Why The Marxists Aways Win
Why The Marxists Aways Win
June 1, 2023 by Cliff Kincaid
“I knew it was a good [debt] deal when I saw the lefties screaming.” With that foolish statement, former Director of the National Economic Council under Trump and current Fox Business host Larry Kudlow demonstrated his ignorance of how Marxists create “conflict” that benefits the expansion of government control over our lives.
Kudlow buys into the notion of “conflict” being proof that his position is the correct one when the conflict is being staged to make people like him fall for the notion that the Marxists have lost the battle. In fact, they have already won the war.
The war, in this case, is more debt, thus expanding government and shrinking the private sector. This is what House Speaker Kevin McCarthy agreed to.
According to Marxists, the essence of economic life is struggle, as conflict develops, and “progress” is made. Practically speaking, this means the coming of an all-powerful government, known as the communist state. As they see it, we are now in the socialist phase, on the road to communism.
Even with the original Republican proposal, the Republicans had agreed to spend more money and go further into debt. But the McCarthy proposal is even more of a surrender, causing some conservatives under fire from over-taxed constituents to utter peeps of protest.
But these conservatives already voted to make McCarthy the Speaker. They have been played as fools and now have egg all over their faces.
Because the Marxists are going through the motions of acting disappointed with the debt deal, it must be good, Kudlow says. He calls them “lefties” when they are far so far to the left that they are more accurately described as hard-core Marxists. And Marxists understand how to exploit conflict so their side prevails in the long run. That’s Marxist dialectics. And conservatives like Kudlow are falling for it.
Our book, The Sword of Revolution and the Communist Apocalypse explains how Marxist dialectics has been used by such figures as Barack Hussein Obama and confuses people about the nature and goals of communism.
The Democrats have learned a lot from Obama.
Consider Obamacare. It was sold by Obama as the “Affordable Care Act,” when it was based on what even the liberal “fact-checkers” admitted was the “lie of the year” – “If you like your health care, you can keep it.”
After he engineered the “fundamental transformation” of America, which included the socialized medicine scheme known as Obamacare, the debate moved even further to the left. Congressional Republicans failed to terminate this program under Trump when then-Senator John McCain voted with the Democrats to save it.
Today, Republicans don’t even pretend to be opposed to this Obama-era program. Indeed, in 2022, Republicans didn’t run on the issue, even though it’s a major factor in the debt and spending problems and the massive expansion of government power we face today.
This is how government grows and debt rises to overcome the so-called “debt ceiling.”
House Speaker McCarthy should have insisted on the repeal of Obamacare in his debt ceiling “negotiations.” But he negotiated on left-wing terms, a victory for the Marxists.
By framing the issue in terms favorable to the Marxists, the Marxists always win. First, they move the entire debate to the left. In this case, the issue was already framed in terms of expanding the debt. The debate should have been whether to let the federal government default, as former President Trump suggested. At this rate of spending, it’s going to come sooner or later.
Biden’s Treasury Department argued that “Failing to increase the debt limit would have catastrophic economic consequences.” Where is the proof? Increasing the debt limit in the past has already had catastrophic economic consequences.
We are told that the debt ceiling was created with “the good intention of constraining reckless spending,” as one writer put it. If it’s a true “debt ceiling,” why raise it? Why not, instead, mandate immediate spending cuts? That was the only legitimate option.
We are told that the U.S. government would “run out of money” unless Congress passes a bill to raise the debt limit. The Wall Street Journal claims that McCarthy’s deal is raise the debt ceiling “in exchange for spending cuts.” But the cuts are only in the rate of growth of spending. Common sense tells you that raising the debt ceiling means more debt based on more spending.
You don’t have to be a financial genius to question this never-ending series of statements threatening an economic apocalypse.
Former President Trump had said, “I say to the Republicans out there — congressmen, senators — if they don’t give you massive cuts, you’re going to have to do a default. And I don’t believe they’re going to do a default because I think the Democrats will absolutely cave, will absolutely cave because you don’t want to have that happen. But it’s better than what we’re doing right now because we’re spending money like drunken sailors.”
But McCarthy did not follow Trump’s advice. He caved, not the Democrats.
The Trump position was dismissed when it should have been a legitimate starting point for the debate. Indeed, some would argue that it would be wiser for the federal government to go through a default, in the same way that bankruptcy allows a company to be reorganized, and that such an approach is needed with the bloated and out-of-control federal government.
Remember that, on top of the national debt of $31 trillion, there is the matter of “unfunded liabilities,” estimated at $93.1 trillion or more.
The Treasury Department’s own Financial Report of the United States Government says “The current fiscal path is unsustainable.” Under these conditions, McCarthy has agreed to more debt and more spending.
The House should have held hearings on a default, analyzing how the money should be spent and for what constitutional purposes. Under these circumstances, the Constitution would dictate that spending on national defense would have to be a priority.
Since there’s not enough money to spend on all the rest of the federal programs, unless new massive “progressive” taxes are implemented, we desperately need an alternative form of money that people can use for their own needs, bypassing the federal tax system.
To his credit, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has endorsed decentralized cryptocurrencies, over which the federal government has no control. By contrast, Biden favors a centrally controlled digital currency through the Federal Reserve and his Securities and Exchange Commission has engineered a crackdown on the crypto sector.
“They want to get rid of crypto,” DeSantis said of Biden & Company. “They don’t like crypto because they can’t control crypto, so they want to put everything in a central bank digital currency.” This is what the regime is doing in Communist China, DeSantis noted.
What China is doing could be described as the next phase by the Marxists, as we move into full-blown communism, a “financial surveillance state, where they know every transaction that you’re making,” DeSantis warned.
It should be obvious by now that the federal government has too much control over our money, and that money is quickly losing its value.
We need a new beginning, a new revolution, the kind waged by our Founding Fathers.
(bold highlighting -Edwin)
IT’S COMMUNISM, STUPID
Most observers have made the war in Ukraine about Vladimir Putin and his “paranoia.” They would prefer to say that Putin is in the traditional Russian imperial mold rather than in the communist mold. They have not understood that the communist mold is extremely flexible, even as communist tactics are flexible. It should be recalled that Stalin even aligned himself with Hitler, going against the sentiments of his own followers. How was this explained at the time? Stalin said that the main enemy of socialism was capitalism. Hitler was not a capitalist. The French and British were. Therefore, Stalin would side with Hitler. Later it became strategically necessary for Stalin to align himself with the West. Fascism once again became a term of abuse.
The tactical flexibility of the communists often requires that communists deny they are communists. Since 1991 communists around the world began calling themselves social democrats and even Democrats. This is especially true in the former Soviet Union.
Readers may suppose that communism no longer exists in Russia, that Russia’s rulers are nationalists. People may debate this point, but the Communist Party is the second largest political party in Russia today. The United Russia Party, which is the largest party, is full of “former” communists. It should be obvious that both the leading parties in Russia are one party. This fiction of two parties, with the smaller being overtly communist, is a classic communist deception. More significantly, the old communist elite of the USSR governs the country and dominates its institutions under non-communist slogans, behind the façade of the “oligarchs.” Western liberals portray Putin as an empty “grey man,” corrupted by power. But he has surrounded himself with people who either share a Marxist-Leninist perspective (like Igor Sechin), or worked for the KGB, or both.
I was just listening to Jonathan Fink, of the Silicon Curtain Podcast, interviewing Mark Galeotti, who said “Putin’s autocracy is not Stalinism.” And this much is true. Such statements, however, are nuanced nothings. Going through expert interviews you will hear these nuanced nothings repeated, one after another. It is not surprising, therefore, when Galeotti says that Russia’s actions have defied the predictions of analysts for many years. One might ask what the predictive value of a nuanced nothing might be. Most analysts are clueless regarding Russia’s real rulers. They somehow missed Moscow’s support for communist regimes around the globe. They somehow missed Russia’s support for North Korea and the CCP in China. Once we understand that the communists are still running Russia, Putin’s policies and actions become understandable, and sometimes predictable.
It was KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn who predicted the collapse of communism in 1984. He said it would be part of a deception strategy. He said that the communists would give up power in Russia, but they would remain in control behind the scenes. In Golitsyn’s second book, The Perestroika Deception, published in 1995, we read of a “military/nationalist option [for Russia] as the third course upon which the Kremlin strategists might embark in future to adjust the style and leadership of a new government if, for example, Yeltsin was considered to have exhausted his usefulness in extracting concessions from the West.” Golitsyn presciently added, “In this context, the Chechnyan ‘crisis’ can be seen not as a likely cause of a military coup, but as a possible planned prelude to a change of government. The new [post-Yeltsin Russian] government might be military or nationalist. Certain indicators that this is envisaged, are apparent.”[xi]
Golitsyn therefore predicted the nature of the post-Yeltsin regime in Russia, and how it would present itself to the world. A renewed Chechnyan “crisis” did indeed occur in 1999, and prefigured Yeltsin stepping down in favor of KGB Lt. Col. Putin. How could Golitsyn have guessed the circumstances of Yeltsin’s resignation so accurately? How did he guess the nature of the coming regime? While all the other pundits and analysts were wrong, Golitsyn was right again. Yet almost everyone ignored him.
One of Golitsyn’s suggestions was that any risky strategy, like Gorbachev’s perestroika in 1989, would obligate China to “play it safe.” As one bloc country takes a chance, the other must retrench. Even as Moscow let communist regimes fall in Eastern Europe in 1989, Beijing smashed the protesters in Tiananmen Square. Consider, by way of analogy, what is done in cataract surgery. You do not operate on both eyes at the same time. This is why the Chinese refrained from blockading Taiwan last year, even as they prepared to carry out a blockade. The action would only take place once Russia had secured Ukraine. By the end of last summer, however, the Russian offensive had failed. The Ukrainians were successfully counterattacking. China did not start a war in the Far East because that would be doing cataract surgery in both eyes at once. And so, Golitsyn’s rule of thumb proved right as China drew back from war at the end of summer 2022.
Golitsyn predicted, before anyone else, that Russia and China would never become capitalist democracies. When most pundits expressed optimism about the changes in Russia and capitalism in China, Golitsyn was issuing warnings. The capitalist dalliances of Moscow and Beijing were part of a communist strategy, he said. There was no change of heart in either country.
In 1995 Golitsyn wrote, “The US military should pull back from partnership with both the Russian and the Chinese armed forces and should revert to regarding them as their long-term adversaries rather than unwittingly helping them to implement their strategy.”[xii] This is what our policymakers are only now realizing. But it was foreseen, decades ago, by a man who was denounced by the media as “paranoid.”
JR Nyquist
Excellent summation of the deal that will break America.
My only philosophical edit would be to replace revolution (a destructive, deadly, and extremely dangerous gamble) with the idea of restoration (where we reset, and return to our norms of a Constitutional Republic based on Christian and conservative values that protect freedom and liberty).