Progressive National Socialism

From the beginning, Progressive Socialism has meant the fixed path to Communism, the Borg of Star Trek. Yet those appealing to the “joys of Socialism” never recall that. The many trials of Socialism are not remembered as Socialism, but something else.  In spite of the total adoption of Marxist and Leninist doctrine and the name of Socialism that is attached to it, the following is never associated with today’s Progressives:

“The party is all-embracing. It rules our lives in all their breadth and depth . . . There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism . . . Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers . . . We want to start by implementing socialism in our nation among our own people! It is not until the individual nations are socialist that they can address themselves to international socialism.”

There will no longer exist any individual arbitrary will, nor realms in which the individual belongs to himself. The time of happiness as a private matter is over.”

This is not Marx or Lenin or Trotsky, but the avid follower of this “revolutionary and evolutionary genius” named Adolf Hitler. It is the very speech of our current Democrat Party. Yet one man’s opinion is only that! Perhaps you will continue to believe in the Progress of Socialism toward the goal of Communism. Hitler certainly did.  He declared:

But National Socialism always bears in mind the interests of the people as a whole and not the interests of one class or another. The National Socialist Revolution has not aimed at turning a privileged class into a class which will have no rights in the future. Its aim has been to grant equal rights to those social strata that hitherto were denied such rights.

The German people were not some sort of savage race before Hitler came to power, but they believed him, and believed in him.

More than enough Germans (and many Poles, Dutch, Austrians, French, etc.) did what they did because they thought it was just and necessary to the great cause of the magnificent new National Socialism that would lead to the beautiful new Communist world.

Our current American Socialists are not eager to directly join paths with Canada, China or Russia. It is their goal to prepare America, and this Progress is only possible one step at a time, beginning with National Socialism.

 

Nothing At All

Because the truth is easy to find, current abuses of power require no mental skill. No form of logic or reason drive today’s coup attempts.  No rational debate will end the matter.

Reason must be subverted. The purpose and conduct of the coup is irrational.  It cannot and will not stand up to American thinking, jurisprudence, or civility.

The wrangling to unseat President Trump begins with appeals to a blind morality that is not moral, and an unfamiliar ethic without ethical basis that was never seen before in America. Facts actually play no role’ whatsoever.  Lies and contrivances have been so blatant from the start that only literal insanity can justify it. The sources of contempt, hatred, and unrelenting abuse require no truth. In fact, the “truth” pounded into the sand of Trump’s impeachment attempt remains a ghost of the recent Democrat past without even a whisper of legitimacy when turned against him.

Much of this factual info is easy to find, already well established and ignored in print. Rehashing each violation will never change the viewpoint of those demanding — or too busy, unwilling, unaware, or incapable of understanding — the coup .

What remains falls into one category: preparing for the next phase of the Revolution of Hatred.  Oddly, impeaching President Trump for no reason serves them better than finding him guilty.

The escalation of violence against all institutions of reason, justice, faith of any stripe, and historical culture are not new. In 50 years we have watched the rejection of traditional family, marriage, church and synagogue, moral education, self-defense, sexual identity, self-control, moral and legal accountability, individuality and personal independence falling to the whims of the “village,” government controls, “safety,” deviance, lust, and sexual confusion, “faultless” and “societal failures,” so-called “social justice” and “team vision,” novel interpretation and re-definition of vital words and concepts.

In short, we have witnessed a complete inversion of morals, ethics, principles, value, law, manners, custom, tradition, logic, reason, duty, responsibility, accountability, and liberty.

We are now witnessing their overt attempt to single out Donald Trump as a figurehead for the former “way.”

Frankly, Trump is not even all that important. He is merely another Czar Nicholas to the Red October Bolshevik Coup, a President Hindenburg in the eyes of Hitler and his National Socialists, or the last insignificant Chinese dynastic family before Mao’s Communist overthrow.

Trump is no god or king, yet if they can unseat him in this coup, you and I are nothing. There are no rules for getting rid of us, yet they must. We will be prisoners of war, canon fodder, “vile dissidents.” Nothing more.

Nothing at all.

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.

Injustice and Rebellion

In the words of Rodney Dangerfield, our Constitution and Bill of Rights don’t get no respect from Democrats.  No respect.  It has been savaged by legislation and by popular opinion, court decisions and administrative abuses for many long and increasingly dangerous decades.   Some of the abuses are old and nearly forgotten like the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court, two attempts to force an illegal income tax in Congress, and FDR’s Internment of Japanese Americans during WWII.

Others are quite new, like the immoral and illegal actions of the Democrats to block President Trump’s appointment in  Congress.

Ironically, all of these named injustices were the work of Democrats.  In the Dred Scott case, Taney, joined by Justices Wayne, Catron, Daniel, Nelson, Grier, and Campbell, all Democrats, to deny freedom to “a negro” and his wife.  The serious injustice held at least a minor sway in the ensuing Civil War.

The 16th Amendment finally allowed Congress to “tax the rich.”  Just the rich, mind you.  At first it had a nice Bolshevik ring to it.  It further caused an almost immediate and permanent shift in power away from the States to the Central Govt.  You can guess the composition of the House and Senate were majority Democrat.  President Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat.  The IRS is a Democrat instrument.

President Franklin Roosevelt simply wrote the illegal and immoral law to round up, relocate, and imprison every Japanese American in an Executive Order, number 9906.  After all, why should foreigners have any right to due process or freedom from seizure?  Democrats, again.  Twice, the heavily packed Democrat Supreme Court Justices ruled against any violation of the 5th Amendment for Japanese prisoners.

Then today we hear that the Democrats want to put forward another unbelievable, unsubstantiated, never mentioned, evidence-free accusation against the honorable Judge Kavanaugh.

Turning to the Obama appointments, we find judge Kagan believes, “I think of myself as having my own views about how the law is done best.”  She ruled that rights cannot exist where they interfere with uniform administration of federal laws.  She was overturned by the Supreme Court where she now sits.  And Sotamayor, who ruled in her appelate role that, “one’s sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.”  Claiming that the law is “uncertain and changing,” she claims, “there is no objective stance, but only a series of perspectives — no neutrality.”  Her ideas, too, were overturned by the Supreme Court where she now sits.

It has become routine to see the Democrat position based on feelings, false objectives, instability, innuendo, sex, race, national origin, and such extreme ideas as “change for change’s sake equals progress.”

In spite of the horrors this history and these notions precipitate (and Democrats simply refuse to acknowledge any of it as true in spite of the absolute veracity of the conditions, circumstances, and facts) the reason for their constant assaults on society is simply a desire to bring about violent revolution.  Although their own rank and file seldom recognize this, the foundational principle of “modern democracy” is the complete collapse of all Western values, from family, marriage, church, and home, to the rule of law, individual rights and responsibilities, fiscal and government restraints.

We can substantiate this in subsequent articles.

 

Greatest Good

An intro to business class in 1977 presented the ideas of economics and production in “modern markets.”  The foundations of every scheme began with the notion that all policies must begin with the concept of “the greatest good for the greatest number.”

Jeremy Bentham, around 1820, first refered to society’s goal in this way.  He wrote, “The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation.”  Mill echoed the concept, now called “Utilitarianism.”  It has become a kind of “premise” for most pragmatic and socialist positions, but can it ever really work?  No.  Especially not with the “foundation of morals” part.  At best, the greatest good for the greatest number is a hollow ambition, ignoring each of its potential consequences.

“Greatest” is always the core of the problem.  Greatest is not an absolute, but a relative ambition, necessarily meaning “not the best.”  The idea of “greatest good for the greatest number” multiplies that relativity, leaving a theoretically acceptable “improvement” of 1% while benefiting only 51% of the whole.

Pragmatists may laugh and argue that that  would never be enough of a goal to implement such a plan, but it has been demonstrated in Bolshevik and Maoist revolutions, Cambodia’s killing fields, and America’s newly implemented health insurance plan.

America’s foundation took the opposite approach.  We built a great nation on the concept of “Great good and goodness for all who desire and work for them without restraint.”  The concept is readily applicable without killing, crushing, or repressing any percentage, without theft or denial, and with malice toward none.

John Brennan vs Donald Trump

In a FaceBook encounter and real life discussion about the Trump/Brennan affair, questions led to investigation which in turn led to rather surprising disclosures and mysteries.

Perhaps the greatest concern is that Brennan voted for the Communist Party candidate for President in 1976.  He was a 21-year-old college graduate at that time.  It is alarming to discover that the Party at the time strongly endorsed Russia, Russia’s foreign policy, and their quest to defeat the United States in the Cold War.

In 1980, Brennan’s Master’s thesis favored State censorship and denied “absolute human rights.”  It was that same year that he joined the CIA.  We can only wonder who vetted him!

He held mostly inconspicuous positions until George Tenet appointed Brennan as his chief of staff in 1999.  Tenet, of course, is best remembered for “confirming” Iraq’s WMDs — for both Presidents Clinton and Bush.   Also for bombing the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the one and only bombing raid coordinated by the CIA during that conflict, and for completely missing and/or ignoring the chatter before 9/11.

In the Bush years,  Brennan believed in “forced rendition,” meaning transferring prisoners to a “better environment,” such as a place where “enhanced interrogation” or even overt torture can take place.  He strongly supported water boarding as well, saying on CBS News that “We have gained a lot of information from these interrogation procedures that the agency [CIA] has, in fact, used against the real hard-core terrorists.”

He completely reversed those stated positions when he joined the Obama campaign, abruptly announcing that he was, “a strong opponent of many of the policies of the Bush administration, such as the preemptive war in Iraq and coercive interrogation tactics, to include waterboarding.”

It has been and remains safe to say that John Brennan and questionable loyalties go together, and something must have been very wrong with his loyalties throughout his career, both to the nation and its leaders.

With his history in mind, it may seem odd that Brennan accuses Trump of “collusion with Russia,” or “trying to silence the opposition.”  It becomes laughable for Brennan to state that Trump’s denials of working with Russia are “hogwash,” when he can’t produce one document or source from his decades of spy work.

Treason is a strong term, but for a man with Brennan’s position and influence in the Swamp, “betraying one’s country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government,” is not a farfetched accusation.  It is exactly what the man is attempting.

Universal and Free Defined

What do the words “Universal” and “Free” mean in the context of health insurance and education?  Miriam-Webster calls Universal “including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception.”  What a wonderful thing that would be!  When applied to health insurance or education, can it be possible? 

Universal is a great thing, meaning “for everybody.”  Universal education, however, means “for those who qualify.”  Universal health insurance means “with these qualifications and limits.”  The “universal” aspect is the insurance and education offered, the qualifications to obtain it, the high cost to every citizen, and the restrictions imposed on every applicant.  (“You may not take that class because your aptitude is not high enough,” and, “You may not have that operation because you are not suffering sufficiently.”)

Free, in the case of health insurance and education, only carries one sense, “not costing or charging anything to the recipient.” It clearly never hints at “without cost.”  It certainly does not include the aspect of civil freedom (not subject to the control or domination of others) or the idea of free will (given voluntarily or spontaneously) or freedom from restraint (not compelled or demanded.)

In fact, the restrictions, obligations, costs, confinement, control, and limits of “free” are the opposites of reality, or what we call Orwellian speech.  “Free” is incredibly expensive, inconvenient, tyrannical and imposing.

Free and Universal also mean “without recourse.”  Already, the ACA has required hospitals and clinics to fill in “physician’s assistants” for real doctors.  Is your healthcare better and cheaper now than it was before Obamacare?

When related to any compulsory system, only the government mandates and bureaucratic limitations are  “free” are “universal.”  As the quality plunges, the better question might be, “Why do the costs keep going up as we approach free?”

 

What is a Democrat Today?

Some folks in my personal circle can’t help themselves.  They simply need to condemn me for “hating Democrats.”  I take exception to that from two distinct positions: one, I reject the implications, and two, the charge smells like a fart.

Rejecting stupid or corrupt ideas is radically different from rejecting the people who hold them, and among my personal heroes are a number of Democrats — both publicly and privately.

On the other side of that argument, let me ask my accusers why they despise, reject and swear against the ideas of John F. Kennedy, his love for America, sense of free will economics, civil freedom, border security, and hatred for Communism and Socialism?

As in the following quote about The United States:

So this country, which desires only to be free, which desires to be secure, which desired to live at peace for 18 years under three different administrations, has borne more than its share of the burden, has stood watch for more than its number of years. I don’t think we are fatigued or tired. We would like to live as we once lived. But history will not permit it. The Communist balance of power is still strong, but the balance of power is still on the side of freedom. We are still the keystone in the arch of freedom, and I think we will continue to do as we have done in our past, our duty, and the people of Texas will be in the lead.” (He was speaking at a breakfast in Texas.)

In the words of Dezi Arnez, “Splain dat, Lucy!

How can a Liberal be a Liberal and speak of freedom, border security, the desire and work of maintaining vigilance in the fight against Communism, against a welfare State, and against illegal immigration?  That’s not what Liberals do now.  How can a Democrat American President proudly assert that “the balance of power is still on the side of freedom”?  Was Kennedy a Liberal, a Conservative, or Donald Trump?  If you love the history of JFK, you can’t love the modern Democrat Party unless you radically changed.

If JFK was a Democrat then . . . what is a Democrat now?  Why the change?

Capitalism Plus

As mentioned in the last article on Capitalism (Capitalism Alone), several variations of the definition exist.  Most reflect a strong desire to condemn the natural laws of wealth, demand and production.  A “capitalist,” according to Webster (in both of his first dictionaries from America’s founding, and revised in 1840 just after Noah’s death) is “a man with a stock in trade.”

Capitalism Plus is every financial system ever devised, with every opportunity included — except actual Capitalism.  As Fidel Castro put it, “I find capitalism repugnant. It is filthy, it is gross, it is alienating.”  Some socialists, like Hugo Chavez, for instance, use a kind of back door reasoning to condemn it: “We must reduce all the emissions that are destroying the planet. However, that requires a change in lifestyle, a change in the economic model: We must go from capitalism to socialism.”  Chavez was insisting that the solution was to go broke,  bicycles, poverty, and limited production would solve everything.  Socialism.

Our founders started the United States just as Adam Smith went to press with Wealth of Nations.  Smith understood Mercantilism, the prevailing economic view, as flawed in one special way.

Mercantilism demands winners and losers in a Zero Sum.  All nations, it demands, compete for a limited outcome from limited resources and for limited wealth.  Mercantilism also defines most of the hatred, fear, and contempt for wealth.  It states in no uncertain terms, “If you are rich, I must be poor. If you shared, we’d both be half rich,” the thinking goes.  “Give me my fair share!

It allows people in my low income bracket to justify stealing and abusing people with money.  The only real problems with this perspective is that it ignores the truth, justifies all sorts of immoral behavior, and never, ever works because it is not true.  Wealth and production are NOT zero sum, even where and when the majority want to tear everything down to get more for themselves.  You almost never hear of Mercantilism because it is both the reasoning and condemnation coming from vast swaths of the world.  Communism, Socialism, Fascism, National Socialism, virtually all tyrannies depend on it.

So, when you see them talk about Capitalism, they mean Mercantilism.  They fail (or refuse) to understand wealth.  When they speak of “solving capitalism,” they mean (under ideal circumstances) balancing everything so we can share the poverty so the third world can share the wealth.  Usually, though, it requires them to control everything they want to steal.  They feel there is no way to better themselves.  As long as you have more, they have less.  There is, to them, only so much, and Capitalists already own it.

Nothing, of course, can be less true.  If not for capitalism — which is not a government system but an economic reality — all of us would still be living in the dark ages.  And that, sadly, is the ultimate goal of most political systems.

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