America: Democratic, or Socialist?

 

America: Democratic, or Socialist?

by Mustang

The plague of socialism is not something recently foisted upon us by the arrival of politicians like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, or the congresswoman everyone calls AOC.  Americans have struggled with this topic for quite some time, which given socialism’s unhappy impact on the human condition (nation following nation, era following era), one would think that by now, lovers of freedom should have figured it out.

Woodrow Wilson

Maybe we would have figured it all out were it not for people like Woodrow Wilson, a lawyer, a teacher, a politician, and a devout communist, who served as president of the United States (1913-1921), and President of Princeton University (1902-1910).  Wilson’s background makes one wonder, what made voter’s think he was the right man at that time in our history?

Even if we ignore the fact that he was a lawyer, a teacher, and a politician (three strikes, in my opinion), did anyone read what he wrote?  Perhaps not … in the late 19th century, most Americans were illiterate and had little time for reading the inane discourses of committed socialists —which begs the question, who (back then) even knew what socialism was?

As an academic, Wilson had plenty of time to write books and infect the minds of his students.  In 1885 (20 short years after the Civil War), Wilson became a regular contributor to the journal, Political Science Quarterly.  In his first contribution, an essay titled “Congressional Government” suggested that the United States must adopt a parliamentary system.  Why?  Because, according to Wilson, the United States Constitution was radically defective.

How?  Because the US Constitution did not provide a branch of government with conclusive authority to decide what should be done, and how.  Twelve or so years after Wilson’s administration, certain government officials began speaking of “Czars” to run various agencies and departments of the United States government; it began under the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945).

The term supposes absolutism in running various branches of our government —and there’s nothing American about that.  Roosevelt, by the way, was elected to the presidency on an unprecedented four occasions.

Woodrow Wilson’s first book was titled The State.  In it, Wilson suggested that government could legitimately promote the general welfare through authoritarianism.  Of course, it was difficult to argue with him on this issue given the circumstances of child labor and unsanitary industrial conditions of the time, but we should wonder, if the people rule through their elected representatives, why should it be necessary to institute and protect an authoritarian government?

The State was widely used in American colleges through the 1920s, which probably explains political thinking in the United States for the following forty-to-fifty years.  He also laid the groundwork for the modern welfare state by insisting that charitable efforts be removed from the private domain and “made the imperative legal duty of the whole.”

During their respective administrations, Wilson and Roosevelt implemented this concept through taxation.  Henceforth, the government would see to matters of charity “from those according to their ability, to those according to their need”—a hallmark phrase attributed to Karl Marx in 1875.

Wilson’s fourth book, a five-volume work titled History of the American People (1902), no doubt inspired the faux-historian Howard Zinn in the 1960-70’s.  At this point, there should be little doubt about the impact to American society and culture, indeed the entire framework of our nation, of the opinions of academics, lawyers, and politicians.

On the one hand, we encourage the free exchange of ideas; on the other hand, a cautious citizen will always question what they read or hear.  Wilson was better educated than most Americans in his own day, but he certainly had no advantage by the level of his intelligence.  In modern parlance, Wilson was an egghead.

We should also pay closer attention to what the so-called intelligentsia tell us in their oratory.  On 22 August 1887, Woodrow Wilson offered remarks about socialism.  Wilson is somewhat difficult to read because his speaking and writing style reflects a bygone age.

Note: I have had students in high school who were unable to read any cursive writing, which appears to underscore the sign of the times in American education.  But in reading Wilson, one must consider the purpose of his remarks, which appeals to emotion rather than intellect.

In any case, while the full text of his remarks can be read here, a short summary follows: “I point these remarks particularly at current discussions of socialism, and principally of ‘state socialism,’ which is almost the only form of socialism seriously discussed among us, out-side the Anti-Poverty Society.

Is there not a plentiful lack of nerve and purpose in what we read and hear nowadays on this momentous topic. One might be excused for taking and keeping the impression that there can be no great need for the haste in the settlement of the questions mooted in connexion[sic] with it, inasmuch as the debating of them has not yet passed beyond its rhetorical and pulpit stage.

It is easy to make socialism, as theoretically developed by the greater and saner socialistic writers, intelligible not only, but even attractive, as a conception; it is easy also to render it a thing of fear to timorous minds, and to make many signs of the times bear menace of it; the only hard task is to give it validity and strength as a program in practical politics.

Yet the whole interest of socialism for those whose thinking extends beyond the covers of books and the paragraphs of periodicals lies in what it will mean in practice. It is a question of practical politics [emphasis added], or else it is only a thesis for engaging discourse.”

“Roundly described, socialism is a proposition that every community, by means of whatever forms of organization may be most effective for the purpose, see to it for itself that each one of its members finds the employment for which he is best suited and is rewarded according to his diligence and merit, all proper surroundings of moral influence being secured to him by the public authority.

‘State socialism’ is willing to act though state authority as it is at present organized. It proposes that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view, and that the State consider itself bound to stop only at what is unwise or futile in its universal superintendence alike of individual and of public interests. The thesis of the states socialist is, that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will; that omnipotence of legislation is the first postulate of all just political theory.”

“Applied in a democratic state, such doctrine sounds radical, but not revolutionary. It is only an acceptance of the extremest[sic] logical conclusions deducible from democratic principles long ago received as respectable. For it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same [emphasis added].

They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals [emphasis added].  Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none.

Of course, Wilson was lying.  Democracy and Socialism are as incompatible as a nest of pythons in an infant’s crib.  Democracy is a political ideology; socialism is an economic theory—one that so far in world history, has been proved unworkable in the context of humanitarianism and democratic ideology.

It is possible to modify one to accommodate the other, but in doing so, significant changes are made to the essential tenets.  In order to achieve equal outcomes, it is necessary to take from some in order to give it to another.  This does not appear what our enlightened founding fathers had in mind.  The United States Constitution provides unalienable rights.  To the extent that human society can cooperate with one another, it should … but socialism seeks to impose its will, according to how the politician of the day defines its necessity.  The concept of “cooperation” is thus redefined and, again, not in the way our founders intended.

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson once suggested that an educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.  I believe his exact quote was, “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.”  Mr. Jefferson, recently reviled in the pulp-press as a slave owner (which is only about one-third of the story), also told us, “The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history: whether man shall be allowed to govern himself, or be ruled by a small elite.”

If society is unable to decide how our children are educated, then we have lost our control over the future direction of the United States of America.  Our children today are NOT being educated; they are being brainwashed by such men as Karl Marx, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Howard Zinn, every Democrat in the House of Representatives, and every President who ever embraced socialism as the “way forward.”

In conclusion, some additional food for thought:

“There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force; socialism by vote.  It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.” —Ayn Rand

“The purpose of socialism is communism.”  —Vladimir Lenin

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

For the best in conservative news push the button.

 

Fanaticism – We have been there – now as then

 

 

Now As Then

by Mustang

We are living at a time when fanaticism obscures our national decency.  It may be difficult for a good person to understand those who call for a president’s assassination, for the murder of people who disagree with them politically, for punishing “white” people for no other reason than the color of their skin or their gender, or who beat anyone wearing a MAGA hat to a pulp.  This is the state of affairs in the United States today, but it isn’t the first time we Americans have entered this hell.

John Brown

When John Brown raided the federal armory at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia in 1859, he received overwhelming support from America’s northern intellectuals.  It did not matter that John Brown was (likely) clinically insane, or that when measured by any standard, his actions were completely irrational.  Not even men in chains supported him, but the northern elite did … in terms of propaganda and fund raising by which he was able to carry out his murderous escapade.

The northern elite not only funded John Brown, they called for the mass murder of every plantation owner in the United States.  In its proper context, (ignoring his escapades in Bleeding Kansas) the John Brown affair was a small matter and easily dealt with by Lieutenant Colonel Robert E. Lee and a detachment of U. S. Marines.

Yet, in the minds of the northern intellectuals, even if John Brown was insane, it was easy to forgive his sins because his compelling motive was “divine.”  It is hard not to lose one’s breath considering that this psychotic behavior pushed America into a conflict where close to a million men, women, and children starved to death, froze to death in winter, lost their limbs, and ingloriously bled out in our pastures and fields of green.

Horace Greely thought that John Brown’s actions were those of a madman yet had “not one reproachful word.”  Ralph Waldo Emerson thought of Brown as a saint.  Thoreau, Longfellow, and Bryant led the entire northern pantheon of intellectuals to claim Brown as an “angel of light.”  Whitman and Hawthorne were the only two northern intellectuals to abstain from such hypocrisy.  It wasn’t John Brown who was mad —it was the society that hanged him.

Thoreau, for example, was willing to be imprisoned rather than supporting a war with Mexico but had no qualms about shedding American blood to further his own ideologies.  It was a period of mass puritanical fanaticism—and not at all unlike what is going on in our society today.  The difference between then and now is that rather than religious puritanism, it has become Marxist puritanism.  In 1859, it was the planter that had become public enemy number one; now it is any white male who prefers reason to emotional (often nonsensical) discourse.  William Garrison once said, “Every slave holder has forfeited his right to live.”

How mad was that?

In contrast, presidential candidate Abraham Lincoln observed, for as much as he opposed slavery, ending it could not excuse bloodshed and treason.  But Mr. Lincoln became a useful tool for the northern intellectuals to achieve what they wanted all along: fire in the lake.  They did get what they were hoping for.

For every action, there is a reaction.  The US Congress investigated the Brown affair and its result did nothing to quiet anxieties, north or south.  In the south, there evolved a suspicion of widespread conspiracy among northerners to foment slave insurrections.  It did not help matters that congressional investigators revealed that John Brown received $23,000 in only four months, from the city of Boston (in 1858) to support a guerrilla war.  Behind this effort were ministers, Harvard graduates, professors, surgeons, philosophers, lawyers, capitalists, and philanthropists.

Meanwhile, among most southern whites who did not own slaves, or ever supported slavery, there evolved a fear of what northern insurrectionists might do and they did what all red-blooded Americans do when threatened: they armed themselves, and placed themselves under the authority of their respective states, “in the common good.”

We have come full circle.  Fanaticism is clouding American decency.  We are again confusing ends and means.  The acceptance and encouragement of civil violence throws a somber light over our “grand experiment” in democratic republicanism.  Amazingly, now as then, the number of intellectual elite threatening America’s institutions is very small.

Now, as in 1861, radicals have taken over the US congress.  Now, as then, the American people are being held captive to sheer madness.  Now, as then, paranoia is feeding on itself.  What is yet to be proved is whether the American people are smart enough to see through the intent of these “small numbers” of people who form the basis of the deep state.

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

Welcome readers from Whatfinger news.

For the best in conservative news push the button.

 

Fascism – Which party supports it?

 

by Mustang

America’s political left continually refer to conservatives as “fascists.”  Is this true?  Hardly —and here’s why.  We must begin with an understanding of what fascism really means, who started it, and what was that person’s overlying political philosophy.

We know, for example, that the father of capitalism was Adam Smith (1723-1790), a Scottish philosopher and a key figure in the Scottish enlightenment.  And we know that the father of Marxism was Karl Marx (1818-1883).

Giovanni Gentile

Most people, however, do not know the name of the person who started “fascism.”  There is a reason we do not know that much about Giovanni Gentile (1875-1944): most academic historians, who identify with leftist politics, have worked overtime to erase Gentile from our memory.  But, in his own time, Gentile was one of the most influential philosophers.

Giovanni Gentile believed that there were two diametrically opposed forms of democracy.  The first was liberal democracy, which we Americans sometimes call “classical liberalism.”  This was what our founding fathers believed.

Gentile thought of this as individualistic, overly focused on human liberty and personal rights.  He thought of this, not as unalienable rights, but as socially selfish.  The other form, according to Gentile, was “true Democracy,” which occurs when individuals willingly subordinate themselves to the will of the state.

In a manner similar to Karl Marx, Gentile argued for a society that was formed much like a family, a condition in which all of us faced life’s challenges “together.”  We have witnessed this peculiar view in the statements, platforms, and policies of the Democratic Party.

In 1984, Governor Mario Cuomo argued that America is much like an extended family, where, through the government, people take care of each other.  Thirty years later, in 2012, Democrats argued that “government is the only thing we all belong to.”

Giovanni Gentile was a man of leftist politics.  He was a committed socialist, and in his mind, fascism was a form of socialism —and, indeed, the only workable form.  Whereas Marx sought to organize people based on class, Gentile wanted to arrange society based on class and national identity.  In other words, Gentile believed that fascists were socialists with a national identity; it distinguishes them from others, with similar beliefs, from other countries.

One may recall that the Nazis of Germany were “National Socialists.”  Gentile believed that all society should be organized to serve the public interests.  There was no room for private interests.  The administrative arm of society was, in Gentile’s view, the state.  To submit to the will of society was to acquiesce to the will of the state —not just in economic issues, but in all matters affecting society.  And, since everything in society is political, the people must empower the state to tell everyone how to think, and what to do.

The first national leader to convert Gentile’s philosophy into action was Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), the Italian dictator who controlled Italy from 1922 to 1943.  Mussolini once proclaimed, “All is in the state, and nothing human exists or has value outside the state.”  It was a statement that paraphrased the philosophy of Giovanni Gentile.

Americans today do not remember Gentile because leftist academics have successfully erased him from our memory.  What does remain, however, is his philosophy, which has been entirely adopted by the American political left.  Renamed, it is the philosophy of the Progressive Movement in the United States.

It does not require a political scholar to realize that Progressive politics, that is to say, the Democratic Party, has vastly expanded state control over the private sector.  We can see this in matters of economics, education, banking, and energy.

State directed capitalism is exactly what German and Italian governments implemented in the 1930’s.  Importantly, American leftists cannot acknowledge Gentile because in doing so, it would become the glue that binds American progressivism to fascism.

So let us now review: what do conservatives want?  They demand smaller government and expanded personal freedom.  They demand liberty.  The American political left wants to achieve the opposite: the resources of the individual and industry in the service of a centralized state, such as exists in Russia and China.

Were the American pollical left to acknowledge Giovanni Gentile, they would have to also acknowledge that fascism bears a deep kinship to the ideology to the Democratic Party.

Are fascists part of the conservative right?  No.  They are clearly the spawn of the ideology and political philosophy of Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Jerry Nadler, Maxine Waters, and a host of other un-American idiots like Peter Buttigieg, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib.

Thinking Americans should know world history … our country’s survival depends on this knowledge.  Fascist, thy name is Democrat.

 

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

For the best in conservative news and much better than Drudge click below

Rashida Tlaib Goes Off the Rails at Hearing with ‘Winking’ Conspiracy

 

“Okay, why were you winking at one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle? You winked,” Tlaib demanded.

Democrat Rep. Rashida Tlaib was openly hostile towards a conservative witness during the House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy hearing on vaping. (A post on the lighter side..video)

Rep. Tlaib accused the witness, Vicki Porter, of being part of a conspiracy for winking at Republican Rep. Glenn Grothman and demanded that she was lying about having quit smoking. Porter was invited to speak at the hearing because she was able to quit smoking by switching to vapes and advocates for people quitting smoking.

Rashida Tlaib Attacks Vape Hearing Witness

 

 

Porter explained that Rep. Grothman is a friend of hers and was the one who introduced her. “Oh, I understand. I didn’t know what the winking was.

I thought maybe there was like a conspiracy thing going on. I didn’t know,” Tlaib bizarrely stated. “You think there’s a conspiracy in this hearing, ma’am?” Porter replied, as shocked as everyone else hearing the freshman lawmaker’s assertion.

Not enough yet? More wonderful news. Our special scientist from Detroit with the inside scoop makes some outlandish claims.

 

Other than that, all is well in the swamp. Not so much in Detroit.

For the best in conservative news click below

Andrew Yang “ I’m Asian so I know a lot of Doctors” humor!

 

Terrence Williams on his take of one of the “low lights” of last nights so-called debates. OK. I admit I fell out somewhere just after Biden lost his chopper for a moment. Hey I am white and I know a lot of white people too! I’m woke!

Looks like this fellow Yang was a big hit with his money give away, so I figure why not this clip. Enjoy.

Haverford township ‘fires’ volunteer fire dept over member interest in far-right group

 

An entire Volunteer Firefighter Company in PA has been closed by the township because it refused to fire a volunteer who at one point had an interest in the organization called the Proud Boys more than a year previously and had decided then he had no interest. Let’s see if we can follow the Progressive logic of Haverford township a wealthy Mainline suburb outside of Philly.

Established in 1918, the Bon Air Fire Company has served Haverford Township for more than a century. But on Wednesday evening, the fire house was effectively closed.

“At this point, the Bon Air Fire Company is out of service,” Haverford Township Police Chief John Viola said.

Sources tells CBS3 the group is called Proud Boys.

The township says the group’s tenet is that they are “Western chauvinists who refuse to apologize for creating the modern world” and promoted “closed borders,” “anti-political correctness,” and “venerating the housewife.”

“It was assigned to our deputy chief and did a full background investigation and found there was no criminal activity at all,” Viola said.

Viola says the matter was then turned over to the Board of Commissioners. The board suggested the firefighter resign.

He tried to, but the Bon Air Fire Company’s board refused his resignation. So on Wednesday night, township officials met in executive session.

The fire company released a statement Thursday saying the decision was wrong.

“In closing the Fire Company, the Township failed to identify a single instance in which that volunteer’s services to the Haverford community were negatively influenced in any way by his brief association with the outside organization,” the fire company’s statement said.

Philadelphia Inquirer

A day after Haverford Township officials shut down the Bon Air Fire Company for not parting with a volunteer who had tried to join the far-right men’s group the Proud Boys, the company issued a statement Thursday defending the firefighter and its decision to keep him.

Bon Air said Thursday that the volunteer, who has been identified as Bruce McClay Jr., had done nothing wrong as a firefighter and was exercising his “right to freely assemble and to freely associate with others.”

“While the volunteer attended some social gatherings of the outside organization, the volunteer ultimately decided, after he learned more about the group’s beliefs, that he did not wish to become part of the organization,” Bon Air said in its statement. “He never attended any rallies or protests, and he disassociated himself from the group more than one year ago. He has broken no law and committed no crime.”

 

For some reason I don’t think there are a bevy of volunteers just waiting to leap to step into the volunteer’s boots. I am sure the four surrounding volunteer fire companies will just be more than happy to pick up the slack and will get there just as pronto.

Meanwhile volunteer fire departments are going the way of the buggy with fewer people being able or willing to drop everything including work to race to yours and my home and risk their lives to save our life and property. So much for the freedom of association. Good luck Progressives.

When by progressive logic one decides it is better to “fire” volunteers who just may be the ones to save you and your families lives as well as your neighbors it tells us all we need to know. Freedom of association be damned.

Other than that all is well in the swamp.

Welcome readers from Whatfinger News… thanks for the link.

For the best in conservative news and so much better than Drudge click below.

 

Pence’s mysterious cancellation of flight to New Hampshire answered

 

Earlier this month, Vice President Mike Pence canceled a trip to New Hampshire at the last minute without giving any explanation.

It was an odd story, and of course made more curious since it has been hanging out there since forever as to the cause. So here it is. It sounded like another feel good story about sin and redemption. Druggie makes good. Pence highlights a good story.

Trump may want to consider how his last feel good story is going as he continues to hand out pardons and commutations. Earlier post tells us that the much heralded bill that gives bad guys another chance doesn’t just include low level offenders. First Step Act release of criminals include Rapists, Murderers

The vice president had to abruptly end the trip. When word got out that the flight had been canceled, Pence’s aides were quiet on the details as to why.

Now, it appears the journey was scrapped because Pence was moments away from shaking hands with an alleged drug dealer, Politico reported.

Pence was scheduled to speak at the Granite Recovery Center headquarters in New Hampshire, where he was set to address the “opioid crisis and illegal drug flow in New Hampshire.”

That individual was former New York Giants player Jeff Hatch.

Hatch had been under investigation by the Drug Enforcement Administration for moving more than $100,000 worth of fentanyl across state lines.

On Friday, Hatch pleaded guilty to the drug charges in federal court, where he now faces up to four years in prison.

Keep reading

Other than that, all is well in the swamp.

For the best in conservative news and so much better than Drudge click below

%d bloggers like this: