Similarities between slavery and socialism, and indeed the aggressive anti-capitalist rhetoric of proslavery ideology, are seldom examined in the “New History of Capitalism” literature.

What is capitalism’s view toward slavery? It seems like a crazy question, but not so much actually, not in these times. So let us begin with the opening line of the first chapter of George Fitzhugh’s Sociology for the South, first published in 1854.

Political economy is the science of free society. Its theory and its history alike establish this position. Its fundamental maxim Laissez-faire and “Pas trop gouverner,” are at war with all kinds of slavery, for they in fact assert that individuals and peoples prosper most when governed least.

Fizhugh’s point was to inveigh against economic freedom and in defense of slavery. His radical tract sought to make out an elaborate ideological case for slave labor and indeed all aspects of social ordering. Such a system, he announced, would resolve the posited state of perpetual conflict between labor and the owners of capital by supplanting it with the paternalistic hierarchy of slavery — a model he advocated not only for the plantations of the South but also for adaptation to the factories of the Northeast.

In total, Fitzhugh presented a horrifying vision of a national society reordered around the principle of chattel slavery. And as his introductory remarks announced, attainment of that society required the defeat of its remaining obstacle, the free market.

Although rightly rejected today, the Virginia-born Fitzhugh attained national prominence in the late antebellum period as one of the most widely read defenders of a slave-based economy. Charles Sumner called him a “leading writer among Slave-masters,” and his regular contributions to the pro-South magazine DeBow’s Review gained him a national readership in the 1850s.

In 1855 Fitzhugh embarked on a publicity tour of the Northeast, jousting with abolitionist Wendell Phillips in a series of back-to-back lectures on the slavery question. By 1861, he had added his voice to the cause of southern secessionism and began mapping out an elaborate slave-based industrialization policy for the Confederacy’s wartime economy.

Fitzhugh was also an avowed anti-capitalist. Slavery’s greatest threat came from the free market economic doctrines of Europe, which were “tainted with abolition, and at war with our institutions.” To survive, he declared, the South must “throw Adam Smith, Say, Ricardo & Co., in the fire.”

Such rhetoric presents an under-acknowledged conundrum for modern historians. It is academically trendy at the moment to depict plantation slavery as an integral component of American capitalism.

A multipart feature series in the New York Times advances this thesis, depicting modern free market capitalism as an inherently “racist” institution and a direct lineal descendant of plantation slavery, still exhibiting the brutality of that system. This characterization draws heavily from the so-called “New History of Capitalism” (NHC) — a genre of historical writing that swept through the academy in the last decade and that aggressively promotes the thesis that free market capitalism and slavery are inextricably linked.

Many leading examples of NHC scholarship in the academy today are plagued by shoddy economic analysis and documented misuse of historical evidence. These works often present historically implausible arguments, such as the notion that modern double-entry accounting emerged from plantation ledger books (the practice actually traces to the banking economies of Renaissance Italy), or that its use by slave owners is distinctively capitalistic (even the Soviets employed modern accounting practices, despite attempting to centrally plan their entire economy). Indeed, it was NHC historian Ed Baptist who produced an unambiguously false statistic purporting to show that cotton production accounted for a full half of the antebellum American economy (it actually comprised about 5 percent of GDP).

Despite the deep empirical and historical deficiencies of this literature, NHC arguments are still widely enlisted not only as historical analysis of slavery’s economics but as an ideological attack on modern capitalism itself. If capitalism is historically tainted by its links to slavery, they reason, then the effects of slavery’s stain persist in modern American capitalism today. In its most extreme iterations, these same historians then advocate a political reordering of the American economy to remove that stain. In other words, to reconcile our society to its history and atone for the sins of slavery, we must abandon what remains of American capitalism.

The NHC literature’s use of the term “capitalism” is plagued by its own definitional fluidity, which, at times, encompasses everything from laissez-faire non-intervention to protectionist mercantilism to state-ordered central planning. Most economic historians take care to differentiate between the features of these widely varying systems; however, the NHC literature has adopted a habit of simply relabeling everything as “capitalism.” A command-and-control wartime industrial policy thus becomes “war capitalism,” while a slave-oriented mercantilist regime of protective tariffs and industrial subsidies becomes “racial slave capitalism,” and so forth.

When brandished in modern politics, it quickly becomes clear that the same scholars have only one “capitalism” in mind. The NHC genre’s own economic inclinations veer unambiguously in a leftward direction, suggesting their real ire is toward the classical liberal free market variety of capitalism. Wealth redistribution, the nationalization of health care and other entire economic sectors, socialistic central planning of industries around labor activism, and even a plethora of climate change policies thereby become necessary acts of “social justice” to correct for capitalism’s supposed slavery-infused legacy.

We therefore arrive at the curious position wherein “atonement” for slavery, as presented by the NHC historians, involves politically repudiating the same free market doctrines that Fitzhugh deemed the greatest danger to slavery itself in the decade before the Civil War.

Returning to Fitzhugh’s defense of slavery, we find deep similarities to anti-capitalist rhetoric today. The economic doctrines of laissez-faire, he wrote in 1857, foster “a system of unmitigated selfishness.” They subject nominally free labor to the “despotism of capital” wherein the capitalist class extracts an “exploitation of skill” from wage laborers, as found in the difference between the value of what they create and the much lower compensation they receive.

As Fitzhugh argued, by way of the example of a wealthy acquaintance who had “ceased work” and lived off of his fortune, the capitalist’s “capital was but the accumulation of the results of their labor; for common labor creates all capital.” He then succinctly explained the result by noting “the capitalist, living on his income, gives nothing to his subjects. He lives by mere exploitation.” As Fitzhugh continued:

It is the interest of the capitalist and the skillful to allow free laborers the least possible portion of the fruits of their own labor; for all capital is created by labor, and the smaller the allowance of the free laborer, the greater the gains of his employer. To treat free laborers badly and unfairly, is universally inculcated as a moral duty, and the selfishness of man’s nature prompts him to the most rigorous performance of this cannibalish duty. We appeal to political economy; the ethical, social, political and economic philosophy of free society, to prove the truth of our doctrines. As an ethical and social guide, that philosophy teaches, that social, individual and national competition, is a moral duty, and we have attempted to prove all competition is but the effort to enslave others, without being encumbered with their support.

The difference between the value of the laborer’s product and this substantially lower wage, Fitzhugh explained, provided a measure of the exploited share of his work.

If this line of reasoning sounds familiar, it is due to a very real parallel between Fitzhugh’s formulation of the capital–labor relationship and that of another famous contemporary. Fitzhugh had effectively worked out the Marxian theory of “surplus value” over a decade before the publication of Marx’s own Capital (1867), and derived it from the same sweeping indictment of the free-labor capitalism.

The two thinkers would only diverge in their next steps, the prescriptive solution. Whereas Marx rejected chattel slavery and extrapolated a long historical march to an eventual socialist reordering through revolutionary upheaval, Fitzhugh saw a readily available alternative. “Slavery is a form, and the very best form, of socialism,” he explained. Wage labor, he predicted, would be forever insufficient to meet the needs of the laborer due to deprivation of his products from his skill. Slavery, to Fitzhugh’s convenience, could step in and fill the gap through the paternalistic provision of necessities for the enslaved, allegedly removing the “greed” of wage exploitation from the process.

Since slaves became the charge of the slave master and were placed under his care for food and shelter, Fitzhugh reasoned that “slaves consume more of the results of their own labor than laborers at the North.” Plantation slavery, according to this contorted line of thinking, thereby mitigated the “exploitation” of wage labor capitalism and returned a greater portion of the posited surplus value. In the Marxian counterpart, a socialist state fulfills a similar function.

Fitzhugh’s eccentric extrapolation from what are essentially Marxian doctrines has the effect of turning Marx’s own untenable “solution” to capital ownership on its head. But the two thinkers unite in their grievances: a shared enmity toward market capitalism, and a desire to cast free market allocation of resources aside through coercive social reordering to achieve their respective ideal societies — mass enslavement or global communism.

These similarities between Fitzhugh and socialism, and indeed the aggressive anti-capitalist rhetoric of proslavery ideology, are seldom examined in the NHC literature. In its quest to politically tar modern capitalism with the horrors of slavery, these historians have adopted a practice of evidentiary negligence that conveniently excludes the explicit anti-capitalist ideological tenets of the very same slave system that they rebrand as a foundation of the modern capitalist economy .

Fitzhugh was not alone in adopting and adapting anti-capitalist ideology to the defense of slavery. Indeed, he heavily extrapolated it from Thomas Carlyle’s own racist attacks upon the “dismal science” of economics on account of its close historical ties to abolitionism. That these proslavery thinkers found a parallel rationale in socialism and deployed it to attack a common enemy of free markets, irrespective of their otherwise-divergent claims, is indicative of a shared illiberalism between the two. In practice, unfortunately, the immiserating historical records of each reveal that the only remaining distinction between their political outcomes consists of the choice between the slavery of the plantation and the slavery of the gulag.

Phil Magness is a Senior Research Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research. He is the author of numerous works on economic history, taxation, economic inequality, the history of slavery, and education policy in the United States.

Made available by the American Institute for Economic Research. Visit their website at https://www.aier.org.

Every camera phone these days has a feature that can flip the focus from “selfie” to the outside world for a more conventional shot. All of it done with a quick touch to the screen.

That’s as good a high-tech explanation as any of projection in the psychological sense.

Apart from deliberate projection, which is regularly used as a political tactic per Saul Alinsky, there is the more classic and unconscious projection that happens among true believers of the same ilk.

Take a look at what happens when one of those believers is caught telling the truth about what he’d like to do to Trump voters: DNC member David Atkins openly suggesting that 75 million Americans need to be “deprogrammed.”

While Atkins wonders how anyone could be a Trump supporter, many of us wonder how a leftist who may have been initially attracted to feel-good ideas like “tolerance” and “diversity” could publicly advocate forceful “deprogramming” of 75 million of his fellow citizens (in refugee camps? concentration camps?) for the sin of disagreeing with him about a political candidate. How does that happen?

Here’s a little of how projection works: Most of us are capable of powerful emotions. We also have emotions about our powerful emotions, which complicates matters even further. This can terrify people, especially if they already have trouble distinguishing between thoughts, feelings and actions. How could I have such horrible, evil, hateful thoughts? Does that make me evil too?

Among the variety of responses possible when emotions become too intense or painful for a person to tolerate is a kind of flip of focus — just like that camera. The subject disowns his uncomfortable or embarrassing feelings and quite unconsciously attributes them to others — often to the person or group on which he has already been so intensely focused.

It’s much easier to feel justified in advocating full-blown persecution of those he hates if he can view himself as a victim. To add insult to injury, this is all in the name of “tolerance.”

What happens when true victims of a paranoia-fueled vendetta are themselves called paranoid? How do we know who to believe?

Do you think leftism is like a cult?

Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha and the McCloskeys in St. Louis know firsthand how the propaganda media works full-time to confuse the public about who are the criminals and who are the law-abiding citizens.

The inability to distinguish or accept the origins of one’s rage is a building block of paranoia and persecution complexes.

A culture that positively values personal responsibility rather than collective guilt is infinitely healthier not just politically but psychologically.

Atkins goes on to project another charge against Trump supporters, claiming they are in a “death cult against reality & basic decency.”

If ever there were an ideology that resembles a classic cult, it is the leftism, socialism and communism of today, which now control much of what used to be the Democratic Party.

In 2017, I outlined some of the more obvious comparisons in an article about how liberalism is like a cult.

Cults feed and grow off collectivism and groupthink. That is why they must always demonize dissent, individuality and personal responsibility.

Remember when the left lectured us (when do they not?) about “Hate, hate — we have to root out hate!” That should have been our first clue that they were getting ready to unleash an avalanche of hate upon us, and they did.

The pattern is so often repeated that we can just about predict what they’ll do by watching what they accuse everyone else of next.

For his mental health and our safety, David Atkins and others like him need to flip their cameras to “selfie.” That, or take a good, long look in the mirror.

That is all.

Karen Kataline is a commentator, columnist & talk show host. She holds a Master’s Degree from Columbia University and is a sought after guest on talk shows around the country.

The United States has reached a tipping point: The damage done to schoolchildren with scarce resources is likely to be irreparable.’

As report cards begin to roll out for fall, public schools across the nation are reporting a massive increase in children failing classes, due to the majority going online and the chaos of rolling COVID closures. In Fairfax, Virginia, one of the nation’s largest districts, “the percentage of middle school and high school students earning F’s in at least two classes jumped by 83 percent: from 6 percent to 11 percent,” the Washington Post reported Tuesday. That’s nearly 10,000 children.

Saint Paul, Minnesota, reported recently that 40 percent of high school students are failing, “about double what we might expect in a typical year,” said the large district’s superintendent. It’s even worse for younger children.

In Houston, Texas, the superintendent says 42 percent of students failed two or more classes this fall, up from 11 percent in a typical year. In Alabama, 5,000 children have never shown up for class this school year, either in-person or online.

In October, 79 percent of U.S. parents of school-age children told Pew their children were receiving either entirely or partially online instruction this school year. Only 20 percent of U.S. kids were reported as receiving fully in-person instruction this school year.

In-person instruction decreased further in November due to media panic over increasing COVID cases, even though research shows children are at lower risk of a bad case of COVID than from the seasonal flu, and most teachers are also young and in the low-risk category. Foreign countries that kept schools open found they did not significantly contribute to COVID spread. The United States is a first-world outlier in continuing to keep children online now for nearly an entire school year.

Data showing children are at low risk from COVID was available by early summer 2020, yet most public schools have kept or increased online activities after shutting down in the spring then providing chaotic, poor-quality instruction until the school year ended. Joe Biden’s plan would keep rolling school blackouts going indefinitely.

Ninety percent of parents whose children were getting exclusively in-person instruction were satisfied with it, while three-quarters of parents whose children had some or all online instruction told Pew they were satisfied. There is a clear disconnect between parents’ claims of satisfaction with online offerings and children’s actual performance.

Also, younger kids are experiencing more serious effects. F’s for Fairfax high-schoolers are up by 50%.

But among middle-schoolers, F’s are up by 300%:
* up 400% for middle-schoolers w/ disabilites
* up 400% for Hispanic middle-schoolers
* up 383% for English learners pic.twitter.com/TlGCZkXnka

— Hannah Natanson (@hannah_natanson) November 24, 2020

Besides reinforcing that online instruction is clearly inferior to personal instruction, which was well-established long before COVID, all of these reports show that the children who are most harmed are the most at-risk: poor and struggling learners. This matches the large amount of other research that finds that the pre-COVID mediocrity of American public education handicaps all children and taxpayers, which is most visible in children whose families cannot or will not compensate for schooling failures.

Once children fall behind in school, they rarely ever recover. U.S. public schools are extremely poor at remediation, largely because the leftist ideology controlling it despises the core curriculum that most strongly propels achievement for all. The left’s war on norms, normality, and a common culture makes closing education gaps almost impossible — even though that’s precisely what America’s educationally abused COVID generation needs more than ever.

The Post says the spike in fail rates “confirm[s] fears about how the pandemic is driving an equity gap in American education that may prove impossible to close. Fairfax’s data shows that children who are engaged and care deeply about school — children in stable home situations, whose parents have sufficient resources — will stay engaged in an online environment, while children whose temperament, socioeconomic status or home situation have historically barred them from academic achievement will slip further and further behind.”

This is terrible news for taxpayers, as children like this graduate into economic dependence on their fellow citizens and the United States is facing the largest debt crisis in human history.

“More than 70% of Black students are learning entirely remotely right now, compared to about 40% of white students and about 60% Hispanic or Latinx students,” according to Marketplace Edison Research. The firm says this is partly because more black parents chose online learning because higher percentages of African Americans suffer from COVID infections.

Teachers of children who have stable families with a non-working parent free to fill in instruction schools are refusing to provide also privately report many such children are also not doing well. They also have been forced into the constant chaos of changing school situations, high rates of isolation, the distractions of screen-centered interaction, and a lack of professional in-person instruction. Like America’s “good” school districts, the middle-class kids with stable families look better in comparison to the devastated children. But they’re being seriously hurt, too.

As researchers such as E.D. Hirsch and Jay P. Greene have demonstrated, America’s middle-class students and highly rated schools have been at best mediocre for decades when compared to peers in other highly developed nations. The United States’ free economy helps compensate for its academic decrepitude, but that advantage is narrowing. The U.S. economy is increasingly saddled with government and consumer debt, and the U.S.’s high numbers of unstable homes and schools that aren’t capable of compensating for them produce increasing numbers of adults unfit for work. COVID instability increases the pressure on this already weak social infrastructure.

It is already possible to see what the long-term consequences will be for the nation. It was possible to see that back in March when schools were first closed. As I wrote in April:

Since the typical public school is extremely poor at remedial education and lifting children above their demographics, it’s likely that millions of American children will never recover from the educational and thus economic setbacks of shutting down their schools this year. Kids who fall behind in U.S. public schools very rarely recover. Plus, the Common Core era has already seen a decline in U.S. education quality. As always, these compounded setbacks will be worst for the children who can least afford them.

The Post paraphrases Jack Schneider, an assistant professor of education at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell, as saying: “the United States has reached a tipping point: The damage done to schoolchildren with scarce resources is likely to be irreparable.” U.S. governors, school superintendents, legislatures who refused to check pandemic excesses, and other leaders who failed this generation cannot say they weren’t warned. But by the time the evils they have caused can no longer be hidden, they will be out of office with a nice retirement fund, still assuaging their guilt with the lie that lockdowns “saved lives.”

There are only a few strategies possible to help children overcome the damage our society has done to them. Most importantly, state legislatures must immediately grant parents the power to microtarget effective in-person instruction to their children through education savings accounts. The only schools that have a track record of overcoming education gaps as a sector are charter, Christian, and home schools.

Second, states must end the “college to nowhere” reality with drastically improved secondary trades apprenticeships. As Stanley Kurtz writes, the right must “build up a competing, quicker and cheaper apprenticeship sector that serves the upper-middle class as well as blue-collar workers.” Ideology has ruined K-16 education in America, and kids handicapped by COVID closures cannot afford that. They need paths to self-sufficiency that won’t make them mental and financial slaves.

Democrats aren’t going to do this — school closures were their demand in the first place, and education’s ideological corruption serves their interests by creating economic and mental dependents. If Republicans don’t stop sitting on their hands in their moms’ basements like Biden and start helping the kids and our nation effectively address this, they don’t deserve to exist. This is an existential crisis for America.

Joy Pullman, The Federalist

An article titled “Six Scams that Prey on the Elderly” that appeared on Kiplinger.com last year has recently been reposted on Pocket. Although there is a Social Security scam that the author (Miriam Cross) mentions as one of the six, the fact that Social Security itself is a scam is never mentioned.

“Many scams are universal,” begins Cross, “from the IRS impostor who calls and threatens to arrest you if you don’t pay your taxes, to phishing emails that trick you into sending sensitive data or downloading malware onto your computer.”

But some scams specifically target the elderly.

“Older adults may fall for certain scams because they are in the habit of answering calls from unknown callers, open junk mail rather than tossing it in the trash, or are not as practiced with the privacy settings on social media as younger generations.” Larry Santucci agrees. He co-authored a report about elder financial victimization for the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. “Older adults make great targets because they have accumulated assets over time and are living off their savings. Some are also very lonely or socially isolated, which makes them susceptible to exploitation.”

“Here are six scams that you and your parents should watch out for,” warns Cross.

Sweepstakes or Lottery: You are told that you have won or could win a jackpot, but you need to pay a fee to receive your prize.

Tech Support: A so-called tech support representative calls and claims that your computer is infected with a virus and requests remote access or payment for virus removal services.

“Grandchild” in Need: Someone claiming to be your grandchild calls — sounding frantic — because he needs cash to deal with an emergency.

Romance: You get a message online that says something like “Don’t you remember me?” A seducer then spends time building a relationship before asking for money.

Natural Disasters and Contractors: Fake contractors will go door-to-door offering fix-it services, ask for instant payment, promise to start working the next day, and then disappear.

Social Security: Someone claiming to be a Social Security staffer contacts you and tries to extract money or personal details by pretending that there is a problem with your account, that your Social Security number has been suspended, or that you’re owed a cost-of-living benefit increase.

No doubt some seniors have fallen for one or more of these scams. But the greatest scam that seniors have fallen for is the scam of Social Security — not a scam involving someone claiming to be from the Social Security Administration, but the scam of Social Security itself.

Here are the six scams of Social Security that most seniors in the United States have fallen for.

1. Social Security has a trust fund.

Most Americans believe that there exists somewhere an account in the Social Security trust funds with their name on it. The truth, however, is that the Social Security trust funds are government accounting fictions. There are no reserves in an account for people to draw from. There is no lock box. All Social Security benefits are paid from current taxes collected, as the Social Security Administration (SSA) acknowledges. The “trust fund” is just a gigantic IOU from the U.S. Treasury. Furthermore, since 2010, total expenditures of Social Security have exceeded the non-interest income of its combined trust funds. That is because the ratio of those paying into the system to those collecting benefits has declined from more than forty to one down to about three to one. According to Social Security’s Annual Report, the trust funds “would be able to pay scheduled benefits on a timely basis until 2035.” After that, “the combined funds’ reserves will become depleted and continuing tax income will be sufficient to pay 79 percent of scheduled benefits.” The reality is that the Social Security deficit is made up from the federal government’s general fund. But, again, there is a problem. Federal budgets are now about $5 trillion a year, annual budget deficits are more than $1 trillion, and the national debt is now more than $27 trillion. Social Security is not just underfunded, it is unsustainable.

2. Retirees are entitled to Social Security benefits.

Most Americans believe that retirees are entitled to Social Security benefits because they paid into the system their entire working lives. But the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no contractual right to receive benefits. Congress can revise the Social Security benefit schedule at any time, use a means-test to determine eligibility, raise the Social Security tax rate, increase or eliminate the wage base upon which Social Security taxes are figured, raise the retirement age, or increase the percentage of benefits that are taxable. And if Americans are entitled to Social Security benefits, then why does the government tax them in the first place?

3. Social Security benefits are related to the amount of Social Security taxes paid.

Social Security is funded by a 12.4 percent payroll tax (split equally between employers and employees) on the first $137,700 of employee income. Self-employed persons pay the full 12.4 percent, but receive a tax deduction equal to 50 percent of the amount of the Social Security tax they paid. One must pay Social Security taxes for a minimum of 40 quarters, or 10 years, to be eligible for benefits. But there is no relation between taxes paid and Social Security benefits received. Benefits are figured on the basis of one’s Primary Insurance Amount (PIA), the average of a worker’s 35 highest years of earnings (up to a particular year’s wage base), adjusted for inflation; in other words: the benefits are calculated by some arbitrary formula that Congress can change at any time.

4. Social Security is a good investment.

Although Ida Mae Fuller, the first recipient of Social Security, paid in only $24.75 and received $22,888.92 in benefits (she lived to be 100), for many years now Social Security has been a bad investment. Many workers who pay into Social Security end up with a negative annual rate of return. A report by the Heritage Foundation concluded that “Americans would be better off keeping their payroll tax contributions and putting them into private retirement accounts than having to sacrifice them to the government’s broken Social Security system.” Politics has nothing to do with it. It is just a matter of simple math. Economist Walter Williams once did the math and pointed out that a man reaching age 65 in the year 2000 could expect to receive $71,000 more in government transfer payments (of which the largest amount is Social Security) than he paid in taxes. But a 20-year-old man who entered the workforce in the year 2000 could expect to pay $312,000 more in taxes than he would ever receive in benefits. A man can pay into Social Security his whole working life and, if he dies upon retirement without dependents, his Social Security benefits die with him. Although Social Security is presented as retirement insurance for which one pays premiums or contributions, it is not a retirement plan, an insurance program, a savings account, a 401(k)-type account, an IRA, an investment vehicle, a pension fund, an annuity, or a safety net.

5. Senior citizens can’t make ends meet without Social Security.

Most Americans believe that without Social Security senior citizens would be impoverished, go hungry, and die in the streets. But according to the IRS, incomes for households whose members are 65 and older grew more than twice as fast as working-age households. Seniors as a group are now one of the richest segments of the population. According to the Federal Reserve, “Among households age 55 to 69, retirement savings grew from 232 percent of annual earnings in 1989 to 471 percent in 2016.” And according to the SSA, “Americans born between 1926 and 1935 had a median retirement income equal to 111 percent of their inflation-adjusted career-average earnings.”

6. Social Security is not welfare.

When most Americans think of government welfare programs they usually have in mind the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called food stamps); Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF); Supplemental Security Income (SSI); Medicaid; the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); Section 8 housing vouchers; or Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Some Americans would also include refundable tax credits, Medicare, and unemployment compensation. Few Americans recognize that Social Security is also a welfare program. It is the cornerstone of the welfare state, a relic from the New Deal, the largest welfare program, and the greatest expenditure of the federal government. Like any welfare program, Social Security fosters dependency on the government, crowds out real charity, shifts responsibility from the individual to society, shifts responsibility from families to the state, and contributes to class warfare. Social Security is an intergenerational, income-transfer, wealth-redistribution welfare program that takes money from those who work and gives it to those who don’t.

Social Security is the biggest government scam that has ever existed.

This post was written by: Laurence M. Vance

Laurence M. Vance is a columnist and policy advisor for the Future of Freedom Foundation, an associated scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and a columnist, blogger, and book reviewer at LewRockwell.com. He is the author of Gun Control and the Second Amendment, The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom, and War, Empire and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy. His newest books are Free Trade or Protectionism? and The Free Society. Visit his website: www.vancepublications.com. Send him e-mail.

I think that a common theme among my conservative correspondents is: “is this the end of free elections?” Will our Democratic friends be fixing all the presidential elections from here on out? Will I have to bow to the liberal mob if I want a job? And so on.

I guess that I have a more optimistic outlook on things. But why, I asked myself? Here are a few.

First, I concur with Crane Brinton in The Anatomy of Revolution. He writes that a Reign of Terror is a sign that the prophecy of the revolution — that heaven on earth was right around the corner — was failing.

Second, I go with Gaetano Mosca in The Ruling Class. He writes that a good ruling class, one that is likely to stick around, is one that has a “political formula” that resonates with the masses. But our ruling class’s political formula right now seems to be the “oppressed peoples, allies, white oppressors” narrative that even showed up in the Snowflake Penguins incident. The Snowflakes at the South Pole had just been to Allyship training!

Just between you and me — and don’t tell the nice liberal lady with the Hate Has No Home Here yard-sign — I think that the “oppressed peoples, allies, white oppressors” political formula  is a cruelly exclusive doctrine that cuts out the great middle of America. No ruling class with half a brain would go for a political formula like that.

Third, there is the Reds Under the Bed conspiracy theory. Back in the day, it took five lost presidential elections in a row — 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948 — before the Republican Tailgunner Joe started nosing around looking for a conspiracy of Commies in the State Department. Now I regard it as perfectly natural and physical that you start wondering about whether Da Fix Is In after you lose five presidential elections in a row. But our Democratic friends started with the conspiracy stuff upon losing one election! And then decided to steal the next election! Come on, fellahs! Don’t you think that in 2024 the American people will be absolutely sick of Donald Trump and decide it is Time for a Change? Are you dumb or something? Or is there something we don’t know that is liable to surface during a second Trump administration, so you chaps have to get rid of him now before it is too late?

See, the reason I have been reading Mosca’s Ruling Class is, first, that I think that Curtis Yarvin is as smart as paint, and second, that I desperately want to believe that our corrupt and declining ruling class really is on the way out.

Let’s use Mosca’s ruling-class analysis to evaluate our ruling class.

First, a ruling class has to have a “political formula,” something not like “all whites are racist.” But in fact, the ruling classes across the developed world do not believe in their separate nations; they are globalists. Joe Biden’s  political formula is to save the planet from climate change and fight systemic racism: completely out of sync with the average American.

Second, a ruling class has to develop a good system of “juridical defense.” Yeah. What’s that when it’s at home? Mosca means “public opinion, religion, law and the whole social mechanism that enforces observance” of the general “moral sense” of society. I’d say that right now, with the cancel culture and Defund the Police, our ruling class’s “juridical defense” system is in the ditch, completely out of sync with the “moral sense” of the average American.

Third, to keep itself up to the mark, and refresh its membership, the ruling class needs to be open to aspirants from the lower classes. Anyone around here think that our current ruling class believes it has anything to learn from the lower classes, excepting only its favored Little Darlings that tick all the right boxes on the DIE front? I’d say that right now, the one group the ruling class does not want to invite into its inner sanctum is ordinary unspecial Americans.

See why I am not discouraged? Our ruling class is a bunch of losers, and they can’t even get the basics right. So it’s not a question of If, but When.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.

“America’s prosperity was not a gift from the government or anyone else. Free enterprise, not government, is the source from which our blessings flow.” -Ronald Reagan on Prosperity

I think that this quote by Ronald Reagan on prosperity just about perfectly sums up why we need to be mindful of government promises of prosperity.

Yes, the government can implement policies that don’t constrain citizen action enough to limit wealth creation too much and we should always support politicians that promise those policies. But, frankly, any government action will only hurt the economy. The government might be here to help, but it’s like your idiot coworker that offers to help; even if its intentions are benign, its actions will likely end up hurting what you’re doing.

That’s an important fact to remember during this Chinese flu crisis. The formerly booming Trump economy has been devastated by China’s irresponsible behavior, so we’re looking for solutions. Congress voted for a $2 trillion “stimulus” plan that’s not really a stimulus but is rather a government handout and wealth redistribution scheme.

In our efforts to bring back the Trump economy, politicians and citizens alike seem to be forgetting what made that economy so strong in the first place: deregulation, tax cuts, and pro-capitalism policies. That is to say, Trump implemented the magic formula of economic success. Now, far too many people in the US are asking an organization that can’t even handle filling in potholes on time to both rebuild an economy and manage our medical system. Color me skeptical- I see no way in which that’ll work. Instead, it will likely just make everyone worse off and create unnecessary inefficiencies in the economy; Big Government is always worse than capitalism.

So, what should we do to fight off the Coronavirus while also avoiding the virus of socialism? Unleash the free market. Let people make their own decisions. If they want to work, eat out, party with friends, etc., then we should let them. If they want to remain hermits to avoid getting the China flu, then let them. Freedom will provide a solution and lead to prosperity in a way that government never will.

Even more importantly, free-market policies will mean that we retain our liberty. Governments traditionally use crises to seize ever-more power, as Jonah Goldberg describes in Liberal Fascism. We can’t let that happen here, which means we need to remember not to trust the government. If you want a prosperous America, then listen to and remember what is in this quote by Ronald Reagan on prosperity and support the free market, not Big Government policies of control! The free market will make you, and the rest of society, prosperous. Big government and government control over the economy will impoverish you and everyone else.

By: Gen Z Conservative

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey — like a lone voice in the intellectual and political wilderness — has launched a DEFENSE of capitalism. Imagine that.

Mackey said some of the additional “disasters of progressivism” were that it teaches people to not be patriotic about America and portrays the country as “the worst that’s ever existed.” He added that progressivism was authoritarian, self-righteous, and canceled people who have different views. Mackey also noted that Whole Foods has had multiple stores that have been damaged in “peaceful protests” by the political Left.

“They talk about trickle-down wealth, but socialism is trickle-up poverty,” Mackey continued. “It just impoverishes everything. That’s my fear, that the Marxists and socialists, the academic community is generally hostile to business. It always has been. This is not new.”

“Innovationism is the greatest thing that humanity’s ever created,” Mackey continued. “I mean if you go back 200 years ago when innovationism was really beginning to pick up steam, 94% of everybody alive on the planet on earth lived on less than two dollars a day, 94% percent, only 6% made more than two dollars a day and that’s in today’s dollars. Today that’s under 10%.”

Mackey said that actions by the Left have made it “harder to do business” since America is in “kind of a rocky place right now.” Mackey specifically mentioned the “defund the police” movement, saying that the company has to hire significantly more security guards now.

Mackey said that the culture in the business world needs to evolve, “otherwise the socialists are going to take over and that’s the path to poverty.”

“Business people are not the villains of the story, they’re the heroes of the story,” he added. “The entrepreneurs are the ones that create great progress and they’re universally vilified.”

He added that the whole reason that socialism has gained steam is because people have been falsely indoctrinated into believing that businesses are motivated by greed and exploitative.

“That is wrong,” he said. “Capitalism is the greatest thing humanity’s ever done, we told a bad narrative and we’ve let the enemies of business and the enemies of capitalism put out a narrative about us that’s wrong, it’s inaccurate and it’s doing tremendous damage to the minds of young people. We have to counter that.”

Mackey also slammed Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) “Green New Deal,” saying that it will cause the U.S. to regress.

How refreshing, to hear people who benefit from capitalism willing to defend capitalism.

Success and achievement are nothing to apologize for. Poverty, despair and tyranny ARE things to be ashamed of. Why is success always on trial, while failure and misery are always upheld as the ideal? It’s twisted, it’s sick and it’s morally wrong.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

It’s obvious why the Chinese Communist Party wants Trump gone. He’s stopped the 100 Year Marathon of Chinese subterfuge to undermine America and make her a vassal state. He has also threatened the underpinnings of the mercantilist Chinese economy, a house of cards that depends on the American dumping ground for cheaply made, sub-par Chinese Goods.

President Xi cannot let Trump stay in power or he loses the ‘mandate from heaven’, or the divine justification for Xi’s totalitarian state. At the end of the day, Chinese elites have made a bargain with the devil — give the CCP political control and legitimacy in exchange for wealth and overseas access. This is what keeps the CCP in power…lose it and Xi is relegated to the trash bin of history.

And, Xi is very afraid of losing it – hence the attempted coordinated action against Trump.

The Iranian connection to the coup attempt is obvious. Tehran’s grip on power is dying due to Trump geopolitical pressure. POTUS completely reversed the Obama collusion with the murderous mullahs, the pathway to getting the regime the bomb. Trump has applied severe economic pressure as well, snuffing out the billions in graft every year the mullahs commit against the helpless Iranian people. Regime change is also in the administration’s playbook. The mullahs know it is only a matter of time.

The curious entry into this discussion is the Russian Federation. We have not heard much about Russian involvement against Trump during the last few years; the Kremlin prefers to remain in the shadows. However, no one has been tougher against Russia’s activities overseas that Donald J. Trump. From the launching of missiles in Syria, the killing of hundreds of Russian mercenaries by America Special Operations air power in the Levant, the shutting down of the Nord Stream II pipeline carrying Russian gas into Germany, sanctions, and on and on and on. Although the Kremlin would preferred not to be dealing with such a tough American leader, a Biden Administration will for sure return to the Russia! Russia! Russia! narrative of the Mueller fake investigation.https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?guci=2.2.0.0.2.2.0.0&client=ca-pub-9331199010114401&output=html&h=173&slotname=6818685216&adk=2846028415&adf=3370083412&pi=t.ma~as.6818685216&w=692&fwrn=4&lmt=1606752270&rafmt=11&psa=1&format=692×173&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcreativedestructionmedia.com%2Fanalysis%2F2020%2F11%2F29%2Fwhy-our-foreign-and-domestic-enemies-want-trump-gone%2F&flash=0&wgl=1&tt_state=W3siaXNzdWVyT3JpZ2luIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9hZHNlcnZpY2UuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbSIsInN0YXRlIjo2fSx7Imlzc3Vlck9yaWdpbiI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXR0ZXN0YXRpb24uYW5kcm9pZC5jb20iLCJzdGF0ZSI6MX1d&dt=1606752269383&bpp=11&bdt=2616&idt=1411&shv=r20201112&cbv=r20190131&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&cookie=ID%3D768d92134e1ea17f-22d7cc461fc50068%3AT%3D1606708676%3ART%3D1606708676%3AS%3DALNI_Mbzl-r1TcrCJBaenZSpPmZTNCtuWQ&prev_fmts=712×280&correlator=2845234758833&frm=20&pv=1&ga_vid=1635540382.1606708672&ga_sid=1606752271&ga_hid=1056963090&ga_fc=0&iag=0&icsg=562966609036284&dssz=62&mdo=0&mso=0&rplot=4&u_tz=-300&u_his=1&u_java=0&u_h=1138&u_w=712&u_ah=1138&u_aw=712&u_cd=24&u_nplug=0&u_nmime=0&adx=10&ady=2071&biw=712&bih=970&scr_x=0&scr_y=244&eid=21066651%2C44731609%2C21067496%2C21066973&oid=3&pvsid=99624177551847&pem=458&rx=0&eae=0&fc=900&brdim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C712%2C0%2C712%2C970%2C712%2C970&vis=1&rsz=%7C%7CeEbr%7C&abl=CS&pfx=0&fu=8320&bc=31&ifi=2&uci=a!2&btvi=1&fsb=1&xpc=TYyBHp96Tn&p=https%3A//creativedestructionmedia.com&dtd=1434

We at CDMedia have always tried to explain the Russian enigma as best we could. On one hand Putin would prefer a leader that is open to working together in some areas, as Trump surely is, but Putin does not want such a tough negotiator sitting across the geopolitical table.

Yesterday, Lt General Thomas McInerney declared in an interview he had proof of Russian involvement in the coup from the servers acquired via the U.S. military in Germany. This is the first we have heard of this and will be looking out for more details and will report as we come across.

As far as our domestic enemies are concerned, they are literally fighting for their corrupt lives. If Trump is inaugurated, they go to prison, hundreds, maybe thousands of them. They know this. Hence, the coordination with the Chicoms, the Iranians, etc. As we have said many times on these pages, the Obama administration was the most corrupt in history, literally treasonous, selling us out to Islamic extremists, Chinese communists, and the communist movement in general. They cannot let Trump exist, or they die metaphorically, as they should.

One thing is for sure, there is much going on that we the public do not know. CDMedia will try our best to bring the truth as we see it.

CDMedia Staff

If there is one point on which all philosophic schools of the last two hundred years agree, it is that no rational foundation for morality is possible. Limiting reason to syllogistic deduction, ignoring the fact that deduction presupposes induction and concept-formation, philosophers have concluded that it is impossible to prove any code of values. It is impossible, they say, to derive an “ought” from an “is.” Yet Ayn Rand has done just that — not by deducing values from facts, but by pointing out the facts of reality which give rise to the concept “value,” and therefore to all “oughts.”

Her derivation begins with the identification that ‘“value’ is that which one acts to gain and/or keep.”¹ Observing that “the concept ‘value’ is not a primary,”² she went on to ask what underlies the whole phenomenon of action to gain values.

She found the answer in the fact that man faces the constant alternative of life or death. As a living entity, man has survival needs — things he must act to obtain in order to remain in existence. This is the fact that makes value-seeking action possible and necessary. I quote one of the most important paragraphs Ayn Rand ever wrote:

“There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence — and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.”³

Apart from the need for self-sustaining action, no values can exist and no value-concepts can be given meaning. To speak of a “value” that is unrelated to one’s survival needs is to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. The fact that an organism’s continued existence depends upon its actions is the root of values as such.

“In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life.”⁴

Since man has free will, he does not automatically act in the direction of his survival. He is not born with the knowledge of what his survival needs are or how to fulfill them, nor is he genetically programmed to gain this knowledge and act accordingly. As a conceptual being, man needs the guidance of principles; he needs an integrated, hierarchical system of values and virtues; he needs a code of morality.

Ayn Rand solved the dilemma that had stymied all previous moral philosophers. It seemed that the basis of morality — an ultimate value — could not itself be justified. For either the ultimate value is held as a value by choice or not. If choice is not involved, if factors beyond his control compel man to pursue the ultimate value, then morality is impossible: whatever one does, one had to do. But if, on the other hand, the ultimate value is subject to choice, then morality is, they held, subjective, for there is no higher value obligating one to choose any one ultimate value over any other.

This dilemma vanishes once one grasps that “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.” The issue of justifying choices arises only within the context of having chosen to live.

Holding one’s life as an ultimate value is a matter of choice: man does not automatically value his own life, and there is no such thing as a “duty” or “categorical imperative” obligating one to live. But this does not make morality subjective or arbitrary. For fundamentally, one’s choice is to live, and hence to define and pursue the values one’s life requires, or not to live, and hence to have no values, take no actions, and perish. “Life or death is man’s only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course.”⁵

NOTE: This is Part II of a series.

Project Syndicate, a commentary and analysis website partly financed by billionaire financier George Soros, refused to publish Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s response to Soros’ op-ed article from Nov. 18.

In the article, Soros accused Orbán and Poland’s “de facto ruler Jarosław Kaczyński” of finding the rule of law “a practical limit on personal and political corruption.”

In response, Orbán has published the letter on a Hungarian government website. 

“The Soros network, which has woven itself through Europe’s bureaucracy and its political elite, has for years been working to make Europe an immigrant continent,” Orbán wrote. “Today the Soros network, which promotes a global open society and seeks to abolish national frameworks, is the greatest threat faced by the states of the European Union.”

In the article, Orbán wrote that he was advised against responding as a prime minister to the opinion of an “economic criminal”, but indicated that he wanted to raise his voice against the fact that “the Hungarian-born speculator and billionaire George Soros issued open commands to the leaders of the European Union”.

Orban was also clear about what he believes Soros’ end goal is.

“The goals of the network are obvious: to create multi-ethnic, multicultural open societies by accelerating migration, and to dismantle national decision-making, placing it in the hands of the global elite,” he wrote.

Orbán wrote that while Europe was first fighting a huge migration wave that began in 2015 and is now also battling the coronavirus pandemic, the Soros-network continued to pursue its goals to create multi-ethnic, multicultural open societies by accelerating migration, and to dismantle national decision-making, placing it in the hands of the global elite.

“During all these crises, this speculator — who calls himself a philanthropist — did not consider the interests of the people of Europe, but acted to his own advantage,” Orbán wrote. “Memorably he attacked the Hungarian forint and Hungary’s largest bank in the economic crisis, and he planned to speed up, distribute and finance the resettlement of immigrants during the migrant crisis; and now he is proposing that Member States punish one another, instead of embracing solidarity and mutual assistance.”

He also underscored the main differences between Hungarian policy and Soros’ agenda:

“Soros wants an open society, while we want a safe society. According to him, democracy can only be liberal, while we think it can be Christian,” Orbán wrote. “According to him, freedom can only serve self-realization, while we believe that freedom can also be used to follow the teachings of Christ, to serve one’s country, and to protect our families.”

A full of transcript of Orbán’s response article is reprinted below:

Many believe that the prime minister of a country should not enter into an argument with George Soros. Their reasoning is that Soros is an economic criminal, because he made his money through speculation, ruining the lives of millions of people, and even blackmailing entire national economies. Just as governments must not negotiate with terrorists, they say, prime ministers must likewise not debate with economic criminals.

Yet now I am compelled to do so, because in an article appearing on the Project Syndicate website on 18 November, the Hungarian-born speculator and billionaire George Soros issued open commands to the leaders of the European Union. In his article he instructs them to severely punish those Member States that do not want to become part of a unifying European empire under the banner of a global “open society”.

Throughout history, Europe’s strength has always been derived from its nations. Although of different origins, European nations were bound together by the common roots of our faith. The foundation of our communities was the European family model, itself based on Judeo-Christian traditions. It was Christian freedom which ensured freedom of thought and culture, and which created benign competition among the continent’s nations. This magnificent amalgam of contrasts made Europe the world’s leading power through centuries of history.

Every attempt to unify Europe under the aegis of empire has failed. Thus historical experience tells us that Europe will be great again if its nations become great again, and resist all forms of imperial ambition.

Great forces are once again moving to eradicate the nations of Europe and unify the continent under the aegis of a global empire. The Soros network, which has woven itself through Europe’s bureaucracy and its political elite, has for years been working to make Europe an immigrant continent. Today the Soros network, which promotes a global open society and seeks to abolish national frameworks, is the greatest threat faced by the states of the European Union. The goals of the network are obvious: to create multi-ethnic, multicultural open societies by accelerating migration, and to dismantle national decision-making, placing it in the hands of the global elite.

The European Union is suffering from multiple afflictions: since 2008 an economic crisis of proportions not seen for generations; since 2015 a migration crisis; and in 2020 a devastating global pandemic. Europe has still not recovered from its previous crises, and so the impact of the coronavirus pandemic has the potential for even greater distress. There are already signs of this: in several countries public debt, unemployment rates and the general economic situation have reached critical levels. The need for European solidarity, for European nations to come together to help each other, has never been greater.

During all these crises, this speculator – who calls himself a philanthropist – did not consider the interests of the people of Europe, but acted to his own advantage. Memorably he attacked the Hungarian forint and Hungary’s largest bank in the economic crisis, and he planned to speed up, distribute and finance the resettlement of immigrants during the migrant crisis; and now he is proposing that Member States punish one another, instead of embracing solidarity and mutual assistance.

The network directed by George Soros has now discarded any hesitancy it may have had about open intervention. He wants to put more pressure on nation states than ever before. He is setting the peoples of Europe against one another. The network’s operational system is labyrinthine, and is present in various arenas of public life. On the payroll of George Soros are a long list of politicians, journalists, judges, bureaucrats and political agitators masquerading as members of civil society organizations. And although the billionaire accuses all his enemies of corruption, he himself is the most corrupt man in the world. He pays off and buys whoever he can – and those whom he cannot bribe will be slandered, humiliated, intimidated and destroyed by the network through its formidable weapon: the left-wing media battalions.

Many high-ranking EU bureaucrats are working with the Soros network to create a unified empire. They want to build an institutional system that, under the aegis of the open society, seeks to force a unified way of thinking, a unified culture and a unified social model on Europe’s free and independent nations. They seek to rescind the right of every people to decide its own destiny. This is also the purpose of their “rule of law” proposal – which does not, in fact, recognize the rule of law, but of strength. It would be more honest to call it the “rule of the majority”.

The differences between us are obvious. Soros wants an open society, while we want a safe society. According to him, democracy can only be liberal, while we think it can be Christian. According to him, freedom can only serve self-realization, while we believe that freedom can also be used to follow the teachings of Christ, to serve one’s country, and to protect our families. The basis of Christian freedom is the freedom to decide. This is now in jeopardy.

We in the eastern part of the EU know very well what it means to be free. The history of the nations of Central Europe has been a relentless struggle for freedom against great empires, a repeated battle to win our right to decide our own destinies. We have bitter first-hand experience that every imperial endeavor brings enslavement. There are still quite a few here from the generation of freedom fighters – in the former Eastern Bloc, from Estonia to Slovenia, from Dresden to Sofia – who can personally remember what it is like to oppose tyranny, the rule of man and its communist version: intimidation, material and moral ruination, physical and mental abuse. We want no more of that.

Western leaders who have lived their whole lives in a world of inherited freedom and the rule of law should now listen to those who have fought for freedom and who – based on their personal life experiences – can distinguish between the rule of law and tyranny, or the rule of man. Such Western leaders must accept that in the 21st century we shall not surrender the freedom we fought to achieve at the end of the 20th century.

The battle for and against the new Brussels empire has not yet been decided. Brussels seems to be surrendering, but many nation states continue to resist. If we want to preserve our freedom, Europe must not succumb to the Soros network.

Denes Albert, REMIX