In 1976, Margaret Thatcher said during a television interview, “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.”
Over the years, that quote has been whittled down to the renowned proverb: The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.
This is a powerful argument against socialism. Even better, it has been validated time and time again, most notably when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics collapsed in 1991. The Soviet Union was an economic basket case, and the whole world witnessed its demise.
But socialism has an even bigger problem: it is immoral.
Even if it did somehow work efficiently and effectively at an economic level, it would still be immoral.
A broad definition of “moral” is “conforming to a standard of behavior that is considered right and good by most people.” Morality is synonymous with truth, honor, honesty, fairness, righteousness, and virtue.
Immorality is the antithesis of morality. It is synonymous with wickedness, callousness, evil, sin, vileness, viciousness, darkness, and ruthlessness.
Socialism, in its depraved but effective way, appeals to people’s worst instincts and impulses. It presents the world as a zero-sum game in which there are winners and losers. It pits groups of people against each other based on arbitrary measures. For the narrow-minded, it makes sense.
It embodies most of the seven deadly sins.
Pride: Socialists have zero humility because they reject the fallibility of humanity. They can micromanage an entire society. They can create a centralized, one-size-fits-all, command-and-control utopia. They know all and know best.
Envy: Taking one’s property because they have too much to give to others who have less is not noble; it is theft. Stealing with state-sanctioned approval is unjust. The sheer resentment that some have more, better, or bigger material possessions is the driving force of socialist ideology.
Pride: Socialists have zero humility because they reject the fallibility of humanity. They can micromanage an entire society. They can create a centralized, one-size-fits-all, command-and-control utopia. They know all and know best.
Envy: Taking one’s property because they have too much to give to others who have less is not noble; it is theft. Stealing with state-sanctioned approval is unjust. The sheer resentment that some have more, better, or bigger material possessions is the driving force of socialist ideology.
Wrath: Socialist doctrine fuels anger, rage, violence, and a desire for vengeance against the so-called oppressors. Instead of mimicking the successful, the people turn their ire toward them.
Sloth: Because socialism is about passing the buck and the blame, it excuses idleness and promotes laziness. It allows one to shirk personal duties and retards personal growth.
The above is far from a comprehensive list of socialism flaws or features, depending on where one sits on the moral relativity scale.
For those who outright reject moral relativism, deconstructionism, postmodernism, and critical theory in favor of universal truth, reason, logic, and fairness, socialism is obviously not up your alley.
Alas, for millions of Americans, especially Americans born after the Cold War, socialism has been branded very differently. Socialism has been presented to them with a smile. For America’s youth, socialism is like a happy meal because it brings nothing but joy.
I know this from first-hand experience in several public schools over the years. It is no big secret that the K-12 education system leans left.
However, it is a well-kept secret that young Americans have been, and are being, indoctrinated that socialism is just, fair, and good in public schools. In the meantime, they are being purposely miseducated about American history, especially the nation’s founding.
Such is why young Americans are champing at the bit to vote for socialists.
The left’s long march through the institutions has created a culture that champions socialism under the misguided assumption that it is moral.
This is incredibly dangerous because these young minds are also unaware that socialism, as Thatcher said, leads to bankruptcy.
If socialism can be rebranded as morally wholesome despite its undisputed track record of mass murder, misery, and poverty, it can rise from the ashes in the United States.
It would be tragic if the United States, which fought on the side of freedom throughout the Cold War, succumbed to socialism in the end. I worry the rising tide of suicidal empathy, coupled with a lack of knowledge about socialism’s history and sheer immorality, could bring a socialist revolution to the United States. I hope I am wrong.
Chris Talgo (ctalgo@heartland.org) is editorial director at The Heartland Institute.
Yesterday was primary election day in New York. I previewed it in my prior post, “Socialism: On The March, Or Not So Much?” There were no Republican primaries in New York City, and very few statewide. This was almost entirely a day for intramural contests among the Democrats. It was the Far Left versus the Crazy Insane Left. In almost every race, Crazy Insane prevailed.
The most important races involved federal congressional seats within the City — Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. Mayor Zohran Mamdani and the Democratic Socialists of America had endorsed candidates in three of the races: Brad Lander over incumbent Dan Goldman in NY-10 (my district), Darializa Avila Chevalier over incumbent Adriano Espaillat in NY-13 (uptown Manhattan and West Bronx), and Claire Valdez over Antonio Reynoso for an open seat in NY-7 (Northern Brooklyn and Southwest Queens). The Mamdani/DSA candidate prevailed in all three races. All these are deep blue seats with little prospect of a successful Republican challenge in November — so these people are highly likely to become members of Congress come January.
Here is a picture of (l to r) Valdez, Lander, Mamdani and Avila Chevalier at a campaign rally in Brooklyn a few days ago.
Less well publicized were primaries for various races for the State Assembly and Senate. The DSA endorsed candidates in ten races, either challenging incumbents or vying for open seats. Of those, eight won, one lost, and one race remains too close to call (but the DSA candidate is ahead). New York Focus has a roundup:
In New York City, Senate candidate Aber Kawas and Assembly contenders Christian Celeste Tate, David Orkin, Eon Huntley, Illapa Sairitupac, Samantha Kattan all defeated their opponents by double digits. In Buffalo, Assembly candidate Adam Bojak appears likely to become dsa’s first legislator from Western New York. And in Syracuse, Maurice Brown’s challenge against a 28-year incumbent Assemblymember was too close to call on Tuesday night.
The sole incumbent Assemblyman to beat back a DSA challenger was Conrad Blackburn of Harlem.
In the New York Focus piece, they quote a guy named Jeff Leb, who has been running a super PAC supporting incumbents against DSA challengers: “DSA has momentum, they’re running their largest slate in New York, and they think they’ve figured out the playbook.”
So what kind of positions and policies do these people stand for? John Fund, writing in the American Spectator today, has a run-down on some of the craziness. Consider Avila Chevalier:
[Avila Chevalier] has called for abolishing police, prisons, and borders. As recently as last week, she refused to back down on those views when given an opportunity: “All deportations are wrong,” she says, even for those convicted of a crime. She co-founded Columbia University Apartheid Divest, the militant student group behind the violent 2024 occupation of Columbia after the Hamas attacks in Gaza the year before. CUAD is explicitly anti-Enlightenment: “We are Westerners fighting for the eradication of Western Civilization. We stand in full solidarity with every movement for liberation in the Global South. Our intifada is an Internationalist one…” Chevalier called the United States “a f—— disgrace,” and referred to the US as “occupied” Native American land. She’s written favorably about communism and seizing “all properties from landlords.” She has criticized Bernie Sanders and AOC for being too pro-Israel, and is known as a key leader in the “left of AOC” faction of Democratic Socialists of America.
Avila Chevalier’s incumbent opponent, Adriano Espaillat, is the Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and a reliable left-wing member. He has, however, generally been at least a lukewarm supporter of Israel (for example, he has come out in favor of the so-called “two-state solution”).
And here are a couple of quotes (via Fund) from Aber Kawas, who won the primary for an open State Senate seat in Queens:
Aber Kawas [is] a Muslim activist, who won the Democratic nomination to represent 317,000 people in Queens as a state senator. She has bitterly criticized the US “system of capitalism, racism, white supremacy and Islamophobia” because it expects apologies for “a terror attack that a couple people did when there is no apology or reparations for genocide and for slavery etc.” She finds that “kind of reprehensible.”
A unifying theme of all the DSA candidates was hatred of Israel and of Jews in general. I watched some of the victory speeches of Lander and of Avila Chevalier, and both featured repeated chants from the crowd of “Free, Free Palestine!”
Here is an interesting chart taken from the New York Times, analyzing the results of the Espaillat/Avila Chevalier race.
This was a relatively close race overall, with Avila Chevalier prevailing by about 4 points (49-45). The district is centered on Harlem and the South Bronx, but contains substantial upscale and gentrified areas. Note that Avila Chevalier won by significant margins in the precincts dominated by the young, the college educated, and the higher income, while Espaillat ran ahead (by smaller margins) among the poor, the black and the Hispanic. Jeff Maurer, writing at his Substack, comments:
[A]s always, there is strong evidence that this so-called workers’ revolution is mostly a movement of rich, white college kids.
So what kind of omen are these results with respect to the upcoming midterm elections? Even though the Democratic Party leadership backed all the losing candidates, I entirely expect that they will get behind all of the DSA crazies, and not say a negative word about any of them for the general election. The Republican should have near limitless amounts of material for their advertising. I’d like to think that moderate Democrats would be horrified by what their party is becoming, and would flee from being associated with this kind of insanity. But reasonable people disagree about this.
Maurer (himself a Democrat) thinks that these results will prove to be a negative for his team:
These three — especially Chevalier — are a glorious gift to Republican flaks. What Michael Jordan was to Nike, Chevalier is to anyone whose job is to portray Democrats as radical, anti-America lunatics. And that is because she is a radical, anti-America lunatic; I hope normie Democrats loudly denounce her bullshit instead of trying to sanewash it. I would also remind Democrats that considerations about party unity and maintaining a big tent don’t really apply when the core thesis of the person you’re dealing with is that you, personally, are a corrupt monster who is abetting genocide.
I hope he is right. However, I never cease to be amazed at the ability of Democrats to forgive absolutely anything from the far left in the quest to destroy Trump.
The crisis we face today is existential. Too many Americans, both native-born and naturalized, have been taught to despise their country.
If it sometimes seems like the American cultural mainstream is ignorant of the role of Christianity in the founding of the United States, or even hostile towards it, that’s because it is.
The story told about America’s founding by the corporate media, book publishers, libraries and other institutions is one in which the Christian faith, so central to our history and founding, is almost wholly absent.
I don’t mean that anecdotally. A recent report by conservative book publisher Brave Books analyzed more than 300 books across 25 reading lists curated by children’s publishers, public libraries, and other institutions for our country’s upcoming 250th anniversary. The report found that these lists contain zero titles that directly addressed religious liberty, faith, or the role of Christianity in the founding of the United States.
Instead, the books on these reading lists included titles like Ibram X. Kendi’s Stamped for Kids and Nikole Hannah-Jones’ Born on the Water, a picture book that’s part of the discredited and ahistorical 1619 Project. According to Brave Books, the central themes of these reading lists were the American Revolution, minority perspectives, Black history, civil rights and women’s history. But nothing about the Christian faith — or even about religious freedom, which is enshrined in our First Amendment.
In other words, the lists are nothing more than left-wing propaganda designed to erode patriotism and reframe American history as a catalogue of crimes rather than a noble endeavor in republican self-government. Their purpose is to destroy patriotism in the hearts and minds of young Americans and inculcate hatred and contempt for our history, our founders, and our people.
I mention this not because it will be news to anyone who has been paying attention to the drift of American culture over the past half-century, but because it illustrates what a fraught thing our 250th anniversary has become. Celebrating this milestone as a nation, together, is no longer possible because, practically speaking, we are no longer a single nation.
The simple yet shocking reality is that generations of Americans have been taught since early childhood to hate their country and despise their heritage. How can you celebrate a nation you have been taught is morally corrupt, hypocritical, and responsible for a legacy of oppression and violence? You can’t, which is why so many Americans are greeting our semiquincentennial with a shrug or an apology.
And that points to a deeper problem with the state of America in 2026, a problem that won’t be solved with better reading lists or institutional reform or a GOP victory in 2026 or 2028. The problem is this: too many people in this country either despise America or are completely indifferent to it.
Among these are the tens of millions of foreigners now living in the United States who don’t just reject the natural law principles upon which our form of government rests, but also have no intention of adopting American culture or an American way of life. Many of them have made little or no effort even to learn the English language. They are here, essentially, to make money, and have no real vested interest in America as such.
Many others are not just indifferent but actively hostile toward their adopted country. This tendency seems especially pronounced among the adult children of immigrants, who grew up in the United States but were taught by liberal public schools and the mainstream culture to despise their country and resent it. They essentially revived the Third World politics of their parents’ home countries and adopted the anti-colonialist mentality of their leftist teachers and professors.
This wasn’t supposed to happen. For a long time, open-borders advocates in academia and the media argued that the Third World politics of immigrants would get washed out through assimilation, and by the time second- and third-generation immigrant families gained real political power, they would have shed their Third World sensibilities. But what we have found out is that under conditions of mass immigration, that simply isn’t how it works. Instead of shedding their third-worldism, immigrants and their children are assimilated into an American mainstream that itself has been captured by Third World politics.
The predictable result is a growing category of Americans, both immigrant and native-born, who are not merely indifferent toward their country but actively despise it. Such people now account for something like half our population, including both the native-born and recent immigrants and the children of recent immigrants. These are the people who reliably vote Democrat, for candidates and agendas bent on remaking the U.S. into something other than what our founders created and intended. They follow Nikole Hannah-Jones and Ibram X. Kendi, placing the “true” American founding in 1619 because to them, America was founded on exploitation and violence — a legacy that continues to the present day.
Consider the cadre of candidates connected to the Democrats Socialists of America that are finding electoral success in deep-blue areas. In New York, self-described democratic socialist Aber Kwas, an American-born daughter of Palestinian refugees, just won the Democratic primary for State Senate in District 12 (Queens). Kwas has said publicly that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were America’s fault, brought on by our supposed “system of capitalism, racism, white supremacy and Islamophobia.”
As the DSA continues its takeover of the Democratic Party establishment, this kind of anti-American rhetoric hardly stands out anymore. It is regularly espoused by New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Reps. Rashida Tlaib, AOC, and others. And those who hold such views appear to be ascendent within the party. All three of the New York candidates Mamdani endorsed won their primaries this week; all three of them are avowed socialists with virulently anti-American views. One of them, Darializa Avila Chevalier, was a founder of was a founder of Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), an anti-American, antisemitic organization with the stated goal to “undermine and eradicate America,” and achieve “the total eradication of Western civilization” through the use of violence.
Such people cannot celebrate 250 years of American history because they are ashamed of that history and they are opposed to the very existence of America as it is today. And it’s not just radical socialist candidates in New York. Just last week an Economist/YouGov survey found that 38 percent of Democrats admitted they are ashamed to be Americans. Another recent survey found less than half of Democrats agreed with the statement, “I am proud to be an American.” And a new NBC News poll found that overall, 56 percent of Americans are proud of their country, but only 29 of Democrats.
The message, injected into our cultural mainstream for decades now, that America is fundamentally imperialistic and exploitative, has gotten through. We now have large numbers of Americans that might at times pay lip service to things like free speech, separation of powers, and civil rights, but they don’t really believe in these things because they don’t really believe in America. They will gladly cheat in elections, for example, if they can get away with it, or pack the courts if the judiciary impedes their agenda. They don’t really believe in equal treatment under the law, and have no real interest in preserving the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. They think these things were just cynical ploys to oppress women and blacks, or to expand American empire, and they hope to amass enough raw political power to stage a revolution, jettison all of it, and institute a new form of government that treats citizens differently based on which group they belong to.
This is an existential crisis for our country. The conditions for the crisis were created by both Democrats and Republicans over the course of decades. Both parties supported open borders and multiculturalism, and demonized anyone who objected that radically changing the ethnic makeup of the country through mass immigration would imperil the republic. But those who objected were right. Mass immigration and multiculturalism are a fatal combination, and here on the eve of our 250th anniversary, they have brought forth their poisoned fruit.
What can be done about it? One immediate step that could be taken, if the Trump administration and the GOP had the political will (which they don’t seem to right now) would be mass deportations coupled with mass denaturalization. Get the people who have come here only to make money, or stage a revolution, out of the country. Mobilize the National Guard, if that’s what it takes. If American cities riot, as they did in Minneapolis, send the National Guard into those places and declare martial law. If Democrat mayors and governors impede these operations, arrest them.
If that were accomplished, the native-born Americans who hate our country could probably be managed and contained. Removing illegal immigrants and anti-American naturalized citizens would deprive them of a crucial voting bloc and support. It is still the case, even at this late hour, that most Americans love their country and don’t want to see it fundamentally transformed. But time is running out, and if patriotic leaders don’t act decisively, there’s a good chance America as we know it today won’t be around to celebrate the 275th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
This video, created by William Reports News, scrutinizes the financial history and political branding of Senator Bernie Sanders. The central argument is that while Sanders built his career on advocating for the working class and railing against the influence of the wealthy, his own family’s financial dealings—and those of his political network—contradict this narrative.
Key areas of scrutiny discussed:
Levi Sanders’ Nonprofit Compensation: The video highlights that Levi Sanders, the Senator’s stepson, received approximately $800,000 in compensation from a progressive nonprofit organization (3:49 – 4:24, 12:24 – 12:53).
The creator argues that this nonprofit operates within the same ecosystem of donors and political credibility that Bernie Sanders cultivated, suggesting a conflict of interest that was not transparent to the small-dollar donors who supported him (13:32 – 14:49).
The Burlington College Collapse: The video revisits the financial collapse of Burlington College during the time Jane Sanders served as president, specifically noting a disputed $10 million bank loan (7:25 – 8:10). While a federal investigation into the matter was closed without charges in 2018, the video presents this as part of a recurring pattern of financial controversy surrounding the family (8:11 – 8:46, 10:43 – 10:57).
Personal Wealth and Rhetoric: The video notes that as Bernie Sanders’ own net worth increased through book deals, he gradually stopped using the term “millionaires” in his stump speeches, narrowing his focus to “billionaires” (9:50 – 10:20, 17:48 – 17:57).
Institutional Accountability: The creator asserts that criticism of Sanders is often dismissed by his team as politically motivated attacks from the right. However, the video emphasizes that this specific report is significant because it is grounded in IRS Form 990 disclosures and has been addressed by left-leaning outlets, making it more difficult to dismiss (15:23 – 16:57).
Conclusion: The narrative concludes that Bernie Sanders built his political brand on the promise of holding the wealthy accountable, but the video argues that these standards have not been applied to his own family or the progressive nonprofit machine that relies on his credibility (18:06 – 19:44).
Senator Chuck Schumer took to the floor of the U.S. Senate and spewed a treasonous speech that was intended to give aid and comfort to the enemy.
By aiding and abetting the enemy the Senator expressed his disdain for the President, the Senate and for America.
Although the speech is nine minutes in length, the Senators sins are expressed in the first minutes.
Everyone who bought Trump’s book the Art of the Deal ought to ask him for a refund because what Trump has done in Iran is the art of the disaster.
The U.S. is worse off because of Trump’s incompetence, his ego, and his inability to listen to facts. Iran took Trump to the cleaners with this so-called “understanding.” Iran doesn’t have to cut off support for its terrorist proxies. Iran doesn’t have to give up ballistic missile production. Iran doesn’t have to make any hard commitments on its nuclear program now, and there’s no guarantee they make any in sixty days. But Iran does get to rake in billions of dollars in oil sales, hundreds of billions of dollars in reconstruction aid, and God knows how much more in potential fees Trump may let it impose on ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Not to mention the benefits Iran will get from the sanctions relief that Trump has promised with no idea of what he’ll get in return.
Again: Iran took Trump to the cleaners. In Iran, the “Art of the Deal” turned into the art of disaster.
If Trump wants to send hundreds of billions of dollars to Iran – then he’ll need to do so with Republican votes, because I’ll tell you, Democrats certainly won’t be helping Trump send $300 billion to Iran. Are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle prepared to send Iran $300 billion when economic needs are so severe here at home? That’s what Trump wants them to do.
Now, back in 2015, Trump said that America’s “deal with Iran will go down as one of the most incompetent ever made. The U.S. lost on virtually every point. We just don’t win anymore.” Trump is eating those words on a silver platter served up by Iran.
Again: in 2015 he says the “deal with Iran will go down as one of the most incompetent ever made. The U.S. lost on virtually every point. We just don’t win anymore.” He’s eating those words now because those apply so aptly to the deal he just announced, the so-called understanding with Iran. He’s eating those words on a silver platter served up by Iran. Even members of the Trump administration seem to be trying to put some distance between themselves and this so-called “understanding,” telling the public not to read too far into the text and saying that there are secret deals in the works.
Well, I’ll tell you right now Trump needs to reveal any secret deals to Congress and the public immediately. He’s got to do it right away. If the secret deals are anywhere near as bad as the “understanding” we have seen, we need to know about them. Americans need to know how Trump plans to do it.
Crucially, Americans are wondering what they got out of this war because Trump’s blunder has left our country worse off by every measure. 13 Americans have been killed, hundreds more wounded. The Iranian regime is richer and more radical than before Trump’s war. Iran has greater control over the Strait of Hormuz than before the war. Gas prices are still much higher than before the war, with families having paid hundreds of dollars extra to fill up their tanks these past few months. The cost of everything from groceries to basic household necessities are higher than before the war as well.
Trump’s so-called “understanding” is the culmination and representation of his ruinous strategy in Iran since day one – and his inability to govern in general.
In Iran and in so much else he does, Trump leads by whim, by ego, by greed. His strategy doesn’t work in the time of peace, and it certainly doesn’t work in the time of war. He’s about the most incompetent president we have ever seen. In Iran, as in everything, the American people pay the price for Trump’s incompetence.
So, as I’ve been saying for months, it’s long past time that Trump end this war, which never should have started in the first place.
The World Cup, as everyone knows by now, has been taking place across several cities in stadiums that have surprised foreign visitors by being gigantic and air-conditioned. As usual, fans have been having a lot of fun. Many of the visitors have come to the United States for the first time.
Social media has been filled with countless postings from visitors relating their experiences in this country. Overwhelmingly, they are blown away by the abundance of food, both in restaurants and in grocery stores, not just in amount but in variety (e.g., the dozens and dozens of varieties of coffee, or cereal, or snacks). They have been likewise overwhelmed by the size of everything, from onions to sandwiches to steaks to stores to cars. They found refreshing the unashamed patriotism, evident by all the flags. The availability of fireworks to be bought by anyone was surprising. As with the wide variety of food, wildlife, and cars/trucks, they are shocked at the variety of climate, whereas they come from areas that are uniform in climate. They keep repeating how well Americans have it here — even the health-care system was praised.
Some sampled firing guns in gun ranges (but they should be careful in returning home; last year, someone who did so was arrested by the British Stasi). They openly stated that we have more freedom than they have in their country.
Visitors found that Americans welcomed them with open arms, sometimes even giving them free rides, drinks, or food. The Scots, in particular, made such a splash in Boston that Scotland was threatened that we were going to keep them here; one woman responded that if we did, then we had to send over an equal number of Texas cowboys.
Significantly, the visitors have also revealed that the anti-American propaganda they’ve been subjected to for years has been lying to them. About the country. And about the people.
Sound familiar?
One month has washed away years of anti-American propaganda.
As for American liberals, with their hatred of the U.S. and of its people appear to be having a nervous breakdown. Some have even cried. It has been drilled into their heads that hating one’s country is the height of intellectual achievement. This constant praise of America by non-Americans! And by Europeans, whom they have always told are superior to Americans and whom we should all admire!
A few liberals have ineffectually tried to stem the tsunami of goodwill.
While feeling so intellectually superior for hating their country, they lack the intelligence and self-awareness to realize they have been brainwashed.
Armando Simón is originally from Cuba, a retired psychologist, author of Stories for Lions and Other Felines, and, The Transgender Cult: Psychology, Politics, Religion and the Media.
Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong. Thank you.https://givebutter.com/embed/c/WhA2EO?goalBar=false&gba_gb.element.id=gkx27p
The World Cup, as everyone knows by now, has been taking place across several cities in stadiums that have surprised foreign visitors by being gigantic and air-conditioned. As usual, fans have been having a lot of fun. Many of the visitors have come to the United States for the first time.
Social media has been filled with countless postings from visitors relating their experiences in this country. Overwhelmingly, they are blown away by the abundance of food, both in restaurants and in grocery stores, not just in amount but in variety (e.g., the dozens and dozens of varieties of coffee, or cereal, or snacks). They have been likewise overwhelmed by the size of everything, from onions to sandwiches to steaks to stores to cars. They found refreshing the unashamed patriotism, evident by all the flags. The availability of fireworks to be bought by anyone was surprising. As with the wide variety of food, wildlife, and cars/trucks, they are shocked at the variety of climate, whereas they come from areas that are uniform in climate. They keep repeating how well Americans have it here — even the health-care system was praised.
Some sampled firing guns in gun ranges (but they should be careful in returning home; last year, someone who did so was arrested by the British Stasi). They openly stated that we have more freedom than they have in their country.
Visitors found that Americans welcomed them with open arms, sometimes even giving them free rides, drinks, or food. The Scots, in particular, made such a splash in Boston that Scotland was threatened that we were going to keep them here; one woman responded that if we did, then we had to send over an equal number of Texas cowboys.
Significantly, the visitors have also revealed that the anti-American propaganda they’ve been subjected to for years has been lying to them. About the country. And about the people.
Sound familiar?
One month has washed away years of anti-American propaganda.
Advertisement
null
As for American liberals, with their hatred of the U.S. and of its people, some appear to be having a nervous breakdown. Some have even cried. It has been drilled into their heads that hating one’s country is the height of intellectual achievement. This constant praise of America by non-Americans! And by Europeans, whom they have always told are superior to Americans and whom we should all admire!
A few liberals have ineffectually tried to stem the tsunami of goodwill.
While feeling so intellectually superior for hating their country, they lack the intelligence and self-awareness to realize they have been brainwashed.
Armando Simón is originally from Cuba, a retired psychologist, author of Stories for Lions and Other Felines, and, The Transgender Cult: Psychology, Politics, Religion and the Media.
Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong. Thank you.https://givebutter.com/embed/c/WhA2EO?goalBar=false&gba_gb.element.id=gkx27p
The World Cup, as everyone knows by now, has been taking place across several cities in stadiums that have surprised foreign visitors by being gigantic and air-conditioned. As usual, fans have been having a lot of fun. Many of the visitors have come to the United States for the first time.
Social media has been filled with countless postings from visitors relating their experiences in this country. Overwhelmingly, they are blown away by the abundance of food, both in restaurants and in grocery stores, not just in amount but in variety (e.g., the dozens and dozens of varieties of coffee, or cereal, or snacks). They have been likewise overwhelmed by the size of everything, from onions to sandwiches to steaks to stores to cars. They found refreshing the unashamed patriotism, evident by all the flags. The availability of fireworks to be bought by anyone was surprising. As with the wide variety of food, wildlife, and cars/trucks, they are shocked at the variety of climate, whereas they come from areas that are uniform in climate. They keep repeating how well Americans have it here — even the health-care system was praised.
Some sampled firing guns in gun ranges (but they should be careful in returning home; last year, someone who did so was arrested by the British Stasi). They openly stated that we have more freedom than they have in their country.
Visitors found that Americans welcomed them with open arms, sometimes even giving them free rides, drinks, or food. The Scots, in particular, made such a splash in Boston that Scotland was threatened that we were going to keep them here; one woman responded that if we did, then we had to send over an equal number of Texas cowboys.
Significantly, the visitors have also revealed that the anti-American propaganda they’ve been subjected to for years has been lying to them. About the country. And about the people.
Sound familiar?
One month has washed away years of anti-American propaganda.
Advertisement
null
As for American liberals, with their hatred of the U.S. and of its people, some appear to be having a nervous breakdown. Some have even cried. It has been drilled into their heads that hating one’s country is the height of intellectual achievement. This constant praise of America by non-Americans! And by Europeans, whom they have always told are superior to Americans and whom we should all admire!
A few liberals have ineffectually tried to stem the tsunami of goodwill.
While feeling so intellectually superior for hating their country, they lack the intelligence and self-awareness to realize they have been brainwashed.
Armando Simón is originally from Cuba, a retired psychologist, author of Stories for Lions and Other Felines, and, The Transgender Cult: Psychology, Politics, Religion and the Media.
Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong. Thank you.https://givebutter.com/embed/c/WhA2EO?goalBar=false&gba_gb.element.id=gkx27p
Social media has been filled with countless postings from visitors relating their experiences in this country.
The World Cup, as everyone knows by now, has been taking place across several cities in stadiums that have surprised foreign visitors by being gigantic and air-conditioned. As usual, fans have been having a lot of fun. Many of the visitors have come to the United States for the first time.
Social media has been filled with countless postings from visitors relating their experiences in this country. Overwhelmingly, they are blown away by the abundance of food, both in restaurants and in grocery stores, not just in amount but in variety (e.g., the dozens and dozens of varieties of coffee, or cereal, or snacks). They have been likewise overwhelmed by the size of everything, from onions to sandwiches to steaks to stores to cars. They found refreshing the unashamed patriotism, evident by all the flags. The availability of fireworks to be bought by anyone was surprising. As with the wide variety of food, wildlife, and cars/trucks, they are shocked at the variety of climate, whereas they come from areas that are uniform in climate. They keep repeating how well Americans have it here — even the health-care system was praised.
Some sampled firing guns in gun ranges (but they should be careful in returning home; last year, someone who did so was arrested by the British Stasi). They openly stated that we have more freedom than they have in their country.
Visitors found that Americans welcomed them with open arms, sometimes even giving them free rides, drinks, or food.
Social media has been filled with countless postings from visitors relating their experiences in this country.
The World Cup, as everyone knows by now, has been taking place across several cities in stadiums that have surprised foreign visitors by being gigantic and air-conditioned. As usual, fans have been having a lot of fun. Many of the visitors have come to the United States for the first time.
Social media has been filled with countless postings from visitors relating their experiences in this country. Overwhelmingly, they are blown away by the abundance of food, both in restaurants and in grocery stores, not just in amount but in variety (e.g., the dozens and dozens of varieties of coffee, or cereal, or snacks). They have been likewise overwhelmed by the size of everything, from onions to sandwiches to steaks to stores to cars. They found refreshing the unashamed patriotism, evident by all the flags. The availability of fireworks to be bought by anyone was surprising. As with the wide variety of food, wildlife, and cars/trucks, they are shocked at the variety of climate, whereas they come from areas that are uniform in climate. They keep repeating how well Americans have it here — even the health-care system was praised.
Some sampled firing guns in gun ranges (but they should be careful in returning home; last year, someone who did so was arrested by the British Stasi). They openly stated that we have more freedom than they have in their country.
Visitors found that Americans welcomed them with open arms, sometimes even giving them free rides, drinks, or food.
The Scots, in particular, made such a splash in Boston that Scotland was threatened that we were going to keep them here; one woman responded that if we did, then we had to send over an equal number of Texas cowboys.
Significantly, the visitors have also revealed that the anti-American propaganda they’ve been subjected to for years has been lying to them. About the country. And about the people.
Sound familiar?
One month has washed away years of anti-American propaganda.
The Scots, in particular, made such a splash in Boston that Scotland was threatened that we were going to keep them here; one woman responded that if we did, then we had to send over an equal number of Texas cowboys.
Significantly, the visitors have also revealed that the anti-American propaganda they’ve been subjected to for years has been lying to them. About the country. And about the people.
Sound familiar?
One month has washed away years of anti-American propaganda.
While feeling so intellectually superior for hating their country, they lack the intelligence and self-awareness to realize they have been brainwashed.
Armando Simón is originally from Cuba, a retired psychologist, author of Stories for Lions and Other Felines, and, The Transgender Cult: Psychology, Politics, Religion and the Media.
Americans have been given a preview of what they to look forward to if they just compare countries like the UK, France, Ireland and some others, ten to twenty years ago to today. Large numbers of Muslim immigrants entered those countries, built strong communities, strongly demand religious rights, that turned into a significant public presence. It’s not just some temporary trend of adaptation, but a planned process that alters the face of host countries and purposely provokes not only political disputes, but a fundamental debate about the future of the West.
Don’t lose sight that most Arab countries around the world fight political Islam by not allowing any party to grow strong enough to make religious law dominant. For example, all those states fought al-Qaeda and the terrorist organization ISIS, which primarily sought to establish an Islamic caliphate and govern countries according to Sharia law. Officially, only one country in the world currently operates under Islamic law: Afghanistan, after the takeover by the Taliban terrorist organization and the withdrawal of the American military.
The war against Islamist organizations—like the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups whose goal is to change the face of those countries—is constant. That was the case in Egypt, Tunisia, and the Gulf states, which constantly seek balance and avoid portraying the country with a distinctly Islamic character, so as not to give power and influence to religious figures. For example, regulations limiting the power of the muezzin have been enacted in these and other countries. Yet while Arab states fight Islamization at home, the organizations trying to promote it find fertile ground in Western countries.
A widely held perception among some Muslims is that Islam must lead and rule the world because their religion is the true one and the others are null and void. Thus, they view the world as divided into two: Dar al-Islam—that is, the house of Islam—countries where rule is in the hands of Muslims; and Dar al-Harb—the house of war—a term for the unbelieving countries (bilad al-kufr). These are Western countries where governance is often Christian, and therefore, in their view, Muslims have a duty to fight them and turn them into Islamic states. Furthermore, according to their doctrine, Spain—once conquered by Islam—must return to its embrace, and other Western countries should come under Islamic rule.
How is this done? In recent wars, Muslims have proven unable to even defend their own countries because of dependence on the West, lack of technology and armaments, and other reasons. Therefore, whereas in the distant past Islam expanded through conquests, massacres, forced conversions, and population expulsions, the most effective way now is legally, through demography and democracy, or in one word: immigration.
Hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants, once settled in Western countries, demand many rights such as building mosques and schools, halal food, and more, and anyone who does not accede to these demands is labeled Islamophobic or anti-Islam. Often, Western countries grant all these rights to Muslims, yet the latter’s ultimate loyalty is to their religious laws rather than to the host state. Moreover, once those immigrants become full citizens, they rebel against the very countries that opened their doors and demand the implementation of Islamic laws.
The West is changed gradually: first through the strengthening of immigrant communities, and then, at its peak, when Muslim holidays are marked by prayers held not in mosques but on main roads, in squares, and in parks as displays of strength and influence.
Are Muslims capable of living alongside and respecting the freedom of those who do not share their path and values, or in general, the ways of Western life? Doubtful. The World Cup held in Qatar in October 2022 showed us how life is managed in an Islamic state under Islamist rule, even if relatively moderate. There, the authorities banned the sale of alcohol to fans and the sale of pork products, and they did not allow entry to stadiums for anyone wearing clothing linked to Christian symbols or LGBTQ symbols.
The refusal to accept the “other” by many Muslims is a phenomenon that Western countries have suffered from for more than a decade, expressed, among other things, in the burning of hundreds of churches in the past ten years in Europe and Canada. The prevailing assessment is that extremist Muslims burned these churches, since such an act symbolizes war against Christianity. For example, in their battle against the Druze in 2025, Syrian regime forces burned six churches in the Suwayda district.
The discourse on Islamization in Europe and the West raises questions about Islam’s treatment of minorities once it becomes the majority. A clear case study can be found in Dearborn, Michigan, in the U.S., home to one of the largest concentrations of Muslims, who make up more than half of the population (many of them from the Shiite community). Dearborn, which hosts the largest Islamic center in North America, has already earned on social media the nicknames “the Jihad capital of America” or “the Islam capital of America,” partly due to pro-Hezbollah rallies held there. It is also known for its sweeping support of Palestinians and Iranian proxy groups designated as terrorist organizations.
About three years ago, Abdullah Hammoud—a Shiite of Lebanese descent—was elected the first Muslim mayor of Dearborn and immediately appointed a Muslim police chief, Issa Shahin. One of Hammoud’s first policies was the official recognition of Muslim holidays as paid leave, as well as allowing the public call to prayer (adhan).
Recently, the mayor made headlines after clashing with a resident who filed a complaint against his decision to name a city street after a journalist supportive of Hezbollah. Hammoud told the Christian resident, “You are an Islamophobe even though you live here. I want you to know that as a resident, you are not welcome in this city… The day you leave, I will celebrate with a parade in the streets. You are not someone who believes in coexistence but does everything to undermine it.”
These are small glimpses of what happens when extremist Muslims take over a Western city—not to mention mass prayers, violence against women, and against homosexuals. This is not science fiction or exaggeration. Studies in Europe have proven it, and it is no coincidence that Sweden has been singled out as a place where rapes are especially prevalent because of crimes committed by those immigrants against women.
Because of so many other crisis underway, the Islamic takeover of America flies mainly under the radar. If you wonder what it can lead to, just visit the UK, France, Ireland and elsewhere to see what happens when it really gets rolling. It’s when, not if, here in the U.S.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and former NYC Comptroller Brad Lander attend an election night party in New York City on June 23. Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
House Democrats were left stunned on Tuesday night after two of their colleagues — including the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus — lost primaries to left-wing challengers.
Why it matters: The New York primary results are poised to double the bloc of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in Congress, something that is not sitting well with some moderates.
“People who do not support the DSA wring their hands at cocktail parties, while the DSA is organizing,” Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), the co-chair of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, told Axios.
Another centrist House Democrat, speaking on the condition of anonymity to offer candid analysis, called the results an “earthquake” and a “huge defeat” for Democratic leadership.
“It was a tough night,” said Rep. Greg Meeks (D-N.Y.), a close ally of leadership and the chair of the Queens County Democratic Party, told Axios.
Driving the news:
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) lost re-election in a landslide to progressive former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who led by more than 30 percentage points as of late Tuesday night.
Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), the Hispanic Caucus chair, lost his primary more narrowly to democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier, according to the Associated Press.
In the race to succeed retiring Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.), democratic socialist state Assembly member Claire Valdez won a comfortable double-digit victory over Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso.
Between the lines: Lander, Avila Chevalier and Valdez were all backed by NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani, while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) endorsed Espaillat and Goldman.
Jeffries also hinted at a preference for Reynoso on Tuesday afternoon, telling reporters the Brooklyn Borough president was backed by “a coalition of very progressive Democrats … and many of the unions that we’ve worked closely with.”
He also noted pointedly that it is “the most gentrified district in the nation, by far,” a nod to moderate complaints that DSAers are propped up by young, white, well-educated transplants.
What they’re saying:
“The progressive energy is clearly very high,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC, told Axios. She added: “Clearly Mayor Mamdani’s endorsement and turnout machine really does matter, as do candidates who are willing to stand up to AIPAC.”
“The progressives beat the establishment in the heart of NYC,” said progressive Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). “The energy of our party is clearly with the left.”
The other side: Suozzi said it is time for the Democrats’ moderate wing to “wake up” to the threat posed to them by the democratic socialists.
“Economic insecurity, climate change and immigrant injustice are all real problems, and alternative solutions must be offered. It’s time for a great deal of hard work to out organize the extremists on the right and the left!”
The centrist House Democrat who spoke anonymously said the results show that “appeasement doesn’t work. You have to be tough. Nancy Pelosi brought a machine gun to a knife fight. You can’t win with these guys by playing patty cake.”
A senior House Democrat, asked if their colleagues were worried about the results, said: “Yes they are.”
The intrigue: While Goldman’s loss was widely expected — “I feel terrible about Dan, but everyone predicted that one,” said the senior House Democrat — Espaillat’s race blindsided some members.
Espaillat “sounded very confident” before the results came in on Tuesday night, another House Democrat told Axios, adding that “the low turnout led many to think Adriano would be ok.”
By the end of the night, however, there was “lots of silence” in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’ text chat, this lawmaker said.
Party leadership is looking to dust itself off and move on, with a source close to the Jeffries operation telling Axios he is laser-focused on winning back the House in November.
Establishment Democrats looked to the primary victories of centrists like Cait Conley in the New York City suburbs and former Rep. Ben McAdams in Utah as the silver linings of the night.
The bottom line: The centrist House Democrat who spoke anonymously predicted the sudden influx of democratic socialists will be a “migraine” for leadership come 2027.
“Calling it a headache is an understatement,” the lawmaker said.
“Holy sh*t,” said a second senior House Democrat. “Buckle up.”
California’s political machine has left Republicans with a simple challenge: convince voters that change is worth crossing the aisle for.
A very successful businessman—and a major contributor to Democratic Party candidates and causes—once explained to me why he talked, acted, and thought like a Republican but never considered supporting any Republican candidate, ever. “We’ve already got the Republicans,” he told me.
This is the transactional essence behind corporate support for Democrats in California, the one-party state. Republicans have no political power, and whenever the Democrats in the state legislature are surprisingly split on a matter of concern to business interests, the handful of Republican politicians will invariably cast pro-business votes.
This has been going on for a long time. Democrats have controlled both houses of the state legislature since 1997 and the governorship since 2011. A signature moment came in 2010 when Jerry Brown defeated the hapless billionaire Republican Meg Whitman to begin his second two-term stint as governor. That’s when the California Chamber of Commerce made an internal decision to start supporting “pro-business” Democrats.
So it shouldn’t come as a huge surprise that the California Chamber of Commerce has endorsed Xavier Becerra for governor, the Democrat who will face Republican Steve Hilton this November.
In a guest op-ed published by The Wall Street Journal on June 17, candidate Hilton reiterated the case for change. Per-capita state government spending has nearly tripled over the last two decades, without a single quality-of-life metric improving. More than two million Californians moved out of the state during Newsom’s years as governor. Major businesses have relocated, with more on the way out. California has the highest taxes, the highest levels of unemployment, the highest poverty rate, and the highest cost of living in America.
It’s a familiar refrain, and yet Californians keep electing Democrats. Hilton faces an uphill battle. Republicans are only 25 percent of registered voters; Democrats are 45 percent, with No Party Preference voters at 23 percent, nearly outnumbering Republicans. In the last four gubernatorial elections in the state, Republicans barely captured 40 percent of the vote. Brian Dahle got 40.8 percent in 2022; John Cox got 38.1 percent in 2018; Neel Kashkari got 40.0 percent in 2014; and Meg Whitman squandered $170 million in her 2010 gubernatorial quest in exchange for only 40.9 percent of the vote.
These are remarkably consistent numbers. Can Hilton overcome them? In California’s preposterous jungle primary, where, in this most recent iteration, there were 63 candidates, Hilton captured 24.7 percent to come in second to Xavier Becerra, who got 28.1 percent. Hilton had to contend with Tom Steyer, a bona fide fascist billionaire who masquerades as a social democrat and who, unlike Meg Whitman, hired a campaign team that knew what it was doing and wasn’t just going through the motions. Steyer’s hard-left campaign attracted 22.9 percent and almost edged out Hilton for a spot on the ballot.
Also complicating Hilton’s ascension to the runoff was another Republican, Chad Bianco, who pulled in 10.2 percent of the primary vote. Which brings us to one of Hilton’s major challenges if he hopes to defy history and beat the odds. He will have to pull in Bianco’s voters, who are, generally speaking, further right of center than Hilton voters.
This won’t be easy. The battle between these two Republicans turned bitter. In a perfect post-primary world, Hilton and Bianco would meet, put aside their differences, and make some joint campaign appearances. The formula whereby Hilton picks up 50-plus percent in November is hard enough. He needs Bianco’s 10 percent, or as much of it as possible.
If voters were practical, Hilton could take for granted 10.2 percent from Bianco voters in the general election, along with another 1.2 percent from voters who supported one of the other 10 Republican candidates on the crowded primary ballot. But these voters not only made an initial choice for a Republican other than Hilton. More than any other voting cohort in the state, they are disgusted with the whole system—the jungle primary, the rigged election laws, and the perception that Republicans will never win and even if they did, they wouldn’t fix anything.
But even if we suppose Hilton can muster the traditional 40 percent support that Republicans have typically earned, he still has to find another 10 percent elsewhere. And if, like his predecessors, he garners 40 percent when only 25 percent of voters are Republicans, he will have already pulled significant votes from the 23 percent No Party Preference voters along with a handful of Democrats.
Simply by virtue of the overwhelming advantage in registration that Democrats have in California, the main chance for Steve Hilton—the only chance—is for him to convince them that a vote for him is preferable to a vote for Becerra. That ought to be obvious. The state has blown through literally trillions of dollars over the past few Democratic administrations, and nothing has improved. But three things win elections: the party affiliation, the policy agenda, and the candidate’s personality. Hilton can’t win the first of these, but he can attract defecting Democrats if he wins the other two.
Ordinarily, the Democrats win on policy because their rhetoric goes down easy. Inclusion. Compassion. Environmentalism. And “affordability,” their latest mantra. But increasing percentages of Californians realize the results have delivered the opposite of what the rhetoric promised. Hilton, on the other hand, has developed detailed policy solutions that offer a new approach to every challenge where Democrats have failed. Can he sell them?
This is where personality will be decisive. Everybody wants change, but by successfully stereotyping Republicans as mean-spirited, Democrats have positioned themselves as the only option despite their failing policies. This is the context in which Hilton emerges from a bruising primary campaign where his tactics and persona were necessarily abrasive. Now he needs to return to his genial, upbeat roots. His winning strategy is to focus overwhelmingly on the solutions he offers and the dreams they can fulfill for all Californians. If Hilton comes across as someone who will govern as a bridge builder, voters will trust him. If he comes across as someone who is upbeat and optimistic about the future, voters will like him.
Meanwhile, California’s business community has a choice to make. They can stick with Democrats, accepting an essentially fascist political economy where only the largest corporations will survive the escalating regulatory onslaught and increasing taxes, and only then if they always play ball with the one-party regime. Or they can return to their roots, accepting competition instead of cronyism, and supporting candidates who are trying to roll back a government that has lost its way.
Steve Hilton is the best candidate for governor that California has had in years. Regardless of their party affiliation, Californians who vote for him have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Attached is Alan Greenspan’s famous essay lamenting the demise of the gold standard and warning that fiat money would enable the endless growth of the Welfare State and Big Government. He was absolutely correct, of course, and to give testimony to this worldview, even as late as 1974 when he became Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, he brought Ayn Rand to his White House swearing in ceremony.
Once ensconced on the banks of the Potomac, however, Alan Greenspan lost his way. Clearly.
At length, he had shimmied his way up the slippery slope—the next stop being duty as Ronald Reagan’s economic advisor in the 1980 campaign. In that capacity, he focused on the more agreeable business of cutting taxes rather than returning to the real source of capitalist prosperity—-sound money and free markets working together.
Next, he chaired the Greenspan Commission to bailout Social Security in 1983, which was then on the cusp of insolvency. Again, however, he choose to tiptoe around the Welfare State rather than challenge the fundamental error of providing unearned retirement benefits to millions of citizens. This was done via some film-flam on spending cuts ( a puny one-time three-month delay in the COLA) but mainly a huge 75-year increase in taxes. The largest in history, in fact.
If the truth be told, your editor was also in on the flim-flam at the time because the 1981 Reagan tax cut had been way, way too big at nearly 5% of GDP. Accordingly, by 1983 it was evident to us that net spending cuts after Reagan’s giant, misbegotten defense buildup would not even amount to 1% of GDP.
So the public finances were now in permanent, massive and compounding imbalance. It was a ticket to financial disaster by any rational reckoning.
At that point, therefore, we parted way with the Lafferite advocates of magical growth and reverted to the Eisenhower Doctrine: Namely, tax cuts had to be earned via corresponding spending cuts and entitlement reforms—lest Washington borrow and spend its way to the very disaster than now looms menacingly in the nation’s future.
As it happened, we had been loath to brag about our role in the Greenspan plan (we drafted and negotiated most of the details) because we knew exactly what it was: A giant tax increase posing as a “bipartisan Social Security rescue plan”.
But we knew it had to be done, and history has proved that to be true. There was no way the Republican Party then or today was going to embrace even a fraction of the Welfare State/Warfare State shrinkage that would be needed to match a government tax take of less than 17% of GDP after the 1981 tax cuts.
We are not sure that Alan Greenspan was as cynical or devious about the so-called Bipartisan Package as we were. But he was heralded by the mainstream opinion-makers and bipartisan political leaders leaders in Washington for his leadership of the Commission, and he was off to the races from there.
That is to say, in much earlier days Ayn Rand had already dismissed Greenspan as an inveterate “social climber” and on that she was correct. In the years after the Social Security rescue he became a fixture at the White House (with our help) and among GOP leaders on Capitol Hill.
So when the Jim Baker faction at the White House and Treasury Department decided that Volcker had to go when his term expired in 1987, Alan Greenspan was hanging around the basket and readily got the nod.
Needless to say, he did not storm into the Fed looking to shutdown its printing presses and restore a sound money gold standard that would have made the Fed chairman largely irrelevant. To the contrary, an activist Fed balancing the entire US economy on its shoulders was the route to fame, glory and adoration by the mainstream politicians, press and comentariat.
Greenspan didn’t disappoint. In becoming the Toast of the Town he also became the money-printer who monetized massive amounts of public debt over the next 20 years, restored Keynesian/statist economics to the center of Washington policy-making and so doing eventually buried the nation in debt and speculation, as we will amplify in Part 2.
But in the interim, here’s the original gospel from his 1966 essay. It hearkens back to a sound money “Greenspan” you never knew.
Published in Ayn Rand’s “Objectivist” newsletter in 1966, and reprinted in her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, in 1967.
An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense — perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire — that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other.
In order to understand the source of their antagonism, it is necessary first to understand the specific role of gold in a free society.
Money is the common denominator of all economic transactions. It is that commodity which serves as a medium of exchange, is universally acceptable to all participants in an exchange economy as payment for their goods or services, and can, therefore, be used as a standard of market value and as a store of value, i.e., as a means of saving.
The existence of such a commodity is a precondition of a division of labor economy. If men did not have some commodity of objective value which was generally acceptable as money, they would have to resort to primitive barter or be forced to live on self-sufficient farms and forgo the inestimable advantages of specialization. If men had no means to store value, i.e., to save, neither long-range planning nor exchange would be possible.
What medium of exchange will be acceptable to all participants in an economy is not determined arbitrarily. First, the medium of exchange should be durable. In a primitive society of meager wealth, wheat might be sufficiently durable to serve as a medium, since all exchanges would occur only during and immediately after the harvest, leaving no value-surplus to store. But where store-of-value considerations are important, as they are in richer, more civilized societies, the medium of exchange must be a durable commodity, usually a metal. A metal is generally chosen because it is homogeneous and divisible: every unit is the same as every other and it can be blended or formed in any quantity. Precious jewels, for example, are neither homogeneous nor divisible. More important, the commodity chosen as a medium must be a luxury. Human desires for luxuries are unlimited and, therefore, luxury goods are always in demand and will always be acceptable. Wheat is a luxury in underfed civilizations, but not in a prosperous society. Cigarettes ordinarily would not serve as money, but they did in post-World War II Europe where they were considered a luxury. The term “luxury good” implies scarcity and high unit value. Having a high unit value, such a good is easily portable; for instance, an ounce of gold is worth a half-ton of pig iron.
In the early stages of a developing money economy, several media of exchange might be used, since a wide variety of commodities would fulfill the foregoing conditions. However, one of the commodities will gradually displace all others, by being more widely acceptable. Preferences on what to hold as a store of value will shift to the most widely acceptable commodity, which, in turn, will make it still more acceptable. The shift is progressive until that commodity becomes the sole medium of exchange. The use of a single medium is highly advantageous for the same reasons that a money economy is superior to a barter economy: it makes exchanges possible on an incalculably wider scale.
Whether the single medium is gold, silver, seashells, cattle, or tobacco is optional, depending on the context and development of a given economy. In fact, all have been employed, at various times, as media of exchange. Even in the present century, two major commodities, gold and silver, have been used as international media of exchange, with gold becoming the predominant one. Gold, having both artistic and functional uses and being relatively scarce, has significant advantages over all other media of exchange. Since the beginning of World War I, it has been virtually the sole international standard of exchange. If all goods and services were to be paid for in gold, large payments would be difficult to execute and this would tend to limit the extent of a society’s divisions of labor and specialization. Thus a logical extension of the creation of a medium of exchange is the development of a banking system and credit instruments (bank notes and deposits) which act as a substitute for, but are convertible into, gold.
A free banking system based on gold is able to extend credit and thus to create bank notes (currency) and deposits, according to the production requirements of the economy. Individual owners of gold are induced, by payments of interest, to deposit their gold in a bank (against which they can draw checks). But since it is rarely the case that all depositors want to withdraw all their gold at the same time, the banker need keep only a fraction of his total deposits in gold as reserves. This enables the banker to loan out more than the amount of his gold deposits (which means that he holds claims to gold rather than gold as security of his deposits). But the amount of loans which he can afford to make is not arbitrary: he has to gauge it in relation to his reserves and to the status of his investments.
When banks loan money to finance productive and profitable endeavors, the loans are paid off rapidly and bank credit continues to be generally available. But when the business ventures financed by bank credit are less profitable and slow to pay off, bankers soon find that their loans outstanding are excessive relative to their gold reserves, and they begin to curtail new lending, usually by charging higher interest rates. This tends to restrict the financing of new ventures and requires the existing borrowers to improve their profitability before they can obtain credit for further expansion. Thus, under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy’s stability and balanced growth. When gold is accepted as the medium of exchange by most or all nations, an unhampered free international gold standard serves to foster a world-wide division of labor and the broadest international trade. Even though the units of exchange (the dollar, the pound, the franc, etc.) differ from country to country, when all are defined in terms of gold the economies of the different countries act as one — so long as there are no restraints on trade or on the movement of capital. Credit, interest rates, and prices tend to follow similar patterns in all countries. For example, if banks in one country extend credit too liberally, interest rates in that country will tend to fall, inducing depositors to shift their gold to higher-interest paying banks in other countries. This will immediately cause a shortage of bank reserves in the “easy money” country, inducing tighter credit standards and a return to competitively higher interest rates again.
A fully free banking system and fully consistent gold standard have not as yet been achieved. But prior to World War I, the banking system in the United States (and in most of the world) was based on gold and even though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free than controlled. Periodically, as a result of overly rapid credit expansion, banks became loaned up to the limit of their gold reserves, interest rates rose sharply, new credit was cut off, and the economy went into a sharp, but short-lived recession. (Compared with the depressions of 1920 and 1932, the pre-World War I business declines were mild indeed.) It was limited gold reserves that stopped the unbalanced expansions of business activity, before they could develop into the post-World War I type of disaster. The readjustment periods were short and the economies quickly reestablished a sound basis to resume expansion.
But the process of cure was misdiagnosed as the disease: if shortage of bank reserves was causing a business decline — argued economic interventionists — why not find a way of supplying increased reserves to the banks so they never need be short! If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely — it was claimed — there need never be any slumps in business. And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913. It consisted of twelve regional Federal Reserve banks nominally owned by private bankers, but in fact government sponsored, controlled, and supported. Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government. Technically, we remained on the gold standard; individuals were still free to own gold, and gold continued to be used as bank reserves. But now, in addition to gold, credit extended by the Federal Reserve banks (“paper reserves”) could serve as legal tender to pay depositors.
When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve’s attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable). The reasoning of the authorities involved was as follows: if the Federal Reserve pumped excessive paper reserves into American banks, interest rates in the United States would fall to a level comparable with those in Great Britain; this would act to stop Britain’s gold loss and avoid the political embarrassment of having to raise interest rates. The “Fed” succeeded; it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world, in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market, triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930’s.
With a logic reminiscent of a generation earlier, statists argued that the gold standard was largely to blame for the credit debacle which led to the Great Depression. If the gold standard had not existed, they argued, Britain’s abandonment of gold payments in 1931 would not have caused the failure of banks all over the world. (The irony was that since 1913, we had been, not on a gold standard, but on what may be termed “a mixed gold standard”; yet it is gold that took the blame.) But the opposition to the gold standard in any form — from a growing number of welfare-state advocates — was prompted by a much subtler insight: the realization that the gold standard is incompatible with chronic deficit spending (the hallmark of the welfare state). Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale.
Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy’s tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government’s promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited. The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which — through a complex series of steps — the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets. The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy’s books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 