The Practical Application Of Socialism

Rather than exploring the theoretical or ideological fallacies of socialism let us look at the practical application of socialism everywhere it has been adopted for the last one hundred years.

The most common refrain I hear from the so-called ‘Democratic Socialist’ of today is that they are not proposing the abuses of the Soviet Union or these other socialist countries. As side notes, they all deny that Nazi Germany was socialist though Nazi is an acronym for National Socialist Workers Party and they often deny that the Soviet Union was socialist though USSR was Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. There is a degree of self-deception required in order to advocate for socialism.

That is not to say that there is not a degree of self-deception used in advocating for other systems, there often is. However other systems did not murder 150 million people in the 20th century, socialism did. The primary self-deception of the ‘Democratic Socialist’ of today is that what they are advocating for is different than what resulted in Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Chavez, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot – you get the picture.

Let me be abundantly clear with the blatant truth that ‘Democratic Socialist’ of today avoid like the plague: the people who advocated for Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler, Chavez, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, and Pol Pot and those socialist systems did not advocate for those abuses anymore than Bernie Sanders supporters do – yet mass murder is what they got. If gulags and concentration camps and the Red Terror and mass murder on an unimaginable scale is not what the initial supporters of these dictators advocated for when they chose socialism – then why is that exactly what the results were? ‘Democratic Socialist’ of today simply cannot answer that question in an honest manner – they must obfuscate, dissemble and pretend.

The answer to why socialism always results in poverty, misery and death is quite simple – socialism is force. Socialism is unmitigated force wielded by the few with the promise of social and economic equality as the result of this force. At the end of the day that is all that socialism is, be it the ‘Democratic Socialist’ version of today or otherwise. There are inherent problems with that model – that power corrupts is part of the issue but the much bigger issue is that power attracts those we least wish to have wielding power. This is why many legitimate studies show that psychopaths are attracted to political and government employment and in fact psychopaths are vastly over-represented in government and politics in comparison to the general population. Socialism provides the means to power for psychopaths to wield that power in an unmitigated, unchecked manner. It is not a mystery that socialist governments always wish to disarm the general population – a universal trait of socialism. Psychopaths want compliant people who cannot defend themselves. One goes hand in hand with the other.

The common folks who supported Lenin in the fall of 1917 or Hitler in the late 1920’s or Ho Chi Minh in the late ’40’s or Castro in the late ’50’s or the Sandinista’s in the ’70’s were not wishing for gulags and mass murder and concentration camps and genocide – but that is what they received. The ‘Democratic Socialist’ of today do not wish for gulags and mass murder and concentration camps and genocide in the least – but they are advocating to put extraordinary power inevitably into the hands of psychopaths. Their argument is the same argument that Hitler and Castro and Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot and Ortega and countless others made – “it is different this time, we aren’t ‘those’ people!”

However – it is never different because the power that socialism concentrates into the hands of the few attracts psychopaths in the same manner that apple pies attract ants at a picnic. Socialism, even the current ‘Democratic Socialist’ version, removes the checks and balances put into place to limit the power – and damage – of psychopaths.

The virtue and attraction of a limited republican form of government and a free market is to make government so powerless as to render the psychopaths impotent.

Often the ‘Democratic Socialist’ attempt to argue that the private sector is a much greater threat to them than a socialist government is – so let us look at that claim for a moment. In a free market, a truly free market and not what we have today, you can simply choose to stop doing business with a firm that you do not wish to do business with. The private sector is empowered to make you do nothing in a free market. The private sector cannot send you to a gulag, to a concentration camp, cannot send armed men to make you do as they wish, or imprison, kill or maim you without the complicity of government. A free market is the removal of all complicity of government in these matters – in other words a free market is freedom from violence, compulsion, coercion and force. Socialism is mandatory violence, compulsion, coercion and force – because socialism IS force and violence and the threat of violence is the only means they have of exercising that force.

Inevitably the mandatory violence, compulsion, coercion and force of socialism will be concentrated in the hands of psychopaths – inevitably. Unlike limited republican government, socialism contains no checks and balances to prevent that – in fact it invites that abuse. No one in Russia thought they were supporting gulags. No one in Germany thought they were supporting the utter destruction of Europe. No one in Cuba thought they were supporting going from the 5th highest per capita income in the western hemisphere when Castro took over to the 126th highest per capita income in the western hemisphere after 57 years of socialism. No one in Viet Nam thought they were supporting the murder of the eldest person in 15,000 hamlets for no other reason than they were the eldest person in the hamlet. No one in Venezuela thought they were supporting mass starvation.

But that is what they got.

Now ‘Democratic Socialist’ say that they do not support any of that and I believe them, they do not. However they do support Bernie Sanders who thirty years ago refused to condemn the Sandinista genocide of the Miskito Indians, saying it was ‘necessary to advance socialism.’ Let that sink in good and deep before you try to convince us that you would never support the historical abuses of socialism because to be frank – we do not believe you. We do believe, as with all of the other versions of socialism, that the fellow willing to slice the most throats will rise to the top and that all of the socialist who claim to believe in justice, equity and fairness will simply stand aside trembling when that happens and do nothing.

We believe that because it is always true.

Helping The Homeless

People virtue signal all kinds of topics on the internet but one of the most popular is about homelessness and the virtue signaling is most often pointed criticism of how churches are morally inferior and the virtue signaler is morally superior. Memes to the effect of “There are 200,000 homeless people and 350,000 churches so see how evil/selfish/hypocritical churches are!” proliferate among people who have never attempted to systematically help the homeless.

Twice I have been a part of church-based programs to help the homeless, in two different states. Rather than virtue signal let me tell you what my experience was and what I learned:

The first program was pretty complete. The church would provide a homeless person with a room in a home (the home of a church member by the way, how many of these virtue signalers are willing to invite the homeless into their homes?), new clothing, medical care, and find them a job. If I were homeless, and probably everyone reading this post if they were homeless, would be all over this offer. A place to live, medical care, new clothes, a job? Are you kidding? Who would not jump on that rather than living on the streets?

Very few homeless people accepted this offer though they streamed into the church most everyday asking for cash. Why would they reject this offer? Here were the requirements the church placed on the person who would accept this offer: you had to behave properly particularly in the home they placed you in, you had to attend a narcotics or alcohol recovery program (the church itself ran these programs but you were free to attend a different legitimate program if you preferred), you had to show up for work on time everyday you were scheduled and actually work, and you had to re-establish a functional connection with a member of your family. You had to be accountable.

Most of the homeless people who came in to the church simply demanded cash. The church was not going to do that. Those who were seemingly willing to go down the path that the church required most commonly refused the offer by rejecting the requirement that they re-establish connection with a family member. For people such as myself this was a shocker. I would presume that most people would think as I do and see re-establishing contact with a family member as the easiest requirement to meet – but that was not the case. For those who went far enough down the path that I was able to talk to their family the reason why this was a stumbling block was obvious – I heard the same stories over and over: “He stole from me, he assaulted me, he sexually assaulted me.”

The short story is obvious – these people were not sleeping on their moms couch or living in their brothers garage or living in their sisters camper simply because these family members could not afford to have them around for the sake of their own safety. As much as these folks may have loved or cared for the homeless person the concept of providing them shelter or even being in proximity or having any relationship was a non-starter due to the behavior of the homeless person. Be reminded – these are the homeless people that were willing to allow us to talk to their family members. Who knows what horror stories existed with those who flat out refused to give us the information we needed to talk to their parents or siblings or children? We heard the same statements over and over from homeless people who would not let us talk to their family – “They are all a bunch of liars, no reason to talk to them!” It was a distinct pattern.

There were people who came in to the church that were homeless as a result of circumstance and not so much anti-social behavior. These people were fairly easy to detect right off because they weren’t the people that were simply demanding cash but typically had a plan and needed assistance in executing that plan. That plan was usually along the lines of “My mom will let me live at her house but I need a ride/bus ticket/etc. to make that happen.” In those cases we would most often talk to mom or whomever and then buy them lunch and give them a ride to moms house or take them to the bus station and buy a bus ticket to Omaha or where ever and see that they got on the bus to Omaha. The people who were homeless due to circumstance were easy and it was almost always straightforward. They had zero problem with you talking to their family or friends and wanted us to coordinate with their family or friends and the family or friends were eager to help and thankful for our assistance in those cases. The people who were homeless due to circumstance were often embarrassed by their situation but they were not attempting to hide their friends and families from us.

The other program to help the homeless was more narrow in its’ focus – simply place homeless people in abandoned HUD homes on a temporary basis. This program lasted exactly one weekend, where after much bureaucratic engagement we were able to secure a HUD home and placed three homeless people in that three bedroom two bath suburban home on a Friday. By Monday that three bedroom two bath suburban home was stripped – everything that could be sold was removed from the home and gone. Plumbing, electrical, appliances – you name it. Down to the drywall.

My point to this post is that virtue signaling your superiority when you have never been in the trenches of trying to help these people demonstrates your shallowness in understanding the problem. If it was simply a matter of matching people up with beds then the problem could and would be solved by tomorrow – but that is not the problem. The problem is addiction and mental illness and most of all the destruction of family relationships and sometimes just some truly atrocious human beings who pose a grave physical threat to other human beings. It is trite to say “get them into a program” because there are an abundance of programs for them to engage in – there is no lack of programs and there is no lack of beds.

Beds and programs are not the problem.

There Is Nothing As Bourgeois As An American Leftist

There Is Nothing As Bourgeois As An American Leftist

“You know, ever since we started this Archie Bunker thing in the early ’70s, making fun of white working people, we kissed them goodbye. You make fun of people, you look down on them? They get the message. You call them deplorables? They hear it. You bet they hear it. You say they cling to their guns and their religion? Oh yeah, I cling to my religion. OK. I’m a little person, and you’re a big person. Thank you, I’ll be voting for the other guy this time.” – Chris Matthews

“So now identitarian liberalism is taking fire from two directions. From the center-left, it’s critiqued as an illiberal and balkanizing force, which drives whit-cis-het people of good will rightward and prevents liberalism from speaking a language of the common good. From the left, it’s critiqued as an expression of class privilege, which cares little for economic justice so long as black lesbian Sufis are represented in the latest Netflix superhero show.

Both of these critiques make reasonable points. But I’m not sure they fully grasp the pull of an identitarian politics, the energy that has elevated it above class-based and procedural visions of liberalism.

It’s true that identity politics is often illiberal, both in its emphasis on group experience over individualism and, in the web of moral absolutes — taboo words, sacred speakers, forbidden arguments — that it seeks to weave around left-liberal discourse. It’s also true that it privileges the metaphysical over the material, recognition over redistribution.” – Ross Douthat

It is amusing to watch the Left try to self-diagnose itself.

What is that old saying? ‘The man who represents himself has a fool for a client’?

There are not even words for how obtuse the belief is that moving to a ‘material redistribution’ over ‘metaphysical recognition’ would revive the Left. Identity politics is rooted in supremacy. Period. Beyond that the model adopted by the Left is one of implying the majority of American voters are inferior. Somehow the Left become so enamored of their own propaganda that they came to believe that, in a white majority country, labeling whites as racist, privileged, homophobic, evil and all around inferior would result in electoral victory.

Yes, it is that dumb and that intellectually and morally vapid. The gist of Leftist arguments as to how to win elections going forward is around how to convince more people to be as dumb and intellectually and morally vapid as they are. Is that not exactly what the argument on the table is?

A major component of the ‘material redistribution’ argument boils down to requiring blue collar whites to absorb the cost of living for college educated liberals who obtained worthless degrees but mountains of college debt and are now working three part time jobs because there simply are no positions available in the ‘Women’s Studies’ profession – because these people are entitled to your money regardless of their life choices.

The ‘material redistribution’ also requires people who will never be able to retire to pay for the extraordinary retirement packages of government workers. I could go on and on with the examples of the absurdity of the Left – absurdities that they are apparently immune to recognizing. In fact, the Left does not find it absurd at all that people without a college degree should have to subsidize the lives of those with a college degree, or that people who will never be able to afford to retire should pay the retirement cost of those who will retire in grand style. They sincerely believe that is how the world is ordered.

After all, those paying the bills are racist, privileged, homophobic, evil and all around inferior – so why not soak them to enhance the lives of Leftist? Calling them names makes it all okay, doesn’t it? In the echo chamber of the Left this passes for logic.

That the Left will not see anything wrong with that picture is why the self-diagnosis fails. It fails because the Left cannot come to grips with the heart of its’ ideology – that people who adhere to its’ belief system believe they are superior and hence entitled to other peoples stuff and to tell other people what to do, say and believe. The sheer arrogance of believing that your retirement should be funded off of the backs of people who will never retire, that people who never had a chance to go to college should pay for your lifestyle after you squandered your educational opportunity is beyond words – but beliefs such as that are at the heart of Leftism.

Leftism is failing because the ’help the poor’ mantra no longer mask the greed and transfers of wealth executed on a purely ideological basis.

What the Left can no longer hide is the simple truth that there is nothing as bourgeois as an American Leftist.

This week in the basket of absurdities.

In a strange political time, this week was maybe stranger than most. Let’s survey some strangeness.
Hillary Clinton still has the presidential virus bad, her fever hasn’t peaked, and some nursemaids are caring for her tenderly and taking her vapors quite seriously.
The self-driving, autonomous financial regulation vehicle called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is in a headless stand-off with POTUS. The former agency head, Richard Cordray resigned and presumed to designate his chief of staff as Acting Director. The president of the United States has appointed someone else as Acting Director, pending confirmation of a replacement.What? The president is boss of the executive branch? Who knew? Confusion in the ant colony ensues.
Donald Trump tweets that Time was going to name him Man of the Year but he doesn’t want it. Neener neener. Time retorts it was not going to, so neener neener. Important national business.
Lois Lerner is asking the court to seal, burn, and bury her testimony in the civil lawsuit against the IRS for its predation of good Americans. She claims she and her family have received threats, and if the truth comes out, her life could be in danger. What a brilliant scheme for petty tyrants: The worse the abuse of citizens, the greater the need for permanent protective secrecy.
Democrats traditionally gathered in national and state events to celebrate annual Jefferson Jackson dinners. But, Jefferson and Jackson have become disreputable because of their unacceptable record on race and racism. So, searching for better lights to live by, the Democrats just observed the first annual Kennedy Clinton Dinner. Because those fellows’ records on sex and sexism is impeccable!
And then, from the superb crew at Powerline Blog, there’s this priceless photo of lout Charlie Rose interviewing louts Spacey, Franken, and Clinton. Wonder what they talked about.

It appears that the lefty paper the Guardian is shocked that Trump is trying to move the federal judiciary in a conservative direction.

And that’s only a bit of this week in absurdity.


Government is mostly malevolent–conscientious parent edition.

A Libertarian friend of mine, David K. Williams, likes to say: “Government is largely malevolent.” He posts this frequently on social media, along with a link to a story about some bureaucrat or petty tyrant making life harder, worse, or both for ordinary folks trying to do ordinary things. I think I will take after my friend David in this practice.

Today’s illustration is this outrage from a school district in Virginia. A mom has been criminally charged for the way she tried to protect her daughter from ongoing bullying at school. I’m confident this mom will not be convicted of anything. In a sane universe, which we may or may not inhabit, the charges will be dropped, and whoever decided to cite and or charge her will be tarred and feathered and humiliated.

But there is a more important point here. This is government. This is the mentality of government. A mom trying to protect her baby against bullying that school administrators were powerless or apathetic to remedy, puts a recording device in her daughter’s pack. It gets discovered.

Mom gets charged not only with felony wiretapping, but with contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Let me be clear. This is not only outrageous rubbish, it is a manifestation of the controlling mentality. The mentality that exists mostly in government. Did any of the busy-bodies who reviewed this situation think: “Wow. Poor kid. Poor mom. What can we do to help solve this situation?” No. The execrable jackals were afraid of being embarrassed. They were ticked that a parent might permeate their sanctum. Someone went to the rule book and combed through, looking for ways to punish the rabble and make an example.

This is not unique. This is not rare. This is what happens when citizens challenge authority.

It is a mentality that can thrive only in the public sector. In the realm of free exchange, when a company abuses you, you can look to a competitor. In the realm of regulated living, when the bureaucrat takes an interest in you, you can only pray that he’ll apply a little soap as he goes about his business. Please read the story linked below and get mad, then take action.

The phone number for Norfolk Public Schools is (757) 670-3945

The phone number for the Norfolk Police Department Chief’s Office is (7575) 664-3277

The phone number for the Norfolk District Attorney’s Office is (757) 664-4444


Mom charged after putting recording device in daughter’s backpack

Thomas Jefferson, Proto-communist And Other Things I Learned In College

When I was a freshman in college I was required to take American history. I signed up for a class, foolishly thinking, “American history, I got this.” The class covered something like the Revolution to the Civil War timeframe. What I failed to grasp was that the tenured professor was a Marxist, an out and out proud vocal self-proclaimed communist who took immense pride in the FBI once upon a time putting an undercover person in one of his classes. Our ‘American history’ education consisted primarily of learning all about Ho Chi Minh. We read Ho Chi Minh speeches and we read Ho Chi Minh writings, so on and so forth. We learned that Thomas Jefferson was a ‘proto-communist’. We had assignments such as to read a Thomas Jefferson speech then read a Ho Chi Minh speech and then compare and contrast the speeches for Marxist themes. Seriously, that was an actual American history assignment.

We really did not learn much American history but we were taught what a great guy Ho Chi Minh was and what a great thing communism was. The professor conveniently skipped over events such as the Viet Minh charging into 15,000 hamlets and killing the primary land-owner in each hamlet and killing the eldest person in each hamlet. Killing the landowners was self-evident for communist but the communist killed the eldest person in each village in order to make the statement that the Vietnamese tradition of revering elders would be coming to an end. Only the communist aristocracy would be revered going forward – upon penalty of death. Funny the communist professor never once mentioned those events.

We were not afforded the opportunity to compare and contrast communist mass murder with anything Thomas Jefferson did. Those pesky realities did not fit the narrative.

For my next semester of American history I surely did not want that professor again, so I made certain the class I signed up for had a different professor. The next semester of American history was basically the Civil War up until the present, which was 1981 at that point. To my dismay I showed up for the first day of class to discover that the Ho Chi Minh worshiping out and out proud vocal self-proclaimed communist professor has traded classes with the professor I thought I had been signing up for. Consequently I spent that semester re-learning what a great guy Ho Chi Minh was and learning that Abraham Lincoln was a ‘proto-communist’ and comparing and contrasting Ho Chi Minh speeches to Abraham Lincoln speeches.

No joke.

For my next semester of history I tried to split from the program entirely and signed up for Russian history – which fascinatingly enough was not taught by a Leninist! Who would have thought? I already could name all the Tsar’s in chronological order so that class was pretty easy and required no study of Ho Chi Minh speeches what so ever. I did not even have to compare and contrast Lenin or Trotsky to Jefferson or Lincoln. The phrase ‘proto-communist’ never even came up! We studied real communist and what they really did – and at that time were still doing in Russia.

For my final semester of history, I signed up for a brand new class with a brand new professor. This was American history from the point of view of the southwest rather than from the East-Moving-West. I thought, ”That could be interesting.” How naive I was! Taught by another Marxist it was simply a semester of America bashing while quite conveniently ignoring topics such as what the Spanish/Mexican approach to dealing with Indians included. At least there were not any Ho Chi Minh speeches to compare and contrast.

I have to thank these professors for having provided me an invaluable education – it certainly was not an education in American history and even learning all about Ho Chi Minh has not been especially useful in my life – but it was invaluable in teaching me that a government employee who essentially cannot be fired can get away with not doing their job for years and there is nothing that can be done about it. These people did the job they wanted to do and not the job they were hired to do – short story there.

Lesson learned.