Socialists are Nothing More Than Parasites

Socialists are Nothing More Than Parasites

Socialists are Nothing More Than Parasites

President Trump’s State of the Union address, as well as his speech at Florida International University today, hit back hard against the sludge-covered wave of socialist thought that has infested parts of our country. It was a big, glorious middle finger to the likes of Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Rashida Tlaib – a bold statement of defiance informing these socialists that their dream of a Marxist plague will not happen.

“And to those who would try to impose socialism on the United States, we again deliver a very simple message: America will never be a socialist country,” Trump said toward the end of his speech in Miami on Monday.

This is exactly the type of rebellion we need in the US today, as a cancerous scourge of socialism tries to attach itself like so many pubic lice to the life source of our nation. Those unwilling to put in the effort to support themselves and to succeed are voting for politicians who will steal from their neighbors at the point of a government gun, while at the same time working to disarm those from whom they steal to ensure a “peaceful” transfer of wealth.

I’m thrilled that Donald Trump is standing up to these parasites, and brazenly telling them their dream is not going to happen, because the wholesale condemnation of those who have achieved economic success in this country is worrisome.

Men and women who have studied, worked, taken risks, and bled to achieve what only a few could are being condemned as parasites and told they shouldn’t exist.

People like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have a limited understanding of economics, and still look at wealth as a finite pie. Instead of growing the entire pie, Occasional-Cortex believes that billionaires are simply hogging most of it, while the rest of us are left with crumbs, without understanding that as the pie grows, more and more people earn bigger pieces of it.

“I’m not saying that Bill Gates or Warren Buffett are immoral, but a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong,” Ocasio-Cortez said during an event honoring the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. on Monday.

It’s difficult to believe that this imbecile holds a degree in economics. Her professors at Boston University should either be embarrassed, or they are as frighteningly ignorant and incompetent as she is.

By condemning people who help grow the economy, Occasional-Cortex and her ilk want those whom they consider deserving of stealing the fruits of others’ labor, to have a piece of a much smaller economic pie. The socialists believe that somehow those who have made billions with their ingenuity and courage are taking away from those who haven’t, instead of providing a product for which people want to pay them money.

Canadian-born Guy Laliberte had nothing when he decided to take a small troupe of circus performers to the US. He took a chance that Americans would love what this group had to offer, and flew to LA without a return ticket. The self-made billionaire is now the CEO what became Cirque du Soleil. Do you think Cirque du Soleil would have been the raging success that it was if people weren’t willing to pay money to see the shows?

Howard Schultz – the former CEO of Starbucks – grew up in a housing complex for the poor. In 1987 Schultz became Starbucks CEO and grew the coffee chain from about 60 stores to more than 16,000 outlets worldwide. Schultz came up from nothing. Starbucks now employs thousands of people, pays them well above minimum wage, provides education benefits to veterans and their families, and allows its employees to progress and grow their careers from within.

How do I know this? My son started working at a Starbucks store as a barista when he was 16. This high school kid, who started this part time job at $10 per hour. Six months later, he was earning $15 as a trainer, and continued working there while in college, earning benefits and stock options. My son didn’t have to agitate for a “living wage.” He earned it.

Oprah Winfrey grew up in poverty and started off her career by becoming the first African American TV correspondent in Nashville. She’s now worth more than $3 billion. She came up from a local TV station to a national television show and has developed her own brand, her own broadcast network, and her own magazine. Oprah’s Harpo Studios alone employs roughly 13,000 people. Should she not exist? Does she not contribute to the economy?

The Jeff Bezos that Occasional-Cortex loves to malign started Amazon in his house. Amazon now employs more than half a million workers. Bill Gates started Microsoft in a garage, and he is now worth roughly $97 billion and is one of the biggest philanthropists in the world and employs 131,000 people worldwide.

Billionaires are employers, they help elevate the neighborhoods in which their companies locate, they employ thousands of people and provide opportunities for them to achieve and succeed. They invest in other ventures and provide a means for them to succeed. Those employees, in turn, rent and buy homes, they eat at restaurants, they contribute to charities, and they pay taxes.

These are the people Occasional-Cortex and crew want to tax out of existence. They are the producers, the inventors, the risk-takers, and the ones who put their blood, sweat, and tears into their businesses. These are the people who grow the economic pie, and penalizing them for  their success will disincentivize hard work and achievement. Taking away their earnings and redistributing them to those who have neither the skill nor the desire to reach that level of skill, knowledge, or ingenuity will simply remove the desire to work and achieve. Why bother striving to improve, if the government will simply steal from your neighbor and give it to you? Why bother remaining in the country, providing jobs, investing in new ventures, and growing that economic pie, if the government will simply take what you have produced and give it to those who haven’t?

Part of the reason I am a strong supporter of Virginia Delegate Nick Freitas is because he understands and appreciates the producers of the world and wants to ensure they have every incentive to remain, to earn, to contribute to their communities, to provide employment opportunities, and to flourish without some envious Marxist pointing a gun at their head and demanding they hand over their earnings to those who don’t have the skills or the knowledge to reach that level of achievement.

Socialism is nothing but institutionalized envy – a way to use government force against the thinkers, the producers, the investors, employers, and risk-takers who have achieved and earned more than you have. It’s the tool of the indolent and entitled, who believe they deserve a piece of their neighbors’ earnings precisely because they are less wealthy and less capable. They take up government force as their preferred way of doing business because they cannot or will not work hard enough to attain what others have, and the only way they know to elevate themselves in society is to pull others down.

If you steal from billionaires, they will have less, and you won’t look like an abject failure.

Socialism needs class envy. It needs worthless parasites to leech off the producers of society by voting for those who will use government guns to suck those producers dry. The outcome is that wealth creators will have less, and so will everyone else when you remove the incentive to grow, to create value, to succeed, to invest time and money in new ideas and ventures.

Socialism cannot be allowed to win, and the parasitic, anti-Semitic (is it any wonder that some of the most odious anti-Semites in Congress are Marxist?), adulterous, lying, hypocritical, barely employed, plagiarist sack of manure Karl Marx should be relegated to the trash bin of history where he belongs.

Brainy Quote screen capture

 

Featured photo: DIMSFIKAS Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license (cropped, altered)

Written by

Marta Hernandez is an immigrant, writer, editor, science fiction fan (especially military sci-fi), and a lover of freedom, her children, her husband and her pets. She loves to shoot, and range time is sacred, as is her hiking obsession, especially if we’re talking the European Alps. She is an avid caffeine and TWD addict, and wants to own otters, sloths, wallabies, koalas, and wombats when she grows up.

23 Comments
  • Joe R. says:

    Socialism is the boot.exe file for communism, and there’s always a fat rat bastard at the top of the pyramid of starving idiots under every communist leader. Maduro attempted to export billions in gold for his own golden-parachute, Fidel Castro died and left a 9 billion dollar estate. F em all. That’s why the U.S. has The Communist Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844), and why we’ve expended so much blood, sweat, tears, treasure, and souls to eradicate communists and communism wherever in the world that we have found it.

    “Kill a commie for mommy” – Johnny Ramone

  • GWB says:

    there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health
    I call BS on that. Access to health care is ubiquitous. It also shouldn’t require public health care, though I don’t mind some charity work for these sorts of folk. But, maybe Occasional should grasp that ringworm is not so much a “health care” issue as it is a matter of washing your hands. (Evidently “ringworm” is just a scarier way to say “athlete’s foot”, as well.)

    My son started working at a Starbucks store as a barista when he was 16.
    Shouldn’t that be “barist”? Or did they make him wear hot pants and a halter? 😉

    He earned it.
    Oh dear. Now you’ve triggered them…….

    Canadian-born Guy Laliberte
    Howard Schultz – the former CEO of Starbucks
    Oprah Winfrey grew up in poverty
    Bill Gates started Microsoft in a garage
    While I agree that we shouldn’t envy people making lots of money by providing what people want, all of those folks eventually succeeded dramatically by 1) overcharging the gullible and/or 2) manipulating gov’t to protect their racket. Mind you, my problem there is not with them but with the gullible who end up raising the price for me, and with the meddling politicians and bureaucrats who raise barriers to entry into the market. It’s the gov’t who sucks the wealth out of the pie, preventing it from growing more. NOT the billionaires, themselves.

    They are the producers, the inventors, the risk-takers, and the ones who put their blood, sweat, and tears into their businesses.
    Well, marxism would say they didn’t produce anything, their workers did. They exploit the inventors. And “blood, sweat and tears” are not LABOR, so they don’t count. Of course, that’s an extremely narrow view of those terms, and unrealistic if you don’t then add in bits (that define those important things) other than “labor” and “raw materials” to the mix that produces “value” (according to Marx).
    Thomas Sowell has a good bit on “economic middlemen” and the envy and “othering” that accompanies them in his book Black Rednecks & White Liberals. It is the second section of the book. (Thanks to Amanda Green introducing me to that book by reviewing it on Sarah Hoyt’s blog!)

    simply take what you have produced
    There again, the marxist argument is they somehow just stood around while their workers “produced”, and they didn’t actually do anything except steal the bread from the mouths of their workers. (You know how hard it is to even explain Marx without your eyes rolling so far back in your head that you can see your own bald spot? He was working from the point-of-view of post-feudalism, and didn’t understand human nature at all – like most of the ‘scientific’ utopists of the time.)

    Socialism is nothing but institutionalized envy
    SHACK! (That’s a fire support term for “hit the target dead center and no further fire is required”. Fire For Effect, anyway.)

    • Nicki says:

      Frankly, I gives no fucks about overcharging the gullible. No one is forcing them to pay that money. Everyone is entitled to make their own purchasing decisions. I applaud these guys for understanding the markets and taking advantage of them. *shrug*

      • GWB says:

        I am concerned for two reasons: the conned then demand gov’t do something and they drive up prices for everyone else. Being concerned isn’t the same as demanding a gov’t solution, though.

        • Ken says:

          “the conned then demand gov’t do something and they drive up prices for everyone else”

          The solution to this is to return to restricted suffrage, particularly the repeal of the 19th amendment.

    • Militant Conservative says:

      I recently ran across a simple way to describe the twisted evil of communism and socialism: “Money see; monkey want; monkey violently take.” It’s the murderous jealousy and envy of the gimmedats who flatly refuse to produce real wealth in return for what they desire themselves. Only a bullet to the head can cure this arrogant attitude.

    • Charles N. Steele says:

      “Overcharging the gullible…” So if other people buy and sell at prices you approve it’s fine, and if you don’t approve it’s overcharging and questionable? Unclear how this is fundamentally different from AOC’s view.

      Also unclear, how have Starbucks, Microsoft, Cirque, and Oprah succeedes by using govt to block competition?

      None of that made sense to me.

      • ““Overcharging the gullible…”

        Back in the late ’70s I received a Pet Rock as a gift. 40 years later I am deeply and profoundly outraged that that gullible person was overcharged for what is essentially an exceptionally smooth lump of common minerals. Oh, and a box that has “Pet Rock” printed on it. And a pamphlet explaining how to care for the new pet. I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it any more!

  • Uncle Lar says:

    But, but, but, AOC has her a minor in economics which I am morally certain she earned with a term paper based on her intense study of the Disney character Scrooge McDuck who kept his billions in a huge vault so that he could go in and roll around in the bills and coins. That has to be precisely how she thinks of billionaires in order to have come up with her core belief that socialism is the be all cure all for our terribly unfair society.
    Or she may just be yet another scam artist trying to ride the wave of socialism popular amongst the uneducated to a cushy government position much has been done by many of her Democrat fellow officials.

  • Nitay Arbel says:

    There is a typo on the monument. It should read “w*nkers of all the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your d*cks”

  • Scott says:

    Well put Marta, and great examples.. funny how many of them are now leftist, and generally in favor of socialism, Oprah and Bezos are good examples.. I guess they figure that they’ll be the ones ruling, so they don’t mind taking from others…

    • John C. says:

      A lot of people have supported revolutions thinking they would be the ones on top when the dust settled. Graveyards are full of ’em; just ask Robespierre.

  • Joe in PNG says:

    Here’s another thing- not only is the amount of money in the world not a zero sum, ‘fixed pie’, but it can be destroyed as well as created.
    Suppose Bernie and AOC get their way, and demand that all those billionaires ‘give back’ their wealth. And suppose the billionaires decide to play along. They’ll suddenly find out that the billions aren’t actually there- Bezos is not sitting atop a money bin filled with the full amount of his net worth in cash and coins.
    That’s because most wealth is in investments- part ownership in companies through stocks and so on. Should Bezos be required to cash in his half of Amazon, the value of the stock would plummet to nothing, and the crash would seriously hurt people.

  • John C. says:

    It is a little dated, but https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bill+whittle+eat+the+rich&view=detail&mid=9E24B6B035E1CDCFC3289E24B6B035E1CDCFC328&FORM=VIRE is still worth watching. I doubt AOC has seen it, though I doubt it would register even if she has.

  • WorthC says:

    It’s all about resentment, or resentiment, as my man Nietzsche would say.

  • Gretz says:

    I think an audit of what passes for an education in economics at Boston University is in order. I think it telling that no one has pushed a camera in the face of such a prawf at BU and asked them if she’s winging it, or if it’s what they actually teach there.

  • MrSatyre says:

    We keep pushing for better health care. When will we publicly announce that liberalism/leftism/socialism is a mental illness, and wage a war of science and medicine against it? The Left would put in concentration camps law-abiding gun owners (as an example), and execute them (their words, not mine). The Left would rather people really and truly be harrassed, lynched, raped, imprisoned, for their politics, sexual orientation, ethnicity as opposed to…well, not having any of those things done to them. So, why aren’t we placing liberals/lefties/socialists in mental institutions for humane treatment and study with the goal of an eventual cure? Why aren’t we seeing telethons praying for generous donations to eradicate this tragic defect once and for all?

  • Larry J says:

    In broad terms, there are three kinds of people who advocate socialism.
    1. The parasites like the ones you discussed. They see other people having more and want to take from them. Envy is a powerful thing, which is why it’s one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Coveting is also against the 10 Commandments for this reason.
    2. The True Believers, often thinking themselves intellectuals, believe they’ll be the ones running things under the new socialist order.
    3. The sociopaths who shoot the True Believers to seize power. History has many examples, including Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

    My wife and I visited Vietnam in 2011. Vietnam is still officially a communist country. My guide told me this. “Following Reunification in 1975, Vietnam became a socialist country. Do you know what socialism is? It’s where if I work hard and you don’t, we both get the same thing. So no one worked hard. Some years ago, the government changed the rules. Now, if you work hard, you can prosper. Things are much better now.”

  • Curmudgeon says:

    The corporatists in the US have deliberately conflated socialism with communism to cover up the fact that capitalism and communism are the two sides of the same coin. Both seek to concentrate wealth into the hands of an elite that is hostile to the interests of all citizens.
    No one seems to recognize that the infrastructure of a city, state and country are paid for by taxes paid by all, but are of primary benefit to corporations. The Interstate highway project was massively funded by the military to connect bases. That has been a benefit for auto manufacturers and trucking companies. It is nothing less than a subsidy. In the US there is socialism for corporations through tax breaks “incentives”, interest free loans, and public debt for infrastructure, while profit is privatized.
    Socialism has no requirement of owning the means of production. It is opposed to immigration in general, and mass immigration in particular, understanding that it lowers wages, increases housing costs, lowers living standards, and costs the government more money to support the immigrants. Socialism understands that in order to work, you have to have a high trust social cohesiveness which will not work with high immigration rates,
    If you want to understand the perversion being passed off as “socialism” look no further than the “free education” scam. In North America, higher education has been commodified. It is for sale just like a bottle of water. The US “socialists” want free university for all. That’s not how the system works in socialist countries. Only those who have earned the top marks are allowed into universities and other post secondary education. The person with the highest marks is offered his/her choice of field of study based on standardized national testing. There are limits on the number of entrants into those fields. Having a wealthy family doesn’t help, because the spaces are not for sale, they are EARNED through study. Why do you think there are so many “smart” Chinese, whether the mainland, Hong Kong, or Taiwan students coming to North America? It’s because they weren’t smart enough to get into their own “free” universities. There is no dumbing down education in socialist countries. They accept that some people are not as smart as others, and that some will function only at very low skill jobs. There is no pretending that everybody can do or be anything. Their focus is integrating the low functioning into society without condemning them to abject poverty and humiliation. This was something that many in the US accepted before the globalists took over and created an alternate reality of mass immigration from the 3rd world, off shoring jobs, and dumbing down education being a good thing.
    I’m not saying that socialism is perfect. It’s not, but neither is communism, capitalism, or fascism. Each has it’s own benefits and faults, all systems have more faults than benefits, depending on the questions you ask. My point is don’t accept what others tell you about other political philosophies, seek out varying opinions on each and weight them for yourself.

    • Ken says:

      Curmudgeon,

      “The corporatists in the US have deliberately conflated socialism with communism”

      Communists and socialists routinely admit there is no difference. The ones who claim there is a difference cannot provide a coherent explanation of those differences.

      “to cover up the fact that capitalism and communism are the two sides of the same coin.”

      Incoherence like this.

      “Both seek to concentrate wealth into the hands of an elite that is hostile to the interests of all citizens.”

      And this. This type of sentiment clearly implies the thoroughly debunked notion of zero sum economies. In reality, capitalism allows the elite producers to be the incredible producers they are, making all our lives better.

      “No one seems to recognize that the infrastructure of a city, state and country are paid for by taxes paid by all”

      Because they aren’t. The top 10% of all earners pay close to 90% of all taxes.

      “but are of primary benefit to corporations”

      Provably false.

      “The Interstate highway project was massively funded by the military to connect bases.”

      The interstate highway system is an excellent counter example to the idiot claim that corporations are the primary beneficiary of that infrastructure (infrastructure that clearly should not be controlled by the government, the corruption of government spending being so clearly seen, but ignored by gov apologists). It is clear, the primary beneficiaries are the ordinary citizen who collectively drive hundreds of millions of miles daily on that system.

      “That has been a benefit for auto manufacturers and trucking companies.”

      And an even greater benefit to the Americans who love cars and like the products conveniently delivered to them by those trucking companies. It’s cute how you ignore the American consumer in these instances. I’m grateful you do, though. It highlights how incredibly ignorant you are or how dishonest you are.

      “It is nothing less than a subsidy.”

      False. Roads are 100% paid for by the gas tax, i.e., they are paid for ONLY by those who use them, which is the OPPOSITE of a subsidy.

      “In the US there is socialism for corporations through tax breaks”

      Only the completely morally bankrupt could possibly argue that government not taking the hard earned income of hard working Americans somehow equates to socialism.

      I got tired of reading your ignorant laden comment, so I’ll respond to only one more bit of idiocy: “I’m not saying that socialism is perfect. It’s not, but neither is communism, capitalism, or fascism.”

      This disgusting idea is that we are all economic or political units upon which to experimented by politicians. The equation of capitalism with communism or fascism is that of the morally bankrupt. We are free men, living in a country based on the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you actually value those rights, capitalism is, in fact, perfect, as it is nothing more than a system that leaves people to peacefully live and work as THEY want, using their own property as they want, and controlling the output of their own labor as they want, without interference from petty government functionaries.

      Further, even if you do just view people as economic units, capitalism is still perfect as it is the ONLY system that improves everyone’s lives. Disgustingly, the morally bankrupt, like you, would rather everyone be equally miserably poverty and disease ridden, than everyone be unequally rich, just like every single person in the Europe and North America is rich, though, many are so disgracefully ungrateful for the amazing abundance available to all in our modern world, they claim to be living in poverty, spitting in the faces of those who truly live in poverty.

      • Scott says:

        Good post Ken, agree with you on almost everything! The only part where I’ll disagree with you a little is in calling our system “caplitalism”.. this is a BS term made up by Marx to denigrate the system we do use, most accurately described as a mostly free-market economy. He came up with the term to try and make communism sound better, like much of the crap he wrote, as one of the VG ladies so accurately described in a series of posts last month.

  • Craig says:

    I did. Capitalism won. Next topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram