The Sinister Roots of Build Back Better

President Joe Biden and the puppeteers who control his teleprompter are weakening the country in order to gain more power and restructure the country based on classical Marxism (government ownership of the means of production) as well as woke cultural Marxist lines – destruction of the family, depreciation of male vigor and determination, and demonic sexual perversion throughout all classes and segments of society.

The motto of the interloper now serving in the White House is “Build Back Better” – and the trillions to “build back” is an updated version of the New Deal on steroids. The Dems spend to a new level of excess which, for them, is ecstasy. In fact, a better name for their spend, spend, and spend more programs should be “Excess Ecstasy Exhilarates.” The foundation of the New Deal was found in the economic theory of John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was a British economist who developed the theory of ‘deficit spending’ – the idea that the government going into debt would jump start the depressed economy which, then, would experience reinvigoration. There would be more employed, tax-paying citizens as well as corporate profits which would, in turn, restore the needed balance to the federal books. The deficit spending would restore a solvency that was lost due to the Great Depression.

In practice this did not work out (unemployment was still in double digits throughout the 1930’s), but because of the passage of the Wagner Act, which made it easier for workers to organize into unions, and because of the use of the radio for the well-known “Fireside Chats” – a real novelty in American politics which intensified public support for FDR – and because of residual anger towards the Republicans who had maintained power throughout the 1920’s and were thus assumed to be the ones who had caused the Depression, Keynesian economics became the go-to model for economic policy in the United States for all decades since that time. 

However, the Keynesian model has been weaponized under Build Back Better in a most sinister way. The present shift is to make us more amenable to the globalist fantasies gaining popularity in recent decades to ensure a transition towards world governance and a cooperative world economy (rather than a competitive one) under the cloak of “meeting needs” and “sustainability.”  These two concepts are key pillars in a document written and published by the United Nations called Agenda 2030. Although the original United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 stressed the need for individual rights after WWII and promoted those rights in nearly every sentence of that document, the present document – Agenda 2030 – only refers to rights in one of the ninety-one sections: Section 19.

Instead of rights, needs are emphasized. This is consistent with the Communist Manifesto authored by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848. A key principle in that document is “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Actual needs of people would be the uppermost goal of envisioned communist society rather than ideas like rights, freedom, responsibility, property ownership, pursuit of happiness, or even security. The new communistic premise is that if needs are met then people will automatically experience security and happiness and will not need the abstract fluff of such bourgeois, outdated, and elitist ideas as rights, freedom, or ownership. Further, meeting of communist needs must be based on sustainability. If we run out of energy, clean air, or water at some point in the future, we would then not be able to meet peoples’ needs. Therefore, plans and actions to sustain all the materials and planetary conditions that will keep us from running out of the natural resources are “necessary” – even if that means enslavement and tyranny. ‘Sustainability’ works in tandem with the ‘meeting of needs’ as a combination that is a cornerstone for a new world governance policy. 

The Build Back Better plan superficially appears to be an updated and extravagant Keynesian or New Deal style spending program, but the endgame is not economic recovery that forever establishes federal government dominance over the states in the socio-political realm. Rather, this BBB is the connection of an enlarged federal government and authority with a depreciation or elimination of U.S. sovereignty in favor of global, communist-style governance. But as if the endgame were not sinister enough, we see this updated Keynesian expansion of expenditures is not a result of economic collapse due to a devastating Depression, as was the justification in the 1930’s.

Rather, simultaneously with expanded spending, the goal of the BBB plotters is to weaken the economy and usher in economic and socio-political chaos and mayhem. The southern border hands-off policy is literally facilitating the entrance of millions of unvetted persons. By limiting or eliminating natural gas and oil production in the territorial U.S. under the guise of protecting the environment, the feds incentivize other countries to expand their production of these energy sources. That production, which still means higher energy prices here in the U.S., has an equally negative effect on the world climate as fuel production in our country. But the brooding minds behind BBB want to see inflated prices. They want to see shortages. They want to see racial unrest. They want to see upsurges in crime as new theories of law inform the release of repeat offenders and shorter sentences to destabilize society. The BBB autocrats want to see a society that increasingly identifies as LGBTQ because this radical individualism weakens the social fabric. They want to see Chinese fentanyl imported to kill our citizens who are weak-minded and susceptible to drug use. 

Thus, despite resemblance to the New Deal, the BBB so-called governance (properly called betrayal) is at the front end linked to global health, green initiatives, and “interdependence” as an excuse for diminishing U.S. sovereignty. Initiation of these policies were not to combat financially depressive conditions, but rather designed to undermine the freedoms and economic viability of the U.S. This might be likened to prescribing chemo to a patient who did not have cancer, and then, in order to justify the perverse treatment plan, injecting the patient with cancer cells in order to justify that plan. The goal of the sinister and aberrated “plan” would not be the recovery of the patient and return to normal living, but to place the “cured” individual into custodial care rather than independent living. That is the equivalent of a United States with diminished sovereignty in a world governance system.