MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Socialism’

The Middle of the Road Leads to Socialism

Posted by M. C. on October 30, 2021

https://mises.org/library/middle-road-leads-socialism

Ludwig von Mises

PDF iconmiddle_of_the_road_leads_to_socialism_mises.pdf

The fundamental dogma of all brands of socialism and communism is that the market economy or capitalism is a system that hurts the vital interests of the immense majority of people for the sole benefit of a small minority of rugged individualists. It condemns the masses to progressing impoverishment. It brings about misery, slavery, oppression, degradation and exploitation of the working men, while it enriches a class of idle and useless parasites.

This doctrine was not the work of Karl Marx. It had been developed long before Marx entered the scene. Its most successful propagators were not the Marxian authors, but such men as Carlyle and Ruskin, the British Fabians, the German professors, and the American Institutionalists. And it is a very significant fact that the correctness of this dogma was contested only by a few economists who were very soon silenced and barred from access to the universities, the press, the leadership of political parties and, first of all, public office. Public opinion by and large accepted the condemnation of capitalism without any reservation.

1. Socialism

But, of course, the practical political conclusions which people drew from this dogma were not uniform. One group declared that there is but one way to wipe out these evils, namely to abolish capitalism entirely. They advocate the substitution of public control of the means of production for private control. They aim at the establishment of what is called socialism, communism, planning, or state capitalism. All these terms signify the same thing. No longer should the consumers, by their buying and abstention from buying, determine what should be produced, in what quantity and of what quality. Henceforth a central authority alone should direct all production activities.

2. Interventionism, Allegedly a Middle-of-the-Road Policy

A second group seems to be less radical. They reject socialism no less than capitalism. They recommend a third system, which, as they say, is as far from capitalism as it is from socialism, which as a third system of society’s economic organization, stands midway between the two other systems, and while retaining the advantages of both, avoids the disadvantages inherent in each. This third system is known as the system of interventionism. In the terminology of American politics it is often referred to as the middle-of-the-road policy.

What makes this third system popular with many people is the particular way they choose to look upon the problems involved. As they see it, two classes, the capitalists and entrepreneurs on the one hand and the wage earners on the other hand, are arguing about the distribution of the yield of capital and entrepreneurial activities. Both parties are claiming the whole cake for themselves. Now, suggest these mediators, let us make peace by splitting the disputed value equally between the two classes. The State as an impartial arbiter should interfere, and should curb the greed of the capitalists and assign a part of the profits to the working classes. Thus it will be possible to dethrone the moloch capitalism without enthroning the moloch of totalitarian socialism.

Yet this mode of judging the issue is entirely fallacious. The antagonism between capitalism and socialism is not a dispute about the distribution of booty. It is a controversy about which two schemes for society’s economic organization, capitalism or socialism, is conducive to the better attainment of those ends which all people consider as the ultimate aim of activities commonly called economic, viz., the best possible supply of useful commodities and services. Capitalism wants to attain these ends by private enterprise and initiative, subject to the supremacy of the public’s buying and abstention from buying on the market. The socialists want to substitute the unique plan of a central authority for the plans of the various individuals. They want to put in place of what Marx called the “anarchy of production” the exclusive monopoly of the government. The antagonism does not refer to the mode of distributing a fixed amount of amenities. It refers to the mode of producing all those goods which people want to enjoy.

The conflict of the two principles is irreconcilable and does not allow for any compromise. Control is indivisible. Either the consumers’ demand as manifested on the market decides for what purposes and how the factors of production should be employed, or the government takes care of these matters. There is nothing that could mitigate the opposition between these two contradictory principles. They preclude each other. Interventionism is not a golden mean between capitalism and socialism. It is the design of a third system of society’s economic organization and must be appreciated as such.

3. How Interventionism Works

It is not the task of today’s discussion to raise any questions about the merits either of capitalism or of socialism. I am dealing today with interventionism alone. And I do not intend to enter into an arbitrary evaluation of interventionism from any preconceived point of view. My only concern is to show how interventionism works and whether or not it can be considered as a pattern of a permanent system for society’s economic organization.

The interventionists emphasize that they plan to retain private ownership of the means of production, entrepreneurship and market exchange. But, they go on to say, it is peremptory to prevent these capitalist institutions from spreading havoc and unfairly exploiting the majority of people. It is the duty of government to restrain, by orders and prohibitions, the greed of the propertied classes lest their acquisitiveness harm the poorer classes. Unhampered or laissez-faire capitalism is an evil. But in order to eliminate its evils, there is no need to abolish capitalism entirely. It is possible to improve the capitalist system by government interference with the actions of the capitalists and entrepreneurs. Such government regulation and regimentation of business is the only method to keep off totalitarian socialism and to salvage those features of capitalism which are worth preserving. On the ground of this philosophy, the interventionists advocate a galaxy of various measures. Let us pick out one of them, the very popular scheme of price control.

4. How Price Control Leads to Socialism

See the rest here

Ludwig von Mises

Ludwig von Mises was the acknowledged leader of the Austrian school of economic thought, a prodigious originator in economic theory, and a prolific author. Mises’s writings and lectures encompassed economic theory, history, epistemology, government, and political philosophy. His contributions to economic theory include important clarifications on the quantity theory of money, the theory of the trade cycle, the integration of monetary theory with economic theory in general, and a demonstration that socialism must fail because it cannot solve the problem of economic calculation. Mises was the first scholar to recognize that economics is part of a larger science in human action, a science that he called praxeology.

Be seeing you

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

Central Banks and Socialism Are Forever Linked Together | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on October 24, 2021

This momentous fact has not escaped the attention of socialist theorists. The Saint-Simonians in France had already grasped it at the beginning of the nineteenth century. They understood that the economy of a country could be controlled particularly easily and safely with the help of the printing press. A few years later, the demand for the “centralization of credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly” soon also held center stage in the 1848 Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels.

https://mises.org/wire/central-banks-and-socialism-are-forever-linked-together

Jörg Guido Hülsmann

It is well known that socialism is a shortage economy. It is the economy of inefficiency and corruption, of indifferent workers and of bigwigs, of lacking spare parts, of lacking funds, of failure, of permanent reform needs and of constantly unsuccessful reforms. This concerns in particular total socialism, as it was realized in the Soviet Union or under National Socialism. But it is no less evident in the numerous partial socialisms that are featured in the real existing welfare state, in its numerous state “systems.” Budget deficits year in, year out despite high contributions—that is the reality in the state pension system and in the state health system. The state education system is similar: declining student performance and growing illiteracy despite sky-rocketing expenditure. No private entrepreneur could afford to let the costs get out of hand in such a way. Anyone who is in competition has to keep improving. Only those who have a legal monopoly and can make use of taxpayers’ money if necessary do not need it.

Now there is one partial socialism that stands out from the usual array of failures. Here we see gains instead of losses. Here we often find all the other signs of a successfully run company, from the private legal form to the pinstripe-filled boardroom. We are talking about central banking. The term “central bank” actually refers quite clearly to a centrally planned economy. But when people talk about the Fed, the ECB or other central banks today, hardly anyone thinks that they are talking about an offspring of the socialist spirit. On the contrary, central banks are typically viewed as particularly “capitalist.” After all, what would be more capitalist than money? And what would be more closely related to money than a bank?

Upon closer inspection, however, it appears that this connotation may not be entirely correct. In the unbridled market economy, private property and competition prevail. Central banks, on the other hand, are usually state institutions. Even those central banks that are private-law organizations (as in the United States, Japan, and Switzerland) are subject to special laws and their directors are appointed by national governments. In addition, central banks always and everywhere enjoy a legal monopoly. Their banknotes and their deposit money are largely withdrawn from free competition. The market participants are compelled to use the money of the central banks.

This money is one of a kind. Indeed, it can basically be produced in unlimited quantities. The production of money by the private commercial banks is limited by their equity capital and also by the cash deposits of their customers. But central banks do not need equity or cash deposits. It is they who create cash. They can generate cash out of nothing and practically for free. Certain legal limits are set for them, but in times of crisis, as in 2008–09 and in 2020–21, these limits can be relaxed quickly and dramatically. If necessary, they can also be abolished entirely.

Central banks therefore have potentially tremendous power. If only let loose, they can control all of the economy and society. There is almost no limit to the number of new loans they can issue. The can provide these loans to some and deny them to others. And by implication they can also control the use of all available resources. After all, labour usually moves where it is best paid. Raw materials and capital goods are typically sold to those who offer the highest prices. If you control the printing press, you can also let the real resources flow exactly where you think it is right. Whether this use of funds is also profitable plays a rather subordinate role for central banks (unlike commercial banks). You do not have to work hard and invest well to cover losses. One push of a button is enough.

Central banks are therefore made for do-gooders. He who runs a central bank does not need to do painstaking educational work in order to bring about any social change. The humanitarian with the printing press can finance all changes he wishes for at the push of a button. He can just pay other people to do what he wants. He does not need any savings or capital for this. He does not need a democratic majority either. As long as he has the printing press under control, he could by and large give a damn about what other people think or wish.

This momentous fact has not escaped the attention of socialist theorists. The Saint-Simonians in France had already grasped it at the beginning of the nineteenth century. They understood that the economy of a country could be controlled particularly easily and safely with the help of the printing press. A few years later, the demand for the “centralization of credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly” soon also held center stage in the 1848 Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels.

Unsurprisingly, the enormous possibilities of creating money from nothing have been used again and again to finance state industrial policy and socialist experiments. In the 1970s, British historian Antony Sutton reported that some of New York’s Wall Street banks had financed the radical transformation of traditional European societies. They supported Lenin and Stalin as well as Adolf Hitler with billions of dollars. That would not have been possible without the refinancing from the American central bank.

In our day, too, the historical connection between the central banking system and political utopias is being brought back to life. This time it appears in the form of a “green” and egalitarian transformation of the economy and society. The directors of the ECB [European Central Bank] and the Fed have already officially committed to this.

The new humanitarians with the printing press are undoubtedly a great danger to humanity. They threaten everyone’s prosperity by channeling scarce resources into unprofitable (and therefore unsustainable) uses. But they also threaten the free social order as a whole, in that they are preparing to disempower the open competition of all social forces. They want to replace this competition with the rule of a nonelected leadership caste.

However, green central bank policy is not to be condemned primarily because it supposedly pursues ecological goals, but because a central bank comes into its own here. Central banks are by their very nature destructive. Even if they are not led by self-proclaimed ecologists and socialists, they favor the cousin, favoritism and the bigwig economy. The economists of the Austrian school have shown, among other things, that central banks always and everywhere weaken economic growth by undermining the propensity to save; that they are destabilizing the economy by fueling a debt economy; that they incite greed and avarice; and that they create blatant inequalities in income and wealth. Central banks cannot be reformed, they must be abolished.

This article is a translation of an article that has appeared in the German edition of the Epoch Times, in October 2021. Author:

Contact Jörg Guido Hülsmann

Jörg Guido Hülsmann is senior fellow of the Mises Institute where he holds the 2018 Peterson-Luddy Chair and was director of research for Mises Fellows in residence 1999-2004.  He is author of Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism and The Ethics of Money Production. He teaches in France, at Université d’Angers. His full CV is here.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Why Everyone Should Read These Two Essays by Ludwig von Mises

Posted by M. C. on September 29, 2021

In “Liberty and Property” Mises explains how and why private property is essential to protecting our freedoms and minimizing our exposure to counterproductive social engineering schemes. The main contribution of the industrial revolution, Mises explains, was the great decentralization of wealth which gave rise to “consumer sovereignty.”

In “Middle-of-the-Road Policy Leads to Socialism” Mises pinpoints the essential problem with all forms of interventionism. Whether it is called communism, socialism, planning, state capitalism, or industrial policy, interventionism always signifies the same thing: “No longer should the consumers … determine what should be produced, in what quantity and of what quality. Henceforth a central authority alone should direct all production activities.”

https://mises.org/wire/why-everyone-should-read-these-two-essays-ludwig-von-mises

Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Originally printed in Two Essays by Ludwig von Mises.

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

Watch “The Stage Is Set for A Crack Up Boom — Are You Prepared?” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on August 28, 2021

The late and great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises was the individual who logically conquered the impracticability and unworkability of Socialism, Communism & Fascism. But just because an idea can’t work, doesn’t mean that those with a lust for power won’t attempt to pull it off anyway. These bad ideas end in a catastrophe that Mises called a “Crack-up Boom.” Are you ready for it?

The crisis began when you sacrificed your liberty.

https://youtu.be/fXgP4jozYMw

Be seeing you

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

Voting for Evil – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 18, 2021

William Anderson has summed it up nicely: “Most conservative Christians abhor libertarianism because they see it as promoting a permissive lifestyle from abortion to taking drugs. Yet, what they fail to understand is that the restrictive, prohibition-oriented state that they are trying to create (and also preserve) is much more likely to take away all liberties than a state that gives people permission to live as they wish (within the boundaries of not doing harm to others and engaging in peaceful exchange).”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/08/laurence-m-vance/voting-for-evil/

According to most conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist Christians, Democrats are evil, and voting for Democrats means voting for evil.

I certainly can’t disagree with this. After all, the Democratic Party is the party of socialism, collectivism, paternalism, statism, abortion on demand (at taxpayer expense if they can get away with it), LGBTQ “rights,” social justice, economic egalitarianism, feminism, environmentalism, climate change, green energy, universal healthcare, affirmative action, government regulations, higher taxes, welfare, organized labor, public education, anti-discrimination laws, defunding the police, and alternative lifestyles.

What these Christians fail to see—ignorantly or willingly—is that the Republican Party is not just the stupid party, it is likewise evil, and voting for Republicans means—in most cases—voting for evil. Don’t believe me? See the scores of articles I have written over the past seventeen years about the Republican Party. But enough about what some Christians see as God’s Own Party.

There is another way that these Christians say that people vote for evil. This is when elected officials or voters in a state vote against what can be described as moral values or family values.

Now, we are not talking about abortion, which is certainly a great evil. I am referring to what libertarians call victimless crimes.

Thus, if elected officials in the legislature or on a city council or county commission vote to legalize or decriminalize the medical or recreational use of marijuana, legalize or relax laws against prostitution, make it easier for strip clubs and massage parlors to open, or expand legal gambling, then they are said to be voting for evil instead of what they are actually doing—voting for more freedom. The same negative things are said of voters who approve ballot initiatives to let any of these things take place.

In other words, anyone who votes for the government to allow people to have the freedom to commit sin or vice, engage in immoral or unhealthy actions, practice a deviant lifestyle, engage in risky or financially ruinous activity, use addictive or mind-altering substances, or harm themselves—even though in doing so they are not violating the personal or property rights of others—is voting for evil.

The Christian’s ultimate rule of faith is the New Testament—not canon law, church tradition, church councils, papal decrees, the Church Fathers, the writings of the Saints, the Reformers, Reformation creeds and confessions, denominational pronouncements, or even the Old Testament, although “whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope” (Romans 15:4).

There is no support in the New Testament for the idea that Christians should seek legislation that would criminalize victimless crimes—whether they are sins or not. Voting against such legislation is not voting for evil.

It is not the purpose of Christianity to change society as a whole outwardly; it is the purpose of Christianity to change men as individuals inwardly. The Christian is in the world but not of the world. He is to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Ephesians 5:11), not legislate against them. The Christian is to “live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18). Christians are to pray for those in authority that they, Christians, “may lead a quiet and peaceable life” (1 Timothy 2:2). The attitude of the Christian should be to mind his “own business” (1 Thessalonians 4:11) and not be “a busybody in other men’s matters” (1 Timothy 4:15).

Christians should be seeking to change hearts and minds, not look to the government to regulate behavior that doesn’t violate the personal or property rights of people. Christians are making a grave mistake by looking to the state to legislate morality. It is not the purpose of Christianity to use force or the threat of force to keep people from sinning.

William Anderson has summed it up nicely: “Most conservative Christians abhor libertarianism because they see it as promoting a permissive lifestyle from abortion to taking drugs. Yet, what they fail to understand is that the restrictive, prohibition-oriented state that they are trying to create (and also preserve) is much more likely to take away all liberties than a state that gives people permission to live as they wish (within the boundaries of not doing harm to others and engaging in peaceful exchange).”

Voting for men to have the freedom to do as they will (and suffer any negative consequences for doing so) as long as they don’t violate the personal or property rights of others is not voting for evil. It is voting to punish them for doing so that is voting for evil.

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from central Florida. He is the author of The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom; War, Christianity, and the State: Essays on the Follies of Christian Militarism; War, Empire, and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy; King James, His Bible, and Its Translators, and many other books. His newest books are Free Trade or Protectionism? and The Free Society.

Be seeing you

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

If the US Wants to Beat China, Why Is It Copying China’s Socialism? | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on July 13, 2021

In conclusion, if the US wants to strengthen its economic and geostrategic position versus China, it needs to apply the same free market principles that made it prosperous and powerful in the first place. Launching a second Marshall Plan, which mirrors China’s wasteful BRI, will only consolidate big government, crony capitalism, and corruption, eroding the US economy’s capital stock and competitiveness.

https://mises.org/wire/if-us-wants-beat-china-why-it-copying-chinas-socialism

Mihai Macovei

Under the Biden administration the US continued escalating the economic and geopolitical frictions with China. At the recent G7 Summit in Carbis Bay, President Biden sought to rally a “united front” against China with traditional G7 allies and new ones such as Australia, India, South Korea, and South Africa and rebuked China on economic policies, human rights, and tensions in the East and South China Seas. The US also persuaded its G7 allies to back a massive infrastructure support package for developing countries. The so-called Build Back Better World Partnership (B3W) is a de facto rival to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). But it is far from obvious what the West stands to gain by emulating China’s exorbitant and highly controversial modern “Silk Road” venture.

The US’s Ambitious Global Infrastructure Plan

The B3W wants to mobilize “hundreds of billions of dollars of infrastructure investment,” in order to narrow an estimated infrastructure need of $40 trillion plus in the developing world. The B3W financing is expected to come from US budgetary instruments, such as the Development Finance Corporation and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID); from multilateral development banks (MDBs), such as the World Bank; and from the private sector and G7 partners. As the B3W is meant to challenge China’s project, we expect it to at least match the Chinese financial envelope, most commonly estimated at more than $1 trillion in investment and lending commitments so far.1 This is more than eight times higher than the nearly $113 billion in official development assistance and $22 billion in private sector investment provided by G7 countries for foreign infrastructure projects during 2015–19 (graph 1).

Graph 1: G7 Infrastructure Development Assistance

G7 infrastructure development assistance
Source: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

In order to surpass China, the B3W aims at having a broader geographical coverage, a wider focus, and better project governance and standards. The BRI comprises a “Silk Road Economic Belt” trying to link China with Asia, Russia, and Europe by land, and a “Maritime Silk Road,” connecting China’s coastal regions with Asia, the South Pacific, Africa, and Europe, but its Western challenger aims at being global in scope. While the Chinese initiative is focused on traditional infrastructure projects—highways, railroads, ports, and power plants, the B3W wants to invest also in climate, health and digital technology. And because Chinese projects have been heavily criticized for lack of transparency, corruption, unsustainable debt and adverse environmental and social impacts, the B3W advertises itself as “a values-driven, high-standard, and transparent infrastructure partnership led by major democracies.”

Holes in China’s “Silk Road”

From its announcement in 2013, China’s megainfrastructure project has been met with suspicion in the West. Most important, it was feared that China had geostrategic ambitions to bring smaller BRI partners under its sphere of influence. It was also claimed that China was pursuing a “debt-trap diplomacy” in order to take over key strategic assets such as electric grids and ports, while the latter could be also used for military purposes.

With time, many analysts realized that much of this criticism was exaggerated. First, almost 140 countries have signed on to the BRI as of this writing, of which eighteen are from the EU, showing that many governments find the Chinese deal beneficial. And although China has not financed in full the promised $1 trillion in projects so far, it did make $190 billion worth of investments and $390 billion in construction work (financed by Chinese loans in general) during 2014–18. This is more than the $467 billion of development loans provided by the World Bank during 2008–19. Second, while the number of requests for debt renegotiation and relief has increased, overseas asset seizures have rarely occurred. Third, many pundits concur that the BRI ports are commercially designed and almost impossible to employ militarily.

Undeniably, China has been trying to enhance its political influence through the BRI, and is now perceived as the most influential economic actor in Southeast Asia and Africa. But resentments over some onerous projects, corruption scandals, and increasing debt burdens mean that such gains could be easily reversed, and China has started to improve its lending and investment standards. The BRI focus has been widened from traditional infrastructure to telecommunications, digital technology, and fintech. And China also expanded the BRI’s overarching goal to helping build a free trade and investment area which would accelerate economic growth for all partner countries.2

But BRI’s economic benefits are skewed in favor of Chinese construction companies at the expense of taxpayers. The BRI provided much business for China’s overstretched construction sector after the end of the domestic stimulus binge following the Great Recession. Almost 90 percent of the construction works funded under the BRI went to Chinese contractors, fueling criticism that the BRI creates unfair advantages for Chinese companies, which have become global leaders. Seven of the ten largest construction companies in the world by revenue were Chinese in 2017. At the same time, if China wanted to set a debt trap with the BRI, it seems that it is the country which has fallen into it. The pandemic has accelerated the already growing debt defaults and renegotiations and an estimated $94 billion, or a quarter of China’s overseas lending, has come under renegotiation so far (graph 2). It shows that the BRI’s most important lenders, i.e. China’s two main policy banks—the China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China—have done a poor job of financing viable projects, for which the Chinese taxpayer is likely to foot the bill eventually.3 And given the sizeable amount of investments put on hold, scaled back, or cancelled, and the very low participation of private lenders, it is obvious that the BRI participating governments have made several bad investment decisions too.

Graph 2: China’s Debt Renegotiation Cases

debt rengotiation
Source: Rhodium Group Research.

Over 2013–17, the BRI looked pretty successful and was growing fast in terms of contracts signed and loans. After high-profile contracts were cancelled and debt renegotiations surged, the project ran out of steam. China’s big banks started rethinking and reducing their overseas lending and the number of construction contracts went down too (graph 3). This was also driven by the deleveraging of Chinese banks after the large credit expansion following the global financial crisis. China’s large domestic growth stimuli weakened its external competitiveness and reduced current account surpluses and outward FDI (foreign direct investment). The balance of payments crisis of 2015–16, which was accompanied by a drop in international reserves of more than $1 trillion and imposition of capital controls, reduced China’s ability to fund the massive overseas demand for infrastructure projects and investment. In addition, domestic voices started to question why Chinese people, also relatively poor, should subsidize unprofitable capital investment overseas.

See the rest here

Author:

Contact Mihai Macovei

Dr. Mihai Macovei (macmih_mf@yahoo.com) is an associated researcher at the Ludwig von Mises Institute Romania and works for an international organization in Brussels, Belgium.

Be seeing you

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

Dems Change Mind On Border Wall After Realizing It Will Keep People From Leaving When We Switch To Socialism

Posted by M. C. on July 1, 2021

https://babylonbee.com/news/dems-change-mind-on-border-wall-after-realizing-it-could-be-used-to-keep-people-in-once-country-switches-to-socialism

U.S.—The nation’s Democratic leaders announced Tuesday they are reversing course on Trump’s proposed border wall, since “it will keep people in once we switch to socialism.”

“We thought the border wall was a bad, racist idea,” said Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. “But then this light bulb turned on over my head. It was actually just a light bulb though, not an actual idea, which was disappointing. But that got me thinking about trying to have an idea. And I got an idea: when we switch to socialism, everyone’s gonna try to run away. But what if there’s a big, solid object along the border? Then they can’t run away. I mean, they could try to climb, but we could shoot them.”

Senator Bernie Sanders said in his experience, walls are “absolutely necessary” to keep a socialist country’s citizens from fleeing. “The Soviets had it right: big wall in Berlin, the symbolic Iron Curtain, shooting people who try to flee. It’s all necessary to a healthy socialist state.” Besides, Sanders added, politicians like him would be exempt from the “no running away” rule and he could fly out any time he wanted on a government plane.

Dems suggested maybe the border wall could use some upgrades such as landmines on the U.S. side, outposts with guards armed with AK-47s, and attack dogs. It will also need to be extended to surround the entire country and “maybe also a big dome around the top.”

Bee seeing you

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

Nikita Khrushchev Speech In 1959

Posted by M. C. on May 10, 2021

Remember, socialism leads to Communism. So, how do you create a Socialistic State?

“Your children’s children will live under communism, You Americans are so gullible.  No, you won’t accept communism outright; but we will keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you will finally wake up and find you already have Communism. “

1) Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people. We give you Covid 19 and the Jesuit Jab; the 2nd Jesuit injection will kill the Covie Kool aid drinkers.

https://www.trinityfarms.org/?s=Nikita+Khrushchev

Trinity Farms International Ministries

For some of our younger readers who have never heard of Nikita Khrushchev,  here is a short bio on the hard line communist.

Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev was a Soviet politician who led the Soviet Union during part of the Cold War as the first secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1953 to 1964 and as chairman of the Council of Ministers from 1958 to 1964. After his term he settled in America.

Khrushchev’s Message 61 years ago

Khrushchev said “We [Communism} will bury you!”  A quick read but a lasting thought. Pretty scary now.Khrushchev’s Message 61 years ago:


THIS WAS HIS ENTIRE QUOTE:  A sobering reminder.  It has been almost exactly sixty years ago since Russia’s Khrushchev delivered this speech Do you remember September 29, 1959?  

“Your children’s children will live under communism, You Americans are so gullible.  No, you won’t accept communism outright; but we will keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you will finally wake up and find you already have Communism.  We will not have to fight you; We will so weaken your economy, until you will fall like overripe fruit into our hands.” The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

Remember, socialism leads to Communism. So, how do you create a Socialistic State?


There are 8 levels of control; read the following recipe:


1) Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people.
We give you Covid 19 and the Jesuit Jab; the 2nd Jesuit injection will kill the Covie Kool aid drinkers.


2) Poverty – Increase the poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them.
We give you Covid checks.


3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
We give you the national debt and you pay the interest with federal taxes every April 15th and not 1 penny goes to the America or the US Treasury. You must pay your fair share or live in fear of man. We the people are the keepers of the fraud funding what we have today.


4) Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government That way you are able to create a police state.
Can’t buy ammunition or guns so we’ll take them.


5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect (food, housing, income) of their lives because that will make them fully dependent on the government.
Meat is too expensive and Gates is buying all farm land making him the largest land holder in America.


6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to and take control of what children learn in school.
MSM is bought and paid for by the CCP along with the Dem’s.


7) Religion – Remove the belief in God from the Government and schools because the people need to believe in ONLY the government knowing what is best for the people.
Incorporate all churches making all citizens corporations.


8) Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor.  Eliminate the middle class This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to tax the wealthy with the support of the poor
. Exactly what we have today with 1000’s of businesses closed and we offer you, Antifa and BLM to aid the effort.

A perfect parallel to the Democrat agenda!

America fulfilled the 10 Planks of Karl Marx many years ago. Do you understand what that means; can you name them?

Now for the icing on the cake with G Edward Griffin.

This was filmed over 50 years ago but it’s like it came from today’s news. Watch the whole thing, it’s only a few minutes long.

“This video filmed in 1969 will shock you at how relevant and effectively exposes what certain groups are trying to do again. Will you as an American and Christian allow it to happen?

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Freedom Eliminates The Evils of Socialism & Fascism

Posted by M. C. on March 26, 2021

Socialism & Fascism are two sides of the same totalitarian coin, with the latter ideology being an offshoot of the former. While Socialism preaches the State being the sole owner of the means of production, Fascism preaches a partnership of State (Power) and Corporations (Money). Socialism leads to rapid ruin, while Fascism leads to a longer and drawn out ruin. The destination is the same regardless of the speed in getting there. Freedom and free markets are the only escape from this totalitarian vice.

Be seeing you

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

JFK, Allen Dulles, and Indonesia – Edward Curtin

Posted by M. C. on February 4, 2021

In JFK vs. Dulles, he exposes the intrigue behind the ruthless regime-change strategy in Indonesia of the longest-serving CIA director, Allen Dulles, and how it clashed with the policy of President John F. Kennedy, leading to JFK’s assassination, Indonesian regime change, and massive slaughter.

http://edwardcurtin.com/a-review-greg-poulgrains-jfk-vs-allen-dulles/

A Review: JFK vs. Allen Dulles by Greg Poulgrain

Before I digress slightly, let me state from the outset that the book by Greg Poulgrain that I am about to review is extraordinary by any measure. The story he tells is one you will read nowhere else, especially in the way he links the assassination of President Kennedy to former CIA Director Allen Dulles and the engineering by the latter of one of the 20th century’s most terrible mass murders.  It will make your hair stand on end and should be read by anyone who cares about historical truth.

About twelve years ago I taught a graduate school course to Massachusetts State Troopers and police officers from various cities and towns.  As part of the course material, I had created a segment on the history of the United States’ foreign policy, with particular emphasis on Indonesia.

No one in this class knew anything about Indonesia, not even where it was. These were intelligent, ambitious adults, eager to learn, all with college degrees. This was in the midst of the “war on terror” – i.e. war on Muslim countries – and the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency.  Almost all the class had voted for Obama and were aware they he had spent some part of his youth in this unknown country somewhere far away.

I mention this as a preface to this review of JFK vs. Dulles, because its subtitle is Battleground Indonesia, and my suspicion is that those students’ lack of knowledge about the intertwined history of Indonesia and the U.S. is as scanty today among the general public as it was for my students a dozen years ago.

This makes Greg Poulgrain’s remarkable book – JFK vs. Allen Dulles: Battleground Indonesia – even more important since it is a powerful antidote to such ignorance, and a reminder for those who have fallen, purposefully or not, into a state of historical amnesia that has erased the fact that the U.S. has committed systematic crimes that have resulted in the deaths of more than a million Indonesians and many more millions throughout the world over innumerable decades.

Such crimes against humanity have been hidden behind what the English playwright Harold Pinter in his 2005 Nobel Prize address called “a tapestry of lies.”  Of such massive crimes, he said:

But you wouldn’t know it.
It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them.

And when one examines the true history of such atrocities, again and again one comes up against familiar names of the guilty who have never been prosecuted.  Criminals in high places whose crimes around the world from Vietnam to Chile to Cuba to Nicaragua to Argentina to Iraq to Libya to Syria, etc. have been – and continue to be – integral to American foreign policy as it serves the interests of its wealthy owners and their media mouthpieces.

In his brilliant new book on U.S./Indonesian history, Dr. Greg Poulgrain unweaves this tapestry of lies and sheds new light on the liars’ sordid deeds.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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