Communism: The Arrogant Creed of the Intellectuals, Crony Philanthropists and Technocratic Laborforce Capitalists

Communism: The Arrogant Creed of the Intellectuals, Crony Philanthropists and Technocratic Laborforce Capitalists

“Accepting no laws but the laws of force,

these societies have been ruled by totalitarian ideologies

like Nazism, fascism, and communism,

which do not spring from the general populace,

but are imposed on it by intellectual elites.”

Margaret Thatcher,

The Moral Foundations of Society, November 1994

Burke, Bastiat, Thatcher and Hoover, students of mankind and history, who were grounded first of all in humble reverence for God, recognized the framework of force and fraud that has plagued mankind for millennia. They labored as faithful shepherds crusading against the totalitarian hoards that played upon fear and food, security and aesthetics deftly choreographing the crowds of sheep to slavery.

Folks either earn their own bread, or they steal the bread of others.

Elites would rather cultivate seeds of manipulation rather than cultivate their own fields and harvest their own crops, to make their own loaves. Thus, they need laborers to do their dirty work and to administrate the deeds of plunder amongst the socially engineered slaves.

They accomplish their droll role via control of compulsory Education of the masses. For example: Fed Led and Globally aligned College and Career Ready Laborforce development. http://abcsofdumbdown.blogspot.com/2015/02/alert-hr-5-student-success-act-of-2015.html?m=1

and Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) of 2014

http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/dwelling-in-a-void-of-unknowing-within-a-sculpted-narrative-designed-to-manipulate/

French Economist Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) challenges:

“Try to imagine a form of labor compulsorily imposed that does not infringe freedom or a transmission of wealth forcibly imposed that does not infringe property. If you do not succeed, then you must agree that the law cannot organize economic production without organizing injustice.”

Herbert Hoover (1874-1964) articulately crusaded against collectivism and goose-stepping regimentation providing millions of lives as evidence that: Citizens of a nation cannot have planned economy and have personal liberty. See Herbert Hoover’s Lost Memoir of the New Deal Era and Its Aftermath, The Crusade Years 1933-1955 for ample documentation. “Don’t let anyone tell you that personal liberty can survive in totalitarian economics or that [the] preliminary state called “Managed Economy” can ever stop short of collectivism.” https://dawnkazmierzak.net/2015/01/15/recognizing-statisms-sources-the-patterns-of-collectivisms-cronies 

Continuing with Frederic Bastiat and The Law

“When, from the confines of his office, a political writer surveys a society, he is struck by the spectacle of inequality that greets him. He weeps over the sufferings that are the lot of so many of our brothers, sufferings that appear even more saddening when contrasted with luxury and opulence.

Perhaps he should ask himself whether such a state of society has not been caused by former plunder carried out by conquest and by current plunder carried out by means of the law.

He should ask himself whether, given that all men aspire to well-being and improving their lot, the reign of justice is not enough to achieve the greatest activity of progress and the greatest amount of “equality” that are compatible with the individual responsibility ordained by God, as the just reward for virtue and vice.

He does not even give this a thought.

His thoughts go to deals, agreements, and organizations that are either legal or artificial. He seeks a remedy in perpetuating or exaggerating the situation that has produced the misfortune.

The fact is, outside justice, which, as we have seen, is just a genuine negation, is there a single one of these legal agreements that does not include the principle of plunder?

You say, “Here are men who lack wealth,” and you turn to the law. But the law is not a breast that fills by itself or whose milk-bearing ducts draw from elsewhere than society. Nothing enters the public treasury in favor of a citizen or a class other than that which other citizens and other classes have been forced to put in.

If each person draws out only the equivalent of what he has put in, it is true that your law is not plunderous, but it does nothing for those men that lack wealth, it does nothing for equality. It can be an instrument for equality only to the extent that it takes from some to give to others, and in this case it becomes an instrument of plunder.

If you look at the protection of tariffs, production subsidies, the right to profit, the right to work, the right to assistance, the right to education, progressive taxes, free credit, or social workshops from this point of view, you will always find at their root legal plunder and organized injustice.

[Education]

You say, “Here are men who lack enlightenment,” and you turn to the law. But the law is not a torch that spreads its own light far and wide. It hovers over a society in which there are men with knowledge and others without, citizens who need to learn and others who are willing to teach.

It can do only one of two things:

either it allows this type of transaction to operate freely and permits this type of need to be freely satisfied,

Or

It can constrain people’s wishes in this respect and take from some to pay teachers who will be responsible for educating others free of charge.

But in the second case it cannot do this without freedom and property being violated, signifying therefore legal plunder.

[Morality or Religion]

You say, “Here are men who lack morality or religion,” and you turn to the law. But the law is compulsion and do I need to say how violent and crazy it is to use force in this connection?

For all its theories and strivings it appears that socialism, however indulgent it is toward itself, cannot avoid catching a glimpse of the fiend that is legal plunder. But what does socialism do?

It cleverly shrouds the legal plunder from all eyes, even its own, under the seductive names of fraternity, solidarity, organization, and association. And because we do not ask so much of the law since we require only justice of it, socialism presumes that we are rejecting fraternity, solidarity, organization, and association and hurls the epithet “Individualist!” at us.

Socialism ought to know, therefore, that what we are rejecting is not natural organization, but forced organization.

It is not free association, but the forms of association that socialism claims to have the right to impose on us.

It is not spontaneous fraternity, but legal fraternity.

It is not providential solidarity, but artificial solidarity, which is only an unjust displacement of responsibility.

Socialism, like the old politics from which it stems, confuses government with society. For this reason, each time we do not want something to be done by the government, socialism concludes that we do not want this thing to be done at all.

We reject education by the state; therefore we do not want education.

We reject state religion; therefore we do not want religion. We reject equality established by the state; therefore we do not want equality, etc., etc. It is like accusing us of not wanting men to eat because we reject the growing of wheat by the state.

How in the world of politics has the strange idea become dominant of having the law generate things that it does not encompass: Good in its positive aspect, wealth, science, and religion?

Modern political writers, particularly those of the socialist school, base their various theories on a common hypothesis, definitely the strangest and most arrogant hypothesis that the human brain has ever devised.

They divide humanity into two parts. All men minus one form the first

And the political writer all on his own forms the second and by far the most important part.

In effect, they begin with the premise that men do not have within themselves either a principle of action or any means of discernment: that they lack initiative; that they are made of inert matter, passive molecules, and atoms deprived of spontaneity; and that they are at most a form of plant life that is indifferent to its own mode of existence and willing to accept an infinite number of more or less symmetrical, artistic, and developed forms from an external initiative and hand.”

[Sadly in 2015, this is precisely the type of passive mass men that Federal Led taxpayer plundered “Education” is in the midst of developing using Marxist means of Technology to design a laborforce for State run commerce; The College and Career Ready laborers. Digitally designed, mutated, managed and monitored.]

Back to the crony connected Elite Designers and Dynamos:

“Each of them then quite simply supposes that he is himself, wearing the hats of organizer, prophet, legislator, teacher, and founder, this driving force and hand, this universal dynamo and creative power whose sublime mission is to gather together in society the scattered stuff of humanity.

From this given starting point, just as each gardener according to his whim prunes his trees into pyramids, umbrellas, cubes, cones, vases, fruit-tree shapes, distaffs, or fans, each socialist, according to his vision, prunes poor humanity into groups, series, centers, subcenters, honeycombs, and social, harmonious, or contrasting workshops, etc. etc. [honeycombs are very popular in cubicle world workspace design these days….]

[Can we say “Low hanging fruit” ?]

And just as the gardner needs axes, saws, sickles, and shears in order to prune his trees, the political writer needs forces that he can find only in the laws in order to marshal his society: customs laws, tax laws, laws governing assistance or education.

It is so true that the socialists consider humanity to be material that can be modeled to fit social templates that if by chance they are not certain of the success of these arrangements, they claim at least a part of humanity as material for experimentation. 

We know just how popular the idea of trying out all their systems is among them, and we have already seen one of their leaders come in all seriousness to ask the Constituent Assembly to give them a commune with all its inhabitants in order for them to carry out tests.

[This would be the ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorized, the common core, college and career ready unified standards, corruption for cash Title funding…. The massive commune of communism under the Dept. of Education.]

In this way, every inventor makes a small-scale model of his machine before making it full scale. In this way, chemists sacrifice a few reagents [a generation of citizens] and farmers a little seed and a corner of the field in order to test an idea.”

Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850

Nearly a century later, another European economist, Austrian Friedrich A. Hayek (1899-1992), would elucidate the truth in his book The Road to Serfdom. The message was simple: centralized “Planning leads to dictatorship” and the directed organization of economic activity inevitably results in the “suppression of freedom.”

“Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest;

it is the control of the means for all our ends.

And whoever has sole control of the means must also determine which ends are to be served, which values are to be rated higher and which lower

In short, what men should believe and strive for.”

Friedrich A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, 1944 

Experience has shown that in Communism, Control is more important than ownership. ……Who’s pulling your strings?

http://pioneerinstitute.org/download/cogs-in-the-machine-big-data-common-core-and-national-testing/

http://oll.libertyfund.org/people/frederic-bastiat

The Law, Frederic Bastiat, 1850

[bold emphasis, mine]

The Crusade Years 1933-1955, Herbert Hoover’s Lost Memoir of the New Deal Era and Its Aftermath, edited by George H. Nash

The Road to Serfdom, by Friedrich A. Hayek

www.hillsdale.edu

The Moral Foundations of Society, by Margaret Thatcher, November 1994

 

 

 

 

This entry was posted in Connecting the dots, digital media, Education, Faith, Family, government, History, social emotional "learning", Technology, Values and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s