A Question Asked A Billion Times

Why Do Billionaires Fund the Democrats' Fascist Economic Policies?
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Many people are expressing puzzlement at the spectacle of the uber rich lavishing "soak-the-rich" Democrats with money and other means of support. And who are these rich people? There is Warren Buffett who seems to think that his accumulation of billions has made him into a superior human being. We have George Soros whose financial success convinced him that he is an intellectual giant. One need only give his writings on politics and economics a cursory look to see how ignorant this man really is.
The arrogant Stephen Bing and the equally arrogant Progressive Insurance chairman Peter Lewis came out of the same repulsive intellectual mold as Soros and Buffett. And let us not omit the insufferable Herbert and Marion Sandler of Golden West Financial. Standing among these paragons of financial and moral virtue is Lloyd Blankfein who is chief executive of Goldman Sachs. There is also the brilliant Robert Rubin whose idiotic economic views deeply impress his peers.
There are two super rich lefties who deserve particular attention. First we have Edwin Janss, founder of the leftwing Janss Foundation, who said that "when the revolution came, the houses of his neighbours would be people's palaces." Naturally, his house and wealth would be protected against any revolutionary excesses. Coming second is Aris Anagnos, a Los Angeles real estate magnate and fanatical Marxist-Leninist.
There is nothing new in the phenomenon of the very rich entertaining and financing anti-democratic ideas. When thinking of these people the case of Alexander Lazarevich Helphand, aka Parvus, springs to mind. Helphand was also a dedicated Marxist-Leninist whose fortune was greatly augmented by WW I. (Incidentally, it was Parvus and not Trotsky who dreamed up the idea of "permanent Revolution"). He used his wealth to help finance Lenin's takeover of the Russian state. His reward? Lenin barred him from ever entering Russia again. In 1925 he died in exile of a heart attack. (Dmitri Volkogonov, Lenin, Free Press, 1994, pp. 110-125).
Another character who springs to mind is Herr Krupp von Bohlea und Halbach whose family business was also Europe's largest armament works. Krupp was nobody's fool. Unfortunately the man had no intellectual or political instincts. This is why he had to learn his lesson the hard way. Herman Goering was in charge of the Reichswirtschaftministerium (Reich Economics Ministry). The Soviets had 5-year plans. The Nazis went one better and came up with 4-year plans. (Günter Reimann, The Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism, New York: Vanguard Press, 1939, pp. 125-127).
Goering informed Krupp that the state's economic plan included a plant for the large-scale production of synthetic rubber, the material for which would largely come from coal and lime. Krupp protested on the very sound economic grounds that such a plant would be horribly expensive and inefficient. A short time later Krupp was informed that the plant would be built and given the name Buna G.m.b.H. Goering graciously offered Krupp a share in the project. Being faced with "an offer he couldn't refuse" Krupp generously conceded to Goering's ‘request'.
Is it any wonder that the behaviour of super rich Democrats brings me to the subject of fascism which has had a deservedly bad press, even though very few people, particularly journalists, have any real understanding of its origins or so-called philosophy. Even Mussolini, the head of the first truly fascist state, had difficulty in defining it. It was neither communist nor capitalist. It was the middle way or, as they say today, the third way. But there is no middle way between tyranny and liberty.
Now a chief economic characteristic of fascism is that private property is conditional. One held on to one's house, land, factory, whatever, at the discretion of the state. In other words, private property existed in form only, not in substance. Oddly enough, this aspect of fascism completely escaped large numbers of wealthy Italians. They figured that so long as they played Mussolini's game they were safe, in more ways than one. The fascist state did not believe in competition or free elections - and neither did a lot of Mussolini's capitalist supporters.
And this brings me to the capitalist Steven Kirsch who gave the Gore war machine $250,000 so that it could literally disenfranchise about 25,000 absentee residents of Seminole and Martin Counties. This was on top of the $500,000 he donated to Gore's attempt to overthrow the Florida election results. (I should point out that the others I named also supported Gore's assault on democracy).
Now I want to make it clear that I don't believe for one moment that Steven Kirsch and his fellow uber rich pals are fascists - goodness gracious no. I'm perfectly sure that these upright people are as strongly committed to the principle that every "vote should count" as is the equally upright and honourable Al Gore, as demonstrated by his Florida shenanigans.
After all, Mr. Kirsch stated that he believes "Gore was the rightful winner of the Florida election." Let us quickly review this particular capitalist's political logic and its faintly Italian aroma. Despite Gore's mainstream media allies shouting an early call for Gore on Florida Bush still won. Because of the slim margin a recount was ordered and he won again - and continued to do so. But according to Kirsch Bush did not deserve to win (after all, Bush is an evil Republican) and so Kirsch shovelled $500,000 green ones into Gore's wallet to help him fix the election in three counties heavily populated by Democrats.
Kirsch and his fellow billionaires would have the American public believe that this was an honest attempt on their part to help Gore obtain votes to which he was genuinely entitled - even though he had to manufacture them. I want to make it absolutely clear that I believe Kirsch and his fellow plutocrats. There is no doubt in my mind that they saw absolutely nothing wrong with what Gore did. How could any honourable man think otherwise?
That Kirsch is utterly committed to the concept that every vote should count is beyond question. Why he even insisted that they should be counted not once but as many times as it takes to produce the kind of result that would have even embarrassed Mussolini. Like every dedicated supporter of Gore, Kirsch realises that even America's electoral system requires a degree of finely tuned discrimination and that's why he supported Gore's scheme to throw out the military vote.
Hundreds of service personnel who put their lives on the line to protect their country, and by definition, Kirsch' cars, mansions, shares, fat bank counts, etc., were rewarded by having their right to vote stripped away from them. But hey, we couldn't have reactionaries voting in the evil Bush even though they were, and are, protecting the country, can we, Mr. Kirsch? Of course, Kirsch could argue, if had the courage of his convictions, which I very much doubt, that he's entitled to spend his money as he sees fit. No he's not.
He cannot legally pay to have someone killed. He cannot legally pay to have someone beaten up. He cannot legally pay to have a competitor's business burnt down. He is not allowed to bribe judges, politicians, jurists and government officials. So what made this self-righteous leftwing jerk, and those like him, think he had the right to pay to have people stripped of their votes?
What did Kirsch hope to gain from actions? Certainly not money. So what then? Fortunately I'm not privy to Kirsch' inner thoughts, the stench of which would probably be too much to bear. But I must presume from his actions that Kirsch sympathised with Gore's policies, policies that had a very strong whiff of fascism about them. In fact the more I think of the likes of Kirsch the more I'm reminded of D. B. Norton, the villain in the 1941 classic Meet John Doe, which makes me wonder how many other D. B. Nortons are there in the Democrat Party.
Kirsch was not alone in funding Gore's attempt to overthrow the electoral system by manufacturing votes while simultaneously stripping thousands of citizens of their votes. There is Jane ‘Hanoi' Fonda, Sen. Jon Corzine, Slim-Fast chief Daniel Abraham, Hollywood producer Steven Bing, Houston trial lawyer John Quinn, producer Joanne Saltzman at WABC and Peter Buttenwiser.
And let us not forget the lovely Hillary Clinton. A women who, like so many of her Democrat colleagues, has some difficulty in controlling her totalitarian impulses. For instance, when asked for her opinion of the internet she declared that
Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation, or to respond to what someone says
In other words, the Net must be controlled in the public interest. She and her equally thuggish colleagues are using the same shabby argument to try and shut down talkback radio because, unlike the leftwing mainstream media, Democrats cannot control it. As for trashing reputations, this is the same ruthless liar who tried to destroy Billy R. Dale.
Hillary fired all of the White House Travel Office workers with the intention of handing the business over to the Thomasons, a couple known as Hollywood trash. This little piece of corruption blew up in her face. To ward off an impending scandal she had the FBI charge Billy R. Dale with embezzlement. Dale had been head of the White House Travel Office for many years and had earned a reputation for being scrupulously honest. That did not stop the imperial Hillary from setting out to utterly destroy him for having the impertince to resist her commands.
Dale was dragged in front of a judge and jury for a crime everyone knew he never committed. It took the jury about 15 minutes to find him innocent. Nevertheless, this is another Democrat scandal that the media have tried flush down the memory hole. She and her husband also commandeered over 900 FBI files, an egregious abuse of power and a criminal offence that the media chose to ignore. The Democrats' media storm troopers can only be counted on to defend the right to privacy when they think it will embarrass Republicans.
The overthrow of the sadistic Saddam's regime also brought out of the woodwork numerous wealthy Democrats, especially in Hollywood, who obviously share Kirsch's fascist tendencies. The fundamental difference between this lot and Mussolini is that he was at least honest. He never concealed his contempt for democracy and the Rights of Man.
To be a successful fascist you have to be like a communist. In other words, the only thing that counts is power. And all the means available to get power and crush your opponents are justified. Right now the Dems are assaulting the First Amendment by trying to shut down talkback radio on the fatuous grounds that it is not fair to them. This is code for: "If it's not run by Democrats it must be destroyed".
The slimy Ed Schultz, a vicious leftwing talk show host, made the fatuous statement that "the airwaves belong to the public". This so-called argument rests on the belief that the spectrum is a scarce good. But so is newsprint. This leads to the conclusion that all of the media, e.g., the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the ABC,, etc., must also be controlled by the state. But to this Democrat the scarcity argument only applies to talkback radio. This creep doesn't even have the guts to tell his fellow Americans that what he really wants to do is shut down all criticism of the Democrat Party.
Durbin, Reid, Pelosi, Obama: the whole pack of them are just waiting for the opportunity to destroy the First Amendment and replace the freedom to choose with the Democrat commissars.
In his address to West Point General Macarthur told the student body that what mattered was "Duty, Honor, Country". The Democrats have abandoned any sense of duty; they have put the lust for power above Honor. And perhaps worst of all, they have betrayed their country. Let us not forget that it is the Democrats who are playing footsie, with the full support of the media, with dictators and would-be-dictators whose common link is a visceral hatred of America. No wonder the Democrats love them.
Before I finish I think I should warn readers that there is nothing particularly bright about billionaires. Soros' economic scribblings are a joke as are his comments about Karl Popper. Rubin and Buffett's economic ramblings would get them thrown out of an serious economics course. During the last several decades I have met all sorts of businessmen and they all remind me of that great business philosopher Mr. Bernstein who stated that
...it's no trick to make a lot of money, if all you want is to make a lot of money. You take Mr. Kane, it wasn't money he wanted. Thatcher never did figure him out. Sometimes, even I couldn't.
Note: It's been my experience that the further away a businessman is from the actual production of physical things the greater is the possibility of him voting for leftist policies. Not one of the aforementioned billionaires is directly involved in manufacturing.