Socialism at The Washington Post

The crown jewel of Operation Mockingbird, The Washington Post, owned by the richest man in the word, Jeff Bezos, posted an editorial glorifying socialism. 

It’s mostly confused, this editorial.

The editorialist, Elizabeth Brueing, a millennial, writes that socialism “has meant different things to different people in different times and places, while maintaining a stable core of themes and objectives: social (as opposed to private) control of the means of production, and of all the societal, humanitarian and political-economic changes that entails, especially where the freedom and autonomy of working people are concerned.” 

Autonomy. How do you get that under a system that is essentially a dictatorship of central planning and social micromanagement? You don’t get autonomy under socialism. 

Brueing’s final paragraph is a doozie—and it demonstrates why socialists are clueless. 

At the heart of the democratic socialist vision flowering on the American left is the recognition that more than policy tweaks will be needed to empower everyday people to participate meaningfully in society and democracy. Working Americans deserve a say in how the country’s vast wealth will be used, and that will be possible only when inequality is reduced, corporate and big-money donors are banished from politics, and lawmakers are truly accountable to the people. It’s not so much to ask. But democratic socialists are the only ones asking.

1) Americans have not had a say in how the government operates for more than two hundred years. It was compromised from the beginning by special interests, beginning with Alexander Hamilton’s ushering in at the hands of the financial class of the day a centralized national bank. Andrew Jackson fought the bankers, but they ended up controlling the monetary system regardless. Thomas Jefferson warned about the pernicious influence of the bankers. But we don’t do Thomas Jefferson anymore. 

2) Socialism demands the producers hand over most of their wealth to the state for redistribution to non-producers. This is the main attraction of socialism—you get free stuff paid for by other people. However, its inevitable downside escapes millennial comprehension. 

If you steal the earnings of the producers—food producers, housing producers, those who manufacture necessities as well as luxuries—the gravy train will eventually break down. 

Karl Marx’s selfless collective human is largely fictional. Producers manufacture things and provide services primarily to earn a profit and better their lot and that of their families. In the process, they provide things people want and need. If this is left up to the state, people end up starving when producers refuse to become selfless collectivists dedicating their lives to an unworkable communist dicta: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Russia under the communists required help from US corporations to meet the needs of the people and turn that society from agrarian feudalism to modern industrialization. 70 years of Soviet rule didn’t create the perfect Soviet citizen. It created alienation, apathy, anger, criminality, and a thriving black market to provide what the state couldn’t.

Socialism is a parasitical system. It feeds on the host and eventually sucks it dry. Ask the people of Venezuela. It has the largest reserve of oil in the world, and yet its socialist system can’t feed the people. 

The Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wave of millennial socialism will probably put a few dedicated socialists in office this November. 

Not that it will make a difference or realize the socialist dream which is a nightmare. The banker and corporatist owned political system is impervious to change. It routinely compromises and domesticates political challengers—and those who are are not compromised are destroyed. 

Once again, I quote Gary Allen. 

If you wanted to control the nation’s manufacturing, commerce, finance, transportation and natural resources, you would need only to control the apex, the power pinnacle, of an all-powerful SOCIALIST government. Then you would have a monopoly and could squeeze out all your competitors. If you wanted a national monopoly, you must control a national socialist government. If you want a worldwide monopoly, you must control a world socialist government. That is what the game is all about. “Communism” is not a movement of the downtrodden masses but is a movement created, manipulated and used by power-seeking billionaires in order to gain control over the world.

After this process is complete the young socialists, brainwashed by the state in its mandatory schools and through its controlled media, will be far worse off than they were under the evil and selfish producers who provide the clothes they wear, the cars they drive, and the food they eat. 

If you want a snapshot of America in ten or twenty years (or less) under socialism, look no further than Venezuela. 

creatdive commons by-sa_RGB-350x122

2 thoughts on “Socialism at The Washington Post

  1. ” Ask the people of Venezuela. ”

    Come on Kurt, be fair. Socialism is a crap system for sure. But we all know the real reason the people of Venezuela are starving is because of the economic warfare unleashed by the US and its minions. Every tool from the very large tool box has been deployed. If the US kept their noses out of Venezuela there would be next to zero starvation.

  2. Eugene Meyer, who purchased the Washington Post in 1933, was a former Fed chairman and a member of the Rockefeller CFR. His daughter Katherine Meyer and her husband Philip Graham who inherited the paper were also CFR members. Allen Dulles, who ran the CIA Operation Mockingbird during that period, was a CFR director for 40 years.

    Full text of the Gary Allen classic “None Dare Call it Conspiracy” here:

    See also “Wall Street and FDR” by Antony Sutton:

Leave a Reply to ian seed Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.