Marxism is alive and well in America
| The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest Vol: 136 Issue: 2 - Wednesday, January 02, 2013 |  |
To Each According To His Need. . . According to the government's unofficial Ministry of Propaganda, the US 'narrowly avoided going over the fiscal cliff' by 'compromising' with a 'balance' between spending cuts and raising taxes. That is how the New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, The Associated Press, Reuters, NPR, CNN and MSNBC characterized it. What they report as a 'balanced' approach amounted to $1 in spending cuts for every $41 in new taxes. The deal means that taxes will go up for 77% of American households, according to Bloomberg Financial. Since Bloomberg is owned by its namesake, NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the piece focuses on the taxes to be imposed on the top 1% -- but almost everybody'staxes are going up. But as predicted, the tax increases aren't going toward the deficit. The government intends to spend it. According to the CBO, the way we 'avoided' a fiscal cliff is byincreasing the deficit by another $4 trillion. "The extension of lower tax rates for a bulk of the nation's taxpayers and the addition of a permanent patch to the alternative minimum tax would add roughly $3.6 trillion to the deficit over the next decade, the CBO said. Other individual, business, and energy tax extenders would add another $76 billion. The extension of unemployment benefits would cost roughly $30 billion, and the so-called "doc fix" would tally another $25 billion through fiscal 2022."By 2016, we'll be holding up Greece as a model of fiscal austerity. Once the world's lenders recognize this, our days as an economic superpower will be behind us. The days of borrowing at discounted rates will be over. By now, most of you have probably seen this, but for the benefit of those who have not, this is what the federal budget will look like:
And even assuming that you could, would you go home and announce to your family that all is well because you had avoided the looming fiscal cliff? I mean, can you even imagine it? It is so crazy as to defy the term -- we need a new word . . . hmmm, wait! I got it! The word we're looking for here is delusional. Assessment: Several weeks ago, MSNBC hosts including Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and Lawrence O’Donnell were invited to the White House to meet with President Obama and receive their talking points and marching orders for the new year. America no longer has a free press, but the government didn't rescind their First Amendment rights. It didn't have to. For the past thirty years, American universities have been turning out graduating class after class of dedicated Marxists, most of whom gravitated into journalism or politics. One of those now sits in the White House, surrounded by only those who share the same worldview. The goal was to remake America in Europe's image. Why? That is the big question. The further Europe traveled down Karl Marx's path, the worse it got. But Marxists are nothing if not committed to proving that collectivism works -- it's just that the Soviets, the Europeans, the banana republics and the Chinese systems weren't pure enough. The Soviets didn't fail because of Marxism -- it was the addition of Leninism that spoiled it. The Marxist banana republics, from Cuba to San Salvador, failed because of institutionalized corruption, together with Soviet interference. The Chinese leaned too heavily on Mao and not heavily enough on Marx, and that is why they found it necessary to embrace modified capitalism. The idea that Marxism itself failed . . . well, that is just unthinkable! All the Marxist theory they studied in school can't be wrong. It is just that nobody, until now, was pure enough and smart enough to make it work. And so, with Barack Obama at the helm, the Marxists that now run the Executive Branch -- together with its sycophants in the Congress and media, are convinced that, this time, Marxist-style collectivism will work. It won't. It never has because it can't. The European Union is only two decades old -- the Euro wasn't introduced until 1999. But Marx was nothing if not optimistic. He was certain that when the have-nots (proletariat) outnumber the haves (bourgeoisie) the have-nots will replace the old top-down system with a new "bottom up" system. So why won't that work? This is the part that baffles me, mainly because it is so obvious it is like having to explain that water is wet. A pyramid doesn't stand on its point. It falls over and becomes a pyramid again. Every single time. The Russian Revolution led to the Soviets. The Communist revolution in China led to Maoism. The peasants that took over the banana republics became the new bourgeoisie. For America, it means the kind of low growth experienced since the start of the Obamanation becomes permanent. The American dream will fade into some kind of unattainable Marxist Utopia financed by the bourgeoisie until they are either taxed out of existence or flee the country. Consider France as the new model. But you can't remake America without breaking it down first. That is equally obvious. So American exceptionalism must give way to a sort of global collectivism, where we are all in this together. The rich countries should "pay a little bit more" just as the rich citizens should pay "a little bit more". Marx expressed it thusly: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."The new Americanized version passed the Congress by a margin of 257-167. Archives of past issues of The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest plus many other Omega Letter member features can be found at: www.omegaletter.com The Omega Letter is published daily by Jack Kinsella and exists through subscriptions and free will contributions. © www.omegaletter.com | |
Comments
Post a Comment