The Unimaginable Arrogance of Socialists

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society.

As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education.

We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all.

We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality.

And so on, and so on.

It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

Frédéric Bastiat, “The Law”

Socialists are Children


Caring about the whole world is a fancy way of caring only about oneself.

In 1886, Henry James, who may be the greatest novelist of all, published what he considered at the time to be his greatest work—The Princess Cassamassima. Unfortunately, critics hated it. But it is an extraordinarily deep and penetrating novel, and it deals with a theme that is causing us a great deal of trouble at the moment—socialism.

It may be surprising that socialism was already a problem in the late 19th century, but of course Karl Marx, not to mention his spiritual predecessor, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, had already come and gone. A fresh generation of pseudo-intellectuals with too much free time on their hands was looking back on the Paris Commune of 1871 and even on the blood-soaked French Revolution with admiration, and looking forward to the time when they, too, would get to empower the underprivileged by exterminating the overprivileged.

It is difficult not to develop a deep and abiding hatred of the novel’s title character, an enormously wealthy and beautiful princess who, casting about for some meaning to the life she hates, becomes passionately devoted to social revolution and to elevating the lower classes. She is a greater destructive force than any deliberately evil character, combining her grandiose concern for the whole world with an almost limitless self-absorption.

She wants to see the worst slums of London. She wants to meet the lowest people in society—for the sake of their being low. She even wants to give up her money and luxury. And so she trades in her prime London residence for a vulgar little house with only one servant. She finds it disgusting that so many people work so hard and earn so little while others have so much more than they need.

The way the princess thinks is identical to today’s cutting-edge socialists. Except that a Bernie Sanders or an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez manages gradually to amass wealth rather than giving it away. But there exists the same condescending attitude towards those who must work for a living, and an idea of “saving” them, not through one’s own work, but through stealing the work of others.

Suppose this 19th-century socialist visited you today, and you told the princess about life in contemporary America: The working classes no longer go hungry. They can afford places to live. In America, people of the working classes own more than one set of clothes and can afford more than one pair of shoes—several, even. Ninety-three percent of households have access to their very own carriage, which can go ten times faster and ten times farther than the horse carriages she’s familiar with, which were reserved for the rich. Even the lowest income earners can keep their homes warm in the winter. Moreover, the working classes have access to on-demand, private entertainment—the equivalent of 100,000 plays, and 1 million concerts. Even the poorest homes can afford to light a candle—the equivalent of hundreds of candles—whenever they choose. All their children get to go to school until they’re 18, and anyone who wishes to can get a college degree.

Your 1890s socialist would be knocked off her feet by a society as wonderful as this one. It represents undreamt-of success: Bravo, our princess would think: The revolution has clearly happened, and has achieved everything. More than everything! We 19th-century socialists might have hoped to improve the conditions of the poor, but we never in our wildest dreams imagined we’d get this far, not even if we’d confiscated every penny from every wealthy person in the world. How did you do it?

Then we’d have to laugh a little and say, “Well, that’s capitalism, baby. And sorry to disappoint you, but we still have people who are wealthier than everyone else. It’s just that now our poor people are more comfortable than your wealthy people were. And they live longer, too.”

The princess furrows her brow: “How long did all this take?”

“A little more than 100 years. Less, for some important bits, like novocaine for example. But we’re actually so comfortable now that we can spend our time worrying about what gender we are.”

“Well,” says the princess, “100 years is a very long time. I’m sure a proper socialist revolution would have achieved all of this much more quickly!”

And then we’d have to break it to her—how all the socialist revolutions actually went, how well they succeeded. How they produced societies powered not just by oil but by millions of slaves in labor camps (labor camps that still exist in China, North Korea, and elsewhere to this day). How tens of millions of the working class were shot. How hundreds of millions were starved. How Trotsky’s “food armies” swept over the countryside to steal the farmers’ produce to feed the city elites. How the rebelling peasants went to hide in the forests and were exterminated with history’s first use of air-dropped chemical weapons (the Tambov Rebellion, 1921). How Chinese peasant families swapped children—so they wouldn’t have to eat their own (the Great Leap Forward, 1958).

At this point, the princess wouldn’t want to hear any more. She wouldn’t believe it, no matter what you told her. She would again be in exact harmony with today’s socialists, who, despite a century of experiments and counter experiments, despite the creation of extraordinary everyday comforts in America, and despite hundreds of millions of deaths elsewhere, still refuse to consider that socialism conceivably might not work.

A socialist you argue with today might as well have died in 1890, for all the history he’s learned. For a socialist, history has no past, it exists only in the future: History is simply what is about to happen. History is what he’s going to make.

Socialists don’t give a damn about the objective conditions of the working man. Any honest assessment would have to admit that the typical American enjoys an excellent and historically superior quality of life. During any given decade of the Soviet Union, Russian workers would be willing to die—as many did—for a chance to enjoy what every American gets as standard.

Socialists claim to give a damn about the relative conditions of the working man. That is, it doesn’t matter how comfortable the average person is. What matters is the inherent unfairness of someone else being more comfortable. So while any normal observer would be astounded at how much progress America has made, and how quickly it made it, a socialist today sees society exactly as a socialist from 1890 saw his own. And a socialist 100 years from now will look at his new world and see exactly the same thing: No progress whatsoever. Socialism is immune to progress.

And in the final analysis, socialists don’t care about the relative conditions of the working man either. What a socialist really cares about are conditions relative to himself: Specifically, he cares that no one seems to understand what a gifted, special, vitally important human being he is.

Caring about the whole world is a fancy way of caring only about oneself. A social crusader sees himself as a liberator, as someone who will become a great immortal by uplifting an entire section of society. This messianic attitude explains why Marxism is woven through all companion socialisms—like Black Lives Matter race socialism or trans-rights sexual socialism—movements which should, in theory, have nothing to do with Marxism but which always do.

Socialists need only an aggrieved class. It doesn’t much matter who that class is. The operative belief is the socialist’s belief in himself—his belief that the one thing all these people need is for him to save them.

The socialist’s chosen underclass, whether it be the proletariat or a minority group or all women—is really just a damsel in distress. The most old-fashioned, most chauvinistic, most anti-leftist cliché of all: that is how a socialist sees his chosen cause. A damsel in distress can do nothing on her own, and is capable of no independent action. The damsel can do nothing to improve her own lot. She is at a permanent disadvantage; she is a victim. She has nothing to say for herself, she is in fact of no value at all except as a token or symbol—she simply waits to be rescued. And in the act of rescuing, the socialist validates his own existence. By rescuing her, in other words, he feels less worthless.

Whether a youth or an adult, a socialist is really nothing but an unhappy child. A child with every sense of self-importance, but no sense of self-worth. And that is a sad reflection on the failure of our education system, and on society’s broader failure to give our young people projects worthy of their energy and devotion.

This is from the introduction to This Deception, a memoir by reformed Soviet spy Hede Massing: “Communism in the United States has little, if any economic base. It does not primarily appeal to the poor and the downtrodden . . . . During adolescence, when children are normally fighting parental domination to walk by themselves, when they are questioning traditional beliefs, Communists separate children from parents and beliefs, and substitute Stalin for father and Marxism for religion. The Ku Klux Klan should be more fully analogized in this respect to communism.”

That was written in 1951. Stalin is dead now. What else has changed.—Dan Gelernter

Let Us Be Clear Once and For All: Socialism Is Not at Root About Economics!

For the Conservatives, Capitalism is moral only to the extent that the capitalist lives to serve others. Self-interest can be smuggled silently in but not as a moral right or as a moral ideal. This means that “creeping socialism” always has the advantage and thus creeps unabated.

Over and over for decades, Conservatives have made the point that socialism does not “work,” that it does not create wealth but rather leads to poverty. This is true. Despite promising nirvana, “utopian” (socialist) communities and countries based on communism and socialism always failed economically.

Conservatives (including Wall Street Journal op-ed writers, right-wing think tanks, and pro-free enterprise economics departments) keep repeating the obvious and assert that people simply need better economic education to set them straight. Yet Conservatives keep losing every battle; the left repeatedly responds by ignoring their argument and rationalizing socialist failures.

The rationalizations run the gamut:

  • Previous socialist programs were not run correctly.
  • The moral ideal was right, but people are just too corrupt to practice it—there is a flaw in human nature.
  • The failure was caused by a plot by the U.S. (usually the CIA).
  • Socialism takes years to come to fruition and will triumph at some unspecified, future date….and so on.

What is striking is that no matter what the economic failures, true socialists rarely give it up. Why not. Because it has a moral base. Ayn Rand has made it clear that, “The power of morality is the strongest of all intellectual powers…men will not act, in major issues, without a sense of being morally right.” (quoted in Binswanger, 1986, p. 315).

Morality trumps economic facts if there is a conflict. This is true even if one’s accepted code of morality is objectively wrong. Millions have died fighting for Communism and Nazism (national socialism), including murdering millions of victims and keeping millions of others in hopeless poverty.

What is the problem with Conservatives (for more details, see Binswanger, 1986, pp. 95-100)? The Conservative argument is based on a contradiction: Capitalism is practical because most people want to live better, but morally it is defended by altruism, the premise that one must live only for the sake of others. Thus, Capitalism is only permissible so long as one lives, or claims to live, for “the public good.” For the Conservatives, Capitalism is moral only to the extent that the capitalist lives to serve others. Self-interest can be smuggled silently in but not as a moral right or as a moral ideal. This means that “creeping socialism” always has the advantage and thus creeps unabated. The hapless Conservative defense is routinely: “Hey, let us not overdo it. Let us have some capitalism. The welfare state will work better if capitalists have permission to function.” Socialists face no such internal contradiction; sacrifice for and of others is the morally right thing to do even when everyone stays poor, cf. Cuba and Venezuela. (See Locke, 2020, for a detailed discussion of Venezuela).

The socialist’s indifference to poverty reveals that there is a deeper moral (objectively anti-moral) layer than altruism which means sacrifice for the benefit of others. Since others do not actually benefit, the deeper standard is the destruction of economic freedom as an end in itself. This is pure nihilism, destruction for the sake of destruction: better to have everyone grovel in poverty than to let one person make a profit. Socialism is based on hatred for human life. In socialist societies, the worst people, power lusters, rise to the top, but they only rise because socialism gives them a moral sanction.

What then would change a socialist’s mind? Convincing them that socialism is anti-life and that Capitalism, which is based on individual rights, is morally good, i.e., that every individual has a right to their own life, which includes the right to trade freely with others, based on self-interest, and profit from it (i.e., without fraud or coercion). This would mean that capitalists would be admired, both practically and morally, rather than reluctantly tolerated as a necessary evil or totally forbidden. Economic education will only be embraced by people who think that Capitalism is not just practical but morally good. Moral education is needed as the proper base for economic education.

Some might ask about the puzzling situation of a Communist dictatorship, China, openly fostering Capitalism (though with numerous controls). This is a historically unprecedented event. So, what explains it? It is not based on respect for individual rights since communists deny them. It is based purely on power lust. For centuries China was backwards in relation to the west. Now they have decided to be imperialists, and they saw that the only way they could get the needed power was to create wealth which would give them the ability to intimidate or dominate other countries by using economic and military force together, e.g., massive exports, cyber-crime, building a large, military including a nuclear arsenal, trying to forcibly take over international waters in the South China Sea, threatening and harming fishing vessels from other countries, seizing islands they do not own to build military bases, stealing copyrighted and military technology from foreign countries, bullying countries which displease them (Australia), invasion (Hong Kong, Tibet), continual military threats (Taiwan), loaning money to poor countries, who will not be able to repay them, as a means of gaining power over them, cooperating with other dictatorships such as North Korea and Iran which are also building nuclear weapons to attack the U.S., etc.

China recently acknowledged that their use of Capitalism was only a strategic move until full socialism could be established. China, right now, is the single biggest threat to world peace and freedom. The old-line Marxists said capitalists would buy or make the rope that will be used to hang them. China wants to make their own rope and hang us with it. It remains to be seen how all this will turn out. Our weapons are:  the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, our military might, Capitalism, and our commitment to freedom as a moral ideal–if we can keep them.

Edwin Locke

Let Us Be Clear Once and For All: Socialism Is Not at Root About Economics!

For the Conservatives, Capitalism is moral only to the extent that the capitalist lives to serve others. Self-interest can be smuggled silently in but not as a moral right or as a moral ideal. This means that “creeping socialism” always has the advantage and thus creeps unabated.

Over and over for decades, Conservatives have made the point that socialism does not “work,” that it does not create wealth but rather leads to poverty. This is true. Despite promising nirvana, “utopian” (socialist) communities and countries based on communism and socialism always failed economically.

Conservatives (including Wall Street Journal op-ed writers, right-wing think tanks, and pro-free enterprise economics departments) keep repeating the obvious and assert that people simply need better economic education to set them straight. Yet Conservatives keep losing every battle; the left repeatedly responds by ignoring their argument and rationalizing socialist failures.

The rationalizations run the gamut:

  • Previous socialist programs were not run correctly.
  • The moral ideal was right, but people are just too corrupt to practice it—there is a flaw in human nature.
  • The failure was caused by a plot by the U.S. (usually the CIA).
  • Socialism takes years to come to fruition and will triumph at some unspecified, future date….and so on.

What is striking is that no matter what the economic failures, true socialists rarely give it up. Why not. Because it has a moral base. Ayn Rand has made it clear that, “The power of morality is the strongest of all intellectual powers…men will not act, in major issues, without a sense of being morally right.” (quoted in Binswanger, 1986, p. 315).

Morality trumps economic facts if there is a conflict. This is true even if one’s accepted code of morality is objectively wrong. Millions have died fighting for Communism and Nazism (national socialism), including murdering millions of victims and keeping millions of others in hopeless poverty.

What is the problem with Conservatives (for more details, see Binswanger, 1986, pp. 95-100)? The Conservative argument is based on a contradiction: Capitalism is practical because most people want to live better, but morally it is defended by altruism, the premise that one must live only for the sake of others. Thus, Capitalism is only permissible so long as one lives, or claims to live, for “the public good.” For the Conservatives, Capitalism is moral only to the extent that the capitalist lives to serve others. Self-interest can be smuggled silently in but not as a moral right or as a moral ideal. This means that “creeping socialism” always has the advantage and thus creeps unabated. The hapless Conservative defense is routinely: “Hey, let us not overdo it. Let us have some capitalism. The welfare state will work better if capitalists have permission to function.” Socialists face no such internal contradiction; sacrifice for and of others is the morally right thing to do even when everyone stays poor, cf. Cuba and Venezuela. (See Locke, 2020, for a detailed discussion of Venezuela).

The socialist’s indifference to poverty reveals that there is a deeper moral (objectively anti-moral) layer than altruism which means sacrifice for the benefit of others. Since others do not actually benefit, the deeper standard is the destruction of economic freedom as an end in itself. This is pure nihilism, destruction for the sake of destruction: better to have everyone grovel in poverty than to let one person make a profit. Socialism is based on hatred for human life. In socialist societies, the worst people, power lusters, rise to the top, but they only rise because socialism gives them a moral sanction.

What then would change a socialist’s mind? Convincing them that socialism is anti-life and that Capitalism, which is based on individual rights, is morally good, i.e., that every individual has a right to their own life, which includes the right to trade freely with others, based on self-interest, and profit from it (i.e., without fraud or coercion). This would mean that capitalists would be admired, both practically and morally, rather than reluctantly tolerated as a necessary evil or totally forbidden. Economic education will only be embraced by people who think that Capitalism is not just practical but morally good. Moral education is needed as the proper base for economic education.

Some might ask about the puzzling situation of a Communist dictatorship, China, openly fostering Capitalism (though with numerous controls). This is a historically unprecedented event. So, what explains it? It is not based on respect for individual rights since communists deny them. It is based purely on power lust. For centuries China was backwards in relation to the west. Now they have decided to be imperialists, and they saw that the only way they could get the needed power was to create wealth which would give them the ability to intimidate or dominate other countries by using economic and military force together, e.g., massive exports, cyber-crime, building a large, military including a nuclear arsenal, trying to forcibly take over international waters in the South China Sea, threatening and harming fishing vessels from other countries, seizing islands they do not own to build military bases, stealing copyrighted and military technology from foreign countries, bullying countries which displease them (Australia), invasion (Hong Kong, Tibet), continual military threats (Taiwan), loaning money to poor countries, who will not be able to repay them, as a means of gaining power over them, cooperating with other dictatorships such as North Korea and Iran which are also building nuclear weapons to attack the U.S., etc.

China recently acknowledged that their use of Capitalism was only a strategic move until full socialism could be established. China, right now, is the single biggest threat to world peace and freedom. The old-line Marxists said capitalists would buy or make the rope that will be used to hang them. China wants to make their own rope and hang us with it. It remains to be seen how all this will turn out. Our weapons are: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, our military might, Capitalism, and our commitment to freedom as a moral ideal–if we can keep them.

Edwin Locke, Capitalism Magazine

What Meghan and Harry Tell Us About Millions of Ordinary People

Why does anyone care about the Royal Family, and Meghan and Harry in particular? Because of how the Royal Family relates to themselves.

What stands out about the Meghan and Harry spectacle? Two things: false entitlement; and male emasculation.

There’s nothing unique about Meghan’s and Harry’s form of depravity. They want all the benefits of the thing they despise. They hate royalty. But they capitalize on that royalty every chance they get. They use the very thing they condemn — their status as royal figures — to obliterate any value in the whole enterprise of royalty in the first place. They’re basically telling the world: “We are fugitives from the royal family, because the royal family is evil. And because of our royal heritage, you should support us.” They want the benefits without any of the costs; that puts them in a position to have millions and millions of people — inside and outside of Britain — sympathize with them.

Predictably, they are leftists. Leftism is all about benefits without accountability. That’s the deeper meaning of socialism. And of course they’re rabid environmentalists. Predictably, they want the world to shut down its power while they — as continued elites — will get the benefits of fossil fuels as the rest of us suffer. They want capitalism to end and to be replaced with Communism — knowing full well that the taxation of fellow elites (in or out of Britain) will continue to support them in the manner to which they have become accustomed … and to which they feel more than royally entitled.

Harry also stands out as the picture of emasculation. For his entire young adulthood, he was known as the independent, self-assured, masculine war hero and occasional “bad boy”. Now he’s led around, metaphorically and almost literally, on a leash by a wife he appears to love. My, the self-loathing that must have given rise to a love of that kind!

Will they divorce? Of course they will, eventually. It’s not a question of if; but when. Most celebrities divorce. Parasites necessarily MUST divorce because they feed off the value of others while providing nothing to offer in return. In short, they will drive each other crazy. My best guess is that Harry once possessed some kind of core value, but Meghan is really the soulless hollowed-out piece of nothingness she appears to be.

Regardless, these two twits will always share in common the quest of getting something-for-nothing. It’s a cause that much of the world can relate to, as the entire planet’s pathetic descent into world socialism demonstrates all too tragically well.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Fascism & Socialism: The Same Beast

It is not uncommon, especially in a polarized political environment currently enveloping our society today, for radical devotees of a political ideology or agenda to label opponents fascists, or call them Nazis, or Hitler or other such names. In fact, usage of these designations is so common they have almost lost all meaning other than to say, “You’re evil, I hate you” and to paint opponents of an opposing ideology as insane bigots so as to make them a stigma in society. Interestingly enough, most of those who so freely throw out such terms to smear their opponents have almost no understanding of what fascism actually is, or the extent to which they themselves are practicing concepts of fascism in so freely throwing out slanders.

To dispel confusion surrounding the term fascism, it is helpful to first understand the origins and history of how it came about. Fascism gets its name from a symbol embraced in Ancient Rome known as the fasces. The fasces was simply a bundle of rods or sticks with an ax at the center which was bound together with leather strapping.

The symbol was a representation of a collective society bound together with the power of the state at the center indicating one central governing power to which the rods (citizens) were bound to become one collective society. The concept itself was not a new one, it was the same as concept as the Tower of Babel over which Nimrod had the rule. Simply stated, the state stands in the place of God so far as what the law is and in the enforcement thereof; and the people support and serve the state to which they are bound.

It was the state in Ancient Rome which held all power, of which Caesar was the head. Like Babel, the form of government the Ancient Romans adhered to was what we now call socialism. The symbol by which Rome was represented was the fasces, hence, fascism. The very same symbol that can be found in many instances in Washington DC in historical monuments. As for the Romans, in the end it was the ever increasing weight of the welfare system and the corruption of too much power in the hands of too few that lead to the eventual destruction of the empire, a cycle which repeats often throughout history.

The reality is that Hitler’s Nazi party was socialist, Mussolini’s Fascist Party was socialist, and even the Communist were, and are today, practicing socialism, and not true communism, which thus far seems to exist only in theory. This is the irony of those who embrace socialism today who call everyone who doesn’t, ‘fascists’ and ‘Nazis’. The truth of the matter is, socialism is fascism and the tendency of socialism is to complete totalitarianism, followed by poverty, creating the necessity of a welfare system, and finally, ending in the collapse and destruction of society. At its best, socialism is baby fascism. However, in time it matures leaving behind its petty childhood and becomes a brutal oppressor.

All collective societies have a totalitarian head sharing one and the same body: Satan. Spiritually, they are necks of the very same multi-headed-beast with many different heads and faces. The nuances and variations of all the different collectivist cultures are superficial and eventually become meaningless, even should they play nice and pretend to be civilized.

Sooner or later all the heads are eventually cut off, even if only to have a new head grow in its place. Socialism, communism, fascism, radical Islam, and every totalitarian system that exists, did, or ever would exist, is merely a different mask for Satan’s system of rule. Just like the Roman Empire, they are all destined to kill and be killed. They are all the same devil behind different faces. Their destiny is to bring poverty, misery, oppression and death, and afterwards come to an eternal end.

Embedded within socialism is the totalitarian temptation. Once given a foothold, hardly has that temptation ever been resisted over time. The so called free world has long been practicing socialism. It is doubtful it will be restored. More than likely, the once free societies that have now embraced the practices will become just another head of the beast until they too are cut off. The US and other Western-styled nations have held back total global poverty. When the fall of these once free nations to socialism is complete, global depression will follow. It will make the Great Depression seem as though it was not really all that great after all, hardly to mention another bloody bout of world war that it will bring along with it.

https://christiansjewsbiblicalnews.com/

Masks are Just Part of the Socialist Uniform

The Centers for Disease Control released another study showing no statistically significant decrease in “daily case” or “death growth” rates from COVID-19 in areas with mask mandates. This comes after a similar CDC study in October indicated that mask mandates do not appear to have slowed or stopped the spread of the coronavirus at all. Still, the CDC continues to recommend that all Americans wear masks, except in certain private settings when individuals are fully vaccinated, unless the goalpost-shifting Dr. Fauci gets his way.
This whole “masks don’t seem to be having much effect, but wear them anyway” bureaucratic calculus may seem like a frivolous controversy to Americans preoccupied with the pandemic, but for Americans who are equally worried about the State’s steady encroachment into the lives of families, mask mandates are the worst kind of noxious administrative abuse — another iteration of government coercion that constricts a person’s freedom while accomplishing next to nothing. It’s government rule-making for the sake of rule-making whose chief purpose is to demonstrate that it is the government’s job to command and each citizen’s duty to readily obey.
Mask mandates are the perfect metaphor for a government that demands obedience:
Mask mandates are reminiscent of Barack Obama’s belief that wealthy Americans should be taxed at higher rates, even if the imposition of those new taxes produces no net benefit for the federal treasury. By his own admission, Obama’s insistence on increasing taxes for wealthy Americans was not about generating government revenue or reducing government debt, but rather about punishing individual Americans for having acquired too much personal wealth. It was a way for Obama to prove that he takes income inequality seriously while doing nothing about it.

The same way, our American mask mandates are not really about reducing the spread of disease or “following the science,” but rather about insisting that individual Americans prove through their attire that they take COVID-19 seriously, even if masks do nothing about it.

Just as Obama justifies the government’s confiscation of wealth for confiscation’s sake, the CDC justifies the imposition of mask mandates for imposition’s sake. It is the sartorial manifestation of the government’s demand that an individual submit to its power and authority.

And it has unfortunately become the standard operating procedure for the American government.

In poll after poll, Americans have made it clear that they strongly oppose mass illegal immigration. Ignoring their wishes, the Biden administration has set into place policies that have created a border crisis with no end in sight.

In poll after poll, Americans have made it clear that jobs and the economy are more important than recklessly combatting a global temperature change of a few hundredths of a degree over the next century in the name of “climate justice.” Ignoring their assessment, the Biden administration has killed off oil and gas jobs, increased the cost of gasoline at the pump, and handcuffed America’s energy independence in the name of green dreams — strengthening the economies of Russia, China, and Iran while impoverishing millions of Americans.

In poll after poll, Americans have made it clear that they prefer increasing manufacturing and economic diversification at home to depending upon the supply chains and resources of an adversarial China. Instead, the Biden administration has actively discarded the “America First” economic policies of President Trump and reoriented America back toward the globalist initiatives of the last half-century that benefit transnational banks and Wall Street traders while crippling Main Street businesses and making America vulnerable to her enemies.

For Americans who believe that the government spends most of its time doing the exact opposite of what America overwhelmingly prefers, a mask mandate that accomplishes so little in the way of public health seems like the perfect metaphor for the government’s desire to shut up its own citizenry. What Big Tech censorship fails to catch in its net, Big Government catches in its own.

“What were you saying about ending endless wars, America? We couldn’t hear you underneath two masks. Now let’s invade Syria and build democracies everywhere but here at home.”

Mask mandates reflect the American government’s descent toward socialism:

Mask mandates are also an illustration of the sharp philosophical divide straining Americans into two camps guided by conflicting worldviews. In the one are true democrats who believe that all legitimate government power is derived from individual consent, and in the other are true socialists who sanctify the exercise of government power in pursuit of collectivist goals at the expense of individual liberty.

Alexis de Tocqueville contrasted these worldviews aptly: “Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom; socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”

When viewed alongside de Tocqueville’s perceptive taxonomy, it is not hard to understand why mask mandates proving to have scant efficacy strike so many Americans as nothing more than the government’s attempt to seek “equality in restraint and servitude.” Whether a scientific study actually supports the hypothesis that coronavirus transmission can be retarded through the use of masks has become irrelevant. All that is important is that government functionaries deem the practice to be in the public’s best interest. An individual is forced to abandon personal reason and judgment for those of the government, a proposition that strikes a true democrat as inherently delegitimizing of any democratic system.

For Americans who believe that society should operate freely from government as much as possible and that government action should be reserved to handle only those problems that a cooperative society cannot accomplish on its own, relatively useless government dictates are absolute poison. They reinforce President Reagan’s biting observation that the “nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” Americans with a healthy suspicion of government authority have no trouble understanding this joke. They do not care about the government’s “good intentions”; they detest the government’s insistence on so casually and unnecessarily interjecting itself into the lives of private citizens.

In a sense, mask mandates have become nothing more than dress code loyalty oaths to the same state and local governments that have claimed for themselves the extraconstitutional powers to restrict free speech, religious liberty, personal commerce, and voluntary movement beyond the home in the name of a virus. They represent Americans’ symbolic acquiescence to government’s mass lockdowns and economic shutdowns and their tacit acceptance that government’s unconstitutional power grabs are somehow legitimate.

This symbolism, not the statistically insignificant decrease in infection and death rates in areas with strict mask mandates, is what actually animates those Americans who insist on controlling what covers other Americans’ faces. An American who refuses to participate in virus virtue-signaling is an American who refuses to believe that the economic, educational, and social carnage of the last year was justified.

And that repudiation is just too much for proponents of bigger and more intrusive government to take in stride

J.B. Shurk, American Thinker

Needed: A New System

Hope springs eternal for statists. When President Trump was coming into office four years ago, conservatives were filled with hope and optimism that Trump would save America from its deep morass of crises and chaos.

Alas, it didn’t happen. American society is just as dysfunctional as it was when Trump became president.

Now, it’s the liberals’ turn. They too are now filled with hope and optimism that their man — Joe Biden — will save America from the crises and chaos that afflict our land.

It ain’t gonna happen, and the sooner the American people finally come to that realization, the sooner we will be able to get our nation back on the right track — toward liberty, peace, prosperity, and harmony.

The problem is that you’ve got an inherently defective system — the welfare-warfare system under which we live. No one can make it work. No matter who is elected, the crises and the chaos will remain. Tampering with this defective system only makes the situation worse.

Healthcare crisis. Education crisis. Foreign policy crisis. Financial crisis. Monetary crisis. Immigration crisis. Trade crisis. They all will continue under Biden, no matter what he does.

Now would be a good time for Americans to engage in some serious soul-searching and self-examination. What kind of society do they want to live in? If they like the type of crisis-ridden and chaos-filled society in which we live, then they should keep the welfare-warfare state system. If they would prefer a free and normal society, then they should focus on changing systems, not presidents.

Here is the ideal system:

  1. No socialism. Dismantle all the welfare state part of the federal government by repealing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, education grants, and every other socialist program that takes money from Peter and gives it to Paul. No more mandatory charity. Leave charity entirely voluntary.
  2. No interventionism and regulation. No more governmental control, management, and regulation of economic activity.
  3. Establish a free-market monetary system. Dismantle the Federal Reserve and repeal legal-tender laws. Let the market determine what money will be used for transactions.
  4. Abolish the federal income tax and the IRS. Leave people free to keep everything they earn and decide for themselves what to do with it.
  5. End imperialism and foreign interventionism. Dismantle the Pentagon, the vast military-industrial complex, the empire of foreign and domestic military bases, the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI. End all foreign interventionism and limit the U.S. government to defending the United States. End the national-security state and restore a limited-government republic. Retain just a basic military force.
  6. End all trade restrictions and immigration controls. Establish free trade and open immigration. Open the borders to the free movements of goods, services, and people.
  7. Repeal all drug laws.
  8. Separate healthcare and the state.
  9. Separate charity and the state.
  10. Separate economy and the state.
  11. Separate education and the state.

This is a system that works. It would bring an end to the crises and chaos that besiege our land. Our American ancestors proved it. This is the system that the American people should restore. This is the system that will bring liberty, peace, prosperity, and harmony to our land.

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.

The Transformation of America Into a One-Party State

Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (WV) warned against the “ill advised” Democratic impeachment effort against the president, noting that there isn’t support for it in the Senate. [Daily Wire]

Going forward–if we’re real about it–there is just one political party in the U.S. I will label it the UNICRAT party. So dissension within the ranks will be interesting to watch. Manchin is going against the grain by daring to question the self-evidently irrational agenda of Big Media, Big Tech, Big Corporate Socialist Fascist Government, and all the rest. Manchin is no good guy. There are NO good guys in this cabal we call a government. Good guys could not stand to be a part of it. Anyone who is good will not last long …

Former UK prime minister Tony Blair wants a “COVID pass” required for all U.K. citizens (and the current prime minister is listening to him, according to Breitbart News). A COVID pass would be a card showing that you had the COVID vaccine, plus conform to anything else the government sees as desirable. Blair would like to see a COVID pass as a requirement for even leaving the house, or at a minimum to be able to travel on an airplane or go to a concert or ball game. The U.K., so insane it’s on the verge of monitoring people in their bathrooms to make sure they’re wearing masks, will surely go this route. Raise your hand if you think this will happen in the United States. And, if you don’t think so, then who will be in any kind of power to stop it? …

Look! Lefties learned a new word: “Seditious”…think they know what it means? …

When, in human history, has a censored, underground movement consisted of 75 million people?

Without free speech, and without honest elections, where are dissenters to go? How can this end well for anyone?

If the President of the United States may no longer speak freely, the United States is no longer a free country.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

The Great Socialist Mirage

As resurgent Democrats move to consolidate their hold over the national political apparatus – presidency, Senate, House – assisted by the corporate media and Big Tech, could their reputed, new-found socialism offer any kind of guide to the future? Could an American socialism, historically-marginalized up to the present, finally end up as a genuine possibility? Might the seemingly invulnerable capitalist behemoth be thrown into a state of siege by the likes of Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and their “progressive” squad, all ready for action after four excruciating years of the Orange Menace? Could the events of January sixth serve to heighten such prospects?

We know that something resembling a socialist fantasy has been circulating within leading Democratic circles for the past few years, accelerated by the arrival of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and other squad members, including Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Presley, and Cori Bush – three of whom (AOC, Tlaib, Bush) belong to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). With the 2016 ascent of Donald Trump to the White House, traditionally problematic references to a politics associated with Marx, Lenin, and Stalin in American political culture seem to have softened, no longer taboo. Nowadays “socialism” has reportedly become fashionable among cool millennials, though its definition remains elusive. A June 2020 Harris poll showed that 55 percent of women aged 18 to 54 would prefer socialism over capitalism, while a surprising four in ten Americans say they would be happy living under socialism.

Since 2015 the ranks of DSA have swollen rapidly (reaching 86,000 in December), mostly owing to the influence of Senator Bernie Sanders, who has always identified as a “democratic socialist” – that is, a leftist far removed from the nightmare of Soviet totalitarianism. We are not talking here about the dictatorial systems of the USSR or North Korea, or even the more recent social chaos of Venezuela. In fact a number of familiar Democratic proposals – Green New Deal, Medicare-for-all, free public higher education – could be integrated into Sanders’ reformist agenda, and that would require no overturning of the modern corporate oligarchy.

Elected in 2018 as a “democratic socialist”, AOC points out that “when millennials talk about concepts like socialism, we’re not talking about these kinds of ‘Red Scare’ bogeymen. We’re talking about countries and systems that presently exist that have already proven to be successful in the modern world. We’re talking about single-payer health care that has already been successful . . . from Finland to Canada to the U.K.” That model, of course, should not be confused with Stalinism — though some FOX commentators do just that. When viewed in Scandinavian terms, 76 percent of Democrats say they would vote for a socialist candidate (presumably with Sanders and AOC in mind), according to a recent Gallup survey.

Senator Ed Markey, co-author of the Green New Deal, appears scarcely bothered by the “socialist” label. Thus: “What I say is: give us some of that socialism for wind, and solar, and all-electric vehicles, and plug-in hybrids and storage-battery technology. And we will be looking at the fossil-fuel industry in the rear-view mirror of history.” Markey, it should be noted, has never been identified as any kind of socialist politician.

Conservatives, for their part, relish framing Democrats as fire-breathing socialists ready to carry out an American-style Bolshevik revolution. The Finnish and Danish models are, for them, largely irrelevant, part of an entirely different universe. Trump, many vocal Republicans, and some FOX pundits routinely claim Democrats want to take the country along the path of socialist (or Communist) catastrophe. Referring to the November election, Trump stated: “Despite all our greatness as a nation, everything we have achieved is now endangered. This election will decide whether we save the American Dream, or whether we allow a socialist agenda to demolish our cherished destiny.” Could the Democrats as we have come to know them, however filled with hateful self-righteousness, possibly manage to pull off something than no movement or party has ever pulled off in an advanced capitalist society?

At the Republican National Convention this past summer, Vice President Mike Pence said that “Joe Biden would set America on a path of socialism and decline.” Really, Biden – that most establishment and boring of pols? Others followed the same worn script. RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel announced that “Democrats have chosen to go down the road of socialism”, Lara Trump adding, ominously: “This is not just a choice between Republican and Democrat or left and right – this is an election that will decide if we keep America as itself, America, or if we head down an uncharted, frightening path towards socialism.” Now that Dems have accrued such oversized power, might the ostensible blessings of socialism be on the horizon? Could Biden and the squad improbably wind up the bearers of a new society? If so, I would argue, the guiding theorist will likely turn out to be George Orwell, not Karl Marx.

Judging from roughly a century of European history, ambitious reforms of the sort entertained by many Dems could in fact be adopted without even moderately altering the deeply-entrenched class and power relations of modern capitalism – even assuming party elites are seriously committed to such reforms. At best the outcome would be social democracy now familiar to several European countries – Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Holland, France, etc. From all indications, Sanders would be perfectly happy with that outcome.

A more conservative elite in the U.S. has long resisted this trajectory, a form of expanded social Keynesianism, opting instead for a more emphatically military Keynesianism. Historical socialism, on the other hand, has always meant opposition to capitalism as a system of economic and political power, replacing corporate interests (or “the market”) with public ownership; the main centers of power (transnational corporations, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, military-industrial complex, etc.) would accordingly be overturned. Alas, none of the Dems, including Sanders and AOC, envision a future beyond these centers of power; the best they could offer is reformed capitalism, that is, garden-variety social democracy.

At present the “leftist” (or DSA) strategy is to eventually transform the Democratic party in to something more radical by means of electoral politics, a rather naïve belief considering how wedded to the power structure the Dems have become. The DSA program, according to official statements, looks toward a “humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.” Whatever one thinks of this schema, it lacks the concreteness needed for a viable socialist politics. Put differently, it would easily coexist with requirements for maximizing elite wealth and power.

Problems loom. One of those goes to the heart of the matter: just how far can the Dems, fully aligned with every pillar of the American power structure, be pushed significantly leftward? Deep corporate attachments and dependencies will not be seamlessly pushed aside to satisfy a “more humane social order”, no matter how many enlightened videos are produced by AOC and her comrades of the recently re-labeled #fraudsquad. Decades of experience tells us that electoral activity inevitably dictates moderation, “centrism”. Meanwhile, the continued existence of a massive military-industrial complex – never questioned by any of these Dems — is by itself enough to turn hopes for socialism in to a distant mirage.

In the end there is nothing very progressive, much less socialist, about American Dems in their current incarnation, since we are dealing with a party that ritually gravitates toward oligarchy, authoritarianism, militarism, and, nowadays, intensified social and ideological controls. As the new 117th House was being seated in Washington, the warmonger Pelosi was re-elected speaker, her margin of victory furnished by AOC and other squad members. Pelosi and allies Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler, and Eric Swalwell were driving forces behind the Russiagate scheme, the Mueller probe, and impeachment, while taking the U.S. closer to outright confrontation with a nuclear-armed state. With Schumer and Rep. Jim Clyburn, she worked tirelessly to destroy Sanders’ presidential bid. It was Pelosi, moreover, who orchestrated the CARES Act bailout, facilitating the largest upward transfer of wealth in U.S. history – a scandal later matched by the largely Democratic COVID-justified lockdowns.

The sad truth is that American Democrats now veer closer to fascism than to socialism, whatever their ideological pretenses. The power structure, embedded in many trillions of dollars in material resources and monetary wealth, will never be challenged by such bankrupt poseurs. Beneath all their talk of diversity and multiculturalism, all their wokeness, Dem elites are more than anything hellbent on single-party domination, at which point even mild deviations from establishment political norms will be verboten, indeed criminalized. Dissent will no longer be tolerated.

As the corrupt and easily-manipulated Biden enters the White House, the great COVID disaster offers further pretext for heightened authoritarianism and repression, surrounded as he is by a group of lockdown and hyper-partisan fanatics. The January 6th events will provide additional pretext, where needed. As for “democratic socialism”, its Orwellian character should be laid bare for everyone but the pundits at CNN, the New York Times, and Washington Post to fully grasp.

Carl Boggs, UNZ Review