The news they did not see fit to print

Today's Headlines

A Conservative Reply to Marxist Fibs, Stories and Fairy Tales

by Norma Brown

Thanks to bloggers at Gulag Bound and The Right Planet, I have had the pleasure of reading left-winger Jesse Myerson’s propaganda blast in favor of Marxism. The bottom line of this Salon.com piece is that capitalism is no better than Marxism, because capitalists do all the bad things Marxists do. But his underlying message is that communism is vastly better than capitalism (even though Marxists commit the same crimes as capitalists). Myerson offers up seven areas where reality and the right-wing myths supposedly differ, as follows.

• Only communist economies rely on state violence: Myerson says that taxation is violence, so capitalists use violence too. And capitalists threaten violence (imprisonment) if somebody breaks tax laws that were established to enrich a few people. Unfortunately, Myerson fails to draw any comparison when it comes to actual violence such as a bullet through the nape of your neck, which is the kind of violence the Soviet Union meted out over an outhouse hole to wrong-doers and traitors. It was extremely effective, and cheaper than the electric chair or any lethal cocktail. Since Myerson would have a hard time comparing favorably the kinds of summary punishment handed out in the great communist empires and anything to be found in the West, he simply doesn’t. As for tax as violence, I guess that lets off the Marxist states where the only employer is the government and what it pays you is a fragment of the value of your labor – and that isn’t so much a tax on earnings as it is public alms. The handful of currency held by ordinary citizens of the USSR could be used to buy shoddy goods churned out for people who wouldn’t touch them with a ten-foot pole. Is it any surprise that in the Soviet Union private savings were higher than anywhere else in the world? And bear in mind that in this classless society, the elite lived high off the hog and got their foreign-made goods in special stores hidden from the public. The proletariat lived in miniscule unhealthy government-owned quarters in poorly constructed buildings, ate cabbage and carrots for a pittance but had a hard time finding meat, and had free health care that led to one of the highest death rates in the world. All of those benefits were effectively given away by the Central Government in exchange for all freedoms. Here’s another Myerson pointer: you might think Marxists are bad because they confiscate private property – but private property is not the same thing as personal possessions. Of course a Marxist government has to distribute everything fairly, but heck, under Marxism you can keep your cell phone! It’s your house and land that belong to the government. As he says, “Deal?”
• Capitalist economies are based on free exchange: Myerson’s point? Capitalism is NOT a free exchange of goods. The entire idea of capitalism is based on seizure of land from the poor serfs in Britain, from which all human ills have subsequently flowed. Americans enslaved Africans to make a profit, the market controls the people, and women were oppressed, all to make capitalism work. Capitalism only works when enslaving people. Myerson wrings his virtual hands in angst that the vast majority of people today are deprived of access to the resources we need to flourish, though they exist in abundant quantities, so as to force us to work for a boss who is trying to get rich by paying us less and working us harder. And furthermore, he says, most find ourselves constantly stuck between competing pressures and therefore stressed out, exhausted, lonely, and in search of meaning. If that doesn’t describe the average member of a Knock-Out Gang, I don’t know what does.
• Communism killed 110 million* people for resisting dispossession. The asterisk was Mr. Myerson’s and the footnote is that this estimated figure is a lie. No proof offered, just an assertion. Here’s the scoop according to this self-avowed Marxist: the communists in Russia didn’t just kill those wicked small-holding farmers who were trying to climb the ladder of prosperity through hard-work, thrift and good business sense. As obvious enemies of communism and collectivization of property, the farmers had to be dealt with immediately and that doesn’t seem to bother Myerson a bit. What he frets about is that Marxists themselves, who helped make it possible to exterminate millions of innocents, were also victimized. How unfair. But instead of thinking that this is a flaw in the Marxist ideology, Myerson hopes you understand that these worthy Marxists were victims of a single paranoid man, Stalin, and some vague bogie man called “communism” (a term made up by Karl Marx). It was not the real and glorious Marxist government we all yearn for that led to those deaths, because for a Marxist nothing is more important than human rights. It was just some nut with millions of others at his beck and call. My take is that communist leaders always cannibalize their own as well as everybody else and that Marxists are not only brutish but stupid, perfectly happy to die for the cause at the hands of their friends. The arguments made by Myerson are so inane that they would hardly merit discussion except that they demonstrate so perfectly the moral vacuity of the left.
• Capitalist governments don’t commit human rights atrocities.  This is much the same as the above. If we Marxists have to account for the millions shoveled into mass graves under communism, then you right-wingers have to account for slave trade, indigenous extermination, “Late Victorian Holocausts” and every war, genocide and massacre carried out by the US and its proxies in the effort to defeat communism. I guess he doesn’t care about anybody killed in other endeavors. This guy even drags in global-warming deniers as mass murderers.
• 21st Century American communism would resemble 20th century Soviet and Chinese horrors. You’ll be surprised to learn that the mistakes of the ancient communist kingdoms of the USSR, North Korea and Cuba won’t be repeated. Those brave Marxists tried hard for the ideal, but fell short. Unlike 20th century Marxist tyrannies, a new Marxist dictatorship would be different because we’re better now. We’re smarter now. We have greater technological aids (to tyranny) than ever before. We’ve learned our lesson. Let him say it himself: Given the technological, material, and social advances of the last century, we could expect an approach to communism beginning here and now to be far more open, humane, democratic, participatory and egalitarian than the Russian and Chinese attempts managed. I’d even argue it would be easier now than it was then to construct a set of social relations based on fellowship and mutual aid (as distinct from capitalism’s, which are characterized by competition and exclusion) such as would be necessary to allow for the eventual “withering away of the state.”
• Communism fosters uniformity. Of course not. The fact that every menu in every public restaurant in the USSR had the same menu is not indicative of anything. The fact that centralized planning, the brain-child of the left, only produces homogenized garbage, the fact that propaganda is a constant on the left in an attempt to create One Think – none of that is important. The important thing is that brilliant guys like Matt Damon and Lady Gaga are Marxists. As one self-important State Department creep told me, “I never could understand how a thinking, rational person could be a Republican.” I told him I had always felt the same way, about Democrats. If arrogance were brains, the Democrats would be smart.
• Capitalism fosters individuality. To round out this author’s senseless arguments, communism creates individuals and societies of great creativity (nobody afraid to speak his mind?) and capitalism suffocates us with responsibilities so we can’t possibly create anything other than wealth and prosperity.

This is what we of the center-right contend with, day after day. False arguments, lies and fantasy all ladled out by our societal big-mouths, those geniuses on the left. If these arguments are the best they can muster, they’re going to have to work overtime to get the center-right to stop knocking their ideas. They might have to set up re-education camps for our own good. Read the rest of this Patriot Update article here: http://patriotupdate.com/articles/conservative-reply-marxist-fibs-stories-fairy-tales/#oioeJd0ktsMcfhqp.99

######

Democrats Want More Unemployment

by Gary DeMar

Misery is the life blood of liberal politics. The more people are oppressed, the more voters flock to the Democrat party. It's no different when it comes to unemployment.

The unemployment number keeps dropping but the number of people in the work force also keeps dropping. What gives? It’s that “new math” that many of us took when we were in junior high. It’s finally paying off for liberals but not for people looking for a job. Here’s how it works. If a person is not in the work force, he or she is not counted as unemployed. This means the more people that don’t work lowers the number of people who are unemployed. It’s simple new math.

This is important. Liberals want a low unemployment number to keep low information voters in the Democrat fold, but they want more people unemployed so they can keep them dependent on government programs that are their political bread and butter.

In 2004, the Labor Force Participation Rate was around 66 percent. As of January 2014, it’s 63 percent. “1,154,000 fewer Americans are working today than six years ago. . . . 91,455,000 Americans 16 or older did not participate in the nation’s labor force in January, meaning they neither held a job nor actively sought one.”
Dante Chinni writes:

“The workforce-participation declines predate Barack Obama’s presidency, but they have accelerated on his watch. Since Mr. Obama took office in 2009, the labor force participation rate, a measure of the people 16-or-older looking for work or holding a job, has declined by somewhere around 1.5 to 2 percentage points, depending on the month you choose.”

President Obama has had more than five years to fix this problem. As a reminder, Ronald Reagan inherited a much worse set of economic problems. Interest rates and inflation were in double digits. Today, interest rates are at historic lows, and yet the economy is still foundering.

Yes, there are economic sectors that are doing well. The stock market is up. But every time the Federal Reserve indicates that it might stop inflating (“Quantitative Easing”), the market takes a dive. Much of the market advance is artificial.

Youth employment is a disaster, even for college graduates who most likely have college loans to pay back. Even the folks at the Huffington Post noted the problem: “It's truly a terrible time for recent college graduates to find jobs, according to data released by the New York Fed . . .” It’s the highest it’s been in 20 years.
Of course, the Huffington Post, a mouthpiece for Obama and Co., has to find a silver lining. Here it is: “While recent college grads may not be putting their degrees to use, they're still better off than their counterparts without a degree.” It’s even worse for Blacks. “According to figures released by the Labor Department, after two months of decline, Black unemployment rose, from 11.9 percent in December to 12.1 percent in January.”

What’s the solution to the unemployment problem among Blacks? You guessed it. A new government program. Democrat Rep. John Conyers “introduced the Humphrey Hawkins Full Employment and Training Act, which, if passed, he says, would particularly benefit African-Americans.” Who’s going to pay for the Act? Taxpayers. Why not lower taxes and get rid of the minimum wage. That way, the unemployable will have a chance to compete for jobs. Democrats can’t let this happen because it means that these people would no longer be dependent on government. Votes would be lost.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/14306/democrats-want-unemployment/#ZaYMJCrU4pR1A5sM.99

##########

                                                                                            

Please invite your friends and family to subscribe by simply putting this email-address billmcadory@earthlink.net into CC-line when you email them OR forward this email to them.  Please send your contributions by e-mail.