Tag Archives: Marxism

An Oligarchy and Not a Republic? No Kidding?

benjamin-franklin

The Washington Times is reporting that a study by Princeton and Northwestern Universities has determined that the fundamental transformation of the United States of America has already taken place. We have transitioned from a Republic (as our Framers intended) to an oligarchy:

“America is no longer a democracy — never mind the democratic-republic envision by Founding Fathers. Rather, it’s taken a turn down elitist lane and become a country led by a small dominant class comprised of powerful members who exert total control over the general population — an oligarchy, said a new study jointly conducted by Princeton and Northwestern universities.

“One concluding finding in the study: The US government now represents the rich and powerful, not the average citizen, United Press International reported…

“Researchers then concluded that US policies are formed more by special interest groups, than by politicians properly representing the will of the general people, including the lower-income class, UPI said.”

Really? Who would ever have thought?! Oh, that’s right, we “whackoids” and “domestic terrorists” among us; those warning about the encroachment of dominant government into our private lives. We have been (first politely and now with a twinge of anger) voicing this ongoing event for quite a while, first as individuals and now in organized groups.

This is what happens when Progressives capture the message-crafting media. This is what happens when we pass amendments to the US Constitution that destroy the protections built in for the individual States. This is what happens when factions and big money special interest groups reign supreme in Washington, DC. This is what happens when the no- and low-information voters decide elections; our country’s well-being hanging in the balance.

Whether or not it is too late to change anything is a matter of debate. Personally, I am inclined to fight for the country and the capitalist economic system that literally created the first Middle Class ever to exist in the history of man.

To that end, there is an organization that has developed a solution – or at least the vehicle to achieve a solution – for the manipulation of the no- and low-information voters by the special interests and political opportunists currently transforming our Republic; the oligarchs, if you will.

Founders Alliance USA*, a non-partisan group, has developed VoterFYI.

The VoterFYI initiative is for voters (and no- and low-information voters are included here) who are dissatisfied with the current political system and parties. The initiative matches voters to the strongest candidate on any given ballot, whose positions are compatible with the voters’ highest values using machine intelligence. Unlike the position paper model of think tanks, the VoterFYI process is more personalized by leveraging advances in social technology and artificial intelligence to match voters to their candidate, make recommendations on issues based on the data that is input, and save precious time.

Part of the pain of transitioning from the most promising form of government (the American constitutional Republic) to the failed tenets of oligarchical Socialism is the destruction of prosperity; the equalization of society by the denial of opportunity.

There has been very little economic growth for the last five years. The “recovery summer” has come and gone with the worst recovery ever recorded. In 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs. Today, less than 65 percent of men do. Because they’re feeling acute pain monetarily, the sleeping giant that is “we the people” are waking up to the disparity and recognizing the incompetence of both political parties. It is at this point that Progressives and oligarchic elites intend to swoop in with an expansion of the entitlement state; the nanny state, where government advances to control even more of our lives than it already does.

The brilliance of the VoterFYI project comes in its ability to elevate the issues above the political parties and above the misinformation and deception of the terminal power-seekers. It allows each individual to formulate and refine their understanding of the issues, thus circumventing the Madison Avenue political rhetoric that only well-connected money can buy. Once the populace understands the issues – and how they, themselves, feel about the issues – no intentionally contrived message of spin by either established political camp can deceive the voters any longer…and this includes the no- and low-information voters.

Find out more about VoterFYI by clicking here.

I don’t know about you, but I am unwilling to stand by, doing nothing more than complaining, as Progressives and political opportunists finalize the fundamental transformation of the United States. I am choosing to actually do something about it. How about you?

“The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” ~ Patrick Henry

* In the interest of transparency, the author sits on the board of directors for Founders Alliance USA.

Gallup pushes socialist agenda in survey

gallup post pushes marxist ideals

On Wednesday, Gallup published the results of their regular wealth distribution poll. While the survey does point to a country slowly ceding to socialism, the editorializing in the article puts Gallup in-danger of looking like a propaganda outlet.

Inequality is and will continue to be one of the most important domestic political issues. President Barack Obama has consistently pushed for measures that he believes would provide those at the bottom end of the socioeconomic spectrum a fairer chance to succeed, and has coupled that with consistent arguments for higher taxes on those with high incomes and wealth.

If that doesn’t scream propaganda, you’re not paying attention. Inequality has not been one of the most important issues to Americans. According to a slew of polls this year, unemployment, federal spending and health care were the top issues affecting American families. Nowhere in those results appeared “income distribution”, “wealth inequality” or anything even remotely related to the distribution of wealth in the United States.

The title of the posted article is “Majority in U.S. Want Wealth More Evenly Distributed.” The survey found that 59% of survey respondents believe that wealth should be more evenly distributed while only 33% believe current distribution is fair.

When broken out by party, 83% of Democrats felt that wealth should be distributed while only 28% of Republicans agreed.

According to their trend line results, more Americans than ever feel that the government should take an even greater amount of  money from the successful and give it to lower income earners. In 1939, 35% of respondents were supportive of government-forced redistribution through taxation. 52% answered in-favor of Obama-style socialism in this week’s poll.

The percentage of Americans that believe that wealth should be more distributed doesn’t seem to have changed much in the thirty years of the survey. Roughly 30% of Americans have always responded that the current distribution is fair while 57-59% have always felt that wealth should be evenly redistributed.

What has changed drastically is the share of respondents that feel the government should take more earnings from those making more and give larger amounts of money to those making less.

The distinction between the two questions is important. While wishing for all Americans to have a little more is a feel-good, want to believe in utopia type of thing, it isn’t realistic – something all socialistic regimes have come to learn.

Forced redistribution through government mandate is where things get truly scary. More and more Americans feel that the government has the right to take money out of one citizen’s pocket and place it in another’s.

Gallup’s poll isn’t, by itself, supportive of Obama’s social justice form of Marxism. But, in order to make the ideology acceptable, class warfare is necessary. Gallup is simply propping up a class warfare angle in an obvious ploy to move the nation in a certain direction.

 

EU goes Marxist, little opposition from citizenry

Europe turns to Marxism

Willing to do just about anything to avoid the collapse of their treasured Euro, Europeans are considering marxist policies so to save a failing currency.

The Telegraph  reported that “Wealthy households would face new taxes on property and other assets under German plans to prop up the struggling eurozone.”

When governments turn to the producers in their countries to fund the failures of others, the end is nigh. It is fully Marxist philosophy (and a proven failed one) that says that “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – now Germany and other nations in the EU look willing to entertain socialistic policies despite their failures.

At this time, Germany is simply proposing a rule that would force troubled counties to tax their wealthier citizens to cover bloated government spending.

The slippery slope that German Chancellor Merkel’s advisors didn’t consider is an historic one. Soon enough, Germany may find economic hard times. Soon enough Germany’s producers will be left to pay the balance of social and government programs voted in by the rest of the citizenry.

As the legendary and recent departed Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once said “eventually you run out of other people’s money.” It may not be long until Europe’s middle class finds themselves to be “the wealthy” as the uber rich get taxed into leaving. Then the middle class will look elsewhere and the only ones left paying the bills of an overspending government are the low-income earners. Find a Marxist country where this isn’t true.

America has its own challenges. States like California and New York are increasingly determining what citizens may or may not do and how much the wealthy should pay to subsidize those who will not produce. The USA is not without condemnation in this respect.

Marxism is a failed ideology that is so pleasing to the uninformed that it spreads like wildfire. “I can get fed and housed even without work?” asks the recipient. “I take risk and it goes to the unproductive?” asks the producer. How long can that imbalance last?

Europe may soon prove the equation imbalanced. And Americans will be left asking their president “why, exactly, did you want us to be more like Europe?”

 

Should Our Children Belong to the Collective?

Barack_Obama_with_children_of_American_Embassy_workers_in_Ottawa_2-19-09

Just when we think the secular assaults against the nuclear family unit can’t get any worse, we disturbingly learn that they can. Now a host on a minor cable news network claims that we have to get over the idea that our children are ours, and accept the fact that they belong “collectively” to all of us.

Melissa Harris-Perry, a host for a weekend show on scarcely watched MSNBC, was taped in a “lean forward” (euphemism for “lean more left”) promo for the network, said that children don’t belong to their families they belong to the collective.

The host declared, “We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we’ve always had kind of a private notion of children. Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children. So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”

The context seems innocuous enough; continue to engage in insanity (doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results) by throwing more money toward education. The answer to our educational inadequacies and failings is always more funding, to some. Heaven forbid that we should consider using what resources we have more efficiently and effectively, and focus on teaching content that increases academic performance, instead of all the social engineering, and politically correct indoctrination that is so pervasively “taught” in our public schools.

Some don’t even think her terminology, referring to collective ownership of our kids, in the promo is controversial. The New York Times, and other media and extremist organizations have leapt to her defense. What should not be lost on us is that such entities are ideological compatriots to the host, and are firmly predisposed to the collectivist ideals of the left.

I’m sure the folks over at NAMBLA would rejoice over such a concept of collectivist ownership of our kids! And what about all those unborn children that are never given a chance to take their first breath? Should that not likewise be a grave concern to the collective?

In free societies, as America was originally founded to be, private property ownership is sacrosanct. The second line in our Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Lockean Creed, upon which that statement is based, equates private property with pursuit of happiness.

While children are not considered property, and are not “owned,” the responsibility for rearing, teaching, and nurturing them is a private one, owned by the parents who brought them into the world. For those who lack the temporal means to support those children, there are safety nets that allow for community support of such disadvantaged children. Even that, however, does not diminish or transfer the very personal and private responsibility of rearing children to the state, or to the collective.

If all of this sounds familiar, it should. Last year in the midst of the presidential campaign Team Obama posted a slide show on the campaign website, with much fanfare, about the Life of Julia. It revealed the Obama Team dream of governmental (in this context, euphemism for “the collective”) involvement at every stage of life, from birth to death, and how the government would be the nurturing parental surrogate through each stage.

Karl Marx said, “The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.” Ms. Harris-Perry mirrors this sentiment: the children are not ours, they belong to the collective, and we need to abolish the notion that they are ours. Marx also said, “Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” The MSNBC host would make Marx proud.

Who has the right to dictate how a child is to be reared? Certainly not the “collective,” and certainly not the government. It’s a private parental, and familial matter. Or at least it should be. The more government encroaches into health care management, social-engineering dictates, and redefinition of fundamental roles in society, the less control parents have over something as fundamental as the rearing of their children.

It is not just the economic aspects of socialistic and fascistic collectivism that must be resisted and repulsed, but perhaps even more significantly, the social and cultural collectivist agenda must be rejected. We have to recognize this steady encroachment for what it is, and that it is clearly antithetical to a free America.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at [email protected].

The Top Ten Reasons Why Socialism is Wrong

0187-socialism-logo1-366x366

1. Marx’s Labor Theory of Value, adapted from Ricardo, is wrong. Work is not exploitation and profit is not theft. (For more on this subject see Schumpeter’s Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy.)

2. Historical Materialism begs the question of human agency. It is unexplained how socialists come to have consciousness that is “authentic,” while capitalists have “false consciousness.” Marx’s theory underplays the role of ideas and ethics in economies (i.e. the “superstructure” of the economy that is but a reflection of materialist forces).

3. There is the unresolved question of how classes arose to begin with. Did they arise through the use of coercion to repress lower classes? Did they arise due to inequalities in human characteristics?Did classes arise because of the private ownership of the means of production? If so, then why are there social classes or castes in countries that have cooperative, collective, or tribal social-economic arrangements?

4. Marxism is a self-stultifying ideology that renders life meaningless. Mankind’s desire to achieve is obviously due to human nature, and not materialist forces. It is no coincidence that socialist societies lead to high levels of anomie and alienation, contrary to Marxist claims to the contrary that capitalism causes such social effects. The reason such maladies are prevalent in socialist countries is because social valuation of the individual is diminished to nearly nothing.

5. Marx’s theory of historical materialism and the “inevitable triumph of socialism,” is obviously flawed. Socialism lasting any considerable period of time in a polity has always developed due to Marxist-Leninist or Maoist radicals ushering in bloody putsches or coup d’etats in economically backwards states. This is the opposite of what Marx predicted. Marxism predicted that there would be spontaneous worker’s revolts in advanced capitalist societies around the globe, and not elite-organized socialist “revolutions” in backwards countries like Russia and China. World War I exposed the false notion held by socialists that the war would lead to a worker’s strike and mass defections from the armies due to “workers’ solidarity.”

6. Marx’s claim that the “Iron Law of Wages” would lead inexorably to a decline in standard of living among the proletariat tending towards subsistence living is incorrect. In the most advanced capitalist states, the standard of living increased ever upwards. This is because an economy based on mass production leads to cheaper goods and a competitive labor market buoys demand and wages for skilled labor. The counter-argument that the standard of living increased due to labor unions is obviously false in the U.S.; labor unions in America have always been relatively weak and many times unions claim labor improvements that arose due to market competition. One former union boss who spoke at an Occupy DC rally recently confessed that “progressive labor is a revolutionary communist organization.” Unions are a type of labor cartel that makes profitable businesses increasingly unfeasible.

7. Equality of means has not been achieved in any socialist state of any kind in world history. Every single socialist state has been led by elites with a miserable underclass far underfoot. I defy a socialist to name one counterfactual. The underclass is typically lied to (e.g. offered “Bread, land and peace,” but receiving none of the sort), and the disparity between rich and poor actually increases after the “revolution.” So ironically, socialist policies lead to greater inequality of means, rather than more equality. For more on why socialist systems always lead to oppression, see Michels’ “Iron Law of Oligarchy.”

8. The fraudulent obsession with equality espoused by socialists was perhaps best summed up by Margaret Thatcher, who in a speech to the socialist opposition, demonstrated the absurdity of her opponents’ position. While gesticulating with her fingers to illustrate her concept visually, she showed that “(Socialists) would rather the poor be poorer, provided the rich were less rich.” [See: “Margaret Thatcher on Socialism” on YouTube.]

9. Socialism is only a critique of capitalism and not a self-sufficient economic system. It advises how to redistribute wealth, but not how to create it. Socialists are unable to persuasively answer the “then what?” question of what happens when capitalism is destroyed or it collapses. Apparently, eternal prosperity ensues, but the causal linkage is not adequately explained.

10. Socialism is not consistent with human nature. Human beings are not innately altruists, because as a species, mankind is driven by the desire to procreate, and all that seminal act entails. Societies have succeeded based on hunting, gathering, production, and even war, but redistribution is a static and deteriorating model of economic organization.

The implication of modeling an economic system on socialist redistribution for the contrived ethic of “equality” is no less than the destruction of civilization itself. And this is by design. Marx set out to foment world revolution prior to developing the philosophical system that justified it. As Marx quoted Goethe in the Eighteenth Brumaire, “All that exists deserves to perish.”

The Culture Industry & Pop Subversion

Hot-Chelle-Rae

Conservatives tend to ignore pop music and see it as frivolous junk cluttering up the airwaves.  But a closer look at the culture industry reveals it as an insidious piece of the totalitarian puzzle, even more potent than bullets or bombs could be in forcing Americans into collectivism.

Allan Bloom wrote an entire chapter called “Music” in his seminal work The Closing of the American Mind. In the chapter, he rightly states, “Today, a very large proportion of young people between the ages of ten and twenty live for music. It is their passion; they cannot take seriously anything alien to music.”

That was in 1988. Before Brittney Spears, Justin Bieber, Katy Perry and other pop icons of the Internet Age were being streamed into the heads of tweens accompanied by the visual flourishes of jiggling, gyrating, lip-syncing songstresses half-assembled out of silicone and entirely plastic.

And this isn’t some Bible-thumping, snake-handling socon grumbling on his back porch about ‘how times have changed’ and ‘youths were just so much more clean-cut and respectful back in the day.’ This is coming from a libertine libertarian of the live-and-let-live variety. I can’t run for public office because of the extra-curricular activities I engaged in during my college years. At least, not as a Republican. Just saying.

So before explaining why and how the music industry is an implemental part of the hard left’s creepy scheme to demoralize America, let’s set the stage by looking at the lyrics of seven of the biggest hits of the last year:

1. “Last Friday Night” (T.G.I.F.) by Katy Perry (Lyrics)

Last Friday night
We went streaking in the park
Skinny dipping in the dark
Then had a menage a trois
Last Friday night
Yeah I think we broke the law
Always say we’re gonna stop-op
Whoa-oh-oah

This Friday night
Do it all again
This Friday night
Do it all again

This was banned by the Red Chinese. Can’t say that I blame ‘em in this case. It has nearly 200 million views on YouTube though.

2. “Moves Like Jagger” by Maroon 5 Featuring Christina Aguilera (Lyrics)

You wanted control
So we waited
I put on a show
Now I make it
You say I’m a kid
My ego is big
I don’t give a sh*t
And it goes like this

Comes in at a little over 110 million YouTube views.

3. “Super Bass” by Nicki Minaj (Lyrics)

And he ill, he real, he might got a deal
He pop bottles and he got the right kind of build
He cold, he dope, he might sell coke
He always in the air, but he never fly coach

He a mutha(bleep)in trip, trip, sailor of the ship, ship
When he make it drip, drip, kiss him in the lip, lip
That’s the kind of dude I was lookin’ for
And yes you’ll get slapped if you’re lookin’ ho

This “classic” has 267,000,000 YouTube views.

4. “Party Rock Anthem” by LMFAO Featuring Lauren Bennett & GoonRock (Lyrics)

One more shot for us, another round
Please fill up my cup, don’t mess around
We just wanna see you shake it now
Now you wanna be, you’re naked now

This song has over 465 million views.

5. “Pumped Up Kicks” by Foster the People (Lyrics and Meaning)

All the other kids with the pumped up kicks
You’d better run, better run, outrun my gun
All the other kids with the pumped up kicks
You’d better run, better run, faster than my bullet

The only song on the list I like, even though it is about a kid that snaps and goes on a murder spree.

6. “Give Me Everything” by Pitbull Featuring Ne-Yo, Afrojack & Nayer (Lyrics)

Excuse me but I might drink a little more than I should tonight
And I might take you home with me if I could tonight
And baby I’ma make you feel so good tonight
‘Cause we might not get tomorrow

Almost 250 million YouTube hits.

7. “Tonight, Tonight” by Hot Chelle Rae (Lyrics)

It’s been a really really messed up week
Seven days of torture, seven days of bitter
And my girlfriend went and cheated on me
She’s a California dime but it’s time for me to quit her

La la la, whatever, la la la, it doesn’t matter, la la la, oh well, la la la

Yeah, all of this doesn’t really matter. It’s meaningless, demoralizing, overly sexualized, frivolous, mind-erasing, anti-humanistic drivel. There is nothing individualistically creative or mentally challenging about any of it.

The question is if the sad state of American culture is due to economic forces inherent in capitalism, such as tailoring to the lowest common denominator, or is it part of a leftist drive to debase the culture and to remove moral opposition to socialism?

The easiest way to find out this answer is to look at what influential leftists, who are universally taught in the upper ranks of colleges and universities, have to say about capitalist culture and what they propose to do about it.

One of the most prominent New Left critics of capitalist culture was Theodore Adorno. The Frankfurt School mandarin first coined the phrase “the culture industry,” which he used in the title of some of his manuscripts. In his Culture Industry Reconsidered, he wrote the following:

The culture industry intentionally integrates its consumers from above. To the detriment of both it forces together the spheres of high and low art, separated for thousands of years. The seriousness of high art is destroyed in speculation about its efficacy; the seriousness of the lower perishes with the civilizational constraints imposed on the rebellious resistance inherent within it as long as social control was not yet total. Thus, although the culture industry undeniably speculates on the conscious and unconscious state of the millions towards which it is directed, the masses are not primary, but secondary, they are an object of calculation; an appendage of the machinery. The customer is not king, as the culture industry would have us believe, not its subject but its object.

A modern musicologist comments on Adorno’s observations:

The central culprit for this “regression” was ultimately the culture industry, which sought to commodify the artwork in service of the mass market as “so-called cultural goods”. As a result, the work of art pales as an object of genuine contemplation and circulates in the consumer market, becoming an object sought out for its “exchange value” rather than its ‘deep’ principles. A curious vicious cycle of double-anticipation: the leaders of large entertainment companies anticipate the “tastes” of the “mass market” by reproducing what the “market” has deemed “popular”. Yet, Adorno points out that what is “popular” is “the most familiar” and “is therefore played again and again and made still more familiar”.

This technique of mechanical reproduction is not unique to music, it is also famously and memorably seen in art, with the purposeful critique of industrial civilization inherent in Andy’s Warhols art. The main concept is that the mechanical reproduction of art, in other words, its mass production, “demystifies” the individualistic aspect of artistic expression itself. Repeated imagery or simplified and compressed imagery tailors to the mass tastes; by extension, it influences and “corrupts” them in a not necessarily pejorative sense. The result is the diminishing of the humanistic influences that inform American individualism.

But none of this can be necessarily blamed on the left, which would be akin to shooting the messenger for delivering bad news. The problem arises when one finds evidence that the left actually roots for civilizational dissolution, and has infiltrated and established numerous powerful institutions with the express purpose of destroying the legacy of The Enlightenment, which informs the founding of the United States.  Culturally doing away with The Enlightenment would effectively leave men morally and philosophically helpless against totalitarianism.

One such powerful institution was The Princeton Radio Project, which Adorno took part in. While working with the project, Adorno developed the following critique:

“On the Hit Parade, Adorno found: When a popular song was “plugged” over and over again on American radio, a familiar pattern was recalled. The familiar pattern replaced thinking. With just a few musical notes of a jingle, like the sound of dogfood hitting the bowl, advertisers could produce the desired effect: “Oh, there’s my favorite show, I better stop what I’m doing, and come listen to my show.” Thinking was reduced to recall! Adorno thought the ad jingles and constant “plugging” of a few songs on the Hit Parade “infantilized the listener … with musical stereotypes…”

And what, ironically, was his association with this phenomenon? Adorno thought: “…totalitarian radio was assigned to the task…of providing good entertainment and diversion” and concluded that American radio served the same function as totalitarian radio – to distract listeners from political reality, as he interpreted it.

The Princeton Radio Project eventually became part of The Bureau of Applied Social Research, which Theodore Adorno worked with until leaving the group in the early 1940s. What was “The Bureau” and what did it do?

The Bureau of Applied Social Research (BASR), known as ‘the Bureau’ to those who worked there, played an influential role in early media studies and the development of communication as a discipline. Founded in 1937 as the Office of Radio Research (ORR), the Bureau (renamed in 1944) was a research institute affiliated with Columbia University but dependent for funding on external sources. It was one of several such research institutions formed by Paul F. Lazarsfeld, a Jewish-born Viennese émigré scholar, trained as a mathematician and social psychologist, who became a major figure in the history of the study of communication.

It is very important to note that these projects “studying” mass media influence were funded by very powerful organizations, such as The Rockefeller Foundation, The Ford Foundation, and the Carnegie Institute.  Highly recommended is a briefing on the particular role of Adorno and Lazarsfeld, and their work with The Princeton Radio Project.

The significance of such projects becomes more clear and more disturbing once one probes what these “non-profit” foundations are all about. Norman Dodd of the Reece Commission investigated the workings of such foundations and gave a harrowing and convincing interview that puts forth the proposition that they are institutional transmissions for integrating the United States into a world collectivist society.

The Frankfurt School, which Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer led, was eventually transferred to Columbia University, at the Institute for Social Research.  But other neomarxist theoreticians made their mark. Of these, Gyorgy Lukacs and Antonio Gramsci bear special mention.

Gyorgy Lukacs was The Minister of Culture under the communist regime of Bela Kun in Hungary. Lukacs was the author of History & Class Consciousness, which broke new territory on assaulting capitalist “culture.” One key aspect to his program to destroy capitalism was to target Christianity and family values, which he thought culturally reinforced capitalism.

As tenuous a proposition as this is, he debased Hungarian culture by seeking to actively sexualize the youth in the schools, which elicited a revolt in 1919. The Christian peasants helped to overthrow the Kun government, one of the few times a people has quickly overturned communist rule.

One saw the influence of Lukacs in President Obama’s resigned “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings, whose sexually illicit record made him an unusual choice to head a government agency dealing with schools – until one understands the purpose of introducing sexually explicit materials in the classroom: to debase the humanist aspects of the culture, and to make children easier to mold into socialists.

Religion is a very powerful barrier to socialism, and thus it must be destroyed, the left reasons. In addition, the irresponsible behavior provoked by youth sexualization makes young people more amenable to both the dehumanizing experience of abortion, and prone to becoming dependent on the social welfare state.

Antonio Gramsci provided the rationale for the left to seize the culture and to wield hegemonic control over it to bring about socialism. Gramsci’s insights on communication, how to conduct cultural warfare through capturing education and the media are so important they warrant special merit for the unfamiliar reader.

In short, the sum of the left’s progress in the schools, colleges, courts, news and entertainment media should be seen particularly from the viewpoint of a Gramscian war on American culture.

An interesting empirical fact reinforcing the powerful effect of “political correctness” in the culture is that nearly all professions dealing with information dissemination or cultural production have had Democrat voting rates of around 90%. Thus, we see the left’s propaganda techniques have had very powerful effect.

*It was recently brought to my attention by a Twitter user of a golden thread between Hollywood and government known as the Motion Picture Association of America or MPAA. Indeed, an examination of the heads of the MPAA lead right to the Chairman Christopher Dodd, best known for his financial corruption and role in the anti-capitalist legislation Dodd-Frank. During the raging debate on the anti-piracy bill SOPA, Chris Dodd even had the audacity to praise the Chinese model of government censorship. That was before threatening politicians who didn’t stay bought.

The Hollywood elite thus have direct ties to the Democrat Party, an incestuous relationship between culture and politics that is in some ways reminiscent of fascist regimes. Although the sum total view of the messaging is not blatantly socialist, it could be characterized as crypto-marxist.

The non-spontaneous but rather pre-planned nature of the left’s assault on the culture is more fully informed by the indispensable testimony of KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov. Bezmenov explains that the campaign of ideological subversion waged by America’s enemies should be thought of in terms of demoralization, destabilization, crisis, and (totalitarian) normalization.

It is not that the KGB and other ideological subverters originated and drove the cultural and intellectual deterioration of America, but they pulled un-American ideas along, nurtured corrosive values, and helped undermine institutions that kept the country strong and great. And according to recent reports, despite the formal demise of the USSR, the FSB is still in business and still carrying out active measures against The West.

The overarching point is that we should look out for elements of pop culture that may seem trivial, but have a compound effect. Much like critical theory, which breaks up the left’s uniform movement towards socialism into various interest groups, neomarxist modes of thought and expression take on many guises and manifestations. Sometimes the medium itself is the message.

What one finds in American popular culture is a gaping void hungering for a moral defense of the nation’s key values: individualism, liberty, and representative government. Real musicians like Gary Eaton, Wilson Getchell, and the band Cake are helping to lead the way on the music scene. And even seemingly marginal acts of cultural opposition as found in the Hollywood film The Dark Knight Rises are crucial to turning the tide against leftism.

American conservatives – you are the counter-culture. Act like it.

Obama’s Marxist 2012 Reelection Campaign

Barack Obama’s 2012 taxpayer-funded reelection campaign contains many elements, including massive doses of class warfare and racially-divisive rhetoric, (think, ” If I had a son he’d look just like Trayvon”) massive misinformation about the viability of taxpayer-funded green energy programs, the always-loved-by-the-far-left-radicals hate-speech directed at anyone in America who is successful (think taxing anyone making over $250k) with that last aspect also including the misinformation-laden Obama 2012 war on big oil companies. Barack Obama’s current 2012 reelection campaign rhetoric shows America a man who must attempt to distract American voters from looking at his dismal record during his historic failure of a first [and only] term as president of the United States of America.

What most Americans do not seem to be able to grasp today is the fact that Obama’s current campaign rhetoric follows very closely with another centuries-old form of using misinformation to nudge public perceptions campaign, that of one Karl Marx, the founder of what has now known worldwide as Marxism.

Marxism, according to Bing Dictionary is defined as: a: the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, in which class struggle is a central element in the analysis of social change in Western societies, and b:  political ideology based on the theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. (emphasis added)

There it is, Obama2012 defined in one simple sentence: Class struggle being promoted as a main element in a drive to effect social change. This also goes hand in glove with Obama’s Hope and Change campaign of 2008, where he promised to “fundamentally transform America” and where he told Joe the plumber that we must “spread the wealth around.”

 In yet another taxpayer-funded campaign speech last week, Obama continued his call for Karl Marx-inspired wealth redistribution in his continuing war on big oil companies, as Larry Kudlow explains:

“Once again this week, the president was out on the campaign trail bashing and oil and gas companies. And he continued to spread major falsehoods about this industry, which I guess is the polite way to put it.

 Obama is obsessed with oil and gas. He is a prisoner of the left-wing environmental groups. And really, he’s extending his leftist class-warfare attack from rich people to successful oil and gas producers.”
“What seems to have Obama especially steamed is the fact that the conventional-energy companies are profitable. Especially the five largest. So he wants to tax them. He then wants to redistribute their income to his favorite green-energy firms. Sound familiar? I don’t know which is more important to the president — the fact that he hates fossil fuel, or the fact that he hates success. Or that he wants an energy-entitlement state.” (emphasis added)
Enabled by the media-misfits of today, Barack Obama is being given a pass by political operatives posing as reporters on Obama’s obvious implementation of Marxist policies to transform America. Anyone who points out the definition of Marxism, and it’s obvious direct correlation of Barack Obama’s ideology in policy-making being based on the teachings of Karl Marx as a way to fundamentally transform a nation… are immediately labeled  as a right-wing extremist or other nasty Left-wing catch-phrases dug up from third grade name-calling contests.
Karl Marx is quoted from The Communist Manifesto he authored, as stating,  “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working Men of All Countries, Unite!”  This last sentence  has been used frequently by Obama-Union-Operative Andy Stern, the head of SEIU and President Barack Obama’s most frequent White House guest, as stated during a discussion about his planned globalization of SEIU. In case our readers are not familar with just who Andy Stern truly is, along with his Obama connections and Marxist ideology, read this.
In summary, Barack Obama’s proven Marxist ideology has been evident for anyone actually interesting in vetting this man as a candidate for U.S. President during the 2008 presidential elections. That simply did not happen, by design. The media has steadfastly chosen to ignore these facts and still does today to the detriment of America. In the immortal words of the truth-telling Andrew Breitbart, may God rest his soul, “we fully intend to vet Barack Obama in the 2012 elections.” Barack Obama is a Marxist bent on transforming America by destroying her capitalistic system and free markets, empowering a statist central government over it’s people, while taking from one class of citizens to redistribute it to another to buy votes and power. This is right out in the open for all to see in one aspect or another, in every taxpayer-funded speech Obama gives today. All you have to do is listen for it.
The revolution made progress, not by its immediate tragicomic achievements but by the creation of a powerful, united counter-revolution, an opponent in combat with whom the party of overthrow ripened into a really revolutionary party.”  Karl Marx- 1850 from Class Struggle in France .

 

The War on Women: Faceless Casualties at the Frontlines of the Right-Wing’s Evil Crusade

gazarally11

By Vanessa M. Kyllove, embedded girlilla journalist with the Feminists for Freedom brigade, second battalion, reporting from America’s frontlines for Gender Neutrality Journal.

It has been a long, joyless 342 days since the hard right announced its crusade to eradicate womyn’s rights and to throw civilization back into the dark ages. The Wellsley college campanile sounded shrill in the frigid wintry air at ten a.m. – a harsh reminder of the places in the world where freedom does not ring.

Awakening in the hostile sunlight, I logged into my Facebook. Hysterical reports had flooded into my inbox of a Socon conspiracy to protest neonatal infanticide at Planned Parenthood headquarters at high noon. The revelation jolted me more than any mocha half-caf cappuccino. Here was a spur to action that instantly shook off the hangover of those strawberry wine coolers I drank last night. So I threw on my rainbow leg warmers and laced up my combat boots. Time to return to the grisly profession of war.

My blackberry was abuzz with nervous Tweets about the potential implications of ending late term abortions and infanticide. Would life go on as we know it? How would womyn cope with the knowledge that a lady could not whimsically spread her legs and then snuff out the unfortunate results of the tryst later? If we radical feminists gave the frothing-at-the-mouth “pro-life”sociopaths late-term abortions, or heaven forbid, neonatal infanticide, the next thing you know it’s the return of the malleus maleficarum and the Salem witch trials. Not on my watch.

Strolling out onto the campus courtyard, my sisters were already congregated and ready for action. I was the tallest of the group, and sensitive to the impressions of my sisters, I strove not to flaunt my lithe, lanky body and brown flaxen hair, which I kept tucked in a bun under my Che-style beret. My lengthy army green field jacket also guaranteed no wandering predatory masculine eyes could take in my feminine assets.

As I approached on the white paved walkway, I encountered a stocky girl of the athletic type dressed in a gray Wellsley sweatshirt and black stretch pants, taking in the cool mist of the evaporating dew and the warm scent of the radiant morning sun. It was Becky, my best gal pal. She was wielding a sign “Stay Out of My Womb!” while our nerdy, whip-smart friend Sandra, a diminutive red-haired girl of modest persuasion, had taken up the plight of the condomless with her custom T-shirt “Fluck You, Where’s Our Condoms?!”

We assembled at the pavilion with the Structural Feminist Society and countenanced our plan of attack. Social conservatives were not to be trifled with, having been raised on red meat and possibly harboring communicable diseases like rabies. We imagined the best tactic would be to yell as piercingly as we could, repeating the same chants over and over until we got our way.

“What about… racists, sexists, homophobes, leave those abortion docs alone?” Sandra meekly proffered to the group of seventeen college girls and the Gender Studies professor Ms. Shwarthely.

“What does that have to do with abortion and reproductive rights?” I asked, slightly confused.

“Yes, exactly,” Ms. Shwarthely muttered dryly, a wry smile creasing on her thin, pursed lips.

After forming en masse, we stridently took to the streets, armed only with our witty placards and a ray of hope. What we were fighting for was a more just world for all of us. And we would be damned if some redneck, teabagging socons were going to take away our right to partial birth abortion or neonatal infanticide.

The clack of heavy black Sketchers pounded on the pavement like an advancing army. Seventeen raucous warriors fighting for the cause of all adult womyn ready to do battle with our worst of enemies – the ignorant right-wing reactionary.

The Planned Parenthood office was a flurry of activity, as dozens of white, middle-aged, trailer park trash had gathered on the sidewalk, carrying Bibles and other mysogynistic hate literature. Horribly graphic pictures of healthy infants shocked and stirred us to engage.

“Sisters, let’s mobilize!” Ms. Shwarthely yelled through a bull-horn. The short-haired, bespectacled professor led the charge to the head of the protest group, a priest who was mumbling some Bible verses. She got right in his face.

“What do you think you’re doing here?” she bellowed in righteous fury. “Protesting abortion? Neonatal infanticide? What business of yours is this?”

“Why…” the idiotic preacher splurted out, “I just think it’s morally wrong…”

“Morally wrong?” Ms. Swarthely howled magnificently. “Why these…” she wrapped her hand against a placard bearing an image of a fetus “…are just blobs of protoplasm, inconsequential bits of matter, and it is up to we womyn to decide if they live or die!”

“But…” the bumbling fool struggled to make out, “Don’t you see that all life is precious?”

“Precious? Precious?!? How many children will starve to feed this drain on society that you would like to see the light of day? Womyn, enough! Time to chant!”

Our voices raised to the sky, we chanted in unison. Our hymn flooded over our enemies gloriously, more potently than any Christian choir. One suburban WASP female burst into tears because of our stirring chorus. I gave my friend Becky a high-five and took out my camera phone. My friends would not believe the ridiculous teabagging rednecks who dared to mess with our girl power.

An hour of our brigade, nicknamed “Task Force Vagina,” chanting “racist, bigot, homophobe” wore down our adversaries. At last, bittersweet victory. One of the hateful hillbillies yelled, “You are all going to hell!”- only proving they were a bunch of crazy hatemongers. Then finally, the coup de grâce.  The invariable “baby killer!” meme was uttered. I caught it all on my camera phone, which brought an irresistible grin to my face. But Sandra was visibly upset.

“Hey, lady!” she cried. “I don’t like being called names!”

This was unacceptable. One of my sisters had been emotionally wounded in combat. I folded up my cellphone and rushed to comfort my wounded comrade by putting my arm around her shoulder. Just then, a womyn showed up to enter the clinic, bravely making her way through the crowd of contorted faces. Meekly, shuffling her way through, she lifted her eyes only to parse the meaning of the confrontation. Her expression was grave.

Awkwardly, I smiled at the young black woman with a reassuring look on my face that communicated ‘just ignore the signs.’ The obviously lonely and afraid girl seemed to pluck up for a moment and then returned to her grim state after she walked by.

Why was this world so cruel? What good were all these protests if a womyn like her was forced to bear the curse of an unwanted child, and left no choice but to terminate it? If only the world were one collective, sharing all, no one would go without want, no one would go hungry, and no one would be shamed for the unavoidable results of free love…

“Hey, you!” a ferocious masculine shout snapped me back to attention. “Whores of Babylon!”

Back to the fray. Back to the cause of fighting for womyn everywhere.

The above is satire. It is a fictionalized account intended to elucidate certain ideas and principles by taking them to absurd lengths. It is not intended to be taken literally.

Kyle Becker blogs at RogueGovernment, and can be followed on Twitter as @RogueOperator1. He writes freelance for several publications, including American Thinker and BeatObamaPac, and is a regular commentator on the late night talk show TB-TV.

The U.S State-Run Electric Company

At the recent State of the Union  speech, President Obama declared, “The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But there’s no reason why Congress shouldn’t at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation. So far, you haven’t acted. Well, tonight, I will. I’m directing my administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power 3 million homes. And I’m proud to announce that the Department of Defense, working with us, the world’s largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history – with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year.

That statement pretty much sums up Barack Obama’s entire first term in office and his vision of the “transformation of America” that he has promised the country.

First, he refuses to acknowledge the fact that his Senate Democrats  have virtually eliminated any chance of  Congress legislating properly by refusing to allow any votes on the numerous House-passed legislative bills currently sitting on Senate leader Harry Reid’s desk, as per the United States Constitution and Congressional by-laws. Harry Reid is simply advancing Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign strategy of running against a do-nothing Congress.

Secondly, Barack Obama, the much-ballyhooed “Constitutional scholar” appears to be quite ignorant, as far as the separation of defined powers of the three branches of government are concerned. Obama declares that he has “directed” the DOD to get into the clean energy business on public lands. Has the constitutional scholar forgotten that the United States House of Representatives is supposed to control the taxpayers purse strings? Will Congress and the American citizenry allow Barack Obama to turn the DOD into the next DNC slush fund such as that which is now known as the Solyndra pay-for-play scandal?

Finally, the United States Government has no authority, nor any business attempting to interfere in the U.S. energy sector. Providing for national security is now being used as a template for big government control of everything from light bulbs to the U.S auto industry, to what your children can or cannot eat. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist nor a Harvard graduate to see that this is a Hugo-Chavez-style attempt to open the door for a complete takeover of the energy sector by the U.S. Government.  As Chavez himself explains, his “Socialist Plan of the Nation” is right out in the open for all to see, while Barack Obama is attempting to do it behind the scenes with such things as ordering the DOD  to start clean energy projects on public lands.  Would Americans be comfortable writing a check to pay their electric bills to the current U.S Government that has added over $5T (in 3 short years) to the current mind-boggling $15 trillion dollars in debt? Can Barack Obama and the current crop of irresponsible, don’t-have-time-to-read-the- bills-before-they-sign-them ignorant misfits of Congress just demand that the DOD start using public lands in any way they see fit, without so much as a vote by the people whom are paying for all of this? Yes they can, if people do not start standing up to the nanny-state manipulators in our current government. Standing up to this freedom-robbing big government plutocracy starts at the voting booth in 2012. Vote Republican.

Note: To quote Hugo Chavez in regards to his government taking over the entire Venezuelan economy, including the energy sector, ” To the contrary, we are obligated to continue advancing the socialist plan,” said the president.

 

 

 

The Danger of the Cordray Recess Appointment

Back on Dec 6th and 7th of this year a two-part article appeared on CDN that described the method the Obama administration was using to take over U.S. Banks by copying exactly how Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was taking over every part of private industry in creating his Communist Collective down in South America. Please read, U.S. Banks Being Taken Over Using Chavez-Style Manipulation Part 1 to understand the eery similarities between Chavez and Obama’s methods of operation today. Then, in Part 2 of that same article, it is exposed exactly how Indy Mac bank of California became One West bank, as the FDIC, Obama and Bernanke-Approved Bank Fraud lined the pockets of Dell, Paulson and Billionaire Leftist money-manipulator, George Soros, while also depleting FDIC funding, thus leaving U.S taxpayers to foot the bill.

The Indy-Mac fraud was in fact a test-run and model to use for the takeover of U.S. Banks and effect a major shift of financial power to assorted leftists like George Soros and crony-capitalists like Dell and Paulson. And they use the Dodd-Frank supposed financial reform bill, in conjunction with a politically injected CFPB ( Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) appointed “Czar” to complete the tri-fecta of taking over banks, turning them over to the likes of George Soros and assorted crony-capitalists, and then sticking the taxpayers with the losses from these same banks through depleting the FDIC fund, which is now about bankrupt.

Enter the latest unconstitutional recess appointment and “Money Czar” Richard Cordray. While President Obama was campaigning on the taxpayer’s dime once again in Ohio, he announced this latest violation of the U.S. Constitution with a load of misinformation, the likes of which Mr. Josef Goebbels would surely be proud of: “Today, I’m appointing Richard as America’s consumer watchdog,” Obama told the crowd. “That means he’ll be in charge of one thing: looking out for the best interest of American consumers. His job will be to protect families like yours from the abuses of the financial industry. His job will be to make sure you’ve got all the information you need to make important financial decisions.”

“Looking out for the best interest” of whom Mr. President? George Soros? Michael Dell? Is that what we are supposed to believe is the “Middle Class” you are “protecting” with this sham? How about when it was recently announced that the bank of America was going to charge debit card fees and the so-called financial reform bill permitted it? Sure they stopped it simply because customers started leaving the bank in droves over it, but it was legal under your new law. What Obama does not want the citizenry to understand is the fact that Richard Cordray will now have unfettered access to the taxpayer’s bank account without any input from Congress. Zero. Nada.

In the article Cordray Can Wait from Investors.com, accessed Jan. 05, 2012, we see the following: (emphasis added)

As Ohio’s attorney general, Cordray’s main focus was making Wall Street pay for the financial crisis. He sued BofA, AIG, Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and other Wall Street firms on behalf of public-employee pensions. His shakedown netted trial lawyers and the unions they represent for more than $1 billion in settlements and fees.

Most concerning, this wannabe federal bank sheriff is in the back pocket of trial lawyers. The law firm that represented Ohio in the AIG case pumped $125,000 into Cordray’s campaigns. Other firms donated $200,000 to Cordray, who plans to run for Ohio governor one day. The new bureau will spawn more work for trial lawyers as it investigates banks for loosely defined “abusive” practices, including loan price “discrimination.”.

This recess appointment will fund the DNC through crony-trial lawyers for decades to come as was also documented here. Last but not least, from Investors.com we see this tidbit: (emphasis added)

As Democrats set up the CFPB, the director enjoys unprecedented power, reporting only to the president. The agency is housed in the Federal Reserve and funded outside the annual appropriations process (with a startup budget of half a billion dollars). In effect, it’s not accountable to Congress or the American public.
The Senate GOP threatens to filibuster Cordray’s final confirmation vote unless the agency adds a bipartisan panel to check its director. They don’t want to give another activist appointee blank-check authority to go after banks and provide even more grist for class-action lawyers. Someone’s got to stop the shakedown.

More race-based grift for class-action, DNC-donor trial lawyers? Do you mean like this example here: In that info-byte we see that bank of America will dole out $335 million dollars to “Black and Hispanic” borrowers because they were supposedly charged more for home loans. Apparently it doesn’t matter if these “victims” of unfair lending practices were very high-risk borrowers with no proven ability to pay when Democrats and Progressives forced banks to make sure “everyone gets a home regardless of ability to pay” mandates that caused the housing crisis in the first place. NOTE: With Blacks and Hispanics making up a small portion of the U.S. Population, isn’t it strange that white people are not included in these reparations, I mean settlement? How about Asians? Back to Investors.com for some more truth about Cordray being illegally injected into our government and his agenda:(emphasis added)

The new bureau will spawn more work for trial lawyers as it investigates banks for loosely defined “abusive” practices, including loan price “discrimination. Heading its Office of Fair Lending is Patrice Ficklin, a a black civil-rights lawyers who headed Fannie Mae’s racial grievance unit. She leads a team using new race-based lending data to crack down on banks that apply prudent lending standards equally to minorities.

Richard Cordray and Patrice Ficklin will now be able to dip into the wallets of the American taxpayers, pay trial lawyers that donate to the DNC millions of taxpayer dollars, and further redistribute those stolen tax dollars to DNC voters of their choice without any oversight from Congress. Nothing to see here folks, just move along.

Happy Kwanzaa – Now Give Us All Your Money, Greedy Capitalst Pigs! (Kwanaa Series continued)

Ujamaa (cooperative economics) and Nia (purpose)

My series on Kwanzaa and why I think it is antithetical to American values continues with the fourth and fifth principles of Kwanzaa, Ujamaa and Nia. You can read Parts 1-4 of this series here, here, here and here.

It is no secret that Kwanzaa has its basis in Marxism. These third and fourth principles of this modern “holiday” speak to that fact loud and clear. Ujamaa is the principle of “cooperative economics” and Nia is the principle of “purpose”.  Although these principles are celebrated on two different Kwanzaa days, they fit together quite snugly in the Kwanzaa basket.  Kwanzaa founder Ron Everett (Maulana Ron Karenga) explains it best in his 2011 annual Kwanzaa newsletter: Ujamaa (Cooperative Economics) reaf- firms the ethics of the harvest, shared work and shared wealth. It thus is opposed to in- equitable distribution of wealth, and re- source monopoly and plunder by the rich and powerful. And it teaches us to privilege the poor and vulnerable, and uphold the right of all peoples to live lives of freedom, dignity, well-being and ongoing develop- ment. Ujamaa also urges us to give rightful recognition and support to the small farmers and farm workers of the world for the vital role they play in feeding and sustaining peo- ple and the planet, especially in the context of the globalization of agriculture and its destructive effects on the lives and lands of the people.

The principle of Nia (Purpose) teaches us to embrace and respond creatively to the collective vocation of restoring to our peo- ple the position and possibilities of great achievements thru doing good in the world.

For the sacred teaching of our ancestors in the Husia say that “the wise are known by their wisdom and the great are known by their good deeds.” And in the Odu Ifa, they tell us that we “humans are divinely chosen to bring good in the world” and that this is the fundamental mission and meaning in human life.

Classic Marxist humanism right down the comfortable use of the word “collective” (which, as an avid Trekkie also reminds me of the distinguished Captain Picard and his awful experience at the hands of the Borg Collective; sorry, had to nerd out there for a second) and the idea that our purpose in life is help by redistribution rather than starting in our homes by bettering ourselves and our families.  We’ve seen  the policies of redistribution put into place around the world and it has led to tyranny and poverty every single time.  Greece handed their entire country over to redistribution and they are now witnessing the collapse of their own society.  The African nations Karenga holds in such high esteem over our own traitor-nation of America have been practicing redistribution for decades.  Americans have been transferring their wealth to Africans for many, many years via the United Nations, food programs and other foreign aid.  Thus far our billions and billions in American aid has been liberally redistributed in Africa…to African dictators who murder and abuse their own citizens; they let the people starve while they distribute much needed aid money to their personal associates, private bank accounts and lavish lifestyles. Redistribution is just a fancy way of saying “stealing”, and Kwanzaa is based on the idea of redistribution – a policy that is proven to create criminals and despots around the world.

Kwanzaa is not the peaceful, mult-cultural “holiday” our schools lead our children to believe it is.  It is a direct attack on American values, capitalism and freedom.  It is born of the man who created a militant organization in the ‘60s known as US, as in “us against them”… need anything more be said about that.  As we wind down our Kwanzaa exploration with the final day falling on New Year’s,  I will be sure to talk more about the founder’s criminal record and shady history.  Just as Karenga and his followers feel it is necessary for Black people to understand their history in order to “rights the wrongs of the past”, I feel it is equally important to understand the history of a manufactured holiday whose founding father is a criminal and a racist.

Capitalist America, to Be or Not to Be Free

According to Barack Obama, the Democrat party and Occupy Wall Street, society’s ills are primarily the fault of the entrepreneurial class.  The rich and greedy.  Those evil corporations who sap the life blood out of working class men and women.  For maximum profit.  Servants to the god of mammon, capitalists defraud their workers of time and energy compensating them only as much as required to keep their work force at work and generating fat profits for the fat cats.  The poor get poorer and the rich get richer.  Business owners obscenely profiting off of the noble sweat of their enslaved and powerless labor force.  The exploitation of the common man.

This is the worldview of the liberal/progressive.  The socialist, Marxist and anti-capitalist.  And the President of the United States.

As the world’s foremost anti-capitalist, Barack Obama promises to punish “the rich.”  Though the top 1% of Americans pay 37% of America’s tax revenue, Obama claims they should pay more.  They should “pay their fair share.”  As defined by Obama.

Instead of celebrating achievers as examples to follow, Obama has spread a malignant contagion of class warfare, deep resentment and good old fashioned envy.  This manipulation of the darker side of human nature is the most sinister and ruthless kind of political tactic.  Turning brother against brother.  Blaming “the haves” and inciting the “have-nots.”  Scapegoating is nothing new.  Class envy and racial hatred are tried and true tools of despots and dictators.  The world has seen this drama played out before.  In Turkey, Germany, Cambodia and Bosnia.  With horrific consequence.

Since William Bradford introduced market forces into the Plymouth Colony, America has been the land of capitalism.  And capitalism favors the industrious.  The risk-takers.  The American economy was designed to provide a greater reward to those who innovate, invest, build, develop, create and hire.  And when success is achieved, all Americans benefit.

Early American entrepreneurs grew the economy and in the process, grew the new nation.  They provided innovative products and services.  They created jobs and in some cases entire new industries.  As a result of their efforts, tax revenues increased as the employers, employees, vendors, consumers and investors all participated in free market capitalism.  The positive ripple effect in America and throughout the world is hard to overestimate.

This is the economic template that built America.  And it can build America again.

But, business owners today face a grim reality.  Innovation, risk-taking, investment, growth and hiring used to result in higher profits.  Profits, of course, being the incentive for being in business in the first place.  Higher profits resulted in further investment and growth.  More jobs.  More production.  More profits.  Leading to more investment, growth and jobs.  It’s a neat little cycle.  And it works.  However, with Obama’s promise to increasingly “tax the rich,” there is no incentive to grow and increase profits.  With the burden of Obamacare and the punitive costs associated with compliance, there is no incentive to hire more employees.  Businesses and business owners want to grow.  But, they will not invite punishment.

These thoughts have been clearly expressed by big and small business owners alike.  Steve Wynn, Las Vegas casino mogul, was very clear in July of this year when he said, “… I’m telling you that the business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States.  And until he’s gone, everybody’s going to be sitting on their thumbs.”  Small businessman Bill Looman, the owner of U.S. Crane LLC, gained recent notoriety as he proclaims loud and clear from his company trucks, “We are not hiring until Obama is gone.”

Such is the world of Ayn Rand’s famous 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged.  As the Atlas of Greek Mythology bore the world on his shoulders, Rand’s novel portrays business owners and entrepreneurs holding up the financial world while simultaneously supporting the non-productive members of society.  Her words seem prophetic as she describes a world where the job-creators have finally had enough.  Punished by excessive taxation and regulated to the point of extinction, the producers of society go on strike.  Ceasing production, eliminating jobs and bringing the economy to its knees.

So, what if today’s producers and job-creators decided to slow down or stop producing?  What would happen if American entrepreneurs and business owners refused to take risks, spend money, expand their businesses and hire new employees?  The unemployment rate would shoot up.  Jobs would be in short supplyProduction would diminish.  Construction jobs would grind to a halt.  The economy would slow to a crawlTax revenues would diminish.  State, county and city governments would struggle to meet their obligations.  Some would be pushed into default.  The federal government, given the ability to print money out of thin air, would continue to spend indiscriminately.  Federal printing presses would go into overdrive, increasing the money supply and eventually resulting in massive inflation.  Rapidly climbing food and energy prices would hurt those least able to afford it.  Welcome to America, 2011.  Like Rand’s Atlas, American businesses are beginning to shrug.

The reason is clear.  Business owners and entrepreneurs are afraid.  Of the President of the United States.  And they have good reason.  Obama is a socialist.  A Marxist.  A redistributionist.  He lives and breathes “social justice.”  His core beliefs are at odds with the economic structure and foundational truths that made America the greatest economic power in world history.  And he’s not going to change.

And that’s the problem.  American businesses do not face a problem of “uncertainty” as is often claimed.  The problem is, they are quite certain about the future they face under Barack Obama.  Punishing  taxes and burdensome regulations.  A future of government intrusion and interference in the free market.  A future where government exacts such harsh penalties for doing business that it squelches the entrepreneurial drive and creates a disincentive for any new businesses or ideas to be born.

As a capitalist nation, the U.S. economy does indeed rest on the shoulders of those brave adventure seekers among us.  Those bold innovators who choose to risk their time, energy, ingenuity and capital in pursuit of profit by producing something that the world wants and needs and at a price that the world is willing to pay.

As the American economy teeters on the brink of depression, American businesses wait and watch.  The presidential election of 2012 will be the tipping point for the American economy.  If Barack Obama wins a second term as President of the United States, capitalism will be fighting for its very survival.  If capitalism cannot survive in America, it cannot survive anywhere for long.  And where capitalism cannot survive, political freedom cannot exist.

“The record of history is absolutely crystal clear. There is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.” Milton Friedman

U.S. Banks Being Taken Over Using Chavez-Style Manipulation

These bankers should be shown for what they really are to the public: vulgar robbers, thieves in ties, pickpockets and obstinate kleptomaniacs:”  Hugo Chavez

President Chavez created new national laws not unlike the U.S. Dodd-Frank supposed financial reform law that Barack Obama signed on July21, 2010. ( along with the supposed food safety law, and Obama-care that completes the tri-fecta of taking over banks, food companies and producers, and the complete U.S. health-care system)

The Chavez’ method of operation in stealing the total private sector wealth of private sector companies and taking over their total economy was done quickly and right out in the open, whereas Barack Obama’s plans have been quietly designed and signed into law beneath the radar of the public and many under-qualified members of Congress, who either do not see the stealth takeover of the private sector by the U.S.  government, or are choosing to turn their backs on the very people who elected them into power by remaining silent. Make no mistake here, the Obama and Chavez  doctrines run  extremely parallel and are rooted in the Marxist ideology of  Socialist wealth redistribution by a plutocracy that in the end ends up in an all-powerful Communist collective. First, let’s look at what Mr. Chavez has done in Venezuela.

Karl Marx

Chavez’s government well knows ( in his own mind) that the dollar-blinded rich in Venezuela must be defeated politically. A democratic economy is essential, and as private ownership fails to meet the needs of the masses, the state is taking over and formulating alternative ways of managing production and distribution. The pricing system is being moderated and social priorities are replacing market manipulation. As the global banking crisis and its scandals grew, the Venezuelan government ensured effective regulation at home. Several small private banks were taken over following revelations of bank fraud. (No fair trial, no evidence needed, just revelations) In November the main shareholder of a group of four banks, Grupo Financiero Bolivar, Ricardo Fernandez, known as a Chavez supporter, was arrested. Two of the banks were nationalised, and two were closed. The Institute in Defence of People’s Access to Goods and Services took control of four food companies owned by Ricardo Fernandez, to make sure there were no supply disruptions. Subsequently, a further three banks were nationalised and, on 11 December, Venezuela’s Superintendency of Banks closed an eighth.

Chavez declared on 10 December. “I have ordered the takeover of tuna, fish, corn processing and rice companies, as well as [the bankers’] estates and cattle this will become wealth for the people’. He added: ‘We are confronting these problems in a coordinated manner with the whole state, and we are taking over companies that were forming a kind of network …We cannot wait until tomorrow. At the first sign, [we take] immediate action and inexorably apply the established laws and procedures.”  (Just like Liberal fake democrats in the U.S. created a slew of laws with no allowed input from Republicans or we the people, Chavez and company drew up and instituted their own laws)

The Venezuelan media takeover has played a central part in Chavez’ plans:  In this battle the media is central, and on 23 January RCTV and five other cable channels were temporarily taken off the air for breaking transmission laws requiring them to televise government announcements. On 14 January the state expropriated the sugar mills ‘Casta’, in the state of Tachira and the ‘La Batalla’ agricultural mill in the state of Barinas, to turn them into social property. All of this was accomplished when Hugo Chavez was given permission to rule by decree, without any input from the National Assembly:  Venezuelan lawmakers loyal to President Hugo Chavez Wednesday approved a measure granting the U.S.-baiting left-wing leader authority to rule by decree  for the next 18 months.  Informed Americans have now come to realize that Obama and company now effectively control the mainstream media, as shown by their refusal to report on Obama’s questionable past, radical associations, and college Marxist ideology such as is thoroughly documented right here.  Now we shall look into what is going on in our banking sector, as we already have been made aware of the complete takeover of our healthcare system, 2 major auto companies, the government intervention into our agriculture sector enabled by the Food Safety Bill, all done in very much the same way Hugo Chavez has done in Venezuela, as shown above.

Signing of Dodd-Frank Bill enables Leftists and Obama Crony-Capitalists to take control of U.S. banks

          The FDIC closed 157 banks in 2010 and the current total for 2011 now stands at 90. 

During trips to several small towns in our area during the past two years, my family has always ended up discussing the possible reasons as to why all of the banks now have new names. The only bank still under it’s original name is the Bank of America, along with two credit unions. Why is this? If a bank is closed, how is it that it reopens almost immediately under a new name, and just why is this happening at an alarmingly increasing rate today? I recently discovered the answers to those questions, and several other questions others may have concerning the massive numbers of bank closings since 2009, and it is pretty unsettling, to say the least. 

            How is the takeover of hundreds of U.S. Banks being engineered today?

In order to close a bank down, surely there must be strict laws in place to provide security against fraud to protect depositors, taxpayers who have to foot the bill under bank foreclosures under FDIC guidelines, and their investors right? Well it turns out there were protections put into place.. until the passage of the Dodd-Frank financial reform act came along and changed the rules. First in March of 2009, the federal government starting stress testing the largest banks in the U.S. (note that this was immediately started in Obama’s first year in office) Please see The Case for Stress-Testing Community Banks*. Since this was actually the start of this method of evaluating banks, and then authorizing the FDIC to close them down, it is important to understand the role of  SCAP,  for Supervisory Capital Assessment Program and the subsequent evolution of the Dodd-Frank bill that now allows the federal reserve and the U. S. government to shut down any FDIC insured bank in America at any time. (Just like Chavez did, with zero input from elected officials)

The SCAP was launched in March 2009 to stress the capital of the 19 largest banks. This was a supervisory exercise to determine the capital buffers sufficient to withstand losses and sustain lending in institutions the U.S. Government deemed “systemically significant,” or “too big to fail.” While it was unlikely the rest of the banking industry would tolerate a system‐wide stress test, Federal policy was essentially leaving the rest of the industry to market forces and the normal FDIC resolution process. ( but not for long as we shall see next)

The stress test focused on the level and composition of capital for two years into the future. The test was conducted under two macroeconomic scenarios for two years forward:

o Baseline scenario based on consensus expectations as of February 2009; and

o More adverse scenario assuming a deeper and longer‐term downturn

(Ironically, this “more adverse” scenario was very close to what the U.S. Experienced).

The original SCAP program set the stage for Dodd-Frank regulations that would allow these “stress tests”, ( that actually had no proven benefit what so ever) to be injected into financial law. This marked a turning point on the thinking and attitude of the SCAP and the role stress testing could play in the banking industry.

 

Dodd‐Frank Act

The value of stress testing was cemented as Congress crafted regulatory reform. To ensure stress

testing became part of the fabric of bank supervision, Congress memorialized it in the following ways:

1. Federal Reserve to provide at least three different sets of conditions for firms to stress test

against;

2. Federal Reserve to do annual stress tests on bank holding companies over 50 billion in assets

and non‐bank financial firms under Federal Reserve supervision;

3. Above firms required to do their own semi‐annual stress test; and

4. All other banks with assets greater than 10 billion required to do annual stress test.

While the legislation establishes bright lines for the size of institutions which are required to perform stress testing, the entire financial services industry should be prepared for increased expectations as financial regulators become accustomed to seeing stress testing as part of the risk management framework and an important part of the supervisory process. Increasingly, bank management will find it difficult to demonstrate sufficient risk management processes without incorporating an element of stress testing.

Take note: Community Bank Performance 2009 & 2010

The pace of bank failures increased significantly in 2009, with 140 institutions being closed. As of October 1, 2010, 129 banks have closed in 2010. That has increased to a total of 247 bank closures during 2010, and 2011. As we see billions of dollars in losses putting a huge strain on the FDIC insurance fund, just who ends up taking over these ‘closed banks’ that end up reopened almost the very same day/week that they were shut down? End Part1   In Part 2, we see just who is taking over these FIDC mandated shuttered banks, who is left paying the bill for their past debt, and just who is raking in billions of dollars from these big government manipulated bank closures.

 

 

 

 

Wolf In Sheep's Clothing

It’s easy to assume that practically everyone is familiar with the tale of the wolf in sheep’s clothing. That legendary children’s tale about a dishonest, self serving individual (the wolf) who intentionally misrepresents himself (wears sheep’s clothing) in order to prey upon the unsuspecting. This long told, centuries old story clearly intends to pass a moral on from one generation to the next.

Somewhere along the line however, it appears as though American’s have either forgotten this story, forgotten to tell it to their children, or in some cases, have decided that maybe the big bad wolf isn’t so bad after all.

Rewind back to 2004. It’s the Democratic National Convention. Slated to give the Keynote speech? One State Senator from Illinois.

This State Senator waxes eloquently, even poetically, about the greatness of America, the power of the American dream, and the devotion of his parents and grandparents to the great, powerful dream that is America.

What he forgets to mention is that his mother attended a radical, communist-leaning church known as “the little red church on the hill”, attended a radical, communist-leaning high school which had a communist school board chairman and several communist teachers on staff where she was taught the Communist Manifesto.

What he also forgets to mention is that in Kenya, as part of a “development plan”, his father championed communal ownership through forced confiscation of privately owned land, advocated the nationalization of foreign owned companies, and promoted dramatically increasing taxes on “the rich” up to 100%.

Oh, and he also somehow forgets to mention that his grandparents and Frank Marshall Davis, the boyhood mentor they hand picked for him, were all members of the Communist Party USA.

Fast forward to 2008. The former State Senator, now the junior United States Senator from Illinois, runs a brilliant campaign, where he fools a lot of people into thinking that he’s a centrist and will govern as such. He’s a new, improved brand of politician who will unify America and lead us all to the promised land.

Today’s reality is that he’s fractured America. Instead of being the advertised great uniter, he’s consistently and repeatedly refused to reach across the aisle, choosing instead to willfully demonize his political opponents, play the race and class warfare cards with mind numbing regularity, and enact huge numbers of policies that are openly hostile to America’s economic bedrock, the private sector free market.

What we have here is a Marxist wolf in populist sheep’s clothing. A dishonest, self serving individual who intentionally misrepresents himself in order to prey upon the unsuspecting.

If he fooled you, don’t get mad at yourself, just admit it. Admitting the problem is the first step in recovery.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/wolf-in-sheeps-clothing/

« Older Entries