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.
For
example, the Council on Foreign Relations [CFR] believes an
international “joining of hands across the water” would be just dandy.
You
could call the CFR’s agenda socialism or Globalism or fascism or
dictatorship or the corporate state---it doesn’t matter. For the sake of
brevity, 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
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 Barack Obama, 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 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, Twitter, 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
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 rictus-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
Zedong (aka 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.”
~~~
(The link to this article posted on my blog is here.)
(Follow me on Gab and Twitter at @jonrappoport)
No comments:
Post a Comment