There is a general tendency among conservative Republicans to focus their ire on people who are not the real problem. People who run for office, or who work for the government, even violent Antifa, and others who make a lot of noise, are not the real problem, because they are pawns in a game played by others.

James O’Keefe has begun releasing undercover videos that purport to expose “the deep state.” In fact, that is not what he is doing. Instead he is exposing holdovers from the Obama Administration who do not agree with what President Trump is trying to accomplish. We already knew that those people were there, and they are not the deep state, properly speaking.

The term DEEP STATE does not properly refer to people in the government. Peter Dale Scott imported the term from Turkey, where it referred to a criminal syndicate that effectively controlled the elected government of Turkey. It refers to entities outside of the government that are sufficiently powerful to control the government. In the American context, Peter Dale Scott specifically refers to Wall Street as part of the deep state.

I am inclined to make the meaning of “deep state” within the American context even more specific, to point out that the deep state has a particular ethnic coloration. One can see, for example, that the largest political donors are overwhelmingly Jewish billionaires (many of them connected to Wall Street). Mass-media in the United States also have been dominated by Jews since broadcasting began. It is clear that enormous extra-governmental power is in the hands of Jews. Peter Dale Scott however does not venture that degree of clarity. In fact “deep state” seems to be essentially a way to avoid talking explicitly about Jews.

Nonetheless, even as Scott uses the term, it has some usefulness. It means the powers that be, fundamentally outside of the government but penetrating and controlling the government.

It was probably through Peter Dale Scott’s appearances on Infowars that the term gained some currency.

When Reagan cultists like Rush Limbaugh got hold of the term, however, they tried to make it fit their preconceived notion about where the source of trouble must always be. Since Ronald Reagan said, “Government is the problem,” it was more comfortable to assume that the deep state meant people within the government. 

Limbaugh really should know better. The concept represented by the term deep state is not entirely new to him. In November 2014 Limbaugh noticed and admitted that wealthy people outside of the government — “the donor class” — were in fact the real problem, at least in regard to the push for illegal immigrant amnesty. This observation posed a great problem for Limbaugh’s ideology, which is disposed to regard billionaires as benevolent “job-creators” who help the country, rather than as greedy monsters who will destroy the country if not curbed. More recently, Limbaugh has also come to regard mass-media as a malevolent power unto itself.* These observations are entirely corrosive to the “classical liberal” ideology that Limbaugh has been espousing since the late 1980s, but he still has not embraced the anti-liberal implications. He continues, hypocritically, to spout the old Reaganite cant.

Consequently, when Rush Limbaugh heard “deep state,” he seems to have fallen into his old ruts and assumed that it meant people entrenched within the government — which is fundamentally not what it means.

James O’Keefe follows the example of Rush Limbaugh in misapplying the term DEEP STATE to refer only to people in government.

Now I hear that a Jew named Jason Chaffetz has opportunistically written a book called The Deep State, which perpetuates and reinforces the already prevalent error, calling the deep state “an army of bureaucrats.”

With their incorrect use of the term deep state, O’Keefe and Limbaugh and the Jew Chaffetz are letting the important culprits off the hook. Of course, some of this could be intentional.

The image above represents the allegory of the cave, from Plato’s Republic. It represents the fact that most people are unaware of the real powers behind events. They are focused on shadows on the wall, which could represent the public actions of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and are unaware of the puppetmasters behind them that manipulate those shadows. James O’Keefe by invoking the term deep state pretends to be exposing the puppetmasters, when in fact he is still focused on the shadows on the cave’s wall, and also keeping others focused there.

Whenever you hear somebody using this term deep state to mean entrenched bureaucrats, you should point out that, according to Peter Dale Scott who introduced the term, this is not what it means; that it refers to the real power, which is outside of the government.

___________________________________________________
* “You know, I still chuckle when I see stories talking about how, ‘The media, following the lead of Democrat Party leaders…’ Give me a break. It’s the other way around.” — Rush Limbaugh, 2 July 2018 ]]> https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/09/19/a-few-words-about-the-deep-state/feed/ 0 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/08/19/how-does-dinesh-dsouza-get-away-with-it/ https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/08/19/how-does-dinesh-dsouza-get-away-with-it/#respond Sun, 19 Aug 2018 12:43:00 +0000 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/08/19/how-does-dinesh-dsouza-get-away-with-it/

It has been amazing to see how much Dinesh D’Souza gets away with. I have yet to see any of his movies, but I have his books, and I’ve listened to interviews and watched his speeches.

Nobody seems to come to D’Souza’s presentations prepared, and that’s a problem.* It is difficult to argue history extemporaneously. You have to be able to point to a source. In D’Souza’s case, you can point to his own sources and show how he has misrepresented them. But nobody does that.

Nobody catches his crooked rhetoric either, like when he sidetracks an important objection to his thesis onto some trivial point. The obvious point that Southern segregationist voters en masse migrated to the GOP — which blasts a giant hole in D’Souza’s thesis — is obfuscated with a trivia-quiz about politicians who supported Strom Thurmond’s third-party presidential campaign in 1948.

Nobody catches the fact that he pretends that there were always only two political parties in US history, and that everyone is either a Democrat or a Republican. He is able to call the Democrats “the party of slavery” because Whigs and Federalists and NPAs do not exist in D’Souza’s narrative. Somebody pointed out that Ulysses S. Grant had owned a slave before he became president. D’Souza’s comeback is that Grant had not yet become a Republican and was therefore a Democrat at the time. While it is true that Grant had not yet become a Republican, I see no indication that he was ever a Democrat; he seems to have had no party-affiliation until he was drafted to run for president. The point is, MANY non-Democrats — like George Washington! — owned slaves, and did so long before the Democratic Party even existed, so that it is not correct to call the Democrats the party of slavery. This should be extremely OBVIOUS.

How does he get away with it?

Somebody has suggested to me that there has been hesitation to take Dinesh D’Souza to task because he is not White. I don’t know.

I have been especially disappointed that Republican talkshow hosts like Rush Limbaugh take no trouble to stifle dangerous nonsense being propagated among the GOP faithful. Limbaugh certainly knows better, because I’ve been sending him information about D’Souza for the past year. Even without such advice, Limbaugh surely knows that the Ku Klux Klan were not “progressives,” but he lets D’Souza get away with that on his show. 

In Limbaugh’s case, the profit motive seems to be a corrupting factor, because D’Souza has bought wall-to-wall advertising for his movie on Limbaugh’s show. Last year Limbaugh was touting D’Souza’s book The Big Lie, declaring, “It’s all true!” — but that was before I started sending him information, and maybe back then he didn’t know what he was endorsing, but he knows now, and is doing it anyway.

D’Souza’s material is dangerous to Republicans because it can easily boomerang against them. For example it was Republicans first and foremost who supported eugenic sterilization. It was a Republican Supreme Court justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, who wrote, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” And then there’s the plain fact that D’Souza shows that a significant number of Republicans will believe, or pretend to believe, almost anything. It does not look good.

This is a compilation of material that was posted or could be posted on Twitter. For a more coherent presentation, go to Hit Dinesh D’Souza on his Most Vulnerable Points. 

Dinesh D’Souza’s narrative about how the Democrats are “the real racists” or, lately, “the real fascists” or even “the real nazis,” is so full of holes, and so easily refuted, that it can be hard to understand why anyone could really be taken in by it. 

At least, it is hard to conceive of how somebody with a memory extending back to the 1970s could be taken in by it. In the 1970s, before Trotskyite Jews calling themselves “Neoconservatives” had acquired much influence, conservatism had not yet been entirely redefined as the demand for free markets and less government (which is actually liberalism, not conservatism).  The pro-White motive in conservatism, therefore, was much more conspicuous a few decades ago. For anybody who remembers that, D’Souza’s contention that Segregationists were leftists is such obvious balderdash that it requires no refutation. Certainly, Rush Limbaugh, born in 1951, knows enough that he cannot genuinely take D’Souza seriously in this — yet he plays along.

Nonetheless, there are sincere people, all of them I suppose too young to remember politics before Reagan, who are not just playing along but really have been deceived by D’Souza. Because they are sincere, they can be persuaded.

I have had some success in convincing followers of Dinesh D’Souza on Twitter that he has been lying to them. If somebody says that D’Souza’s book is excellent or interesting, I respond that it is a stupid book. Alternately one could say that it is a very dishonest book. Thereupon there is a reaction of incredulity and a demand for an explanation. Now a discussion begins. These are the points that I have used. (I believe that these blurbs are all short enough to be copied and pasted on Twitter.) 

Eugenic Sterilization and Party-Affiliation

D’Souza hides the fact that eugenic sterilization was promoted mainly by Republicans: the first five governors to sign eugenic sterilization into law in 1907-1911 (in IN, WA, CA, CT, NV) were all Republicans. 

Nineteen out of thirty-two governors who signed eugenic sterilization into law (59%) were Republicans.

The picture that Dinesh D’Souza tries to paint, is that REPUBLICANS WERE ALWAYS CONSERVATIVE AND NON-RACIST, and DEMOCRATS WERE ALWAYS LEFTIST AND RACIST. If eugenic sterilization was mainly a Republican cause then HIS PICTURE IS MESSED UP. That happens to be the case.

Dinesh Hides Republicans behind the word “Progressives”

D’Souza selectively avoids calling eugenicist Republicans by their party-affiliation and calls them “progressives” instead. When D’Souza talks about “progressives” he is usually talking about Republicans.

In fact, the label “progressive” was particularly associated with Republicans like Theodore Roosevelt. D’Souza carefully avoids mentioning this.

Dinesh D’Souza has laid a booby-trap for Republicans with this book. If they follow his lead by noisily condemning eugenic sterilization, it is only a matter of time before somebody points out that it was supported first and foremost by Republicans.

Even today the Republican Party has its “progressives.”

The Republican Connection to Slavery

Dinesh D’Souza always claims that only Democrats owned slaves in 1860. When somebody cites the well known fact that Ulysses S. Grant owned a slave, D’Souza asserts that Grant was a Democrat at that time. In fact Grant was nonpartisan. Thus, Grant was a non-Democrat who owned a slave, and far from unique.

Many Whigs were slaveholders. While Northern Whigs who opposed slavery joined the new Republican Party, many Southern Whigs did not. The Confederate Vice-President, Alexander Stephens, was a slaveholding Whig from Georgia. D’Souza’s assertion that only Democrats owned Slaves in 1860 is false.

There were also some Republicans who owned slaves. Robert Jefferson Breckinridge, a slaveholder from Kentucky who favored the gradual abolition of slavery and resettlement of freed Blacks outside of the United States, may have been still a Know Nothing in 1860, but was temporary chair of the Republican National Convention in 1864. He supported Lincoln because he wanted the Union to be preserved. Lincoln’s exemption of Border States from the Emancipation Proclamation was obviously an accommodation to supporters like Breckinridge who owned slaves.

So, Dinesh D’Souza blames Democrat slaveholders but not Whig slaveholders? What about the fact that Abraham Lincoln campaigned for our three slaveholding Whig presidents — Wm H. Harrison, J. Tyler, & Z. Taylor? It does not seem that Lincoln was a committed abolitionist at all.

The Supposed Party-Affiliation of the Ku Klux Klan

In 1924. the Democratic presidential nominee John W. Davis denounced the Ku Klux Klan, while the Republican incumbent Calvin Coolidge avoided saying anything on the subject. The result was that the Ku Klux Klan supported Calvin Coolidge in 1924.

Dinesh D’Souza claims that the Ku Klux Klan was “the military wing of the Democratic Party.” Anybody who went to school in the United States should know that no U.S. political party ever had a “military wing.” Furthermore, the Klan of the 20th century often supported Republicans.

Citing Eric Foner Dinesh D’Souza calls the KKK “the military wing of the Democratic Party.” What EF wrote is: “IN EFFECT, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy.”

Eric Foner, incidentally, is a neo-Marxist Jew from New York City. Dinesh D’Souza had to lean heavily on such disreputable sources for his book The Big Lie.

Only Democrats would make deals with Fascists? Really?

The USA and Fascist Italy had positive relations, during Republican as well as Democratic administrations, until the invasion of Ethiopia in 1937. Dinesh D’Souza wants to pretend that all men of good will saw Mussolini as a bad guy from the start, and that was not the case.

Segregationist Democrats were Conservative

There used to be conservative Democrats. D’Souza pretends that segregationist Democrats were leftists when in fact figures like Senator James Eastland (Democrat, Mississippi) were regarded as extremely conservative.

Conservative Democrats were not LIBERAL LIKE YOU, Dinesh. They tried to conserve the community school, States’ Rights, individual rights, freedom of association, public morality, and LAW & ORDER.

Would you like to explain, Dinesh, what was conservative about federally mandated school-desegregation and forced busing? It looks like LEFT-WING TYRANNY to me, and that was the consensus among White people in the South. CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS OPPOSED THIS LEFT-WING TYRANNY.

Senators LYNDON B. JOHNSON and ALBERT GORE, SR. were NOT TYPICAL SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS. They both REFUSED to sign the 1956 “Southern Manifesto” of opposition to federally mandated racial desegregation.

Two of the 101 Southern politicians who signed the Southern Manifesto were Republicans from Virginia.

They claim, “Democrats voted against Civil Rights,” or even, “More Republicans than Democrats voted for civil rights.” Both claims are false. The vote was very regional. Not one Southern Republican voted in favor of that Act. The only Southerners voting for it were a few Dems.

Dinesh D’Souza himself has criticized the Civil Rights Act: “Am I calling for a repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Actually, yes. The law should be changed so that its nondiscrimination provisions apply only to the government.”(Dinesh D’Souza, The End of Racism, 1996, p. 544)

Dinesh D’Souza says: “Every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature and signed by a Democratic governor.” This is literally impossible, since most of those states had adopted anti-miscegenation laws before the Democratic Party even existed.

One state of the “Jim Crow South,” West Virginia, received its  segregation-laws under Republican rule, beginning with Arthur I. Boreman in 1863.

Eugenic Sterilization and the former Confederacy

The eugenicist movement was weaker in the former Confederacy than in the rest of the country.

While 32 out of 48 (67%) of the United States enacted eugenic sterilization laws, only 55% of former Confederate states enacted such laws, compared to 70% of the other States.

Eugenic Sterilization and Racial Segregation

17 states had MANDATORY racial segregation. Of these, only 9 (53%) enacted eugenic sterilization laws. 16 states PROHIBITED racial segregation: Of these, 11 (69%) enacted eugenic sterilization laws. There was NO RELATIONSHIP between racial segregation and eugenic sterilization laws.

23 out of 32 states that enacted eugenic sterilization laws had no mandatory racial segregation. 

In fact, states with mandatory racial segregation were somewhat less likely to enact eugenic sterilization laws, compared to states without racial segregation.

The Southern Segregationist Migration to the GOP

White Southern Democrats started voting for the GOP because Richard Nixon in 1968 and 1972 seemed to oppose forced busing. This method of winning the segregationist vote for the GOP, called Nixon’s “southern strategy,”was devised by Kevin Phillips.

Dinesh D’Souza tries to obfuscate the well known fact that most Southern segregationists switched to the GOP by putting the focus on Segregationist politicians, of whom very few switched parties.

Major racially motivated D to R switchers: S. Thurmond, J. Helms, T. Cochran, J. Tower, T. Lott  Charles Pickering, James F. Byrnes, Albert Watson,  William Cramer, Arthur Ravenel Jr., Dave Treen, James D. Martin, Floyd Spence, Bo Callaway, Iris Faircloth Blitch, Mills Godwin.

Not many segregationist politicians changed parties, because the Democratic Party continued to be dominant until 1980. Politicians like Senator James Eastland (who died in 1979) would have been less influential in the GOP. But those segregationists were conservative!

The Big Switch that Dinesh D’Souza Denies

Some significant public figures from the South who switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party are: John Tower, 1951; Strom Thurmond, 1964; Jesse Helms, 1970; Trent Lott, 1972.

The racial attitudes of the two parties by 1983 can be roughly gauged by the Senate’s vote on a holiday to commemorate MARTIN LUTHER KING. While majorities of both parties voted for the holiday, ONLY 4 DEMOCRATS — BUT 18 REPUBLICANS — VOTED AGAINST THE HOLIDAY. 

As it turns out, what D’Souza calls “the nazi roots of the American left” are, on the one hand, “progressive” Republicans, and, on the other hand, conservative Democrats that have now migrated almost entirely to the GOP.

D’Souza pretends that “progressive” Republicans and conservative Democrats were the same group. Furthermore, he wants us to believe that they were all left-wing Democrats. Clearly, none of them were left-wing Democrats! 

In America: Imagine the World Without Her, Dinesh D’Souza declared that “there was no genocide” of American Indians, that this was just another Big Lie by the left to make Americans ashamed of their country. But now Dinesh D’Souza himself is telling this “Big Lie.”

“By some estimates, more than 80 percent of the Indians perished…. But there was no genocide. Millions of Indians died as a result of diseases they contracted from their exposure to the White man: smallpox, measles, cholera, and typhus….”  (Dinesh S’Souza, A:ITWWH, p. 93)

“Today we think of Indians as tragic figures, woebegone on the reservation. But that’s not how Andrew Jackson … saw them. Jackson knew the Indians were canny, organized, and strong…. We should not regard the Indians as passive weaklings.” (Dinesh D’Souza, A:ITWWH, p. 102)

“What term other than genocide can we use to describe Democratic president Andrew Jackson’s mass relocation of the Indians?” (Dinesh D’Souza, The Big Lie, 2017) “But there was no genocide.” (Dinesh D’Souza, America: Imagine the World Without Her, 2014)

Dinesh D’Souza quotes Andrew Jackson out of context, “It was dark before we finished killing them,” and leads his readers to believe that this refers to an act of genocide. In fact those killed (generally) were warriors fighting to the death in the Battle of Horseshoe Bend.

 

Dinesh D’Souza’s attack on Andrew Jackson as a “racist” would instantly be recognized and reviled as Cultural Marxist propaganda if it were not clothed in Republican partisanism.

What do you think President Trump would say about Dinesh D’Souza’s attack on Andrew Jackson as a “racist,” given Trump’s admiration for President Jackson, and the fact that he has been compared to President Jackson (and likewise called a “racist”)?

These are points that any sincere person should be able to grasp without much difficulty. 

One could also dispute D’Souza’s assertions about fascism, but because it is a more obscure subject your interlocutors will find the argument harder to follow.  Therefore it is better just to point out the misrepresentations about American political history.

One young woman asked me if there were another book that I could recommend to her, perhaps one that refutes D’Souza. I told her that I was writing that book. ]]> https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/11/09/talking-points-for-demolishing-dinesh-dsouza/feed/ 0 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2016/11/07/roots-of-trumps-revolution/ https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2016/11/07/roots-of-trumps-revolution/#respond Mon, 07 Nov 2016 17:21:00 +0000 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2016/11/07/roots-of-trumps-revolution/

I wrote this after the defeat of Mitt Romney in the presidential election of 2012, when the Uniparty Establishment of Plutocrats and Zionists was proclaiming that the Republican Party in the future could win elections only by abandoning all semblance of representing the interests of the White majority, and should instead pander to Hispanics by embracing illegal aliens. “Neoconservative” Jew Charles Krauthammer in particular advocated this, with Jew Dick Morris (who pretends to be an expert on how to win elections) seconding, and many weak-kneed Republicans followed their lead.

Rush Limbaugh was the most prominent dissenting voice. Limbaugh said that if the Republican Party tried to be like the Democrats it would cease to exist. 

Limbaugh however did not articulate a viable alternative for the Republicans. Although Limbaugh recommended rallying the party’s base, his conception of how to appeal to the base was circumscribed by his commitment to “conservatism,” while the really powerful appeal to the Republican base, and the way to expand that base, was in populism (which Limbaugh had explicitly opposed when Pat Buchanan represented it in 1996). 

Subsequently, in 2014, Limbaugh made a significant shift in the direction of populism, openly admitting, after decades of shilling for plutocracy, that what is good for the rich may not be good for ordinary Americans after all. In 2016 Limbaugh is still saying this.

Not being hobbled with Rush Limbaugh’s commitment to “conservatism,” I articulated a populist future for the Republican Party with this essay in 2012. Although Donald Trump has not gone as far as I proposed in terms of moving the GOP to the left economically, broadly speaking what I suggested is what he has done, notably proclaiming that the Republican Party in the future would be a workers’ party.

The key to Trump’s popularity is that he enables White working people to vote for their racial interest and their personal economic interest at the same time. In the past, the Republicans and the Democrats, as if by a deliberate plan to keep the White majority divided, consistently forced them to choose one or the other.

A Party of Plutocrats Has No Future

by Hadding Scott

Originally published on The Occidental Observer, 13 November 2012

The Ideal vs. the Possible

First I want to explain that White advocacy and electoral politics are two distinct matters. There is some relationship between the two, but they are different with their own guiding principles (especially in this winner-take-all electoral system, which rewards inscrutable blandness). To the extent that one is guided by the principles of the other, it is done less than optimally. Electoral politics must be approached with a readiness to accept some tolerable compromise rather than demanding the full realization of an ideal: “Politics is the art of the possible,” said Bismarck. But at the same time the ideal has to be maintained.

White advocacy and general political discussion must not be degraded to the level of rhetoric that is calculated to win an election. We must not internalize the limits of electoral politics as the limits of our own thinking and discussion. Those of us who might choose to engage in the grubby business of electoral politics must not become creatures of this corrupting system but remain White people with White interests, despite whatever compromises might be required by circumstances.

By maintaining consciousness of the difference between what is actual and what is ideal, our people should always realize that whatever they have gained is not all that they want, so that progress will not stop and will not be lost through a relaxation of efforts.

How the Republican Party has Failed and Succeeded and Failed Again

Many White people, especially in the South, support the Republican Party because they perceive it as the Implicitly White Party. This affiliation of racially conscious White people with the Republican Party was induced by the so-called Civil Rights movement, which had its main base of support in the Democratic Party. The South had always been solidly Democratic until the Truman Administration and its support for “Civil Rights.” This provoked a rift in the Democratic Party in the form of the short-lived States’ Rights Democratic Party, or “Dixiecrats.” A decisive shift occurred when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. That was when Senator Strom Thurmond became a Republican. Many other Southern segregationists, like future senator Jesse Helms, followed.

Before the Solid South turned Republican, the Republicans had been known as the party of big business. In other words, it was a plutocratic party. The Republicans were blamed for the Great Depression, and for not doing enough to meliorate its effects, such as unemployment. The fact that the Democrats were willing to address those effects of the Great Depression made them the dominant political party from 1933 until 1981. It was the fact that the Democratic establishment’s racial policies had offended White Southerners that enabled the Republican Party to become dominant again, beginning with Ronald Reagan.

The politics of the rejuvenated Republican Party therefore represented a synthesis of muted White racialism and plutocracy. The 19^th-century notion that dog-eat-dog capitalism was somehow eugenic became attractive as a meeting-point between the two motives. However, although budgets were cut, the effects on the underclass were far from drastic. (Nor did Ronald Reagan turn Iran into a glowing parking-lot.) There seemed to be a strong anti-social impulse in all this; not infrequently the supporters of the less-government ideology will express it in terms of owing nothing to the government or to society.

Unfortunately, as it turned out, the established plutocratic motive in the Republican Party forced the recently introduced racial motive to take a back seat. Instead of concentrating on pro-White politics (such as restricting immigration), which is the most fundamental form of conservatism, the Republicans, with an ideology of free trade, deregulation, and less government, concentrated on dismantling the economic and social adjustments that had become necessary by the time of the Great Depression.

The fact that the Republicans had become the party of unnecessary wars also did not help. Barack Obama was able to beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination because she had supported war in Iraq and he had not. This consideration also surely had some bearing on Obama’s victory over John McCain, who repelled people with talk of 100 years of Middle-East war.
The combination of dishonest wars and a wrecked economy caused the election of Barack Obama in 2008.

Republican attempts to exploit some presumed amnesia on the part of the voting public, so as to blame Obama for the resumption of the Great Depression, had little success. Unemployment also became worse during Franklin Roosevelt’s first term than it had been under Herbert Hoover, but somehow that did not make people forget under which party the crisis had begun.

Why did three-million Republicans not turn out to vote for Mitt Romney?

Rush Limbaugh characterizes movers and shakers in the Republican Party as a bunch of elitist snobs who despise many of the ordinary people that vote Republican.

How many times have I told you this story? Early 90s, in the Hamptons. Dinner party, mostly establishment Republicans. And major figures, you’d know the names, big donors, fundraisers, come up to me, point their finger in my chest, actually jab my chest, “What are you going to do about the Christians?” “What do you mean, what am I going to do about the…?” “This abortion’s killing us! We’re never going to win a damned thing! They listen to you. You’ve got to get them to shut up about this!” I said, “They’re only 24 million votes. You can’t win anything without them.” “We don’t want them! It’s embarrassing!” Well, that’s 1992, 93. We’re now at 2012. That’s 20 years. That’s how long it’s been building. That is something that existed then; it existed during the 80s with Reagan. There was embarrassment over Reagan. (Rush Limbaugh, 29 August 2012: sound)

While this anecdote gives a useful insight, Limbaugh seems to tell only part of the truth, probably the part that he can tell without getting into really serious hot water. Abortion is clearly only one, perhaps the least of the issues dear to some Republican voters that the bigwigs find abhorrent. Other such issues are control of legal and illegal immigration, opposition to free trade, and opposition to wars for Israel. The fact that Limbaugh managed to discuss the conflict over the rules-change at the Republican National Convention at length without mentioning Ron Paul, whose movement was at the center of the conflict, demonstrates that with Rush Limbaugh, while some things are revealed, much is suppressed.

A large part of the cause for three-million registered Republicans staying home on election day, no doubt, is the treatment given to Ron Paul’s genuine and enthusiastic (if ideologically wrongheaded) grassroots movement. The abuses include what seems to be rigging of results in some primaries, and a rules-change at the Republican National Convention that rankled not only Ron Paul’s supporters but Tea-Partiers and anybody that was not strictly with the plutocratic Republican establishment. The behavior of the Republican establishment during the primaries and at the convention represents the contempt of a plutocratic party for ordinary people who do not heed their supposed betters.

Limbaugh describes a key event at the 2012 Republican convention:

Essentially, the establishment Republicans, the RNC, the GOP, the Romney campaign, want to change the rules of delegate-selection. They want the presidential nominee in future years to be able to choose the actual delegates to the convention so that he owns them, so that they do what he wants.

And what it really is, is an effort to eliminate grassroots people from the Republican convention. That’s really what this is all about. And what that means is that the party has decided it doesn’t want to have to put up with a bunch of conservatives showing up, affecting the platform, and all other things that happen at the convention, including influencing the party. [Rush Limbaugh, 29 August 2012: sound]

Limbaugh speaks cryptically about “conservatives” when it was mainly a matter of Ron Paul’s supporters. That was not the only offense against Ron Paul’s supporters at the convention:

Prior to the rules vote, there was also a contentious vote on the report from the committee’s credentials committee, which prevented half the delegates from Maine — many of them Paul supporters — from being seated after ruling that there were problems with their selections.

The credentials report also passed by voice vote, prompting chants of “Seat Maine now” from Paul supporters in the crowd. At one point, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus had to gavel them back into order as they chanted over the next speaker. [Aaron Blake, “Ron Paul supporters come up short in rules fight,” Washington Post, 28 August 2012]

Ron Paul’s opposition to war and foreign entanglements generally would have represented a real difference between the Republicans and the Democrats and a change of direction that many people favor, one that would have attracted many who favored Obama in 2008 because of what appeared to be his disinclination for war.

The question for me is not why Obama was re-elected, but why anybody is surprised about it, given  what the Republican establishment really represents, and the contempt with which it treats the people whose support it seeks.

The Overemphasis on Demographic Change and Why they are Doing It

Fox News commentator Bill O’ Reilly made this dire assessment as exit polls suggested that the Republican Party’s White male challenger Mitt Romney would lose to the mulatto incumbent:

The demographics are changing. It’s not a traditional America anymore. And there are 50% of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it, and he ran on it.

And whereby twenty years ago President Obama would be roundly defeated by an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney, the White establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that this economic system is stacked against them, and they want stuff.

You’re going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming Black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way.

People feel that they are entitled to things, and which candidate between the two is going to give them things.

O’Reilly tries to cast the problem in terms of the old saw about how democracy cannot last because the people will vote largesse for themselves until they ruin the state, but he ends up interpreting that largely in racial terms (which is probably what really concerns the average Fox News viewer anyway, so that we probably should not consider this a slip but intentional pandering).

Who is the “White establishment” that O’Reilly says is now the minority? He cannot mean all White people, because White people are not a minority yet, nor did all White people vote Republican. O’Reilly is implying that the Republican Party got as much of the White vote as it could possibly get, which is simply not the case. The thesis here is that a less plutocratic Republican Party would draw a larger share of the White vote and be able to win elections at the national level.

After O’Reilly made his statement, Jewish political pundit Dick Morris stated on Fox News, “If this candidate, in this economy, against this opponent, couldn’t win … nobody ever can.” Morris specifically mentioned immigration as a position where the Republican Party would have to change. Morris and certain others seem far too eager to embrace the conclusion that demographic change is the reason why the Republicans lost, and overly determined as to what should be done about it.

Neocon columnist Charles Krauthammer was one of the first notable voices after the election to call for the Republican Party to embrace amnesty for illegal aliens:

The principal reason they go Democratic is the issue of illegal immigrants. In securing the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney made the strategic error of (unnecessarily) going to the right of Rick Perry. Romney could never successfully tack back.

For the party in general, however, the problem is hardly structural. It requires but a single policy change: Border fence plus amnesty. Yes, amnesty. [Charles Krauthammer, “The Way Forward,” National Review, 8 November 2012]

King-Neocon William Kristol expresses himself a bit more timidly. He advocates that the Republican Party should continue to be the enemy of “big government liberalism” but should exhibit “fresh thinking” in other regards. Then he cryptically suggests that a change of the party’s position on immigration might be in order: “If a senator or a representative has a good proposal on immigration or monetary policy or education or tax reform, he or she should introduce it” (William Kristol, “Losing Can be Liberating,” The Weekly Standard, 19 November 2012)

The Zionist owner of Fox News and funder of the Project for a New American Century, Rupert Murdoch, tweeted that the United States “must make sweeping, generous immigration reform.”

The dominant theme in Neoconservative propaganda at present is that the Republican Party must become even less the party of White people while remaining the plutocratic party.

The Neocon position was echoed by Sean Hannity, who has always seemed weak-kneed on matters of racial importance, claiming that he had “evolved.”

Among elected politicians, while Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner came out for amnesty, other Republicans, who depend on the support of White constituencies, disagreed.

Rush Limbaugh: Demographic Change is not the Immediate Problem

Limbaugh denies the premise of the Neocons’ rhetoric, that amnesty for illegal aliens would significantly win Hispanics over to the GOP. He points out that 75% of the Hispanic vote is more interested in the social safety-net and progressive taxation, than in immigration. (8 November 2012)
Rush Limbaugh says that that the Republicans did not lose because of demographics, but because the party had alienated the three million registered Republicans who stayed home on election-day.

It wasn’t an election lost because we didn’t get the women’s vote, the Hispanic vote. We didn’t turn our vote out. It’s just that simple. Could it be, ladies and gentlemen, three million Republicans sat at home because they didn’t see enough of a conservative campaign?

These are the things that have to be pondered, why all the party beats itself up over amnesty and single women and contraception. But I’m just going to tell you, if you think that the only reason why you’re not winning presidential races is because you’re not for amnesty, and because you’re not for abortion, if you change to that, if you moderate, modify your positions, you are going to cease to exist, because those who are with you are going to abandon you. (Rush Limbaugh, 8 November 2012: sound)

Beyond Limbaugh

Limbaugh says that if the Republican Party tries to cater to the Hispanic vote by embracing amnesty for illegal aliens, the party will cease to exist. That is very likely. However, it does not mean that the Republican Party will survive if it does not do that.

If the Republican Party is defined by opposition to the social safety-net and progressive taxation, then indeed it will cease to exist, whether it pursues non-White support or not, because these are adjustments that the conditions of late capitalism (where efficient production, exacerbated presently through offshoring of jobs, causes massive unemployment) make indispensable.

As with O’Reilly, Limbaugh’s rhetoric loosely ties plutocratic thinking with racial thinking by associating the desire for a social safety-net and progressive taxation with Blacks and Hispanics. The listener is given the hint that the Republican Party’s policies are a good way to give a relative advantage to Whites over and against non-Whites. The downside to this is that the White working class is put in the position of choosing between an impersonal racial interest and personal economic interest. Of course many choose the latter, especially outside of the South.

The Non-Southern White Working Class

A new report on the White working class by Elisabeth Jacobs of the Brookings Institution indicates that the White working class was the key to Obama’s victory in Ohio. White working-class voters everywhere tend to be more culturally conservative than other White people, but outside of the South White workers are more influenced by economic policy. A movement away from the plutocratic less-government ideology would bring the Republican Party closer to being the party of all White people. Here’s a chart from Mother Jones showing the White working class vote in various regions of the U.S.:

Since the Southern White working-class voters who now vote Republican were once solidly Democratic, and have adopted plutocratic rhetoric as a (perceived) sneaky approach to racial politics, we can say that these voters are not really wedded to the less-government ideology and, if they can remember why they started mouthing that rhetoric in the first place, will abandon it when they see that the racial interest is better served in some other way.

What about the Black vote?

It must be recognized that White people are not the only population in the United States that suffers from a false leadership that despises it. The Blacks also have their Judas goats, most notably Ben Jealous of the NAACP and Al Sharpton. The NAACP was created by Jews and is essentially controlled by Jews today, through funding. (When the NAACP started to take an independent course under Ben Chavis in the 1990s, it suddenly ran into funding problems.) Al Sharpton, who has a daily radio show and a television show on MSNBC, supports the cause of illegal immigrants, to the detriment of Black people in the United States.

Despite the effect of these Judas goats, about half of the Black population understands that illegal immigration adversely affects Black people, and they oppose amnesty.

Jealous and Sharpton together were prominent in stirring up irrational anti-White rage among Blacks regarding the Trayvon Martin case. This irrational hostility hinders understanding and cooperation for the common good of Black and White as natives of the United States, and helps the Neocons and others who want non-White immigration to continue.

While the false Black leaders try to maintain racial animosity, the false White leaders try to overcome that animosity using inducements that are transparently bogus.

The arguments that the Republicans have been using to try to get the Black vote are ridiculous. Those arguments are (1) that the Republican desire to take away the advantages that Blacks currently enjoy is really good for Blacks, and (2) that the Republican Party happily puts on display token successful Blacks and other non-Whites at its convention and even appoints some of them as figureheads in the party.

The reason why Blacks are not impressed with the Blacks who speak at a Republican convention or are made titular head of the RNC may be that they understand something that Whites should also understand. Those people speaking at Republican conventions do not represent any racial identity: they represent a cosmopolitan bourgeois identity. Bourgeois Republican Blacks no more represents the Black community than Mitt Romney represents the White community. They are simply money-people.

Here’s the real argument, which some Blacks should find convincing: if non-White immigration continues, if the United States of America cease to have a White majority, it will be very bad for Blacks. It’s a genuine argument, not an attempt at fooling them with empty symbolism and slick talk.
About half of Blacks are already hostile to immigration. What is needed is an effort to make Blacks think about immigration more and to treat it as a key issue in coming elections. This can be done through publicity that emphasizes the conflict between Black interests and immigration, and by getting Black preachers, who exercise considerable influence, to support that position. They need to understand that they are on a ship that will sink if they do not limit their demands and cooperate with others who want to prevent an incipient disaster.

Conclusion

The Democrats’ period of dominance from 1933–1981was based on addressing the economic needs of ordinary people, but they spoiled that with anti-White racial politics. The Republicans’ recent period of dominance has been based on being Implicitly White, which even now should be enough to win a presidential election, but they are ruining that by not addressing the economic needs of ordinary people, White and otherwise.

It is clear that the Republicans must change something to broaden their appeal. The Neoconservative answer is that the Republicans should try harder to appeal to Hispanics by embracing amnesty for illegal immigrants, and become in that respect a copy of the Democratic Party. There is a respect in which the Republicans should become more like the Democrats, and even go far beyond them, but immigration is not it.

Non-White immigration is the main threat to all of society in the United States today. There happens to be a ready constituency for curbing immigration, but to win it the Republicans must abandon plutocratic economic and social thinking. That constituency consists of White working-class people everywhere (many of whom have not been voting Republican), as well as about half of the Black population.

What I propose is that the Republican Party should continue being Implicitly White and culturally conservative but take away from the Democrats their main source of appeal, the social state. Given the economic conditions of late capitalism and the post-colonial period, it is in any case inevitable that the party that makes this adjustment will in the long run defeat the one that refuses it.

That is, unless conservatism is to be defined as the expansion of free trade and the waging of Zionist wars. Are those policies conservative? If free trade is conservative, then Bill Clinton must be counted as a great conservative for signing NAFTA and opening free trade with China. If Zionist wars are conservative, then George W. Bush must be counted as a great conservative for the unnecessary invasion of Iraq. But we know that Rush Limbaugh does not regard Bill Clinton nor either of the presidents named Bush as conservative.

Free trade and Zionist wars are two points on which the establishments of both parties agree, and which they treat as non-negotiable — even when the majority of Americans disagree. And Rush Limbaugh has gone along with that bipartisan consensus. Bizarrely, Limbaugh has attacked the critics of that bipartisan Zionism and bipartisan plutocracy for deviating from “conservatism,” even though conservatism has no part in it.

Incidentally, to the extent that Limbaugh’s audience accepts this kind of misrepresentation, it reflects that the “dittoheads” have imposed a kind of information-ghetto on themselves, rejecting the broader perspective that they could get by consulting diverse sources. “Rush is right,” and “Fox News is the only news-channel that tells the truth.” I have heard that from a number of self-identified conservatives.

Free trade works in the Democrats’ favor because, if Americans are suffering economically, it is understood that the Democrats are more likely to use the government to try to alleviate the situation, while Republicans, including Rush Limbaugh, complain even about food-assistance.

The fact that the Democratic Party has been reputed as the home of pacifism since the 1970s probably gives them an advantage when voters are upset about unnecessary wars — especially since the big wars in recent years have been started by Republicans. Also, the Democratic rank and file, at least, seems to be less rabidly Zionist than the Republicans with their reliance on Pre-millennialist Christian support.

The allegiance of Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans to free trade and Zionist wars is so rigid that they cannot admit that these positions have done nothing to help them win elections; they cannot even admit that a change of policy is a viable option.

In 2008 and 2012 Ron Paul sought the Republican presidential nomination as an anti-war candidate. Anti-war was a very popular position — outside of the Republican Party.

Public support for George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in March 2003 had never been overwhelming. It did not take long after the invasion for the support that had been created through scare-propaganda to collapse. By September 2005 a New York Times/CBS News poll showed that only 44% of Americans still said that military action against Iraq had been the right decision, and 8 in 10 were concerned about the expense of the war. A majority, 52%, favored not only withdrawal but immediate withdrawal from Iraq. During the presidential race in 2008, columnist Tom Teepen observed that being anti-war was an asset for a presidential candidate:

Obama opposed the war from the get-go, a stance widely assumed to be politically fatal at the time but one in which public opinion now strongly concurs. [Tom Teepen, 26 July 2008]

But Barack Obama turned out to be a disappointment for anti-war voters. Ron Paul, therefore, as a longtime, well known proponent of a non-interventionist foreign policy, could naturally be expected to win many crossover Democratic votes — if the Republicans would nominate him. Rasmussen and Gallup polls in 2011 showed that Ron Paul, if nominated by the Republican Party, could beat Obama. In fact it would be a landslide for Ron Paul if he could get more than lukewarm support from Republicans — which Rush Limbaugh could help to arrange, if he were so inclined.

Instead of helping Ron Paul, Limbaugh tried to extinguish the campaign. In an interview on Fox News, Limbaugh proclaimed: “Anybody other than Ron Paul could beat Obama” — flatly contradicting both evidence and common sense.

There was only one reason, according to Limbaugh himself, why he rigidly opposed Ron Paul: “his foreign policy” — specifically his criticism of Bush’s invasion of Iraq and opposition to warmongering against Iran.

But Ron Paul’s views on these matters were the views of the American majority. It was Rush Limbaugh’s view that was in the minority. Limbaugh nonetheless portrayed Ron Paul as a tinfoil-hat-wearer, a lunatic — for sharing the views of the majority!

When a Republican candidate who represents the view of the majority of Americans is deliberately undermined and marginalized within the Republican Party exclusively because he represents the American majority view, contrary to the agenda of the Israel Lobby, it becomes apparent that for Rush Limbaugh and many other Republicans, serving those Zionist Jews has been given a higher priority than winning elections. It even takes precedence over Limbaugh’s cherished less-government “conservatism,” which Ron Paul represents in the purest form that Limbaugh could ever hope to see. Ron Paul also happens to be a consistent opponent of abortion, which Mitt Romney is not. To Rush Limbaugh, for whatever reason, maintaining an interventionist Israel-First foreign policy is the concern that trumps all others.

The actual Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, whose Romneycare was the prototype for the Obamacare that Limbaugh loathes, severely damaged his own campaign by saying that 47% of the electorate would be disinclined to vote for him because they depend on government, implying that half the electorate is a detriment to the country.

After the 2012 defeat, Limbaugh complained, consistent with his usual pattern, that the Republican Party had lost due to lack of conservatism:

It wasn’t an election lost because we didn’t get the women’s vote, the Hispanic vote. We didn’t turn our vote out. It’s just that simple. Could it be, ladies and gentlemen, three million Republicans sat at home because they didn’t see enough of a conservative campaign? [Rush Limbaugh, 8 November 2012]

That is half-correct. A more candid assessment would be that the GOP repelled White voters by being unambiguously plutocratic and unambiguously supportive of Zionist wars. But Rush Limbaugh could not state such an assessment because he was rigidly committed to those two positions.

The Republican Establishment Purges “Extremists”

Since neither the Republican establishment nor Rush Limbaugh could accept the very clear fact that their party lost in 2012 by acting contrary to the economic needs of the White working class while supporting unpopular wars, they looked for alternate explanations.

In contrast to Limbaugh, who blames the loss in 2012 on the Republican Party’s failure to inspire the party’s core-constituency, the Republican establishment espouses an entirely opposite theory. They blame the party’s loss in 2012 on “extremists” within the party who, they think, give the party a bad image.

The most conspicuous of the “extremists” in 2014 was Chris McDaniel, a state legislator and talk show host from Mississippi who is a Republican in the mold of those Dixiecrats who defected from the Democratic Party to the GOP in the 60s and 70s, thereby making the election of Richard Nixon and all later Republican presidents possible. McDaniel had the endorsement of Tea Party Express because of his opposition to Obamacare, for which the incumbent Thad Cochran had voted. (Tea Party Express also happens to be one “Tea Party” organization that no longer supports free trade. We can hope that other populist Republicans are on that same learning-curve.) Chris McDaniel would now be a Senator-elect from Mississippi if the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Republican establishment — both of which favor amnesty for illegal aliens — had not moved heaven and earth to prevent it.

The Washington Post describes what happened as follows:

For much of the primary, [the incumbent Thad] Cochran was sleepy and might have been defeated outright were it not for a late push from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which aired a pro-Cochran testimonial from football legend Brett Favre on his farm in Hattiesburg, Miss.

McDaniel, a state senator, won the primary — though not by enough to avoid a runoff. The Republican establishment, as well as some black Democrats, rallied to Cochran’s side, and the incumbent narrowly prevailed.

McDaniel, bitter to this day, has refused to concede. “You had the entire Republican Party in Washington doing everything they could to keep the true conservative out,” he said. [P. Rucker, R. Costa, Washington Post, 5 November 2014]

Britain’s Daily Mail gives more details of the foul process whereby the will of the White people of Mississippi was denied political expression. Essentially Blacks were mobilized through alarmist propaganda to vote in the Republican runoff — illegally in many cases, since they had already voted in the Democratic primaries.

Meanwhile, Neoconservative Jew Charles Krauthammer, without stating names, condescendingly praised the Republicans for purging McDaniel:

You exercised adult supervision over the choice of candidates. You didn’t allow yourself to go down the byways of gender and other identity politics. [C. Krauthammer, 6 November 2014]

Charles Krauthammer was also the first major influence among the Republicans, after the Republican defeat in 2012, to call for the Republicans to embrace amnesty for illegal aliens in order to win Hispanic votes, as Limbaugh noted at the time. In other contexts, where Krauthammer’s name is not mentioned, Limbaugh has said that if the Republican Party follows such advice on illegal immigration, it will cease to exist. The reverent tone with which Limbaugh still refers to “Doctor Krauthammer” is therefore quite incongruous. It is obvious that Rush Limbaugh is afraid to criticize Charles Krauthammer, even though they are in direct conflict in a matter about which Limbaugh feels strongly.

The two longtime points of bipartisan consensus, free trade and Zionist wars, are now joined by a third, amnesty for illegal aliens. This time, Rush Limbaugh — finally — is not going along.

On the day after the 2014 elections, Rush Limbaugh talked to a Black caller named Larry in southern California who was angry at Obama for his generosity toward illegal aliens. Larry complained that Blacks in his region already could not get jobs because of illegal aliens.

On 19 November a more educated-sounding Negro, Eric in North Carolina, made the same point (Click to listen). These callers both made the very simple and obvious point that immigration of Hispanics is bad for Blacks. This information was liberating for Rush Limbaugh: now he felt free to complain about illegal immigration without fear of being labeled racist.

Since Larry’s call, Rush Limbaugh has been increasingly criticizing Obama’s amnesty for illegal immigrants, and, more and more, the Republicans’ failure to oppose it, which, Limbaugh now observes, is worse than mere failure to oppose: they covertly support it. Limbaugh is now proclaiming the dishonesty and venality of the Republican establishment, serving their donors rather than the public that elected them.

Specifically, Limbaugh refers to the role of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in pushing for amnesty, because, Limbaugh says, they want the cheap labor. The fact that unregulated capitalism demands immigration for cheap labor and that this destroys nations was often observed by critics of capitalism in the nineteenth century. Now Rush Limbaugh realizes it.

It must have been an awkward confession for Rush Limbaugh, after so many years of pontificating that whatever helps the rich to get richer — whatever helps the “job creators,” as Eric Cantor called them — is automatically good for America. It shows a serious problem with the nineteenth-century liberal ideology that Limbaugh and other Republicans have been espousing as “conservatism.” Rush Limbaugh is having to face the fact that unbridled pursuit of private profit can be disastrous for the country — and disastrous for a great many White people who are naturally attracted to the Republican Party because they see the Democrats as the party of non-Whites and aggressive multiculturalism, sexual non-conformists, and government unions.

Finally, after a quarter-century of lamentable compromise, the Republican establishment is crossing a bridge that Rush Limbaugh refuses to cross, which brings him to a crisis, not only in his relationship to the Republican establishment, but in his ideology. ]]> https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2016/11/03/rush-limbaughs-incomplete-evolution-from-lackey-to-critic-of-the-republican-establishment/feed/ 0 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2014/11/27/rush-limbaugh-and-the-pilgrims-of-plymouth-rock/ https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2014/11/27/rush-limbaugh-and-the-pilgrims-of-plymouth-rock/#respond Thu, 27 Nov 2014 19:41:00 +0000 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2014/11/27/rush-limbaugh-and-the-pilgrims-of-plymouth-rock/ On 26 November 2014, Rush Limbaugh ended his daily three-hour show with a parable about the Pilgrims who legendarily inaugurated the American holiday known as Thanksgiving. He read about it from his book See I Told You So.

Under capitalism, instead of a plot being assigned to each family, the Pilgrims would have been expected to borrow money to buy land. Due to differences in credit, some would have been able to buy more land than others, and some would have gotten none. The ones who could not get any land would have had to seek employment with the ones who did. Then, of those who had been able to buy land, it is certain that with excessive production of food — which drives down the price — some would not bring in enough money to cover the interest on the loans, and they would lose their land, so that they too would then have to seek employment. In the end, under capitalism, unemployment would have forced many of the Pilgrims to find new farmland in less desirable locations outside of the colony, where they could produce for themselves and survive, while within the colony a small minority of capitalist Pilgrims would have owned most of the land, probably forming a trust among themselves to make sure that they would not overproduce food and drive the price too low.

That’s a typical representation of how capitalism works out.  It is not at all like having a central authority allocate adequate means of production for each family to be self-sufficient. Capitalism, while preaching self-reliance as a virtue, differs from distributism in that it gives no assurance that the majority will have the means to achieve it. In fact, the inherent tendency of unregulated capitalism is to drive the majority to poverty and dependence.

I wrote to Limbaugh immediately after his show, informing him that the ideal economy that he had described was not capitalism but distributism, and supplying a link to an entry in an online encyclopaedia that explains the doctrine. Will he take note of the correction? Most likely not. ]]> https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2014/11/27/rush-limbaugh-and-the-pilgrims-of-plymouth-rock/feed/ 0