Millenials Love the Old White Guy Bernie Sanders – A Thanksgiving Lesson

“Old White Guys” have been the most hated subset of a race of people in the U.S. for years now, but Old White Jewish Guy, Bernie Sanders, has turned it all around. Millenials love the the Elder Commie Dude. If an old White Guy will give you stuff, it’s all good with those coming from universities over the past ten or so years. The common denominator is getting things free. Bernie believes in it. They believe in Bernie. He claims he is a Democrat Socialist, and if you believe what he says he can do, he can give you more than Barack Obama. Below the article from The Hill is the true story of socialism and the first Thanksgiving.

Cartoon courtesy of Taylor Jones. Click for more.

Cartoon courtesy of Taylor Jones. Click for more.

Millennials love Sanders and his super-fair democratic socialism. My Twitter feed is #feelthebern all day long, and for those who’ve attended his rallies, forget about it; that’ll buy you more State University street cred than a handlebar mustache and a Metallica t-shirt (both worn ironically, of course)

Anybody watching can pinpoint Sanders’s millennial appeal, no Ph.D. in voter psychology required. It’s not his youth, hipness or dynamic personality that’s attracting youngsters like a millennial-magnet. It’s his socialism. Socialism may be a bad word among square, non-university-professor Americans, but Sanders and his millennial followers will bend your ear all day long about the fact that you just don’t understand what socialism is.

What is socialism?

Simple. Socialism is an economic system in which there are no money worries so everyone does what they are best suited for (except entrepreneurs, of course).

Capitalism is insensitive, and the free market is a bully designed to rob people of their uniqueness. If you want to be an actor, your bank account might quickly inform you that you are no Brad Pitt. If you feel destined to be a great American novelist, the power company has no qualms about turning the lights out on your dreams. Socialism loves you and thinks you’re talented.

Millennial culture is all about big rewards for minimal effort: participation trophies of the mind. Every week it seems some new superhero movie breaks the box office record set by last week’s superhero movie. Read more at The Hill

Rush Limbaugh first laid out in his book, See I Told You So – Chapter 6 Dead White Guys, or What the History Books Never Told You…the truth about Thanksgiving. In the history below, you’ll see the first socialist society in the U.S., and the negative fruits of that failed society.

The True Story of Thanksgiving — The story of the Pilgrims begins in then early part of the seventeenth century (that’s the 1600s for those of you in Rio Linda, California). The Church of England under King James I was persecuting anyone and everyone who did not recognize its absolute civil and spiritual authority. Those who challenged ecclesiastical authority and those who believed strongly in freedom of worship were hunted down, imprisoned, and sometimes executed for their beliefs. A group of separatists first fled to Holland and established a community.

After eleven years, about forty of them agreed to make a perilous journey to the New World, where they would certainly face hardships, but could live and worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible. The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example.

And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work. But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford’s detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, he wrote.

There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims – including Bradford’s own wife – died of either starvation, sickness or exposure. When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats.

Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments.

Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well. They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well.

Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it. It was a commune, folks. It was the forerunner to the communes we saw in the ’60s and ’70s out in California – and it was complete with organic vegetables, by the way. Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives. He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. That’s right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn’t work!”

It never has worked! “What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently.

What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild’s history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future.

‘The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years…that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,’ Bradford wrote.

For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense … that was thought injustice.’

Why should you work for other people when you can’t work for yourself? What’s the point? Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive.

So what did Bradford’s community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property.

Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result?

‘This had very good success,’ wrote Bradford, ‘for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.’

Bradford doesn’t sound like much of a Clintonite” I wrote then “does he? Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? Yes.

Read the story of Joseph and Pharaoh in Genesis 41. Following Joseph’s suggestion (Gen 41:34), Pharaoh reduced the tax on Egyptians to 20% during the ‘seven years of plenty’ and the ‘Earth brought forth in heaps.’ (Gen. 41:47) In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves.

Now, this is where it gets really good, folks, if you’re laboring under the misconception that I was, as I was taught in school. So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the ‘Great Puritan Migration.'” But this story stops when the Indians taught the newly arrived suffering in socialism Pilgrims how to plant corn and fish for cod. That’s where the story stops, and the story basically doesn’t even begin there.

The real story of Thanksgiving is William Bradford giving thanks to God for the guidance and the inspiration to set up a thriving colony. The bounty was shared with the Indians. They did sit down and they had dinner, and I think they had a turkey, but it was not the Indians who saved the day. It was capitalism and Scripture which saved the day.”

Please consider passing the story on to your children, maybe to their teachers –– and your Congressmen/women, who have the need to know.


Linked at BadBlue, uncensored news, 24/7. Read it here.

If you have time, please vote in the presidential poll top right side.

If you would like to receive Maggie’s Notebook daily posts direct to your inbox, no ads, no spam, EVER, enter your email address in the box below.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 957 other subscribers

  • Bernie Sanders was appalled by the wide variety of deodorants he saw on a store shelf. Such a waste, he decried, when all you need is one or two and the rest of that effort could have been put to use feeding the poor, or helping the collective in some way shape or form.

    If you want millennials to run screaming from Mr. Sanders, see if he would apply the same standard to phones as he does to deodorant? WHy do you need a Galaxy Five and an iPhone 6 and all the rest? Let the state decide for you what the best phone is and let the state limit your choices so you aren’t wasting precious resources on stuff you really want instead of what the state thinks is best for you?

    • Mike, you should make this a post. Dim bulbs –– all that school debt –– and they don’t get it.

      • Great minds, Maggie! I already took the above comment, amplified on it a bit, with a link to you and have it scheduled to post Monday AM.

  • EchoBuster

    I’m curious why you think Bernie believes everyone should get everything for free? Taxation is a big part of his economic vision, even though many people dislike taxes. Contrast this with George W. Bush, whose policy was “Yes, we can have much more social spending, a prescription drug bill, defense and war spending, AND we can cut taxes – it will all pay for it self.”

    Bernie’s plan is to raise taxes to pay for a larger social welfare system – his example being Denmark and other Scandinavian countries, as he talks about ad nauseum.

    The Danes have a very robust market economy (a libertarian institute ranked their economy as more economically free than America’s) – and they just happen to pay higher taxes for a stronger safety net that avoids problems we have in America – like people committing crimes so they can get healthcare, or kids dying as a result of not having access to health insurance (according to a 2005 Johns Hopkins study).

    I understand if you think high taxes and/or a strong welfare state are a bad idea, but I don’t understand why you think Bernie doesn’t advocate higher taxes to pay for it. It’s literally right on his website. On the first issue. He lays out specific tax increases (like reconstituting the estate tax). I can understand if you think he’s trying to get only the rich to pay for it, but you’re saying he thinks no one will pay for it and everything will be ‘free’.

    And I still see the GOP candidates offering enormous tax cuts for the rich and more defense spending with no plan to pay for it other than putting the debt on future generations like G W Bush did.

    • Hi EchoBuster, I don’t think I said Bernie would give anyone “everything,” but he does believe that much should be given including health care and higher education, and once he has the tax dollars, who knows what he will give away or to whom. Denmark is a very small country. Europe doesn’t live the same way we live in the US. Denmark has the highest taxation and they live with government health care. Count me out of that. Count Bernie in.

      I won’t say I don’t want a “strong welfare state.” I want to take care of those needing care. I don’t want to take of those unwilling to get their high school education, unwilling to work, finding the money for drugs, and using a self-imposed victimization as an excuse for committing crime. I’m sick of it.

      When it comes to “aid,” every family has a duty to take care of their own –– to do the best they can to help each other. Just think what the world would be like if FAMILIES took on that responsibility.

      I didn’t like GWs social agenda. I supported the war budget until Democrats held an axe to his head. Said they didn’t support it (a lie), and wouldn’t fund it unless he did certain things. He was blackmailed and he let it happen. He stopped fighting the war with the efficiency he started with. It’s a damn shame.

      I’m sick of the irresponsible spending. The infamous shrimp on a treadmill, the bridge to nowhere, the sex lives of all kinds of creatures, and billions and billions and billions to energy that doesn’t work. When something works, the free market produces it.

      No I don’t want higher taxes. Let Denmark revel in that. No one needs to spend my money but me, after I take care of my tax obligation which takes me to May each year to pay for. Five months out of the year I work, and give it all to the government. That’s not the American way.

      We can lower taxes for corporations to keep them in this country, and we can demand that EVERYONE pay something. No one should live in this country without paying a dime. It might be small but small is something. Obviously, there are those who can never pay taxes, but, you know, 50% don’t pay a thing now. That’s not right. They can afford their cell phone and TVs and autos, and cigarettes. Really, I am sick of it.

      My husband I do all we can for charity. I live in the state that gives more to charity than any other state as a percentage of population. This is America. We broke away from Europe for some of the reason you mention. I pray we stay that way.

      • EchoBuster

        Thanks for your reply.

        You said you didn’t like Bush’s social policies, but what about his economic policies? Because you also mentioned how 50% of people don’t pay anything in taxes. Well, that’s not true. Everyone pays sales tax, plus other local/state taxes. Most people pay payroll taxes. If you’re talking about federal income tax, then yes, depending on the year, about half don’t pay income taxes. But that’s in large part due to Bush and Reagan. They dramatically increased the size of the child tax credit, because they wanted to help working families, and that took many millions of taxpayers off the federal income tax rolls.

        You brought up the free market and also health care. I’m curious what you’d think about the 2005 Johns Hopkins study that showed about 1,000 children died each year as a result of not having access to health insurance. A country where that many kids die due to lack of health care certainly needs lots of charity (and they aren’t getting enough of it here).

        Those children deaths would be an outrage in any other developed nation where every child has access to health insurance. How would the market fix that? I imagine you’d say parents should take responsibilities, but when they’re financially unable to, should the children be punished?

        We have much higher rates of child poverty in this country than other developed countries, even though Americans typically work longer hours on average. Why do you think that is? Are Americans just less interested in taking care of their children than every developed nation?

        And I’m curious – do you have a favorite candidate running for president?