BadEagle.com Header Image

 

Bad Eagle Journal

Communists, Unions, and Global Gangs

by David Yeagley · December 13, 2012 · 9 Comments ·

February 23,1904, an elderly religious woman wrote:

The trade unions will be the cause of the most terrible violence that has ever been seen among human beings.

The same author, Ellen G. White, wrote the year before, “Trades unions will be formed, and those who refuse to join these unions will be marked men,” and “the trade unions will be one of the agencies that will bring upon this earth a time of trouble such as has not been since the world began.”

It was a different time in American history, true, but, the Communist Manifesto was written in 1848, and the issue between labor and management (workers and corporations) was already clearly defined on a most primitive, materialistic basis. There were only two classes: the bourgeois and the proletariat, or the haves, and the have nots. It was Communism’s mission to distribute wealth equally. So goes the delusion. Communism makes poor people poorer, and makes more of them. Only the leaders become indescribably wealthy, and there are fewer of them in Communism.


Traditional wrought-iron guild sign of a glazier in Germany. In the local, home-spun days, when the guild member had control over his own shop, there was little danger of coercion. The Ironworkers union of today is a far cry from a Medieval guild. Unions have become national and international powers.

Plato would certainly have scorned such a materialistic delusion as having anything to do with equality. Equality based on material things was anathema in his concept of a state. Equality had to do with justice, not materialism. Indeed, leaders were not to base judgment on material conditions. Justice was not measured by material equality. “The Notion of Equality,” Book Six, The Laws (360 B.C.) (This passage is on pp.229, 230, in the Saunders translation for Penguin, 1970.)

Actually, Plato’s notion reflects the early Mosaic teaching of the Torah, on two points:
1. Exodus 30:13. One offering for the temple, half a shekel, from each male of the age of 20 (at a census). “The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less.”
2. Leviticus 24:22. One law for the foreigner and native alike. No exceptions to accommodate alien ways, values, or customs. Nothing to do with social status or material conditions.

But Communists like the current president of the United States, preach that the poor should have more material things, indeed, that there should be less poor people. Thus, Communism appeals directly to covetousness.

But, again, according to the Law of Moses, the poor are not exempt from covetousness. “Thou shalt not covet,” as the Lord wrote with His own finger, in stone, pertains both to rich and poor. Nor are the rich incapable of generosity. Deuteronomy 15:11 says,

For the poor shall never perish out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother.

Charity is never to be offered with the thought that it will remove poverty. President Lydon B. Johnson’s “war on poverty” was blasphemy, and the Communist (Democrat) appeal to greed is forever alien to the Divine mandates.

But Obama went to Michigan to dramatize greed. “You’ve been wronged!” he shouted, essentially. Thus he, as all Communists and Democrats, justify greed with an imagined moral imperative. You’ve been wronged, if you’re poor. You’ve been wronged by people who are rich. It is your “right” to have more. It is right that you should have more.

No such concept exists in biblical theology or even sociology.

On the other hand, The gospel narratives and the apostolic letters seem clearly to condemn the mistreatment of labor by the rich (e.g., James 5:1-6). Of course, the Bible nowhere condemns slavery–which is nothing but permanent employment, if considered in terms of labor and management.

So, we see the modern world, with its marvelous advances in political science and social structure, particularly in America, still does not escape the basic circumstances of life: labor and management. Karl Marx, of Jewish heritage, was certainly right about that division. What he was dead wrong and blasphemous about is the matter of material possessions. Certainly, management is going to own more than labor, always. But it is not an intrinsic sin to thus own more. Nor has labor been necessarily wronged in that it owns less. The division of labor itself is inevitable and necessary in any society. Hierarchy is simply the way mankind exists. Efforts against the wind are the luxury of academic idealists, or often the unleashed passion of greedy delusionists.

Labor and violence, now, that’s a different story. That’s what we saw in Michigan.

Modern labor unions are not necessarily the heirs of the Medieval European guilds. They are the bastards of cruel capitalist management. The guilds were more akin to secret societies, private brotherhoods, and they did seek control over the trade in their townships, but this is pithy, and local. There is no concept approaching the magnitude of a modern labor union. Unions have become national powers. And unions are about coercion. Thus, they include all manner of disruptives, malcontents, juveniles, Communists, and anarchists. The sincere, urgent need of 19th century factory labor to protect itself and its children from ineffable abuse gave rise to the social lusus naturae of modern coercionists.

(In a way, Communism can be interpreted as simply reactionary–a 19th century outrage against the ravages of the Industrial Revolution. The Communism of Karl Marx and today’s Democrats is based on fear, more than anything else. This is why Democrats appeal so directly to emotion, and never to intellectual awareness, and perception.)

Rush Limbaugh said today that unions are not about jobs, wages, or benefits. Unions are a money laundry for the Democrat Party. Dues go directly to campaigns, ads, and political pockets. In concept, perhaps they are free to operate in such a way. However, they are not free to force others–and that’s exactly what they do. In this, they are like gangsters, mafia, and street ruffians. They are the true Nazi “brown shirts” of today.

Interesting take on the subject.

One thing we can say for sure. The book of Revelation (13:16,17) says the whole world will end in a gargantuan global effort to coerce all people through an economic union:

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Not a pleasant thought, but, at least the unpleasantness ahead will not include the element of surprise for the believers.

Posted by David Yeagley · December 13, 2012 · 10:34 pm CT · ·

Tags: American Patriotism · Bad Eagle Journal · Christianity · Communism · Conservatism · Liberalism · Politics · Religion




Read More Journal Posts »

9 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Bonus Gift // Dec 14, 2012 at 2:34 am   

    Like much in “modern” life whatever the original intent of unions they sure seem to have mutated (or maybe they always were) into a form of evil. Also, like the democrat leadership themselves they seem to require emotional appeal to justify their evil deeds. For example and as you state, they seem to take it as axiomatic that it is OK to coerce and even physically hurt for the cause of material ‘equality’. Even ignoring the evil intent for a moment, the key issues of many things like this that are driving our destruction these days are twofold.

    Firstly, there is a gapping chasm between what the currently evil philosophy says should be and the way things actually are. For example, unions are supposed to stick up for the “little guy”, or at least that is what we are repeatedly told by them. The reality is that the most powerful unions do nothing of the sort (i.e., outside of lip service). Arguably the largest and most powerful unions (i.e., the teachers’ unions) represent themselves at the expense of the students. Aren’t children the ultimate vulnerable little guys and gals (I guess the unborn would be even more so; and we know where most, if not all, “progressive” union leaders stand on that.). The most powerful “private” unions like the AFL-CIO have no concern whatsoever for workers who do not pay dues (again, they provide lip service). That pack of thieves has been directly complicit in shipping jobs overseas and making American manufacturing as uncompetitive as possible as long as they “got theirs” in the short run (i.e., medical, retirement, etc. benefits). I could go on, but the key is the almost, if not complete, disconnect between what they do and what they say.

    Secondly, there is the issue of the gap between what they claim empirically and anything approaching actual empirical reality. For example, I’ve often heard AFL-CIO types scream that without them the average non-union worker would have wages and benefits much lower than they have (not union but non-union). The reality is that in some sense the national economy is a fixed pie (i.e., at any one point in time), therefore that it is impossible for non-union members to get more if union members get more, by definition (i.e., in the very short run at least). Furthermore, and more to the point, it is factually not true. For example, do you really think that the average worker in California is better off because the average unionized teacher in California is the highest paid in the country? Besides that not being possible in theory, a graph of teachers’ union wages against non-union private wages would show one going up and one down (i.e., at least on a relative real basis, which is what matters). That type of graph shows a long term relationship, and, thus, whether we are talking a short run fixed pie or a hopefully growing long term one, real union wage increases relative to non-union private ones must be at the expense of (i.e., at least in part) non-union wages (i.e., both, by definition in the short run and empirically when looked at relative to the non-union workers in the long run). But union “leaders” will never provide evidence of what they claim and/or logic (or just provide doctored numbers from a paid for “think tank”), it just devolves into a shouting match. Furthermore, does anyone really think, for example, that children’s public education would suffer if teachers wages and benefits were some fraction of what they are today; or, if GM’s unionized autoworkers were paid the same as non-unionized workers that the GM effective bankruptcy would even been necessary? No, despite all the sound and fury to the contrary, the empirical reality is that unions in the US have been a disaster, especially the public ones. What’s the definition of insanity again?

    The problem as I see it is that some unions may have been originally useful as counterweights to powerful monopoly or oligopoly interests; yet those monopoly and oligopoly interest never should have been allowed in the first place. In addition, over time some monopoly and oligopoly interests just colluded with their respective unions to create an even worse economic and social morass than when it began. “Public unions” are a kid of oxymoronic version of that occurring as politicians and unions settled into a cozy back scratching relationship that is now at the “until death do we part” stage. The issue is that the country is at risk of death and the politicians and unions don’t care. Truly a study in concentrated private interests dominating and perverting national ones (i.e., uneconomic from the country’s standpoint, not the individual union or politician’s standpoint – see Milton Friedman on this one). It is things like this that convince me that there is no solution outside of LIB (“Let It Burn”). Things like unions just show that some people would rather let the country burn down slowly without the hope of setting it right than give up their own ill begotten cut of the pie; so for me, let them reap what they sow and LIB.

  • 2 Bonus Gift // Dec 14, 2012 at 5:30 am   

    DY: I know this is more related to your last piece, but it is something in the favor of France that I think you might to discuss
    .
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ims4r1fCExY&feature=youtu.be

  • 3 Bonus Gift // Dec 14, 2012 at 5:34 am   

    Also, I forgot to add that the hammer is, in my opinion, an underappreciated weapon, especially against muslims.

  • 4 David Yeagley // Dec 14, 2012 at 11:09 am   

    The proliferation of organizations, clubs, societies, etc., seems related to the natural evolution of society. The more numbers in a human conclave, the more necessary to organize.

    I think, psychologically, we can only handle a group of about 30. Then we need a second organization of some kind. This is abundantly clear in church congregations.

    And in the Kibbutzim.

    And in the old Comanche bands.

    Beyond an extended family, we need more than one organization to manage things.

  • 5 Thrasymachus // Dec 14, 2012 at 5:05 pm   

    The Bible already tells us that workmen are entitled to wages. It is a sin if a businessman, having the means, acts as Ebezener Scrooge and does not pay his employees a living wage.

    People are not all equal in their capacity to MANAGE money. With many — indeed most — of those to whom Obama appeals, the money will simply slip through their fingers and they will once again believe that they have been wronged.

    All this Communist greed comes from not believing in God’s justice.

  • 6 Thrasymachus // Dec 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm   

    Let’s have the courage to say it. The modern Liberal Democrat Party is, for all practical intents and purposes, an Atheist organization. They demonstrated this at their recent convention when they scorned and hissed at the mention of God by one of their speakers.

    This is not to say that all persons who prefer this party are Atheists. The organization itself, though, certainly hates God.

  • 7 Thrasymachus // Dec 14, 2012 at 7:10 pm   

    With tragic consequences yet to come, our nation has lost sight of its founding principles:

    “And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions.” — Thomas Jefferson — First Inaugural Address
    March 4, 1801

  • 8 Thrasymachus // Dec 14, 2012 at 7:14 pm   

    Can one even imagine a modern US President speaking words of this quality and with HUMILITY?

    Thomas Jefferson First Inaugural Address

  • 9 Sioux // Dec 14, 2012 at 8:52 pm   

    My Dad was a union man back in the 50s – worked in a Chemical plant in Downriver Detroit. Back in those days, the company didn’t make any distinction between skilled and unskilled labor as far as pay went. That was the fight that the union fought and won with the help of my father and a few other men.

    In America, people are upwardly and downwardly mobile. A millionaire today can be broke tomorrow. Young people may start off poor, but most don’t end up that way. But, if you go to school to learn something that no one gives a rat’s patoot about, then don’t be surprised that one wants to pay you very much. It’s all about the Skills. Unions no longer care about that. They just want your dues money. Proof is in the pudding by how few want to be in a union.

    So, this Michigandergoose is plum pleased at what happened here this week…and very very very surprised that our Repub Gov & Legislature had the gonads to get this done. Just WOW

You must log in to post a comment.