Under Attack: The American Way

 

Under Attack: The American Way

by Mustang

Communism is a philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of a communist society — a socioeconomic structure based on common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social class, money, and the state.  We attribute these idea to Karl Marx and Frederick Engles in 1848.  Since then, communism in practice has become a blight on mankind.

Socialism is a theory of social organization which advocates that the means of economic production, distribution, and exchange, should be owned by the community, as a whole.  Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (also known as Vladimir Lenin) (1870-1924), leader of the communist movement in Russia, emphasized “The purpose of socialism is communism.”  He envisioned socialism as a temporary phase in the quest for a communist state.

To my understanding, with but a few failed minor attempts, communism has never been achieved.  The reason for this, I believe, is that the theorists involved in the development of communism either did not understand human nature, or completely misread it.  So, in terms of the stages in its development, the best that any of its implementers could achieve is a socialist state — and for the most part, until recently, by force of arms.

Progressivism began as a common-sense social movement in the 1890s.  I contend “common sense” because really, who could argue with Upton Sinclair’s conclusion that since the meat industry refused to police itself in matters of product safety and hygiene, it was incumbent upon the government to step in to regulate the industry.  But since its early days, progressivism has morphed into a radical political movement consisting of many ideas (again, not without some merit) but which, over time, were absorbed into the march toward national socialism.

Today, progressives debate the relevance of America’s traditional values.  For example, a progressive will argue that truth is at best contextually relative.  They reject the “self-evident” truth that all men are created equal, or that they endowed by their creator with unalienable rights.  No, they argue, there are only community rights that must change over time — and that to achieve this, the old rights must be taken away.  There is no right to free speech, they argue … only the speech they approve of, as a community.

Crony Capitalism is a system in which businesses become profitable, not because of their willingness to take risks, but rather, based on their close relationship with ruling political class (of both parties).  In essence, businesses rely on state power rather than competition to gain access to government contracts, grants, permits, tax breaks in areas where the government exercises a monopoly, such as gas and oil pipeline operations, mining concessions, and contracts for public works.  

It is a profiteering scheme where businesses profit and, to ensure continuation of their close relationship with the political elite, offer financial support to their political friends seeking reelection.  It is a de facto corruption of public-serving economic activities.

Of the foregoing, three pose a clear and present danger to the American Republic: socialism, progressivism, and crony capitalism.  Under the banner of the new progressive movement, the American Republic (and its people) is under attack; not simply the integrity of the Republic (governmentally), but all of our traditional values, as well.  Of even greater concern, they’re winning all the major battles.

American Values

Enlightenment was a European intellectual movement of the late 1600s/1700s that migrated to the British/American colonies emphasizing reason and individualism in opposition to traditional servitude to nobility.  It was heavily influenced by the philosophers Descartes, Lock, and Newton, expounded by Immanuel Kant, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Francois-Marie Arquet (also known as Voltaire), Jean-Jaques Rousseau, and Adam Smith.

We may remember Kant as someone who believed that reason is the source of morality; he professed Christianity, but repudiated the kind of Christian behavior expressed by  oppressive Catholicism.  Few living in the United States today would argue with Kant, whether Catholic or Protestant.  Much of what Kant wrote remains influential in contemporary philosophy.

Goethe was a humanist who viewed himself as a moderate (classical) liberal, anti-radical, and a man who on the one hand sympathized with the American Revolution, and on the other was skeptical of the French Revolution.

Voltaire was a writer, historian, and philosopher who was famous for his wit, his criticism of Catholicism, and an advocate of freedom of speech and religion, and the separation of church and state.

Rousseau influenced enlightened ideas throughout Western Europe in the development of modern political, economic, and educational thought and Adam Smith was a key philosopher who some credit with being the “Father of Economic Capitalism.”

The ideas of these “enlightened” men heavily influenced the leaders of the American Revolution, the Continental and United States Congress, and the framers of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.  These unalienable rights are individual rights —not communal rights, as Neo-progressives would have you believe.

America’s Creation

America’s founding fathers did not create democracy — by 1775, democracy already existed for a few thousand years.  What they did create was a Republic based on democratic ideas, such that everyone has an equal voice, and that everyone has an equal right to express his or her opinion.  Whether that opinion has any merit must depend on how well it is articulated and how well it is received by the listeners — nothing more.

But republican democracy did not come to the American people in an instant.  It has been a long, upward climb — because such forms of government are frequently boisterous and always somewhat untidy.

The 1700s were a time when monarchs ruled over their subjects — where the notion of common people governing themselves was completely alien.  A successful republic requires practice, knowledge, understanding, wisdom, and a great deal of patience.  The reason for this is that, because it is a human endeavor, it is imperfect.

As an analogy, every one of us may recall a time when sitting around the dining room table with our families, everyone had their own opinion about just about every topic.  Occasionally, voices became loud, anger boiled over, and perhaps, someone simply got up and left the table.  Now imagine 300-million voices all speaking at once inside a very large auditorium.  That’s where we are today.

It is entirely human to classify others according to what they say, and how they behave.  For example, we frequently hear Democrats referring to Republicans as fascists; Republicans often refer to Democrats as communists (which, of course, many are).  People who speak one way and behave another are called politicians. 

 If we must label people, how they behave may be more revealing to us than what they say.  For example, how a politician votes on an issue is more revealing than what he or she might tell us on a campaign stump — if we “good citizens” even bother to notice.

Knowledge, Understanding, Wisdom

Knowing what happened, why it happened, and what we should we do about it is the challenge facing American society today.  My argument is that it shouldn’t be too difficult to make informed decisions — if we are willing to open our minds to issues that confront us.  Ultimately, what we believe — and why we believe it — is an individual decision. But what do half of modern Americans demand?

Roughly half of our citizens today repudiate the enlightened tenets of our founding documents.  The other half strives to preserve them.  Those who do repudiate the wisdom and foresight of our founding fathers have been brought up that way — programmed, in fact, to deny anyone but themselves the right of free thought or expression.  To silence others with whom they disagree, they label such speech as politically incorrect — which has lately morphed into such terms as hateful, racist, or xenophobic.  

Progressives have chosen this path because they are incapable of honest, polite debate — and because there is no merit to their argument.  They lack knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.  Under such circumstances, they strive to shut down any deviation from what “they” think.

What matters most to progressive-minded people is controlling the narrative rather than improving the republic.  There is room for improvement in our nation, in our society, of course — but we cannot achieve that by tearing down America’s foundations.  The loudest progressives, and the most violent — the young know-nothings — do serve a purpose, however.  They help keep everyone at odds.  You know … divide and conquer.

Referring to these people as “know nothings” may appear hyperbolic, but it is very close to unmitigated truth.  Among young progressives, there are no worthwhile lessons in history because, or so they believe, America’s founding fathers were all racists.  So they tear down statues of such men as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington (and others) demanding that we ignore these men in history because the owned slaves. 

 Knowing only a little about actual history is a dangerous thing.  Jefferson and Washington never owned slaves; their wives did — and this is more than a technicality.  The last will and testament of both these men freed these slaves, which explains how Jefferson’s will was tied up in probate court for so long.  Jefferson died land rich, money poor, and deeply indebted.  But to revise American history, progressives now claim that Washington and Jefferson were racists — and it isn’t true.

Actual history is vital to who we have become, as Americans.  Not all of our history was laudatory, but if there is any benefit to the unsavory aspects of what happened before, it has been that we learned valuable lessons about ourselves along the way.  Six-hundred thousand Americans died to free the slaves.  

Americans of the 1960s overwhelmingly repudiated Democrats in their horrific treatment of blacks during the civil rights movement.  This should account for something worthwhile in our history — and all was working well until a virulent progressive became president in 2007.  He demanded “fundamental change” to America — and he’s damn well achieved it.

But there are good examples of how we’ve failed to learn from history, as well.  Perhaps the best example of this has been our lionizing one of the most despicable women in history, Margaret Sanger.  Actual history tells us that Margaret Sanger conspired to eradicate black American populations through abortion programs.  

Her plan was enthusiastically embraced by Woodrow Wilson (Democrat), and not surprisingly, German Chancellor Adolf Hitler, who adapted Sanger’s ideas to the extermination of Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals — his Final Solution.  Yet, despite the wanton murder of tens of millions of black babies, Sanger’s plan continues day — partially funded by the federal government disguised as “a woman’s right to choose.” 

Among progressives, American institutions serve their interests, not those whom they oppose, and so in modern America, there is no longer a requirement for checks and balances in government.  To the winner go the spoils; winning is all that matters — not the survival of the Republic.  

Such tenets as “land of the free” and “liberty and justice for all” only apply only to progressives.  People with different views have no place in the new America, which has become a common “virtue signal” within the progressive’s propaganda media.  Political disenfranchisement is “okay” so long as it only applies to everyone who is not a progressive.

Finally, after only three days in office, Democrat/Socialist/Progressive Jose Biden put nearly 100,000 Americans out of work.  He did this by favoring the corporation owned by Warren Buffet over the rights of Americans to work and feed their families.  There is no better example of crony capitalism than this — but this one example is but the tip of a massive iceberg.  And it has been going on for far too long and involves the elite of both political parties.  This is NOT what America is (or should be) all about.  It is also not very wise.

Conclusion

Over time, words and phrases have changed, but behaviors have not.  For me, personally, if Democrats want me to stop calling them communists, they’re going to have to change their behavior.  I’m not holding my breath — but I am praying that the American people come to their senses.

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

Seattle charges on to create its Marxist Utopia – New taxes that exempt Gov. workers

 

Seattle Just Passed a New Tax on Jobs in the Middle of an Economic Crisis—But Exempted Government Workers.

So reads the headline. But we have seen this play before. Tax the rich and when they are gone, the rung of the ladder decreases finding lesser souls to tax. Government employees are exempt with this one. How quaint.

More concerning is that we are seeing a parade of characters winning elections in city councils across America with the avowed notion that the utopian dream is just a vote or two away. Before they hid their agenda and like a sheep in wolf’s clothes hid their wares of destruction. So here we go and take a look at this once upon a time jewel of a city, Seattle and its rush to the bottom:

 

Seattle saw the biggest spike in unemployment of any city in the country. The city’s economy continues to flounder amid the pandemic.

On top of all this, Seattle descended into chaos and controversy on June 8 when Antifa and other radical left-wing activists seized control of a neighborhood and declared themselves the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.” Like so many before it throughout history, this utopian social experiment sadly turned deadly and ended 24 days later after multiple shootings.

Nonetheless, the Seattle City Council has decided that now is the right time to impose a new tax burden on its residents. On July 6, the council passed the so-called “JumpStart” tax, which specifically targets middle-class jobs.

It’s not surprising to see Sawant leading this class-warfare charge. She’s an avowed socialist—and isn’t shy about it.

The city official recently railed against Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos in a widely shared video where she promised that she and her supporters are “coming to dismantle the deeply racist, sexist, violent, utterly bankrupt system of capitalism” and replace it with “a socialist world.” Sawant has also promised to “take into public ownership the top 500 corporations and banks that dominate the US economy.”

According to OpenTheBooks.com, 601 city employees in Seattle earned $195,000 or more. Analysts found that “tree trimmers lopped off $160,604; the chief librarian made $197,704; electricians earned $271,070; electrical lineworkers made $307,387; and police officers earned up to $414,543.”

The new payroll tax will not apply to any of these government employees or their peers otherwise drowning in taxpayer cash.

So, no, the city council’s new tax is most certainly not a “victory for working people.” It’s a tax imposed on working people by politicians who made sure to spare the government class from sharing any of the burden.

 

Here is the above mentioned rant.

 

For a good read the full thing is at Foundation for Economic Education

Other than that all is well in the swamp.

For a refresher on how these councils are working out check an earlier post:

Meet the members of the Minneapolis City Council

Democrat State Governors have become nothing less than tyrants

 

We shall soon see how the State overlords permanently define our existence for those unfortunate to live under Progressive rule.

No need to attempt to list all of the over reach of so many Governors who have become tyrants. Meanwhile our courts and Congress have all but shut down.

Cuomo and his band of thieves are putting together their plot. As tweeted :

 

Newsom from California has similar plans…but the Queen resides in the State of Michigan:

What do Governor Beshear (KY), Governor Wolf  (PA), Governor Northam (VA) and Governor Whitmer (Michigan) have in common?…

….

MICHIGAN – Beginning Friday, people aren’t allowed to travel between homes they own in Michigan or to vacation rentals, and large retail stores must cordon off areas dedicated to furniture, gardening and paint, which aren’t viewed as essential supplies.

Subversive citizens, acting against the interests of the state, will be captured and fined.

Additionally, the state-defined list of approved “non-essential” products is further restrained to forbid the purchase of any home gardening, private food growing or other subversive and regulated activities.

However, Michigan citizens may purchase Lotto tickets as they are deemed essential to the state ministry of compliance monitoring.

 

And so it begins…..

 

Welcome to the new Amerika…..

Other than that, all is well in the swamp.

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.

 

Brits Labour Party plans to abolish and confiscate private schools

 

Best hustle out to your local theatre and catch “Downton Abby” for a view of the last vestige of the once great Great Britain. If Brexit was a problem for the UK and Boris Johnson, let’s look at what Corbyn’s Labor party has in store-

Nigel Farage: “I’ve no doubt, Mr McDonnell, you all want us to be dragged down to the bottom in your new Marxist state.”

Boris Johnson

Leaders of elite private schools have vented outrage over Labour’s plan to abolish them, branding the policy “incredulous” [sic] and an “act of unprecedented vandalism”.

Jeremy Corbyn’s party voted at their conference to integrate all private schools into the state sector if they win the next election.

….

“It doesn’t feel like I’m living in the UK any more,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

Properties and funds held by private schools would be “redistributed democratically and fairly” across the country’s educational institutions as part of the reforms.

Private schools’ charitable status would also be scrapped and universities forced to limit their intake of privately educated students to just 7 per cent – the same proportion as in the wider population.

Boris Johnson also called it a “pointless attack” on the education system, adding that it was based on a “long-buried socialist ideology”.

Mr Adshead, head of the fee-paying Old Vicarage School in Derbyshire, said: “For me it seems quite incredulous [sic] that in 2019 I’m discussing whether my private land will be seized and then redistributed.” More at Independent UK

Nigel Farage: Abolishing Private Schools Is Communism

How far behind are we?
Other than that all is well in the swamp.
For the best in conservative news click below:

 

Chicago Teachers Union visits Venezuela, returns with high praise

Four representatives of the Chicago Teachers Union, including a member of its executive board, visited Venezuela and returned with high praise for the socialist polices of President Nicolás Maduro.

So starts the story of those apparently living in an alternative universe. What is worse, these are the teachers who are indoctrinating the children. Chicago, the bastion of all that can go wrong with a city, gives us a chilling insight. The very same people opposed to charter schools and will do all they can to insure incompetent teachers remain in their positions. Who are more than willing to enjoy the largesse of the taxpayers with extraordinary benefits.

The Chicago Teachers Union retweeted a link with this photo from the blog Radical Educator Collective, which was created by the group that called itself a “CTU delegation” to Venezuela. (Radical Educator Collective photo)

Union leadership had approved a resolution several months ago criticizing U.S. sanctions and intervention in Venezuela, including the efforts of President Donald Trump’s administration to delegitimize Maduro and elevate an interim president, Juan Guaidó, during mass citizen resistance to Maduro’s controversial reelection last year.

Here is their resolution:

CTU Resolution to Oppose the Invasion of Venezuela.pdf

11: WHEREAS, the current Trump administration, various European nations, and the  Lima Group in South America, has recently made menacing pronouncements against the sovereign state of Venezuela by discrediting the result of the May 20, 2018, 14 Venezuelan presidential election of Nicolas Maduro, and have backed the self declared “Presidency” of Juan Guaido, President of the National Assembly of Venezuela;…..

While CTU has been clear it did not pay for the four members’ trip to Venezuela, they went as CTU representatives and met with high-level government officials. Reading their social media accounts of the trip, you’d think they visited Mayberry.

In a reflection of the first day here, CTU Area Vice President Sarah Chambers states:

“I’ve already learned so much just within a couple of hours of being in the country. I’m excited to learn more tomorrow about the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela and how it has improved the lives of the Venezuelan people.”

SARAH CHAMBERS, CTU AREA VICE PRESIDENT

This was CTU executive board member Sarah Chambers, who went to Venezuela, quoted on an anti-Trump website:

“Through major economic hardships, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro never closed a single public school or a single health clinic. This stands in stark contrast to our experience in Chicago, where Mayor Rahm Emanuel closed 50 public schools and several mental health clinics in a single year.”

Chambers also posted on social media her astonishment that, during her trip, she “didn’t see a single homeless person.” She and others praised literacy rates in the country and the commune-style culture.

Maybe their Venezuelan hosts took them on a programmed propaganda tour, as one angered CTU member suggested. The teachers must not have seen areas of Caracas where families occasionally dig through rubbish for food, where women sleep on cardboard boxes outside of grocery stores hoping to bring home cornmeal, where ATMs are empty, hospitals are barely staffed and where tuna fish and flour are luxuries.

Read More

This from their on the spot reporting:

We walked there planning on just taking a tour, but what we received was so much more.

As an educator, I took this trip not only to gain knowledge on what is actually happening politically in the country, but also to meet with other educators and students to see how the educational system operates in a country that has eradicated illiteracy since 2005.

Did you know thousands of private and public companies have been taken over by rank and file workers in Venezuela? Companies like GoodYear and Kelloggs locked their gates to stop production and sabotage the economy in an effort to make people’s lives harder.

However, the result of this attempt was the exact opposite of the companies expectations – workers returned the next day with bolt cutters and reopened the locked gates to run the companies themselves.

A lot of this was due to the new law passed in 2018 by the Constituent National Assembly (ANC) and the Constitution Law of Productive Worker Councils. This gave workers the support of the state to form worker councils (CTPs) to take over and change production to meet the people’s needs rather than the profit motive.

To be very clear – this was already happening in many Venezuelan factories. The difference is that there is now a law that provides the state’s official support.

More of their experiences Here

Other than that all is well in the swamp.

Welcome readers from Whatfingernews and Doug Ross @ Journal Thanks for the links.

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

Minneapolis bans new drive throughs

 

The Minneapolis City Council approved a ban for new drive-throughs on Thursday. Even better they are working on a 2040 “Comprehensive Plan.” Pharmacy, bank, fast food. You will have to park your car and walk inside. No new ones.

I can only imagine what the new plan will include. If anyone wants to know what Bernie Sanders et al have in store for us, look no further.  As I recall winter weather out there can make it a real treat to get out of your car and run in.

The council said the ban will cut down on noise and traffic, and also make sidewalks safer for pedestrians.

Lisa Bender, Minneapolis City Council president, said the changes are also part of an effort to rezone areas in the city in preparation for the upcoming Minneapolis 2040 comprehensive plan.

One of the hottest trends in the restaurant world right now is delivery — and Minneapolis just gave people one more reason to stay home and place their food orders online: The city has placed a ban on the construction of new drive-thru windows.

 And though clearly plenty of people use drive-throughs, Council Member Lisa Goodman said that the debate surrounding them tends to be one-sided. “I rarely have seen anyone other than the applicants of drive-throughs come to speak in favor of them,” the Tribune quoted her as saying.

How about those disabled who need to use drive through pharmacies? Have kids in the car? Really its about getting rid of cars and using public transportation. We shall bend to our Socialists rulers.

 

More  KSTP

Other than that all is well in the swamp.

For the best in conservative news click below.

Rejecting Socialism

 

Rejecting Socialism

by Mustang

There is a gulf of separation between theoretical socialism and its practical realities —something that socialists are well aware of, and why they intentionally deceive others about this peculiar ideology.  One important overarching reality of socialism is that its success requires compulsory adherence to the will of the state that wields it. 

One might argue that socialism opposes human nature, and I think this is true, but experience tells us that it is nevertheless possible to convince human beings to relinquish their natural instincts to the demands of the state —particularly if individuals are duped into accepting socialist theory over socialist reality, and where the state is willing to use coercive methods against its citizens to assert and maintain totalitarian power. 

By writing “coercive methods,” I mean to suggest numerous insidious strategies beyond holding a gun to a citizen’s head.  Most thinking humans will recognize coercion as the gateway to an unnatural state; anyone who is willing to give up his or her unassailable rights probably doesn’t deserve them in the first place.

Socialism is complex, however.  What makes it complicated are its several (actually, too many) and competing theoretical ideologies.  These include Utopianism, Marxism, Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Trotskyism, Leftist Communism, Autonomism,  Anarchism, socialist democracy, democratic socialism, liberal socialism, ethical socialism, libertarian socialism, religious, regional, and eco-socialism … and it goes on from there.

One may recall the case of Winston Smith, who frustrated by state oppression and rigid control —even to the extent of prohibiting individualism in thought or expression, sought to break away from his socialist masters.  He soon realized that the socialist state can never allow even one citizen to achieve independent thought.  At one time, George Orwell was a committed socialist, whose work Nineteen-Eighty-Four reflected his realization that socialist reality was a stark betrayal of its theory.  Orwell’s conclusion was that mankind must never trust any state to deliver a just society.

If this is true, then why should anyone living in Utopia wish to change from a system that values individuality —indeed, one in which society thrives on our natural instincts— to live within a society controlled by the state, where the only rewards come from group think, and where success economic is only achieved through carefully measured doses of state welfare? 

In 1908, writer Jack London wrote the earliest of dystopian fiction novels; he titled it The Iron Heel.  The background for London’s book is set in San Francisco and Sonoma County.  He chronicles an oligarchic power structure that exists for three centuries before a revolution ushers in what he calls “The Brotherhood of Man.”  London, a socialist activist who died in 1916, was never witness to the fact that his predictions about San Francisco came true —but one in which the transformation to a brotherhood of man transformed itself into a socialist oligarchy.

Nevertheless, Marxian socialism in America failed because it was largely rejected by the American people.  This rejection fueled a massive undertaking by the socialist elite to rethink their strategies. 

The change came in 1973.  It was the year that the first volume of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s book Gulag Archipelago was published.  It demolished any pretense that communism had any moral authority.  Socialism was exposed for what it is.  The American left struggled … what next, then?  The answer: identity politics: a struggle between victim and victimizer, the oppressed and the oppressor, and rather than presenting the socialist ideal as being collectivist in nature, the political left began to “expose” the power of the white people over exploited minorities (and third-world nations). 

And where should this new battle plan be implemented?  Within US colleges and universities, of course.  Writer Bruce Bawer tells us: “The point [became] simply to “prove”—repetitively, endlessly—certain facile, reductive, and invariably left-wing points about the nature of power and oppression.  In this new version of the humanities, all of Western civilization is not analyzed through the use of reason or judged according to aesthetic standards that have been developed over centuries; rather, it is viewed through prisms of race, class, and gender, and is hailed or condemned in accordance with certain political checklists.”

This is American socialism today.  We are witness to it every single day in the 24/7 news media, the perfect place for the expression of opinion vs. fact.

In contrast to leftist socialism (pick any of its manifestations) free-market capitalism is founded upon voluntary human interaction.  Its characteristics include private property ownership, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchanges of goods and services, and competitive markets. 

People who own wealth make their own economic and investment decisions; prices and the distribution of goods and services are controlled through competition.  Traditional Americans believe that while there is a role for government, it must be a limited role —as reflected in the United States Constitution.  There is another significant distinction: it is founded on commonality among Americans, which includes friendliness toward one another, the sharing of common values, beliefs, and traditions.  True Americans have a firm belief in the goodness of our founding documents.

America is now involved in a new civil war.  Is it a contest involving differences in culture, east coast to west, northern border to southern?  On the one hand, American socialists (nee communists) deny the importance of God, endorsed such odd notions as transgender rights, forcing small business owners to provide medical procedures for the employees that violate our religious beliefs, force Catholic Nuns to provide contraception, engineered the firing of corporate executives because of their stand on such issues as marriage equality, imposed fines upon bakeries who refused to service homosexual weddings, and denying to Christians the same religious protections accorded to Native Americans.

It is more than a cultural war.  It is a conflict that pits west coast, metropolitan, well-educated upper-class elite against the traditions and liberties of middle American, exurban and rural, lower-middle- and working-class citizens with a modest education.  It is a war where the privileged few seek to impose their will on a recalcitrant majority of traditional Americans.

At present, the conflict manifests itself as a cold civil war.  It doesn’t need to become a “hot” war.  This will depend, I think, on how well the intractable majority realizes their power at the voting booth —which is why I think Mr. Trump is making such a gargantuan effort to “stump” for the Republican ticket in the mid-term elections.  He appeals to those of us who regard ourselves as nationalist s—that is to say, people who are passionate in our love for America.

Note this important contrast: Republicans are the party of Lincoln, the party of unity around our founding principles, while the socialists are the party of elitists who can only offer us the politics of identity.  Which of these will you choose?

The Goal of Socialism is……..?

 

The Goal of Socialism…..

 

by Mustang

… is communism.  We know this because Vladimir Lenin told us so.  After all, if anyone should know, it would be the man who first implemented the inane notions of Karl Marx and Frederick Ingles.  If we fast forward through the next 100 years, we’ll find the result of communism has been somewhere on the order of one-hundred-million deaths.  I suspect that a socialist might argue, “Well, if you wanted to avoid 100-million deaths, all you had to do was sit down, shut up, and do what you’re told.”

The facts about socialism and communism are sufficiently dismal to make me wonder why any American would wish to pursue a socialist agenda.

I was reading a commentary at AOW’s blog the other day.  Writer “Silverfiddle” reminded us that the Democratic Party is home to leftwing mob violence.  He’s right about that, and so too is a commenter named Sam, who wrote:

Marxist/leftist theory is only the tip of the iceberg.  What follows theory is the leftist program, which defines the aims of the movement, provides a strategy to implement the program, and offers the tactics to set civil unrest and discord into motion.  This is not something new, and it is not new inside the borders of the United States.  It’s been going on for quite a while.

It is also quite complex, involving main and auxiliary organizations.  If we pull back the cover of leftist activism, we will find that there are differences in tactics that depend upon the social group that is intended to implement them: one set for disaffected blacks, another for illegal aliens, another for slow-thinking college students, another for unions, and so on.

Tactics may also include regional differences.  But we can say for certain there is a method to the leftist madness—and there are no shortages of examples where the communist left has provoked civil unrest all the way back to the late 19th Century.

In the modern sense, the underlying strategy is one of terror, which places the American communist left in the same camp as Islamic radicals.  As Silverfiddle has said, disagree with any mind-numbing leftist contention and you run the risk of being assaulted.

I’ve asked this question before (admittedly a rhetorical one): why would any thinking American EVER vote for a Democrat?  The answer is that a thinking American wouldn’t —but we don’t have a plethora of these sitting around waiting to vote patriotism, do we?

I have no crystal ball, so I think the upcoming mid-term elections will be instructive to all of us.  The worst thing that could happen is that conservatives will stay home on election day.  If that happens, the communists will reclaim the House of Representatives.  I wish I had more confidence in the American electorate, but I don’t.  What is it?  Only 42% of registered voters even bother to vote?  If the statistic is true, we should worry about the upcoming election.  Maybe I will develop more confidence if conservative Americans are able to maintain its control of the Congress.

Will you vote in the mid-terms?

Venezuela orders two day work week to save energy

A taste of Bernie’s Socialism.

Venezuela’s socialist government ordered public workers on Tuesday to work a two-day week as an energy-saving measure in the crisis-hit South American country.

President Nicolas Maduro had already given most of Venezuela’s 2.8 million state employees Fridays off during April and May to cut down on electricity consumption.

“From tomorrow, for at least two weeks, we are going to have Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays as non-working days for the public sector,” Mr Maduro said on his weekly television program.

Water shortages and electricity cuts have added to the hardships of Venezuela’s 30 million people, already enduring a brutal recession, shortages of basics from milk to medicines, soaring prices, and long lines at shops.

More at The Telegraph

%d bloggers like this: