Government Entitlement For the Corporate Class

“by the late 19th century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to ‘go political’ and make society go to work for the monopolists — under the name of the public good and the public interest…. One barrier to mature understanding of recent history is the notion that all capitalists are the bitter and unswerving enemies of all Marxists and socialists…. In fact the idea is nonsense. There has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists — to their mutual benefit…. The open minded reader should bear two clues in mind: monopoly capitalists are bitter enemies of laissez-faire entrepreneurs; and, given the weaknesses of social central planning, the totalitarian socialist state is a perfect captive market for monopoly capitalists, if an alliance can be made with socialist power brokers.”

Antony C. Sutton
Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution

Clearly the point above is that the idea that socialism and (finance) capitalism are arch enemies is ridiculous. In point of fact the purpose of finance capitalism (Corporatism) is to enrich itself via the means of socialism.

A couple of examples will begin to bring to light this reality.

How else, but as entitlement to the Oligarchy, does one view the FEDS lifting bad assets from private bank balance sheets? This is an entitlement for the International Money interest, is it not? This is a clear re-distribution of wealth upwards.

When we bail out mega companies from their private debt who’s money is committed to being the ‘lender of last resort’ but those of taxpayers?

In such a move we see a re-distribution of wealth upward from the have-nots to the haves.

Secondly by way of example, taxing the middle class income and using it to pay the interest on the Treasury bonds that make up the National debt is also and example of redistribution of wealth upwards where there oligarchs are enriched at the cost of the middle class. This is because the Treasury bonds that represent the National debt are held mostly by the wealthy companies, individuals, and nation states.

Socialism is NOT a boon to the lower class. Socialism is the way the Oligarchy fools the lower economic class into thinking they are trying to help them. In Socialism the Oligarchy (the International money interest) is helping and enriching themselves at the expense of the middle class. Socialism does not lower the gap between the Bourgeoisie and the proletariat. In point of fact Socialism widens the gap between the finance capitalist Corporatist class and the blue collar laboring class.

Fisking A Snippet From Obama’s “State Of The Putsch” Address

The Great Leader waxed eloquent,

“Finally, if we are serious about economic growth, it is time to heed the call of business leaders, labor leaders, faith leaders, and law enforcement —and fix our broken immigration system.”

The Peanut gallery responds,

1.) Economic Growth — If you increase the population of a country you can simultaneously grow the economy while at the same time decrease the per capita income. This is not rocket science.

2.) Heeding call of business leaders

a.) The call from business leaders is a call from the Oligarchs of mega corporations who desire cheap labor so as to increase their own profit margin. These people would replace their Mothers if they could find a South of the Border Mamacita who would be willing to be “Mom” for a lesser wage.

b.) Repeatedly, it has been demonstrated that immigration, whatever the source, causes an upward redistribution of income from labor to capital in any society, whether high or low wage. As such, of course business leaders desire amnesty.

3.) Heeding call of labor leaders

a.) The call from labor leaders is a call to grow their rank and file which will mean increased money via union dues which will mean the ability to purchase more political power by purchasing more politicians. The labor leaders care no more for their rank and file then the business leaders care about their customers. For each, amnesty means a larger constituency by which they can have a larger wallet.

b.) Further “O” cites “labor leaders” because he understands that more Union workers means not only more money but more votes. Amnesty means the Democratic single party rule for a generation and the redefining of the Republican party even further to the Left then they already are.

4.) Heeding call of Faith Leaders — This is from the “do-gooder” crowd who’s schmaltzy sentimentalism even Jesus is embarrassed by. These types tend to far outstrip God in terms of how Holy they are. Typically they are soft Marxists, full of good intentions, who have no ability whatsoever to understand the law of unintended consequences. The best thing they could do is to try and understand the broken window fallacy in all its implications. Believe me when I tell you that God is even more embarrassed by these people than I am.

5.) Heeding call of law enforcement — Border patrol officers and organizations have routinely complained about amnesty.

The Great Leader Offered,

“Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have acted.”

The Peanut Gallery,

Like the political whores they are.

His Majesty continued,

I know that members of both parties in the House want to do the same. Independent economists say immigration reform will grow our economy and shrink our deficits by almost $1 trillion in the next two decades.”

The “Emperor is Naked” kid responds,

Shrinking our deficit by 1 Trillion in two decades will be exactly how much in terms of 2014 dollars? A few billion? And yes, we will grow our economy but what will that growth look like in terms of income as our population increases so that per captia income decreases. The Congressional Budget Office insists that this treasonous Amnesty proposal will depress American wages for the next two decades.

And I’m sure members of both parties in the House want to do the same. After all, they are all political whores for the Eastern Establishment, who in turn are political whores for the International Money Interest.

The Great Leader plods on,

“And for good reason: when people come here to fulfill their dreams — to study, invent, and contribute to our culture — they make our country a more attractive place for businesses to locate and create jobs for everyone. So let’s get immigration reform done this year.

The popcorn throwing guy in the cheap seats responds,

More schmaltz. One wonders if a President should be more concerned about the Dreams of the citizens of those who elected him than the dreams of illegal immigrants. Our real unemployment numbers are through the roof and our Government wants to give amnesty to non-Americans so that they can fulfill their dreams? What dreams are those? Getting on the Government tit of welfare, health-care, and free-fare?

Secondly, I suspect that the fulfilling of their dreams will mean that they will do for our country what they did for their country when they lived there. After all, polling reveals that Immigrants bring with them the mindset that created the Tyranny of the countries they fled from and that mindset followed through upon in the voting booth will inevitably re-create their hell-hole homelands here.

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2014/01/29/gop-crafts-plan-to-wreck-the-country-lose-voters-n1786781

Look, I’ve said this repeatedly. This is not about anybody’s Dreams except the Dreams of the Treason constituency which is comprised of the Corporatist traitor class, the Mega-Union traitor class, the Faux-Religious Leader’s traitor class and Bureaucratic-Politician traitor class. This is not about doing what is good for our country. This is about the State replacing one defiant citizenry with a compliant citizenry. The Government is, in essence, electing a new people.

Bret Lee on Brian Lee

“Focusing perhaps too much on the civil laws of the old covenant, as if they were still in effect in the new covenant era, the book (Tim Keller’s “Generous Justice”) gives too little attention in my view to Jesus’ explicit “new commandment” for his followers to “love one another as he has loved them” (John 15:12-17; 1 John 2:7-10; 3:11-24). Jesus even says that it is by this special love that his followers will be known in the world. How does this command relate to Israel’s calling to manifest God’s justice societally?”

Dr. Brian Lee
Minister — URC
Article From Modern Reformation Publication

http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=1285&var3=main&var4=Hom

1.) I don’t agree with Tim Keller. I think Keller advocates a kind of soft Marxism as Christianity. Whatever will be written here is not in defense of Keller. Instead I am defending the idea that the Old Testament law is not obsolete per Lee’s reasoning.

2.) The Westminster Confession insists that the civil law remains in effect in terms of its general equity.

“To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require…”

The fact that the last phrase is placed in the WCF 19:4 suggests that Lee is in error about the civil laws no longer being in effect today. The civil laws as they pertained to OT Israel, as the Old Testament saints existed in their National existence, have expired, however, the general equity of those civil laws abide on and remain in force. When we attempt to just throw out God’s civil law without paying attention to the general equity that remains we eviscerate the applicational use of the Moral law as the civil law was merely the moral law as interpreted into case law. When we whimsically toss out the general equity of the civil law we make the moral law toothless. It is true that we have to do interpretive work here to find the general equity of the civil law but upon doing the interpretive work the heart of the civil law continues to live.

3.) When Lee appeals to Jesus’ new commandment and plays that off as superseding God’s eternal law as codified in the OT how is Lee not making a Dispenstional move here? Is Lee here suggesting that the amorphous idea of “love” is supposed to be the ethic by which New Testament Christians are to live? How is Lee’s approach any different than Joseph Fletcher’s approach in his book, “Situation Ethics: The New Morality?” Fletcher posited an ethic of “Loving concern” as the beacon by which all decisions are made. Is this what Lee is suggesting as well?

4.) When Jesus commanded his people to love one another, He did so in the context of upholding the law of God at every turn. The point here is that love as an ethic, cannot be defined without a transcendent law structure to inform it. When Jesus said “love one another,” they could only know what love was and looked like by referencing and accessing God’s transcendent law. Jesus Himself loved His people by fulfilling God’s law in relation to them. If they were to love one another as He had loved them then in order to do so they would have to love one another by respect to and fulfillment of God’s law word just as Jesus had loved them in respect to and fulfillment of God’s law word.

5.) So, Keller makes the OT speak soft Marxism, while Lee makes it speak antinomian Dispensationalism. Neither approaches are particularly satisfying.

Postscript,

For a good article reviewing Keller’s “Generous Justice” as soft Marxism see,

http://freedomtorch.com/blogs/3/2762/tim-keller-and-social-justice

Review Of Rushdoony’s “The American Indian” — Medicine Men

“True medicine men, it was said, had given way to the white man’s doctor because he knew more than the Indian practitioner…. [The older Indian men] had no loyalty to the old ways per se. The white man’s gun was far superior to the bow and arrow. Why not his medicine also?”

R. J. Rushdoony
The American Indian

In this brief chapter RJR gives a few anecdotes about his experience with Indian Medicine men as well as what he learned from Indian elders.

“From their (older Indian men) perspective, there were no medicine men on the reservation — only fakers.”

However, according to Rush’s account there were Indians who were what we would call Natural-paths and homeopaths. Rush mentions one particular gentleman who could identify every plant in the area as well as the medicinal purposes that those plants might have had. This reminds us that allopathic medicine does not have all the answers that it pretends to have. Indeed, there are times I wonder if allopathic medicine shouldn’t be viewed as alternative medicine in favor of a more homeopathic path.

Still, despite this natural-pathic skill RJR reports that the Indian,

“liked modern conveniences and advances, including modern medicine.”

Rush reports this because the Federal Government, during the New Deal, sought to re-Indianize the Indians and as such encouraged the Indians to go back to their ancient ways. Rush writes,

“They [the Indian] had no loyalty to the old ways per se…. they did not identify their Indian-ness in terms of artifacts, and it annoyed them when others did…. They saw nothing exclusive about the benefits of the white man’s civilization …. In brief, these old men liked modern conveniences and advances, including modern medicine…. they recognized and appreciated the advantages of modern medical practice, of nurses and hospitals.”

Rush does not again the failure of the State in terms of medicine,

“They [the Indians] knew that the agency doctors were often inferior to the doctors outside of the reservation….”

The immediately above quote is important because it reminds us again that whenever the State involves itself so that people are required and forced to go to them for any service the consequence is a lowering standard of quality of whatever service the State has seized. The Indians that RJR came in contact with in his Reservation ministry were forced into a governmental health care system and as such the Doctors that they had to deal with were inferior to Doctors operating in the supply and demand market. This is an observation pregnant with meaning as the citizenry today in our country are inching towards the kind of Socialized medicine the Indians had forced upon them. Our quality of medical care will be inferior just as the Reservation’s medical care was of lower quality.

Rushdoony returns to the medicine man issue by noting that what passed as the medicine men, in his observation, were, for the most part, dabblers in peyote.

“What then of the so-called medicine men practicing at that time? Most were peyote leaders. Peyote was administered as a holy, healing medicine. It tended to paralyze the digestive tract, or at least deaden it to pain, I was told. The patient felts no pain and assumed that he was being healed.”

Rush notes that such patients of the peyote practitioners would often finally fail and at the last second would give up on the medicine man and go to the hospital, despite the warnings of the medicine man against the hospital. Often when such people finally went to the hospital they quickly died because of the previous neglect. Upon their death, the peyote medicine men would then claim that the death was the result of giving up on the medicine man and going to the hospital.

RJR ends this chapter by admitting that there were a few other types of medicine men who were not peyote playboys. Rushdoony suggests that these “healers” were in fact, demonically enabled.

“There was another kind of practitioner. How deep his roots were in Indian history, I do not know…. These medicine men, if they could be called such … I would call occultist. They had strange powers I cannot explain. One of them … could pick up a rattlesnake, chant to it, hang it around his neck and not be bitten…. [Medicine] men such as A.C. were Indian in a fanatical way: they sought to blot out the world of the white man.”

RJR notes that as Christianity waned after WWII occultism increased. He notes that only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can counter such occultist practices and muses that,

“When men turn their backs on Christian civilization, see only evil in it, and try to abstract Biblical faith and morals from themselves and the world, are they not courting the demonic.”

This is an important word for our church and culture today. In many many places in the Church today churchmen are turning their back on Christian civilization, and indeed see only evil in the idea of Christian civilization. Indeed we are everywhere seeing the attempt to abstract Biblical faith and moral from silly conceptual paradigms like Natural law. One can only wonder if such churchmen are courting the demonic by turning their backs on Christian civilization.