"From each
according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" (Karl Marx,
1875)
Bill De Blasio, the mayor of New York City recently made a stunning statement : "What's been hardest is the way our legal system is structured to favor
private property. I think people all over this city, of every background, would
like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes
where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be. I
think there's a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of
community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their
needs. And I would, too. Unfortunately, what stands in the way of that is
hundreds of years of history that have elevated property rights and wealth to
the point that that's the reality that calls the tune on a lot of
development... Look, if I had my druthers, the city government would determine
every single plot of land, how development would proceed. And there would be
very stringent requirements around income levels and rents. That's a world I'd
love to see, and I think what we have, in this city at least, are people who
would love to have the New Deal back, on one level. They'd love to have a very,
very powerful government, including a federal government, involved in directly
addressing their day-to-day reality."
Boom.
The elimination of
private property rights is one of the primary tenets of extreme
socialism/Communism.
And of course, the
disposition of private property---the takeover---would be achieved by
government.
So for those people
who think the rising tide of socialism is just a myth, you now have the mayor
of the world's most powerful city advocating it publicly and openly.
And the response of
the mainstream press? A yawn, and silence.
Or to put it another
way, bland acceptance.
Private property was
one of the basic issues Ayn Rand, the most reviled and adored novelist of the
20th century, explored in depth. Here are several statements she
uncompromisingly offered:
"Without
property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his
life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort
has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of
his product, is a slave."
"The doctrine
that 'human rights' are superior to 'property rights' simply means that some
human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent
have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the
incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever
regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of 'human'."
"You cannot
force intelligence to work: those who're able to think, will not work under
compulsion; those who will, won't produce much more than the price of the whip
needed to keep them enslaved. You cannot obtain the products of a mind except
on the owner's terms, by trade and by volitional consent. Any other policy of
men toward man's property is the policy of criminals, no matter what their
numbers."
In a half-sane
society, private property rights would be debated in depth at every college,
without interference. But that is no longer possible, owing to censorship of
speech.
Beyond this
restriction, students aren't equipped with tools of analysis to approach the
subject. Instead, they're indoctrinated with vapid generalities.
As I've detailed in a recent articles, the rank promotion of socialism has nothing to do with
"power to the people." Socialism is an elite strategy, boosted by
Globalists as a way of gaining control of governments and populations.
Their pretense of
"share and care" is a mask behind which they are instituting a
worldwide management system. They, not the people, will own the means of
production, and they will determine the distribution of goods and services.
Instead of solving
the problem of predatory mega-corporations, "socialism" will elevate
those corporations to even greater heights of power.
As just one
example---what president of the US stood for, and promoted, the greatest degree
of socialism? That would be Franklin Roosevelt, who presided over the New Deal
and World War 2. How did he rein in corporations and prosecute their crimes?
Are you kidding?
Consider Charles
Higham's classic, Trading with the Enemy:
"What would have
happened if millions of American and British people, struggling with coupons
and lines at the gas stations, had learned that in 1942 Standard Oil of New
Jersey [part of the Rockefeller empire] managers shipped the enemy's
[Germany's] fuel through neutral Switzerland and that the enemy was shipping
Allied fuel? Suppose the public had discovered that the Chase Bank in
Nazi-occupied Paris after Pearl Harbor was doing millions of dollars' worth of
business with the enemy with the full knowledge of the head office in Manhattan
[the Rockefeller family among others?] Or that Ford trucks were being built for
the German occupation troops in France with authorization from Dearborn,
Michigan? Or that Colonel Sosthenes Behn, the head of the international
American telephone conglomerate ITT, flew from New York to Madrid to Berne during
the war to help improve Hitler's communications systems and improve the robot
bombs that devastated London? Or that ITT built the FockeWulfs that dropped
bombs on British and American troops? Or that crucial ball bearings were
shipped to Nazi-associated customers in Latin America with the collusion of the
vice-chairman of the U.S. War Production Board in partnership with Goering's
cousin in Philadelphia when American forces were desperately short of them? Or
that such arrangements were known about in Washington and either sanctioned or
deliberately ignored?"
If you want a modern
example of "socialism" at work, consider another soft promoter of
this philosophy, President Barack Obama, and his response to one of the most
predatory of corporations, Monsanto, and other food giants.
From Scott Creighton,
"Obama Pitches India Model of GM Genocide to Africa":
"At the G8
Summit held two weeks ago at Camp David, President Obama met with private
industry and African heads of state to launch the New Alliance for Food
Security and Nutrition, a euphemism for monocultured, genetically modified
crops and toxic agrochemicals aimed at making poor farmers debt slaves to
corporations, while destroying the ecosphere for profit."
"But African
civil society wants no part of this latest Monsanto aligned 'public private
partnership.' Whatever will the progressives do now that their flawless hero
has teamed up with their most hated nemesis [Monsanto] to exploit an entire
continent like they did to India not that long ago?..."
"With a
commitment of $3 billion, Obama plans to 'partner up' with mega-multinationals
like Monsanto, Diageo, Dupont, Cargill, Vodafone, Walmart, Pepsico, Prudential,
Syngenta International, and Swiss Re because, as one USAID representative says
'There are things that only companies can do, like building silos for storage
and developing seeds and fertilizers.'
"Of course,
that's an outrageous lie. Private citizens have been building their own silos
for centuries. But it's true that only the biowreck engineers will foist
patented seeds and toxic chemicals on Africa."
Obama? A socialist
warrior against corporations on behalf of the people? It's long past the time
for ripping that false mask away.
During his 2008
campaign for president, Barack Obama transmitted signals that he understood the
GMO issue. Several key anti-GMO activists were impressed. They thought Obama,
once in the White House, would listen to their concerns and act on them.
These activists
weren't just reading tea leaves. On the campaign trail, Obama said: "Let
folks know when their food is genetically modified, because Americans have a
right to know what they're buying."
Making the
distinction between GMO and non-GMO was certainly an indication that Obama,
unlike the FDA and USDA, saw there was an important line to draw in the sand.
Beyond that, Obama
was promising a new era of transparency in government. He was adamant in
assuring that, if elected, his administration wouldn't do business in "the
old way." He would be "responsive to people's needs."
Then came the
reality.
After the election,
people who had been working to label GMO food and warn the public of its huge
dangers were shocked to the core. They saw Obama had been pulling a bait and
switch.
After the 2008
election, Obama filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that
wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:
At the USDA, as the
director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy,
former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.
As deputy
commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael
Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been
instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine
growth hormone.
As commissioner of
the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the
Governors' Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year
Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include
Monsanto.
As the new
Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam
Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.
As the new counsel
for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech
giant, DuPont.
As the new head of
the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had previously worked in key positions for the Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.
We should also
remember that Obama's secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the
Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.
Obama nominated Elena
Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had
previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the
Supreme Court.
The deck was stacked.
Obama hadn't simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn't just failed to exercise
proper oversight in selecting appointees. He wasn't just experiencing a failure
of short-term memory. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and
other GMO corporate giants. He was Monsanto's agent.
And now let us look
at what key Obama appointees wrought for their true bosses. Let's see what GMO
crops have walked through the open door of the Obama presidency.
Monsanto GMO alfalfa.
Monsanto GMO sugar
beets.
Monsanto GMO Bt
soybean.
Syngenta GMO corn for
ethanol.
Syngenta GMO stacked
corn.
Pioneer GMO soybean.
Syngenta GMO Bt
cotton.
Bayer GMO cotton.
ATryn, an
anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.
A GMO papaya strain.
This is an
extraordinary parade. It, in fact, makes Barack Obama the most GMO-dedicated
politician in America.
You don't attain that
position through errors or oversights. Obama was, all along, a stealth
operative on behalf of Monsanto, biotech, GMOs, and corporate control of the
future of agriculture.
Socialism? Power to
the people? Share and care? Special concern for the downtrodden?
Socialism is a means
for government to gain ironclad control of the means of production by colluding
with mega-corporations.
That collusion, that
tight partnership has been called fascism. And that's what socialism turns out
to be.
To the degree that
governments are socialist, in England, the US, Germany, Sweden, Denmark,
Russia, China, Canada, Australia and other countries, that's the pattern.
It would evolve into
the same pattern in New York, where Mayor Bill De Blasio is blowing smoke up
everybody's backside, with his remarks about people-power and strong government
taking over private property.
If the mayor wants to
prove otherwise, let's see him go after the most mighty anti-people corporation
in his city: Goldman Sachs. Let's see him lead a no-holds-barred prosecution of
that outfit's crimes.
Let's see him attack
the company that is running a significant chunk of Donald Trump's presidency.
No comments:
Post a Comment