User Profile
Search
Blog Viewer
The red corner
Sunday, June 15 2008 - 06:51 PM Persevere. Member: Peace & Freedom Party (1988-1990) Listen to non-commercial, listener-sponsored Pacifica Radio (tune to 90.7 FM, KPFK, Los Angeles; 98.7 FM, KPFK in Santa Barbara county). Note: As per usual, any and all childish comment posts directed to this thread will be deleted.
Undocumented workers and unemployment
A few days ago I received a private message from a participant of this forum who wrote:
“What about the poor Americans, like myself, for instance, that want to work? I have lost many jobs to the ‘poor illegals’…What will you [Redflag] say when your employer lays you off and hires an illegal – [an illegal] who will work cheaper and harder…? I used to feel the same way as you…until I lost jobs, and my wages were depressed…[sic]”
While choosing to respond herein, I will say that the crux of the matter is this that, in my opinion, the issue of illegal immigration is a trap; that the premise behind it is as simple as it is false. That false premise being, of course, that undocumented workers “take jobs from American workers.” Moreover, with millions of American workers as well as their families suffering from the effects of permanently high rates of unemployment (the political state’s lies concerning the true extent of unemployment notwithstanding), that false premise has led millions of workers to support the efforts of racist and xenophobic organizations the likes of the so-called Minutemen and the Ku Klux Klan, and to also support certain Draconian and thus reactionary measures enacted by the state.(1) That, to me, is a tragedy, not only due to the violence that may well come to be visited upon the undocumented amongst us, but also because of the threat that such social reaction poses to the interests of the entire working class. Any ban having to do with the hiring of undocumented workers, for example, cannot possibly be effectively enforced without some method of positively identifying the legal status of all workers. Therefore, any such prohibition necessarily contains the beginnings of a nationwide identification system, or an internal passport – an essential component of totalitarianism.
Indeed, and in solidarity with the author of said private message, the preeminent cause of unemployment is not undocumented workers, but rather the systemic and unalterable economic laws born of the capitalist system itself. For, predicated as capitalism is upon the elimination of competition and private profit, each and every capitalist must extract more and more labor power out of the process of industrial/economic production in order to simply stay in business. But the capitalist class possesses an obvious and vested interest in camouflaging this fact because, were it to become widely understood, workers would also come to the understanding that the solution to unemployment lies in the abolishment of capitalism itself – in abolishing private ownership of the means of economic production and establishing the social ownership and democratic administration of the means of economic production.
To abolish capitalism and to manage industrial production democratically in a socialist society collectively owned and administered by all, would mean that every bit of additional labor power would serve to benefit society at large by way of producing more in order to meet the material needs of all human beings.
Finally. To me, blaming “illegal aliens” for the wholly artificial pathology known as unemployment serves a dual purpose: to draw attention away from the true source of the problem – and from the socialist solution; and so, too, does it serve to keep the international working class divided against itself and thus weak. It is, therefore, becoming increasingly crucial that we workers come to understand the true nature of the debate surrounding "illegal immigration, and that we begin to work toward a true and lasting solution to unemployment: The abolishment of capitalism and capitalist-class rule and the eventual establishment of a socialist society of peace, abundancy and freedom for all.
*
Footnotes:
(1) This, as it relates to the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and other such organizations, is no exaggeration. After all, it should be well-understood by now that the KKK “achieved” a peak membership of somewhat more than four-million during the 1920s largely by way of its having focused on immigration, specifically legal immigration. Many immigrants, most especially those from Ireland, were often portrayed as “Catholic usurpers” who were “invading” America and taking jobs from native-born American citizens.
It is indeed the same old story born of capitalism’s limited opportunities and of the ruling-class’ need to control its wage slaves.
Yours in revolution.
Guy Robert Marsh
Lancaster, 93536
Member-at-large (1990-present): Socialist Labor Party of America (est. 1890)
Member: Democratic Party (1982-1988)
Member: Republican Party (1976-1982)
Thank you.
unibrowser says...
Well Guy, if anything you’re consistent.
Never mind that socialism has never worked where it was tried and the government bureaucrats trying to control production only created the facade of full employment.
European socialism has huge unemployment problems and Soviet style socialism’s only equality was that of shared shortages and lack of opportunity.
The excuse that it has never been tried properly is naive at best. There have been socialist experiments the world over and not one has produced a free, truly libertarian society.
I’m not convinced!
Sincerely,
Unibrowser
(
send private message
)
Redflag says...
Actually, and with all respect due you, unibrowser, it is the conditioned belief that socialist society “has” existed that is naive at best. As a student of Marxian social science, I can assure you, as I have stated within these pages on dozens of occasions these past two years, that the established of socialist society would be wholly dependent upon it coming to fruition from the context of a fully industrialized society – from the context of capitalist society. Suffice it to say that Russian society of 1917, Chinese society of 1949, Cuban society of 1959, et al, simply failed this inescapable prerequisite. These societies were, in their totality, either agrarian societies of semi-agrarian societies devoid of the mass of organizable workers and fully developed means of industrial/economic production requisite to establish and, most importantly, to perpetuate social control and democratic administration of wealth production. To attempt to bring about “socialist society” from agrarian society or even semi-agrarian society is to bring about Vladimir Lenin’s so-called Vanguardism which, by Lenin’s own admission, is not socialism at all, but rather state capitalism or some sort of deformed workers’ state [Leon Trotsky] at best.
Socialist society, on the other hand, would be a society wherein all industries and services would be collectively owned by society as a whole, and wherein the democratic organization of the workers within those industries and services would be the government – Socialist Industrial Government (which in no way resembles the bureaucratic state despotism that was the government of the former Soviet Union, as but a single example).
*
Additional reading
*
I thank you for your thoughtful and measured posting, unibrowser.
And, yes, without consistency, where would we be?
Persevere.
Yours in revolution.
Guy
Good evening.
( send private message )
Randy Hall says...
“These societies were, in their totality, either agrarian societies of semi-agrarian societies devoid of the mass of organizable workers…” All one has to do is look at Vallejo California and see what happens when workers unite to hold hostage a city by democratic means.
http://www.nbc11.com/news/15345539/detail.html
(
send private message
)
Randy Hall says...
""The problem is basically bloated union contracts," Shively said."
http://www.nbc11.com/news/15345539/detail.html
What happens when the fox guards the hen house.
(
send private message
)
marino says...
Randy Hall’s submitted video here says a lot. Whom should pay for the care of that illegal alien with over $1M in bills?
Anybody have an answer?
(
send private message
)
unibrowser says...
I appreciate that you think that true Marxian societies haven’t existed Guy, and I can agree to that stipulation. Like you I do like measured responses. I’m not one for being shrill.
Human nature of economics teaches us that there has to be three things needed for people to be satisfied. Remember this is a generalization that does not apply to all cases.
1. Satisfaction of personal accomplishment
2. Opportunity to improve/advance in life
3. Personal security
Marxist societies work in direct contrast to these basic human needs. “From all according to their ability and to all according to their needs.” This is stated and restated in various ways by Marxist.
Have you ever wondered why socialism is promoted by men of wealth? Why people like George Soros works hard to push our country toward socialism by creating the shadow party within the Democratic Party?
I personally believe that wealthy funds and families are seeking to create a tiered society that run by an elite and everyone else is fixed into their place in life like the feudal systems of Europe.
Likewise Marxism is a feudal system where party officials rise to the top and the incentives of personal accomplishment is squashed. Opportunity is limited to what ever your peers allow rather than what you desire and personal security is subjected to societal security.
Personally, I’m a bit of a libertarian. I firmly believe the labor of my hands is mine, not my neighbor’s or society’s. If I choose to be a philanthropist or a miser, it is my choice, not society’s.
I don’t like being dictated to by mass murderers like Stalin, Hitler or Castro. Petty thugs like Che and Chavez don’t impress me in the least.
Your view or utopian Marxism will likely never come and I will be happy at that. However, dialoging with you about it can be more refreshing than I get from the usual Democrat leftist. At least you’re principled enough to not couch such beliefs in nonsense buzz words like “progressive.”
Best wishes,
Unibrowser
(
send private message
)
Randy Hall says...
“Have you ever wondered why socialism is promoted by men of wealth?” Very good point!
Isn’t it odd that Marx and Engels were both from well-to-do families? Isn’t odd that the hyper-rich Hollywood glitterati are in the bag for Marxism?
Isn’t Marxism the gospel of envy?
Marxism is class struggle, and the preaching of the oppressors vs. the oppressed. It is simply one dimensional that capitalism must be abolished and a new man or way of thinking must arise. Marxism is the smart among us that tell the no-so-smart how they should live.
Did you ever take into account if all profits were removed from shareholders and Exxon made everyone equal pay from top to bottom that the average wage would only go up pennies per worker? That is one reason Marxism won’t work is profits are already being shared.
(
send private message
)
911BagMan says...
Whoa! I believe Beelzebub should be freezing his tail off right about now! A civil discourse on intheav.com? Nah! Couldn’t be!
As always, Redflag’s posts are astute, well-thought, and supremely dictated, same could be said of our very own unibrowser. Good job fellas!
Guy [Redflag] – I still have to disagree with you on the whole Marxian Sociology. I think the guy was bought and paid for with Rothschild money to sell an idea that would (presumptively) be the antithesis to the central banking cartel’s thesis, i.e. capitalism. I do, however, admit that the fundamental canons of Marxian Sociology are great. Workers owning the rights and means of production cannot even be fathomed by most in this country, but I truly think it would be much better than what we have now [I guess that does not say much though now, does it ;) ]. Applying the models/thoughts provided by Marx, Guy, what do you think the outcome of the current recession this country is in will be? I’m betting all of my apples it will be an economic meltdown of epic proportions.
unibrowser – “I personally believe that ###wealthy funds and families### are seeking to create a tiered society that [sic] run by an ###elite### and everyone else is fixed into their place in life like the feudal systems of Europe.”
-Precisely, my fellow thinker, precisely. As I stated above, I believe the wealthiest of the hyper-elite, the Rothschilds, Melons, Carnegies, Thyssens, Warburgs [Paul Warburg was actually a co-founder of America’s enslavement system, also known as the Federal Reserve…imagine that!] controlled Marx just as much as they control the Bush family, the Clintons, the Obama’s, the Osama’s, etc, etc…
Thanks for the intelligent discussion lads. Have a good one.
TJ
(
send private message
)
Randy Hall says...
If the surplus labor of an employee is shared and say that is $500 per hour they were paid, then the employee would have to share with the other workers the cost of doing business and when you whittle that $500 an hour down you might get to the point where a normal $20 an hour employee would have to forgo a paycheck if business slowed.
In other words surplus value is nothing more than a tool to get the weak minded to go alone with removing the buffer between ruin and a job for the average joe.
(
send private message
)
138hwy says...
This is great..Randy Hall says, “I’snt odd that the hyperrich Hollywood glitterati are in the bag for Marxism.”
If any actor does not embrace marxism in Hollywood, they simply do not WORK, with very few exceptions.
(
send private message
)
Redflag says...
unibrowser: I appreciate that you think that true Marxian societies haven’t existed…"
Once again, it is not as though “true Marxian societies haven’t existed,” it is that Marxian society has yet to exist at all. There simply are no “tweeners”; no “almosts.” For it must be borne in mind that, like all sciences, Marxian social science is given to a certain number of irrimutable findings – not the least of which is the aforementioned fact that socialist society must evolve from the context of fully industrialized society; an imperative that no so-called socialist society can accurately claim to have ever been in possession of. As for the alleged socialist societies of Western Europe, these are societies in which the bulk of their respective means of industrial production are privately owned by a small group of individuals known as capitalists. Therefore, the various societies of Western Europe are decidedly capitalist in nature. (Third paragraph.)
unibrowser: “Human nature…teaches us that there things are required for people to be satisfied (remember that these are generalizations that do not apply to all cases): 1. Satisfaction of personal accomplishment; 2. Opportunity to improve/advance in life; 3. Personal security…[Under] Marxism incentives for personal accomplishment are squashed. Opportunity is limited to whatever your peers allow rather than what you desire…”
While disagreeing that those three human desires are generalizations that do not apply to all people – while believing that much of what has been passed off as “human nature” is actually the byproduct of the anti-social material conditions under which human beings are raised, I will say that the notion that there would exist no incentive for personal accomplishment within a Marxian society is a myth that is bolstered by the myth that the former Soviet Union was a socialist society. Within the Soviet Union, the natural incentive for personal accomplishment was perverted by the oppressive, self-serving rule of Soviet bureaucracy. Like American workers, Soviet workers enjoyed no assurance that hard work nor improvements in the productive process would serve to benefit them in any way whatsoever. (The fifth paragraph through the eighth paragraph.)
unibrowser: “Marxist societies work in direct contrast to those basic human needs. ‘From all according to their ability and to all according their needs.’ This is stated and restated in various ways by Marxists.”
In reality, however, the French, utopian socialist, Louis Blanc’s statement “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” is, in fact, stated and restated by we Marxists, but it has absolutely nothing at all to do with what most people have allowed themselves to be conditioned into “thinking” that it means. (fourteenth paragraph. Again, and with all due respect, this is one of the very reasons why “bothering” oneself with an independent study of original sources of Marxist literature is terribly fundamental.)
unibrowser: “Have you ever wondered why socialism is promoted by men of wealth; why people like George Soros work hard to push our country toward socialism by creating the shadow party within the Democratic Party?”
But, despite what it is that Rush Limbaugh, Michael Reagan, Bill O’Riely, Glenn Beck and other self-aggrandizing entertainers tell their largely artless audiences, billionaire capitalists such as George Soros and Warren Buffet are not promoting socialism. Rather, like all liberals they only seek to “reform” capitalism by way of lessening the negative and ever worsening social consequences born of capitalism’s many inherent contradictions. They desire the existing state of society [namely, the continued private ownership of wealth production] minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements —Karl Marx. Or am I mistaken? Have George Soros, and Warren Buffet called for the "social ownership and democratic administration of this society’s means of industrial/economic production? If they have, then they are in fact working “hard to push our country toward socialism.”
Furthermore, if indeed this “shadow party within the Democratic Party” exists, it too does not seek the social ownership and democratic administration of this society’s means of wealth production. (Sixth paragraph through the tenth paragraph.)
unibrowser: “I personally believe that wealthy funds and families are seeking to create a tiered society that [would be] run by an elite, and [in which] everyone else [would be] fixed in their places in life, like the feudal systems of Europe [medieval Europe]. Likewise, Marxism is a feudal system where party officials rise to the top…”
Although a tiered social system already exists (Tier #1: The capitalist class; Tier #2: The working class), to state that socialist society would be emblematic of feudal society is to reveal a rather high degree of naivete vis-a-vis the very meaning of the term “feudalism.” One needn’t agree with socialism at all in order to understand the objective fact that socialist society would, in the overall scheme of human social evolution, follow the passing of capitalism just as capitalism followed the passing of mercantilism, and just as merchantilism followed the passing of feudalism, etc., etc.
Even the Soviet Union with its many remnants of feudal society was far too developed with regard to
mechanization to have been considered a feudal society. Though it clearly was not a socialist society.
unibrowser: “Persoanlly, I’m a bit of Libertarian. I firmly believe that the labor of my hands is mine, not my neighbor’s or society’s.”
I agree wholeheartedly! The economic benefit derived from the labor power of unibrowser’s hands does indeed belong to him or her, or at least rightfully so. But as I related to Randy Hall whilst chatting it up poolside in his lovely backyard this past Sunday, the legalized theft known in Marxian parlance as “surplus value” constitutes a much greater share of the comprehensive economic benefit derived from worker’s labor power and intellectual power than do all applicable taxes, combined. (Randy’s post of “11:21” AM [and within this very thread] was, of course, intended as some sort of preemptive strike in anticipation of my mentioning surplus value herein. Pity that it was a Scud-missile-like preemptive “strike.” ;-)
By the same token, as I also related to Randy, we workers do at times see a return on our tax dollars in the form of government services (or at least with respect to the ones that we agree with), while we receive absolutely no return on the money that is stolen by our capitalist masters in the form of surplus value.
unibrowser: “I don’t like being dictated to by mass murderers like Stalin, Hitler or Castro.”
Who would?
Too, now that our unibrowser has made the obligatory – indeed slavish reference to Adolph Hitler being a “socialist,” I’m wondering as to whether or not he or she would care to be the first to answer my question: “…if these Axis Powers were indeed socialist states, why, then, were American and, for that matter, German and Italian capitalists free to operate within them?” (The sixth paragraph through the tenth paragraph.)
unibrowser: “Your view of utopian Marxism [as Dr. Marx turns in his grave] will likely never come [to be], and I will be happy with that. However, dialoguing with you can be more refreshing than what I get from the usual Democratic leftist. At least you’re principled enough not to couch such beliefs in nonsensical buzzwords like ‘progressive.’”
It is a pleasure to interact with you as well, unibrowser. I am only sorry that I too often grow frustrated and terse when doing so with the uninitiated. For that I apologize.
Finally. I need also say that these “usual Democratic leftist[s],” as you refer to them, are not attempting to couch Marxist beliefs in their “nonsensical buzzwords.” This is so because Democratic leftists are just that, Democratic leftists – members of the Democratic Party who expound liberalism. And, as I believe that I have done a fairly good job at describing relative to this post, we Marxists stand quite opposed to liberalism; viewing it as but yet another of the capitalist system’s many gatekeepers – that which protects and ultimately serves to preserve capitalist rule.
*
Randy Hall: "Isn’t it odd that both Marx and Engels were from well-to-do families?
Though it truly does not matter one way of the other, yes, Frederick Engels happened to have been a very successful textile capitalist. Yet, unlike the likes of the previously mentioned George Soros, and Warren Buffett, Frederick Engels was, to say the very least, an outspoken proponent of the social ownership and democratic administration of society’s means of industrial/economic production. In fact, as I have stated in these pages on at least two other occasions, never was Frederick Engels’ heart in what he often referred to as “this damned business.” He kept at it (until 1870) predominately for the purpose of providing the material means by which he and Karl Marx carried out social scientific endeavors that have lent direction and cohesion to movement toward working-class emancipation.
As for Dr. Marx, well, it is patently absurd to state that he was born to a well-to-do family. Though his father was a lawyer, the family was by no means wealthy. Then again, none of this matters.
Randy Hall: “Isn’t it odd that the hyper-rich glitterati are in the bag for Marxism?”
Oh to be sure, Randy! To be sure! Heck, you can’t swing a dead cat these days without hitting a “hyper-rich, Hollywood ‘glitterati’” who is on public record for his or her having called for the social ownership and democratic administration of this society’s means of industrial/economic production.
Ho-hum.
Once again, liberalism is NOT Marxism!
Randy Hall: “Isn’t Marxism the gospel of envy?”
No! It is the logical and inevitable response to a once advancing but now thoroughly antisocial socioeconomic system that must soon give way to the next and most logical stage of human social evolution – to socialism and still later communism, else humankind will eventually be plunged into a state of social brutality hitherto unimagined. It is the social science that leads its adherents to the understanding that society cannot long tolerate the fact that more and more socially produced economic wealth is being funneled into fewer and fewer hands with each and every day that passes us by; and that that grotesque disparity is not only intolerable but also illogical.
Clearly, and as always, Randy, this “gospel of envy” palaver is but the dogma of desperation peddled by frightful capitalists, petty capitalists and working-class traducers of all stripes who find no statement too ridiculous nor no lie too great in their quest to “discredit” Marxism and, by extension, Marxists.
But by all means, keep on keeping on with it. It is all that you “have.”
Randy Hall: “Marxism is class struggle [well, the class struggle is at least one of its founding principles] and the preaching of the oppressors vs. the oppressed. It is simply one dimensional [to state?] that capitalism must be abolished, and [that] a new man or way of thinking must arise. Marxism is the smart among us that tell the not-so-smart how they should live.”
Yes, that particular cornerstone of scientific socialism known as the class struggle does indeed promote awareness of the class antagonisms that exist within capitalist society. What of it? In fact, the existence of the class struggle was not at all a discovery given to Marxian science. As Dr. Marx wrote in the year 1852: No amount of credit is due me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society nor yet the struggle between them. Long before me, bourgeois economists had described the historical development of the class struggle and the economic anatomy of the classes.
Respecting your “It is simply one-dimensional [to state] that capitalism must be abolished…” Randy, tell me exactly how it is that this society will be able to remain intact in light of the fact that more and more economic wealth is being channeled into fewer and fewer capitalist hands with each passing day? (In formulating your response, keep in mind that has been more than fifteen years since the General Accounting Office wrote: “The ‘top’ 1% of the [US] population controls more [economic] wealth than the ‘bottom’ 92% of the population, combined.” One can only imagine what those figures must be today.)
So please tell me how that rapidly expanding incongruity will not eventually lead to mass bloodshed, Randy. Please tell how it is “logical” for us to keep heading down this path. Please tell me in, say, one-thousand words or more how it is that Marxism is one-dimensional?
Regarding this “Marxism is the smart among us that tell the not-so-smart how they should live,” it is ridiculous because we Marxists do not endeavor to tell anyone “how to live,” we endeavor only to bring about the social ownership and democratic control of the means of industrial production. Furthermore, there are plenty of Marxists, myself included, who are of average intelligence and who do what it is that we do simply because we believe it to be the right thing to do. Speaking for myself, and I think that you, Randy Hall, possess a sense of this, I am a very ordinary person (my political beliefs and only my political beliefs notwithstanding). I am not terribly sophisticated beyond the political realm. I am not a leader nor an orator. I’m a devotee of heavy metal music, Raider football, roadsters and bodyboarding not opera, Polo, limos and yachting. I lean more toward that which is irreverent than I do toward that which is cultured. After all, I cut meat for a living and live in freaking Lancaster, and I don’t pretend otherwise. Most of all, I am extraordinarily proud of both who I am and of what I am. In fact, politically speaking, Randy, I believe that my ordinariness is my strength. In other words, if an everyday, average worker like myself gravitated toward Marxism and eventually became a Marxist as I did, then so too can any and all workers do so. Perhaps that scares the shit out of you. Perhaps that is why you find the need to prop me up as being something that I am not.
Hugs and kisses, “cuz.” :-)
*
Travis/911BagMan: “Redflag, I still have to disagree with you on the whole Marxian Sociology [thing?]. [”Marxian Sociology." Hm. Well Marxian science does encompass the study of sociology, and Karl Marx was, amongst other things a sociologist. So all right.] I think the guy was bought and paid for with Rothschild’s money to sell an idea that would (presumptively) be the antithesis to the central banking cartel’s thesis, i.e., capitalism."
Very well. But as I have stated before, I do not care how that which can serve as the blueprint for working-class emancipation came to be developed, my only concern lies in its distribution – in its perpetuation and in its eventual and global application. It matters not to me whether or not the capitalist, Salomon Mayer Rothschild or perhaps the capitalist, James Mayer Rothschild bankrolled Marx’s work any more than it matters to me that Frederick Engels bankrolled the both of their life’s work. If certain elements of the capitalist class beyond Frederick Engels did fund Karl Marx’s work – for their own nefarious reasons, then I can only hope that it will soon prove itself to have been a colossal mistake.
That said, Travis, I know of no amount of credible evidence which would point to anyone other than Frederick Engels having supported Karl Marx. I say “credible evidence” because the only such “evidence” that I find myself aware of is that which has been set forth by, with all due respect, Illuminati reactionaries. But again, I don’t care. To put it another way, should George Soros and/or Warren Buffet announce tomorrow morning and for whatever reason that one of them or the both of them have decided to donate billions of dollars to the Socialist Labor Party of America (the Party to which I belong), I would gladly and literally kiss either one or the both of their feet.
Did that take the wind from your sail, TJ? ;-)
Oh and, the names Salomon Mayer Rothschild and James Mayer Rothschild fascinate me. Any relation? ;-)
Persevere.
Guy
Good evening.
( send private message )
911BagMan says...
Redflag – “Oh and, the names Salomon Mayer Rothschild and James Mayer Rothschild fascinate me. Any relation? ;-)”
- Boy, don’t I wish, laddie!!!! I probably wouldn’t be typing with you folks right now, as I would definitely be too haughty to engage in a discussion about Marx with the proletariat ;)
And no, no wind as been taken from me sails, in fact, I am at full speed ahead! To simply dismiss the fact that Marx may have been bankrolled by Illuminati is just too easy. If indeed Marx was funded by said society, the study of his work could be deemed a gigantic waste of one’s time. I know, I know, discussions of “Illuminati” and a lack of “credible evidence” perpetuate the “conspiracy theory,” which dismisses the entire idea, a priori, in 99.9% of the populations’ minds. Let’s face it, I am not in it to change anyone’s mind, I merely suggested the dude was Illuminati, and whether you care about it or not does not make a difference. The subject is not about care, it is about some dude paid to make excuses up for the capitalists (Illuminati) to go to war to bolster their bank accounts. Has that not happened?
Last item – I can’t help this thought, and we have discussed it before, but I simply can’t fathom the elite giving up their power and handing it over to the same people they have been enslaving time immemoriam. Can you assist me in wrapping my mind around this?
On that note, Guy, if any type of socialism has been attempted in any country, could you please provide a list of countries in which socialism has been attempted? Thank you in advance for your response.
(
send private message
)
Would you like to comment on this blog post? Login to talk back!
marino says...
All Americans need to get involved. immigrationcounters.com.
( send private message )