NASA Ignores the Stars – Reaches for Hammer and Sickle Instead

Michael Schaus
Posted: Mar 20, 2014 1:20 AM
NASA Ignores the Stars – Reaches for Hammer and Sickle Instead

Do you remember when NASA used to be responsible for sending Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to the lunar surface? Remember when they were a beacon for capitalism’s prosperity, and an ode to western civilization’s adoption of the American Dream? (As Cadillac recently pointed out, we put a car on the moon, and left the keys… Why? Because we owned the patent on space-age progress.) Well… Prepare yourself for a disappointing turn of events: America’s space agency is now promoting the adaptation of Soviet style economics.

Apparently the dream of reaching the stars includes a hammer and sickle… Who knew? A recent NASA study was used to promote wealth redistribution, population control (hello Margret Sanger), and energy consumption quotas. Because nothing screams “space exploration” like a little communism (with hints of China’s one child quota thrown in for good measure). According to

A new study sponsored by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center has highlighted the prospect that global industrial civilisation could collapse in coming decades due to unsustainable resource exploitation and increasingly unequal wealth distribution.

Once upon a time, NASA was responsible for America’s conquest of the final frontier. Well, now they’re spending our hard-earned tax dollars on promoting birth-control, gasoline rationing, and communism. I guess there was just nowhere to go but down, after we landed a man on the lunar surface. (Besides… NASA has more time on its hands, now that they’re hitching rides into space from Vladimir Putin.) But, it gets better... According to the study:

Scientists point out that the worst-case scenarios are by no means inevitable, and suggest that appropriate policy and structural changes could avoid collapse, if not pave the way toward a more stable civilisation.

And what’s their proposed solution to capitalism’s civilization’s eventual demise? Well:

"Collapse can be avoided and population can reach equilibrium if the per capita rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level, and if resources are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion."

In other words, as the Guardian puts it:

The two key solutions are to reduce economic inequality so as to ensure fairer distribution of resources, and to dramatically reduce resource consumption by relying on less intensive renewable resources and reducing population growth:

Really? We gave up the space shuttle for some Marxist ramblings about income inequality and “yes-we-can” wealth redistribution? NASA has gone from landing a man on the moon to re-writing the communist manifesto with government dollars. (Wouldn’t the proliferator of government spending, Karl Marx, be so proud?) Why, on earth (or anywhere else within a million light-years), is this propaganda “study” being performed by an agency that is supposed to help American Society build a death star before Darth Vader beats us to it? (Heck, I’d even settle for a light saber.)

Of course, the study ignores the fact that socialist, and communist, economic theories tend to increase income inequality. In fact, liberalism has the strange side-effect of creating a “ruling class” while plundering the proletariat for political purposes. After all, it’s not a coincidence that the greatest increase in overall prosperity coinsides with the western world’s adoption of free-market theories. To put it simply: America didn’t become the world’s greatest super-power because of Karl Marx’s economic theories… In fact, those Marxist commies were beat to the moon by an American-government-agency that was well funded by the success of capitalist pigs. (See… letting Americans become millionaires really does help the government.)

Can we go back to the days where the news highlighted Alan Shepard hitting golf balls off the lunar surface? … Somehow, that seems to be a more appropriate allocation of my tax dollars than a study that aims to promote a system of governance that has never (and I really mean never) resulted in increased prosperity for the masses. I might not be a mathematician (although I do own a graphing calculator, abacus, and slide rule), or a historian (although Caesar’s “The Conquest of Gaul” is my favorite comfort read), but… Cuba doesn’t really seem to be doing great nowadays. In fact, I don’t actually recall a single socialist or communist system that produced a higher standard of living than the pro-capitalist America of the 20th century.

Yeah… You guys at NASA really are rocket scientists… Why don’t you stick to that, and leave the socialist propaganda to the White House and MSNBC?