Do We Live Under Socialism or Oligarchy?

todayOctober 30, 2014 2 1

share close

We Do NOT Live Under Socialism But Are Robbed In An Oligarchy

Get your AUTOGRAPHED copy In the Founders Tradin' Post Today!
Get your AUTOGRAPHED copy In the Founders Tradin’ Post Today!

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript Socialist.  This is another word that is used far too often and used in an inappropriate context.  What we have is an oligarchy.  We don’t have a socialism.  There’s a difference.  An oligarchy is where the system is rigged for the haves at the expense of the have-less.  There is a massive transfer of wealth into endeavors, industries, and services, etc. that is coerced.  It is coerced by the power of government to the benefit of those at the top of the food chain.  That’s an oligarchy.”  Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  Socialist.  This is another word that is used far too often and used in an inappropriate context.  What we have is an oligarchy.  We don’t have a socialism.  There’s a difference.  An oligarchy is where the system is rigged for the haves at the expense of the have-less.  There is a massive transfer of wealth into endeavors, industries, and services, etc. that is coerced.  It is coerced by the power of government to the benefit of those at the top of the food chain.  That’s an oligarchy.

It may appear, Derek, like it’s socialism.  I understand where you get this from.  You want to look at the redistribution programs, welfare, AFDC, Medicaid, Medicare.  I think your head is in the right place, and your heart is certainly in the right place.  Understand that attendant with those programs, there is a significant attachment to major industrial and multinational corporation concerns, whether it’s an agricultural one, whether it’s a military-industrial complex one, whether it’s an accounting one, whether it’s one that purports to provide medical services.  In the end, it all winds up being an oligarchy.  It winds up being for the benefit of those that are connected at the expense of those that are not.

Just imagine for a moment — I gave the example earlier today, I don’t know if you heard it, if you really want to try and solve the problem of people not having appropriate medical services, or allegedly not having access to appropriate medical services, and if those that work inside medical services do so not for profit, which they do and they should, then there’s a way to arrive at this.  Eliminate all the government-run centers that administer these things instead of sending people inside programs with reams of rules and regulations and armies that number in the tens of millions, and this includes the healthcare workers that have to administer this grand scheme.  Instead of doing that, eliminate all that.  You’ll come out far cheaper.  You’ll be far more effective.  Just send them the money.

[private FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76]

Do it by income, do it by scale, do a direct subsidy, and when your subsidy is gone — this is how the National Institute of Health basically works.  I know it’s not exactly how it works but it’s basically how it works in Canada.  When you’ve exhausted your yearly allotment of Canadian health service, what do you do?  You go to the United States.  You go find it somewhere else.  Maybe you wouldn’t have to leave the United States when you’ve exhausted your subsidy.  You instead go to Iowa or you go to Florida or whatever the case may be.

The point of the exercise is that we’ve eliminated the government part of this.  We’ve eliminated the middle man.  We’ve taken out the bureaucrat.  He is no longer employed.  The resources that were used to employ the bureaucrat are now no longer being forcibly directed by the state.  Folks, what I’m giving you is the sum total of the Austrian School of economic thought, which I believe to be correct in most things.  I think Wilhelm Röpke was the greatest of those thinkers.

I know many of you think it was Hayek.  We don’t have to be enemies over this.  You’re free to think that.  Many of you think it was Mises.  Again, we don’t have to be enemies over this.  I just think it’s Röpke because Röpke understood that pure economics does not exist without the moral foundation of a society.  That’s the difference between Röpke, Hayek, and Mises.  That does not mean [mocking] “Mike Church said Hayek was a loser and so was Mises.”  I did not say anything of the sort.  I said that Röpke’s application of Austrian thought, I believe, is preferable.  As a matter of fact, I believe it’s the only one that’s practical in the long term.  Having said that, it’s still Austrian School.

Röpke’s book by John Zmirak will be on this show tomorrow, Toward a Humane Economy.  It’s great stuff.  At the end of World War II — many Wilhelm_Ropkepeople don’t know this — Wilhelm Röpke, Austrian, was consulted by the allied powers, was consulted by the interim German government to help provide an economic blueprint for how to get Germany back on track.  Many of Röpke’s ideas were used.  Many of them were not used.  Röpke counseled: You can’t just force feed these people a secular, democratic system.  They’re going to become similar to what they were when they created Hitler.

I’m not going to imply that the Germans today are on the verge of going back to the Third Reich; however, Germany is and remains unrepentant as a Godless, soulless, democratic, secular stronghold, which is in defiance of the old Germanic tradition.  Röpke saw this happening.  Do you know who Röpke had to fight?  Guess who Röpke had to duel with over a human economy?  Again, Zmirak can talk about this tomorrow.  He had to fight the United States.  It was us, we were the ones saying: No, no, we can’t have any God clauses in there.  The German people don’t need God.  Yeah, well, I think they had a nice healthy dose of the devil, you know, millions gassed in gas chambers, millions slain all across the European countryside, schemes to develop weapons of mass destruction unlike the world had ever seen, schemes to develop those weapons of mass destruction over entire continents.  I think we’ve had enough of the diablo-inspired German traditions.  But Röpke was told by the Brits, by the United States, and certainly by Stalin: No, your little schemes and plans for the humane economy, you get out of here with that.  You can work on the currency exchange.  You can work on restoring some of the economic infrastructure but that’s it.

Again, we don’t live in a socialist country; we live in an oligarchy.  I believe that our oligarchy basically is an American form of Soviet communism.  The communal part, the part that we all have in common is commerce.  You can say we live in a commercinism.  That’s where we have a commercinism.  People worship the god of acquisition.  What can we get next?  What digital device am I going to get next?  What digital program am I going to watch next?  It’s unified us.  It does unify us.  It’s part of our culture, the digital or analog delivery of these things.  Think about it.  Statism is our religion.  The Lincoln Memorial is a temple.  The Jefferson Memorial and the Washington Monument are religious temples.  They are symbols of the state religion.  Go to the Supreme Court building.  Look at the frieze at the top of the exterior of the building.  You’ll even find a sculpture up there of Mohammed, the so-called prophet.  What’s underneath?  It’s the real temple.  In other words, those guys up there, they thought they were gods before.  Inside this building is where the real gods are.

Is it any coincidence that inside the pillars or inside the halls of government in the United States today that the exteriors of many of these buildings resemble the Acropolis, resemble the Parthenon?  What is Parthenon literally translated?  Thenon, theos, what is it?  It’s where the gods live, where the gods reside.  It’s what a Parthenon literally translated means.  When you see a building that has those Parthenon-looking columns outside.  [mocking] “Oh, that’s Roman architecture.”  No, it’s not, it’s temple architecture.  Inside is god.  Go in there and get on your knees and beg him for his mercy.  Maybe he’ll give you a check.  Maybe he’ll give you a grant.  Maybe he’ll pass a law to help your business.  Our god Uncle Sam is merciful.  He is wise.


Face it!  Stop fighting it.  The government of the United States created by the Constitution is a religious institution.  You have people running around, God love them, but they could not be more destructive to their own cause if they attempted to.  They run around and say something to the effect of: I believe in our Constitution.  That’s what I believe in.  Really?  Really?  A plan for a government written by fallible men, who admitted they were fallible, who told us they were fallible and they probably screwed it up, you believe?

This site is supported by your Founders Pass memberships and purchases in the Founders Tradin’ Post, can Mike count on your support today? Shop the Tradin’ Post and become a Founders Pass member.

I take that to philosophically or theologically mean you believe.  You have faith.  It’s an article of faith.  In other words, you don’t believe in God.  Well, maybe you do somewhere.  [mocking] “God deals with those other things but not government.”  You believe in faith.  You have faith in man, faith in human endeavor, not in the divine authority that created all this beauty.  No, no, men is what I have faith in.  Founding men is what I have faith in.  This is at the core, at the root of the problem.  There is no extricating it.  There is no other way to look at it.

End Mike Church Show Transcript

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
author avatar

Written by: AbbyMcGinnis

Rate it

Post comments (1)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
1 Comment
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x