Tag Archives: socialism

Jun 6 2023

The Cloward-Piven Strategy


Aemstrong Economics Blog/Civil Unrest Re-Posted Jun 6, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: Your reporting on the Red Cross and other organizations that facilitate the mass importation of illegals into America is well done. But its purpose is about more than just a move to import a bunch of Biden voters to help secure a second term.
Are you aware of the Cloward and Piven strategy? These were two communist professors who devised a plan to take down the capitalist structure of the United States through mass illegal migration that overwhelms U.S. social safety net programs and local governments. It is an intentional plan to collapse the U.S. and bring in a new (global) regime that will issue ‘guaranteed basic income’ to all.
I’ve never seen you comment on Cloward and Piven, would you care to share whether Socrates shows their plan will be successful?

REPLY:

The four steps of the Cloward-Piven Strategy:
1. Overload and Break the Welfare System
2. Have Chaos Ensue
3. Take Control in the Chaos
4. Implement Socialism and Communism through Government Force

Overburden the bureaucracy to break the system, create controlled chaos, usurp power as civil unrest peaks, and offer government aid as the only solution. This was the basis behind the Cloward-Piven strategy created by sociologists Frances Fox Piven and her husband, Richard Cloward. The couple published their theory in The Nation Magazine on May 2, 1966, entitled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty.”

This was a decade of political activism in America. The war in Vietnam was raging on and the alternative hippie lifestyle became prominent as people protested the violence. The Black Freedom Movement and the push for equal civil rights had peaked and helped to end the Jim Crow laws in the South by 1965. The LA race riots, also known as the Watts Rebellion, occurred in 1965 as well after the police beat a black man who was arrested for a DUI. That particular riot lasted for six days and led to 34 deaths, 1,032 injuries, and over 3,000 arrests. This began a string of riots in America where black Americans and supporters clashed with police, similar to the events that occurred after the death of George Floyd that started the Black Lives Matter movement.

We had major political activists such as Martin Luther King Jr. making real change in America. The intelligence agencies had a close eye on him, and his death in 1968 is a topic for another post. On the other side were the likes of Malcom X, who originally did not advocate for peace as King did. The cohesive movement fell apart with mass unrest and no one at the helm. The movement began with African Americans asking for basic human rights and understandable anger. The purpose of the movement, again similar to BLM, became lost, and the government aimed to use the civil unrest to its advantage.

“[T]he strategy we propose, is a massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls,” the sociologists wrote in their theory. This theory aimed to overburden social programs at the state level to give the federal government the power to control the people.

“Widespread campaigns to register the eligible poor for welfare aid, and to help existing recipients obtain their full benefits, would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments. These disruptions would generate severe political strains, and deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the white working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor.”

Cloward and Piven noted that civil unrest was necessary to create change and encouraged the government to antagonize the masses. “The poor are most visible and proximate in the local community; antagonism toward them (and toward the agencies which are implicated with them) has always, therefore, been more intense locally than at the federal level.” As the anger brews and protests erupt, the government will lasso in the masses, acted as both the hero and the villain.

“In order to generate a crisis, the poor must obtain benefits, which they have forfeited. Until now, they have been inhibited from asserting claims by self-protective devices within the welfare system: its capacity to limit information, to intimidate applicants, to demoralize recipients, and arbitrarily to deny lawful claims.”

Tell the people that they are victims and instill a sense of entitlement for their neighbor’s assets. Remind the people consistently that they are oppressed and only an equal distribution of wealth can save them from the confines of poverty. Cloward and Piven insisted that hard work could not “elevate the poor en-mass from poverty.”

“The ultimate objective of this strategy–to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income,” the theory clearly stated. The theory stated that the creation of unions was a good start to bargain collectively, but still not enough to solve poverty. “Union leaders have understood that their strength derives almost entirely from their capacity to provide economic rewards to members,” the theory noted. “A federal program of income redistribution has become necessary to elevate the poor en masse from poverty,” meaning a shift away from capitalism entirely.

Cloward and Piven stated that a minimum standard of living must be provided to the people through federal welfare. That right must be guaranteed to end oppression, thereby ensuring Guaranteed Basic Income. Furthermore, there could be no conditions for benefits as it “results in violations of civil liberties.” Therefore, expecting able-bodied people to work would be an attack on the welfare system. The sociologists insisted that most people were in fact eligible for welfare and encouraged the government to advertise in brochures, schools, stores, churches, civic centers, and public housing projects. They even advised the government to send people door-to-door to explain to people that they are oppressed and deserving of GBI as a “civil education drive will lend it legitimacy.”

“As the crisis develops, it will be important to use the mass media to inform the broader liberal community about the inefficiencies and injustices of welfare.” To succeed, the shift away from capitalism required “mass influence” and “publicly visible disruption.” “Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest, which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognizable eruption to public attention.”

The bigger the crisis, the more power the government could usurp. They noted that politicians paid attention to massive uprisings, and they had been used to “reinforce the allegiance of growing ghetto constituencies to the national Democratic Administration.” The sociologists noted that the Conservative Republicans would decry a public welfare system and that the Democrats needed to appeal to the emotions of the people over logic. They also urged for “a coalition between poor whites and poor Negroes” to turn the race war into class warfare.

“Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely.” Cloward and Piven wanted to overburden the welfare system at the state level to eliminate state rights. Therefore, under this theory, government is encouraged to market a crisis, antagonize the people, and offer a solution. The only solution being to replace capitalism with socialism or communism by which the people would be entirely dependent on government. You will own nothing and be happy.

Jun 6 2023

England to Roll Out Guaranteed Basic Income Pilot


Armstrong Economics Blog/BRITAIN Re-Posted Jun 6, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

England will provide thirty individuals £1,600 per month to study Guaranteed Basic Income, also known as Universal Basic Income (UBI). The pilot program will monitor these individuals for two years to see how they put the money to use. As I noted in the blog post about the Cloward-Piven study, there must be no conditions for true Guaranteed Basic Income to work. That means that those chosen will effectively receive a “free” government handout at the expense of the working taxpayers.

The working taxpayers in lower earning brackets will likely look at those receiving free handouts and wonder how they too can get in on the scheme. “This is a substantial amount. Universal basic income usually covers people’s basic needs but we want to see what effect this unconditional lump sum has on people’s mental and physical health, whether they choose to work or not,” Will Stronge, the director of Autonomy thinktank, told the Guardian. “Our society is going to require some form of basic income in the coming years, given the tumult of climate change, tech disruption and industrial transition that lies ahead. This is why building the evidence base and public engagement now is so important, so the ground is well prepared for national implementation.”

They are already setting the precedent for a need for a welfare state. They’re purposely using a small sample size of 30 so that they do not need to show the drain the welfare system causes on the system. Those behind the social experiment claim UBI could eliminate poverty and create a perfect utopia. There is not ONE example in history where socialism has worked. Global governments have exacerbated inflation and the cost of living, and now they want you to rely on them for your needs solely. Socialism is never free. They will need to raise taxes and take from others to redistribute wealth, providing no incentive to work or for innovation to take place. As Margaret Thatcher said, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people’s money.”

Jun 6 2023

Eugenics in Europe – Women with Disabilities Forcibly Sterilized


Armstrong Economics Blog/Ethics Re-Posted Jun 6, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

The year is 2023 — our top leaders cannot define the term “woman,” so why should they be protected? We know about the ongoing eugenics program in Canada under the expansion of MAID, but no one discusses the forced sterilization of girls and women across the European Union. Yes, the European Union. People are in an uproar over abortion and how other countries treat women, but the West is a top human rights offender.

Women with disabilities may be forcibly sterilized across the European Union. Sweden, Ireland, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Slovenia, and Poland are the only countries that have criminalized the practice, with Spain also banning the practice in 2020. Portugal, Hungary, and the Czech Republic permit parents to sterilize their daughters without consent. “It is a very cruel form of domination, both of sexuality and reproduction,” María Eugenia Rodríguez Palop, Member of the European Parliament, told Euronews. The European Parliament will discuss the topic in July. Should women with disabilities be prohibited from procreating?

The countries that enforce these eugenics programs do not currently keep official data. It is a dirty stain that they do not want others to see. The EU points to other countries for their human rights abuses but turns a blind eye to the treatment of their own women.

This is clearly a eugenics program and an unethical form of population control. Hitler grouped people with disabilities into a class called “useless eaters” as they could not contribute to the economy. The European Union is also closely linked to the World Economic Forum. Yuval Noah Harari, a self-described historian and one of Schwab’s loudest mouthpieces, believes that we will see the rise of the “useless class.” There will be “a new massive useless class that has no military or economic usefulness, and therefore no political power,” he stated. This is another push toward the World Economic Forum’s goal of government control – you need us but we don’t need you.

Where is the international outcry for these girls and women forcibly undergoing sterilization in the West? Be on high alert when a global agency begins referring to portions of the population as “useless.”

Jun 6 2023

Overnight, the Western Press Radically Rewrote the Truth About Ukraine to Serve Biden’s Endless War Policies | SYSTEM UPDATE #92


Glenn Greenwald Posted originally on Rumble Jun 5, 7:04 pm EDT

Jun 5 2023

Why Men Excel in Sports


Armstrong Economics Blog/WOKE Re-Posted Jun 5, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

Women are being forced out of athletics. Facts over feelings, but biological males are athletically superior to women. Numerous successful female athletes have been forced into early retirement due to men competing as women. The men who compete against women would be considered mediocre in the men’s categories but are breaking records as women.

Men have 10X the testosterone of women. Those who are taking estrogen still have an advantage. A male athlete has more muscle mass than a female athlete, allowing them to have a higher capacity for hypertrophy. Men have a higher basal metabolic rate as well, allowing them to lose weight quicker and that muscle mass to body weight ratio enables them to be faster on their feet. Male athletes have 4% to 12% body fat, compared to female athletes, who have 12% to 23%. Women have smaller hearts (physically) than men, and their hearts must pump faster during exercise. Women also have fewer red blood cells than men, enabling them to absorb oxygen at a higher rate. Men are larger overall, with wider chests and longer limbs. Male athletes clearly have an advantage, which is why no one expected women to compete against men until the trans agenda exploded in our faces.

Duke compared top athletes in their field and found that men clearly have the advantage. “Just in the single year 2017, Olympic, World, and U.S. Champion Tori Bowie’s 100 meters lifetime best of 10.78 was beaten 15,000 times by men and boys.  (Yes, that’s the right number of zeros.) The same is true of Olympic, World, and U.S.  Champion Allyson Felix’s 400 meters lifetime best of 49.26.  Just in the single year 2017, men and boys around the world outperformed her more than 15,000 times.” The researchers noted that the difference has nothing to do with training. Men are superior at sports because they have an androgenized body. Women will always come second to biological males in strength, endurance, and speed.

Biological men are destroying women’s sports. We all know of the case of Lia Thomas who beat 12-time All-American champion Riley Gaines. Lia is 6’1 and towers over her teammates who do not even feel comfortable sharing a locker room with a biological male. Thomas ranked in the mid 500s while competing as man, and then began to shatter records after switching to the female category. These trans athletes are creating new records that women physically cannot beat, diminishing the achievements of women in sports.

The Democrats fully support men competing with women. The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act passed in a 219-203 vote in April, with all Republicans voting “yes” and all Democrats voting “no.” “We should rename it the ‘cancel kids trans hate’ bill,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash) stated. Why are the Democrats attempting to turn this into a social issue? Facts over feelings – men excel at sports and should not be permitted to compete as women.

Jun 5 2023

Sunday Talks, Kevin McCarthy Defends His Budget Ceiling Bill – Focused Heavily on a Return to Regular Budgetary Order


Posted originally on June 4, 2023 | Sundance 

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy appears with Maria Bartiromo to address criticism about details within his debt ceiling bill.  The criticism is very valid, and is being made by many people who are unhappy with the deal to raise the debt ceiling.  However, the primary defense point of McCarthy surrounds a return to regular budgetary order.

As noted by McCarthy, the 12 house appropriations bill that form the traditional federal budget, are due in Aug/Sept for fiscal year 2025 which begins October 1st.  That is where substantive spending will be reduced, well below current spending levels.  However, Bartiromo confronts that outlook by asking ‘what if’ the Senate doesn’t take up the federal budget bill, preferring instead to use the funding mechanism provided within the debt ceiling bill.  {Direct Rumble Link}

The budget debate may sound somewhat parliamentarian, because the nuance of federal budgets is exactly that.  The mechanism to force congress to create a regular order budget is the debt ceiling. Essentially the national credit limit. If you take away the mechanism to force the budget, there is no force mechanism to require the budget.  WATCH:

Speaker McCarthy gets offensive when Maria ask him about what’s in the debt ceiling bill.

The amount of debt carried in your own household budget is only a problem if you have a limit on your credit. If you have unlimited credit, meaning you can borrow endless amounts of money, then you can spend as much as you want. This willy-nilly raising of the national debt ceiling is the issue at the core of why federal budgets are not passed.