Euthanizing The Poor Is Just Capitalism’s True Face: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix - by Caitlin Johnstone

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------

The author is a doctrinaire leftist, and not a particularly bright one. She is so inured to the leftist agitprop that she really believes it to be the truth. We've often found that socialists have a unique set of blinders they wear when considering political systems. They have an uncanny ability to completely ignore the atrocities perpetrated in the name of their political philosophy while simultaneously blaming the other side for the results of their advocacy.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

However, the reality is most leftists are cynically spewing their agitprop. They don't really believe anything they say or what other leftists say. They are simply doing their duty in service to The Narrative. A leftist is permitted, even encouraged to say anything if it serves The Narrative. In return, they get accolades from their leftist friends, they get a pass on behaving like greedy capitalists, and they are free to engage in any behavior, legal or illegal, they wish, if they simply say the right things and hold to the right ideas.

The Narrative, therefore, is the talking points and bumper-sticker slogans approved by the Central Committee for dissemination each day. This is why we see such uniformity in The Narrative as each purveyor of agitprop receives his or her marching orders.

The sole purpose of The Narrative is not to tell facts, explain things, or increase understanding. No, the Left doesn't care about women, the poor, gay rights, fascism, inequality, abortion, or racism. Those things are only of interest to the degree they can be used to service The Narrative. In fact, Leftists regularly act in opposition to these causes, but as we said, they will invariably get a pass because they are serving The Agenda.

The Narrative has one singular purpose: To advance The Agenda. The Agenda, quite simply, is to overthrow the power structures so as to install Marxism. They want rich people's money taken from them, America's liberty negated, and respect for individual rights subordinated to the state, and the destruction of every idea or activity that allows people to live in peace unaccosted by tyrannical government as they pursue their beneficial self-interest. 

The Left cannot countenance a people who have achieved a nice life, a nice family, who are generous and helpful, and polite and hard working. The Agenda requires a disaffected, dissatisfied, envying class of people (the proletariat) who can be persuaded to rise up against the power structure (the bourgeois). 

Thus the purpose the author's article is solely to promulgate The Narrative. She did her duty today, and will repeat the same bumper sticker slogans and leftist talking points tomorrow and every day until The Agenda is finally installed.

As an aside, it is the Left that wants to euthanize. Canada, a decidedly leftist government, has legalized euthanasia, and to date, has euthanized nearly 32,000 people. A former Olympic athlete who had been trying for years to obtain a wheelchair ramp was instead offered euthanasia.

This is typical for leftists, to accuse their adversaries of doing something untoward while they themselves are actually doing that very thing.

----------------------



❖

We’re at the most dangerous point in humanity’s abusive relationship with US unipolar domination, for the same reason the most dangerous point in a battered wife’s life is right when she’s trying to escape. The empire is willing to do terrible and risky things to retain control.

“If I can’t have you no one can” is a line that can be said to a wife or to the world.

❖

Nobody likes feeling like they’re part of the problem. The reality that the US is the most tyrannical, murderous and belligerent government on earth causes people discomfort for the same reason they don’t like thinking about factory farming or their own socioeconomic privilege.

❖

Canada: We’re euthanizing people now.

Conservatives: EVIL! SATAN!

Canada: *Poor people.

Conservatives: We’re listening…

Euthanizing the poor is just capitalism finally being honest about itself. After all these years of falsely pretending to have real solutions to the problems it creates, it finally presents a solution entirely in alignment with its values that actually works. (Interesting that the headlines above are from Canada, which is the most socialist country in North America. Unfortunately for the author, capitalism is not at work in Canada. Or in America for that matter.)

Capitalism’s answer to “What about the poor?” has always been “They should work harder,” (No, this is incorrect. Capitalism doesn't have or need an answer since capitalism isn't a system. Thus it doesn't provides answers. Capitalism in a function of natural human behavior, the free and willing exchange of value. 

A capitalist would say, "Generosity is a human trait, so our moral duty as individuals is to give to the poor and not expect government to do so.")

and its answer to “What about those who can’t work?” has always been “They should die quickly.” (No, this is incorrect. More specifically, it is stupid. No one says this, let alone capitalists. Well, except maybe socialists.)

But until now it’s always been spoken wordlessly in the policies enacted and the societal structures put in place. Now it’s just right there, completely undisguised. It’s refreshingly honest.

❖

Landlords don’t “provide housing”, they restrict housing. The housing already exists; landlords just make it much harder for the people who need it to access it. (These are nothing more than assertions, undocumented and unsupported. 

Landlords own housing, which they graciously allow other people to occupy in a willing exchange of value. The housing only exists because a landlord was willing to take the financial risk of building it with the hope that enough people would want to live there that it would justify the investment risk.)

❖

Why is AP continuing to protect the anonymity of the US official who fed them a fake story about Russia attacking Poland? This is a very important question that demands serious answers. If government officials know they can get brazen lies anonymously published in the press and still have their anonymity protected after those lies are exposed, they will with 100% certainty continue to do so. Why wouldn’t they? There are no consequences. (Indeed. We agree with the author. The fake Russian dossier. "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it." The Hunter Biden laptop is finally admitted to be real. Joe Biden's quid pro quo. John Kerry colluding with Ukraine. "After my election I'll have more flexibility." Why no prosecution of those who used Epstein's services. 

Why are these people being protected? Well, they're leftists, of course.)

It’s obnoxious and unacceptable that the mass media currently hold random social media users to higher levels of accountability than powerful government officials who circulate lies that can start wars. Truman and Korea. JFK and the Bay of Pigs. LBJ and Vietnam. Bush and the Gulf war. None of these are conservatives.) 

❖

Western politicians, pundits and celebrities circulating the false claim that Iran sentenced 15,000 protesters to death is a good example of the way fact checking and journalistic responsibility go out the window when it’s a claim about a government the US empire wants to remove. (Does the author maybe want to talk about the agitprop circulated by the Soviets? The false narratives Castro circulated about Cuban healthcare? The abject failure of Venezuela's socialist experiment?

And how about the millions killed by Pol Pot, communist China, and of course, Stalin? And we cannot forget Hitler, who is often branded as right wing, but his behavior is right in line with the most authoritarian left wing tyrants of history.)

It’s also a good illustration of the point Glenn Greenwald is always repeating that the largest and most egregious purveyors of misinformation in the western world are not Russian trolls or conspiracy theorists but the mainstream western political/media class. (Pot calling the kettle black. The author has yet to tell the truth.)

❖

Again, the most important thing for a westerner to understand about Iran is that it’s none of your fucking business. The less western “help” Iranians are getting, the better it is for Iranians. Demands that you “support the Iranian people” are only ever made in bad faith. No material benefits come from you tweeting “yay Iranian protesters” with the relevant hashtags. All that happens is you draw more western attention to Iran, along with the support for interventionism that inevitably comes with it. (A lot of leftists voted in favor of the invasion of Iran.)

❖

Advocating peace and criticizing Nazis to trigger the libs.

❖

It is good that the idea of peace talks with Russia is gaining more mainstream support. It should have had full support from the beginning. It’s only due to propaganda that opposing endless escalations between nuclear superpowers isn’t the most mainstream normie position ever.

❖

Probably goes without saying but anyone who believes Trump would be meaningfully better than Biden on any issue that matters didn’t pay attention when he was president.

❖

I’m not a multipolarist, I’m an omnipolarist — I think everyone on earth should have an equal amount of power. (Which of course is as ridiculous as it is impossible.)

I want 8 billion equal poles. Multipolarity is just the practical lesser evil to unipolarity, because it turns out unipolarity requires constant war and nuclear brinkmanship to maintain.

People say multipolarity necessarily requires wars as well, but that’s not true. There’s no reason powers like China and the US can’t get along and collaborate in everyone’s interest. (Yes, there is a reason. There are always evil people in the equation.)

The only thing stopping that is the US empire’s desire to keep chasing total unipolar planetary domination. (This of course isn't happening. Rather, it is the socialists and communists who want to conquer, revolt, and overthrow.)

I’m always reluctant to commit to other people’s -ists and -isms, but I’m definitely big on omnipolarism and information anarchism.