Is Socialism A Myth?

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."