RUSH: The New York Times, you know, the New York Times is a Bible to the American left. It’s a Bible to the journalism community. It’s a Bible to young Millennial journalists. And the New York Times has published two stories recently which, you know, I know who the Times is. I know what they do. I know they’re radical leftists. I know they’re not any longer mainstream leftists. There are two stories here, two columns, two op-eds, and one of them, I really don’t know how this one passed muster.
Now, the problem is that the New York Times readership is a bunch of sponges and they’re gonna soak this up, and they’re gonna be running around thinking that they’re now enlightened and they’ve learned something. And then there was another piece that ran this week claiming — this is not a new thought. This one does not surprise me they would run. But we’re gonna dissect both of these.
Capitalism is the threat to the world and must be replaced. Capitalism is the reason everything in the world is wrong is wrong, everything that’s bad is bad because of capitalism. And the column makes the point that capitalism is exclusively why we are losing the planet to climate change and the only solution to saving the planet is to eliminate capitalism and immediately swerve to Democrat socialism, democratic socialism.
So I’m gonna be taking yet another opportunity today to explain why socialism always ends up as dictatorship, why socialism always ends up being communism, why socialism ends up with people living in tyranny despite the dreams and the desires of the democratic socialists to create a utopia. There’s a very simple reason why socialism ends up as a tyranny. There’s a reason why socialism ends up having to build walls around countries to keep people in. It’s a very simple explanation.
But human nature is human nature. Human beings want wealth, they want better lifestyles, and human nature has an undeniable character of people pursuing power. And under socialism the only place anybody can go to acquire wealth and power is the government. And once you get there and you start utilizing the government to enrich yourself and to empower yourself, well, that’s when you start doing mean and bad things to everybody else in the general population.
And that is why there is no socialist utopia. It is why there never has been. It’s why there never will be, I don’t care what the dreams and desires are, but yet here’s the New York Times with yet another op-ed in a period of time I don’t know how many op-eds like this they have run: the problem in the world is capitalism. The problem with climate change is capitalism. The problem with illegal immigration is capitalism. Whatever the problem, capitalism is the root of all evil and must be eradicated.
But this piece crediting Charles Manson for being the intellectual inspiration and motivation for modern-day conservatism, how does that pass the editorial board, the op-ed page at the New York Times? It’s because number wants that story to run. And the reason they would want that story to run is because they are obsessed and consumed by sheer, utter hatred.
The American left today and the Democratic Party is the largest hate group in America. And as you look out over the news today, as I just did, and you see nothing but a cesspool and you give thanks that you’re not in it. The rage and the and the anger, the discontent, the absence of happiness are all are characteristics of modern-day liberals.
RUSH: Now the New York Times piece on capitalism as the threat to the world and it must be replaced. This is by somebody named Benjamin Fong. He’s a professor at Arizona State University. He says capitalism is the problem and environmentalism is the movement that can supersede it. Proving a point that I’ve always made, that modern-day environmentalism is simply the new home of communism.
Well, the movement that’s opposed to capitalism is communism, so there’s his admission. But here’s some of what he says in this piece. “The real culprit of the climate crisis is not any particular form of consumption, production or regulation but rather the very way in which we globally produce, which is for profit rather than for sustainability.”
So it’s the old argument, this guy’s got something up his craw, he’s very upset that everybody out there producing and creating and moving and distributing is doing it for profit. And that makes it evil, and that makes it bad, and that makes it horrible, and that makes it unequal. That makes it unfair. Instead, all of these producers and distributors and manufacturers should be doing it for one reason only: sustainability.
Did I not tell you? Sustainability is the keyword today in attracting Millennials and other unsuspecting young people. Sustainable energy, sustainable income, sustainable health care, sustainable what. So this guy is saying that the real culprit of the climate crisis is the pursuit of profit rather than the pursuit of sustainability. So everybody involved ought to just produce no more than what everybody needs and you should pay no more than what it costs, and the producer should make no more than what it costs. And so there would be essentially no cost to anything.
Of course, if nobody makes any money then what’s the motivation for this? What is the impetus? Why would anybody do it? And where does the original seed cost come from? I mean, if you’re gonna produce product X, somebody’s gonna have to make the investment in what’s necessary to produce it or manufacture it. If you don’t get paid until somebody buys it, and what guarantee is somebody gonna buy it? How do you know how much to produce, and then how much do you know to buy so that everything zeros out? It’s absurd.
But if you take profit out of it, you take motive, you take purpose, you take inspiration, you have no production to speak of. You’ll have no distribution. Why do it? People are gonna be working under the table in the black market trying to do things to make money. Human nature.
So this clown, this Fong guy says, ” So long as this order is in place,” the pursuit of profit instead of sustainability, “the crisis will continue and, given its progressive nature, worsen. This is a hard fact to confront. But averting our eyes from a seemingly intractable problem does not make it any less a problem. It should be stated plainly: It’s capitalism that is at fault,” in destroying the planet.”
There’s more, but please don’t ever forget this. Whenever you hear of any new proposal from the environmentalist wackos, United Nations, understand what it is. It is an attack on capitalism. And that means it is an attack on the United States. And that means it’s an attack on all of us.
RUSH: “Christmas Bonuses to Jump 66%, to $1,797.” People who work will have, on average, an extra $716 to spend for Christmas. This is the latest sign of a booming economy. Paul Bedard has it at the Washington Examiner. “Human resources officers from some 500 corporations anticipate a massive 66% increase in cash Christmas bonuses.”
So what’s happened here is that some survey firms have called various business. “You planning on bonusing your employees?”
“How much?” And they give them the figure, and so the figure is averaged, and that’s where the $1,797 comes from. Not saying that you are automatically gonna get a bonus. This is an average based on companies that have been talked to and 500 corporations anticipating this increase.
“Thirty-nine percent of companies plan to give employees other perks throughout the year instead of a bonus.” When was the last time you saw a story like this? When was the last time we saw a story on the economy booming, unemployment coming down, wages increasing, and bonuses? Do you remember any kind of stories like this during, say, the eight years of Obama? I, frankly, don’t. There weren’t any stories.
And there’s a reason for it and it’s Donald Trump and the stock market going nuts. The reason for it is Donald Trump. Donald Trump’s an optimist. And if anybody would have a right not to be an optimist, it’s Trump. If anybody had a right to be depressed and ticked off and angry and seething and plotting revenge each and every day, it would be Trump. He has been relentlessly assaulted, attacked, you name it, for over two years, two and a half years, and consistently every day with lies and distortions.
I mean, the entire apparatus of the Washington establishment has been mobilized for two years, and yet despite that, Trump remains optimistic and smiling, and he continues to fight back against these people to the point now where wages, increases, Christmas bonuses, economic growth 3% or more is routinely talked about. So in that context I guess it doesn’t surprise me the New York Times would be goaded here to running pieces trying to destroy the concept of capitalism.
I’m gonna read this paragraph to you again and ask you a question, especially for you Millennials out there. The day before Thanksgiving, as always on this program, has sort of evolved into a day of lessons, historical remembrances, teaching, if you will. Now, I realize that there are many people, it’s the fastest growing audience in American talk radio, and it’s the largest, and there are people tuning in new every day. And we’re the getting it from all demographics, all walks of life.
By the way, this is the one program in America, if you are outside the 18-49 demographic, we love you. Do you realize that in most of media, once you’re past the 18-49 demo, once you hit 50 or older, nobody cares about you. Advertisers don’t care about you, nobody cares about you, because there’s nothing they can sell you. You’ve already had your mind made up on pretty much everything you buy. Everybody associates youth with opportunity and potential and so forth. The 18-49 demographic, after you surpass that, no matter where you are, nobody cares about you. But not true here. We think there are teachable moments for everybody.
So let me read this graph again. “The real culprit of the climate crisis is not any particular form of consumption, production or regulation but rather the very way in which we globally produce, which is for profit rather than for sustainability.” Now, how many of you think it’s possible to produce only what we need, that doesn’t cost anybody anything, and that the producers don’t make any money? How many of you think that’s possible? How many think that’s desirable?
How are you gonna hire employees? What you are gonna pay ’em with? And where do you get the money required to manufacture the widgets if everything zeros out? Let me ask you this. You go to the butcher — butcher is an example here because Adam Smith used it in his book. When you go to the butcher and you’ve got an array of choices in front of you, “Wow. This is really cool. This is a great butcher.” You think that butcher has put that array of things there for you?
No. The butcher’s in business for himself. The butcher is trying to sell you things that he thinks you want and things that you need, and he’s trying to sell the best quality he can for a competitive price, but he’s doing this for himself. This is called selfishness by people that don’t understand it, self-interest by those who do. The butcher is not trying to make sure you eat every day. The butcher is not trying to make sure you have healthy food front of you. The butcher is trying to support himself.
The great thing about it is that you benefit, too, in the process because if the butcher weren’t doing that what would you have to do? You’d have to head out to the wilderness and find a steer and you’d have to kill it and you’d have to dress it and prepare it and you’d have to do everything the butcher does for you. The butcher saves you a lot of time, the butcher saves you a lot of trouble and you are willing to pay for that. And the butcher makes a little profit so that he can buy some of his own stuff for his own family. And bare essence is the theory.
But if there’s no profit anywhere, if nobody makes any money as a result of what they do, let’s say you’re an employee and your business makes widgets, and your business sells two million widgets, what do you get paid, and on what basis? Do you get paid only enough to where the employer doesn’t have to lose money paying you to make the widgets? When everything zeros out, you don’t have sustainability. You have nothing. Because there’s no reason for anybody to do anything.
“Yes, there is, Mr. Limbaugh. For the good of the community.” Oh, really? Everybody in a community is gonna do what they’re doing now and they’re gonna sell what they sell now, they’re gonna make what they make now, they’re gonna produce what they produce now for no money, you’re gonna buy it for no more than what it costs, and everybody’s gonna be just hunky-dory happy at the end of every day when all of this commerce is gone?
“That’s right. You’ve got it, Mr. Limbaugh. That’s exactly right.” Well, then what do you buy your house with or your apartment or your car, what do you buy that with? If there isn’t profit, if there is isn’t a pool of money for people to chase, there’s not gonna be a reason anything gets produced. What they want you to believe about capitalism is that everybody that’s in it is a selfishness rip off artist and all they’re doing is overcharging you and selling you a bunch of inferior garbage. They’re tricking you. They’re lying to you and they’re getting rich off of you and they got piles of money in the back room that you never see because they don’t share it with anybody. They’re evil, and the bigger the business, the worse it is.
If you doubt me, just listen to the Democrat Party and its enemies list of corporations, and it’s practically every one. It’s a nice sounding thing, sustainability, just produce things for what they cost and sell them for exactly what they cost and it’s just a beautiful thing and then everything would be more affordable. But it wouldn’t. There would be scarcity like you can’t imagine. There would be people killing people to get things to eat. There would be people doing horrible things to one another in order to get food, shelter, you name it.
“No, Mr. Limbaugh, the government would provide all that.” With what? Where does the government get its money? “Well, the government has all the money.” No. The government doesn’t. The government doesn’t have a dime until it takes it from you. The government might sell weapons to Saudi Arabia for a profit. Ah, ah, can’t do it for a profit, we have to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia for no more than what they cost us to make. Forgot that. There can’t be any profit because if there’s profit apparently there isn’t any sustainability. Horrible.
Next paragraph from this clown, Benjamin Fong. “The hope that we can empower intelligent people to positions where they can design the perfect set of regulations, or that we can rely on scientists to take the carbon out of the atmosphere and engineer sources of renewable energy, serves to cover over the simple fact that the work of saving the planet is political, not technical.
“We have a much better chance of making it past the 22nd century if environmental regulations are designed by a team of people with no formal education in a democratic socialist society than we do if they are made by a team of the most esteemed scientific luminaries in a capitalist society. The intelligence of the brightest people around is no match for the rampant stupidity of capitalism.”
It’s kind of a convoluted paragraph, but what the guy is saying is that there is no technical solution to climate change. It’s political. And that means socialist, and that means progressive and liberal. We have to keep the capitalists, the technical people out of it, because all they’re gonna care about is making a profit. This is so, so stupid. The United States is one of the least polluted places on the earth, and it is precisely the profit motive that has made that possible.
Anyway, I’m a little long. I have to take a quick time-out. But you get the drift. See, the left is in panic city here. We had eight years of Obama, and the eight years of Obama was supposed to produce a utopia, at least a panacea. We’re supposed to be on the road here to people being happier and more fulfilled; and there was gonna be more equality, no racism. There wasn’t gonna be any sexism, no sexual harassment, no rape, no bigotry, and it all exploded and there was worse incidents of that stuff during those eight years. And we’re only learning about it now.
We didn’t learn about it during the Obama years. We’re learning about all these excesses now. There wasn’t any economic growth, there wasn’t any prosperity, there wasn’t any advancing prosperity. The left knows in their hearts — they may not have the guts to admit it — but they know what they believe in doesn’t work. They get angry. They lash out. They’ve been lashing out here, well, all of our lives, but intensely for the last two and a half years.
RUSH: New York Times op-ed: “Charles Manson Was A Far Right Wing Ideologue — The New York Times published an op-ed Tuesday suggesting that Charles Manson was the harbinger for alt-right and white supremacists. Manson’s mission to cajole a slew of hippies to go on a murdering spree in 1969 to kickstart a race war paved the way for today’s alt-right.”
This piece is written by somebody named Baynard Woods. Now, this clown lives in Baltimore. He’s the senior editor of something there called the City Paper. He looks like a Pajama Boy in a fedora. There’s a picture of him here. He has a PhD in ancient philosophy. He writes librettos for rhymes with opera, and he preaches with the rock ‘n’ roll band The Barnyard Sharks. He’s the author of some wacko books and so forth. But he’s basically just an academic in Baltimore, and he claims that it is Manson, because what Manson’s original purpose was to kick off a race war.
And this gets published in the New York Times. I know it’s an op-ed, but somebody in the op-ed page, the editor there, has to look at this and pass muster on it. Charles Manson, who served a life sentence — he would have been put to death except the state of California got rid of the death penalty right around the time he was being sentenced. He was a lunatic, certifiably insane. Yet the left was fascinated with this guy.
If anybody was fascinated with Manson, it was the left. The left are the ones that made movies about the guy. The left are the ones that wrote books about the guy, Helter Skelter, Vincent Bugliosi. These guys are famous left-wing radicals or Democrats, mainstream Democrats that are fascinated with this guy. Why would he do it? Who made him tick? What was it about Manson? It was almost like a romantic notion they had with this guy. TV journalists of the era reveled in the fact that they once interviewed Manson. Even the police department, the LAPD back then had elements of the department that were almost groupie-like toward Manson, before all of the violence began.
Before the violence began he was just a well-known ragtag sponge. The guy sponged off everybody. He had a Svengali effect, particularly on young women. Do you remember the name “Squeaky” Fromme? What did “Squeaky” Fromme do? Where? It was in San Francisco. Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme was one of Charles Manson’s acolytes, lived in the commune. They were just a bunch of filthy human debris, folks, and yet the left is fascinated by this guy.
They’ve written books about him. They’ve done movies about him. To us he’s just full-fledged human debris and not worthy of another moment’s notice. The left has kept this guy alive. Every parole hearing, the Drive-Bys would get together and wonder if there’s any way Manson could somehow being released. There was a morbid fascination with this guy.
They come along now in the New York Times and claim that this guy is the reason why I think what I think and that you think what you think. And this guy, Charles Manson, was the harbinger of modern-day conservatism? Why? Because this lunatic, Baynard whatever his name is, thinks that modern-day conservatism is nothing more than racism, that modern-day conservatives are the modern day equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan, forgetting that the Klan was the military wing of the Democrat Party.
Folks, we’re playing for keeps here is the point. The New York Times is a Bible. There are lots of young people reading this, seeing this. It’s gonna be amplified. Lots of people reading this garbage, and they’re gonna believe it. They’re young, they’re impressionable, they’re not yet old enough to have been sufficiently educated. And, by the way, have you seen the surveys of Millennials that say, well over 50% of them think socialism is wonderful is preferable precisely because to them it’s been pitched as sustainable?