Letters: Karl Marx would approve
December 19, 2012 8:40PM
Updated: January 21, 2013 2:03PM
It is a shame that Jesse Jackson Jr. has stepped down. We now need to concentrate on a suitable replacement from either side of the aisle. I have not seen anyone from the Latino community throwing his or her hat into the ring. Perhaps I missed this. If I did, I apologize.
I also found it interesting that the liberal media has wasted no time bashing our constitutional rights, especially the Second Amendment. Some in the conservative media have pointed out that if you intend to kill somebody, you don’t need a gun.
If you ban guns then only the bad guys will have them. Oh, wait, the police and military would also have them, and one reports to the president or governor, and the other to the local mayors and governors. Nah, forget it, this would never happen in America.
Perhaps secular progressives are truly interested in our wellbeing and want to rid the gangs and thugs of their weapons.
Oh, wait, they get their weapons illegally, so they would still be able to get them. I guess I’m probably worrying over nothing — except, of course, how I’m going to live out the rest of my life what with all my money going to taxes. Well, at least I’ll have Obamacare to rely on, “praise the Lord.”
My special thanks to all the people who voted for the “secular progressives” in the last election. I’m grateful for your support of the biggest group of flim-flam artists since the last depression. I sure wish some of you would have read the president’s book, and then the Manifesto by Karl Marx, before you voted. Some interesting comparisons to be sure.
Ray Malmgren
New Lenox
Antithesis of freedom
Does using terms such as “forward” and “progress” signal a new political lurch leftward?
The question is moot. We’re already there, basking in the warm glow of de Tocqueville’s soft tyranny — fruits of a century-long reign of progressivism.
Progressives say they’re moderates. If by moderate, they mean insidious, I agree. Whereas Marxists are revolutionary and confiscatory, progressives are methodical and patient. They exploit emotions; are prosperity-siphoning by nature; zero growth, zero-sum and static by argument. Ironic.
Progressives mean to “improve” the system, not destroy it. They alone decide the improvement du jour. New horizons seem endless. They alone are caring. The silly/not-so-silly results don’t matter as long as you care.
The old ways don’t work. We must try “new, bold and modern” policies appealing to foolish 21st Century arrogance.
Human nature hasn’t changed — even though we communicate wirelessly. We’re no better or wiser than those of yore. The old utopian nonsense still works. Programs, policies, and initiatives are created costing tons of your money to administer, regulate, and force compliance.
Unwittingly, Marxist economic ends are realized — shift more and more resources to the state; burden us disproportionately to any arguable net benefit; render the private economy ineffectual. Overrun the economy as sure as if by revolution. By design? Cluelessness in the name of compassion is just as effective.
For all of the finger-wagging about “same old failed policies,” this modus operandi is possibly the second oldest profession, elitist authoritarianism — crushing the individual’s spirit, subjugating based on the state’s requirements, disciplining with purse strings or marginalization, and exploiting the pathology of dependence — demanding an ever increasing share of resources and redistributing them as the “enlightened” see fit.
This is the antithesis of freedom and justice for all. Ironic.
Randall F. Barron Jr.
Joliet
