Skip to content

Posts from the ‘Collectivism’ Category


The King of the Freeloaders

As Karl Marx once quoted Goethe “everything that exists deserves to perish.” And it is exactly that petulant and craven mentality birthed by the king of the freeloaders that conservatives are up against.

The “progressive” notion of freedom is freedom from responsibility. It is hard to see eye-to-eye with “progressives” and perfectly understandable that they have no regard for the truth in their quest to make everyone else pay for their stuff and to never be held accountable for the damage they cause society.

It’s all about their “intentions,” don’t you know, as they ignore history, Nature, the will of the people, the lessons of political philosophy, the letter of the law and truth itself.

For whatever may result from “progressives'” actions, it’s always society’s fault; that is to say, everyone else’s fault. Whatever may go awry with their policies, it’s always their “conservative” opposition’s fault. Something always needs to be paid for, but with other people’s time, money, labor, blood, sweat and aggravation. Something has to be done — but by someone else. And if it doesn’t get done — saboteurs must have obstructed it.

There can be nothing but animosity between makers and takers, which puts the lie to their facade of “unity”: the Democrat Party openly brags about the “justice” of 51% paying federal income taxes for the 49%, the “compassion” of over 49% on federal aid, and the “benefit” of 48% of Obamacare participants getting subsidies.

These things have to come from somewhere; but the unseen costs are seldom appreciated by the reflexive progressives. They never understand that their giving away of free stuff comes at such a heavy price — the wrecked communities, the wasted lives, and the emptying treasury. We’re not even talking about a ‘socialism for the workers’ at this point; we’ve hit the point where we’re talking about socialism for the non-workers.

The Democrats are bribing voters to the tune of hundreds of trillions by some estimates, and have been for decades, in exchange for people merely giving up their freedom. Such an easy trade: the unseen for the tangible. The future for ornate shreds of printed paper. The cold payday for the cold comfort of seeing through another tomorrow. But this stolen responsibility comes on borrowed time, as the debt piles up and the things we buy get more expensive on a weaker dollar. It’s ingenious, because all the resultant misery can all be blamed on “greed.”

But is it the “greed” of the producers who want to be recompensed in kind for their value that is wrecking the nation? Or is the “greed” of politicians who are abusing the force of the state to raid future treasuries and to dispatch the imaginary funds to increasingly impoverished voters?

Ultimately, our children will pay for such greed with their life’s opportunities. There can be no reward for creativity or striving to be the best one can be in an economy dominated by an ossified, petty and domineering bureaucracy. The system dissolves in entropy borne of apathy; and as stasis sets in, the political community sinks into the ash heap of history.

That is the intention of socialism. But the question is: Does the state ever wither away? Does the utopian dawn come, phoenix-like, to rescue people from themselves? Ask the tens of millions who followed Marxism and perished along with it.

It’s a dead philosophy for dead people. But hey — hope and change.


Americans Warned of ‘Revolution from Above’and the Appearance of the ‘Messiah’

Anyone that has spent more than five minutes delving into the background of the progressive media’s appointed Messiah — the self-professed Marxist radical community organizer and “regular” attendee of the Jeremiah Wright school of America-hatred — a man so well-versed in the tactics of the leftist agitator Saul Alinsky that he was dubbed “the master” — current American president Barack Hussein Obama is wholly unsurprised by the authoritarian and borderline totalitarian trajectory of the nation.

Read more »

gossip-helping the enemy

Citizens Encouraged to Snitch on Anti-Government Neighbors in Florida

Citizens are being encouraged to snitch on their “anti-government” neighbors in the sunshine state of Florida, according to an article by the Save America Foundation:

A new $1 million dollar program led by Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw aimed at “violence prevention” is encouraging Floridians to report their neighbors for making hateful comments about the government, a chilling reminder of how dissent is being characterized as an extremist threat.

Read more »


1001 Reasons to Vote Against Barack Obama: Closing Arguments

The following general points have been demonstrated and documented over the course of the previous posts:

  1. President Obama was elected in part due to a deceptive media that failed to properly vet an obviously radical president.
  2. Candidate Obama had a lengthy left-wing track voting record compiled from his days as a state senator and U.S. Senator, although the mainstream media worked in concert to portray him to the American people as “moderate.”
  3. The president was, demonstrably and clearly, a member of the socialist New Party in Illinois. Socialism is not compatible with constitutionally limited government.
  4. Candidate Obama had a number of scandalous associations, including with Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, and many others, which were shrugged away or swept under the rug by by the media.
  5. Candidate Obama promised that he would “fundamentally transform” the country five days before his election. It is not the role of the United States president to unilaterally impose his preferences on millions of citizens.
  6. Before coming to office, he frequently condemned Bush for his invasions of policies; and then as president, he voted for the Patriot Act twice without revision, claimed he has the right to detain and assassinate U.S. citizens, and has allowed the use of spy drones on domestic soil.
  7. Obama lied frequently and egregiously about what he would do as president. The future president promised he would cut deficits, go line-by-line through wasteful legislation, bring more transparency to government, and end the wars in a timely fashion. Yet he has not been held accountable by the mainstream media for these lies.
  8. Obama the candidate used soaring and empty rhetoric to woo a nation sick of partisanship. But he betrayed this lofty tone a number of times, such as by referring to Republicans as “enemies,” rhetorically saying he would bring a gun to a knife fight, and that he wanted supporters to “get in people’s faces.”
  9. Obama has engaged in class warfare politics foreign to this country’s history. He has attempted to pit rich against poor, and middle class against both, instead of underlining the capitalist truth that we can all prosper together through hard work.
  10. The future president promised he would work with the Republicans in a bi-partisan fashion. But along with the Democrat Congress, he would cram legislation down people’s throats with little or no consequential input from GOP representatives.
  11. The economic crisis that put Obama over the top was caused by bad fiscal practices such as forced loans to subprime borrowers and government insurance of mortgages. There is no serious way of avoiding the fact that the government created perverse incentives and moral hazard with its mortgage lending regulations and policies.
  12. President Obama would blame Bush for the situation he was put in on numerous occasions. But Obama would go on to double down on virtually every major Bush policy; including bailouts, stimulus, big healthcare programs, and war policies.
  13. The president has spent more money than any president over four years, while racking up more debt than all previous presidents combined. This money has to be paid back at interest by us and our children, one way or another.
  14. Obama has been one of the most corrupt presidents in history. Trillions in taxpayer money has been doled out by Obama in politically partisan fashion to unions, non-profit organizations, corporations, banks, and other campaign contributors.
  15. Meanwhile, the spontaneously arising tea party, which objected to such shameless theft from hard-working producers to the corrupt and non-working, were marginalized by the president, vilified by the Democrat Party without objection by Obama, and even called a foul-mouthed epithet by the president himself.
  16. The president would go on to support the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, a group of feckless criminals and aimless rabble-rousers whom he “empathized” with, even though he had been one of the major underwriters of Wall Street’s reckless practices.
  17. Obama shamelessly pandered to unions, blacks, hispanics, women and every other known subsection of the American public even after he was elected president, whose office is meant to represent the interests of the entire country as a whole.
  18. After becoming president, Obama has endlessly remained in campaign mode, pausing only to act like a uniter at politically opportune times, such as after the Gabriel Giffords shooting.
  19. He came to office with the slogan “Hope and Change,” and at the end of his presidency, has shamelessly carried out a negative re-election campaign.
  20. Although he has been hyped as one of the greatest orators in presidential history, Obama has a lengthy history of gaffes and awkward pauses.
  21. Obama has been touted as one of the smartest presidents ever, with little record to verify it, and without any demonstrable results to prove it.
  22. The president has acted extremely incompetently at times; most visibly after the BP oil spill, which he let languish for forty days as he rhetorically used it as an issue to demonstrate the supposed wisdom of his environmental policies. Once he decided to act, the leak was stopped within a few days.  The BP oil spillage then quickly resolved itself by dissipating into the Gulf of Mexico.
  23. Obama would defy the rule of law repeatedly, acting more like he had been coronated Tsar than elected president. Disregarding a Louisiana judge’s ruling against the unilaterally imposed moratorium on offshore drilling is but one obvious example. Strong-arming BP to set up a victim’s fund in violation of due process rights is a related offense.
  24. The president would then appoint numerous radical, virtually unconfirmable “czars” to head various executive posts and initiatives in violation of Senatorial advise and consent. Many of these czars, like Julius Genachowski at FCC, would operate in defiance of legislatively passed laws.
  25. The president then ignored the Constitution on several other matters, such as by making a recess appointment when the Senate is not in recess, which is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.
  26. The president would then bully countless businesses and organizations, meanwhile touting a “bullying” campaign in our schools. A prominent example among many is the NLRB’s blocking of a Boeing plant to be built in right-to-work South Carolina.
  27. President Obama pressured the CEO of GM to resign and then put a political hack in his place. It is not the proper role of Obama to act like CEO of the country.
  28. Obama postured as if he would be a post-racial president as a candidate, but then his lapdogs proceeded to inflame race relations, making them worse than they have been in decades.
  29. Candidate Obama ran as a blank slate candidate that the public could project their hopes onto and ended up being an extremely partisan president that engages in sleazy politics.
  30. The president set up a number of websites that encouraged Americans to spy on and snitch on one another to the government.
  31. He has called out private citizens by name in order to castigate them, such as talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
  32. He has deceptively used private citizens to make anecdotal arguments for policies. One example is the case of Democrat political operative Sandra Fluke.
  33. President Obama has refused to forthrightly and expeditiously release commonplace records to the public, keeping them secret and attacking anyone who seeks more information as a ‘conspiracy theorist.’
  34. Obama claimed that he “would not rest” until he accomplished several policy goals (which were never accomplished), but then took lavish vacations and went golfing a record number of times for a president.
  35. The president has demagogued about the ‘shared sacrifice’ and ‘skin in the game’ he expected of Americans, but has lived like a king on the taxpayer dime, like outrageously flying in a pizza chef to make him pizza.
  36. Obama has schmoozed with celebrities and appeared numerous times on talk shows to engage in shameless self-promotion, which is noticeably unbecoming of the presidency and lowers the dignity of the office.
  37.  The president has used funding of the arts to engage in political propaganda.
  38. He has promulgated a cult of personality that has led to children singing odes to his name in school, which he has fed by giving personal messages to children reinforced by Department of Education issued questionnaires.
  39. His environmental agenda has consisted in constant and endless fearmongering about supposed “manmade climate change,” which has reinforced his program of gaining a regulatory stranglehold over energy production and industry.
  40. Obama and his cadres have shamelessly bragged about intentionally making electricity prices “skyrocket” and driving coal companies out of business.
  41. President Obama has in numerous ways worked to erode U.S. sovereignty in deference to unelected and unaccountable UN bodies, Quangos, and INGOs. He backed a cap-and-trade scheme that would have seen trillions of money laundered through the UN and political cronies’ hands; his financial appointees have mulled a global currency to be administered by the IMF (which was recently headed by a socialist); he has called for ratification of a restrictive small arms treaty; supports the Law of the Seas Treaty;, and has advocated other sovereignty-infringing treaties.
  42. In violation of the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Act, President Obama has committed troops to military actions without reporting to Congress; and he has justified such action by appeal to international bodies like NATO. In addition, he has committed U.S. troops and hardware to carry out missions in various countries in Africa, such as Libya; as well as in Yemen and Pakistan, among other sovereign nations.
  43. President Obama has cordially and in unseemly fashion courted various socialist despots, Islamist dictators, and authoritarian heads of state.
  44. He has on a number of occasions bowed to foreign heads of state in a manner violating foreign policy protocol and besmirching national dignity.
  45. He has insulted our allies Britain and Israel by giving foreign leaders inappropriate gifts and inexcusably flaunted etiquette in high level meetings.
  46. When the Iranian people needed a world leader to visibly support their struggle for freedom and democratic accountability, Obama was nowhere to be found. The president claimed he did not want to meddle in Iran’s internal politics.
  47. When Honduras removed its burgeoning socialist dictator from power, Obama not only misrepresented the legal action to remove Zelaya as a “coup,” he instructed the State Department to punish Honduras by withholding foreign aid.
  48. When the Arab Spring movement caught fire in the Middle East, Obama interjected himself into Egyptian politics to help remove authoritarian president Hosni Mubarak from office. After his intervention, Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and worse rose to power.
  49. The president has repeatedly and inexplicably made conciliatory gestures towards Russia, which has repaid his “flexibility” with hostile foreign policy actions around the world.
  50. President Obama has continued to borrow far and away what the country can afford to repay from the communist regime of China, strengthening an ideological adversary at the American people’s expense.
  51. The president has continued to prop our foreign adversaries that rely heavily on oil revenue by intentionally hamstringing the country’s ability to fulfill its own energy needs, particularly through environmental regulations.
  52. He has reduced the full faith and credit of the United States by enacting no policies to avoid a reduction in our sovereign credit rating from AAA to AA+.
  53. He has slashed the military capability and might of the United States by reducing its troops levels and cutting funding while expanding its responsibilities.
  54. His generals’ restrictive military orders in Afghanistan and the president’s demoralizing rhetoric about not seeking “victory” have contributed to a doubling of military casualties in that country.
  55. The president has politicized the military through advancing a gay agenda that has nothing to do with military effectiveness and by introducing a dangerous and symbolic conversion to biofuels in the U.S. Navy.
  56. The president has hypocritically chided the American people for not obeying certain environmental imperatives, meanwhile violating nearly every one of such admonishments personally.
  57. The president and the first lady have harassed the American people to consume food according to “healthy” guidelines, while personally violating their own guidelines constantly.
  58. The government has been spending taxpayer money to promote the supposed benefits of its own policies.
  59. The government has been subsidizing “non-profit” organizations whose often controversial goals do not represent the American people’s interest as a whole.
  60. President Obama passed a healthcare law that is an affront to religious freedom, since it compels religious institutions to violate their members’ conscience by promoting and funding contraception and abortions.
  61. The president lied about no public funding going towards abortion in his healthcare law.
  62. He also ‘lied’ about the healthcare law not being applicable to illegal immigrants.
  63. The president’s signature healthcare law has also been exposed in the courts to be likely unconstitutional and should be struck down as such. The healthcare law is a flagrant violation of individual rights, as it demands that the citizen engage in commerce, and puts the life and health of every man, woman, and child in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats.
  64. The president has imposed billions of dollars in regulatory burdens upon companies and small businesses.
  65. He has done nothing about the U.S.’ highest corporate tax rates in the world, driving overseas much-needed jobs.
  66. The president imposed a number of tax increases that impact the lower and middle class.
  67. He also deceptively raised taxes after his next election year to pay for “Obamacare.”
  68. Obamacare did not and will not lower healthcare costs in any way, shape, matter, or form, although it was touted as such.
  69. His massive program threatens to fundamentally alter the relationship of government to the citizenry; effectively transforming people into wards of the state and political subjects.
  70. The government used Americans’ money to bail out foreseeably failing  European nations without repercussion.
  71. The president’s administration has leaked intelligence secrets to the press for seemingly political reasons.
  72. One of the worst political scandals in U.S. history, a gun-running scheme that resulted in hundreds of deaths known as “Operation Fast & Furious,” which carried implications for gun law arguments, transpired on Obama’s watch without accountability for the highest officials implicated.
  73. The president has warped the economic infrastructure of the nation by directing productive activity away from consumer demand and towards fulfilling government orders and initiatives. The billions in green energy funding has resulted in little more than waste, corruption, and crowding out in the marketplace.
  74. President Obama has done nothing about the ponderous social welfare programs whose unsustainable debt financing threatens to bankrupt the nation within a generation.
  75. The president and his party have demonized any who seek to seriously and responsibly address the nation’s real problems as “terrorists,” “extremists,” “hostage takers,” and worse.
  76.  Although required by law to pass a budget each fiscal year, the president and his party have not passed a budget in over 1,000 days.
  77. Both the president and his party have subsequently blamed his opposition as “obstructionists,” even though they control two-thirds of the branches of government.
  78. The president appointed political partisans to the Supreme Court who have Constitutionally questionable legal rationales. Justice Elena Kagan is ruling on the constitutionality of a healthcare law that she officially advocated for instead of recusing herself from hearing the case.
  79. The president not only failed to uphold the territorial integrity of the United States by forcefully opposing illegal immigration, but he has legally attacked states that have sought to do so.
  80. His Justice Department has fought states that are taking measures to prevent voter fraud in the upcoming national election, arguing speciously that checking for voter’s citizenship is “racist.”
  81. Previously, the same Justice department refused to protect the voting rights of citizens on racial grounds.
  82. The Obama campaign has contracted with Internet companies to engage in widespread data mining in order to construct political profiles of prospective voters.
  83. Candidate Obama one time boasted about wanting a “civilian national security force” just as well-funded and equipped as the United States military. Of course, such a concept is hostile to Constitutionally limited government and any domestic standing army would become a permanent threat to civil liberties if it were to be established.
  84. The Department of Homeland Security issued a report on “right-wing extremist” groups that included potential threats as Constitutional government proponents, Ron Paul supporters, and returning veterans.
  85. The  Obama campaign has consistently smeared its opponents as racists, misogynists, and other kinds of bigots, without proof. He has constantly provoked a political atmosphere of incivility.
  86. In addition, the president and his advocates constantly frame him as the victim, even though he is the most powerful man in the world.
  87. The Transportation Security Administration under Obama has humiliated and denigrated hundreds of passengers, including women and children, all in the name of “political correctness.”
  88. Terrorist actions have occurred on American soil under Obama; although his administration has changed nomenclature or simply ignored terrorist events to suggest they didn’t actually take place. The Fort Hood massacre is one such example.
  89. The president has interjected himself into local political and news matters to exploit them for partisan purposes.
  90. President Obama noticeably lacks patriotism when it comes to celebrating national holidays, showing reverence for the military, and touting American exceptionalism. He has skipped several veteran’s or patriotic events or has celebrated them in spurious, non-symbolic fashion.
  91. The president has ideologically attacked the economic and political foundations of the country, referring to them in some cases as “failed theories.” He has stated that the Constitution is “deeply flawed,” for one example.
  92. Obama does not openly and consistently endorse the Constitutional foundations of this country; namely, individual rights, liberty, and limited government. Instead, he emphasizes collectivist principles laudable in society and conflates them with the role of government.
  93. President Obama has failed to articulate a clear vision for the country. This is presumably because he has a hidden agenda and is managing things on a day-to-day basis pragmatically as he gains power.
  94. The president brazenly and intentionally confuses the accumulation of state power with “progress” in the public mind.
  95. The American public has been barraged since the inception of the Obama administration with a number of petty outrages and distractions to frustrate the coalescence of opposition to any one particular policy.
  96. He has not given the public ample time to debate or provide feedback on proposed policies.
  97. The president championed his healthcare proposal for nearly a year before the Democrat Congress forced it down an opposing public’s throats.
  98. President Obama has insulted other branches of government while carrying out official duties; such as by condemning the Supreme Court for a decision during his State of the Union address.
  99. The executive branch has centralized an unprecedented amount of power; often at the expense of the legislature and the states.
  100. The President has clearly failed to uphold his Oath of Office by knowingly and willfully refusing to steadfastly preserve, protect, and defend The Constitution of the United States.
  101. And finally… none of the previous thousand reasons to vote against Barack Obama have a single, solitary thing to do with the fact that he is black.

Will You Be an Occupy Angel?

From David Stein via AceofSpades and Dana Loesch.


Why Obama is Possibly a Communist Mole

Conspiracies Exist

Throughout history, conspiracies have taken place that threatened the very life-blood of governments and peoples.  The Catalinarian Conspiracy, taking place in the first century B.C.E., was a very serious plot to overthrow the Roman Republic.  Such a plot prompted the great thinker Cicero to state the following:

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor—he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation—he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city—he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared…(42 B.C.E.)

Certainly, one cannot accuse Cicero of being a dotty old fool.  But his statement neither proves or disproves the claim that such a conspiracy exists in the United States. That being said, a prescient mind familiar with neomarxist theory and experience with both the media and academia would be hard-pressed to deny that there is an astonishingly large cohort of intellectuals with no sympathy whatsoever for the American system of Constitutionally limited government.

Read more »


There is No Communist Conspiracy… Right?

As someone who has studied Political Science at the doctoral level under a self-professed Maoist professor, a Marxist-Leninist professor, a Neomarxist professor, and other radical leftist professors all in the same faculty at a major state university, I recommend the movie The Agenda. Don’t let the left’s dismissal of “conspiracy theories” deter you from doing your own research.


Government Motors Once Republished The Illustrated Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek!

Irony of ironies.


The International Red Cross Declares War on the Online Gaming Community

The International Red Cross is a leftist outfit that does some good work while taking absolutely kooky positions on politics. So when the charity organization wants an international investigation into the question of whether six hundred million online gamers are “war criminals,” one’s eyebrows are likely to jump a few feet. And then when one finds out who is leading the investigation, the International Red Cross, one’s likely to respond, “Oh, those mother*******.”

World of Warcraft, Call of Duty 4, and Assassin’s Creed are huge online gaming experiences that suck in numerous teenagers into a life of massive Cheetos eating and Sunny D consumption. No one knows the psychic scars that may be left from moving pixel characters blowing up other moving pixel characters.

But relax, gamers. Although the Red Cross doesn’t want to bring you stoners gamers into The Hague for questioning, yet, they’ve gotten in touch with gaming companies/virtual war simulators to make sure that your make-believe violence isn’t quite so…violent. So if in the future, your gun turns into a carrot-spewing pink bunny rabbit while you’re playing Gears of War 3, you’ll know why.

But who knows? Maybe if the Red Cross people get their way, the make-believe violence won’t be quite so “make-believe” in the future.

Just like online porn probably leads to a decline in sexual assaults, online war gaming may help lead to a decline in real violence. If for no other reason than getting off the couch is really, really tiring.

Yet the social engineers at places like Iowa State University argue that video games actually lead to increasing violence. Penn & Teller’s Bullshit! on video game violence goes over the pros and cons:

The most glaring flaw in claims that violent virtual reality war games lead to an increase in actual reality violence is that so many people play violent video games. If six hundred million people play these games, then the odds are pretty good if you find a young adult who has shot someone, he’s played violent video games.

Drawing the conclusion that this means the video game caused the violence would be like saying smoking cigarettes causes people to smoke crack: a lot of crack users have smoked cigarettes, but there are a lot of cigarette smokers that don’t smoke crack. They call such an error in statistics as “sampling on the dependent variable,” in this case, crack users. In the violent video games’ case, the dependent variable population would be those young adults who commit violent crimes.

But let’s get beyond the statistics mumbo-jumbo and cut to the chase. Online games are not only fun, they train our next generation of military warriors to blast stone age peoples back to the paleolithic era by pressing sequences of buttons rather than hunting them down with hunting knives just to make it fair. And that’s something all of us should be able to get behind.


Socialism as Monopoly

One of the chief complaints of left-wing commentators and modern day revisionist historians is that free market capitalism leads inexorably to the formation of monopolies, or cartels that exert monopolistic control over some good or sector of the economy. As often is the case, there is an underlying current of socialist critique within such half-baked assertions, which omit the role of the state in the rise of various monopolies.

Overlooking for a moment the erroneous criticism of free market capitalism, we should see instead that socialism’s manifest drive is to deliver monopoly control – over society, economy, and government – into the hands of a vanguard of socialist intellectuals. For reasons dealing with human nature, socialists who acquire such power never peaceably or willingly cede it back to the people ever again.

Socialists often pose as anarchists or anti-establishment types, but very few intellectuals above the ranks of self-deluded street agitator actually believe in anarchism. The irony of OccupyWall Street activists donning “V is for Vendetta” masks and displaying various anarchist signs while imploring the government for more free healthcare, education, and retirement benefits simply asks too much of the sane, rational person to take seriously. Rather, what motivates real socialists, the theoreticians and masterminds (Drummond Pike, Maurice Strong, and George Soros, to name a few), is wresting away control of the economy from businesses, and the individuals whose demand fuels them.

When socialists demand that capitalism be abolished, and by extension, individualism and competition done away with, what they really are arguing for is complete domination. There must be uniformity of ideology, a single party hierarchy, subservience of the self to the “cause,” in order for socialism to “work.” In other words the state must have a monopoly, not only of legitimate coercion, but of all legitimate human activities, period.

Under socialism, people must obliterate what it means to be human and to willingly become pawns of the central planners. This is the reality, and not some children’s  fantasy story that everyone would live spontaneously and freely, and chocolate milk would flow down Big Rock Candy Mountain without any duties or obligations to the collectivist state.

One example often cited by socialists as proof of supposed capitalists’ drive to break organized labor is National Socialist Germany. Instead, the Nazis were against free market capitalism and instead sought a monopoly on labor, just as the Communists of the Soviet Union accomplished.

From the Literary Digest, 1935:

“A Socialist Workers’ Government has achieved a workers revolution in Germany without resorting to, tho in some respects it approximates, Communism. Adolf Hitler has done it by wiping out all class privileges and class distinction, but the economics foundation of property rights and private capital has been left almost intact – for the present time.”


“The Third Reich, under Hitler, has wiped out corporate trade-unionism by forcing all workers to join one great government union, the National Socialist Union of Employers and Workers…”

National Socialists were against unions, plural, but were for one all-encompassing German workers union. And what would be the international socialists’ counter-argument? That they are instead for competition in labor? That they are for competition in the economy at all? The foreseeable counter-argument doesn’t wash, defeated by the socialists’ ideological raison d’etre of “unity.” [Continued on Freedom Beacon]


Leftwing Doublethink

We are living in revolutionary times. Mass unrest is leading Americans to question everything, and shockingly for leftist radicals who have been infiltrating and corroding the system from within since the 1960s, all of their duplicitous work and agitation may yet turn out to be for naught. Can you imagine the discipline, the hardwork , the dedication, not to mention the suppressed rage, that it would take to embed a Gramscian leftwing movement into the schools, the universities, the courts, the news and entertainment industry over the course of decades, and when the moment of truth comes, the big economic crisis everyone has been waiting for – for well over half the country reject socialism to your face? Cognitive dissonance would strike with a vengeance.

So can you imagine the chagrin of radical activists everywhere when Herman Cain, a very black man, becomes the anointed leader of the despised tea party after two years of “tea party = racist” memes broadcast 24/7 on cable outlets and posted on radical websites? The left’s problematique would lead to increasing desperation and ever more tragic-comic displays of Orwellian doublethink to explain just how that might come to be. [Continued on Political Crush]


Man. Myth, and Environment

Reading Bruce Caldwell’s introduction to The Road to Serfdom: Texts and Documents by F.A. Hayek, I stumbled upon some astonishing background material. I have to say up front that I’ve never seen the utility of Marxism and I have always regarded it as the fetish of a mentally ill collective. There are elements of scientistic thinking in Marxism that is blended with pure utopian tripe. However, it never ceases to baffle me how academics are fascinated by this twisted, insane philosophy. The fact that Marx was a deadbeat kleptoparasite who set out to foster a world revolution a priori to constructing his destructive philosophical system should have been some warning to his acolytes that they might be being led down the primrose garden path to collective hell.

Caldwell provides some quotes from the Labour Party’s 1942 statement of the post-war order, “The Old World and New Society.” The two most telling: “A planned society must replace the competitive system” and “The basis for our democracy must be planned production for community use” (12). Then he gives a quote from Barbara Wooten from her review on a Marxist work that brings many things into focus: “The whole approach to social and political questions is still pre-scientific. Until we have removed tribal magic in favour of the detached and relentless accuracy characteristic of science the unconquered social environment will continue to make useless and dangerous our astonishing conquest of the material environment.”

First, Wooten does not say that Marxism is “scientific.” However, the Marxist work she read appears to have elicited a response that pines for a more scientific means of organizing society. Second, she appears to be alleging that the approximate anti-thesis of Marxism, namely capitalism, is beset by elements of “tribal magic.” Third, she writes explicitly (and disturbingly) of conquering the “social environment.” Lastly, she implies that we have already conquered the material environment.

It may appear a belated rebuttal to Ms. Wooten to object to her characterization of science, and by implication, Marxism and capitalism, but there are many reasons to do so. I see residue of Wooten-like thinking throughout the “social scientific” ranks. From overt Marxist professors to burgeoning young technocrats it is deeply embedded in the manner of thinking of our academic, bureaucratic and political leadership. There are several myths that cling hard to the minds of these “social scientists” and it would be counter-productive to address them all here, but one of the greatest myths is the idea that capitalism is exploitative.

In several senses this insinuation towards capitalism is perverse, but I want to focus on a single comparative aspect: man’s relationship to the natural environment (in the non-reified sense).

Marxists make hay of the idea that capitalism rests on Judaeo-Christian principles because they both promote an exploitative relationship of man to the earth. This is patently false.

Capitalism intrinsically recognizes the delicate balance of man’s relationship to nature with the principles of free pricing, scarcity and supply and demand. When given the opportunity to function unobstructed by Marxists and government technocrats, these natural laws inherent to the market provide signals that let people know when natural resources are getting scarcer.

Gambling operations like futures trading and derivatives are not inherent to a market, which is merely a system resting on the free exchange of goods and services for capital. The relationship of futures trading and derivatives to pricing is a separate issue that will not be discussed at length here.

In contrast to capitalism, it is the non-system of Marxism-in-practice (which ultimately rests on the unquestioned arbitrary authority of a Leninist party) that does not recognize scarcity as a fundamental organizing principle, abhors free pricing and thus leads to the technocracy’s poor, underinformed assessment of supply and demand (such as with the “Great Leap Forward”), and fosters a non-humanistic point of view that justifies brazen, ultimately exploitative behavior towards man and nature.

The pseudo-scientific worldview of Marxists is profoundly unscientific in that it leaves no room for skepticism or reality-checking. Their worldview promotes government policies that are disastrous, both intentionally and unintentionally.

It is no accident that governments that derive their legitimacy from Marxism commit the greatest atrocities against human beings and engage in completely unchecked exploitation of man and the natural environment.


Some Dare Call it Conspiracy

President Obama has done more to damage the United States than any other president in American history.  This is not hate-speech, this is hate-fact.

  • What do you call it when a man is elected with no serious media investigation of his background and immediately begins grabbing power under the guise of a ‘crisis’?
  • What do you call it when the government ignores the Constitution and rules arbitrarily?
  • What do you call it when the government seizes the assets of the public and claims that it was necessary for our own good?
  • What do you call it when the politicians are so corrupt they refuse to be held accountable for their actions precipitating the ‘crisis’ and instead blame the free market, in other words, us?
  • What do you call it when the economy is so degraded that the country goes from one of the most free and prosperous to a de facto state of bankruptcy (more debt than net worth)?
  • What do you call it when the central bank destroys the currency through a process of perpetual inflation?
  • What do you call rampant bank and firm nationalizations, cries for more ‘regulations’ and blatant anti-capitalist behavior?

Some call it “conspiracy.” Let there be no doubt, this conspiracy is out in the open.

For years the liberals in education, the media, the courts, and the government have been prepping for The Big Payback. No longer would millionaire businessmen prosper by providing products that the people want and the means for people to build them. Oh no. Those days are over. “Thanks for the memories, but we, the experts, will be taking over now,” they say.

Only a blind believer in hope and change as intrinsic values could find the departure from limited government an exciting and innovative voyage. If you got to page fifty in any world history book from the early 1950s, that idea would be immediately abandoned. Why it seems a novel and noble experiment to the younger generations is the direct result of radical bromides perpetuated in our schools and universities for decades.

These bromides are not the ramblings of an Alinsky or Gramsci, but they directly buttress their radical programs. “Always share,” “there is no right and wrong,” “we are all winners,” “it’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game,” “can’t we all just get along?”

Yes we can!

The ivory tower intellectuals who have benefited from capitalism for decades while relentlessly railing against it are in for some shock and surprise.  When a government attempts to impose socialism on a people by force, they usually begin with imprisoning or executing socialist intellectuals.  You don’t want the useful idiots alerting to sheeple as to what the commies are actually up to.

But unfortunately, some people never will learn until it is too late.  So for now, file this under “I” for “I told you so, idiot.” It will be the only sliver of satisfaction I get when the clueless lefties get what they are clamoring for.


Collectivism on the March

No less than ‘world government’ is the goal of leftists and their corporatist allies, who are working together to break down all barriers to a global oligarchy that presides over the fate of mankind. The tactics of the leftists and the corporatists are not at odds with one another, but are actually complementary: they are a tandem grinding up all resistance to omnipotent government.

Under the rubric of “global governance,” several agendas hostile to human freedom are being implemented. A veneer of altruism and human rights, which are always collective rights and never individual rights, masks a longer-term view to consolidate as much power as possible in the hands of relatively few dominant world bodies.

This point of view may be dismissed by realists schooled in such texts as The Peloponnesian War and The Federalist Papers, who believe that self-interest and state-centric designs on power trump and irreparably frustrate any such collectivist aims.  But it is my view that a fundamental change in international relations has occurred since the advent of The Cold War: the presence of Mutually Assured Destruction among great powers has led to what John Lewis Gaddis termed a “long peace” marked by relatively low-level war and the absence of great power or world war.

Counter-intuitively, the reduction of tensions after a prolonged period of nuclear stand-off, and the coming to grips of powers with the reality of a nuclear-armed world has led to two associated phenomena: the proliferation of state subversion as an alternative to direct military conflict among great powers, led at the forefront decades ago by the KGB and followed by the Chinese and now, the Islamists; and the building up of “global governance” institutions, which are employed to undermine the self-interest of targets and redirect power towards aspiring oligarchs using ideological manipulation and mass communications.

The resulting chaos of manipulation by the power elite has an intrinsic logic to it, once one can get beyond the media haze of temporal fetishism and non-analysis to grasp the historical pattern. Leftists manipulate and assault societies, leading them to self-immolation through cultural and moral relativism, and denature capitalist economies using the welfare state apparatus. Corporatists amass wealth using central bank fiat and state privilege, notably in the form of ecofascism, waiting in the wings to scoop up the assets of their less well-connected and more illiquid prey, who are are crushed by ever-more-burdensome taxes and regulations after they are duped into unsound expansion prior to monetary-inflationary busts. Welfare statism, democracy, and central banking are vitally connected, as the Obama administration’s recent backlash against the Fed-threatening Rick Perry belies.

An important theoretical backdrop is needed to grasp the significance of recent events that strongly support this outlook.  These will be covered for sake of brevity in rapid-fire succession.

The Marxist Immanuel Wallerstein’s World Systems Theory charts the rise of capitalism in the modern world, and holds that there is a “core,” a “semi-core,” a “periphery,” and a “hinterlands” in world economics.  This theory is particularly significant in light of influential Harvard professor Thomas Barnett‘s military advice to integrate what he terms the Non-Integrated Gap with the Functioning Core. Barnett’s seemingly pro-capitalist language is given light by notorious global collectivist George Soros‘ stated agenda to utilize such presumably capitalist agencies as the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank to foster trade and economic interdependence.

Furthermore, one should be aware of the obscure writings of verifiably prescient KGB defector Anatoly Golytsyn, who warned of the KGB grand strategy of “universal convergence” in an ultimately world communist regime.  The nature of the regime the KGB (basically, now the FSB) safeguarded in the past should give all of us pause; and it would be remiss to not point out that numerous ex-KGB still fill the Kremlin, including “prime minister” Vladimir Putin.

It should be noted here that Marx and Lenin both recognized the necessity of capitalist development and international trade to promote world communism. Quoting Robert Gilpin in War & Change in World Politics:

“Although capitalist economies had an incentive to colonize the world, they also have an incentive to develop it, as Marx and Lenin fully appreciated. […] It was precisely for this reason that nineteenth-century Marxists regarded capitalist imperialism, despite its many crimes, as ultimately progressive and a necessary step to the emancipation of the human race from poverty and millennia of stagnation…” (142)

Gilpin also writes a very apt line that will help synthesize and compress the argument:

“Communist societies do not eliminate the profit motive; rather they put it in the hands of the state (Hawtrey, 1952, p. 149). The desire of a communist political elite to maximize the power and wealth of the state can dwarf the capitalist profit motive.” (ibid., 84)

The leftists and corporatists act akin to a global communist team; and if one is familiar with critical theory, the neomarxist concept of threat diffusion by breaking down one’s political agenda into separate and perhaps even seemingly conflicting agendas and interest groups, this appears to be intended.  As of late, several globalist billionaire magnates are the personification of this argument: George Soros, Dominic Strauss-Kahn, (multi-multi-millionaire) Al Gore, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates  Marc Zuckerberg – all for one reason or another (including state bullying) toe the radical leftist line. And it should be noted, one way or another, these people tend not to pay “their fair share” of taxes.

The key to the left’s agenda to radically transform the planet into an amoral mess with docile subjects is democracy. Democracy leads to mob warfare among interest groups, and the government benefits from this internal fighting by justifying state arbitration; the government grows its power until societies collapse, and then the police state can intervene and impose its will on an exhausted and compliant people. In tandem with this is economic collapse, ushered in by a central bank that devalues the currency, leading eventually to hyper-inflation, economic crisis, and a people who want the government to “do something” to fix the economy and to put bread on their plate.

Democracy and central banking are thus the vital institutions of the globalist movement. Both should be trenchantly opposed. But it should be noted that “democracy” is always a controlled one wherever the socialists or communists are in power (this includes the false opposition of parties for public consumption); either through mass media manipulation or outright police state intimidation of those whose interests directly clash with the state.

This backdrop should be sufficient to contemplate the significance of the following events, which should now be contextualized:

Stalin is reputed to have said that he would “sell the capitalists the rope which he would use to hang them.” But what if the so-called “capitalists,” having bought the rope, now intend to hang everyone else?

See also:

Global Governance Watch – Website and news aggregator on global governance issues.

Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture (European Union: Institute for Security Studies) Theoretical note: A plausible counter-argument that global governance does not lead to world government is made (presumably due to the reality of self-interest, which is not intrinsically an aspect solely inherent in nationalism or capitalism): “The term ‘global governance’ as used in this paper includes all the institutions, regimes, processes, partnerships, and networks that contribute to collective action and problem solving at the international level. This definition subsumes formal and informal arrangements as well as the role of nonstate actors in transnational settings. Regional cooperation may also be regarded as an element of global governance insofar as it contributes to broader efforts. Governance differs from government, which implies sovereign prerogatives and hierarchical authority. Global governance does not equate to world government, which would be virtually impossible for the foreseeable future,  if ever.”

Global Governance Project Quote: “The Global Governance Project ( is a joint research programme of thirteen European research institutions that seeks to advance understanding of the new actors, institutions and mechanisms of global governance. […] The Global Governance Project is co-ordinated by the Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM) of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam…”

Global Leadership in Transition (Brookings Institution) Quote: “Global Leadership in Transition calls for innovations that ‘institutionalize’ or consolidate the G20, helping to make it the global economy’s steering committee.”

Human Rights: A Moral and Material Business Concern

Congress Should Renew the Report Requirement on U.S. Contributions to the U.N. and Reverse Record-Setting Contributions to the U.N. (Heritage Foundation)

The New Socialism: Global Collectivist Society Is Coming Online (Wired 2009)


Oslo Killer Ruffles Feathers in Ostrichotopia

When the news first broke of a Norwegian mass murder, my first glance at the Oslo assassin Anders Behring Breivik struck me that the man was a throwback to the Baader-Meinhoff gang or some commie retread in the mold of the Red Army Faction. After all, Marxists are second only to Islamists in committing senseless acts of terrorist mass murder, according to coding from the MIPT database.

But lo and behold! – we actually have our ever elusive “right-wing extremist” ready to plug into the media meme that all conservatives are only one FoxNews broadcast away from going on a mindless shooting spree.

If this man wasn’t on the DHS payroll, he should have been. Just last week, Big Sis Napolitano’s rag-tag outfit released a propaganda video instructing our nation’s police forces to keep an eye out for whities sporting hoodies and rucksacks. Not really, but that’s what one would conclude from watching the tacky, telemarketing-seminar-worthy training video DHS released. Gee, Sis, that pretty much narrows down our nation’s terrorist training grounds to any college campus in the nation.

What’s in the backpack, Chip? More Locke and Burke? Roger that, we caught the unsub red-handed – transporting unapproved terrorist materials!

While the VHS, oops, DHS video was only slightly less insulting than the crayon-scrawled screed the goons issued on “right-wing extremists” – basically any returning veteran, patriot, Paulitanarian, kid smuggling a copy of The Constitution in a Hustler magazine – the two share one thing in common: Labeling all opposition to the left as “right wing.”

Smearing all opposition to socialism as one monolithic block called “right-wing” is a battle-weary tactic going back to the former Stalinist era, when Uncle Joe set up a false opposition between socialism and fascism.  As Jonah Goldberg points out in Liberal Fascism, both the INGSocs and the fascists competed for the same proletarian hearts and minds: the former, manifestly nationalist, the latter, internationalist.  Same collectivist scumbags, same ambition of forcing everyone into servitude to the state. Only the means varied.

Little-discussed is that American conservatism is a third way, and not associated with either bloodthirsty ideology.  It is the way of individual freedom and liberty from oppressive government.  It is the ideology of “leave me the hell alone!”

But what ties together American conservatives and truly right-wing nationalists in the unnuanced minds of the left is opposition to socialism.  While both conservatives and nationalists are against cultural marxism or multiculturalism, Islamic jihad, and other ideologies hostile to Western Civilization, American conservatives are for restraining government, while nationalists are for collectivist unification and empowering government.  American conservatism is ideologically grounded, while nationalism is reactionary.

The problem with this picture is that the left is intentionally provoking reaction with its classic pushiness and government overreach.  There literally are no bounds to leftism as a “freedom-clearing” destructive force, and cultural marxism has worn down its resistors with political correctness, multiculturalism, and moral relativism.  Cultural marxism has caused two interrelated phenomena to occur and both are explosive.

First, cultural marxists have used the power of media to ridicule, bully, and culturally isolate conservatives.  Political correctness has created an environment in which both leftists and conservatives are prone to extreme outburts: the left from its fetishism for acceptance, and the right from its insistence on judgment, including an unwillingness to accept those who seek to destroy them.  Conservatives crave pushback on the nihilistic and self-immolatory policies of the left, and when none are forthcoming, a desperate sense of helplessness can ensue.  Under the wrong conditions, such as extended unemployment and events leading to personal loss, a psychotic break from reality could potentially occur.

A “lone wolf” like Anders Breivik or Ted Kaczynski could be driven to commit pointless acts of terror accompanied with egomaniacal emancipatory messages.  These people may indeed fancy themselves as martyrs for a cause, but in the end, their initiation of force against innocents makes them mass murderers.  Jared Loughner can be added to this “lone wolf” profile, although the texts that fed his egomania were predominately of the left-wing persuasion.  The message, therefore, is incidental to the act; just as Loughner’s targeting of a Democrat Congresswoman was unrelated to his views, Ted Kaczynski’s use of random bombings was unrelated to his views, and “Islamophobia” was unrelated to Breivik’s attack, as indeed no Muslims were among the victims.

We can conclude therefore, that associating an ideology with an act of terror such as Loughner’s or Breivik’s is spurious at best, malicious at worst.  Repeatedly, the media seize on any act of violence to try to paint the perpetrator as “right wing” – from the attack on an IRS building in Texas, to the despicable association of Palin with Jared Loughner, to Breivik’s association with American “right-wing” conservatives.

What is the left-wing blogosphere’s reaction to Breivik’s manifesto, which condemns cultural marxism and Islam? Ruffled feathers in Ostrichotopia, and pitiful attempts to paint authors like Mark Steyn, who warn of the impending Islamapocalypse, as fear-mongers and hate merchants.

This bring us to the second phenomenon caused by political correctness.  The lack of principled conservatism in mainstream American culture, or nationalism in Europe, has left the gates open for the Islamist trojan horse.  If one has been so blinded by multiculti nonsense that one sees sharia as compatible with a free society, there is really no reason to press this point.  Doing so would only strain the patience of the sane reader.

There is literally no way to get through to the left, because to the depraved mind, all facts and reason are hateful.  That a hateful mind can intersperse facts in a murderous manifesto is even more reason to indict the facts, so it goes in the minds of the left.

It is only a matter of time when not only physical weapons, but mental weapons are outlawed.  The two are equivalent in the cultural marxist view, which sees open war as simply politics by other means. Shooting down the false premises and promises of leftists is equivalent to shooting down innocent women and children on a grassy field. In the lefties’ flight of fancy, reality does appear like mental violence.

The sad thing about this event, in addition to the catastrophic loss of life, is that the left will continue to associate all opposition to systematic terror like political Islam and socialism with hateful acts of rage, such as Breivik displayed.  Not indeed, that anything could ever wake those daydream believers up.

The ultimate point is that wishing for a better world where people aren’t pushed around by the state or by leftist nannies or by Islamist mass murderers is not crazy.  Descending into a world of esoteric nonsense and becoming a mass murderer yourself, is.


The Communizing of America I

A Brief History of Communist Subversion

The American flag is under attack.  The reference to “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is under attack.  And now the very Pledge of Allegiance itself is under attack.

Part of the communists’ plan for subverting the country is to remove loyalty oaths and other expressions of patriotism from the public sphere.  One could probably point to all of our nation’s serious troubles, show how each problem relates in some way to communist subversion, and document it, but instead I will provide some sources for the reader to put the pieces together himself.

Online resources for assessing how far along we are in the communizing of America:

  • KGB defector Yevgenni Bezmenov explains role of “active measures” in subverting the U.S. (videos).
  • The ten planks of the Communist Manifesto (annotated).
  • Communist Goals, House report (1963). [Number 13: “Do away with all loyalty oaths.”]
  • The Communist Party’s Cold War Against Congressional Investigation of Subversion, House report (1962).

The last is perhaps the least well-known, and it is appropriate to quote an extended passage here, from the testimony of one Robert Carrillo Ronstadt:

Before the bank can be robbed, the guards must be disposed of.
Before subversive forces within this country can achieve their goal, the country’s internal security instruments and agencies must be destroyed or rendered powerless.
Laws against subversion, the agencies charged with formulating such laws, and those charged with investigating violations of them are integral parts of this country’s internal security guard, a guard which the Communists must destroy before their objective of imposing a Soviet-style dictatorship on this country can be attained.
It is only logical, therefore, that the U.S. Communist Party should do everything in its power to discredit, weaken, and destroy –
(a) the security laws, regulations, and programs of this country;
(b) congressional committees created to investigate subversive activities for the purpose of formulating legislation designed to frustrate its efforts; and
(c) The FBI and State and local police subversive squads which have the special mission of obtaining evidence of Communist lawbreaking.
Because the Communist Party knows that, operating under its own name, it cannot win the support of the overwhelming majority of Americans for these or any of its objectives, it uses fronts-false
faces-to promote its aims in this as well as in other areas. The fronts, in turn, use false words to present to the American people a concept, idea, or picture that is the opposite of the truth.
Thus, for example, the names of the fronts will indicate, and their propaganda ,vill assert, that they promote and defend civil liberties, fundamental rights, and the Constitution. Behind this camouflage, however, their immediate aim is the destruction of a certain agency or law designed to protect American liberties, rights, and the Constitution- and their ultimate aim is the imposition of a tyranny which would tear the Constitution to shreds and strip the American people of every liberty and right that flows from observance of it. The party’s fronts use lip service to the principles this Government was created to establish and preserve in order to destroy this Government and those principles.

By any rational assessment, the United States has been penetrated by socialists, communists, radicals, fellow-travelers, and “progressives” hell-bent on destroying the United States as it was founded. How did we get to this point, on the precipice of freedom and full-blown tyranny?

As explained in an earlier post, subversion was the key strategy used by the Soviets to try to bring down the U.S.:

To avoid the impression that this analysis lacks real-world grounding and is just an exercise in sophistry tinged with an unbalanced measure of conspiracy, we can briefly cite what socialists themselves have said in regards to their project of turning America socialist. The influential American socialist Norman Thomas said, “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev famously said, “Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will pour the dirt over your faces” (Нравится вам или нет, но история на нашей стороне. Мы вас закопаем). Stalin himself did not predict the direct overthrow of Capitalism, but rather said, “We will sell the Capitalists the rope with which they will hang themselves.” All of these rather illustrative quotes by well-known Socialist leaders suggest an indirect strategy of subversion, rather than of outright direct conflict.

We may be quickly approaching a red dawn, when freedom-loving Americans will see the ghosts of the founders led to the gallows and hung before their very eyes. The antipathy and outright hostility to The Constitution, to individual rights, even to human life itself, among intellectuals in the journalism, law, education, and entertainment professions is dumbfounding.  Between 90%-95% of all those who work in these industries are staunch Democrats, if not “progressives.” Wonder why that is?

It is because the left has conducted a Gramscian “long march” through our cultural, educational, and informational institutions, while Fabian socialists have eroded free market capitalism and placed the economy in the hands of central planners.  One side could not bring America to the edge of communism by itself; it took two fronts working in tandem to accomplish this precarious state of affairs.  Even more disturbingly, both parties may be cooperating to bring America to the brink of collapse and to usher in some kind of police state; first domestic in nature, and then international.

As the House report (1963) put it: “Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.”

It is impossible at this time to verify if both parties are indeed “captured.” A pattern of behavior by both parties that disturbingly fits the communist template and playbook has emerged, nonetheless. A potentially shared agenda becomes visible once one stops seeing the Democrats and the Republicans as two opposing parties, but rather one party – a Communist party – with respective delegated responsibilities to subvert The Constitution and to impose economic servitude to the state on the American people. The Republicans set themselves up for such speculation with absurdly predictable weak and non-ideologically based opposition despite the preponderance of center-right support for their self-described policies, which never seem to get implemented despite adequate political power. The absurd continuity of many policies of the Bush administration and the “hope and change” Obama administration, from TARP to bailouts to domestic security to wars overseas, clues one in that, at the very least, these parties are not that far apart ideologically. Indeed, in the absence of dogged resistance, the two parties may soon converge somewhere on the socialist-left side of the spectrum.

Why do people tolerate this? Why can’t some people see what is taking place right in front of them?

While economic marxists, or “paleomarxists,” had tremendous difficulty convincing Americans to forsake their freedoms and to adopt socialist slavery, cultural marxists have been more successful adopting a strategy of critical theory. Essentially, cultural marxism sought to replace “capitalist” aka patriotic American culture with godless, amoral or immoral, soft socialistic culture, critical theory is the technique in practice of diffusing threat perception that the country is being subverted.  Critical theory seemingly fragments the lockstep marxian movement into several “interest groups” – in practice, race-baiters, homophobia crusaders, male-bashing feminists, Muslim terrorist apologizers – what we see most commonly are “victim” groups who unabashedly attack the white male middle class and justify exploitation, expropriation, and suppression of “class enemies.”

Political correctness is the psychological muzzle intended to keep the real victims from speaking up and coordinating with fellow attacked Americans to take action against their actual oppressors. The stain of white guilt from the forever weeping scar of slavery in America’s past seemingly applies to all whites in perpetuity.  Because of the fact of slavery alone, the very notion that a white male middle class person could actually be oppressed by minority groups is indeed laughed off by left-wing media and most academics.

So while opposing the first black president for any policy was once decried as “racist,” white, mentally unstable Debbie Wasserman-Schultz can go on the House floor, call black decorated war hero and Congressman Allen West everything but an Uncle Tom, and the media is automatically on the Democrats’ side. While the American media celebrated the potentially “historic” runs for president of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, there is no such enthusiasm for the potential candidacies of Latino sensation Marco Rubio or former Sarah Palin, both Republicans.  And indeed, the candidacy of Michelle Bachmann is already drawing vicious, irrelevant attacks from the left – the exact kind that would draw cries of foul play if it were Hilary Clinton.  Sarah Palin’s kids, including mentally challenged Trig, are also fair game in the minds of the media, although Hillary’s daughter Chelsea is “out of bounds.” What is going on here?

Maybe political correctness isn’t really about principle, but about attacking political opposition and then playing the victim when it retaliates? No, couldn’t be.


Capitalism Does Not Need a "Makeover"

I encountered a blog post “Global Warming: A Growing Woe” and felt compelled to respond, because the author is obviously well-intentioned, but might benefit as well as I from a vigorous argument regarding the social merits of free-market capitalism.  The well-intentioned, intellectually honest left should be engaged on economic matters, but perhaps arguments might be more effective if framed in the social terms they have come to value.  At least in this way, the well-intentioned leftist gets an accurate depiction of capitalism that she is free to accept or reject on principle.

The paragraph in question is as follows:

I am also of the opinion that the capitalist system as we know it is long overdue for a makeover. The fact that the living-wage gap (rich vs. poor) is getting larger by the moment, is enough of an indication that all is not well in the land of finances.

While my execution of the blog post is imperfect, perhaps it might give others ideas on how to engage the left.  I might have also pointed out The Fed’s malicious effects on capitalist economy, as they tend to the gross accumulation of wealth; this is because the introduction of new money into the economy benefits those with first access to such money, as the capital is worth more before “knowledge” of the money is made felt in the system.

But my general sense from the tone of the whole article is that the author feels that capitalism is an unkind system.  So this being said, there are other associated arguments on the beneficial social effects of capitalist systems, beyond the scope of a blog post reply, and even beyond that of an exhaustive essay.  Perhaps others might have some suggestions for me that I have missed and which conservatives can draw on in their arguments with the well-intentioned left.  (The duplicitous left we will put aside, for now.)

This topic could be the subject of a future blog post, after I have time to research it. (I want to leave aside the obvious Kantian “perpetual peace”-type, internationalist free trade arguments and concentrate on domestic effects.) So the blog reply I have re-posted below, for scrutiny, improvement, or general comment.

I commend you for acknowledging that environmentalists have no real-world solutions capable of fixing “climate change,” manmade or otherwise.

I take friendly issue with your assessment that the ‘capitalist system’ needs a makeover.  On the contrary, it is precisely because the market system has been made over through state domination and institutionalized corruption that there are so many flaws in the system.  

Just to clarify, I don’t believe free market capitalism is perfect, because I believe no system of human relations is perfect.  But the bedrock principle of capitalism, the mutual exchange of value for value, when observed, leads to civility in human affairs, honesty and fairness in economic dealings, and stability in the political system.

The reason free market capitalism leads to civility in human affairs is because, first of all, individuals are respected as individuals.  By this I mean, they are not seen as means to an end.  By extension, individuals need consent before they engage in labor or give up the fruits of their labor.  

While Kant might deride this state of human affairs as “social unsociability,” it is greatly more to be desired for the majority of people than a state of affairs where mobs are being whipped up into unreasonable fervors, which are usually steered by demagogues to achieve the ends of dictators.  While the social aesthetic of reasonability, self-control, and ‘calmness’ in human affairs might not satisfy passionate minds who yearn for transcendancy, over reality, perhaps over metaphysical death, the truth is that most men find value in intimate family relations, having a successful and prosperous career, and enjoying modest pleasures.

Secondly, capitalism is an honest form of economy.  While it is often argued by the left that work in the capitalist system is tantamount to exploitation of the working class, in fact, the wages for labor are dictated by the market value of someone’s labor.  The market thus directs and redirects individuals, in the absence of statist intervention, to pursue employment avenues most valued by other individuals, as demonstrated by the willingness of others to pay for their services.  In other words, people are incentivized, but not dictated, by the values of society, as opposed to under socialistic economies, nominally democratic or otherwise, where a cadre of elites determine the economy in accordance with their preferences.  

One might ask oneself a question: Under what state-dominated economy has the means of production been used to increase the general happiness of the people by innovating new conveniences on their behalf?  On the contrary, statist economies are parasitical on capitalist economies for technological innovations that tangibly improve people’s lives.  The modus operandi of statist economies is to preserve the status quo, so that elites are not challenged from below.

Capitalism is predicated on volunteerism, and not on any actual coercion, beyond the coercion of having to work in order to live.  Work itself is not coercion, but is as necessary to sustaining human life, as hunting is for any carnivore, or grazing is for any herbivore.  

Finally, capitalism, through its reverence for private property, all but dead in present-day America, and esteem for mutual exchange, forestalls tyranny to a ruling class.  It is the only known economic system compatible with social spontaneity and freedom of expression.  That is hasn’t been observed by the state is the reason for so much instability, and why the economy is such a rancorous issue between both parties.  Neither should have control of the economy.  We should have control of it, and that necessarily means private property and mutual exchange of value for value.


Totalitarianism and Its Discontents

The murder of God in Western culture by the left’s secular prophets left a gaping void in the souls of men; one yearning for a worldly master to seize control from the deposed heavenly one.  The Unholy Trinity of Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and Frederic Nietzsche laid the foundation for the totalitarian state on God’s chalky sepulchre, on whose pyre man erected vast marbled monuments to ego, massive ziggurats down whose steps the blood from human sacrifices would pour.

The angst of being born into a universe profoundly alone, and the pathos of being consigned to death from one’s conception, led to modern man’s cognitive demand for emancipatory release from the strains and constraints of this world. The palliative sought was found in the demoralizing yet liberating anthem of Nietzsche for man to move “beyond good and evil.”

The disavowal of morality is freedom caved in upon itself; it is the void that results when one rejects God, and then goes one step further, by refusing to acknowledge the individual’s right to live for himself. Self-control becomes an obstacle to elites who seek power outside themselves to fill their spiritual emptiness within. Resultant political madness leads to destabilization, and crisis leads to the cries of the cowering masses for normalization on any terms.

The rationalization of elites who crave power is nonetheless inevitably parsed in the language of good and evil; their proposals are intrinsically good, and those of their opposition are intrinsically evil. This switch from universal objective morality to personal subjective morality is a key to understanding power elites who divorce morality from means and who elevate ends that invariably provide them with more personal arbitrary power over the lives of others.

The great tactician of today’s New Left, Saul Alinsky, was quite Machiavellian in that he called for “radical pragmatists” not to become separated from reality. But it appears to be a truism that serial deceivers on the left who proffer their warped vision of the good as an excuse to use immoral means to attain power for its own sake inevitably wind up believing their own lies.

But if the pragmatism of these radicals in some sense represents the imbuing of amorality into political decision-making, the ideology nonetheless leads to unimaginable immorality when exercised.

If one doesn’t believe in right and wrong, one can commit greater evil than even if one desired to be evil. Why? Because at least with the man who believes in good and evil and rejects the good, there is still the presence of a conscience, and the possibility that he can either see the unnecessary cruelty of his ways or grow weary of them as the emotional gratification or high of inflicting pain on others wears off.

The cold-blooded “radical pragmatists” on the left are fully capable of coolly and pseudo-rationally abusing power in a methodical and relentless matter to break down all opposition to their plans for human domination, including the opposition of humane morality itself. Once morality goes, and more specifically, respect for individual human life, the world can easily become an abattoir.

Foreseeably, due to the inherently totalitarian nature of radical environmentalism, or more fashionably, sustainability, humans could once again become sacrificial fodder for elites’ abstract causes, that is to say, their personal security. The supposed human herd could be thinned through wars, engineered famines, poisonings, sterilizations, or manmade diseases, everything and anything is on the table for the radical pragmatists. And suffice it to say, with our present state of technology, these demented elites’ power base would be great indeed should they somehow consolidate global power.

Fortunately, there are a number of potential flaws in the creation and function of any totalitarian human system that one can draw some hope from:

1) When egomaniacs conspire to dominate the world, the end is the fracturing of the coalition. It comes down typically to the fact that one party will not yield power to another, or for the greater interest of the grand coalition. Mutual distrust reigns and the coalition splits or the parties tear each other apart in a mad scramble for the top.

2) When a complex human system gets more centralized, there is a tendency for there to be more chaos, not less. Lack of information abounds, leading to inefficiencies. While it is true that technology can mitigate some of the problems past centralized regimes experienced, there are still too many variables taking place in real-time for elites to administer a massive polity and maintain control over the long-term. In sum, reality is a bitch.

3) Humans are not infinitely malleable. While in some scenarios they may crave outside control, they are intrinsically driven by biological motives to live one’s own life and to succeed relative to others. Frustration of human desires leads to demoralization, which leads to corruption, economic decay, and collapse in the long run. To quote from Aristotle, “Tyrannies tend to be short-lived.”

These are not overly optimistic claims, but are rather inferred from objective reality and human nature. If elites want to construct a static totalitarian model of a world, they would have to make human beings static and without motivations of their own. It is no accident that the ancient Greek word for revolution was stasis. If elites think they can avoid stasis through massive waves of propaganda, it is a fact of neuroscience that repetitive agitation leads to desensitization. There is no circumventing the fact that demoralization comes inevitably from the frustration of man’s natural desires, and particularly, his desire for happiness.

Adding complication to the would-be tyrants’ schemes, the global masterminds need to avoid death in order to found and continue any comprehensive regime. Plans beyond the revolutionary stage involve preserving the institution they founded; that is, if they desire it to remain in tact. If the elites choose to have institutional stability by following a singular global despot, there is the danger of intra-organizational tumult during transitions, especially those connected with death. If the elites allow the despot to choose his successor, then the despot may choose a weak one to mitigate threat of assassination.

Personal dynamics of exclusive groups wielding great power mean that there is great instability at the top, as the vicissitudes of immoral characters and their interactions are amplified throughout the system, leading to shockwaves and unimaginable consequences.

If the elites opt for an egalitarian power-sharing arrangement, various unspoken coalitions of like-minded individuals will form and shift, and the organization will take on the trappings of high school politics, as petty recriminations and hurt feelings will rule the day, and distract the politicians from effectively ruling the state. Without ample threat from the masses to rise up and overthrow them all, the organization will simply decay into power-struggling coalitions. The world economic order will likewise decay, as the ruling group destroys itself.

Ironically enough, even in the worst totalitarian system, it is the fact of human death that can give subjects the greatest hope. For no set of rulers can live forever, and it is the nature of egomaniacs, particularly sheltered ones, to seek meaning in grandiose plans. This necessarily entails overturning the existing order.

Whether challengers to any totalitarian state would seek to overturn the existing order based on lies, or on eternal truths, is the key question. For one might suppose that elites who have lived within a deceptive ruling class might seek something greater and more glorious for themselves; and that requires founding an order based on truth, human life, and the promotion of happiness.

For who can be happy for long enslaving people who are not grateful for their enslavement? Such a state of affairs where rulers easily preside over perpetually miserable human beings would not only represent a hollow victory over others, one not garnered by merit but by the accident of technological superiority, it would get quite boring.

Immorality can only perpetuate itself for so long before it collapses in on itself; thus sparking the innate drive for the true, the just, and what is conducive to human life and happiness; if only to be contrarian, people would eventually seek to be right.


Rogue Chats Up the Green's "Issues" with Dennis Miller and James Delingpole

Today, RogueOperator had the pleasure of chatting up the inimitable Dennis Miller and the iconoclastic James Delingpole, author of Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors. Their chat sesh was preceded by some tete-a-tete with the avuncular Thomas Lifson, editor of American Thinker. Audio of their oh-so-brief time together linked below [3:00-4:00]:

RogueOperator on The Dennis Miller Show 6-28-11

On the advice of a caller to the Dennis Miller Show, I read Walter Russel Mead’s latest blogs on Al Gore.  They’re worth a skim. Frankly, I find Mead far too conciliatory as to the green movement’s intentions; but then again, he is perhaps practicing the art of incremental persuasion.

The following is the paragraph I thought particularly apt.

The global green treaty movement to outlaw climate change is the most egregious folly to seize the world’s imagination since the Kellog-Briand Pact outlawed war in the late 1920s.  The idea that the nations of the earth could agree on an enforceable treaty mandating deep cuts in their output of all greenhouse gasses is absurd.  A global treaty to meet Mr. Gore’s policy goals isn’t a treaty: the changes such a treaty requires are so broad and so sweeping that a GGCT is less a treaty than a constitution for global government.  Worse, it is a constitution for a global welfare state with trillions of dollars ultimately sent by the taxpayers of rich countries to governments (however feckless, inept, corrupt or tyrannical) in poor ones.

There is the crux of the issue: the constant apocalyptic fearmongering of the left, proceeding since Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and Paul Erlich’s The Population Bomb, has been going on on for decades now; and despite their prognostications in no wise coming true, and despite the Holocaust-worthy, god-awful effects of such causes as banning DDT and ethanol subsidies, we find the green movement still conveniently driving the statist-globalist agenda of all-powerful control over man’s environment; to wit, everything.


Shattering the Left: A Radical Critique of Critical Theory

Critical theory is the rubric today’s American leftists employ in order to fracture and subvert the United States.  Developed by The Frankfurt School in the 1920s and 1930s, the theory has developed in its practical implementation into a methodology to destroy the ethical bases of capitalism through cultural penetration and transformation.

American socialists experienced stubborn ideological resistance in their early going.  Socialist parties failed to gain headway, not for Eugene Debs‘ and Norman Thomas‘ lack of trying.  Marxists failed in their predictions of the spontaneous collapse of capitalism in advanced economies, and did not anticipate the continuing success of capitalism to contribute to the general increase in the standard of living. Hijacked or forced Marxism, which is Marxist-Leninism and its bloody progeny, and in particular, Stalinism and Maoism, failed to deliver the communist utopia, and gave socialism and communism a bad name due to their wanton violence.

For radicals to succeed in America, what was needed was a makeover for communism.  What was needed was an opaque method of transmitting socialist values without belying their Marxist origins.  What was needed was the translation of economic marxism into cultural marxism.

Inspired by the pioneering work of the grand strategist Antonio Gramsci, the left conducted a “long march” through America’s public institutions, capturing the cultural media, channels of information dissemination, and gateways of upward mobility.  The left’s success can be adjudged by the percentage of artists, lawyers, teachers, and professors who subscribe to left-wing ideology and who unfailingly vote for the Democrat Party.  (The aggregate percentage of Democrat voters in such professions is in the range of 90%-95%.)

The recasting of Marxism into aesthetic terms made it infinitely more difficult for rational analysis to penetrate the left’s grand strategy. Syncretized with the philosophies of Hegel, Kant, and Nietzsche, and the psychology of Freud, neo-marxism tampened within its crucible a diabolical formula to poison American freedom, and turn it against itself.

But the left was still vulnerable.  If its radical conspiracy were to be discovered, the threat may be taken seriously by the American public, and the damage inflicted would not be fatal.  A method of veiling the harmony of interests among the leftists was required, and that came in the guise of Critical Theory.

Critical Theory ostensibly breaks the left’s united cause to destroy capitalism, erode the U.S. Constitution, and seize power, into many seemingly disparate movements, in order to disperse the perception of threat the left poses in the eyes of the public. Particularly, the left harnesses victim groups and directs them toward its enemies to achieve its aim of destroying “hierarchy”; in other words, to bring the U.S. to a state of anarchy and to install socialist tyranny.

Cultural marxism is not the only aspect to the left’s grand strategy, it should be emphasized here.  Economic warfare, such as overregulation, welfare state economics consistent with Cloward-Piven theory, and intentional destruction of the currency, is carried out at the economic “base” level, while the cultural marxists who dominate the “superstructure” give ethical justifications for tactical assaults on capitalism.

Disparate critical theory movements include: feminists, homosexuals, anti-war and peace activists, radical environmentalists, racialists (“anti-racists”), multiculturalists and diversity fetishists, and now, by association, Islamists.

What is important to note is that these groups are by no means complementary, or mutually exclusive.  There are tensions within the particular manifestation of Critical Theory, just as there are tensions between the topos of theory and history in Critical Theory.  Opposition to the left should exploit these contradictions to the fullest and use them to fracture the movement as a whole, which can only happen in the public, cultural sphere.

It is also important to mention that taking on the left in this fashion within academia is pointless, since Critical Theory is an instrumental strategy that is being used by the left to destroy capitalism and the United States as it was founded, and as such, is separate from the positive collectivist theory that animates more educated leftists.  Radicals’  aims are two-fold: destroy, then re-create. (Whether they intend it, or not, their aims lead to tyranny.  See Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, or on a lighter note, this video by cultural critic Andrew Klavan.)

To illustrate what we should have in mind, the following are some examples of tensions with the left’s Critical Theory movements that can be employed to delegitimize and demoralize the left in the public sphere.

Feminists and Islamists (abetted by Multiculturalism and Diversity).  Insist that radical feminists condemn Islamists for their oppressive treatment of women, including female genital mutilation, and stoning for adultery.

Homosexuals and Islamists. Insist that homosexuals condemn Islamists for murdering and imprisoning homosexuals, particularly in Ahmadenijad’s Iran. (Recall that the University of Columbia invited the dictator to speak at its campus.)

Feminists and Racialists (African American rap artists).  Insist that feminists decry African American “rap artists” for their demeaning portrayal of women.

Feminists and Radical Environmentalists.  Insist that feminists condemn “patriarchal” environmentalists like Al Gore for advocating female birth control to supposedly curb “manmade global warming.”  Isn’t it a woman’s right to choose?

Radical Environmentalists and Animal Rights advocates.  Insist that animal rights advocates condemn radical environmentalists for calling for the “culling” of animals in their natural habitats to somehow combat “animal made global warming.”  Or thank PETA for killing so many animals and helping to fight climate change.  (The latter is the satirical line of attack.)

Another potentially fruitful front in the cultural war on the left is to show how the Neomarxist left contradicts the Paleomarxist left.  This is a bit trickier (because of the two-fold program of the left explained above), but one will know an example when one sees it if one knows how to distinguish between the doctrines.  A few examples below:

Radical Environmentalists and Working Class Poor.  Insist that radical environmentalists explain why they want energy rates to skyrocket, why we cannot drill for oil even though we have huge oil, gas, and coal deposits.

Radical Environmentalists and Profit.  Expose how environmentalists are personally profiting from manmade global warming theory, how selling out to “green” corporations is a form of fascism (see connections between cap-and-trade and Goldman Sachs, e.g.), how they are ignoring their own apocalytpic doctrines and flying private planes and riding in limousines when they should be teleconferencing.

Here it should be stressed that the radical left is desperately trying to unite the critical theory movements under the umbrella of radical environmentalism, leading to potentially the richest source for exposing contradictions and hypocrisy on the left, and discrediting the entire enterprise.  Despite overwhelming propaganda, people simply are not buying the hare-brained manmade global warming theory.  (An interesting aside is that critical theorist Max Horkheimer believed critical theory should unite science with values.)

Above listed are but a few ideas.  There are many more lines of attack implied in this counter-strategy, and hopefully schematizing it will help unleash the creativity of opposition to the left.  I will add that this strategy is specifically geared to go after the left head on, and we have the advantage of numbers on our side.  Therefore, a brief explanation of the modes of attack should be explained.

We are dealing with cultural marxists.  Because the culture is the terrain on which the war is being waged, we need to fight the left in the public sphere over what they refer to as “hegemony,” or domination of the culture. (A recent piece arguing that conservatives should stop founding think tanks and start creating culture has the right idea.)

Two key genres, a positive and a negative, are ideal weapons to wield against the leftist opposition.

First, there is a strong craving for heroic narrative.  Whether preserving Marvel Comics superheroes such as Captain America and Superman from anti-Americanism, or creating films with the general idea of Atlas Shrugged, except more concerned with aesthetics and implied ethics than overt political ideology, such as The Pursuit of Happyness, opponents of the left need to create and preserve cultural artifacts and get them out there while we can.

The reason for producing heroic books and films is simple: They strike at the nihilistic core the left has taken from Nietszche and adopted as its own, without subscribing to the philosopher’s remedy.  Individualist and triumphant films are far more inspiring than the exercises in sappy victimology that the left regularly offers up in order to demoralize the American public.

Second, we need satirical books and films to show how absurd the left is.  Perhaps by accident, Forrest Gump shows how Forrest’s friend Jenny winds up destroying her life through her mindless radical activities.  Such illustrations of the left’s mindless and faddish self-destruction can be shown intentionally in books and movies.

Satire and ridicule are the greatest weapons against the leftists, particularly because they are not used to being challenged.  They frequently inhabit insulated worlds where other leftists confirm their ideology to them and give them a false and an easily deprived sense of confidence.  We can shatter this confidence by assaulting the public sphere en masse, particularly where the left resides, and disrupting the easy comfort in their fallacious ideology that they have called home.  They need to feel a dose of the unease they have caused in this country by eliciting a wave of resistance from a galvanized, intelligent, and relentless opposition.

  • RSS Drudge

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • RSS BigGovernment

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • RSS Reason magazine

  • RSS Counter Jihad Knights

  • RSS Mises Institute

  • RSS BigJournalism

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • RSS Foundation for Economic Education

  • RSS Tenth Amendment Center

  • RSS CATO @ Liberty

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • RSS Newsbusters

  • RSS The UK Libertarian

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • RSS Unified Patriots

  • RSS Common American Journal