My question is, Where is the outcry against Anita Dunn?
Her remarks were not limited to a casual comment that had vicious implications. Rather they constituted a prolonged, blatantly explicit, and far more fundamental endorsement of an incalculably worse person and program than did those of Trent Lott.
She has dared to say that one of her “favorite political philosophers” is one of the greatest mass murderers in the history of the world, a man whose takeover of China was responsible for as many as 70 million deaths during his reign.
She has dared to present the words of this monster as a source of inspiration to youth! FULL ARTICLE
{ 29 comments }
It is quotes like this that have me shivering in my boots. This isn’t the same old cyclical liberals-then-conservative-then-liberal back and forth that (supposedly) keeps a certain balance and tension within the power base. Both parties are radicalizing toward Iron Statism and eliminating the individualist elements native to their respective parties. And it is more disturbing that the media is silent and are implicitely supporting the Iron Statism that is soon coming our way to make good on all the “soft statist” blocks that have been put into place over the last several decades. It is mind boggling that anyone can cite a Statist Thug that killed millions as an inspiration and get away with it. I have little doubt that within a decade or so we will feel the results of such sentiments here on our shores.
What really got me was the Media Matters ‘rebuttal’ (http://mediamatters.org/research/200910150044) when Glenn Beck mentioned this on his show. Their claim, in a nutshell, is that Anita was making a statement about Mao’s political philosophy, not the outcome of his political actions. The willful blindness necessary to believe that philosophy can be detached from action would be astounding, if we didn’t find it everywhere in the mainstream (including economics).
Time to be metaphorical and give some words of hope. Wherever there is a Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping cannot be far behind. Understandably he has to be quite as a mouse till he has consolidated support, then he will do an Orwellian turn on Mao and implement real reform. In the US I am sure there could be hundreds if not thousands of Deng Xiaopings. Deng Xiaoping, privately the most respected statesman in China, but the public spaces belong to Mao, for now. But that won’t be a problem if all spaces are private spaces.
I thought her remarks were quite funny.
In a party stacked with garden variety radicals of the communist bent, Ms. Dunn is likely the only Maoist!
As for Republicans radicalizing toward Iron Statism, I don’t see it. GWB was nothing like Obama. Not saying he was perfect, but certainly not a radical!
It is bad enough that the miscreant media has to have someone such as Anita Dunn explained to them but the continued suppression and silence on this matter is what is so deafening telling. Will this be the spoiled kook ridden generation that throws the baby out with the bath water… that remains anyone’s guess, but the fact that we have so many statist so close to the top in DC today, and a perfectly complicit lapdog media on watch, is enough to send shivers down any sane individual freedom lovers spine.
The stage is set pretty well… another convenient Rahm Emanuel crisis or two and this play could be in full swing.
William P wrote:
“As for Republicans radicalizing toward Iron Statism, I don’t see it. GWB was nothing like Obama. Not saying he was perfect, but certainly not a radical!”
A brief excerpt from “The Law”……
“But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense. ”
The “unscrupulous” have no problem using the law,
i.e., force, for their own agenda, whether they be left or right.
“Where is the outcry against Anita Dunn?”
I first heard of Ms. Dunn’s outrageous speech on talk radio, and now on the Internet. So I would have to say, the outcry is in the only remaining *real* media, Internet and radio, that aren’t de facto organs of the leftist state.
It’s no wonder that printed periodicals are a dying media, and TV news isn’t far behind. I remember when I was growing up; my father wasn’t exactly an intellectual, and never read any other than local newspapers. But we always had to be quiet during dinner, because that’s when he watched the news. Now, I never watch TV news; ever. Why bother giving up valuable time so I can be indoctrinated? I listen to talk radio while I’m driving, and that’s it. As for newspapers? Hah! What a waste of money. I can get every bit as much news, and more, on the Internet.
The people who were offended by Trent Lott’s statement form a massive voting block in America. The people whose families were killed and imprisoned by Mao do not vote anywhere for anything.
And our leftists have never grokked what Mao did when he was running China. At the same time that he was murdering millions by starvation during the Great Leap Forward, foreigners were shown Potemkin villages in China and told that everything was fine in China and that the reports of starvation were fabricated by defectors with an axe to grind. Pierre Trudeau, later Prime Minister of Canada, made something of a name for himself as a journalist in the 1950s by visiting China and mindlessly repeating the CPC propaganda.
Despite the ample evidence and dozens of well documented books, our leftists have never got it through their thick heads that Mao was a mass murder in the same class as Hitler and Stalin. There has been no bestselling “Gulag Archipeligo” for China. They will cling to their delusions like the people in China that Mao was “mostly good”.
I suppose I shouldn’t merely dismiss them as “leftists”. I hear that Karl Rove said that Bush recommended that he read Mao’s political philosophy. It isn’t just leftists that are attracted to Mao, but would-be tyrants of all stripes.
I’m pretty sure that Dunn actually does distinguish Mao’s philosophy from his actions. It would be silly to think that she endorses violence and death. It is simply foolish, however, to put forward the philosophical ideas (however positive or brilliant) of an evil man when equivalent ideas have been expressed by good men. Role models can’t be that rare, can they?
Still, we shouldn’t be too eager to be contrary with people we despise. Sometimes, we actually do agree with what they say. Examples:
Carpe diem!
Excess of liberty, whether it lies in state or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery.
It is much more secure to be feared than to be loved.
Honesty is for the most part less profitable than dishonesty.
Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction.
In the world you will have trouble but take courage for I have conquered the world.
One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.
An army marches on its stomach.
It is health that is real wealth and not pieces of gold and silver.
…Of course, we also sometimes disagree with people that we admire.
I don’t think Dunn deserves to be castigated for being a Maoist any more than critics of state-sponsored education deserve to be castigated as Nazis. If we are reasonable people, we will judge ideas not by the man speaking them, but by their substance.
Glenn Beck goes on about the Maoist for 17 minutes:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/19/video-glenn-beck-goes-off-on-anita-dunn-for-17-minutes/
A few years ago, Cameron Diaz went on vacation to Peru wearing a chic Chairman Mao handbag that said “serve the people.”
Turns out over 70,000 Peruvians were killed in the 80′s by Maoists so that they could serve them. At least Diaz said she was sorry and admitted that she didn’t know.
Add the Separation of Fashion and State to the list.
“In the days when the Obama was being challenged even within his own party on his plan to eliminate the Capitalists of America, the Capitalists and their allies controlled many major businesses, they controlled many major banks, they owned many major newspapers and magazines. They were protected by the rule of law, by trial by jury, and by laws against robbery, kidnapping, and murder. They had everything on their side and the Elite Socialists said to Obama, ‘How can you win, how can you do this, how can you do this against all of the odds against you?’ And Obama said, ‘You fight your war and do your destruction and I’ll fight mine and do my destruction.’”
The is very little distinction between the Socialists – Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Chavez … They all share the same insatiable desire for power, and espouse a political philosophy that promises everything but ultimately is doomed to failure.
Then there’s the conspiracy theory of why villians in Hollywood movies are almost always modelled after Nazis and never Communists. Steven Spielberg spoke highly of how Cuba works after his visit there.
What really scares me is that in this age of Wikipedia and Kindle, all you need is a little internet scrub-a-dub-dub and Mao will look pretty good to more than just Dunn.
Well, it seems to me that Ms Dunn is in good company. The Leader of the European Commission is an explicit Maoist as well. You don’t believe me? Just watch this. These days, in Europe hardly anoone bothers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAHv3UnXvmM&feature=fvw
***As for Republicans radicalizing toward Iron Statism, I don’t see it. GWB was nothing like Obama. Not saying he was perfect, but certainly not a radical!***
The accrual basis Federal Debt going from $20 Trillion to $54 Trillion in the eight years under Bush II isn’t a huge push toward the Iron Statist function we are necessarily going to have? Adding endless invasive bureaucracy under the War on Terror umbrella doesn’t qualify? Being slightly to the left of JFK doesn’t win you Liberator of the Year awards simply because Obama et al are now putting stakes in the ground in Stalin and Mao territory.
When the Republicans own the White House and Congress and pass Medicare Part D (and the $11 Trillion addition it made to the accrual basis debt) and erode privacy due to Terror, and begin a purge of the libertarian leaning elements within the party as they did half a decade ago (much less the treatment of Ron Paul during the conventions last year) I’ll stand by my “moving toward Iron Statism” statements.
Even BEFORE any additions by Obama et al, we were working toward another 10-15% in Fedral Taxes alone to pay for all the Socialist Good Works. That added on top of the 45% I already pay, and the likely increases at the State and Local levels, AND all the new Good Works in the offing under Obama, composite tax rates of 70+% aren’t out the question very soon. And the Republicans are just as complicit as the Dems for this reality coming to pass, and have little doubt that they are going to be too sympathetic to those who resist.
A few years back I still had some hope that we could still undo the impact of our unfunded entitlement schemes, and that there were enough sensible people who would try. Then came Medicare Part D and the rest and now there is no hope. The unfunded entitlement timebomb is being reinforced with even MORE explosives. The end result necessarily HAS to be “rigid” statism of some sort, left or right.
As the left establishes the curricula in state-run schools, I remember spending much time in history class covering the horrors of Hitler and the Nazis. Mao however, was glossed over quickly as a “former Chinese head of state”.
Millions of people, mostly younger, minorities, and traditional anti-war Progressives, campaigned fervently for Barack Obama. His victory was unprecedented, because it used social networking and grass-roots organizing to defeat the worst Administration (Bush-Cheney) in the history of the United States. Ayers, Wright, and others who nurtured and trained Obama were purged. I’m glad to see that at least one person inspired by Mao Zedong still survives, there, but is anyone listening to her? Apparently not – outside of Fox News.
The Republo-fascists were caught flat-footed. They simply had no response to this sort of mass uprising. And so, they nominated two candidates who seemed to somehow reflect this discontent with corporate Wall Street/K-Street politics – a populist from Alaska who shot wolves from airplanes, and a “war hero” from the bottom of his class at Annapolis – not even born in the United States, but on a foreign military base, who had opposed torture and been proclaimed “a maverick”, but otherwise had no credentials greater than being known as a “hot-head.”
Even so, Obama, the first Black (or maybe Mulatto or Metis) President, did not win easily.
The Black Left was not impressed. Black Agenda Report (www.BAR.org) attacked him from the outset, pointing out that he was created by the notorious Chicago Democrat Machine, and largely funded by the Zionists and other Wall Street-K-Street lobbyists, as well as the CFR and other imperialist establishment. He promised nothing to Black people in general, and certainly nothing to the poor and dispossessed. This was to be another Ivy League presidency.
Paul Street, a long-time Urban League activist from the same Chicago neighborhood, exposed Obama as a phoney from the start.
As a Green Party organizer and activist, I had this conversation with hundreds of peace activists and other progressives. We, of course, supported Cynthia McKinney, a six-term former Democrat Congresswoman from Georgia as our candidate, and her campaign did everything that Obama “left behind” – reconstruction, universal health care, an end to imperialism and the Military-Industrial complex, the “Homeland Security” Gestapo, etc., etc.
A Green Party leader from Hesse, Germany, came to Washington to observe the campaign and election. He couldn’t understand why we weren’t supporting this great “progressive,” Obama! And apparently, the Nobel Committee (which is, of course, neither Green nor Progressive) apparently saw him in the same light.
As a former Chairman of the UCLA Ayn Rand Society, (I remember Reisman from those days – he was part of Rand’s inner circle) I understand his arguments and references, but to still be defending “capitalism” as some sort of anarchist, communitarian, pacifist “ideal” borders on the insane. Rand had her own peculiar battles going on with imperialism, and the Zionists who had already become, in her lifetime, the leading exponents of imperialistic war and genocide.
I have come to recognize that “Capitalism” is and always will be considered the opposite of individual freedom, free trade, and free markets. It is wise to always use the Marxist adjectives such as “Finance Capitalism” or “Monopoly Capitalism” when describing the system we have today, which depends on military force and a corrupt “criminal justice system” to enslave and repress all real advocates of peace and freedom.
Capitalism is rule by the owners of capital (a very small minority). They do not understand freedom, the law, or a democratic society of status equals. Capitalism is slavery, not freedom.
As for Mao, consider who he was fighting and what he finally accomplished. Chiang was an explicit Leninist, a tool of foreign imperialists (and Christian missionaries) from the outset. Read “The Soong Dynasty” for the best account of the history of China and its various revolutions in the 20th century. Or the Myrdal accounts of Chinese society in the 1950′s and ’60′s. Myrdal Sr. was the co-recipient of the Nobel Prize with Hayek in that year. Both were identified as real humanists whose thinking was shaped by the Enlightenment.
Rand, unfortunately, will be remembered as little more than an agit-prop Trotskyist.
Mao, Gandhi, and other real revolutionaries have not been recognized by the Nobel committee, but Mother Theresa was.
Leon,
You say, “The “unscrupulous” have no problem using the law, i.e., force, for their own agenda, whether they be left or right.”
It’s important to exit theory mode when discussing political realities, otherwise you are wont to sound kooky. GWB did not start the perversion of Bastiat’s conception of ‘the law.’ He entered office after literally hundreds of years of the same thing occurring, and to stop it would have been, by definition, more radical than letting it continue.
Not that I care to make too many excuses for GWB, per se. However, he did try to privatize social security and, with the exception of the medicare prescription drug coverage, he was dealing well (for the most part) with domestic economy (until the bailout). Certainly did not nationalize any industries.
Sure, it might have been a slow road to tyranny, and until the Republican party is taken back by conservatives the whole nation will be, but Iron Statism is quite a charge to level.
Paul Stephens,
Capitalism is the private ownership of capital, goods and/or property. It has nothing to do with who “rules.”
It is the concept that brought the world out of Feudalism. For if there is no private ownership, man must live beholden to another man.
You are correct, Marx added a lot of adjectives to that concept. Consider why.
“Capitalism is rule by the owners of capital” – Paul Stephens
Are you sure you’re not talking about Socialism/Communism? Where the State owns all the capital and makes all the rules? Maybe?
after Mao “took over the country”, many millions of Chinese starved to death during the Great Leap Forward. He basically dictated how the country would be run and it was an abysmal failure.
When criticism arose, Mao welcomed debate in what was called the 100 Flowers campaign. When the opposition ID’d themselves, Mao had them killed.
Yup, what’s not to love about Mao?
How is it that Che wrote a book on how to conduct guerilla warfare yet remains a symbol of the anti-war movement and pacifism?
Thomas, there is no use arguing with people like Paul Stephens who simply don’t understand a thing about the non-exploiting, non-sacrifical, peaceful nature of capitalism and its most important institution — private ownership of the means of production.
In the most charitable interpretation of their motives that I can think of, Paul Stephens and his ilk apparently see themselves as brave warriors for the oppressed and downtrodden masses but the truth is that they don’t understand a thing how to help them, how to lift them out of their oppression and poverty. They see their first and foremost task in eliminating the class of “oppressors” and alleged capitalist “bloodsuckers”.
And what then? Did our Mr. Stephens ever spent a minute thinking about how to establish great industries, how to build roads, how to organize production and distribution in general?
Mr. Stephens might find a speck of my sympathies if he lived before all those innumerable atrocities committed by the communists all over the world. He might claim ignorance but what would he claim now? Stupidity? Hatred of mankind? I hope it’s the latter.
A fine article from Dr Reisman – and (for once) no one has jumped in with a (off topic) attack on his position in intellectual property (I hope I have not jixed things by typing that).
As for Mrs Dunn – her claim (accepted by the “mainstream” media) is that she was making a “joke” and was using “irony”.
Anyone who has seen the film knows that Mrs Dunn’s claims are blatent lies. Her support for Mao (as a “political philosopher” she “most turns to”) was totally serious and not ironic. Mrs Dunn then goes on to discuss the work as “Community Organizers” of Barack and Michelle Obama.
All this (in Mrs Dunn’s twisted and wicked mind) is something to do with “making your own choices” – rather than using the power of the state to crush all freedom.
Of course this was also the case in Mao’s mind. In his early writings (before he even became a Marxist at his teacher training college – Bill Ayers would be proud of that) he is clear that the only thing that mattered to him was his own “freedom”, which he defined as the ability to make other people do what he wanted them to do.
In short to make the “choice” to make other people obey, by force and fear.
This”selfish collectivism” (“everyone else under socialism, but oneself on top of it” as Orwell mocked the type) is as strong in Mrs Dunn and Barack Obama as it was in Mao – they are just not sure of the loyality of the military yet.
They would love to give the order – but they fear it would not be obeyed.
I think it’s worth noting how many times Mr. Stephens referenced race in his single comment. Typical divide and conquer technique second only to class warfare.
He also threw in the F word, Fascists. In Anita Dunn’s speech she went on to describe Mao’s opponents as “the Nationalists.” That is one of the very few differences between Fascists and Communists.
Fascists, though anti-Capitalists and Socialists, still believe in national identity. (mostly as a rallying call to serve the State.) Communists believe in a one world utopian government. Ironically every Communist nation that has ever existed has had closed borders.
I am amazed that a professor cannot see the difference in the comments.
“We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years”
That is an endorsement of a policy. Anita Dunn did not endorse anything.
Someone should draw a diagram for the professor.
“I have come to recognize that “Capitalism” is and always will be considered the opposite of individual freedom, free trade, and free markets. It is wise to always use the Marxist adjectives such as “Finance Capitalism” or “Monopoly Capitalism” when describing the system we have today, which depends on military force and a corrupt “criminal justice system” to enslave and repress all real advocates of peace and freedom.
Capitalism is rule by the owners of capital (a very small minority). They do not understand freedom, the law, or a democratic society of status equals. Capitalism is slavery, not freedom.†– Paul Stephens
You describe Capitalism as being incapable of anything other than a corrupt mixed economy; accuse Capitalism, which you obviously do not understand, of somehow being coercive and forceful, and then, as a Green Party supporter, you advocate even more central force and favor by the so-called “smart and wise people†as the way to solve the problem.
Capitalism, is simply the theory of allowing people the space to peacefully grow, produce, and freely swap amongst each other without any pretentious meddling government thugs, green or otherwise, interfering. And to the extinct that people have been free and left alone to produce and trade they have brought the world out of the dark ages over the last couple of centuries. Yet, you would still have us cling to the very types of government regimentation and control that held the world down for several thousands of years.
The only thing that seems confused here is your rant and your rabbit hole conclusion that “Capitalism is slavery, not freedom. ” One can only hope that the world will wise up and tire once and forever of the well intended Mao’s, Hitler’s, Stalin’s and other supposed do-gooders, like the naïve pseudo-science Greens, who always think they know best and who have always ended up getting millions killed attempting to force their blurry visions of utopia down the throats of others.
Comments on this entry are closed.