“Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, and so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.” (Alinsky, 1971)
America was treated to a cute little circus sideshow this past week, as many Republican congressmen played the part of a principled conservative, lambasting the signing of yet another, trillion-dollar spending bill. At over 4,100 pages long, the bill was received early in the wee hours of the morning on the same day they were expected to vote on it. This is no surprise, is it? Don’t we listen to the same nonsense every year? We must pass this massive spending bill or else we will have to shut down the government. Oh no, whatever would we do? Who would make the decision to fund research into how dogs respond to cocaine, for example? Senator Rand Paul generally leads the charge, as he highlights the ridiculous things they insist be funded by the taxpayer. Ironically, he never mentioned the gun control initiatives that will be funded through this bill. For example, the ATF will be receiving upwards of twenty-eight billion dollars to one, enforce their AR pistol brace scheme, and two, continue building their traceable gun registry system. The biggest takeaway from the past week was watching the Ukrainian president demand we give him more money to secure his borders, while ours are being overrun. While American families are watching their cost of living expenses explode, Ukraine will be receiving another fifty billion dollars with no explanation as to what they did with the previous fifty billion. Such is the way, I suppose.
The national debt currently stands at thirty-one trillion dollars. That is an unfathomable amount of money. At the end of fiscal year 2021, the debt was roughly twenty-eight trillion. Before the signing of the latest omnibus bill, it had risen to thirty trillion. The problem is that this is something that continues to happen, no matter who is in the White House. It is almost as if bankrupting the nation is on the national agenda. That would be a little conspiratorial though, wouldn’t it?
An old video of Robert Welch, head of the John Birch Society, has been making its way around social media. He describes a ten-point plan to take down America by communist, subversive means. One of these points is the deliberate bankrupting of the nation by a constant waste of public money. The very first point he makes alludes to this idea. “Greatly expanded government spending for every conceivable means of getting rid of larger sums of American money as wastefully as possible.” As crazy as that may sound, that pretty much sums up what we have been witnessing over the past several decades. A constant increase in spending, which in turn, adds to the debt. There is also the Cloward & Piven Strategy. For those that don’t know, Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven were sociology professors at Columbia University. Their 1966 article, The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty calls for the creation of an unsustainable welfare state that would ultimately crash the economy and force America to adopt a socialist system. Again, this sounds kind of conspiratorial. Can anyone honestly say that it isn’t happening?
The biggest problem with all of this is that American voters are trapped in a cycle of accepting whatever their preferred party does. Even if it goes against their principles. For example, Donald Trump increased the debt through reckless spending the same way Biden has. In fact, Trump increased the national debt by 6.7 trillion by the end of his term in office. His most ardent supporters claim that this was spending on acceptable issues, like military funding. What’s the difference if it’s money we don’t have, and it increases the debt? It has also been argued that the economy was much stronger during the Trump presidency, so economic growth would outpace the debt. Really? For eight years the popular narrative, and it is true by the way, was that Obama had spent more money than all our nation’s previous presidents combined. He spent a whopping 8.6 trillion, which was a seventy-four percent increase from George Bush’s 5.85 trillion-dollar contribution, which was over a one hundred percent increase from the Clinton administration. Do you see a pattern yet? How could the economy be strong enough to withstand that kind of spending? The inflation we are dealing with today is the result of decades of kicking this can down the road, as our politicians often say. It isn’t due to the spending of one administration. Here is the best part. The trillion-dollar increases, according to thebalancemoney.com, first occurred under the Reagan presidency. Since that time, every president has increased the debt by over a trillion dollars during their term.
We live in a country where the perception is that Republicans and Democrats are in a vicious fight for the soul of the nation, and each party is perceived as standing for certain principles, which reflect the beliefs of the voters. Republicans put on a nice show, for example, when Democrats spend a lot of money. Where were they when Trump, Bush, or Reagan made their contributions? Most of them were there voting for the bill because it was their president that would sign it. American voters are wrapped up in issues they pretend to be fighting over, while the real agenda of destroying the nation advances. In many cases, when it comes to spending, this agenda is accepted because of the way the narratives are framed. For example, when Trump signed his first 1.3 trillion dollar bill it was reported that he did so grudgingly, and he wasn’t happy about it. Well yeah. He had to say that because he promised to reign in spending and get the debt under control. Voters accept spending from Republicans because they claim it is for things republicans support. Likewise for Democrats.
Is it possible that Republicans and Democrats are working together to bankrupt the nation while providing the illusion that there is a conflict between them? Many people have noted that politics resemble professional wrestling in the sense that they pretend to fight all day, then go have a beer together, laughing their collective butts off at how gullible the American people are. In this article we have seen Robert Welch, from the John Birch Society, cite a ten-point communist plan to destroy our economy through massive spending. We looked at the Cloward and Piven Strategy, a plan to overwhelm the welfare state to force a socialist economy. Both points are indicative of a deliberate plan to bankrupt the United States. There is one more point to consider. And it is essential that you go directly to the source provided because this source has been taken out of context. The following quote by Carrol Quigley is all over the internet –
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies… is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.”
If you were to go off this source alone, as I admittedly have in the past, you would be under the impression that Quigley himself is advocating for such a system. In seeking out the quote for myself, I found it on page 1035 of Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. It is clear that Quigley himself is alluding to the communist’s belief that this is how our government should function.
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is [to the Eastern Establishment] a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, [they believe that] the two parties should be almost identical, so that [they can control the elections] … without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.” (Quigley, p. 1035)
Is it possible that the destruction of the economy is a national agenda that all presidents are willingly advancing? I would say it is more than possible, it is happening. If you accept the idea that communists have subverted our government institutions, and that what Joseph McCarthy warned us about is a reality, you must accept this as a possibility. Bankrupting the nation would have been a top priority. Since the Reagan presidency, every president has added trillions to the national debt. Whether it is for issues you support or oppose, there is no doubt that decades of recklessly spending these massive amounts of money would inevitably catch up with us in the form of inflation. There is no way around it. If Americans really stood for principle they would demand accountability from anyone who does this. Even if it is the president they voted for. Instead, we are trapped in a cycle of supporting what our chosen party does simply because it is our chosen party. I am betting that the next president will spend more money than Biden. Whether it is a Republican or Democrat. Perhaps you are wondering why I added the Alinsky quote at the top. Hillary Clinton Wrote her college thesis on Alinsky, and how to use his principles to change the structure of our government from within. Oh yeah, she was also a special guest at Trump’s wedding.