It is a myth that
socialism is a revolution of, by and for the people.
I've presented evidence that socialism is actually a
movement owned, operated, and funded by ultra-wealthy elites.
Dupes, foot soldiers,
blind idealists, indoctrinated students, and low-level thugs are recruited
through cutouts to serve the agenda of Rockefeller, Rothschild and Soros
Globalists, for example, who are determined to bring about worldwide socialism.
Socialism, in a
nutshell, equals ultra-rich elites (represented by the Council on Foreign
Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, etc.) owning the free market,
cutting out competition, and creating more powerful, overarching, central
governments.
Hidden in the plan is the granting of greater dominion to
mega-corporations. This is a key fact.
The US Constitution
was a document that established extremely limited central government. Regardless of the motives of the
authors and the state legislatures that ratified it, the ideas contained in the
Constitution were, and are, extremely oppressive toward large centralized
structures controlling the people.
But there was another
factor present at the beginning of the American Republic.
At the dawn of the United States, corporations were
chartered and thus allowed to operate by the individual states. If a
corporation, in the eyes of a state legislature, violated a basic trust by
harming the people, committing offenses against the citizenry, the legislature
could summarily cancel their charter and literally exile them from the state.
This power followed, in part, from the fact that
corporations were not and are not individuals. They do not have the rights and
freedoms of individuals. Corporations were not granted the rights of citizens
in the Constitution.
Richard Grossman, an
activist and scholar of US corporate history, unearthed and made lucid these
facts.
At the birth of the American Republic, therefore, there was
a double limitation on power. Central government and corporations were both
strapped and shackled.
Of course, just as
the federal government has been allowed to expand like an unchecked fungus, so
has corporate power.
Under socialism aka
Globalism, mega-corporate power is the prow of a ship that sails on and on and
conquers the economies of the world.
Corporate crimes go
unpunished.
Contrary to popular belief, the real agenda of socialism
has nothing to do with prosecuting those crimes.
The idea, for
example, that greater socialism in America would defeat Monsanto is ludicrous
in the extreme.
Monsanto is one of
the components of actual socialism, the real, not the fake, version.
Again, socialism is
by, for, and of the ultra-wealthy elites. It is not a movement on behalf of the
downtrodden.
As Gary Allen puts it in his 1971 classic, None Dare call
It Conspiracy: "...pressure from above and pressure from below... The
pressure from above comes from secret, ostensibly respectable Comrades in the
government and [elite Globalist] Establishment, forming, with the radicalized
mobs in the streets below, a giant pincer around middle-class society. The
street rioters are pawns, shills, puppets, and dupes for an oligarchy of
elitist conspirators working above to turn America's limited government into an
unlimited government with total control over our lives and property."
"The American
middle class is being squeezed to death by a vise. In the streets we have
avowed revolutionary groups... Virtually all members of these groups sincerely
believe that they are fighting the Establishment. In reality they are an
indispensable ally of the Establishment in fastening Socialism on all of us.
The naive radicals think that under Socialism the 'people' will run everything. Actually, it will be
a clique of Insiders in total control, consolidating and controlling all
wealth. That is why these schoolboy Lenins and teenage Trotskys are allowed to
roam free and are practically never arrested or prosecuted. They are protected. If the
Establishment wanted the revolutionaries stopped, how long do you think they
would be tolerated?"
Gary Allen wrote that
passage in 1971. Does it ring a familiar bell now?
As philosopher George Santayana famously
wrote in 1905, "Those who cannot remember the past are
condemned to repeat it."
Equally famous is the
prescription for all advertising: repeat the same message over and over, so it
sinks into the mind and forms a false impression of truth.
Thus it has been with
the basic message of socialism. "This is a form of government that finally
serves the people. It is the people rising up to take the reins of power."
Once that notion is
rigidly fixed in consciousness, it is impossible to believe socialism is
actually emanating from the elite of the elite.
Fortunately, more and more people are waking up to the
basic con of fake news, which doesn't only broadcast distorted current events
spooling out through screens, day by day.
Basic themes of fake
news also span decades and even centuries.
What will happen when
enough young people, who want to tear down the structures of the monopolists,
realize those same men are bankrolling them in the streets?
What will happen when
these young people realize their teachers and mentors and handlers and
professors have been feeding them the precise reverse of the truth?
As long as
independent media continue to proliferate, that day is coming.
Let's get something straight. There is no pure form of
socialism, where "the government owns the means of production."
The means of
production own the government, and vice versa. It's always collusion. Elite
power players stitch themselves together like a walking Frankenstein corpse.
Socialism can be done
with a smile or with guns and jails. Styles vary.
In 1966, Carroll
Quigley, author of Tragedy and Hope, wrote: "The Council on Foreign
Relations [CFR] is the American branch of a (Fabian) society which originated
in England [and] believes national boundaries should be obliterated and
one-world rule established."
You could call the
CFR's agenda socialism or Globalism or fascism or dictatorship---it doesn't
matter. For the sake of brevity, I'll call it socialism.
At street level (not
within the CFR), every proponent of the socialist "solution" either
has no idea who installs it and runs it, or he astonishingly believes "the
government" can be transformed into a beneficent enterprise and shed its
core corruption, as it takes the reins of absolute power.
Meanwhile, the ultra-wealthy elites who use socialism as a
weapon, while propagandizing it as our humanitarian future, know full well THEY
will run it, and they have no qualms about placing severe limits on the freedom
of populations. They want to impose those limits.
Hope and Change, the
slogan of the former US president, was perfect for street-level socialists. It
was vague enough to be injected with their own vague dreams and fantasies.
Colleges, or as I
call them, Academies of Great Generalities, have been turning out these
fantasists by the ton. "If I feel it, it must be true and good."
One such idealist, back in the 1960s, was a young man
named James Kunen. But smarter by far
than most of his comrades, he
wrote a book called The Strawberry Statement: Notes on a College Revolutionary.
A member of the Left group, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Kunen
recalled a curious event at the 1968 SDS Convention:
"...at the
convention, men from Business International Roundtables---the meetings
sponsored by Business International for their client groups and heads of
government---tried to buy up a few [Leftist] radicals. These men are the
world's leading industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives are
going to go. These are the boys who wrote the Alliance for Progress. They're
the left wing of the ruling class."
"...They offered to finance our demonstrations in
Chicago. We were also offered Esso (Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a
lot of radical commotion so they can look more in the center as they move to
the left."
Rockefeller elites
moving to the political Left? What?
Look at it this way.
If you're a Rockefeller man, what brand of rhetoric are you going to use to
sell your con? The "Utopian-better-world-for-the-people (Leftist)",
or the
"we-want-mega-corporations-to-cheat-and-lie-and-steal-the-people-blind-and-co-opt-the-government
(Rightist)"?
Since any brand of
rhetoric is designed to end up in the same place---global control---you're
going to pick the more attractive-sounding version.
It's simply a matter
of workability and expedience.
That's why the lingo
of Leftist socialism has come to the fore.
That's the only
reason.
If a Rockefeller,
Rothschild, Obama or Soros operative could use, to good effect, tales of
enemies invading Earth from a parallel universe, he would.
In 1928, the
historian Oswald Spengler
wrote: "There is no proletarian, not even
a Communist movement, that has not operated in the interests
of money, and for the time being permitted by money---and that [operation
has continued] without the idealists among its leaders having the slightest
suspicion of the fact."
Is there a college
anywhere in the world that acknowledges and teaches this? The insight is not
permitted. It would torpedo too many platitudes and reveal too many false
trails laid down by elite deceivers.
David Rockefeller,
writing his 2003 Memoirs, baldly asserted: "Some even believe we are part
of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States,
characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with
others around the world to build a more integrated global political and
economic structure---one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand
guilty, and I am proud of it."
Of course,
Rockefeller stopped short of saying he and his colleagues, in the core of the
CFR and the Trilateral Commission, were using socialism and high-flying utopian
rhetoric merely to enlist the Left in his "one-world" cause. He never
admitted the notions of "social justice" and "equality"
were being peddled to the gullible masses for the same reason.
If he had come clean,
victims (both real and self-imagined) would understand they were fighting
against the very oppressors who were backing, funding, encouraging, and
controlling them.
The sought-after
global triumph of socialism is a cover for elite global management and tyranny.
"Thanks for your
help. Now that we've won, you're under the gun. Our gun."
Flashing forward to today, one can see this sales job
operating in boardrooms of the tech giants (Google, Facebook, etc.) The
corporate leaders (the new Rockefellers and Carnegies) claim they're proponents
of "digital socialism," which they ludicrously define as open access
to the wonders of the Internet for all people everywhere, including the poor
and bereft. But the last time I looked, those people can't eat a YouTube video
for a breakfast they can't afford.
This nonsensical
fluff hides the same core buried in old-time socialism: the leaders at the top,
who have made their mega-fortunes, want to turn around and eliminate
competition. Share and care doesn't apply to the marketplace. The tech CEOs
want to collude with government to gain special favors and benefits their
lesser rivals can't obtain.
"We love
everyone and care about everyone, but don't challenge us. We're the bosses. We
own the game." The new boss is the same as the old boss as the song goes.
The tech giants want
much more. They intend to lead the way, with their government partners, into an
even tighter control of information (censorship) and a more vast Surveillance
State.
They intend to build a technocratic planet, in which
planned societies are the foundation. Citizens are "data-points" to
be inserted into slots, from cradle to grave, as a worldwide system is
constructed.
Notions of fairness,
equality, and other terms of socialism are deployed as a front for this massive
operation.
Some might say this
version of Brave New World/1984 bears no resemblance to socialism.
But they would be
wrong. This version is perfect socialism, once you realize the whole socialist
"political philosophy" was never anything more than paper-thin
propaganda.
It was a nothing made
into something.
It falls apart and
blows away, and the skull-grin of control comes into view. The same grin
existed in the medieval Roman Church, in the ancient Roman emperorship, in the
Egypt of the Pharaohs, in Babylonia, in Sumer, in Mayan and Aztec
civilizations, in tribes and clans long buried and forgotten.
Only the language of
the sellers to the buyers has changed.
Mao Tse-tung, founding father and ruler of Communist China,
openly declared: "Socialism...must have a dictatorship, it will not work
without it." Mao didn't beat
around the bush. In maintaining his dictatorship, he discovered he might have a
problem with between 40 and 70 million of his own people. So, just to make
sure, he killed them.
But don't worry, be
happy. Less violent socialisms exist in the world---as long as citizens
willingly give up their independence.
For example, you
could opt for Tony Blair's
vision. Tony is an accused war criminal (Iraq/2003, between 100,000 and million
dead), but on the bright side, he didn't massacre huge numbers of his own
people. In 1983, Tony stated:
"I am a Socialist not through reading a textbook that
has caught my intellectual fancy, nor through unthinking tradition, but because
I believe that, at its best, Socialism corresponds most closely to an existence
that is both rational and moral. It stands for co-operation, not confrontation;
for fellowship, not fear. It stands for equality, not because it wants
people to be the same but because only through equality in our economic circumstances
can our individuality develop properly."
I'll let you try to
translate that generalized gibberish. Take the words "rational,"
"moral," "co-operation," "fellowship,"
"equality in our economic circumstances," and run them to ground.
Attempt to apply them to actual life. Determine what actual policies and
regulations would flow from them.
Tony is one of the deans of the Academy of Great
Generalities. He knows how to shovel it on wide and deep. His one skill is
appearing earnest and sincere.
He shares that
attribute with many of his socialist colleagues. They've learned their tricks
at the feet of mentors, and
you can trace the line all the way back to Plato.
"We're not
Stalin, we're not Mao. Honest. We want to do good. Help us help you. We're all
in this together. There's a bright day ahead. Just let us do our work."
Or as Bill Clinton famously put it, "I feel your
pain."
No one heard him say, under his breath, "Of course, I
pay no attention to feelings."
No comments:
Post a Comment