Beware: Nancy Pelosi Is Not Just a Spoiled Millionairess
Written by Rene Guerra
Thursday, January 11, 2007 David Brooks, the conservative columnist of the New York Times, came out with an article proposing the hypothesis that millionaire Nancy Pelosi is just another fake populist. He portrayed her and her kind of opulent leftist Democrats, as just infants terribles engaged in a childish duel for power with their Republican counterparts.
But, Alas: Pelosi and her leftist brethren consider themselves part of something that resembles the nomenklatura, the top-stratum elite in any communist or socialist society (and notoriously made highly noticeable in the defunct Soviet Union) that places itself in a superior privileged position to the proletariat, or the populace. That is, all the rest of us.
Those who may think it bizarre that a millionaire could spouse leftist ideas, should just remember that the best place for miscreants to hide well is among their opposites.
Wichita, Kansas BKT serial killer didn’t hide in skid row; Dennis Lynn Rader was a model family man, an active church member, and a law enforcement officer . . . well, a dog catcher.
Not many people would have dared to even think the terrible heresy that the sanctity of many Catholic priests was mere self-serving–until the worldwide news of raped altar boys came out in the open a few years ago.
The say goes: “The habit doesn’t a monk make”; affluence doesn’t make one a capitalist. Friedrich Engels, a billionaire under current standards, is the co-author with Karl Marx of “The Communist Manifesto.” Engels is furthermore one of the most venerated theoreticians and ideologues of the
Valhalla of the left, and he was Marx’s financier and only source of sustenance.
Enrique Álvarez-Córdova, a Salvadoran millionaire acquaintance that I had met in my youth as a polo player, and whom I later in life met again as a colleague in the Salvadoran government cabinet of 1979, was abducted, and most savagely tortured and murdered by the infamous Salvadoran ultra-right death squads, around the end of 1980. He had been a clandestine member of the Communist Party of El Salvador since his young adulthood, and made the lethal mistake of “outing” himself precisely at the apex of urban political violence in
El Salvador. Sometime in December 1979, he confided to me that he acquired his leftist leanings during his college-student years at
University. He was a warm man with a huge heart, an idealist who, unfortunately, grew to believe in communism. He, as many, became polarized by the socio-economic feudalism and stone-age political environment that reigned in El Salvador at the time, and that fortunately ended about 15 years ago, upon the monumental collapse of the
Soviet Union. Such a momentous event in part provided a safer environment for the broad political aperture that then started to take place in El Salvador; there were no more of Moscow’s agents roaming through
Latin America sowing Bolshevik revolution.
Had Álvarez-Córdova lived in communism, or had
El Salvador turned communist, he would have been among the first to be purged, Stalinist style. Paradoxically, he believed in participatory, horizontal democracy, and not in that abominable leftist contraption called “democratic centralism,” referring to the rule by the Central Committee of the Communist Party or by the nomenklatura.
See also the case of billionaire George Soros, who uses the vast fortune he accumulated via one of the most extreme expressions of capitalism, speculating on currencies, to advance even the most bizarre leftist enterprises aimed at undermining
What about the late billionaire Armand Hammond, the son of the United States Communist Party founder, Julius Hammond? Armand Hammond was the most prominent purveyor of western goods and services to the Soviet Union since the times of Lenin until his, Hammond’s, death when only Russia was the leftover of the
USSR. And he hid so well his true nature that he was a generous political donor to the Republicans, particularly to Richard Nixon. Hammer even went to jail for illicit donations he made to the Nixon presidential campaign. The western goods and services he provided to the Soviet Union were of great importance to help keep the
Soviet Union going. He did a great service to Soviet communism while lining his pockets and living in opulence.
Lenin preached to leftists to use capitalism’s proficiency to acquire and accumulate wealth, and, in the process, use it to destroy capitalism itself. The mechanism is similar to what a virus does when taking over a healthy cell to reproduce itself many million times and in the process leach its host to total extinction. That technique has been embraced by those sectors of the left who clearly understand that revolution by peasants and laborers in developed economies is not possible, as it perfectly is in feudalistic ones. Hence some in the left in the West, and particularly here in the
United States, morph themselves, like perfect chameleons, into apparent capitalists. They know that words talk, but money works, and money they accumulate by tons. They know that in a capitalist society what weighs the most is the accumulation of wealth, and that’s logically and precisely what they do to finance the advancement of their cause. In the process they live la vie en rose.
The leftist sector that has been in control of the Democrat Party since the mid 1960s won’t be happy until it socializes
America. The rest of the world would then follow like lemmings jumping down the precipice. (Well, that’s not exactly true; most of Europe is already well advanced on that route, plus most of the Western Hemisphere, with the exception of the
United States and less that a fistful of Latin American countries.)
American leftists dream of a socialist
America, with them in the nomenklatura at the top, and the rest of us as an ant colony of androids and zombies, obeying their dictates. They won’t relent until they see Americans queuing in long lines, with their ration coupons in their hands to get the most basic staples, or waiting for months to get a medical appointment even with the greenest physician. They dream of all of us sharing the misery–but with them, the nomenklatura, exempted, of course.
But the most lethal danger that Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat Party nomenklatura and the left in general pose to America and the free world, is that in the process of attempting to socialize America they inevitably must debilitate her to mass hopelessness and malaise. Then they, the leftists, can come out like knights in shining armors to save America from its predicament, with the left’s destructive socialist policies.
And in the process of debilitating
America, leftists make her more vulnerable, than what as an open society she inherently is, to an apocalyptically deadly enemy: Islamo-Fascism.
That’s how Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat Party nomenklatura and the left in general are in effect in a symbiotic alliance with Islamo-Fascism. The left knows that Islamo-Fascism seeks to debilitate America, and more; Islamo-Fascism knows that the left seeks to debilitate
America, and more. Neither of the two likes what they correctly see in
America: the world’s utmost inextinguishable beacon of freedom, perpetual fountain of effective democracy, inexpugnable bastion of individual rights, and the inexhaustible mother lode of free entrepreneurship.
What else could explain Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat Party nomenklatura and the left in general adopting attitudes, promoting policies and playing politics that in effect help Islamo-Fascists?
Pelosi and other millionaire leftists in the Democrat Party nomenklatura are not just the infatuated-with-power spoiled brats that David Brooks wishes they were; they are a real threat to America, and the only hope is that Democrats who at least care for America’s national security, such as Joseph Lieberman (despite that he is an abortionist, homosexualist, and big-brotherist), one day rescue the Party of Thomas Jefferson from the claws of Karl Marx.
And, finally, even if Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat Party nomenklatura were just populists, see what populists do to nations.
See what Juan Domingo and Eva “Evita” Perón made out of
Argentina, in the first third of last century. Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world, but now it is a complete basket case. See what the arch-corrupt PRI (Partido Revolutionario Institucional or Institutional Revolutionary Party) has made out of Mexico, a country of vast natural resources, but another basket case in
Latin America. See what Hugo Chávez is making out of immensely petrodollar and minerals rich
Venezuela. It’s not attractive.
Then see how stagnant and stale socialists have made
Western Europe. There’s n
othing attractive there either!
No, this is not a squabble between vineyard-tycoons and cattle-ranch barons, as naively, or maybe wishfully thinking, Brooks attempts to portray it. It is a titanic battle for
America between leftism and capitalism. Plain and simple!