The Occupy Wall Street movement has taken a general and ill-defined position against “corporate greed” as opposed to criticizing specific corporations for greedy behavior. This is in contrast to the Tea Party movement which has been specifically critical of those corporations that have been bailed out by the taxpayers and those corporate big-wigs, such asFranklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae, who received a taxpayer funded severance package worth around $80 million dollars before going on to advise the Obama campaign on economic matters in 2008.
Most Americans understand that most corporations, and most corporate heads like the the late Steve Jobs, create and market products and services that make them very rich and that, as such, they earn their wealth. Corporations function successfully in the private sector and benefit from private investment on Wall Street. They create wealth at all levels and they have created hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process. Unlike Solyndra, which was guaranteed by the taxpayer for over a half a billion dollars, and unlike Fannie and Freddie, whose bailout cost the economy over a trillion dollars, private corporations, sometimes working with government, take their own risks. Most Americans admire private corporations and celebrate their success because most Americans understand that the success of the corporation results in benefits to society in general.
The economic failure is not due to the success of private businessmen and corporations, quite the contrary, but rather the economic failure is due to anti-business regulation, free trade policies, and government agencies posing as private corporations and then needing a bailout such as Fannie and Freddie.
One revelation that has come out of the Occupy Wall Street episode is the fact that the top 1% is already paying a disproportionate share of taxes while approximately 42% of wage-earners pay no Federal tax. The number of subsidized taxpayers will apparently increase exponentially, according to a report from the Joint Committee on Taxation, which claims that an additional 8 million Americans will have no tax liability thanks to ObamaCare subsidies. The Occupy Wall Street movement, by advocating tax increases levied on the successful working segment of society, seems to want to expand the welfare state as opposed to an advocacy of a society that is more prone to creating jobs and self-sufficiency.
Rather than suggesting legitimate business reforms, such as ending the bailouts, ending the corporate welfare to corporations likeSolyndra, and curtailing free trade which hurts American industry and labor,Occupy Wall Street critique of business is more fundamental. At their core,they are in favor of Socialism, what they call “direct democracy” in which successfulpeople and companies are harnessed to serve those who have failed to create success.Their philosophy, as such, is based on their own envy and greed.
The weather is getting colder and the Occupy Wall Street encampments appear to be getting restless in some cities. The media and the public have gotten the message and most have moved on to other pursuits such asmaking a living and getting on with life. Thus, Occupy Wall Street seems to beresorting to more extreme histrionics to get attention such as provoking the policeand using more of our taxpayer resources. In the 1960’s, the street thugs harassing the police were praised by the liberal media, particularly suchliberal media titans as Walter Cronkite, as, back then, there were only threeTV stations providing the bulk of news. Today, the media is much more diverse,especially with the addition of Cable and the internet. Thus Occupy Wall Streetis not likely to be able to pull off the same trick as their radical predecessors.There is just too much private ownership of the means of communication.
On the Jewish Question - Karl Marx, anti-Semitism and the War against the West by Chuck Morse ( 1 customer review ) Kindle Price: ...
Chuck Morse Amazon Kindle Page http://t.co/oxZNlr94Fw COMMENTARY THE LONG MARCH TO DESTROY ISRAEL Exclusive: Chuck Morse sees...
Chuck Morse Amazon Kindle Page http://t.co/oxZNlr94Fw Harry Potter Books teach Witchcraft to Children Chuckmorse.com ^ |...
Chuck Morse Amazon Kindle Page http://t.co/oxZNlr94Fw The former Harvard Professor who received tenure by falsely claiming to be a...
Bible Tabula Rasa The Book of Genesis by Chuck Morse Kindle Price: $2.99 Auto-delivered wirelessly LISTEN HERE: Podcast...
Saturday, October 29, 2011
|On the Jewish Question - Karl Marx, anti-Semitism and the War against the West|
by Chuck Morse
Little is known about Hitler before 1920 as many who knew him in his early years were murdered in the 1934 Nazi purge known as the night of the long knives. Additionally, files about Hitler’s life in Vienna were likely expunged when the Nazis entered the city in 1938.
One persistent rumor about Hitler, not proven, was that he was a male prostitute in Vienna where he lived in the years leading up to his move to Munich and the outbreak of the world war in 1914. It is known that he lived in Vienna as a bohemian artist and that he associated with the artist community. Hitler had inherited money from his late father and as a result he never had to work.
This left him with enough time to study politics and, according to his own autobiography, Mein Kampf, he immersed himself in Marxist studies. In spite of his brave actions during the war, actions which earned him the Iron Cross, he was never promoted higher than the rank of corporal. There has been some speculation that this lack of promotion might have been due to his communist associations or politics. The truth will never be known as his war records disappeared.
After the armistice of November, 1918, Hitler returned to Munich around the same time that Kurt Eisner, a left-wing leader of the Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany (USPD) declared Bavaria to be a free state and a Socialist Republic on November 8, 1918. Eisner, who was subsequently assassinated on his way to submit his resignation to German authorities on February 21, 1919, had overthrown the seven centuries old Wittlesbach monarchy and had formed an alliance with the Soviet Union.
Eisner’s assassination was followed by an uprising that led to a brief and violent Bavarian Soviet Republic under Eugen Levine which lasted from April to May, 1919. A photograph has survived that seems to indicate that Hitler marched in Kurt Eisner’s funeral procession. The Freikorps, made up of German army personnel returning from the war, and under the command of German General Franz Ritter von Epp, responded to the attempted Soviet takeover in Bavaria by marching into Munich in May, 1919. The short lived Bavarian Soviet Republic was crushed, many of its leaders were executed, and thousands of its irregulars were imprisoned.
Along with thousands of other soldiers, Hitler was arrested and imprisoned assumedly for his support of the Soviet uprising although the exact reasons for his arrest have never been clear. Hitler, assumedly seeking to make a deal to win his freedom and to save his reputation, volunteered to serve the German government as a spy and to identify other soldiers who had supported the two Bavarian socialist regimes. Hitler thus began working for an official commission investigating the Bavarian uprisings. It can be assumed that Hitler knew the various subversives involved in the Soviet inspired attempted coup as why else would the German authorities entrust him to infiltrate these cadres? One question that will likely remain unanswered was how many of Hitler’s friends, who might have taken part in the Soviet conspiracy, joined him in the nascent German Workers Party, later to be known as the Nazi party.
Bavarian authorities asked Hitler infiltrate the small and recently formed German Workers Party in 1920. It is reasonable to assume that the German authorities were concerned that the new party might be a communist cell and their might have been reasons for this suspicion. Hitler was impressed by the party leader Anton Drexler who favored a strong central government, what he called a non-Jewish version of Socialism, and a strong spirit of fraternity amongst all Germans.
Thus was born the nationalist strain of socialism that would become the trademark of the German Nazi State. Drawing inspiration from the same European enlightenment font that gave birth to Communism, Nazism patented socialism in one state as opposed to the Communist model which was a one world socialist collective. The German language is structured in such a way that when an organization has two names the second name is the formal name and the first name is a descriptive qualifier. Thus the term National Socialist was understood to mean the socialist party that was a nationalist socialist party.
Posted by Chuck Morse at 7:41 PM
Friday, October 28, 2011
This is a link to an archive of columns written by Chuck Morse for World Net Daily
Posted by Chuck Morse at 8:16 PM
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Chuck Morse Amazon Kindle Page
|On the Jewish Question - Karl Marx, anti-Semitism and the War against the West|
by Chuck Morse
My co-host, liberal commentator Dr. Patrick O’ Heffernan, raised this salient question during our radio program The Fairness Doctrine. On October 26, we interviewed Joshua Rubenstein, the author of “Leon Trotsky-A Revolutionary Life.” Mr. Rubenstein mentioned what has become received wisdom which was that Stalin and the German Communist party had helped to elect Hitler in 1933. I responded with the observation that the communists were probably motivated in their support for the Nazis by an interest in turning Germany in a leftward political direction.
Rubenstein responded to Patrick’s follow-up question, in a condescending tone, that of course the Nazis were right-wing and that one should not be fooled by the word “Socialist” which is part of the name of the National Socialist Nazi Party. Rubenstein based his claim that Nazism was right-wing on the claims that the Nazis were nationalists and anti-Semites with the implication that these two principles should be considered as right-wing. This serious assertion, which constitutes conventional thinking on the left, deserves a response.
Firstly, the right advocates, as I pointed out to Rubenstein, limited government and Hitler was not exactly an advocate of limited government. The right understanding of nationalism involves an overall love of one’s home country whether that country is the United States, Canada, Mexico etc. The left understanding of nationalism, on the other hand, involves a love of the State. In this sense the left is hyper-nationalist as opposed to the more conservative nationalism. The left views the State as a redemptive force that should be empowered to change society and to literally change human nature through programs that re-distribute wealth from the private earner and through bureaucracies made up of “enlightened” experts who would use the force of law to inveigh themselves into all matters of the private lives of the citizen.
This, obviously, describes Nazism to a tee. This also clarifies why the Nazis were “right-wing” in that they were to the right of the Communists who sought total control by the State over all aspects of human life in their quest to establish a world ant colony, what they called a “collective.” The Nazis supported State Socialism, a high degree of public ownership within a super state. The Communists supported World Socialism, what they euphemistically referred to as Internationalism, and outright total ownership of all property and business. This is why Communism is to the left of Nazism and Nazism is to the right of Communism. Both ideologies and both systems are, obviously, to the left of the American system of individual rights and private ownership.
The second piece of evidence presented by Josh Rubenstein in his assertion that Nazism is right-wing, that Nazism is anti-Semitic is more complex. It should be noted that there are anti-Semites and racists on both the left and the right and in this regard the left is hardly pure. As a matter of philosophy, the right rejects anti-Semitism and racism as these tendencies represent “barnyard socialism” as was noted by conservative philosopher Ayn Rand. Indeed anti-Semitism and racism assign collective characteristics to groups of people based upon their ancestry and this idea runs contrary to the core conservative tenet which is respect for the inherent rights of the individual. Judaism and Christianity, when viewed as philosophies, also reject racism as the Judeo-Christian understanding is that each and every individual is uniquely created in the image of God and should not be in any way viewed as part of any group. This view explains in part why both Nazism and Communism were anti-Jewish and anti-Christian.
Furthermore, it should be noted, the father of Communism, Karl Marx, was a vicious anti-Semite who referred to Jews in his 1843 book “On the Jewish Question” as “self-interested hucksters who should be annihilated. Marx also profoundly influenced Hitler how credits him with providing the foundation of his political education in his autobiography Mein Kampf.
Posted by Chuck Morse at 10:34 AM
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Monday, October 24, 2011
Chuck Morse Amazon Kindle Page
Is Occupy Wall Street Communist?
Occupy Wall Street is not communist in the sense that it does not receive marching orders from the Kremlin, nor is it likely a part of any international communist conspiracy. Indeed that form of Communism imploded on its own rot when Moscow lowered the hammer and sickle in 1990. Putting aside the openly announced influence of Moveon.org, the Tides Foundation and other left-wing entities that have received financing from billionaire George Soros, OWS is indeed an organic movement that finds sympathizers and attendees from amongst the curious and the fashionable, the same type that mostly populated the be-in’s during the 1967 summer of love.
Philosophically, however, as opposed to literally, OWS is communist. The Tea Party criticized the taxpayer bailouts of the big Wall Street behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac along with the bailouts of AIG and the big banks that built their houses upon the shaky Fannie and Freddie foundation. The Tea Party criticism was over the misuse of taxpayer funds to prop up these entities that, as was revealed in 2008, were guaranteed a tax funded bailout as part of their contract. The Tea Party position was that these entities should have re-organized after bankruptcy and that the blow to the economy should have been lessened with a moratorium on taxes as a means of allowing for a natural stimulus that would be drawn from earned capital as opposed to government controlled debt stimulus based on increasing the national debt.
OWS has expanded the Tea Party criticism to include all successful companies and high earners, those they call the top 1%. Rather than allowing the economy to correct itself with policies of low taxes and favorable business regulation, which would encourage savings, investment, and economic recovery, OWS favors raising taxes and penalizing big business. Their particular focus is on Bank of America. They lust over the idea of screwing the man, as long as the man isn’t George Soros, without evident concern over the economic consequences of the collapse of large businesses. In this regard they appeal to the basest human instincts which are envy, coveting the property of the richer neighbor, and greed, the attainment of unearned property and benefits.
OWS does not seek a just system in the sense of supporting a system that protects the individual achiever, one that promotes success, creativity, and prosperity, but rather they seek to replace that system with a collective. They are creating their own make-shift simulated self-governing entities where decisions are arrived at collectively or through a Council. The Russian word for Council, it should be point out, is Soviet. They seek to address economic disparity by raising taxes and by expanding the size and authority of government. They seek to further expand the welfare state by advocating the creation of “jobs” that are funded by the taxes of the private wage earner.
America has entered perilous economic times but the culprit is not the “millionaires and billionaires” unless George Soros and the Tides Foundation are being referred to, but rather the culprit is an additional 3 trillion dollars added to the deficit during the Obama presidency, anti-business regulation, new free trade agreements, and taxpayer bailouts of corporations that are actually government agencies. The public sector has expanded to approximately 5 million employees who are involving themselves in more aspects of the lives of Americans. This is further exacerbated by the phenomena of public unions, government employees organizing against the taxpayer who pays them, supporting political candidates that further their agenda. They are choking state and municipal governments.
Let’s appeal to the better aspects of the OWS movement which is to support an atmosphere that would encourage opportunity for people of all ages, particularly young people entering the job market. Let’s steer those to whom Vladimir Lenin might have referred to as “useful idiots” in the direction of actually advocating real policies that have a track record of helping people. Let’s wake up the OWS crowd, the lumpen proletariat, to the falseness of their utopian dream by reminding them how that dream has been manifested in other societies this past century.
Posted by Chuck Morse at 9:38 AM
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Chuck Morse Amazon Kindle Page
The ugly language used by many of the Occupy Wall Street activists and by liberals such as radio talk show host Thom Hartmann to describe bankers is disgraceful and dangerous. When one replaces the word “banker” with the word “Jew” in the Occupy Wall Street rhetoric, one glimpses at the true nature and intent of the assault. Simply put, the Nazis and the German Communists portrayed Jews in virtually the same light as Occupy Wall Street activists are now portraying bankers. In reality this is the same assault on private ownership today as was the one that was engaged in by the 20th Centuries two great socialist experiments, Nazism and Communism.
There are obviously individual bankers and financial managers who could be described as greedy and corrupt. George Soros comes to mind. And yes there are banking and financial institutions that have engaged in corrupt practices such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were bailed out by the American taxpayer to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Greed and corruption have always been with us and will remain as long as we remain fallible human beings who at times either succumb to temptation or who embrace false ideologies. In the case of Fannie and Freddie, the public was unaware, until it was too late, that these two banking behemoths were guaranteed by the taxpayer in case they failed. This was not a case private banks taking risks but was rather two agencies that were protected by the government which charged them with carrying out social experiments.
Many of the complaints lodged by members of Occupy Wall Street, on the surface, are legitimate and those include railing against the contracted American economy and the lack of opportunity to make a living. Yet Occupy Wall Street supports ideas that have contributed to the problem when they call for tax increases and more government regulation while they at the same time demonize successful people who are already carrying the weight. If Occupy Wall Street actually wanted to create an atmosphere that would lead to success they would support deregulation of business as a means to promote creativity and low taxes as a means to allow for savings, capital formation and investment. Instead of supporting needless infrastructure projects paid for with taxpayer money, Occupy Wall Street might get behind domestic oil, gas, and coal exploration and development which would lead to infrastructure improvements paid for out of private capital.
Occupy Wall Street is motivated by the false and utopian notion of changing human nature through “democracy” and collective decision making. This is nothing more than a marketing job to convince enough people to surrender their freedom for the good of the so-called collective however it is defined at a given time. Without property, without the right to earn profit and without a system that promotes private profit there is no freedom. There is no such a thing as a “collective” only individuals living free and voluntarily working from time to time on common projects for a common purpose. By railing against property and profit, Occupy Wall Street holds ideals that run contrary to human nature.
And this is why Occupy Wall Street requires a scapegoat, whether that scapegoat is the Jews, who Karl Marx called “self-interested hucksters” who would have to be “annihilated” in order for human society to progress, or whether the scapegoat is bankers. By concentrating on a manufactured enemy that becomes the foci of hate, the advocates of collectivism convince their followers to surrender their individual rights for the so-called greater good. President Obama and the liberal Democrats in Congress used this same trick when they demonized the insurance companies in order to push through their freedom crushing health-care laws.
American bankers, Wall Street corporations, and private enterprise in general represent the greatest institutions ever known to man. Corporations have done more social good by hiring people, creating goods and services, and creating capital and wealth, than have any government or group in history. While rules are needed, especially in the financial services industry, to insure that business is done openly and up-front and that investments benefit the American economy, business must remain free to do what it does best and to make money in the process.
Posted by Chuck Morse at 8:50 PM