MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Marxists’

The United Nations and the Origins of “The Great Reset” | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on November 19, 2020

Eugenics

After the foundation of UNESCO in 1945, the English evolutionary biologist, eugenicist, and declared globalist Julian Huxley (the brother of Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World) became its first director.

At the launch of the organization,  Huxley called for a “scientific world humanism, global in extent” (p. 8) and asked to manipulate human evolution to a “desirable” end. Referring to dialectical materialism as “the first radical attempt at an evolutionary philosophy” (p. 11), the director of UNESCO laments that the Marxist approach to changing society was bound to fail because of its lack of an indispensable “biological component.”

Keynes was not alone. The list of advocates of breeding the human race for its own betterment is quite large and impressive. These “illiberal reformers” include, among many other well-known names, the writers H.G. Wells and G.B. Shaw, US president Theodore Roosevelt, and British prime minister Winston Churchill as well as the economist Irving Fisher and the family-planning pioneers Margaret Sanger and Bill Gates Sr., the father of Bill Gates, Microsoft cofounder and head of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

https://mises.org/wire/united-nations-and-origins-great-reset?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=6513cf7200-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-6513cf7200-228343965

Antony P. Mueller

About twenty-four hundred years ago, the Greek philosopher Plato came up with the idea constructing the state and society according to an elaborate plan. Plato wanted “wise men” (philosophers) at the helm of the government, but he made it also clear that his kind of state would need a transformation of the humans. In modern times, the promoters of the omnipotent state want to substitute Plato’s philosopher with the expert and create the new man through eugenics, which is now called transhumanism. The United Nations and its various suborganizations play a pivotal role in this project which has reached its present stage in the project of the Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset.

The Struggle for a World Government

The Great Reset did not come from nowhere. The first modern attempts to create a global institution with a governmental function was launched by the government of Woodrow Wilson who acted as US president from 1913 to 1921. Under the inspiration of Colonel Mandell House, the president’s prime advisor and best friend, Wilson wanted to establish a world forum for the period after World War I. Yet the plan of American participation in the League of Nations failed and the drive toward internationalism and establishing a new world order receded during the Roaring Twenties.

A new move toward managing a society like an organization, however, came during the Great DepressionFranklin Delano Roosevelt did not let the crisis go by without driving the agenda forward with his “New Deal.” FDR was especially interested in the special executive privileges that came with the Second World War. Resistance was almost nil when he moved forward to lay the groundwork for a new League of Nations, which was now to be named the United Nations.

Under the leadership of Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt, twenty-six nations agreed in January 1942 to the initiative of establishing a United Nations Organization (UNO), which came into existence on October 24, 1945. Since its inception, the United Nations and its branches, such as the World Bank Group and the World Health Organization (WHO), have prepared the countries of the world to comply with the goals that were announced at its foundation.

Yet the unctuous pronouncements of promoting “international peace and security,” “developing friendly relations among nations,” and working for “social progress, better living standards, and human rights” hides the agenda of establishing a world government with executive powers whose task would not be promoting liberty and free markets but greater interventionism and control through cultural and scientific organizations. This became clear with the creation of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1945.  

Eugenics

After the foundation of UNESCO in 1945, the English evolutionary biologist, eugenicist, and declared globalist Julian Huxley (the brother of Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World) became its first director.

At the launch of the organization,  Huxley called for a “scientific world humanism, global in extent” (p. 8) and asked to manipulate human evolution to a “desirable” end. Referring to dialectical materialism as “the first radical attempt at an evolutionary philosophy” (p. 11), the director of UNESCO laments that the Marxist approach to changing society was bound to fail because of its lack of an indispensable “biological component.”

With these ideas, Julian Huxley was in respectable company. Since the late nineteenth century, the call for the genetic betterment of the human race through eugenics has been gaining many prominent followers. John Maynard Keynes, for example, held the promotion of eugenics and population control as one the most important social questions and a crucial area of research.

Keynes was not alone. The list of advocates of breeding the human race for its own betterment is quite large and impressive. These “illiberal reformers” include, among many other well-known names, the writers H.G. Wells and G.B. Shaw, US president Theodore Roosevelt, and British prime minister Winston Churchill as well as the economist Irving Fisher and the family-planning pioneers Margaret Sanger and Bill Gates Sr., the father of Bill Gates, Microsoft cofounder and head of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

In his discourse at the foundation of the UNESCO, Julian Huxley was quite specific about the goals and methods of this institution. To achieve the desired “evolutionary progress” of mankind, the first step must be to stress “the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarize all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization.”

Furthermore, the institution must consider the tradeoff between the “importance of quality as against quantity” (p. 14), which means it must take into account that there is, “an optimum range of size for every human organization as for every type of organism” (p. 15). The educational, scientific, and cultural organization of the UN should give special attention to “unity-in-variety of the world’s art and culture as well as the promotion of one single pool of scientific knowledge” (p 17).

Huxley makes it clear that human diversity is not for all. Variety for “weaklings, fools, and moral deficients…cannot but be bad,” and because a “considerable percentage of the population is not capable of profiting from higher education” and also a “considerable percentage of young men” suffer from “physical weakness or mental instability” and “these grounds are often genetic in origin” (p. 20), these groups must be excluded from the efforts of advancing human progress.

In his discourse, Huxley diagnosed that at the time of his writing the “indirect effect of civilization” is rather “dysgenic instead of eugenic” and that “in any case, it seems likely that the deadweight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved” (p. 21). After all, it is “essential that eugenics should be brought entirely within the borders of science, for as already indicated, in the not very remote future the problem of improving the average quality of human beings is likely to become urgent; and this can only be accomplished by applying the findings of a truly scientific eugenics” (pp. 37–38).

Use of the Climate Threat

The next decisive step toward the global economic transformation was taken with the first report of the Club of Rome. In 1968, the Club of Rome was initiated at the Rockefeller estate Bellagio in Italy. Its first report was published in 1972 under the title “The Limits to Growth.” 

The president emeritus of the Club of Rome, Alexander King, and the secretary of the club, General Bertrand Schneider, inform in their Report of the Council of the Club of Rome that when the members of the club were in search of identifying a new enemy, they listed pollution, global warming, water shortages, and famines as the most opportune items to be blamed on humanity with the implication that humanity itself must be reduced to keep these threats in check.

Since the 1990s, several comprehensive initiatives toward a global system of control have been undertaken by the United Nations with Agenda 2021 and Agenda 2030. The 2030 Agenda was adopted by all United Nations member states in 2015. It launched its blueprint for global change with the call to achieve seventeen sustainable development goals (SDGs). The key concept is “sustainable development” that includes population control as a crucial instrument.

Saving the earth has become the slogan of green policy warriors. Since the 1970s, the horror scenario of global warming has been a useful tool in their hands to gain political influence and finally rule over public discourse. In the meanwhile, these anticapitalist groups have obtained a dominant influence in the media, the educational and judicial systems, and have become major players in the political arena.

In many countries, particularly in Europe, the so-called green parties have become a pivotal factor in the political system. Many of the representatives are quite open in their demands to make society and the economy compatible with high ecological standards that require a profound reset of the present system. 

In 1945, Huxley (p. 21) noted that it is too early to propose outright a eugenic depopulation program but advised that it will be important for the organization “to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

Huxley’s caution is no longer necessary. In the meantime, the branches of the United Nations have gained such a level of power that even originally minor UN suborganizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) have been enabled to command individual governments around the world to obey their orders. The WHO and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)—whose conditionality for loans has changed from fiscal restraint to the degree to which a country follows the rules set by the WHO—have become the supreme tandem to work toward establishing the new world order.

As Julian Huxley pointed out in his discourse in 1945, it is the task of the United Nations to do away with economic freedom, because “laisser-faire and capitalist economic systems” have “created a great deal of ugliness” (p. 38). The time has come to work toward the emergence “of a single world culture” (p. 61). This must be done with the explicit help of the mass media and the educational systems.

Conclusion

With the foundation of the United Nations and its suborganizations, the drive to advance the programs of eugenics and transhumanism took a big step forward. Together with the activities of the Club of Rome, they have stage to initiate the great reset that is going on currently. With the pronouncement of a pandemic, the goal of comprehensive government control of the economy and society has taken another leap toward transforming the economy and society. Freedom faces a new enemy. The tyranny comes under the disguise of expert rule and benevolent dictatorship. The new rulers do not justify their right to dominance because of divine providence but now claim the right to rule the people in the name of universal health and safety based on presumed scientific evidence. Author:

Antony P. Mueller

Dr. Antony P. Mueller is a German professor of economics who currently teaches in Brazil. Write an email. See his website and blog.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why Socialism Won’t End Worker “Exploitation” | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on November 4, 2020

Böhm-Bawerk’s work, however, systematically demonstrates that so-called surplus value would not be eliminated under socialism—rather it would be shifted from capitalists to the state.

https://mises.org/wire/why-socialism-wont-end-worker-exploitation?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=f9e15e994a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-f9e15e994a-228343965

Bradley Thomas

A belief still commonly held today by not just Marxists and socialists, but progressives of many stripes, is the insistence that employers are “stealing” part of their workers’ labor because the wage workers receive from their employer are less than the contribution of their labor to the final value (i.e., selling price) of the finished good.

Profit to the employer, the argument goes, is akin to theft from the workers. Profit is “surplus value” created by the worker but taken by the capitalist, they say.

This surplus value represents an exploitative “wage theft” of sorts, and, importantly, is an exploitation that would not exist under a socialist economic system, according to their argument.

But in his 1891 book The Positive Theory of Capital, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk reveals that even a system of state-owned means of production would not eradicate such “surplus value.”

Capital and Interest

For sake of clarity, it is critical to understand that what Marxists refer to as “surplus value”—or what is otherwise commonly referred to as “profit”—Böhm-Bawerk identifies as interest.

Interest, as recognized by the Austrian school, is the difference in value between present and future goods. Other things held equal, goods of like wants satisfaction are more highly valued in the present relative to the future. People will place a higher value on, say, receiving a car today relative to a promise to receive the same vehicle five years from now.

Similarly, this time preference explains why people are willing to repay, for instance, $105 back to the bank in one year’s time in exchange for receiving $100 today.

Böhm-Bawerk applies this insight on interest to the capitalist’s “profit” on his investment in productive resources like land, labor, and capital goods.

As he would describe it, the capitalist invests present goods (money) in exchange for future goods (the revenue he receives from the sale of the finished goods). More specifically, the capitalist’s money is invested in the labor, land, and capital goods utilized to create the finished products at some future date.

To better understand why this is important, it may be easier to conceive of the transaction between workers and capitalists like a loan. For instance, the capitalist, via his investment, “lends” a sum of money today to workers in the form of wages. The capitalist, as “lender,” is then paid back at a future date, but not directly from the worker’s wallet. Instead, he’s paid back from the income he receives when selling the finished product resulting from the worker’s labor.

If the income received from the finished products is larger than the money invested in labor, the difference is considered interest, as Böhm-Bawerk describes.

Conversely, the workers are like “borrowers” in a loan situation. They receive money now with a promise to “pay back” the loan in the future, except the repayment is in the form of the future finished products created by their labor.

Marxists and progressives, however, would argue that this interest represents an exploitative surplus value when it comes to the portion of the capitalists’ investment dedicated to labor.

If a worker is paid, say, $20 today for his labor which contributed to $25 of the final sale price of the finished good, that worker was shortchanged by the $5 difference by the capitalist, they’d argue.

To rectify this unjust worker exploitation, the socialists would say, society would need to abolish the private ownership over the means of production. Instead, the state would own the means of production, and in turn the exploitative  “surplus value” taken by the capitalists would be eradicated.

Interest under Socialism

Böhm-Bawerk’s work, however, systematically demonstrates that so-called surplus value would not be eliminated under socialism—rather it would be shifted from capitalists to the state.

As a starting point, Böhm-Bawerk points out that even under state-owned means of production, present goods and future goods would not be treated as having equal value, because, as he wrote, the “difference in value between present goods and future is an elementary economic phenomenon independent of any human arrangements.” Changing the economic system won’t change that basic fact.

He continues by exploring how the situation would play out under socialism: “The Socialist state, as possessing all means of production, gets all the citizens to work in its factories, and pays them a wage. It conducts, therefore, on the largest scale the buying—forbidden to private individuals—of future good Labour.”

In calling labor a “future good,” Böhm-Bawerk refers to the finished goods that come to completion at a future date resulting from labor, and therefore representing future income to the socialist state paying the wage.

“Now, on technical grounds, various portions of the labour it buys it necessarily sets to work simultaneously towards various productive ends widely removed in point of time,” Böhm-Bawerk continues. “One group of laborers, for instance, it sets to baking; another it sets to sink mining shafts, which, perhaps, assist in turning out consumption goods only twenty years later; another it sets to replant a forest.”

“Now how much can and should the Socialist state pay as wage to those workers whose labour it directs to those far-away but productive ends?” Böhm-Bawerk asks. In other words, would the “interest” on investments in labor be the same for long-term ”loans” to workers as it would for short-term “loans”?

Imagine if the socialist state attempted to eliminate the phenomena of interest in their mission to eliminate exploitative worker “surplus.”

Workers like foresters devoted to more remote finished goods would be greatly advantaged over those devoted to more immediate ends. It would result in foresters being paid the “full value” today for the product of their labor sold a hundred years from now, whereas bakers are receiving full value today for the product of their labor sold in one day’s time.

It would be like the foresters being paid 2120 wages today while bakers have to accept 2020 wages. Clearly, there would be major incentive and rewards for workers to enter lines of work dedicated to products that won’t ripen into finished products until far into the future.

As a result, Böhm-Bawerk wrote, “If the entrance to individual branches of employment were left free to all comers, everybody would be a forester and nobody would bake bread; the country would relapse to primeval forest; and the present, with its pressing needs, would remain unprovided for.”

In order to avoid such a situation, the socialist state would need to utilize the same method of discounting wages as capitalists do.

“But if the foresters are paid exactly like bakers at 4 dollars per day, they are exploited just as they are by the capitalist undertakers under the present system,” Böhm-Bawerk wrote. “In buying the future commodity, labour, an agio is put on present goods, and the labourer, instead of his future product of $100, is put off with a present wage of $4, which represents the present value of the planted saplings. But the surplus value which these saplings take on as they grow into oak trees ready for cutting, the Socialist commonwealth puts into its pocket as real interest.”

But wouldn’t the socialist state, in the ever-present mission for “equality,” make workers whole by redistributing the funds back to them?

“It is, too, well worthy of remark that an equal distribution of the interest obtained by the Socialist state does not establish the same economic conditions as if the interest had not been taken at all,” Böhm-Bawerk answers. “In this distribution it is not the persons whose labour and product the interest was due that get the interest, but entirely different people.”

For instance, the forester whose oak obtains $100 a hundred years in the future but is paid $4 in wages today yields a “surplus” of $96. Say the state evenly divides the interest it collects in the production process by giving all workers an additional $2. The forester is still far from being made whole, according to the Marxist theory of “surplus value.”

“Thus we come to a very remarkable and noteworthy result,” Böhm-Bawerk announces. “Interest, which today the Socialists abuse as a gain got by exploitation, a robbery from the products of labor, would not disappear even in the Socialist state, but would remain, in promise and potency, as between the community organized under Socialism and its labourers, and must so remain.”

Böhm-Bawerk concludes decisively that, contra Marx, “interest is not an accidental ‘historico-legal’ category, which makes its appearance only in our individualist and capitalist society, and will vanish with it.”

Instead, interest is “an economic category, which springs from elementary economic causes, and therefore, without distinction of social organization and legislation, makes its appearance wherever there is an exchange between present and future goods.”

In sum, Böhm-Bawerk dismantles the view that a system of state-owned means of production will eliminate the “exploitation” of workers’ “surplus value” that so forcefully animates Marxist ideology. Author:

Bradley Thomas

Bradley Thomas is creator of the website EraseTheState.com, and is a libertarian activist and writer with nearly fifteen years of experience researching and writing on political philosophy and economics.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Doug Casey on What Happens After The US Election

Posted by M. C. on October 9, 2020

Serious populists, socialists, Marxists, and other authoritarians can pull that off because they’re completely unbound by conventional notions of morality. They sincerely believe the ends justify the means, and nothing is off the table when it comes to gaining and maintaining power. They always say they’re working for the people and invariably promise lots of free stuff. The hoi polloi want to hear that during a crisis—like the one we’re entering.

https://internationalman.com/articles/doug-casey-on-what-happens-after-the-us-election/

by Doug Casey

Whenever a really radical group takes over—and the Democrats are serious radicals—they try to cement themselves in power. I’ve explained my reasons for believing the Democrats are going to win, and it only takes a small number of people working as a cadre to do it. I’d like to discuss what happens next.

At the time of the Russian Revolution, the hardcore Bolsheviks only numbered in the hundreds. That was enough to take control of a hundred million Russians and stay in power for 70 years until they totally ran the wheels off the economy.

The same thing happened with Fidel Castro in Cuba. He landed with only 50 or 60 guys, but once he took over the country, his apparatchiks were able to keep control of it.

Serious populists, socialists, Marxists, and other authoritarians can pull that off because they’re completely unbound by conventional notions of morality. They sincerely believe the ends justify the means, and nothing is off the table when it comes to gaining and maintaining power. They always say they’re working for the people and invariably promise lots of free stuff. The hoi polloi want to hear that during a crisis—like the one we’re entering. When things get tumultuous, once they’re in, it’s almost impossible to get them out. Democracy—which is a sham anyway in today’s world—be damned.

If the positions discussed by the twenty final contenders for their presidential nomination are any indication, the Democratic Party has been completely captured by leftists like AOC and her gang of four, who really want to change the very nature of the US. If they win, they’ll be able to do so.

In order to succeed in an American Purple Revolution, they’ll need to cement themselves in place. It takes time for cement to dry. Even though the Republicans are just ineffectual and spineless “me too-ers” with no core beliefs, the Democrats will see there’s no point in letting them regain power.

How will they ensure that? First, it seems almost certain that the Democrats will make both Washington DC and Puerto Rico states; there will then be 104 senators voting—and they will without question be left-leaning Democrats. That will also help assure control of the Electoral College—assuming it’s not abolished—since it will have two more reliably Democratic states. Second, the 20 million undocumented people—illegal aliens—now in the US will undoubtedly be made citizens; they lean heavily toward the Democrats. Third, they’ll expand the size of the Supreme Court and pack it with leftists, so any new laws they pass can’t be challenged effectively.

There could be more, of course. Perhaps they’ll reduce the voting age to 16; such is already the case in Argentina and a growing number of other countries. Young people, especially once they’re freshly indoctrinated by the State schools, always tend to favor socialist ideas. Maybe they’ll even engineer a new Constitutional Convention to change everything. The 2nd Amendment will go, of course, and the rest of the Bill of Rights would be heavily modified. Most of it is already a dead letter—but that would formalize the change once and for all. There will probably be “free” college in order to ensure an extra four years of intense leftist indoctrination for all. State-administered and paid medical care is a sure thing, as well.

These things would cement the Democrats into office for at least a generation. But please don’t think I support the Republicans. That would be like supporting tuberculosis just because it’s better than terminal cancer. Could things get violent? Yes.

There are quite a few examples, and these things can come out of almost nowhere, like the witch hysteria in Salem in the late 17th century. It was completely irrational, of course, and couldn’t have been predicted. But if you argued against the prevailing hysteria, you too could be accused and hung.

Sometimes, these things are ethnic. Look at what happened in Rwanda a generation ago. The Hutus and Tutsis had lived together, more or less amicably, for generations. Then, all of a sudden, a million people were hacked with machetes. The wave blew over, and now things are peaceful again. But if you weren’t out there slaughtering Tutsis during the hysteria, you might be accused of being a sympathizer and be killed yourself.

Sometimes, these things are religious, like the war between Christians and Muslims in Bosnia, or Lebanon, or the Central African Republic—among other places.

Sometimes, conflict is political, like the gang warfare between the National Socialists and Communists in 1920s Germany.

But what the US seems to be facing isn’t so much political, or religious, or ethnic as it is cultural, which is much more serious. The country is on the cusp of a full-blown cultural revolution. It happened during the Terror of the French Revolution. In a short period, perhaps over 20,000 people were murdered, mostly guillotined. Who would have guessed that simple regime change could get so out of control? It did, however, because it wasn’t just a political revolution. It was a cultural revolution, right down to changing the names of the months.

It famously happened in Russia in 1917, when the Bolsheviks succeeded in changing the basic structure of society. And it happened in Cambodia in the late 1970s with Pol Pot, when a quarter of the population was murdered. Who would have thought that even possible in modern times? That was also a cultural revolution against the educated and essentially anyone who wasn’t a peasant.

Of course, the mother of all social convulsions was Maoist China’s Great Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. The whole country, or at least what looked like the whole country, was bamboozled into overthrowing what they called the Four Olds—old customs, old culture, old habits, and old ideas. It went on for ten years, killed perhaps two million people, and destroyed the lives of tens of millions more.

Right now, the same meme is spreading in the US. Absolutely anything could happen after the November election, no matter who wins. But with the serious financial, economic, and social problems the US is facing, authoritarians will know how to use them to their own advantage.

The people promoting a US cultural revolution aren’t getting much resistance. The old regime—the conservatives, the Republicans—are totally intimidated. They’ve been brainwashed into accepting the righteousness of the Left’s cultural, political, economic, and social agendas. They don’t like it, but they sheepishly accept it. The schools, the NGOs, corporations, Hollywood, and the media are completely controlled by leftists and have inculcated their notions into society.

This is a real problem. When these things get out of control, the consequences can be genuinely terrible. Trends in motion tend to stay in motion—and this one is even accelerating.

America was unique among the world’s countries because it was founded on the premise of individualism and capitalism, free minds, and free markets. More than any other country, it’s lived up to those ideals.

But these people don’t want just a change of government; they want to overturn the actual things that have made America—America. There’s no other place to go once America goes.

Where can you run? In fact, the whole world is moving in the same direction.

That’s really dangerous because the president has a lot of power, including the power to make several thousand direct appointees with immense influence. Trump has been very unsuccessful in all his appointments. Most of them turn on him viciously. He might as well have picked random names out of the telephone directory. The Democrats, however, can be counted on to plug in fully vetted idealogues.

If Biden wins, he’ll probably get the Senate and the House, too. The Democrats will get a vast array of programs and departments approved. The changes will be much more radical than either Roosevelt’s New Deal or Johnson’s Great Society. Taxes will skyrocket, along with unlimited money in a world of Modern Monetary Theory. The US will get a makeover. America will cease to exist.

I don’t know how the red areas of the country will react if/when the Dems win. They’re culturally conservative, so I doubt there will be serious counterviolence. But if Trump does wind up in office, after a seriously contested election, we can count on more Portlands and Kenoshas. A domestic version of the leftist saying during the ’60s: “Two, three, many Vietnams.” It’s really serious.

The consequences of the Greater Depression will go far beyond a simple bear market. If Trump does win, no doubt the Republicans will crack down on the country in an attempt to keep order. The Dems will have cause to say they were right about his dictatorial tendencies. Then, assuming we have an election in ’24, we’ll certainly get a leftist Democrat in office.

On the (kind of) bright side, gold will go a lot higher. So will Bitcoin, partly because FX controls will be installed. And the next financial bubble will be in gold mining stocks. They’re very cheap right now; those in production are coining money. Ten-to-one shots will be thick underfoot. Buy them now, so you have the capital to insulate yourself from the bad things to come.

Then it’s game over for the Old America. Even if we don’t have an actual civil war.

Editor’s Note: Right now, the US is the most polarized it has been since the Civil War. 

If you’re wondering what comes next, then you’re not alone.

The political, economic, and social implications of the 2020 vote will impact all of us.

EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: The Day After—How to Prepare for What’s Coming After the 2020 Election

That’s exactly why bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released this urgent new video about how to prepare for what comes next. Click here to watch it now.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

A Culture War Battle Trump Can Win – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 8, 2020

Trump’s stand for tradition and against mob rule is the only stand the president can take. And it is a necessary stand. For this culture war is going to last long after this presidency. And it is going to determine what kind of country we shall become.

Will it be the great and glorious republic of the past or the social and cultural Marxist hellhole that is the promise of the mobs?

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/07/patrick-j-buchanan/a-culture-war-battle-trump-can-win/

By

Speaking at Mount Rushmore on Friday, and from the White House lawn on Saturday, July 4, Donald Trump recast the presidential race.

He seized upon an issue that can turn his fortunes around, and the wounded howls of the media testify to the power of his message.

Standing beneath the mammoth carved images of Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, Trump declared: “Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our founders, deface our most sacred memorials, and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities.”

These mobs are made up of Marxists, criminals and anarchists. Their cause is a cultural revolution. “Their goal is not a better America. Their goal is the end of America.”

After reciting the achievements of his four predecessors, Trump added: “No movement that seeks to dismantle these treasured American legacies can possibly have a love of America at its heart.”

Then he put it right into the basement hideaway of Joe Biden: “No person who remains quiet at the destruction of this resplendent heritage can possibly lead us to a better future.”

Trump is calling out Biden’s silence in the face of an onslaught against our heroes and history as manifest political cowardice that makes Biden a moral accomplice of the mobs.

One day, Basement Boy is going to have to speak out.

Where was Biden when Trump was standing up for America on Independence Day?

As his Party tweeted that Trump’s trip to Mount Rushmore was aimed at “glorifying white supremacy,” Biden was wailing about the need “to rip the roots of systemic racism” out of America.

Does that sound like Harry Truman or JFK?

So the lines are drawn for 2020.

On one side are those who believe America is a good country, the greatest the world has ever seen, and that the men who created this miracle should be respected, revered and remembered.

That is not the view of the left wing of the Democratic Party.

For even as the fireworks were exploding on the Mall, a Baltimore mob was tearing down, smashing up and dumping into the Inner Harbor a landmark statue of Christopher Columbus.

That statue stood next to the Baltimore neighborhood of Little Italy and had been dedicated in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan.

Do the haters of Columbus think that destroying Columbus’ statues across America will not anger and alienate Americans of Italian descent who revere the explorer? Does Biden think Italian-Americans will reward a candidate and party that will not renounce the mob that did this?

As the left wing of the Democratic Party embraces the “defund the police” movement, how long will it hold onto voters who are today watching murder rates climb to new records?

During Independence Day weekend in Chicago, 80 people were shot, and 17 of them killed.

In New York City, the number of shooting victims has risen this year by 50%. In June, there were 250 shootings, an increase of 150 over June 2019. Mayor Bill de Blasio’s response: cutting $1 billion from the NYPD budget.

Over July 4, an armed Black militia arrived at the reopening of the Stone Mountain monument in Georgia, which features huge carved images of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. They want its destruction.

Trump is charged with “dividing the nation.”

But it is not Trump trashing cops or providing cover for “protests” marked by looting and arson. Nor is it Trump tearing down memorials and monuments to the great Americans of the past.

Where the Democratic Party has been a portrait in indecisiveness, Trump has been clear. He stands with the cops who have gone through a hellish six weeks. He stands against defacing statues and destroying monuments. He has denounced the rioting, looting and arson that have accompanied protests the media never cease to describe as “peaceful.”

It is not Trump who is dividing America. He has pledged to resist the rampages with all the weapons in his presidential arsenal.

There are four months until November’s election, 18 weeks until America decides: Do we want to continue an era of protests that revert to rioting, looting and arson? Do we want to see police departments further constricted and trashed as neo-fascist?

Do we wish to see statues of presidents from Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant to Teddy Roosevelt trashed by mobs that hate America, hate her heroes and hate her history?

Trump’s stand for tradition and against mob rule is the only stand the president can take. And it is a necessary stand. For this culture war is going to last long after this presidency. And it is going to determine what kind of country we shall become.

Will it be the great and glorious republic of the past or the social and cultural Marxist hellhole that is the promise of the mobs?

Trump just played the patriotism card, the correct card to play, and it may just work for his reelection.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Pope Francis: Liberation Theologian

Posted by M. C. on February 8, 2020

Others were traditional welfare state redistributionists. Bergoglio was among this group.

Since then, the percentage of world’s poor has been reduced to under 10%. The Bookings Institution, a Keynesian, middle-of-the-road think tank, recently announced this.

This is what the present world economy is delivering. But the Pope doesn’t see it this way. He thinks the world needs a new taxation system and a new ethic.

This week, the Pope called for international economic redistribution. I have reprinted his speech here.

https://www.garynorth.com/public/20510.cfm

Gary North

Pope Francis is a liberation theologian.

Liberation theology was popular with a hard core of far-Left Catholic priests in Latin America from the mid-1960’s until December 25, 1991. A few of them were outright Marxists. They believed in armed revolution against the state. The Pope, then Father Bergoglio, , criticized this interpretation of Christianity.

Others were traditional welfare state redistributionists. Bergoglio was among this group. With the disintegration of the Soviet economy in the late 1980’s, followed by Gorbachev’s announcement of the suicide of the USSR on December 25, 1991, liberation theology ceased to be the latest and the greatest. It became passé overnight. It began to fade.

Bergoglio was the head of the Jesuit order in Argentina in the mid-1970’s. A decade earlier, the Jesuits had been a formidable force for theological conservatism within the Catholic Church. Then, within ten years, the Jesuits moved to the left theologically and politically. They abandoned four centuries of tradition in a decade. The story of this astounding transformation is recorded in Malachi Martin’s book, The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church (1987). Martin was appalled by the change. In contrast, Garry Wills applauded it in his book, Bare Ruined Choirs: Doubt, Prophecy, and Radical Religion (1972), which I reviewed in The Wall Street Journal.

From the foundation of the Jesuits in the mid-16th century until about 1965, the Jesuit order had been militant in its defense of the papacy. Pope Paul VI (1963-78) radicalized the Jesuits. He was the most theologically liberal Pope in history. He was also the most radical in terms of his social views. Pope Francis is extending his legacy after a four-decade gap. His predecessor, Benedict XVI, was the most conservative Pope since Pius XII, who died in 1958. That was a gap of almost five decades. He was a staunch opponent of liberation theology. The magnitude of this change is conveyed in the new Netflix movie, The Two Popes. The dialogue is fictional, but the theological confrontation was real. To get some idea of the change, imagine Calvin Coolidge deciding that the best person to follow him as President would be Franklin Roosevelt.

THE POPE’S CALL TO ACTION

This week, the Pope called for international economic redistribution. I have reprinted his speech here.

Last June, the Vatican posted his statement on the need to care for the poor. In that statement, he did not mention the need for state action. I have posted it here. In terms of traditional Catholic views on voluntary charity, there was nothing new in the presentation from a theological standpoint. But his language and his rhetoric was clearly that of liberation theology.

We can build any number of walls and close our doors in the vain effort to feel secure in our wealth, at the expense of those left outside. It will not be that way for ever. The “day of the Lord”, as described by the prophets (cf. Am 5:18; Is 2-5; Jl 1-3), will destroy the barriers created between nations and replace the arrogance of the few with the solidarity of many. The marginalization painfully experienced by millions of persons cannot go on for long. Their cry is growing louder and embraces the entire earth. In the words of Father Primo Mazzolari: “the poor are a constant protest against our injustices; the poor are a powder keg. If it is set on fire, the world will explode”.

This statement was issued to promote the Church’s World Day of the Poor: November 17. Why his statement was published five months early, I do not know.

His latest declaration reveals his commitment to a non-Marxist, meaning non-revolutionary, form of liberation theology. It is also consistent with what is sometimes called the new social gospel, best represented in the United States by political activist Jim Wallis. I devote a department to his theology and his tax-exempt political mobilization. It is here. The Pope has a lot more followers than Jim Wallis does. But his rhetoric is the same.

Structures of sin today include repeated tax cuts for the richest people, often justified in the name of investment and development; tax havens for private and corporate profits; and, of course, the possibility of corruption by some of the world’s largest corporations, not infrequently in line with some ruling political sector.Every year hundreds of billions of dollars, which should be paid in taxes to finance health care and education, accumulate in tax haven accounts, thus preventing the possibility of dignified and sustained development for all social actors.

Impoverished people in heavily indebted countries are suffering from overwhelming tax burdens and cuts in social services as their governments pay off insensitive and unsustainable debts. In fact, public debt incurred, in not a few cases to promote and encourage a country’s economic and productive development, can become a factor that damages and harms the social fabric. When it ends up being directed towards another purpose.

THE ELIMINATION OF POVERTY

One of the most astounding facts of the last two decades is the dramatic reduction in life-threatening poverty around the world. Nothing like this has ever taken place in man’s history. It is becoming a well-known phenomenon because of the remarkable 2007 TED talk video by Swedish statistician Hans Rosling.

Since then, the percentage of world’s poor has been reduced to under 10%. The Bookings Institution, a Keynesian, middle-of-the-road think tank, recently announced this.

Looking at poverty trends worldwide, World Data Lab now estimates that on New Year’s Day 2019, just under 600 million people across the world (excluding Syria) will live in extreme poverty. By 2030, this figure is expected to fall to some 436 million.The good news is that 2019 will start with the lowest prevalence of extreme poverty ever recorded in human history—less than 8 percent. In all likelihood, this level will set the “ceiling” for a new era of even lower single-digit global poverty rates for the foreseeable future.

This is what the present world economy is delivering. But the Pope doesn’t see it this way. He thinks the world needs a new taxation system and a new ethic.

You, who have so kindly gathered here, are the world’s financial leaders and economic specialists. Together with your colleagues, you help set global tax rules, inform the global public about our economic condition, and advise the world’s governments on budgets. They know first-hand what the injustices of our current global economy are, or the injustices of individual countries.Let us work together to end these injustices. When the multilateral credit agencies advise the different nations, it is important to take into account the high concepts of fiscal justice, responsible public budgets in their indebtedness and, above all, the effective and leading promotion of the poorest in the social network. Remind them of their responsibility to provide development assistance to impoverished nations and debt relief for heavily indebted nations. Remind them of the imperative to stop man-made climate change, as all nations have promised, so that we do not destroy the foundations of our Common House.

The Pope’s mindset was formed by 1975. His worldview has not changed. His rhetoric has not changed. Meanwhile, the world is getting steadily richer. The poor are steadily getting richer.

While I don’t have a biblical passage to support the following, I recommend to Pope Francis a familiar slogan in American life: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

THE BIBLE PROMOTES CAPITALISM

For over half a century, I have been arguing that the system of property rights mandated by the commandment against theft (Exodus 20:15) and also by the Mosaic laws defending private property inevitably produce a free market society when they are widely respected by the public and defended by civil government. In turn, free market society inevitably increases per capita wealth. I have defended this position in 31 volumes of economic commentaries on the Bible. I have defended it in four volumes of detailed economic analysis.

The Pope does not believe that biblical law and biblical ethics promote a private property social order which in turn produces capitalism. The theologians in Salamanca, Spain, argued that this was the case back in the 1500’s. But the Pope either is unaware of this or does not believe what the school of Salamanca taught.

I hope that a future Pope spends his years as a priest, a bishop, and a cardinal reading and re-reading the economics books written by members of the school of Salamanca. Even better, maybe he will read my books. I can always hope. After all, I’m postmillennial.

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Taboo Against Truth

Posted by M. C. on December 10, 2019

Of Winston Churchill, Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote:

He turned over to the Soviet command the Cossack corps of 90,000 men. Along with them he also handed over many wagonloads of old people, women, and children.… This great hero, monuments to whom will in time cover all England, ordered that they, too, be surrendered to their deaths.24

The great crime that is today virtually forgotten was the expulsion starting in 1945 of the Germans from their centuries-old homelands in East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia, Sudetenland, and elsewhere. About 16 million persons were displaced, with about 2 million of them dying in the process.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/12/ralph-raico/732503-2/

By

[First published as “The Taboo Against Truth: Holocausts and the Historians,” Liberty, September 1989.]

Speaking truth to power” is not easy when you support that power. Perhaps this is the reason why so few Western historians are willing to tell the whole truth about state crimes during this century.

Last fall [1988 —Ed.] the Moscow News reported the discovery by two archaeologist-historians of mass graves at Kuropaty, near Minsk, in the Soviet republic of Byelorussia.1 The scholars at first estimated that the victims numbered around 102,000, a figure that was later revised to 250–300,000.2 Interviews with older inhabitants of the village revealed that, from 1937 until June 1941, when the Germans invaded, the killings never stopped. “For five years, we couldn’t sleep at night because of all the shooting,” one witness said.

Then in March, a Soviet commission finally conceded that the mass graves at Bykovnia, outside of Kiev, were the result not of the Nazis’ work, as formerly was maintained, but of the industry of Stalin’s secret police. Some 200–300,000 persons were killed at Bykovnia, according to unofficial estimates.3

These graves represent a small fraction of the human sacrifice that an elite of revolutionary Marxists offered up to their ideological fetish. How many died under Stalin alone, from the shootings, the terror famine, and the forced-labor camps, is uncertain. Writing in a Moscow journal, Roy Medvedev, the dissident Soviet Marxist, put the number at around 20 million, a figure the sovietologist Stephen F. Cohen views as conservative.4 Robert Conquest’s estimate is between 20 million and 30 million or more,5 while Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko suggests 41 million deaths between 1930 and 1941.6

By everyone’s account, most of the victims were killed before the United States and Britain welcomed the Soviet Union as their ally in June 1941. Yet by then, the evidence concerning at least very widespread Communist killings was available to anyone willing to listen.

If glasnost proceeds and if the whole truth about the Lenin and Stalin eras comes to light, educated opinion in the West will be forced to reassess some of its most deeply cherished views. On a minor note, Stalinist sympathizers like Lillian Hellman, Frieda Kirchwey, and Owen Lattimore will perhaps not be lionized quite as much as before. More important, there will have to be a reevaluation of what it meant for the British and American governments to have befriended Soviet Russia in the Second World War and heaped fulsome praise on its leader. That war will inevitably lose some of its glory as the pristinely pure crusade led by the larger-than-life heroes Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Inevitably, too, comparisons with what is commonly known as the Holocaust will emerge.

The “Dispute of Historians”

Such comparisons have been at the center of the raging controversy in the Federal Republic of Germany that has been labeled the Historikerstreit, or dispute of historians, and has now become an international cause célèbre. It erupted primarily because of the work of Ernst Nolte, of the Free University of Berlin, author of the highly acclaimed Three Faces of Fascism, published in the United States in 1966. In several important essays, in a large book published in 1987, The European Civil War, 1917–1945, and in a volume of responses to his critics,7 Nolte declined to treat the Nazi massacre of the Jews in the conventional fashion.

These graves represent a small fraction of the human sacrifice that an elite of revolutionary Marxists offered up to their ideological fetish.

He refused, that is, to deal with it metaphysically, as a unique object of evil, existing there in a small segment of history, in a nearly perfect vacuum, with at most merely ideological links to racist and Social Darwinist thought of the preceding century. Instead, without denying the importance of ideology, he attempted to set the Holocaust in the context of the history of Europe in the first decades of the 20th century. His aim was in no way to excuse the mass murder of the Jews, or to diminish the guilt of the Nazis for this crime dreadful beyond words. But he insisted that this mass murder must not lead us to forget others, particularly those that might stand in a causal relationship to it.

Briefly, Nolte’s thesis is that it was the Communists who introduced into modern Europe the awful fact and terrifying threat of the killing of civilians on a vast scale, implying the extermination of whole categories of persons. (One Old Bolshevik, Zinoviev, spoke openly as early as 1918 of the need to eliminate 10,000,000 of the people of Russia.) In the years and decades following the Russian Revolution, middle-class, upper-class, Catholic, and other Europeans were well aware of this fact, and for them especially the threat was a very real one. This helps to account for the violent hatred shown to their own domestic Communists in the various European countries by Catholics, conservatives, fascists, and even Social Democrats.

Nolte’s thesis continues: those who became the Nazi elite were well-informed regarding events in Russia, via White Russian and Baltic German émigrés (who even exaggerated the extent of the first, Leninist atrocities). In their minds, as in those of right-wingers generally, the Bolshevik acts were transformed, irrationally, into Jewish acts, a transformation helped along by the existence of a high proportion of Jews among the early Bolshevik leaders. (Inclined to anti-Semitism from the start, the rightists ignored the fact that, as Nolte points out, the proportion among the Mensheviks was higher, and, of course, the great majority of the European Jews were never Communists.) A similar, ideologically mandated displacement, however, occurred among the Communists themselves: after the assassination of Uritsky and the attempted assassination of Lenin by Social Revolutionaries, for instance, hundreds of “bourgeois” hostages were executed.

The Communists never ceased proclaiming that all of their enemies were tools of a single conspiracy of the “world bourgeoisie.”

The facts regarding the Ukrainian terror famine of the early 1930s and the Stalinist gulag were also known in broad outline in European right-wing circles. When all is said and done, Nolte concludes, “the Gulag came before Auschwitz.” If it had not been for what happened in Soviet Russia, European fascism, especially Nazism and the Nazi massacre of the Jews,8 would most probably not have been what they were.

The Onslaught on Nolte

The rest here

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Mr. Bill and the Marxists – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on November 15, 2019

Mr. Bill no doubt felt smug and oh-so-holier-than-capitalists for winking at a holdup—of himself, no less. But I speak as one suffering the effects of Gates’ purloined billions. And I take his insouciance towards financing such evil personally.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/11/becky-akers/mr-bill-and-the-marxists/

By

Marxism has claimed its myriads of victims, but none of them are sorrier or more craven than American billionaires. These guys don’t just turn the other cheek to communists: they kneel and kiss their butts. Then they carefully wipe any spittle from their enemies’ posteriors, chirping about democracy and equality. As if abject submission has ever protected anyone anywhere.

I don’t understand the relationship between staggering affluence and cojones, but for sure it’s an inverse one. You’d think it would be the other way round: I mean, how many folks will tell a billionaire to take a hike? Even fewer will risk punching him out.

Surely Mr. Billionaire understands this; surely the hordes he employs, whether professionally or personally, have shown him that when boots are licked, it’s the Guccis on his own feet, not the hoi polloi’s $30 Frogg Toggs, that wind up glistening.

But no. Mr. Bill fawns and cringes when Marxists rudely—but I repeat myself—pry into his finances. He cowers as they rain their blows, plasters a sick, “please-don’t-hit-me-too-hard” smile on his face, and refuses to turn the tables on his interrogators, however easy it may be and no matter how richly they deserve it.

Indeed, an actual Mr. Bill—as in Gates—provides the latest example. Microsoft’s co-founder is a less-than-sympathetic character: not only does he grovel to his persecutors, “I’m all for super progressive tax systems,” but when Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren schemes to steal his fortune, he defends neither it nor himself.

So we will. Because theft is theft, whether it’s a buck or a billion, whether the mugger in the alleyway despoils us or the IRS does.

For starters, Fauxcahontas lives in a glass mansion: her estimated worth in 2019 is “$8.75 million…, a figure that is based on various financial statements, most notably the release of her federal tax returns…” Yep, small potatoes next to Mr. Bill’s stash—but lavish when compared to a serf’s, as is true of all Our Rulers. Why doesn’t this hypocrite donate her $8.75 million before coveting other people’s money?

Second, little more than a year ago, a genetics test that Fauxcahontas herself initiated proved she’s a liar who parlayed one measly ancestor from an indigenous tribe into a professorship. (N.B: most Americans whose families arrived here in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries can boast of such a forbear.) How is it that this cheat dares show her face, let alone cloaks thievery in jargon and sanctimony? Why aren’t Americans shunning and mocking her? Why aren’t they boycotting a media that covers rather than condemns her? I’m no fan of The Donald, but at least he ridicules this mendacious Marxist.

Gates should take a lesson. And yet he’s running scared. Responding last week to Fauxcahontas’ threats of grand theft, he snivelled, “‘I’ve paid more than anyone in taxes. If I had to pay $20 billion, it’s fine”…

Mr. Bill no doubt felt smug and oh-so-holier-than-capitalists for winking at a holdup—of himself, no less. But I speak as one suffering the effects of Gates’ purloined billions. And I take his insouciance towards financing such evil personally.

Mr. Bill, your taxes buy the US government more bureaucrats and more programs to destroy my freedom. They supply the NSA with more spooks to eavesdrop on my communications. They hire more Thieves and Sexual Assailants to molest passengers at airports, depriving me of overseas travel and of quick, easy hops around the ol’ Homeland. They purchase propaganda from the Department of Brainwashing–ah, Education and the FCC to whitewash these crimes while fooling many of my friends and family. Thanks in part to you, Mr. Bill, revolt against such revolting tyranny appears unlikely.

And this is only domestically: let’s survey the mischief your opulence funds abroad. It recruits cannon fodder for the US Empire. It then arms those kids to slaughter innocents before they themselves bleed out in some desert waste 6000 miles from home. Believe me, Mr. Bill, if you ever watch parents grieve over a body-bag, you’ll fight to keep every last dollar in your wallet, where it belongs.

Meanwhile, the fodder that survives comes home to join the cops, the TSA, or other occupying forces. And again, the wealth your state and local governments loot from you not only pays those cops to boss or even arrest and cage me, it enlists new ones.

Gates does have his limits, however: he balks “when you say I should pay $100 billion[.] OK, then I’m starting to do a little math about what I have left over…” But he apparently feared he’d gone too far for our latter-day Stalins and added, “I’m just kidding.”

Go ahead and puke while I admonish Mr. Bill. Yo, Jellyfish: you’ve already conceded that the kleptomaniacal State should pick your pockets. Ergo, the predators, not you, decide how much they’ll lift. That’s why a reporter helpfully informs us, “Bill Gates’ net worth currently stands at $106 billion.” Capisce, Mr. Bill? We are to infer that robbing you is perfectly OK. That’s the way the State in general and Marxism in particular works.

Of course, no advocacy of communism is complete unless Bernie Sanders contributes his senseless two cents. “Say Bill Gates was actually taxed $100 billion,” the old coot  “tweeted on Thursday. ‘We could end homelessness and provide safe drinking water to everyone in this country.’”

Um, Coot? The federal government will extort over $3.4 trillion from us this year (scroll to page 117 at the link). That means “we” already have $100 billion—in fact, many multiples of $100 billion. Perhaps handing Leviathan even more bucks is a waste, ya think?

Regrettably, instead of cutting his losses, Mr. Bill also “respond[ed] to a question about whether he would speak with [Fauxcahontas] about his concerns”: “You know, I’m not sure how open-minded she is or that she’d be willing to sit down with someone who has large amounts of money…”

Oh, honestly, Mr. Bill: how did anyone as naive as you become CEO of Microsoft? Fauxcahontas is a politician. And even the most negligible amount of money, to say nothing of assets as sizable as yours, snares politicians more fatally than heroin does addicts: “Warren was eager [oh, I’ll bet] to have a sit-down with the Microsoft billionaire, as she said in a tweet Wednesday. ‘I’m always happy to meet with people, even if we have different views. @BillGates, if we get the chance, I’d love to explain exactly how much you’d pay under my wealth tax. (I promise it’s not $100 billion.)’…”

Yeah, more like $106 billion.

Be seeing you

mark of the beast

The Mark of the Beast

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Nazis Were Marxists

Posted by M. C. on August 12, 2019

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/11/the_nazis_were_maxists.html#ixzz5w3Sa1N6w

By Bruce Walker

The Nazis were Marxists, no matter what our tainted academia and corrupt media wishes us to believe.  Nazis, Bolsheviks, the Ku Klux Klan, Maoists, radical Islam and Facists — all are on the Left, something that should be increasingly apparent to decent, honorable people in our times. The Big Lie which places Nazis on some mythical Far Right was created specifically so that there would be a bogeyman manacled on the wrists of those who wish us to move “too far” in the direction of Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater. 

The truth about the Nazis was that they were the antithesis of Reagan and Goldwater.  Let us consider the original Nazi movement and its evolution.  The National Socialist movement began in Austria with Walter Riehl, Rudolf Jung and Hans Knirsch, who were, as M.W. Fodor relates in his book South of Hitler, the three men who founded the National Socialist Party in Austria, and hence indirectly in Germany.  In November, 1910, these men launched what they called the Deutschsoziale Arbeiterpartei. That party was successful politically.  It established its program at Inglau in 1914.

What was this program?  It  was against social and political reaction, for the working class, against the church and against the capitalist classes.  This party eventually adopted the name Deutsche Nationalsozialistche Arbeiter Partei, which, except for the order of the words, is the same name as “Nazi.” In May 1918, the German National Socialist Workers Party selected the Harkendruez, or swastika, as its symbol.  Both Hitler and Anton Drexler, the nominal founder of the Nazi Party, corresponded with this earlier, anti-capitalistic and anti-church party.

 

Hitler, before the First World War, was highly sympathetic to socialism.  Emile Lorimer, in his 1939 book, What Hitler Wants, writes about Hitler during these Vienna years that Hitler already had felt great sympathy for the trade unions and antipathy toward employers.  He attended sessions of the Austrian Parliament.  Hitler was not, as many have portrayed him, a political neophyte in 1914.

 

The very term “National Socialist” was not invented by Hitler nor was it unique to Germany.  Eduard Benes, President of Czechoslovakia at the time of the Munich Conference, was a leader of the Czechoslovak National Socialist Party. Ironically, at the time of the Munich Conference, out of the fourteen political parties in the Snemovna (the lower chamber of the Czechoslovakian legislature) the party most opposed to Hitler was the Czechoslovak National Socialist Party. The Fascist Party in Czechoslovakia was also anti-Nazi.

 

The first and only platform of the National Socialist German Workers Party called for very Leftist economic policies.  Among other things, this platform called for the death penalty for war profiteering, the confiscation of all income unearned by work, the acquisition of a controlling interest by the people in all big business organizations and so on.  Otto Strasser, the brother and fellow Nazi of Gregor Strasser, who was the second leading Nazi for much of the Nazi Party’s existence, in his 1940 book, Hitler and I revealed his ideology before he found a home in the Nazi Party.  In his own words Otto Strasser wrote: “I was a young student of law and economics, a Left Wing student leader.”

Consider the following text from that platform adopted in Munich on February 20, 1920 and ask yourself whether it sounds like the notional Right or the very real Left: 

“We ask that the 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 its confines and be for the good of all.  Therefore, we demand an end to the power of the financial interests.  We demand profit sharing in big business.  We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.  The government must undertake the improvement of public health.”
Consider these remarks of Nazi leaders.  Hitler on May 1, 1927: 
 “We are socialists.  We are enemies of today’s capitalistic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” 
Goebbels, who was the only major Nazi leader who stayed with Hitler to the very end, wrote in Der Angriff in 1928:


“The worker in a capitalist state – that is his greatest misfortune – no longer a human being, no longer a creator, no longer a shaper of things.  He has become a machine.”

That image sounds almost identical to what Charlie Chaplin, a Marxist, was portraying in his caricature of industrial society, Modern Times.  In 1930, Hitler tasked Hans Buchner to clarify what Nazi economic policies were.  What did Buchner elect to call the economic policies of the Nazis?  “State socialism.” …

Karl Lowenstein in the 1940 book, Governments of Continental Europe, writes that there was a convergence in Bolshevism and National Socialism regarding private property, and that this was clear long before Hitler and Stalin became allies.  Such things as freedom of contract, inviolability of private property, and the right to dispose of one’s estate were cited as examples of the deep-reaching restrictions in both totalitarian states. National Socialists were socialists.  They had nothing but contempt for what socialists call “capitalism” or what normal people call economic freedom.  While it is convenient to portray Nazis as beholden to industrialists and militarists, even from the earliest days Nazis loathed not only industrialists in general but armament makers in particular.  The Nazis raised taxes, punished profits, reduced the power of owners, of managers, and of directors and championed the right of the state or the party to “protect” Germany and German workers from abuses of “capitalists
Nazis were Marxists, through and through.  Although Nazi condemned Bolshevism, the particular incarnation of Marx in Russia, and although the Nazis often bickered and fought with Fascism, the particular incarnation of Marx in Italy, Hitler and his ghastly accomplices were always and forever absolutely committed to that which we have come to call the “Far Left.”  Nazis were Marxists.
Be seeing you

vene social

Is that Sean Penn?

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »