Now that Joe has mentioned that Van Jones saying that the rich are to be drawn, quartered and eaten, I remembered our capture of little Mikie “Twinkie Master” Moore from March of last year:
Just a few days ago we chronicled Michael Moore stating how the private resources of “the rich” are a national resource owned by “the people”. Well, that ain’t all folks. He has opened his substantial pie hole again.
Repeatedly saying “America is not broke,” Moore said “the country is awash in wealth and cash … It has been transferred in the greatest heist in history from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich.”
That’s our boy Mikey…the same Mikey who has utilized the free enterprise system to amass an estimated personal net worth of over $50 million dollars.
Moore is a man of the people – as long as the people are in the upper 1% of the income bracket. This “comrade of the oppressed”:
- Has a multi-million dollar apartment in Manhattan.
- Has a multi-million dollar vacation home on the shore of Lake Michigan.
- Sent his daughter to an elite private school.
- Charges between 25K to 40K for speaking engagements.
Comrade Moore speaks about the evils of capitalism yet says this of himself:
“I’m a millionaire, I’m a multi-millionaire. I’m filthy rich. You know why I’m a multi-millionaire? ‘Cause multi-millions like what I do. That’s pretty good, isn’t it? There’s millions that believe in what I do. Pretty cool, huh?”
Moore is a charlatan, a provocateur and a fraud, yet he is a shrewd marketer. He found a market for leftist, soft core anti-Americanism and has made millions propagandizing about how bad America is and how much better off we would be if we just were like Venezuela or Cuba.
When I hear Moore denounce our American free enterprise system and rant about the “uber rich”, I have these words from Hayek flash in my brain (at least after the nausea subsides):
As the coercive power of the state will alone decide who is to have what, the only power worth having will be a share in the exercise of this directing power. There will be no economic or social questions that would not be political questions in the sense that their solution will depend exclusively on who wields the coercive power, on whose are the views that will prevail on all occasions.
Hayek is stating an objective truth – instead of the power being invested in the individual in the free market, it becomes vested in the organization of government. Hayek continues:
I believe it was Lenin himself who introduced to Russia the famous phrase “who, whom?”-during the early years of Soviet rule the byword in which the people summed up the universal problem of a socialist society. Who plans whom, who directs and dominates whom, who assigns to other people their station in life, and who is to have his due allotted by others? These become necessarily the central issues to be decided solely by the supreme power.
The very class struggle that Moore and other useful idiots use as a tool in their attempted murder of our freedom will always be present. In their envisioned “worker’s paradise”, class status is no longer determined by ability and achievement, but by position within the ruling body and the amount of influence that can be peddled as a result. Success is no longer obtained by individual ability and achievement but in relationship to the “who, whom?” question. We have seen it happen in the old USSR and other totalitarian states – the workers toil pays for dachas on the Black Sea and “presidential” palaces, all purchased with the sweat and blood of the many citizens to the benefit of the ruling class few, while all the while proselytizing how all this brings “freedom” to the masses.
Continuing with Hayek:
To make this argument sound plausible, the word “freedom” was subjected to a subtle change in meaning. The word had formerly meant freedom from coercion, from the arbitrary power of other men. Now it was made to mean freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice of all of us. Freedom in this sense is, of course, merely another name for power or wealth. The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for a redistribution of wealth.
Why would wealthy and powerful people like Moore continually condemn the very system that brought them freedom, wealth and power?
It is because they see themselves as part of the elite ruling class that would have the power to answer the “who, whom” question. These people are little different from the Nazi collaborators in the Vichy government of France during the German occupation of WW II. They are currying favor with a power structure for their personal preservation, not for the salvation of the “workers”.
For all you proto-communists out there, I would suggest that the phrase “caveat emptor” should be given great consideration. You had better understand who your proposed overlords really are.