Through a glass darkly...

Closely following the signs of the times

DJohn

DJohn
Location
Virginia, United States
Birthday
December 30
Bio
Marine, Christian, Libertarian and forty-something, suburban dad trying to make sense of the world around him.

MY RECENT POSTS

DJohn's Links

Salon.com
JULY 17, 2010 12:03PM

Is THIS A Racist Billboard?

Rate: 4 Flag

 

HitlerObamabillboard

Some in the media have latched onto this billborad that was put up by the North Iowa Tea Party (and recently taken down for being in their words "unproductive") to point out the "racism" that runs rampant within the Tea Party organization. Really?

What about this billboard is racist? 

What about this message put forth from this billboard is NOT true?

Why does the media get REALLY incensed by the idea of Obama being compared to Hitler but says nothing about the Lenin comparison?

Answer these questions:

Are all three of these men considered radical leaders?

Have all three relied upon fear as a weapon to be used to garner support?

Have all three benefited from naive or uninformed constituents to do their bidding?

The fact is there is only ONE thing about this sign that I could argue does not apply to Obama...yet. Two of the three were mass murderers of their own people on an unprecedented scale.

Outside of that what this sign does signify is tyrrany.

We are currently witnessing a "soft" tyrrany unfolding within the United States but it is tyrrany nonetheless.

Now for some definitions:

Racism:

The belief that the genetic factors which constitute race are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. (Doesn't this billboard compare the three men as EQUALS? How does the display of one half-white (or half black) man and two white men demonstrate inherent superiority of a particular race?)

Socialism: 

Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation resources. (Does the government ownership of General Motors, the Financial Industry, Healthcare, etc fall within this definition? I think it does.)

Marxism:

The three main tennants of this philosophy are:

1. Humankind's history is fundamentally that of the struggle between social classes. (How often do the Democrats use class warfare to initimidate or coerce? Those evil CEO's!!! Why do they make so much money? We need a pay czar!!!)

2. In capitalist society, an economic minority (the bourgoisie) dominate and exploit an economic majority (the proletariat) (This is where the "Wall Street" vs "Main Street" arguements comes from. How many times have we heard that in the last 18 months?)

3. In order to overcome the fetters of private property the working class must seize political power internationally through a social revolution and expropriate the capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership. (Hence the move from private sector economic growth into public sector/government- related employment. While the private business sector is slowly dying the public sector is booming.)

So I ask again.

What about this billboard is racist?

What about this message put forth from this billboard is NOT true? 

The truth is this billboard is making a philisophical argument about the POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES of these three charasmatic leaders. This has nothing to do with race and most "thinking" people can see that.

However the fact that the media latches onto the comparison of Obama to Hitler and ignores the Obama-Lenin comparison speaks volumes.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Everything abt it is untrue and no, it isn't racist. If I must explain why inanely untrue or why not racist, I'll have to charge real money.
"What about this message put forth from this billboard is NOT true?"
There are not enough terra-bytes of memory available in the universe of the internet to answer this question fully.
I'll leave you with a quote from my favorite comedy TV show, "Corner Gas" which was broadcast on CTV (that's Canadian TV). It's a quote from the pater-familias Oscar LeRoy. Here it is:

"Jackass"
It's not racist. It is however reflective of the ignorance, delusion, and hysteria which are the main components of Tea Bagger "thought." Why any rational conservative would want to identify him/herself with those idiots is beyond me.
I have seen the newscasts where this discussion is underway. When this billboard flashed I thought, this is not necessarily racist. The discussion was about the tea party nuts, and much of what they do is decidedly racist, so I thought this may be conflating things a bit. Maybe just bad editing. But it occurs to me that the newscast does not show where the billboard is. It merely says Iowa. You dont even mention it. Racist messages can and do have subtleties at times. The location, or audience, or other subtleties could be how someone meant to convey a racist message, and it is merely missing here. We do know with certainty that many of the tea party themes have been racist. As flawed as this message is, perhaps it does not include racism. But to attempt to defend a group who does use racism against one case, with material that clearly has some context removed is somewhat slimy and seeks to deny the larger point. The tea party message uses racism broadly. The birthers take their angst from a racist pretext. So yeah, it's not a floorwax, it's not a dessert topping, and it may not be racist. But it is an idiotic message that is wrong as well as false.
@ DJohn: I just want to thank you. You and your fanaticism makes you the perfect poster boy for the Tea Party. Keep up the good work!

[/sarcasm]
.
There is a strong undercurrent of racism in the Tea Party movement, as witnessed by this post. If a group or individuals from within that group feel the need to issue repeated, vehement denials that they're motivated by prejudice, there's a strong likelihood that they in fact are motivated by prejudice. Where there's smoke there's fire, and anyone who's followed the rise and the rhetoric of the Tea Party can see that many in their ranks are indeed racists.
When the T_ers showed up at the Capitol with, among them signs bearing swatstikas and no one from the minority party nor from any PT -related org had the sense or guts to distance themd=selves from, let alone condemn it, you could see, clear as a bell what these bastards are all abt, at least in their dreams.
Here is some explanation for you about how racism in America has been practiced. Many times systems and various rules and practices are constructed which never mention race specifically, because the dullards who are needed for compliance can see an overt message, but have plausible deniability, and denial with the construction of an opaque system. Some of those things are separate accommodations, and and other constructions for exclusion. The purpose is to disinform and restrict.

The sign has two things that it attempts to attach as themes. Those themes are "socialism" and "change". Both of these themes in this message employ various types of deception. First, the socialism. It is alarmist in the way that you suggested that Democrats are with class warfare. The use of Lenin (Marx), and Hitler are alarmist. They try to inflame idiots to fear and hatred about Bolshevism and Naziism. (You'll notice no reference to Norway, Sweden, Canada, etc.) Also notice the colors in the billboard. They are also meant to irritate. They are not a peaceful pallet of colors. It is emotional manipulation, the same as that which you decry. Further, Hitler was a corporatist. This message calling him a socialist, and a class warrior is an absurd bastardization of history by everyone from those who erected this board to Jonah Goldberg. Competely false.

The other major theme is change. Hitler represented change which barely needs to be explained. He created a police state he waged war with a continent, and he pushed a tribal/corporatist ethic as the foundation of the society. He was a fascist. Change in Russia was from a centuries old Czarist system. Aside from the "vanguard" of the party, this represented the closest thing to something truly revolutionary. They nearly turned society upside down, for good or for ill. That was another sort of change. The change implied subtly with the Obama juxtaposition to these is the way racism is communicated. Obama is neither a Marxist Leninist, nor is he a Fascist or corporatist. Obama is a centrist progressive. Obama's legislative initiatives do not challenge the norm in America in any way close to what is suggested in this sign with this juxtaposition. The only change to any degree is Obama's race. Now broadcast this moronic message of misunderstood history to a group of idiots like birthers and tea partiers, and the only thing unaltered is race. The only thing that the idiots for which this board is intended that can be correctly communicated is race. All of the rest is false suggestion. Just like the racist false suggestion of Jim Crow which ostensibly had nothing to do with race, but had everything to do with race. NO swimming in public pools together, separate doors to enter buildings, etc. They all use false information about race to further a racist agenda. Racist live to deny racism because they know it will make it more difficult to achieve their goals. Lies, misinformation, and denials are generally a part of that process. Just like your post.
You are SO right, DJohn! What a radical to talk about change. We should spit on him just like those other radicals pictured below, huh?

http://provost.uiowa.edu/students/conday/images/signersmural.jpg
Obama is no more a socialist than you are. If you recall, the bank bailouts (along with substantial ownership) occurred under the Bush administration, so does that mean that W was a socialist?

Socialism means government ownership of industries for the purpose of funneling the profits into the the state treasury instead of allowing capitalists that profit margin. Alternatively, socialism means providing services to the population that would otherwise be unavailable because of their nonprofitability.

Under these definitions of socialism, the only socialist programs the United States has is Social Security and Medicare. The temporary ownership of stock warrants or other securitized instruments in exchange for sopping up bad debt, with an eye towards returning partial ownership of those investments to the capitalist classes is not socialism. At best it is lemon socialism, whereby the government temporarily assumes the systemic risk until such time as the economy gets better.

Flaming Reds like Ben Bernacke and Timmy Geithner were the implementers of this system, and President Obama acted on their advice. Obama considered and discarded the option to nationalize the banks and General Motors. This option would be classified as truly socialistic.

The only reason why actions like this were taken was because there was a perceived threat to the national/international capitalist system. This approach has been done by the United States before. Where was the right wing outrage when Chrysler was taken over like this in the 1970s?

And what alternative would you posit instead of the W bailout? Let the free market implode? If so, you're advocating Hoovernomics, and the economy would be three times worse if policy leaders had followed this path.

People like this who put up billboards like this only advertise their profound ignorance and stupidity about the nature of both government and the economy.
It's not racist at all. It's just stupid. When there were comparisons of Bush to Hitler, the right wing media went ballistic. Are Hannity and O'Reilly on the warpath over this one?
noticed no one answered your question.
No, I don't think that the billboard is racist but it's certainly hyperbolic. Billboards like that appeal to true believers like yourself but do very little to sway fence-sitters. In fact I would bet that most people that are indifferent or disappointed with Obama (like me) find billboards like that ridiculous.

I'm not happy with Obama but if you (or others) are going to compare him to Hitler and Lenin you lose me fast!
ps
I've heard many in the media mention both Hitler and Lenin regarding this billboard. Where do you get the idea that Lenin is being ignored?
Two thumbs wrote: "noticed no one answered your question.

Notice you obviously didn't read any of the responses, did you? Out of the 7 posters, 6 of them answered your question (just not the way you wanted).

"It's not racist, it's fucking ignorant, though!" There, now EVERYBODY answered the question. Any questions????
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071602855.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

This one only mentions Hitler in the headline but Lenin and Hitler in the article.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iowa_obama_billboard

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/tea-party-trouble-in-river-city/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/14/iowa-billboard-spurs-dnc-fundraising-effort/?fbid=-0rS1UR-gyV

I GOOGLED "Iowa billboard" and these were the first ones that came up.
Amy, when two Thumbs says he "noticed" something, what he means is he completely ignored anything and everything which didn't fit into his belief system. Nearly every commenter prior to his comment answered Djohn's question, yet Two Thumbs "noticed" that no one did. It's run-of-the mill Teabaggerism.
A little knowledge is, in this case, hilarious.

First, National Socialism didn't involve government ownership of anything but Volkswagen. That aside, it was state/corporate collusion, which is what you apparently advocate. It is a right wing concept, more about power than function, like conservatism and, like conservatism, was built on racism and resentment with a "Christian" moral ethic lie.

America doesn't have socialism. Socialism is a word describing an encompassing system of state ownership -- production and distribution. We have some social programs, but that doesn't qualify. Buying out GM, then turning it back to private ownership also isn't socialism. Having a big toe doesn't qualify a person as a big toe...though in your case we might make exception.

We don't have anything resembling Marxism, other than the conservative's similar desire to see government wither on the vine. There is no radical leftist movement in America, only stupid right wingers creating them from imagination to justify their radical and ignorant beliefs. (See above)

Djohn, you're not up to understanding the various political/economic concepts, which is why you depend on your own applications of it to your targets. You would have made a fine National Socialist or Bolshevik...they both recruited from the same basic stock.

The billboard actually does resemble true National Socialist and Bolshevik, not Marxist thinking. Both movements relied on the ignorant, so easily led and excited whose lazy or unable minds are open to demagoguery, and so can be filled with the thoughts of others. You qualify in spades, DJohn.

I could continue beating the dead horse of your intellectual grasp, but no sense in doing that here.

So no, the billboard isn't racist, it's shrill and ignorant, as is anyone who thinks it makes a valid point.

Find a new hobby, Komrade DJohn.
Here's a place you might feel at home, djohn:

http://open.salon.com/blog/marathonner45/2010/07/17/americas_racial_and_other_problems#comment_1735401

To the three people who rated the post, you can crawl under your slimy rocks, again.
Some enlightened readers may find this post more informative about socialism:
Fear of a Red Planet (Socialism isn't Communism--Really!)

And, no this billboard is not racist, but as others have pointed out, it’s aimed at ignorant people. Unfortunately, there are many more than we would like to see.
Oh my, you have all said it so well already. Ayup.
Thank you for your tepid responses (LOL) however as two thumbs pointed out NONE of you answered the questions completely. Sure, you answered the race question which is obvious to us all...except the media. But what about these questions? Any takers?

Are all three of these men considered radical leaders?

Have all three relied upon fear as a weapon to be used to garner support?

Have all three benefited from naive or uninformed constituents to do their bidding?

And once again when you finish answering these questions then please tell me how the statement made on the billboard is NOT true?
Do radical leaders prey on the fearful and naive?
Obama is not radical, he's not using fear, and he has not relied on naive and uninformed people to do his bidding.

You radical, you are a sucker for fear and you are extremely naive and monumentally uninformed.

Tepid answers?
You jackass.
You don't have the brain power to keep up with anyone who commented....except that fellow ideological simpleton, Thumbs.

Neither one of you would dare, for a moment, to take any of us on.

That's why you sit back, then make chickenshit comments in the end. You can't handle the discussion.

And yes, you would have made a wonderful National Socialist or Bolshevik. As I pointed out, they loved recruits with your lack of brainpower and overabundance of gullibility.

You should take your lame act back to the chat rooms. You can't even play in the minor leagues.

Now go get your shine box.
I think you're right Paul, DJohn needs her shine box. She studiously avoids addressing any of the points raised by any of the commenters here all fucking day long, and then, once she figures everyone's in bed, comes out and gives a comment which would make a salad-tossing little prison bitch look manly.

DJohn, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to actually reply to comments. A fuckwitted, half-assed, butt-ignorant response long after the fact, one which would embarass a learning-impaired ten year old, just makes people think you're a fucking joke, and a giant pussy as well. But then we already knew that didn't we.
I just came here to get my salad tossed.
You're such a commy fuck Harry. Do you use ranch or balsamic vinaigrette with pesto?
Or wait, let me guess....apricot marmalade!
I see no comparison between these people on the billboard whatsoever.
nana/PJ-Thank you for never disappointing. I can always count on you to become vulgar and attack me personally. Really guys....can't you use another chapter in the book? Turn the page...it's old news.

The problem both of you have is your little dream of utopia is falling apart right in front of you and your fellow Obamanites are running away from him faster than an Olympic Sprinter.

You say Obama is not a socialist he's a progressive. Ok, whatever. Progressive is a new way of saying liberal and liberals have long embraced socialism, marxism and communism. You are a dying breed.

The American People by a HUGE margin consider themselves to be more conservative than liberal and the more time that goes by under Obama the more will more in our direction.

Sorry fellas, your grand experiment failed! Just as soon as we send the rest of the cronies in congress packing we'll start working on rebuilding this country.

Obama already has a legacy and that is one of division of the very people that he claimed to offer hope to. What is going to funny is the loss of support he sees from the black community who now understand clearly what he really is: an empty suit.

Do we have social programs here in America? Yes. Have they created MORE debt and dependency on the government as a result? Yes. You cit Social Security and Medicare as if they are grand achievements? THEY ARE BOTH BROKE.

Sure, we don't have a socialistic system in America yet but what we do have is a road map being laid out to get there. This is "soft socialism" that is the foundation for more to come.

We are saddling future generations with unsustainable debt and social program payouts and while Rome is burning Obama and his clan take vacations and fiddle.

When you learn how to address people in a civil, polite and coherent manor than feel free to comment. Until then I have neither the time nor the inclination to assuage your need for confrontation. Honestly it's a bit juvenile and weak.
No, it's not a racist billboard. It would be equally reprehensible if the man in the middle were an Irish American named Barry O'Bama.

>> Answer these questions:

>> Are all three of these men considered radical leaders?

No matter who you elect, they're going to be radical in somebody's estimation. The fact that Obama gets far more criticism from the Left than Bush ever got from the Right speaks to something.

>> Have all three relied upon fear as a weapon to be used to garner support?

Name a single U.S. president who never went before the American people to explain that a policy they were pushing would prevent disastrous consequences.


>> Have all three benefited from naive or uninformed constituents to do their bidding?

Name a single government action, at any time, in any place, that didn't have the support of a few naive, uninformed constituents.

By your exceptionally loose standards, every president we've had since Washington is equally qualified to be slotted between Lenin and Hitler. Though, when reading your questions, I immediately thought of George W. Bush.
>> You say Obama is not a socialist he's a
>> progressive. Ok, whatever. Progressive
>> is a new way of saying liberal and
>> liberals have long embraced socialism,
>> marxism and communism. You are a
>> dying breed.

"Conservative is a new way of saying fascist and fascists have long embraced totalitarianism and kleptocracy."

Nope. Doesn't work that way either. Progressivism, Liberalism, Communism, Marxism, Socialism, etc., are all very different ideas, with unique, distinct intellectual histories. For example, Progressivism was actually a safeguard against Marxism in the West. It provided a measure of shared prosperity without fundamentally upsetting the capitalist system.

Of course, you don't know this. Few, if any of your teabagger pals do. They prefer their worldview simple, with clear, simple rules that can always be safely applied to any situation. Taxation bad. Immigration bad. Government bad. Private enterprise good.

>> The American People by a HUGE margin
>> consider themselves to be more conservative
>> than liberal and the more time that goes by
>> under Obama the more will more in our direction.

You are, of course, talking about polls that ask people which label they self-identify with. Those are basically worthless, in part because the Right has done a great job of turning "liberal" into a smear word.

A better metric is to ask Americans what actual policies they want to see enacted. Do people want the government to guarantee universal health coverage? By wide margins, they do. What about providing social insurance for the elderly, disabled, and unemployed? Again, by wide margins. Do Americans think the "producers" in society are overtaxed? Quite the opposite. Do they support government action on global warming? They do.

Or ask them which areas of government spending they think need to be cut. Environmental protections? No. Defense? No. Housing? No. Education? No. Medical research? No. Workplace safety? No. The only area of government spending that people strongly support cutting is foreign aid, which amounts to about 1% of government spending.

You teabaggers believe Americans want your free market utopia. The evidence to support that belief is lacking.


>> Sorry fellas, your grand experiment failed!

>> Obama already has a legacy and that is one
>> of division of the very people that he claimed
>> to offer hope to. What is going to funny is the
>> loss of support he sees from the black
>> community who now understand clearly what
>> he really is: an empty suit.

I think I've found the source of this "loss of support": your imagination. From WaPo, just last week: "Polls show that 90 percent of African Americans believe Obama is doing a good job, far higher than the president's overall 46 percent approval rating."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/10/AR2010071002907.html

>> Do we have social programs here in
>> America? Yes. Have they created
>> MORE debt and dependency on the
>> government as a result? Yes. You
>> cit Social Security and Medicare as if
>> they are grand achievements?
>> THEY ARE BOTH BROKE.

Medicare has some serious financial issues, primarily due to the skyrocketing costs of medical care (which health care reform is already beginning to address). Social Security's problems are insignificant. It will be decades before the system "goes broke," in the sense that it will have to start reducing payouts to recipients. The shortfall could be addressed by any combination of:

1) raising the retirement age.

2) lowering benefits.

3) raising the SS tax.

4) eliminating the $90K ceiling on SS taxable income.

5) means testing.



>> Sure, we don't have a socialistic system
>> in America yet but what we do have is a
>> road map being laid out to get there.
>> This is "soft socialism" that is the
>> foundation for more to come.

Name a single industry that has been permanently hijacked by the feds during Obama's time in office. Health care? Nope. Tighter regulation doesn't equate to ownership. The auto industry? Nope. GM and Chrysler are buying the government's share back.

Obama is doing "soft socialism" the way a kid snorting pixie stix is doing "soft cocaine." The only reason we're having this discussion is because you teabaggers insist on defining "Socialism" as "anytime the government does anything except cut taxes."


>> We are saddling future generations with
>> unsustainable debt and social program
>> payouts and while Rome is burning Obama
>> and his clan take vacations and fiddle.

The "vacations" thing is a cheap shot, coming from the side that defended the vacations of the vacationingest president EVER. Even your own Newsbusters doesn't dispute the fact that Bush had taken three times as much vacation time as Obama by this point in his term. But they seem to think it's very impolite to draw attention to the fact:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2010/07/17/cbs-s-reid-can-t-resist-contrasting-obama-s-vacation-time-bush-s


>> When you learn how to address
>> people in a civil, polite and coherent
>> manor [...]

Um, excuse me? You fired the first salvo of civility, politeness, and coherence, by defending a spurious comparison between a sitting president and two of the greatest mass murderers of all time, and you expect your opponents to treat it like an invitation to sit in on the McLaughlin group? Sorry, you lost the moral high ground, son.
DJohn,
I almost cried when I realized you're offended at being a low wattage ideological hack.

Your last comment was also a display of gross political ignorance. You wouldn't know a fact if it bit your keister. Crying doesn't make you appear smarter. Nothing can make you appear smarter.

Progressive is liberal is socialist is marxist is communist?

Marx rejected liberalism. Hitler raged against liberalism. You also rant against liberalism. Gee, could a connection be made?

You're a child minded fumbduck, DJohn, and don't have a clue.

You need to stay with Free Republic...and avoid places where adults exchange ideas. You're worse than merely politically ignorant, what you think you know is so wrong you'd be better off knowing nothing.

Again.....the humor is that you're the clucking propagandized radical political tool, not those you accuse.
Pual-Honestly now yur just starting to bore me. You don't ahve what it takes to offend me. I enjoy the mental gymnastics of twisting intellectual lightweights like yourself into little pretzels they can't get out of. Your time is over, your ideas are old, you are being left behind. Bye, bye.
Interesting. Nobody brought up the fact that this is a 1st Amendment issue as well. Do we still have the right to free speech? Most of you are so blind to your hatred of Bush (and some of you at this point need professional help) that you fail to realize that the same things you hated Bush for have been continued and/or improved upon by Barry.
You all criticize the Tea Party and don't realize that it is made up mainly of your neighbors and friends. You speak of racism when most if not all of you ahve never attended a Tea Party rally and just regurgitate what Chrissy and Keith shove down your throats.
Well listen to this and listen good. WE ARE NOT GOING AWAY. We are increasing in organization with each passing month and we are far more educated about the going on in this country than you will ever be. If you don't want to be a part of the movement fine. Just do us a favor and get out of our way. We'll do the heavy lifting and fix what needs to be fixing.
Most of you who did vote for this man don't have the stones to admit that you got hoodwinked, bamboozled, played...like a piano. We knew all along who he was and we told you so. However, you the enlightened ones chose to put the empty suit in The White House anyway. THIS and what is to come is your mess. Enjoy it.
DJohn,
Now that is funny. Even you don't believe that...and certainly have never done it.

I bid you farewell, until the next childishly absurd DJohn post prompts further ridicule.

PS....If you'd learn a little German, you could have made that last comment look far more authentic.