Trump’s Racism

Since the House Censure yesterday does not include the text of their concern, it must be assumed that this is it:

In America, if you hate our Country, you are free to leave. The simple fact of the matter is, the four Congresswomen think that America is wicked in its origins, they think that America is even more wicked now, that we are all racist and evil. They’re entitled to their opinion, they’re Americans. Now I’m entitled to my opinion, & I just think they’re left wing cranks.

There is also a quote from Louisiana Senator John Kennedy.  Trump then addresses what he is most angry about: He wants the bitter “four horsemen” to “apologize to our Country, the people of Israel and even to the Office of the President, for the foul language they have used, and the terrible things they have said.’’

Again, let’s be clear, there is not one quote of President Trump’s actual text or verbiage besides individual words (“hate”, “go back” and “invaders”) yet the resolution contains the following three “charges of racism,” and states:

“That the House of Representatives —

“(1) believes that immigrants and their descendants have made America stronger, and that those who take the oath of citizenship are every bit as American as those whose families have lived in the United States for many generations;

“(2) is committed to keeping America open to those lawfully seeking refuge and asylum from violence and oppression, and those who are willing to work hard to live the American Dream, no matter their race, ethnicity, faith, or country of origin; and

“(3) condemns President Donald Trump’s racist comments that have legitimized and increased fear and hatred of new Americans and people of color by saying that our fellow Americans who are immigrants, and those who may look to the President like immigrants, should “go back” to other countries, by referring to immigrants and asylum seekers as “invaders,” and by saying that Members of Congress who are immigrants (or those of our colleagues who are wrongly assumed to be immigrants) do not belong in Congress or in the United States of America.”

Mr. Trump has repeatedly said and demonstrated his belief that “immigrants and their descendants have made America stronger, and that those who take the oath of citizenship are every bit as American as those whose families have lived in the United States for many generations.”  He consistently supports “keeping America open to all who lawfully seek refuge and asylum.”  Only Democrats reject the “lawfully” part. And yes, he has called illegal aliens who are thugs, gang members, racists, drug traffickers and murders “invaders.”  They are.

Only the Press and members of the Democrat Party has made racist comments, such as NPR saying Trump criticizes, “a group of Democratic lawmakers, all women of color, [who] should ‘go back’ to countries of their ancestry and that they ‘hate’ America.”  Trump never mentions “women of color” or “countries of ancestry.”  And, of course, Nancy Pelosi and other wack jobs call Mr. Trump “a racist” for affirming the three points and attempting to secure them.  Against their wishes.

Ilhan Omar, a Progressive Socialist, is from Mogadishu.  She was born there. The other three are American born.  Rahida Tlaib, a Progressive Socialist, was born  to Palestinian immigrants in Dearborn, Michigan.  Occasio-Cortez, a Progressive Socialist, is an American with a Puerto Rican mother in the Bronx.  Ayana Pressley, a Progressive Socialist, was raised on Chicago’s Northside. More than their “birth origins,” all four Congressional freshmen are Progressive Socialists — supporting and working for State control of all financial, educational, and production interests.  This is foreign to the established American government and Constitution, and representative of the failed policies, corruption, and squalor of Communist principles that Trump loathes.

Mr. Trump clarifies his contempt very specifically by singling out those who accuse America of being built on a “wicked foundation,” and “think that America is even more wicked now, that we are all racist and evil.” (We can assume that Pelosi called him a racist for pointing out that she and the DNC think he’s a racist.)

Wack jobs? Is that racist? Consider Cortez’s bold statement that, “the United States is running concentration camps on our southern border,” to name just one of a host of her wack job comments. Were they “immigrant communities” when Obama’s administration used them?

Or, consider Tlaib’s wack job statement: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”  (She later apologized for the “use of the word ‘hypnotize’ and the ugly sentiment it holds.”)

Pressley may win the “wack job” award for her comment on climate change: “we have to talk about climate change in a way that we can also talk about mass incarceration – in a way that allows us to see the relationships between multiple struggles happening together. All of these things that are driving climate change are interconnected. That’s why we have to look through a lens of intersectionality and equity, or it won’t matter what we do.”

Quick to condemn Trump for anything he never said or implied, the House remains notably silent about the Progressive Socialists. They overwhelmingly resolved to avoid their own members’ racism, but never mentioned Tlaib and Omar for their anti-Semitism that instigated the resolution.

It remains a notable curiosity that the House Censure of the President does not include his statements.  It relies entirely on the spin of the Press that injects racism (including Naziism) into anything a Republican or Trump says. As a man they hate, he has no right to his opinion.

Capitalism Alone

Capitalism means market forces alone determine markets.  It means buyers control production by buying what they need or want.  In capitalism, every kind of product can find a market, from one-off bits of art to mass-produced trinkets . . . even junk.  This is capitalism stripped to its underwear.  We’ll add clothes in future posts.

Most often, hatred of “capitalism” begins with misunderstanding.  Alternative definitions are used to bring on destruction (change)  in order to abuse or simply demolish the existing system.

 

It can be surprising — even shocking! — to hear what some people think capitalism means.  Government control?  No, that’s a regulated market.  Government and corporations conspiring together? Nope.  That’s fascism.  Corporate authority over the marketplace?  No, that’s corporatocracy.  Banking controls over production and markets?  Uh uh, those are equity markets (though stock markets can easily be capitalist, if controlled by the perceived value of investment.) Racism? Sexism? Bigotry?  We’ve all seen the propaganda.  Can it be true?

Um, no.

Price fixing, monopolies, corporate flooding and/or product restrictions, etc. etc. etc. all have their own names, generally suck quite a bit, and have nothing to do with capitalism.

We have regulated corporatocracies and government run equity markets, socialist and oligarchical administration of markets in various agencies, and even economic tyrannies in the American alphabet soup.  Most are in place for legitimate reasons, but abused for other reasons.

Market controls and restrictions necessarily increase as capitalism diminishes. For instance, the most notable monopoly in American history was Bell Telephone, AT&T.  The breakup took the lid off of vast swaths of explosive new technology and clever ideas.  Afraid the government would slice up development, I stood on the wrong side of the breakup.  Although Bell truly and necessarily disintegrated its R&D, the power of competition made 100 little companies go crazy implementing some of the most fascinating mysteries and billing opportunities.  It became downright cheap to use our telephones, and computers suddenly shared the transmission lines, creating even more efficiency, and vastly more networks, more infrastructure, and more capacity.  Capitalism self-regulates almost flawlessly.  It only becomes problematic once regulation becomes abusive.

Our communications network in the United States and around the world exploded in a millennial leap in 1982.  Breaking the structural, regulatory, and administrative abuses worked well in the telephone industry.  Imagine what would happen if we broke up our government regulatory and financial monopolies and crushed the corporatocracies.

Who would suffer?  Who might perish?  Not us.  Not the economy.  Not the international markets.  Not the world.  There might be a few hungry bureaucrats to feed, but only until they learn apply their intelligence to something useful and constructive.

[Because the definitions are written with tremendous distortion by various strange entities, I will return to this subject to clarify the difference between actual capitalism and the socialist, communist, fascist, Google, Republican, Democrat, and NYT definitive distortions.]

See the next article, Capitalism Plus

 

 

Truth and Language

An axiom expresses self-evident truth.  It is an axiom that the sun shines brighter than the moon.  Francis Lieber said 150 years ago that “the only axiom necessary to understand liberty is, ‘because I am a man, I have a right to be a man‘.”  The founding principles of American government centered entirely on axioms — and that one in particular, stating: “All men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights . . .

Dialectic refers to a quest for truth through debate.  Problematic at best, you can sense the flaws of dialectic reasoning if you spend twenty minutes on FaceBook or in a chat group.  The best way to understand dialectics is to think about dialect.  “Y’all not only sound differ’nt, you’s got altered meanings, too.”  (footnote.)

Karl Marx saw his “dialectical method” as a scandal to the bourgeoisie.  He reasoned that recognizing the way it is automatically predicts the inevitable destruction of it.  Marx loved the sense of scandal, and modern Communists (Fred Jameson, for instance) insist it must be preserved.  I hope you caught that: reason becomes the result because of the result.  Reason is only a means to an end.  You might also recognize this Communist goal and skewered thinking shared by Saul Alinsky, the ’60s Communist, “The end justifies the means.”

No, it does not.

In other words, the entire point of dialectics is to change the truth to fit your purpose, not to discover it.

What is the only axiom necessary to understand Communism?  It seems to be, “Because we are miserable, we will destroy everything and rebuild it in our image.”  That, at least, is the only end Communism has yet achieved.  I suspect, however, that if you could really get an honest answer, Communists would say that their single axiom is, “Destruction is the path to something else that must be better.  We’ll find out!

Note: For philosophy geeks, Hegelian dialectics differs from Platonic dialectics in several ways, most notably that Platonic dialectics serve to uncover and reveal truth, while Hegel, Lenin and Marx used dialectics to create and establish truth.

The End of Appeasement

The textbook example of appeasement was “Nice Guy” Neville Chamberlain, who allowed Hitler to have his way and “get it out of his system.”  Of course this never works.

At the opposite end is the example of the sudden outbursts that caused WWI, Iraq and Afghanistan.  In the middle, about the most effective example to date was Reagan, and his policies with Russia and East Germany.  The summary quote, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” illustrates an ideal seldom seen in world history.  Reagan had a perfect sense of timing, and just the right words.  All of his successors failed miserably.  Until now.

Perhaps the best illustration of Mr. Trump’s success to date is in North Korea, but he’s bolstering that remarkable achievement with what appears to be happening in Iran, Syria and China.

Friends to all, entangling alliances with none.

The latest happened yesterday, when China announced it was time to restructure our financial and trade relationship to make it “more equitable for America.”

You must be kidding?  Why would China want to renegotiate a $375.2 billion trade imbalance?  They owned us, and the Bushes burned, Clinton conceded, and Obama genuflected in deference to their controlling greatness.  Trump said, “Knock it off.  Here, take a few 25% tariffs for your reluctance to deal fairly with us.”

China tried a tit for tat by surcharging our . . . soybeans . . .  and cars — all what, 50 of them?  Wow, that gives them next to no leverage.  Well, crap.  You don’t have to be a genius to know that if they buy nothing from us, they can charge any tariff they want without hurting us.  So they read their hand and decided to take 3 cards.  Trump stood pat because we held the royal flush.

None of these foreign affairs have fully worked out yet.  Progressives and Liberal rags want WWIII, but it looks pretty clear that Kim Il Sung, the Ayatollahs, al-Assad, and China’s Vice Premier Liu He have already been responding very, very favorably to the United States President.  Mr. Trump has called out the world powers, and he knows bullies.  Not one will cross the lines Trump is drawing with his Italian wingtips.

“Mr. Ayatollah, scrap those nukes.”
“Mr. al-Assad, knock it off on killing your people.”
“Mr. Liu He, end this trade imbalance.”

None of this can realistically be associated with “aggression,” and certainly not violence!  It’s hard NOT to credit Trump.  And again the conclusion has not been reached, but soon we can hope to hear,

“Mr. Kim, enjoy the new wealth and freedom your actions will bring to North Korea.”

Murderous, Impoverished Tyrannies

According to communists, the goal of communism is a stateless, classless society. Communists believe this can happen if the rich and powerful are stripped of their wealth and influence so that the poor and downtrodden can control things.

This never happens, of course.  Every Communist attempt ends in tyranny.  Financial success comes from capitalism, generally reintroduced several generations after the poverty and misery have taken a dreadful toll.

In a private conversation, a friend commented that the Communist Chinese economy was improving faster than our own in America.  I had to remind him that it was improving because of a return to capitalism and free trade, mixed with a virtual state sponsored slave labor.

Rather than release the downtrodden from oppression, Communist states invariable murder large segments of their brethren.

In order to talk about Communism, leave the ridiculous theories at the door.  If the discussion is how things ought to be in heaven, or might be if we were all super nice people, you will never implement it on earth.

With so many attempts under the world’s belt, it should be clear that the sanguine hopes for Communism will invariably lead to murderous despotism.

And in the meanwhile, every Communist attempt on earth will continue to be a murderous, impoverished tyranny.

Roots of Communism

Communism is the practice of theoretical dialectic materialism.  In turn, materialism is the idea that what is, is.  Because it is.  Dialectic means always in tension, changing, and forever in motion.

It might not be clear how an atheistic belief in constantly changing reality leads to the practice of Communism.  More importantly, though, it leads to the principles of Communism.  The first of those principles is that the means of change can be measured by the outcome.  If tearing people’s legs off results in handicap accessibility, then it was good to rip their legs off.

Quite honestly, Communism comes from bringing about the change itself.  To them, that’s political evolution.  Communists have no idea what the result will actually be.  Whatever happens when they rip things apart will justify what they did.  Cambodia, Russia, China, Cuba: they all look very different, yet they all used Communist means.  Change simply allows change because change is good.

And it will keep changing, so that’s good, too.  It’s impossible to understand the horror of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Pol Pot, or even Saul Alinsky unless you first understand that the goals of Communism are destruction first and foremost.

“We must believe that it is the darkest before the dawn of a beautiful new world. We will see it when we believe it.”  You can read every word Alinsky wrote and never once find out what “the dawn of a beautiful new world” looks like.  All that matters to Communism is that it will look different.  The joy is ripping everything down to let something else grow.

No, I really can’t accept or understand that either, but it’s true.

A Communist Bill of Rights

We have turned a Communist eye to our rights in America, abusing almost every aspect of liberty, freedom, autonomy, and responsibility. Not surprisingly, as goes our liberty, so go our rights in liberty.

Communism has two positions on rights: the declared and the applied, or, the before and after.  For instance, Marx argued for a free press, as long as it was used for “the democratic reconstruction of the political system.”  Then what?  Communist leaders, while still a persecuted opposition, strongly support speech rights and later reject them when communism gains ground.  Consider the hippies in the USA. “Freedom” was the mantra in the ’60s.  Now that Communist thought is gaining ground, silencing “hate speech” is their new “om.”

What are rights in Communist terms?  The short answer is, “What rights?”  Here are the 10 short answers with our Bill of Rights in mind.

Amendment I, free religion and free speech:  “In a communist society, the individual’s best interests are indistinguishable from the society’s best interest. Thus, the idea of any individual freedom is incompatible with a communist ideology.” – E. Roberts, Stanford University; “Religion and communism are incompatible, both theoretically and practically.” – Bukharin and Preobrazhensky, The ABC of Communism

The “right perspective” is that Communism is your religion and your voice, so you really should not have a thing to say about it.  If you do, maybe it can benefit the Party, so report it to an official.  heh.  Tell us how that works for you.

Amendment II, right to bear arms:  “The Soviet State, which is nothing else than a great republic of workers . . . [therefore assures that] soldiers work and workers fight. . . [W]hen the whole world is in arms against the Workers’ Republic . . . all must be prepared to fight, and to feed and house the army.” – Bukharin and Preobrazhensky, The ABC of Communism

The Communist perspective, increasingly heard and seen in the United States, is that you should carry arms and kill those whom the state tells you, when the state tells you.

Amendment III, freedom from quartering troops:  See above, “. . . all must be prepared to fight, to feed and house the army.” – Bukharin and Preobrazhensky, The ABC of Communism

Remember comrade, it’s all for the state and the state is for the state! Your house and the army you must feed belong to the state just like you do.

Amendment IV, freedom from search, seizure, and unwarranted inspection:  Of course you can never own anything.  Even you and your children belong to the state . . . This is why you report your comrades.  Officials (brothers of a different, higher sort) will be all over you.  Remember: in a system where you own nothing, nothing of your own will ever be taken from you.  Ever.

Amendment V, self-incrimination, double jeopardy:  Don’t be silly.  You have no “self.”  You will never jeopardize the state, and you would die not to incriminate your Party.

Amendment VI, speedy public trial, a jury of your peers, right to counsel: Again, you are nothing and the state is everything.  Relax!  The state will always strive to protect its cherished interests.  As long as you 100% support the state, it will support your contribution.  Not a worry, little comrade.

Amendment VII: rights of capital, property, and common law:  there is no private capital or common law in Communism.  None of this applies.  The bourgeois must suffer.

Amendment VIII, excessive bail, fines or punishment:  according to whom?  The state will always be fair.  After all, it writes the laws!

Amendment IX, the protection of rights not mentioned: By nature, Communism has no unmentioned rights.  If the Communist state needs a right, it will declare a right.  If not, it doesn’t exist.  Why worry?

Amendment X, retention of rights by the people:  The state is the people.  Don’t try to confuse things.  Of course the people retain all rights.

Again, this critical information helps explain Communism in all its names.  And remember, once the governing class send the proletariat class to die killing the bourgeois class and upper class, and the Bureau and manager class replace the ruling class and then eliminates itself to submit to the People, there will be no classes in Communism — just the Party people, the working people, the enemies of the state, the criminal class, the ancients, and the “others.”

Communism 101

Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, and Pol Pot: six men responsible for the majority of 200 million dead “political enemies” of their various states between 1917 and around 1945.  Every one of them built their philosophies around the works of Karl Marx (other contributors made it worse.  We can look at Hegel, Darwin, Nietzsche and others later.)  Yes, even Hitler took his politics from Communism.

Marx predicted that overthrowing bourgeois rule would take unbelievable violence and “a dictatorship of the proletariat . . . to weed out remaining capitalist elements.”  If that sounds very, very different from “democracy,” you might begin to understand the tactics of “Progressive Democrats.” (aka Socialists, Cooperatives, Liberals, Antifas, Collectives, Bolsheviks, Leninists, Maoists, Fabians, and recently Pragmatists: usually calling themselves anything but Communists.)

Americans need to understand the radical hatred necessary for Communist movements: “a dictatorship of the proletariat.

We all know that “proletariat” means “working class” . . . except it doesn’t.  To Marx, especially, the proletariat were the lowest class of society.  He called them child producers, or “breeders.”  (In fact, he coined the word “lumpenproletariat” to mean the mass (lump) of scum who would birth young proles to fight the revolutions.  But you have to actually read Marx to know this — something the bourgeois Communists will never confess or encourage.

“Bourgeois?  I thought the Communists hated the bourgeois?”

Confusing, isn’t it?  Bourgeois means middle class.  Teachers, nurses, builders, truck drivers, store keepers, etc.  And here you probably thought those were the proletariat!  Nay, nay!  In most of the Western world, Communists are bourgeois.  Bourgeois, though, are the problem!  Pol Pot was especially successful at killing them, but by definition, all Communists hate the bourgeois.  They have money, produce, and eat the bread of the bottom feeding breeders, the proles, who will be armed to kill the bourgeois.

Marx’s goal of “a dictatorship of the proletariat . . . to weed out remaining capitalist (bourgeois) elements,” is simple: weed out capitalists to get their capital.

To a Communist, the best fodder in the war against money makers is a breeder.   And killing money makers lets you steal the money.

With an idealist’s brain, understanding the death of producers is complicated.  Reality simplifies it: Hitler killed Jews for their money.  Pol Pot killed engineers, doctors and lawyers for their money.  Mao and Stalin killed “dissidents” for their money.  It takes money to run a totalitarian state.  That makes Communism easier to understand.  Once you destroy the producers you get to play with their produce. . . until it runs out.

To summarize: Communism means sacrificing the useless to kill the rich so the Party can take the money.

But what a hell of a Party while it lasts.

Antifa (or Fascism vs Capitalism)

Fascism means control by a cooperative of government and industry (the sellers.)  Socialism and Communism are control entirely by government (the governors, or controllers.)  Capitalism is control by the buyers.

Some Americans seem confused about economic systems and the terms that define them.  A whole segment of society call capitalism, “fascism,” without considering the two are actually opposite.  Yet they claim the title “Antifa” for anti-fascist.  At best, they are simply wrong, objecting to corruption without understanding economics.  Yet practically speaking, they object to the very scheme they pretend to support, and damn any change that might bring about the changes they claim to want.  It becomes logical to ask what they want to destroy.

Every “cooperative venture” between government and industry in America comes, not from any system, but from corruption.  There are no plausible ways to give business OR industry the power to dictate any cooperative efforts.

We have plenty of corruption!  We have numerous terms for it, too: “crony capitalism,” ” government monopoly,” “PACs,” and even “unfair practices.”  If these were Antifa’s objections, and correcting them were their objectives, we could almost all sympathize.

What is the goal of Antifa?  It appears to be the destruction of government, the destruction of business, the destruction of economic systems, and the promotion of impoverished Anarchy.  This remains consistent with the goals of other so-called “liberal” and “progressive” groups.

The concept is captured nicely by Saul Alinski in the outdated book, Rules for Radicals.  The idea itself is simple and abrupt: destroy everything and what comes back in its place will be good.  Most Americans look at this idea and think, “that’s stupid!”  So they present it differently.  They call black white, and gray a color.  They call fascist capitalist, and anarchy freedom.

Destruction is an effective route to change. The Bolsheviks, Communist Party of China, Khmer Rouge, etc., all practiced Alinski’s worn out ideas — he simply continued the insane hatred and intentional violence of Karl Marx.  It always includes the insane idea of violent destruction and murderous overthrow, which are the only “practical routes” to Communism.  Marx sounds like an early member of Antifa when he wrote:

“there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”

And that, dear friends, is Antifa.