to that of the men they accepted as their own abjectly totalitarian "Dear Leaders". America, essentially, does what freedom always compels it to do. It did not seek to kill, enslave, exploit, or annex those it defeated. Instead, it sought to help, rebuild, and respect; to share its wisdom. America gave money, and a constitution to copy so they too could enjoy freedom. Indeed, America turned the tide of human history from war to love, and asked for little more in return than a place to bury its dead. Never in human history had such a thing happened. But still it was and is is often greeted with suspicion by those who suspected or needed to believe America's motives were like theirs always were, rather then purely American. It is not Bush's hubris that offends them, it is the very idea of a saintly America founded by its outcasts that deeply offends them.
More importantly, the deadly plague that has always affected mankind is now affecting America (the last best hope for freedom-as Ronald Reagan so famously pointed out) in important ways; in the form of Democrats. When Jefferson disrupted all of human history to fire that fateful American shot for freedom heard around the world it really did not echo as loud or as far as it should have. Yes, freedom from gov't became the primary American principal that made America the greatest, especially until Marx and the Marxist inspired Democratic New Deal, but since then the primordial call to gov't and the evil it has always brought forth has grown and grown here at home where the soul of the world's lone freedom outpost resides.
Accordingly, the Democrats, and their allies around the world, can't be too emphatic about the Dear Leader being a little to aggressive with the uses of gov't because he is, in part, one of them. They all exercise primordial gov't power for themselves as nanny, king, tyrant, fascist, socialist, or Dear Leader; in an endless stream of various ways and under various guises but never, in all of human history, with Jeffersonian results, and yet i their egomanical minds they matter; not the absent results? To many, the distance between Democrats and the Dear Leader looks so great as to suggest a perfect difference, despite the perfect reliance on gov't to which both aspire. Our Democrats of course, like all their brethren, believe their gov't is good gov't, as does the Dear Leader and those who follow him. Hitler thought his gov't was good gov't while Stalin's gov't was bad, but to Jeffersonian Republicans they are the same. The differences are great to collectivists whose governments appear to be perfectly different but are only to the extent that the human beings running them are different. In reality, they are similarly tyrannical to those who understand that freedom is the opposite of gov't.
If American Democrats believed in Stalin and spied for him why can't they reserve a place in their hearts for the Deal Leader which makes them want to look the other way or contain him as they wanted to with Communism? If Democrats don't see that when Hitler rose to power he did not say he was going to kill every Jew on earth and militarily attack every major country on earth, what can we say about them? Chamberlain saw Hitler as complex; as beyond good and evil. He could be dealt with; even successfully appeased. To understand who our gov't loving American Democrats are we have to ask, "who might they be they be if they got their way; if they were not met at every turn by patriotic Jeffersonian Republicans who worship freedom above preposterous or egomanical gov't schemes?
In fact, the American gov't has grown more powerful every day since it was formed in 1789. And what is it that the Democrats stand for above all else in the beginning of the 21st Century: more and higher taxes to make the gov't even more powerful and the people less and less powerful. They have not said where it will stop; if it will stop. Certainly it is a good guess that the leviathan will never stop, like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, until it is somehow killed. When their new taxes don't lead to the promised result they merely claim, in their addicted way, that even more taxes are needed when in fact, with a 10 year lag, they have gotten 5 times more tax revenue than they said they wanted in every election in each year of American History. But still it does not end?
When Jefferson ran against the Federalist Democrat Adams, it was Adams who in is royal coach was accused of being a monarchist or royalist who wanted to bring the Kings and Queens of Europe to American gov't. When the Democrat Andrew Jackson was elected he sought to subvert the Constitution by expanding suffrage to less and less qualified voters knowing full well that the less qualified a voter was the more likely he would be to vote for a Democratic free lunch. Today the process continues as Democrats seek to register felons, illiterates, and illegal immigrants who are willing to sell their voters for the Democratic free lunch. When the Republican Lincoln freed the slaves it was the Democrats who shot him. When the Great Depression hit it was the Democrats who wanted to fix it with gov't; not freedom, thus causing a World War. When Civil Rights became important it was the Democrats who attacked Black freedom with genocidal-like gov't welfare programs that destroyed Black families, criminalized Black men, and illegitimized Black children. When Communism and terrorism threatened America it was the Democrats who spied for them or resisted every attempt to fight them.
So what else would Democrats do to America if it was not necessary to compromise with Jeffersonian Republicans who have opposed them at every turn? They would give us what humanity has always given us. Their comminatory leviathan would eventually not look that much different from the Dear Leader's.
Ted Baiamonte
(Printer friendly version) Email: Ted Baiamonte Comments: bje1000@aol.com
