Tag Archive for: socialism

Socialism Never Works

Will the 2024 election be a referendum on socialism? Socialism, in the name of “neighborliness,” acts as if money grows on trees. It does not.

Socialism is forced redistribution of wealth by the government. In confiscatory taxes, the government takes from the productive to give to the poor. It may sound good to the naïve, but in reality, it hurts the poor more than anyone because its policies cause inflation. The only ones who really benefit from socialism are the administrators.

The dirty little secret about socialism is that it fails every time. Long before we became a country, the Pilgrims were forced to practice a form of socialism.

We explain the details of the Pilgrims’ experiment in socialism in our Providence Forum documentary, “The Pilgrims.”

One of the stipulations of the London Adventurers, a group of investors who had lent money to the Pilgrims for the voyage of the Mayflower, was that everyone in the colony was to divide all the proceeds of the colony equally…no matter how much work he or she did. The problem with this imposition is that those who worked hard were paid just the same as those who chose not to work at all. This incentivizing of laziness undercut productivity immensely.

One guest the program was Dennis Prager, the founder of PragerU. He told our viewers: “The Pilgrims did experiment with socialism or communalism, and they realized it didn’t work. They embodied this. It didn’t take long to realize that doesn’t work. It is against human nature. The moment you tell people that the community will take care of you, they work less. It undermines character.”

Leo Martin, the founder of the Jenney Museum/Learning Center in Plymouth, added, “in 1623, Governor Bradford changed the deal. We’re going to stop a communal existence; we’re going to go to land ownership. Every family will own their own land, grow their own food, and feed themselves, and we’ll trade with each other what we have left over.  Free trade, that worked, they never had a starving day after that, they tripled their production….Shows you what an incentive will do; works every time.”

About this episode, law professor John Eidsmoe writes: “The Pilgrims did not abandon their ideal of a Christian colony; they embraced it. They abandoned an imposed system contrary to the laws of God and the nature of man, embracing instead a system consistent with biblical principles and human nature.”

The 20th century saw one failed experiment in socialism after another, including the Soviet Union.

Ronald Reagan used to collect jokes that Russians would tell each other in the Soviet Union, to ameliorate the misery of living under Communism. Such as the one about the man trying to buy a car, somewhat of a rarity for the common people in those days.

The man fulfilled his obligations, including paying all the money for the car up front. The bureaucrat told him that he had successfully completed his paperwork–and he would get his car in ten years. The man asked, “In the morning or the afternoon?” The bureaucrat was taken aback and replied, “Comrade, it’s ten years from now. What do you care whether it’s the morning or the afternoon?” The man said, “Well, I’ve got the plumber coming in the morning.”

Here in modern America, the federal government is bankrupting our children and grandchildren.

For example, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes the federal government spent $6.1 trillion in 2023, and we received $4.4 trillion in revenue. The rest was borrowed. And it’s been like this for a few years now. This is an unsustainable path.

Sometimes it’s hard to grasp how big a trillion is, compared to a million or a billion.

If I owed you $100 and said I’d pay you in a million seconds, you’d be repaid in 12 days.

If I owed you $100 and said I’d pay you in a billion seconds, you’d be repaid in 32 years.

If I owed you $100 and said I’d pay you in a trillion seconds, you’d be repaid in 32,000 years.

And we have deficit spending year after year of more than a trillion dollars.

Thomas Jefferson warned us so long ago: “I place…public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements.”

Finally, our third president added, “If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.”

We the people get decide on which path we choose in the 2024 election.

©2024. Jerry Newcombe, D. Min. All rights reserved.

ENOUGH!

ENOUGH!  The Great State of Arizona has fallen far from what the pioneers of my state desired, worked to create, and then shepherded from Statehood on February 14, 1912, to at least the late 1970’s.  My State of Arizona is in a free fall into socialism the likes of California, Chicago, New York, et.al, are experiencing.  ENOUGH!

The troubling article below from the NATIONAL FILE has brought to light what many have known but afraid or too embarrassed to discuss; namely, a supposed conservative Republican with long tenure in state politics and proud to shout how he and his family are almost pioneers in Arizona, is really a liberal wrapped in Republican cloth pretending to defend the conservative principles of a Barry Goldwater, John Rhodes, a Sam Steiger and a host of others that made Arizona nationally known for its conservative ways.  The NATIONAL FILE has even presented how this supposed conservative supports transgenderism and Satanism.  While it is possible some misleading and sensational words are incorporated into the NATIONAL FILE article, what is profusely clear with redundant examples of this supposedly conservative State Senator frequently supporting in a myriad of ways, Democrat and socialist agendas and legislation.  ENOUGH!

Ken Bennett has learned to smile, promote his hometown boyhood and continued residency in Yavapai County persona, and shrug off any suggestions that he is anything but a conservative representing one of the most conservative counties in the country, not just in Arizona.  ENOUGH KEN…ENOUGH!

America is in serious trouble verging on a total collapse of the Republic given to us by our founders, “if we can keep it.”  Arizona is quickly heading down the same path with a fraud for a Governor, Secretary of State and Attorney General, coupled with a one vote majority in the State Senate Bennett in which he is a member.  Bennett loves to brag at public gatherings how he crosses the political aisle to help Democrats feel so included and to maintain the status quo.  Our Ship of State, both nationally and here in Arizona has hit the iceberg, and we are taking on water.  Where are the leaders who might still make a positive difference in this diabolical crisis now underway?  Where are the leaders who will help keep our Ship of State afloat a while longer if not completely deliver us from certain disaster.

On the first day of the Forensic Audit of the 2020 Election, Ken Bennett was holding a press conference informing all that he was in charge of the audit.  That was a lie put forth by a person seriously wanting to be someone special, someone considered important, someone who needed to be recognized.  He was NOT in charge or the Director of the Forensic Audit.  He was to serve as the liaison to the President of the Arizona Senate, period.  The NATIONAL FILE article points out a couple of additional massive deceptions and acts of sabotage during the forensic audit the national was watching most closely as if each county and state’s future depended on the outcome…and for very, very good reason.  The delegations from 26 states that arrived at the forensic audit were soberly concerned for their future and election security and integrity.  Ken Bennett was concerned for his future, also but as in seeking public office.

The NATIONAL FILE and Frankie Stockes who authored this article, have brought to the public what those behind the political curtain have known for some time about Ken Bennett. Mr. Bennett is a liberal in Republican sheep’s clothing more interested in serving himself and moving ahead rather than serving the people who placed trust in him to serve them.  I pray many across Yavapai County, Arizona will read this article and seriously consider what has been stated, and the iceberg our state has hit when it comes time to fill out their voting ballot.

GOP State Senator Ken Bennett Sabotages Election Integrity in Arizona – National File.

©2024. Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: A Path to an Upside-Down Culture


Please visit Lyle’s Arizona Today Substack.

U.S. Military ‘Openly Getting Lectures on Socialism’ and turning them into Communists!

Unbelievable!

America desperately needs a new Commander-in-Chief.

Just when you thought that our military services were totally inept, now we learn that our soldiers, sailor, airmen and Marines are being lectured at the National Defense University on how our senior officers should become Communists!

Watch how Socialism is now taught to U.S. Military OPENLY as reported by Alex Newman from OAN

 In a February. 16, 2022 National Defense University article titled “Responding to China: The Case For Global Justice and Democratic SocialismThomas Piketty reported,

On February 16, 2022, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Strategic Multilayer Assessment (SMA) program hosted a speaker session with Professor Thomas Piketty (Professor of Economics, School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences [EHESS]; Professor, Paris School of Economics; Co-director, World Inequality Lab/World Inequality Database) as part of its SMA INSS/PRISM Speaker Series.

Summary

Thomas Piketty argued that Western countries are struggling to collectively define their political attitude towards China, because of their obsession with capitalism. Instead of focusing on a conventional model of capitalism, he suggests that the US and Western countries pursue increasing the share of income and wealth over their socio-economic spectrums. This could be done by increasing taxes on the wealthiest individuals, increasing the inheritance tax, and always keeping workers’ rights as a priority over corporate profits. Piketty showed several graphs from the World Inequality Database that showed how economic growth and prosperity increased during the mid-1900s when taxes on the wealthy were higher. He commented that this ideological shift is one the US could make, because many European countries went through even more drastic shifts in their history and have subsequently built their social safety nets.

Piketty commented that several contributing factors to the complexity of countries’ political attitudes toward China are global warming and direct ideological and economic competition with Chinese state socialism. Piketty showed how the carbon footprint of nations isn’t only greatly varied from one country to another, but also greatly varied across those countries’ socioeconomic spectrums. It will be hard to encourage an overall decrease in carbon emissions if the wealthiest and highest contributors to countries’ carbon footprints are not willing to take part. Piketty also commented that the value of public debt is close to or greater than the total amount of earnings in the public sectors of some Western countries. He attributed this high level of debt to the privatization of corporations and industries. Ultimately, for the US and other Western countries to deal effectively with autocratic countries like Russia and China, they will need to collectively champion equality and global justice, which will include sanctions against oligarchs and the sharing of global tax revenues among other activities.

Speaker Bio

Thomas Piketty is a French economist who is Professor of Economics at the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences, Associate Chair at the Paris School of Economics and Centennial Professor of Economics in the International Inequalities Institute at the London School of Economics. Piketty is the author of “Capital in the 21st Century” (2013) and “Capital and Ideology” (2020).

The Bottom Line

America is in desperate need of a military focused on one thing and one thing only: fighting and winning wars.

Currently our military and their training institutions are focused on preferred pronouns rather than fighting and winning.

America desperately needs a new Secretary of Defence, Secretaries of the Army, Navy an Air Force, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who are here to protect and defend our Constitution from all enemies foreign and increasingly domestic.

Teaching our senior military leaders that capitalism is evil and communism is good is a travesty.

It bears repeating, we desperately need a new Commander-in-Chief.

©2024. . All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

“Lost In Space” Transgender Colonel Pushes Pronouns To Win Wars

U.S. Aircraft Carrier Arrives In South Korea Amid Spiking Tensions With The North

Imprisoned Former Marine In Russia Urges Biden Admin To Take ‘Decisive Action’ To Free Him

Geert Wilders Represents the Rescue of Europe from Socialist Open-borders Disasters

The drift of European countries away from the failed immigration policies of their socialist predecessors reached the Netherlands with the election of Geert Wilders as their new leader.

Wilders will lead a coalition of four parties with a clear agenda of sweeping away the disastrous results of an open border that has flooded the Netherlands with a mass migration from the Middle East. That in turn has brought lawlessness from the rising migrant count leaving the silent majority exposed to behavior that they objected to with their votes.

Wilders announced that his country is in an asylum crisis which requires stronger border controls and internal changes.

The Netherlands will opt out of the E.U. open border asylum system.

It will introduce a tougher approach to terrorism including local street terrorism. That will include deporting criminal migrants in order to make life safer for the Dutch people.

Wilders announced that he will set his country on a new course based on “Hope, Courage and National Pride.”

Geert Wilders is also a longtime friend of Israel. He has announced that he will move his country’s embassy to Jerusalem.

©2024. Barry Shaw. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Report: 84% of Chicago’s Measles Cases Traced to Venezuelan Migrants

RELATED VIDEO: Tom Trento Interviews Geert Wilders on January 20, 2009

Cultural Terrorism Comes to America

Globalism is a replacement ideology that seeks to reorder the world into one singular, planetary Unistate, ruled by the globalist elite. The globalist war on nation-states cannot succeed without collapsing the United States of America. The long-term strategic attack plan moves America incrementally from constitutional republic to socialism to globalism to feudalism. The tactical attack plan uses asymmetric psychological and informational warfare to destabilize Americans and drive society out of objective reality into the madness of subjective reality. America’s children are the primary target of the globalist predators.


The upward mobility provided by the capitalist system and meritocracy in the United States created a vibrant middle class. In a land of opportunity, working-class people were no longer reliable revolutionaries. Scott S. Powell, Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle and writer for The American Spectator, explains the shift in Marxist strategy with a bit of history about Vladimir Lenin. From Powell’s August 15, 2015, article, “The Quiet Revolution: How the New Left Took Over the Democratic Party“:[i]

The proletariat never did revolt successfully en masse in any advanced industrialized state. Instead, Marx’s political and economic revolution was first staged in the largely agrarian nation of Russia, carried out by Marxist revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin. Lenin made major contributions to Marx’s theories, so much so that Marxism-Leninism became the dominant theoretical paradigm for advancing national liberation movements, communism, and socialism wherever in the world radical revolutionary movements arose.

Among Lenin’s contributions was the theory of the vanguard. Since it was apparent that the proletariat masses were unlikely to rise up, Lenin argued that it was necessary for a relatively small number of vanguard leaders—professional revolutionaries—to advance the revolutionary cause by working themselves into positions of influence. By taking over the commanding heights of labor unions, the press, the universities, and professional and religious organizations, a relatively small number of revolutionaries could multiply their influence and exercise political leverage over their unwitting constituents and society at large.

It was Lenin who introduced the concept of the “popular front” and coined the phrase “useful idiots” in describing the masses who could be manipulated into mob action of marches and protests for an ostensibly narrow cause of the popular front, which the communist vanguard was using as a means for a greater revolutionary political end.

The Marxists needed to identify a new cohort of rebels to collapse American society from within. They chose academia and anointed its graduating student population of useful idiots to be vanguard leaders for changing hearts and minds in America. What Bolshevik George Lukács was unable to impose in Catholic Hungary, cultural terrorism, has been wildly successful in America; it just needed a different strategy in order to succeed.

The 1969 Woodstock Festival was a watershed event for the counterculture movement in music, drugs, and sexual permissiveness. The sexual revolution was a social and cultural movement advocating sexual liberation and acceptance of public nudity, premarital sex, extramarital sex, alternative forms of sexuality, contraception, pornography, homosexuality, masturbation, and abortion. Significantly absent from any discussion of sexual liberation were love, loyalty, commitment, and respect.

The foundation for the sexual revolution that challenged and defied America’s traditional Judeo-Christian standards of sexual behavior in the 1960s and 1970s had its roots in Alfred Kinsey’s twin books, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948)[ii] and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).[iii] Alfred Kinsey and the Kinsey Institute were supported by the Rockefeller Foundation and protected by the U.S. government. Kinsey’s fraudulent research was presented as scientific, factual, and normative. Its catastrophic consequences continue to reverberate in America, advancing Marxism’s intent to collapse from within America’s cultural norms and family infrastructure.

The sexual revolution drastically changed attitudes about sexual behavior and freedom of sexual expression. Those changes were animated, echoed, and reflected in literature, films, and legislation. Eventually the counterculture attitudes of sexual freedom and liberation from traditional Judeo-Christian sexual restrictions touched the children.

Author and researcher Dr. Judith Reisman (1935–2021) was an indefatigable defender of children and society’s moral responsibility to protect them. Her work exposed Kinsey’s fraudulent research and abhorrent ideology that children are sexual from birth and have a right to experience sexual pleasure whenever and with whomever they want. Kinsey insisted that Judeo-Christian principles concerning human sexuality were outdated, unscientific, and repressive. Dr. Reisman’s exposé of Kinsey implicated its hidden sociopolitical connections to the globalist War on America. She explained how Kinsey’s narrative was weaponized for use in the Culture War to support the sexual revolution, collapse societal norms, and change laws regarding the protection of children, globalism’s ultimate target.

Dr. Reisman’s seminal work, “MKULTRA, KINSEY & ROCKEFELLER: Instruments of the New World Order,”[iv]published by the Reisman Institute on January 27, 2021, provides an overview:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 1932 communist W. Z. Foster predicted the destruction of America’s “education, morality, ethics, science, art, patriotism, religion” was necessary to establish a “New World Order.” 1 America’s social, economic, and sexual stability rested on Judeo-Christian beliefs and laws—abstinence before and faithfulness during consensual heterosexual marriage. Her national health and wealth testified to the success of this normal biopsychological sexual model. From 1941, when America entered WWII, the Rockefeller Foundation (RF) began funding the work of Dr. Alfred Kinsey, who would have been known to RF as a sadomasochistic bi/homosexual. RF backing ensured Kinsey’s 1948 book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, instant popularity; “the Kinsey scale” codified “fluid sexuality” for the future, ensuring his enduring international fame. RF connected Kinsey with a wider network of RF-funded scientists. From c.1946 Kinsey partnered with RF’s Columbia-Greystone Brain Project at New York’s “Snake Pit,” Rockland Mental Hospital. The results of Kinsey’s studies of sexual responses of lobotomized patients are sanitized in Kinsey’s 1953 book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female.

This paper provides new evidence that the ~2,034 infants and children sexually violated for Kinsey’s globe-changing “scientific proof” of infant/child orgasm were sourced from these and similar entities. 82% of Kinsey’s child sex experiments are a match with the “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” used on terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay. Since Kinsey’s definition of “orgasm” involves symptomatology indistinguishable from epileptic fit, terror/distress and/or electric shock treatment, the physiological responses he declared as child “orgasm” were true trauma responses. This is a newly uncovered Kinsey fraud represented as “science” by his RF funders. Very far from the organic “shock” of a scientific break-through advertised, this paper argues that Kinsey’s sex work served as part of a broader psyops2 as rationale for thorough social change.

As recently as 2020, RF claimed credit for “funding a sexual revolution” via the “Kinsey Reports.” From 1954 Congressional efforts to investigate Kinsey’s sex work and the causal connection between pornography and ever-rising levels of child sexual abuse have been successfully blocked. Those acting in Rockefeller interests have prevented Kinsey’s exposure while promoting his conclusions. From 1953, Hefner, “Kinsey’s pamphleteer,” marketed RF/Kinsey’s lies to young college men via Playboy. The sexual restraint of previous generations—responsible for building America—were reframed as a web of hypocritical lies; premarital, extramarital, meaningless, love-free sex glamorized; and a generation, with Hefner its guru, embraced cynicism about human relationships, nihilism and rejection of all received wisdom.

The 1955 RF-funded Model Penal Code (MPC), drafted by RF’s approved team, citing Kinsey, would over-turn prior sex laws, including obscenity laws by 1957, and trivialized sexual abuse. In 1964, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), funded by Playboy, and based at the Kinsey Institute, taught schools to disparage chastity, heterosexuality and monogamy. Soon, with “obscenity exemptions” allowed for “education,” K–12 instructed in exotic sexual behaviors. Ever-greater upticks in child rape, pornography and deadly STDs have, predictably, followed. In 2014, the Kinsey Institute (KI) won United Nations consultative status for “educational” materials which aimed at over-riding the most basic instinct for self-preservation in children of all ages, effectively preparing them to co-operate with RF’s social change agenda.

Since 2019 the KI’s App., the “Kinsey Reporter”, solicited “citizen scientists” (of any age) to record/report all sex acts/crimes anonymously.

Congressional investigation of a criminal nexus of RF, KI, Big Pharma, Big Porn, Big Abort and “sexual health” providers and educators, past and present, is critically needed to halt the damage these entities inflicted on three successive generations in their obsession for a New World Order.

1 William Z. Foster. (1932–2016). Toward Soviet America. Hauraki Publishing. Kindle Edition. p. 313.
2 Psychological operations…to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and…behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.

THE THESIS

For over seven decades, powerful entities prevented official investigation of Dr. Alfred Kinsey and promoted his conclusions as “truth”. The result is that public policy, education, and law have been guided by the lies of a psychopathic4 pedosadist.5 Instead of protecting children and scaffolding the family, government policy has facilitated the agenda of allied interest groups which benefit personally, financially, and/or politically from sexual exploitation of the vulnerable and the destruction of the nuclear family. Notable among these beneficiaries are the very elites who, wishing to establish a New World Order, initiated and funded Kinsey’s work, sold his lies to the public, and obstructed investigation of Kinsey and the Institute that bears his name and continues his work to this day. Official investigation of Kinsey—and the cultural transformation he set in motion—is long overdue.

4 The use of such a term “psychopath” is not simply hyperbole. It is used in the clinical sense of the word. Academic researchers, such as Robert Hare, Ph.D, (1) and James Fallon, Ph.D. (2), and forensic clinicians who have spent years working with incarcerated psychopaths in long-term solitary and in general population, such as Jon K. Uhler, LPC (3), each concur that the clinical definition of a psychopath can be boiled down to someone lacking conscience, empathy, and remorse:

(1) http://www.psychology-criminalbehavior-law.com/2015/01/hare-psychopath/
(2) https://www.crimetraveller.org/2015/07/inside-mind-of-psychopath-psychopathic-killer

(3) https://www.quora.com/Why-do-certain-psychologists-mix-up-cluster-B-traits-and-deem-the-combination-a- sociopath/answer/Jon-K-Uhler
Given that Kinsey elected to sexually abuse children, allow other deviant adults to sexually abuse them under the guise of scientific experiments, and the fact that he would do so to so many children, and never experience any signs of remorse or contrition, would clearly categorize him well within the realm of psychopathy. In fact, given that he would then take such “results” from such diabolically abusive “treatment” of children, which would no doubt have profound life-altering and life-long consequences on those children, and use that in such a brazen manner so as to appear as having done legitimate research (as opposed to having perpetrated and sanctioned the perpetration of children), for the purpose of creating a belief about the supposed sexuality of children, in order to craft public opinion, public policy, judicial decisions, and impact state and federal legislation reveals a profoundly psychopathic agenda-driven mind, intent upon shifting the culture toward a greater acceptance of child sexuality and the narrative of mutual love and sexual expression between persons, regardless of age. After all, we’re now told that “Love is Love”, “Love knows no boundaries”, and “Love knows no age.” https://www.growingbolder.com/love-has-no-age-3020496/

5 While “pedophile” and “pederast” have been used to describe those who desire to, or who do, sexually violate, exploit children, the term means “child-lover” (“philia” the Greek for love or more recently, “friendly feeling toward,” https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/-philia).

The leaders of the counterculture on campuses in the ’60s and ’70s graduated and became vanguard leaders, professional revolutionaries who advance the revolutionary cause by working themselves into positions of influence. They are the labor leaders, the press, and leaders of universities, professional organizations, and religious organizations. They have multiplied their influence and exercise political leverage over their unwitting constituents and society at large, exactly as Scott S. Powell described.

Today’s vanguard leaders are called “influencers,” and they are manipulating today’s masses of useful idiots into mob action just as their predecessors did. The difference between the nascent counterculture of the ’60s and ’70s and the radical leftist Democrats of the 2024 Democrat party is in both form and content. Today’s influencers reach a worldwide audience using the Internet, and their new corps of chosen rebels are young American parents—indoctrinated millennials.

The communist vanguard and influencers use the “popular front” of parents as “useful idiots” for the revolutionary end of grooming American children to become the newest counterculture generation of anti-American socialist citizens. Today’s American parents, the second generation of useful idiots, are low-information voters who surrender their authority and common sense to the influencers. Rather than protect their precious children, they accept the horrific sexualization of them as harmless and embrace the insanity of cultural terrorism as normal.

Let’s take a look at sex education in American schools in 2024. Any school, public or private, that receives government funding is subject to the overt sexualization of children. Political analyst Karen McKay, LTC USAR (Ret.), offers a helpful overview in her American Thinker article published November 5, 2022, “Weaponizing Children.”[v] She writes:

To achieve an American Marxist utopia, it would be necessary to dismantle the Judeo-Christian values that have undergirded America since the founding. Adult Americans being incorrigibly patriotic and religious, it was necessary to capture their kids.

In 1928, Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw [1856–1950] boasted in his The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism, Capitalism, Sovietism and Fascism:

In the case of young children, we have gone far in our interference with the old Roman rights of parents. For nine mortal years the child is taken out of its parents’ hands for most of the day, and thus made a State-school child instead of a private family child….

The social creed must be imposed on us when we are children; for it is like riding, or reading music at sight: it can never become a second nature to those who try to learn it as adults; and the social creed, to be really effective, must be a second nature to us. It is quite easy to give people a second nature, however unnatural, if you catch them early enough. There is no belief, however grotesque and even villainous, that cannot be made a part of human nature if it is inculcated in childhood and not contradicted in the child’s hearing.

Marxists are confident that victory is now at hand. The tactics to achieve that victory are societal chaos and confusion. Their weapons include disinformation and propaganda, language distortion, violence, moral degradation, and sexual perversion.

Sex education, once presented in high school as clinical biology, became graphic and presented in elementary schools. Without parents’ knowledge, children are encouraged to “discover” that they are homosexual. Drag queen story hours target toddlers in libraries and kindergartens—even on military bases.

Books like Gender Queer and It’s Perfectly Normal are included among the reading material for young kids. Curricula include gems like the film Pornography Literacy: An intersectional focus on mainstream porn.Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy, Papa, and Me undermine the concept of traditional families. Teachers promote gender dysphoria. Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) instills an early obsession with sex in small children. “Sexual diversity” in children’s entertainment is also key to grooming them. When the fruit of explicit sex education is pregnancy, schools arrange abortions without parents’ knowledge.

The United Nations Population Fund stresses that CSE needs to start very young, in preschool. But the Center for Family and Human Rights, [a conservative advocacy organization founded in 1997 to challenge UN policies], warns that CSE teaches “very young children about sexual pleasure, sexual orientation, gender identity, and access to and use of contraceptives, abortion, and other drugs and medical procedures.” …

United Families International, [a nonprofit organization founded in 1978 working internationally to advocate maintaining and strengthening the family] is even more explicit in its warning: CSE teaches “children how to have sexual pleasures; whether…to themselves or with a partner…. At a United Nations conference, a moderator said, ‘If we can just get this…program into every school and fully implemented around the globe…it would solve all our problems!’… Its main purposes are to elevate such things as masturbation, oral and anal sex, and techniques for achieving an orgasm. And basically, teaching our children to be gender and sexual rights activists.”

Controlling the minds of our kids is the ultimate strategic terrain. Without the complete programming of America’s children—weaponizing them—Marxism cannot win in America.

There cannot be an armistice in this war. There can be only one victor.

Karen McKay speaks with objective military precision and a seasoned military voice. Her dire warning echoes ancient military strategist Sun Tzu, The Art of War:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

©2024. All rights reserved.


Please visit Linda’s Pundicity page: goudsmit.pundicity.com and her website: lindagoudsmit.com 


[i]  The Quiet Revolution: How the New Left Took Over the Democratic Partyhttps://www.discovery.org/a/24871/

[ii]  Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, W. B. Saunders Company, 1948; https://archive.org/details/sexualbehaviorin00kins/page/n5/mode/2up

[iii]  Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, W. B. Saunders Company, Alfred Kinsey, 1953; https://archive.org/details/sexualbehaviorin00inst/page/n5/mode/2up

[iv]  MKULTRA, KINSEY & ROCKEFELLER: Instruments of the New World Orderhttps://www.thereismaninstitute.org/reisman-articles/2021/1/27/mkultra-kinsey-amp-rockefeller?rq=MKULTRA

[v]  Weaponizing Childrenhttps://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/11/weaponizing_children.html

Venezuela: Amid socialist humanitarian crisis, no improvement in human rights

The human rights situation in Venezuela has been dire for many years, with little indication of improvement. Since 2014, there have been 15,800 politically motivated arrests, and over 270 political prisoners continue to languish in Venezuelan jails.

The misguided economic policies implemented by successive socialist governments have led to 19 million people facing malnutrition and a severe lack of healthcare. Consequently, a staggering 7.7 million individuals, out of a population of just over 29 million, have fled the country since 2014.

The government has even taken the drastic step of closing the UN Human Rights Office, purportedly due to its alleged involvement in anti-government activities. Furthermore, new legislation threatens to criminalise and impede the work of civil society within the country.

Once considered one of the wealthiest nations in Latin America, Venezuela has descended into a socialist dystopia marred by authoritarianism, a dearth of human rights, insufficient government investment, hyperinflation, rampant corruption, economic mismanagement, the collapse of public services, economic hardship, shortages, and widespread hunger. Currently, fifty percent of the population lives in poverty.

Popular tyrant

Socialism was introduced in Venezuela by Hugo Chávez, a populist who held the presidency from 1999 until his death in 2013. Chávez implemented the nationalisation of industries and directed public funds towards social programs. As a result, schools saw improvement, the unemployment rate halved, and per capita incomes more than doubled. Moreover, both the poverty rate and infant mortality rates decreased by 50 percent.

Chávez was widely praised domestically for his stance against the United States, famously referring to President George W. Bush as “the devil”. Following Chávez’s death from cancer, Nicolás Maduro succeeded him as president.

While Chavez was a charismatic populist, one of the most notable distinctions lies in his ability to forge a coalition comprising leftists, military personnel, and the poor. Furthermore, Chavez was lucky. He capitalised on a surge in oil prices during his presidency. As a prime example of a petrostate, Venezuela’s fortunes are directly tied to the rise and fall of global oil prices. Chavez successfully directed a portion of the $1 trillion windfall in oil revenue towards appeasing the public and solidifying his grip on power.

Despite his widespread popularity, Chavez operated as a dictator and tyrant. He expanded state control over oil companies and suppressed journalists and critics, essentially outlawing government criticism. Consolidating nearly all power into his own hands, he eradicated checks and balances.

Nonetheless, he maintained the façade of democracy by holding elections. Winning 13 out of 14 elections lent an aura of legitimacy to his regime. He utilised state funds for his campaigns and exerted influence over journalists to portray him favourably, although he refrained from outright election fraud. Moreover, he survived a coup attempt, bolstering his image and authority.

Economic woes

Maduro lacks the charisma of Chavez. While Chavez had a military background, Maduro’s career path was rooted in communism. He pursued studies in Cuba, was affiliated with the Socialist League — an extreme left-wing organisation — and prior to entering government, he worked as a union negotiator.

He lost much of Chavez’s support base, securing election with a mere 50.6 percent of the vote. Consequently, he has governed the country as an autocrat. Besides lacking Chavez’s charisma and broad consensus, Maduro hasn’t enjoyed his predecessor’s luck: oil prices plummeted in 2014, leading to the complete collapse of the Venezuelan economy.

At times, annual inflation has soared to as high as 700 percent, reaching about 300 percent in 2022. Between 2015 and 2016, an estimated seventy-five percent of the country’s population experienced an average weight loss of 19 pounds. Diseases such as malaria have ravaged the nation due to the inability of people to afford imported medicines.

While Chavez allocated funds to improve citizens’ lives, he failed to diversify the economy away from oil dependency. Maduro has perpetuated this legacy by neglecting structural economic reforms and instead imposing stricter government controls. He restricted currency exchange systems, leaving ordinary citizens unable to afford medicine, basic household goods, and imported foods that must be purchased with dollars.

In the socialist utopia of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, everyone is purportedly equal, except for those with connections to the Maduro government. They have access to discounted dollars and can afford imported goods, which now encompass almost all but the most essential food items for survival. Necessities like toilet paper must be imported and purchased with dollars. Despite being a major oil producer, the country even grapples with fuel shortages.

Even individuals fortunate enough to possess dollars or receive remittances from friends and family abroad are not immune to the effects of inflation.

For instance, a woman who sells cigarettes and small items on the street disclosed that she earns approximately $20 a week. However, due to the relentless surge in prices, this income barely covers 15 eggs, 3 kilograms (6.6 lb) of corn flour, and a small portion of grain and cheese.

In Venezuela, the average monthly salary in the private sector stands at $139, while it’s a mere $14 in the public sector. Nevertheless, the grocery expenses for an average family amount to about $370 per month.

Deteriorating

Maduro has faced widespread protests and blocked a referendum because he understood that he wouldn’t secure victory, given his approval rating, which frequently dips to as low as 20 percent. Subsequently, he directed the Supreme Court to dissolve a portion of the legislature that opposed him. The state of democracy in Venezuela is deteriorating rapidly.

Recently, a new National Electoral Council (CNE) was formed, and several presidential candidates were disqualified. Additionally, opposition party members were detained prior to elections, indicating that the electoral process is likely to be more of a spectacle than a meaningful exercise in democracy.

Last year, a new National Electoral Council (CNE) was formed, and several presidential candidates were disqualified. Moreover, opposition party members were detained prior to elections, indicating that the electoral process is likely to be more of a spectacle than a substantive exercise in democracy.

Union workers, journalists, and human rights defenders have faced increasing restrictions on their access to civic spaces. Additionally, they’ve endured harassment and persecution orchestrated by the authorities. The rights of indigenous people, as well as those of LGBT individuals and women, have been egregiously disregarded. Notably, a YouTuber was recently charged with terrorism merely for challenging government policies.

The crackdown on dissenters has escalated, with critics subjected to surveillance, harassment, and criminalisation. In the most severe instances, they’ve become victims of torture and murder. In 2017, he secured victory in a rigged election. During this election cycle, he successfully postponed elections for an entire year, but they are anticipated to resume in October 2024. If these elections were fair and transparent, his defeat would be inevitable.

In what appears to be an effort to bolster the country’s revenues and alleviate the people’s suffering ahead of the next election, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro enacted a law annexing the oil-rich region of Essequibo in neighbouring Guyana. A consultative referendum was conducted on this decision last December, garnering a staggering 96 percent approval from the populace.

As per a statement from the presidential palace, Guayana Esequiba will now be recognised as the 24th federal state of Venezuela. Moreover, the inhabitants of the newly annexed territory will be represented in the upcoming parliamentary session in 2025. However, Guyana has sought a ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), although Venezuelan law asserts that the ICJ holds no jurisdiction within the country.

Change in Venezuela appears elusive until Maduro is ousted from power. However, considering his influence over the upcoming elections, it seems unlikely that he will relinquish control voluntarily. The prospect of international military intervention in Venezuela is highly improbable, given the likelihood of opposition from Security Council members China and Russia. As for the alternatives of assassination or coup, history has demonstrated that such actions typically do not lead to positive outcomes, often resulting in the replacement of one authoritarian leader with another.


Can Venezuela’s parlous condition be reversed? Sound off in the comments section below.


AUTHOR

Antonio Graceffo, PhD, China-MBA MBA, is a China economic analyst teaching economics at the American University in Mongolia. He has spent 20 years in Asia and is the author of six books about China. His writing has appeared in The Diplomat, South China Morning Post, Jamestown Foundation China Brief, Penthouse, Shanghai Institute of American Studies, Epoch Times, War on the Rocks, Just the News, and Black Belt Magazine.

RELATED VIDEO: IN FOCUS: Elon Musk Brazil Conflict and the Brink of Dictatorship with Frankie Stockes – OAN

EDITORS NOTE: This Mercator column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

New Protests in Cuba Against an Old and Destructive Socialist Tyranny

In October 1868 in the Cuban city of Bayamo, the notes of the National Anthem were heard for the first time — a call for the independence war against the Spanish empire. On March 17, 2023 — 155 years later — hundreds of Cubans walked the streets of Bayamo singing against socialist totalitarianism.

If the former did it with lit torches, the latter carried fire in their voices. They walked through a city in darkness, overwhelmed by blackouts of up to 20 hours a day, without food or medicine, and with the liberticidal boot of the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC) on their necks.

That day, coded in the media and popularly known as 17M, peaceful protests were replicated in other cities and towns on the island. El Cobre, in the Santiago de Cuba province, Sancti Spíritus in the center of the country, and Santa Marta, Matanzas, were some of those that remained in the national memory thanks to live broadcasts and images that Cubans took with their cell phones.

“Freedom,” “No to violence,” “We are hungry,” “Down with Díaz-Canel,” and “Homeland and Life” were some of the cries that were heard in the videos. The regime shut down the flow of information almost immediately with local blackouts of the internet, a service it dominates through the state telecommunications monopoly ETECSA. The protests lasted for two days.

In Bayamo, a city where there are reports and graphic testimony of violence by the National Revolutionary Police (PNR), there is still enthusiastic talk about the demonstrations today. The popular adrenaline shot of doing what is prohibited, demonstrating against the State, will remain in the memory of the people of Bayamo.

A pastor from a local church, who has requested anonymity, shared the images that lead this article. People crowded in the area known as the Figueredo Cruise, and a police unit attempted to contain their advance. Someone from his church, who participated in the protests, sent him the photos. Videos and graphic content were shared in WhatsApp and Telegram groups with equal doses of pride and fear.

In Cuba there is a tyranny, but not just any tyranny. Socialist tyrannies are the worst thing that can happen to a country.

Popular exhibitions against Castroism are not new. Two days before the 17M protests, in a peripheral neighborhood of Santiago de Cuba, after a whole day without electricity, several Cubans went out to the balconies of their apartments to shout “Freedom!” Pastor Alain Toledano mentioned the event as “a cry for hope and reform.”

Among those who screamed was a member of his congregation and his young mother, Ruth. On March 16, the political police arrested her and transferred her to the Versailles Operations Unit, a known torture center in the eastern city.

Although at first the military planned to arrest Ruth’s father as well, they opened the handcuffs that they had already put on him so that he could carry his grandson, a baby who looked bewildered at that group of uniformed men in his house who took his mother away as if she were a criminal. The young Christian was interrogated, threatened, and then held incommunicado in a cell.

On March 17, her father and her husband, with the baby in their arms, stood at the station asking for her release.

Hours later, in the nearby town of El Cobre, a concentration of residents broke out in the streets due to the lack of food and electricity, which soon escalated to shouts against the Marxist system and the ruling leadership. PNR officials climbed on a roof and tried to appease the protesters, who expressed their disapproval and even questioned the legitimacy of their positions, including to the highest representative of totalitarianism in the province, Beatriz Jhonson, Secretary of the PCC.

The spark, thanks to the interconnection fostered by the internet, was spread in Guantánamo city, where a group of people chanted phrases against the municipal government. Another protest reached the town of Los Mangos, in the province of Matanzas.

The regime’s anger was unleashed with the arrests of several participants. On March 18, there was a considerable concentration outside the PNR Station in El Cobre. In front of a line of police officers who looked on in bewilderment, the jilted people questioned why their neighbors, friends, and family had been locked up the night before for “public disorder.”

“People get tired,” the grandparents said in my house when the situation was at its limit. The promise that unbearable fatigue would come in the form of massive public protests was passed from generation to generation without being fulfilled, thanks to the refined national panopticon — the relentless repressive system of indoctrination that increases the feeling of being imprisoned in Cuba.

Since 2021, with the demonstrations of July 11 and 12, it seems that the old saying is beginning to come true. It can be catalyzed by, among others, a mother separated from her baby, punishments for those who ask for the freedom of the island, prolonged blackouts that return the country to pre-Columbian times, and zero milk for children. That is to say: Socialism’s own inhumanity and ineptitude is its own enemy.

AUTHOR

Yoe Suarez

RELATED ARTICLE: My Visit to Cuba — An American in Havana

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Fetterman: I Didn’t Leave the Left, It Left Me

“I don’t feel like I’ve left the label; it’s just more that it’s left me.”

An interesting line with a lot of history to it from Sen. Jon Fetterman on dumping the “progressive” label he used to use.

“I don’t feel like I’ve left the label; it’s just more that it’s left me.”

President Reagan would often quip, “I didn’t leave the Democratic party, the Democratic Party left me.” Similar lines have been used by everyone from Bill Maher, “It’s not me who’s changed, it is the left” to Elon Musk.

It’s hard to say exactly what’s going on with Fetterman after his medical issues, but a dividing line seems to have been the Left’s support for Hamas, but he’s also embraced a species of economic populism, fighting against land sales to China, and Japan’s takeover of U.S. Steel.

While Fetterman had never been a foreign policy guy, he did explicitly break with the far left on Israel during his campaign.

“I would also respectfully say that I’m not really a progressive in that sense,” he added. “Our campaign is based on core Democratic values and principles, and always has been, and there is no daylight between myself and these kinds of unwavering commitments to Israel’s security.”

Still, Fetterman said he was “eager to affirm” his positions on the record, lest there be any uncertainty among supporters of Israel who have similar questions. “I want to go out of my way to make sure that it’s absolutely clear,” he told JI, “that the views that I hold in no way go along the lines of some of the more fringe or extreme wings of our party.”

The Left did not take that seriously and assumed he was just pandering. Now they’re finding out that he really meant it.

So this did not come out of nowhere. And it’s not just about Israel.

He has also publicly encouraged Democrats in recent days to engage in border negotiations with Republicans, talks that have outraged progressives who object to efforts to clamp down on migration through the United States border with Mexico.

“I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have a secured border,” Mr. Fetterman said in the interview, conducted over Zoom. “I would never put Dreamers in harm’s way, or support any kind of cruelty or mass expulsion of hundreds of thousands of people. But it’s a reasonable conversation to talk about the border.”

Now this may be a canny rebranding.

A moderate Democrat who emphasizes economic populism, border security and steers clear of crazier leftist stuff, has much better odds of holding on to a Pennsylvania Senate seat.

Fetterman would never have taken office if Republicans hadn’t run a Turkish Muslim leftist trainwreck like Mehmet Oz who appealed to no one except Oprah viewers (and they mostly vote Democrat anyway). Next time, Republicans may actually find a candidate that people might actually vote for. But next time around is a long time away and Fetterman doesn’t need to be picking fights with the Left.

The short version seems to be that he may be a leftist, but he’s an old-school leftist who actually doesn’t much like the Left.

The media castigates him for associating with Bernie Sanders, but Bernie was actually an old-school leftist who used to be against identity politics, culture wars and open borders. Under pressure, he jettisoned all of his views and became a generic woke. (At which point most people lost interest in him. Eventually so did the Left.)

Fetterman has pushed back against the pressure. Unlike Bernie, he refuses to be intimidated by people screaming at him.

Despite the headline, he hasn’t left the Left, but he’s not interested in the progressive label which tends to signify upper class wokeness.

The Pennsylvania senator said he still aligns with many progressive goals, including a $15 minimum wage, universal health care, legalizing marijuana and abolishing the Senate filibuster.

But he said he no longer relates to the overarching label of “progressive” — especially as the left has become more interested in demanding what he described as “purity tests.”

“It’s just a place where I’m not,” he said. “I don’t feel like I’ve left the label; it’s just more that it’s left me.

“I’m not critical if someone is a progressive,” he added. “I believe different things.”

Fetterman is currently for fracking, and also for lots of social welfare. That is old-school leftism. It’s also fairly popular.

There’s a whole lot more support for social welfare than there is for culture wars, drag queens and Islamic terrorism. Not to mention radical environmentalism.

The old progressives used to argue (not even all that long ago) that they should run on a straight class warfare platform while shedding all the other garbage. This used to be the main argument for a Bernie Sanders campaign. Except that garbage is hard to shed. Just ask Bernie.

Fetterman is shedding a lot of the garbage. This doesn’t make him an ex-leftist or a friend to conservatives, but it makes him something worse: a serious threat to the Left as it currently is.

AUTHOR

RALATED VIDEO & COMMENTARY: On The Communist State Of The West

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Exiled Cuban Journalist: ‘Socialism Is Institutionalized Envy’

Approximately 36% of young Americans, ages 18 to 22, hold a positive view of socialism. However, for exiled Cuban journalist Yoe Suárez, this positive view of socialism is not based on reality. On a recent episode of the Outstanding podcast hosted by Joseph Backholm, Suárez and Washington Stand Editor-in-Chief Jared Bridges discuss their firsthand experiences with socialism and its wide-ranging consequences.

“The first time I ate a tangerine in years was here in [the] USA,” Suárez said. “It’s amazing because Cuba is a tropical island, you know? It should have fruits there. That’s an image that can maybe portray what’s happening in Cuba.” Suárez went on to discuss the various crises Cubans endure, including blackouts, inaccessible medicine, and a lack of necessities like food and milk for families. When Backholm asked Suárez what the government’s objective was, he replied, “The principal goal is political control. And then they have to build a narrative of goodness behind that.”

Bridges shared his experience living under a socialist government in Minsk, Belarus. “At the time, the things I ran into was just seeing how that system for that long a time oppressed people,” he said. He discussed his inability to find prescribed medicine after going to seven different pharmacies. “To put it in perspective today, here in America, I’ll go to the drug store and get upset if I have to wait 15 minutes.” Bridges further noted that his experience shed light on how, rather than everyone being equal in their belongings and opportunities under socialism, people are stripped of basic needs including medicine. “What became evident to me was that something is not what it says it is,” Bridges stated.

Backholm wondered how to change the phenomenon happening “here in the United States where you have a growing number of young people who actually seem enthusiastic about socialism,” with Bridges adding how this enthusiasm takes place amongst Christians as well.

“The saddest thing is that socialism takes a lot from envy,” Suárez said. People want what they can’t have, and, for Suárez, socialism feeds the flame of envy toward those who have more. “Socialism is institutionalized envy. It’s that. Socialism is just that.” He went on to observe that the fundamental issue is when too much power is centralized in one place. Sharing is good, but it must come from a place of voluntary charity. As Suárez stated, “If it’s voluntary, it’s charity. And charity is good.” But as Backholm added, “Compelled generosity is not generosity, it is theft. It is totalitarian. It is robbery.”

Backholm further pointed out how our sinful nature, whether living under capitalism or socialism, leads to the exploitation of others and often manifests into greed. “If our hearts are unregulated, we will take advantage of other people to our own benefit,” Backholm stated. “What a biblical worldview argues for is a decentralization of power. … The free marketplace, by nature, decentralizes power.” In response, Bridges reflected on how a free market society also gives us the ability to speak out.

When the discussion turned to equality, it was noted that the desire for ultimate equality does not have an end because nothing will ever be enough to satisfy. Suárez, for instance, was kicked out of his home country for speaking out against socialism. As Bridges pointed out, this socialist view of equality does not lead to actual equality, but rather a totalitarian sense of political control where the government tells you what you can and cannot do with your goods, needs, and opinions.

For Backholm, Suárez, and Bridges, the ability to distinguish between voluntary charity and compelled generosity is the difference between socialism and capitalism. Neither is without flaw, but as Suárez stated, “The solution to a headache is not cancer.”

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Dog Meat, Human Meat, and Other Wonders of Socialist Cuban Hunger

I can imagine the face of the person who discovered that bag full of dog heads in San Antonio de los Baños, Cuba. Around those days in 2012, the tumultuous popular festivities of Humoranga had ended, and the local palate still remembered the fabulous skewers that, mysteriously, were being sold at pocket prices in the always hungry Cuban scene.

I can imagine people hearing about the sack. Tying up loose ends can be nauseating.

The possible sale of dog meat keeps reminding me of Donald Trump, who pointed out that people stand up for freedom because they want to walk their dog and not eat it. Sure, maybe not your dog, but the neighborhood dog, who passes a stone’s throw away and doesn’t wear a collar or answer to any name. People are hungry.

That is why a well-known Cuban writer told me that before going cat-hunting in his college years, he would swish some rum, as if to dilute his consciousness. Yes, in Cuba people have also eaten cats. The demand for this and any meat had a peak in the 1990s, the hardest crisis on the island, when this writer was studying to become an engineer, and the nights of hunger did not allow him to sleep.

In that fateful decade, rabbit meat buyers asked for the animal with its head, to make sure they weren’t selling cats. From that period comes an extensive survival recipe. From pizzas with condoms instead of cheese, to steaks with grapefruit peel and mop bedspreads.

Socialism has failed so much and in so many ways that, as Thomas Sowell said, only an intellectual would be unable to see it. In 2007, experts from the University of Loyola and the Cuban university in Cienfuegos studied the impacts of the so-called Special Period and concluded that it had done good for the health of Cubans. Yes, as it reads.

Due to the lack of food and fuel, which forced thousands of Cubans to pedal bicycles to get around, obesity decreased. And, as a consequence, the number of deaths were attributed to diabetes, coronary diseases, and cardiac arrests. At the same time, the famine minimized the amount of calories in the diet. Wow, after zombifying millions of souls, you have Big Brother to thank.

The experts can be, it is known, new tyrants of the postmodern state, and with Cuba, they have tried to rewrite its history to accommodate their delusions. The academics behind the study conveniently ignored the rise in diseases such as polyneuritis or depression during the 1990s.

What would they say about an act of cannibalism if it occurs in socialist Cuba? Would they change the moral compass to justify it? At the end of 2022, it emerged that a hospital employee “was extracting organs and body fat from the deceased to crush them and sell them as mincemeat.” The rumor spread on social networks, and through an official statement the Provincial Health Directorate of Santiago de Cuba confirmed it: the National Revolutionary Police was investigating a possible case of organ trafficking from deceased persons at the Ambrosio Grillo Portuondo Clinical Surgical Hospital.

“Certainly, there are two workers from the reference hospital who work as eviscerators and occupational therapy, arrested on December 9, 2022 for an alleged criminal act, having seized two hearts of possible human origin,” explained the state center. Will revolutionary progress lead to cannibalism?

The United States is one of the main importers of food to the island. In 2021, Castroism disbursed more than $124 million in frozen chicken quarters, a substantial increase compared to 2020, when it paid just over $67 million for the same product.

Yes, imperialism wants the hardened people to die of hunger, the people that (the regime believes) turns on the gossip in the blackout, thinking that at least the right wing does not rule in Cuba, the island that before 1959 produced meat and exported flowers south of the United States. Yes. When the system changes, how things change.

The revolutionaries of 1959 repeated that changes were good, that change was equal to progress, that they could only advance even as nobody knew for sure where it was going. But, as we have seen, progressivism does not mean progress. Having your feet on the ground, a minute, is enough to know.

Luis O. lives in Camaguey, inherited a shotgun, and after a cumbersome process he obtained a license to hunt. It is 2023, but Luis goes out to kill ducks, quails, and whatever he finds in front of the canyon to feed his brother, his mother, his wife, and their two children, as if the city of Camaguey was still Santa María del Puerto del Príncipe. While socialism imposes stores in capitalist currency (euro, dollar, everything) on an impoverished population, the people of Camaguey saw the stores in Cuban pesos dry up. Without food, Luis went back in time. He shares that his days are filled with the need to go into the bush and hunt.

The Cuban State cries about the embargo and paints it as a “blockade,” but the only blockade that exists is that of the State against the citizen, and it is the one that takes its toll, leaving land without crops and stomachs without food. The bureaucrats at the Palace of the Revolution kick their feet because Washington does not give credit to a country that does not pay, and because U.S. politicians consider it immoral to trade freely with a regime that prohibits free trade among its inhabitants.

As in India, for more than 40 years cows were “sacred” in Cuba. In one way by faith, in another by the hand of the god-State. It was only until 2021 that the sale of beef was authorized on the island, and its production and sale by private parties was decriminalized.

Since 1979, no producer could sell this meat, and buyers were punished with up to a year in jail for buying it. At the time of its decriminalization, the pound was paid in the informal market for up to $12. Castroism announced that it would pay the peasant for two kilos of meat. Magnanimous.

Faithful to the disconnection with natural laws, Cuban statism projected in 2021 the allocation of an additional 3,461 million pesos to the annual budget, “in order to stimulate agricultural production.” But the investment was nothing. The same voluntarism that “removed” money from the coffers, generated one of the highest inflation rates on the planet that year and its consequent devaluation of the peso.

He believed that subsidizing with “soft loans” electricity, water, fumigation, and feed costs for pig farming, he would magically compensate for the lack of economic freedom of 63 years.

In 1979, the first revolutionary Penal Code criminalized the slaughter of cattle. But the hunger was so great that, far from stopping, in 1987 the sacrifice of horses had to be made illegal in the letter. In 1999, the severity of sentences for slaughtering cattle increased. Whoever sold or transported that meat would receive up to eight years in prison. But there is no decree that stops hunger. Just freedom and work.

Before 1959, Cuba was an important regional cattle producer. In the first years, Castroism attributed its incipient reduction to sabotage by its internal opponents. However, once thousands of them were shot, and hundreds of thousands more thrown into jail or exile, the phenomenon did not reverse.

Today, the socialist paradise imports 80% of the food it consumes and dedicates annually, with frequent restrictions due to lack of liquidity and non-payment, about $2 billion to these imports.

On the other hand, hunger is an effective control mechanism. It prevents thinking beyond the day to day, to satisfy the urgent need that literally climbs the individual on the tightrope of life or death. At the same time, a desperate society can become a tsunami of violence. Castroism has played the drip strategy for decades: miserable portions through the ration card, enough to cover the cupboard for a few days, occupying your mind by “inventing” most of the month, but in a model that keeps expectant the body until the next sale of products.

So much has been “invented” in Cuba that in 2012, due to a national lack of oil, oil from crematoriums circulated on the Havana black market… for cooking food.

As the presenter, Juan explained at that time, with each cremation, about 20 liters of burning oil are used for the treatment of smoke gases. From a warehouse of the Guanabacoa incinerator, on the outskirts of the capital, the liquid came out of yore.

There was a scandal, in the proportions that the story warranted, and apparently, they cut the network. But what the revolutionaries have not cut is the shortage of oil, which appears from time to time on the island of “there is no.”

A painter friend who came to the United States in the late 1960s experienced a panic attack in Los Angeles. She entered a small grocery store and had to be taken out unconscious. From the empty shelf, the desperation for what to eat tomorrow, and the long lines, to endless shelves, full to the brim and with so many brands and prices to choose from.

My wife and I arrived in Miami already knowing other countries, on both sides of the Atlantic. The impact of overflowing shops was not as much as for compatriots who arrive from nothing every day to a nation of abundance. Even so, when I enter the cheap Dollar Tree or Walmart, the first thing I think about is my friends and their children, my mother, the ministries of my church, which help the elderly and abandoned children, the homeless. It sure happens to others.

One imagines filling suitcases, yes. That lucky patch. But I also think about how much free enterprise could bring to Cuba. Employment, food, and medicines. The more the free market is respected, the closer the paradigm of land flowing with milk and honey is.

For me, a clear mark of abundance in the United States manifested itself on Halloween. For that day, costumes and decorations are prepared for weeks. Candy sales skyrocket. On the night itself, I saw neighborhoods fill up with boys and families where no soul walks at any other time of the year. “Trick or treat!” they shouted before extending their hands.

The next day, on the pavement, the sidewalks, the gardens of the entire neighborhood, there were hundreds of candies, chocolates, and little toys. All sealed, slipped carelessly from baskets and baskets, forgotten because there are more and tomorrow there will be again, because buying a cookie for your son doesn’t cost ten hours in line and a shoving fight.

Children in Cuba, for example, skin pelicans to sell their little meat for 70 Cuban pesos (less than a dollar) each. The story does not take place at the beginning of the Revolution or in the 1990s, but in 2022, in the coastal town of Caibarién. Through dirt streets one of them pedals with a bucket full of pelicans without feathers or skin. Potential buyers appear from the rickety houses.

Meanwhile, the children who “fish” for pelicans kill their hunger by boiling the corpses of the birds with brown sugar and guava leaves. “You throw out the water three times,” they detailed to the reporter, “and that way they don’t taste so bad.”

*This article was done with the help of the Cuban Studies Institute.

AUTHOR

Yoe Suarez

Yoe Suárez is a writer, producer, and journalist, exiled from Cuba due to his investigative reporting about themes like torture, political prisoners, government black lists, cybersurveillance, and freedom of expression and conscience. He is the author of the books “Leviathan: Political Police and Socialist Terror” and “El Soplo del Demonio: Violence and Gangsterism in Havana”.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

How Government Lost 15 Million Acres of Public Land in the United States

Non-market allocations of resources are doomed to result in catastrophic waste and mismanagement, evidenced by a recent New York Times story exploring how ‘millions of acres of public lands aren’t really open to the public.’


Leave it to the United States Government to lose track of almost three states worth of public land. Only an institution with so little incentive and ability to allocate resources for the betterment of human wellbeing could instantiate such a catastrophic waste of potential.

The following is a story of an engineer named Eric Siegfried, a Montana man who caught public officials in almost unimaginable levels of incompetence and waste. It is also a cautionary tale about the way extreme misallocations of resources are the predictable outcome of America’s current form of land use governance, which systematically severs control over certain resources from anyone equipped to use them rationally and effectively.

Multiple articles in the New York Times have recently reported on the findings of a group of private hunters and wilderness enthusiasts who have brought attention to millions of acres that nobody previously knew existed. Times article published in February reported that, “Across America, 15 million acres of state and federal land is surrounded by private land, with no legal entry by road or trail. If this so-called landlocked land was one contiguous piece, it would form the largest national park in the country, nearly the size of Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut combined.” And, “Most of these inaccessible public lands are in the West, and, until recently, their existence was largely unknown.”

The land was only discovered, according to another recent Times article, because of a smartphone app called OnX. “OnX was born when Eric Siegfried, a mechanical engineer and part-time hunting guide in Montana, decided to make a Google Maps for the wilderness,” the Times reports.

Unlike Google maps, OnX is optimized for use in forests and other wild areas, displaying property lines, wind patterns, fire histories, and other data useful to outdoorsmen but not to ordinary civilians.

Times contributor Ben Ryder Howe writes, “Property data is often inaccurate and outdated, and early in the development of OnX Mr. Siegfried found himself asking, ‘Why is there no nationwide picture of land ownership, of public and private property boundaries, of who owns what?’” And so, according to Howe, “By collating state and county data and putting it on a microchip, Mr. Siegfried turned the project in the scrapbooking room into a company that just received more than $87 million from investors and that understands the American landscape arguably better than the government does.”

Howe points out that, “In answering the question of who owns what, OnX helped bring to light how much public land — often highly coveted — is not reachable by the public.”

Land is highly coveted because it is a form of capital which, if allocated properly, can vastly enrich its owners and other participants in the market.

There are countless ways that individuals, or society generally, could utilize 15 million acres of land. People could live on it, thus increasing housing affordability and expanding the range of available options of where to live. People could convert its raw materials into transportable resources such as lumber or oil, thus improving commodity abundance and lowering the threshold at which the poor could afford to have their needs met. People could employ unique characteristics of its ecosystems to conduct scientific research. Or the land could be preserved in its current state, if its environmental, recreational, and/or aesthetic properties are deemed more valuable. Manifold possible uses exist, many of which can probably only be imagined by the innovators of the future.

It is impossible to know a priori which combination of potential uses are the best allocation of such an enormous supply of capital. But one thing is clear: When so much wealth and potential are on the line, the difference between efficient and inefficient resource allocation is the difference between countless livelihoods saved or destroyed. When housing prices, or food prices, or gas prices, are increased or decreased by the availability or unavailability of a few million acres worth of resources, it can make or break the health and safety of anyone whose current standards of living are near the margin of viability. And even for those well enough above the margin to be unconcerned about basic necessities, changes in the cost of living can still make or break their access to important commodities and opportunities such as a higher education, the ability to start a small business, or any other ambition they might have that requires significant investment.

So how could such a massive amount of potential wealth have been unaccounted for and untapped for so long, and what should happen to it now that it has been discovered?

It is commonly understood, even by avowed socialists as well as arguably Karl Marx himself, that socialist economies are generally less conducive to economic growth than market economies, hence the latter often being dubbed “capitalist.” One primary reason for this is that markets result in a mechanism of resource allocation that maximizes efficiency like no socialist, communist, or fascist economy has ever been capable of. And that mechanism is known as the price system.

The price system is merely the logical consequence of resources being controlled by individuals rather than collectives, and exchanged voluntarily rather than by force. These are the characteristics of a market economy, and they result in consumers and producers having extremely precise knowledge, communicated via prices, of exactly how useful each resource is for a wide range of potential uses, given the nature and scarcity of the resource relative to alternatives. And this precise knowledge allows budgeting, financing, shopping for the best among many available products, and so on to be subject to highly accurate calculations.

This crucial difference between market and non-market economies was first clearly articulated by the economist Ludwig von Mises in his 1920 essay, “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth.” In it, Mises offered the following example:

“Picture the building of a new railroad. Should it be built at all, and if so, which out of a number of conceivable roads should be built? In a competitive and monetary economy, this question would be answered by monetary calculation. The new road will render less expensive the transport of some goods, and it may be possible to calculate whether this reduction of expense transcends that involved in the building and upkeep of the next line. That can only be calculated in money. It is not possible to attain the desired end merely by counterbalancing the various physical expenses and physical savings. Where one cannot express hours of labor, iron, coal, all kinds of building material, machines and other things necessary for the construction and upkeep of the railroad in a common unit it is not possible to make calculations at all.”

This point was expanded on by Mises’s disciple, the Nobel Prize winning economist Friedrich Hayek, who gives another instructive example in his seminal 1945 essay “The Use of Knowledge in Society”:

“Assume that somewhere in the world a new opportunity for the use of some raw material, say, tin, has arisen, or that one of the sources of supply of tin has been eliminated. … All that the users of tin need to know is that some of the tin they used to consume is now more profitably employed elsewhere and that, in consequence, they must economize tin. There is no need for the great majority of them even to know where the more urgent need has arisen, or in favor of what other needs they ought to husband the supply. If only some of them know directly of the new demand, and switch resources over to it, and if the people who are aware of the new gap thus created in turn fill it from still other sources, the effect will rapidly spread throughout the whole economic system and influence not only all the uses of tin but also those of its substitutes and the substitutes of these substitutes, the supply of all the things made of tin, and their substitutes, and so on; and all this without the great majority of those instrumental in bringing about these substitutions knowing anything at all about the original cause of these changes.”

Now think of the price system, or lack of one, in the context of Siegfried’s discovery.

When land is privately owned, the price system facilitates numerical comparisons between different possible uses of each plot of land (or useful subdivision thereof), such as people living on it, or excavating it for minerals, or growing crops on it, or conserving its current state—or countless other possibilities.

There is no way of knowing with certainty which is the best use of each plot of land, given the virtually infinite variables such as what alternative resources could be used for each of the possible uses of the land, how scarce and applicable to alternate uses each of those resources are, and so on. And of course, even the price system can’t account for all the variables, given that every event in the world comes with externalities, millions of uncertainties and butterfly effects that constantly shape our perception of the future into reality. But the price system accounts for more of the variables, and does so with more accuracy, than any other system because prices reflect each individual’s specific preferences and needs down to the cent whereas all other systems reflect either randomness or the preferences of some authoritarian subset of the population that has managed to dictate resource allocations according to their preferences while excluding the preferences of others.

(It is worth noting that the assumptions people make about the relative significance of one set of externalities over another tend to be totally unjustified. For example, there is a common assumption that the negative environmental externalities of industrial development such as logging or oil drilling outweigh the positive economic externalities. But it can just as easily be the case that when commodity prices are reduced by such supply increases, the resulting poverty alleviation and wealth creation generates positive externalities, such as more education and technological and scientific research, that outweigh the negative externalities.)

Private land is more likely than land governed any other way to be used for its optimal purpose, because its owner is free to sell it to the highest bidder, and the bidder with the most valuable idea of how to use it will typically be willing to pay the most for it. By contrast, “public” land is doomed to be allocated comparatively suboptimally. Because no individual is free to sell it to the highest bidder, it is instead trapped in its current use by whatever regulatory mire is preventing individuals from optimizing it.

Only in such a mire could the 15 million acres discovered by Eric Siegfried have been so tragically wasted. Individual property owners would almost certainly be too aware of their major assets to lose track of 15 million acres of real estate, because they themselves would be the ones to reap the rewards or punishments of the quality of their capital allocation choices.

Those acres, being “public” and thus illegal for individuals to settle, develop, or cultivate, were of so little use to anyone that nobody even bothered to do the basic research or exploration required to learn of their existence before it was discovered by accident. And all while there are millions of people without basic necessities, such as a peaceful place to sleep or grow food.

This arbitrary and incompetent allocation of 15 million acres should come as no surprise given the economics of public versus private ownership that have been well understood in the context of socialism and capitalism for more than a century. To solve the problem of rampant resource misallocation, the resources should be privatized so that individuals can start freely investing and innovating to make the most out of that which may otherwise be worthless enough to have abandoned completely.

AUTHOR

Saul Zimet

Saul Zimet is a Website and Data Coordinator for HumanProgress.org at the Cato Institute and a graduate student in economics at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York.

RELATED ARTICLE: White House Spending $130,000 Per Day To Store Trump’s Border Wall Materials

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Joseph Goebbels’ Own Words Show He Loved Socialism and Saw It as ‘the Future’

Socialists will continue to argue that Nazism was not “real” socialism, but the Nazi propaganda despised capitalism and spoke like Karl Marx.


One of the comforts of growing older is knowing that some things will never change.

Sports fans will always argue over the designated hitter rule and over who was the best heavyweight boxer of all-time (Muhammad Ali). Movie fans will never agree which Godfather movie was better, the first or the second (the first.) And the trumpets will sound at the Second Coming before capitalists and socialists agree on whether the Nazis were “really socialists.”

The last item has always puzzled me, I confess, and not just because the word is right there in the name: National Socialism. If you read the speeches and private conversations of the Nazi hierarchy, it’s clear they loved socialism and despised individualism and capitalism.

In his new book Hitler’s National Socialism, the historian Rainer Zitelmann gives a penetrating look into the ideas that shaped men like Hitler and Goebbels. While it’s clear they saw their own brand of socialism as distinct from Marxism (more on that later), there is no question they saw socialism as the future and despised bourgeoisie capitalism.

Consider, for example, these quotes from Joseph Goebbels, the chief propagandist for the Nazi Party:

  1. “Socialism is the ideology of the future.” – Letter to Ernst Graf zu Reventlow as quoted in Goebbels: A Biography
  2. “The bourgeoisie has to yield to the working class … Whatever is about to fall should be pushed. We are all soldiers of the revolution. We want the workers’ victory over filthy lucre. That is socialism.” -quoted in Doctor Goebbels: His Life and Death
  3. “We are socialists, because we see in socialism, that means, in the fateful dependence of all folk comrades upon each other, the sole possibility for the preservation of our racial genetics and thus the re-conquest of our political freedom and for the rejuvenation of the German state. – “Why We Are Socialists?” Der Angriff (The Attack ), July 16, 1928
  4. “We are not a charitable institution but a Party of revolutionary socialists.” -Der Angriff editorial, May 27, 1929
  5. “Capitalism assumes unbearable forms at the moment when the personal purposes that it serves run contrary to the interest of the overall folk. It then proceeds from things and not from people. Money is then the axis around which everything revolves. It is the reverse with socialism. The socialist worldview begins with the folk and then goes over to things. Things are made subservient to the folk; the socialist puts the folk above everything, and things are only means to an end.” -”Capitalism,” Der Angriff, July 15, 1929
  6. “In 1918 there was only one task for the German socialist: to keep the weapons and defend German socialism.” -”Capitalism,” Der Angriff, July 15, 1929
  7. “To be a socialist means to let the ego serve the neighbour, to sacrifice the self for the whole. In its deepest sense socialism equals service.” – diary notes (1926)
  8. “The lines of German socialism are sharp, and our path is clear. We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism! We are against Marxism, but for true socialism!” – Those Damn Nazis: Why Are We Socialists? (1932)
  9. “We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces.” – Those Damn Nazis: Why Are We Socialists? (1932)
  10. “England is a capitalist democracy. Germany is a socialist people’s state.” – “Englands Schuld” (the speech is not dated, but likely was given in 1939)
  11. “Because we are socialists we have felt the deepest blessings of the nation, and because we are nationalists we want to promote socialist justice in a new Germany.” – Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler. Etwas zum Nachdenken (1932)
  12. “The sin of liberal thinking was to overlook socialism’s nation-building strengths, thereby allowing its energies to go in anti-national directions.” – Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler. Etwas zum Nachdenken (1932)
  13. “To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole. Socialism is in its deepest sense service.” – as quoted in Escape from Freedom, Erich Fromm
  14. “We are a workers’ party because we see in the coming battle between finance and labor the beginning and the end of the structure of the twentieth century. We are on the side of labor and against finance. . . The value of labor under socialism will be determined by its value to the state, to the whole community.”-Those Damn Nazis: Why Are We Socialists? (1932)

These quotes represent just a smattering of Goebbels’ views on and conception of socialism. One can see that in many ways the Nazi spoke much like Karl Marx.

Phrases like “we are a workers’ party,” “the worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces,” “money…is the reverse with socialism,” and “we are against the political bourgeoisie” could easily be plucked from Marx’s own speeches and writings—yet it’s clear Goebbels despised Marx and saw his brand of “national socialism” as distinct from Marxism.

So what sets National Socialism apart from Marxism? There are two primary differences.

The first is that Hitler and Goebbels fused their socialism with race and German nationalism, rejecting the international ethos of Marxism—workers of the world unite!—for a more practical one that emphasized Germany’s Völkischen movement.

This was a clever tactic by the Nazis. As the Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek pointed out, it made socialism more palatable to many Germans who were unable to see Nazism for what it truly was.

“The supreme tragedy is still not seen that in Germany it was largely people of good will who, by their socialist policies, prepared the way for the forces which stand for everything they detest,” Hayek wrote in The Road to Serfdom (1944). “Few recognize that the rise of fascism…was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies.”

The second difference is that National Socialists were less concerned with directly controlling the means of production.

In his 1940 book German Economy, 1870-1940, Gustav Stolper, an Austrian-German economist and journalist, explained that though National Socialism was anti-capitalist from the beginning, it was also in direct competition with Marxism following World War I. Because of this, National Socialists determined to “woo the masses” from three distinct angles.

“The first angle was the moral principle, the second the financial system, the third the issue of ownership. The moral principle was ‘the commonwealth before self-interest.’ The financial promise was ‘breaking the bondage of interest slavery’. The industrial program was ‘nationalization of all big incorporated business [trusts]’. By accepting the principle ‘the commonwealth before self-interest,’ National Socialism simply emphasizes its antagonism to the spirit of a competitive society as represented supposedly by democratic capitalism . . . But to the Nazis this principle means also the complete subordination of the individual to the exigencies of the state. And in this sense National Socialism is unquestionably a Socialist system . . .”

Stolper, who fled from Germany to the United States after Hitler’s rise to power, noted that the Nazis never initiated a widespread nationalization of industry, but he explained that in some ways this was a distinction without a difference.

“The socialization of the entire German productive machinery, both agricultural and industrial, was achieved by methods other than expropriation, to a much larger extent and on an immeasurably more comprehensive scale than the authors of the party program in 1920 probably ever imagined. In fact, not only the big trusts were gradually but rapidly subjected to government control in Germany, but so was every sort of economic activity, leaving not much more than the title of private ownership.”

In his 1939 book The Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism, Guenter Reimann reached a similar conclusion, the economic historian Richard Ebeling notes.

“…while most of the means of production had not been nationalized, they had nonetheless been politicized and collectivized under an intricate web of Nazi planning targets, price and wage regulations, production rules and quotas, and strict limits and restraints on the action and decisions of those who remained; nominally, the owners of private enterprises throughout the country. Every German businessman knew that his conduct was prescribed and positioned within the wider planning goals of the National Socialist regime.”

The historical record is clear: European fascism was simply a different shade of socialism, which helps explain, as Hayek noted, why so many fascists were “former” socialists—”from Mussolini down (and including Laval and Quisling).”

Like Marx, the Nazis loathed capitalism and saw the individual will and individual rights as subordinate to the interests of the state. It should come as little surprise that these different shades of socialism achieved such similar results: poverty and misery.

Socialists will continue to argue that Nazism was not “real” socialism, but the words of the infamous Nazi propaganda minister suggest otherwise.

AUTHOR

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. (Follow him on Substack.) His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

A Child’s-Eye View of Communism’s Absurdities

Candid childhood memories of life behind the Iron Curtain


It is a truism to say that children have a grasp of reality different from adults; a clearer and more honest grasp that in most cases they lose with maturity. Rare is the man or woman who retains that innocent capacity to see through grown-up hypocrisy and pretence, presented to us so vividly in Hans Andersen’s memorable fairy-tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes.

In this humorous memoir of growing up in a city (unidentified) of 40,000 in the southern Urals of the Soviet Union in the 1970s-1980s, Fr Alexander Krylov, of Russian-German origin, manages to retain the undeceived eyes of childhood as he relates the absurdities and contradictions of life under Communism.

God and family

So many memoirs of living under the Soviet regime are, understandably, riven with bitterness and anger; the suffering has been too great to forget. The young Krylov, an only child, was protected from this by the love and faith of his family: his Catholic mother and grandmother and his Orthodox father.

The latter died when he was aged seven; showing unusual understanding for his age, Krylov realised that he was now “the one man in the family.” A certain independence of outlook seems to have characterised him from the start — probably because, despite the constant atheist propaganda impressed on him at school and in the wider society, “God’s presence in everyday life was… self-evident for our family.”

Much of this was owing to his grandmother’s influence for, as the family breadwinner, his mother had to work long hours outside the home. This grandmother, who had grown up in a German-speaking colony in Russia, resembled a traditional Russian “babushka” in her fortitude, her generosity and her strong faith that years of living in Leonid Brezhnev’s decrepit Soviet society could not erase.

In this world, all its citizens were officially atheist yet, as Krylov relates, everyone in his neighbourhood “knew” who the believers were and what religion they followed. His grandmother “saw an ally in every human being who was seeking God — Jews, Orthodox and Muslims” because — especially in death — “common prayer was much more important than any disagreement.”

There were no churches in his city and he only saw the inside of an Orthodox church (in western Ukraine) before starting school, aged six. Overwhelmed by its icons, candles and awe-inspiring atmosphere, Krylov told his mother, “Let’s stay here forever.” Undeterred, his grandmother erected a homemade altar in their small apartment, with its holy pictures, holy water, hymns and secret celebrations of the great Christian feasts. A candle would be lit in the window at Christmas; it was “somehow implicitly clear that God does not abandon human beings as long as a light is burning in at least one window on Christmas Eve and at least one person is waiting for the Christ-child.”

Economic woes

The author takes a gentle swipe at western society, obsessed with dietary fashions, when he explains, in a chapter titled “Healthy Diet”, why Soviet citizens had no choice but a healthy diet. Trying to survive in a corrupt and inefficient command economy, almost all families had an allotment with fruit trees and vegetables, to compensate for what they could not buy in the shops: everything possible was pickled, canned, stored or preserved. For some reason chickens were plentiful:

“Thanks to the poor work of the chemical industry, they were raised with no additives and usually looked as though they had walked by themselves from the chicken factory to the grocery store.”

I laughed aloud as I read this and other reminiscences, narrated in the candid way of a man who has not lost the artless gaze of a child. (After a distinguished academic career in Moscow, Fr Krylov decided to become a priest aged 42, on Easter Monday 2011 and was ordained in 2016.)

Another anecdote describes how he briefly worked in a grocery store where the shelves were often lacking common items buyers craved. Organising the shop’s store room, he noticed many such items, piled them on a trolley and wheeled it through into the shop, to the delighted surprise of the customers. The teenage boy could not understand why the manageress looked so discomfited and why his employment was suddenly curtailed.

Inner life

Just as the late Russian poet, Irina Ratushinskaya, who spent four years in the Gulag for writing “subversive” poetry, commented she was told so often as a child “there is no God”, that she began to believe in Him, Krylov reflects: “The prohibition against owning a Bible in the Soviet Union could only confirm its importance.”

In a telling incident in his teens, he describes a classroom meeting where these young Soviet citizens planned “to put socialist democracy into action.” This meant denouncing a fellow student who would not obey the rules. Krylov, who had befriended him, defended him in front of his classmates. They then turned on him, aware that he too was somehow “different.” The author comments, “Although I was always present, I lived my own life”. This hidden, inner life, which they sensed though it was never made explicit, presented an existential threat to his fellow student ideologues.

Inevitably, Lenin’s image was everywhere. Joining the Communist youth group, the Young Pioneers, one wore a red neckerchief and star. “Depicted on this star were the head of Lenin and three tongues of fire. I shared with no one my impression that this star depicted the head of Lenin burning in hell.” This was the response of a child whose private faith, never mentioned in class, helped to protect him against the atheism he was forced to listen to in public.

Finally, aged 15, overhearing the jocular remark of a friend’s father that vodka was “opium for the people”, Krylov comments: “Suddenly my eyes were opened: [I realised that] Communism had simply become a new religion.”

If the Emperor in this case was not exactly naked, nonetheless the short, discrete chapters of this kindly memoir remind readers that his clothes were uncomfortable, unsuitable, ill-fitting and threadbare.

This review has been republished with the author’s permission from The Conservative Woman.

AUTHOR

Francis Phillips

More by Francis Phillips

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Deadly Sins of Socialism, Fascism, and Progressivism

Politics isn’t exempt from the allure of the deadly sins. Some political systems even magnify the allure…


The nineteenth-century philosopher Joseph de Maistre once wrote “Every nation gets the government it deserves.” This is true in a sense because, as Ludwig von Mises later wrote, “public opinion is ultimately responsible for the structure of government.” The beliefs and values of a people determine the institutions they embrace or accept.

The influence goes the other way, too. Different systems of government create different incentives. Some institutions foster virtue, while others foment vice.

Let’s consider some historically important political ideologies and the moral qualities they reflect and promote.

Socialism is, as Winston Churchill put it, “the gospel of envy.” A people afflicted with envy and resentment will gravitate toward socialism.

Psychologist Jordan B. Peterson discussed the connection between envy and Marxist socialism in particular:

“There is the dark side of it, which means everyone who has more than you got it by stealing it from you. And that really appeals to the Cain-like element of the human spirit. ‘Everyone who has more than me got it in a manner that was corrupt and that justifies not only my envy but my actions to level the field so to speak, and to look virtuous while doing it.’ There is a tremendous philosophy of resentment that I think is driven now by a very pathological anti-human ethos.”

Socialists are wrong to think that “leveling the field” will lift up the have-nots. But even if they are disabused of that economic error, envy may drive them to cling to socialism anyway, out of a malicious desire to harm the “haves.”

As Mises wrote of socialists:

“Resentment is at work when one so hates somebody for his more favorable circumstances that one is prepared to bear heavy losses if only the hated one might also come to harm. Many of those who attack capitalism know very well that their situation under any other economic system will be less favorable. Nevertheless, with full knowledge of this fact, they advocate a reform, e.g., socialism, because they hope that the rich, whom they envy, will also suffer under it.”

Just as envy advances socialism, socialism stimulates envy by inviting the masses to participate in “legal plunder” (as the French economist Frédéric Bastiat put it) of the rich and affluent.

In the twentieth century many countries fearfully turned to fascism to protect themselves from communism. Many in those countries believed that if communists and their ideas were violently suppressed, their revolution would be nipped in the bud. Fear turned to wrath, as anti-communist fascists violently cracked down on any dissent that might destabilize the state.

“The great danger threatening domestic policy from the side of Fascism,” as Mises wrote, “lies in its complete faith in the decisive power of violence.”

The wrath and violence of fascism is ultimately self-defeating.

“Repression by brute force,” Mises wrote, “is always a confession of the inability to make use of the better weapons of the intellect — better because they alone give promise of final success. This is the fundamental error from which Fascism suffers and which will ultimately cause its downfall.”

Wrath drives fascism, but fascism also stirs up wrath by fomenting tribalism and inviting members of society to use political violence to settle their differences.

Progressivism is alluring to those who imagine they can “optimize” people through social engineering. But, as Leonard E. Read illustrated in his classic essay “I, Pencil,” society is so vastly complex, that this is a pipe dream. To think one can centrally plan society, one must fancy themselves to have quasi-divine omniscience. In simple terms, progressivism is an ideology of excessive pride. As Sen. Ron Johnson put it:

“The arrogance of liberal progressives is that they’re just a lot smarter and better angels than the Stalins and the Chavezes and the Castros of the world, and if we give them all the control, and they control your life, they’re going to do a great job of it. Well, it just isn’t true.”

Progressives are incorrect in their assumption that they know how to run other people’s lives better than those people themselves. Even if they were hypothetically smarter and more ethical than any single member of the rest of society, they would still be wrong.

The amount of information any expert can handle at a given moment is infinitesimal in comparison to the sum of information all individuals have. Letting individuals be free to cooperate through the price system decentralizes the use of knowledge and actually results in more information being used than a centrally planned system of experts. As Friedrich Hayek explained:

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. To the naïve mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions and that a division of authority will actually extend the possibility of overall order. Yet that decentralization actually leads to more information being taken into account.”

Thus, the progressive’s faith in technocratic power stems from supreme epistemic arrogance.

“It is insolent,” Mises wrote, “to arrogate to oneself the right to overrule the plans of other people and to force them to submit to the plan of the planner.”

Progressivism not only stems from pride, but stimulates it, because overweening power tends to go to people’s heads.

Must we pick from among political systems that are afflicted by one vice or another? Thankfully not. There is a virtuous alternative: namely, classical liberalism. Whereas socialism, fascism, and progressivism are dominated by the “deadly sins” of envy, wrath, and pride, classical liberalism embodies the “capital virtues” of charity, temperance, and humility.

Where socialism is based on envy, classical liberalism fosters charity. Classical liberals believe in voluntary exchange of goods and services which provides avenues for philanthropy. One can only be charitable when there is a choice to donate or help others. Forced charity is not truly charitable, for there never was a choice, just as giving away something you don’t actually possess is not a sign of selflessness.

As Murray Rothbard wrote, “It is easy to be conspicuously compassionate when others are forced to pay the cost.”

Where fascism is wrathful, classical liberalism has temperance. Fascists see dissent and difference as dangerous. Classical liberals see peaceful debate and competition as the key to progress. Classical liberalism embodies temperance in the way it upholds the rights of everyone, even those who are illiberal. Under fascism, violent hostility toward differences is the rule; under classical liberalism, peaceful voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit is the rule.

Where progressivism is prideful, classical liberalism has humility. Classical liberalism is humble because it doesn’t presuppose what society should value; it assumes that all individuals have goals that they alone know best how to achieve. Classical liberalism knows the limits of what any individual can know and consequently finds no reason to bestow power to any expert over the rest of society. As Hayek wrote, “All political theories assume […] that most individuals are very ignorant. Those who plead for liberty differ […] in that they include among the ignorant themselves as well as the wisest.”

As it says in the Bible, “the wages of sin are death.” And indeed, the sin-ridden ideologies of socialismfascism, and progressivism have yielded a staggering death toll. In contrast, the blessings of liberty include, not only peace and prosperity, but the encouragement and freedom to lead a virtuous life.

AUTHORS

Axel Weber

Axel Weber is a fellow with FEE’s Henry Hazlitt Project for Educational Journalism and member of the PolicyEd team at the Hoover Institution. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Economics from the University of Connecticut. Follow him on InstagramTwitter, and Substack.

Dan Sanchez

Dan Sanchez is the Director of Content at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and the editor-in chief of FEE.org.

RELATED ARTICLE: Leaked Documents Outline DHS’s Plans to Police Disinformation

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why the People of Vietnam Have Surprisingly Warm Views of Americans, Despite the History

Anti-Americanism in Vietnam is less pronounced than in many other parts of the world, and it likely stems from Vietnamese views about wealth and capitalism.


You would be forgiven for thinking—and it would be all too understandable if they were—that the people of Vietnam are anti-American. But the opposite is true.

One reason for this might stem from the culture’s views on wealth: the Vietnamese people admire the rich and experience very little social envy.

As most people know, the consequences of the Vietnam War were devastating for the country. The chemical weapons used by the United States, including the defoliant Agent Orange, not only struck the North Vietnamese Army, they also hit the civilian population. Napalm bombs also inflicted heavy casualties among the civilian population. The South Vietnamese alone lost 1.5 million people, including 300,000 civilians. The US military suffered 58,200 combat deaths, plus another 300,000 wounded. Civilian casualties in North Vietnam were far lower than in the South, but they lost far more soldiers.

In the north, major industrial centers and much of the infrastructure were destroyed. The region’s industrial manufacturing plants were decimated. Three of the six largest cities, 12 of the 29 provincial capitals, and two-thirds of all villages were destroyed. Virtually all power stations, railroad stations, ports, bridges, roads and the entire railroad network were also totally wiped out. In southern Vietnam, two-thirds of villages were also obliterated, five million hectares of forest were razed, and 20 million farmers lost their homes.

Given all of this destruction and suffering, it would not be surprising if Vietnam was a hotbed of anti-Americanism. But anti-Americanism in Vietnam is less pronounced than in many other parts of the world. In fact, anti-Americanism is not only stronger in Arab countries and Russia, it is also quite prevalent in many European countries, such as Germany and France.

In 1998, the US ambassador to Hanoi married a Vietnamese woman. He had flown 60 bombing raids on North Vietnam during the war before he was shot down in 1966. He then spent seven years in Vietnamese captivity as a prisoner of war. His wedding attracted a lot of attention at the time, but very little hostility.

This is not uncommon. I was in a relationship with a woman for several years whose parents were from Vietnam. I never once heard her or her parents talk badly about Americans.

Dinh Tuan Minh, a scholar from a think tank I met in Hanoi a few days ago said, explained to me why so many Vietnamese people have a positive attitude toward America.

“We Vietnamese do not look back to the past, but to the future. Unlike with China, we have no territorial disputes with the US. Many Vietnamese people also appreciate the fact that working conditions in US companies that invest here are often better than in Asian companies that invest in Vietnam. In addition, people in Vietnam know that the US has become our most important export market.”

Indeed, in 2020, Vietnam exported as much to the US as it did to China and Japan, its second and third largest export markets, combined.

I also spoke on this subject with the entrepreneur Xuan Ngyuen, who is from Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon).

“I was born in 1987. The war had already been over for 12 years. My parents and grandparents did talk about how terrible the war was, but they never had a bad word to say about the US and Americans,” Ngyuen told me while I was in Hanoi. “On the contrary, they told me, ‘You must learn to speak English, dress like Americans, eat the same food that Americans eat, and above all, learn to think like an American. Then you will be successful.’”

Independent surveys support these anecdotes.

In a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, 76 percent of Vietnamese said they had a positive view of the US. Among more educated Vietnamese, the figure was as high as 89 percent, and among respondents aged 18 to 29, 89 percent had a favorable opinion of the US. Even among those over 50 who had lived through the war, more than 60 percent viewed the US positively.

Perceptions of China, which has frequently waged war against Vietnam in the past and also has territorial disputes with the country today, are a different story. Surveys show Vietnamese people have much more negative attitudes toward China.

In a survey also conducted by the Pew Research Center, 64 percent of Vietnamese said, “China’s growing economy is a bad thing for our country.” By comparison, only 36 percent of the survey’s respondents in Japan said the same, 23 percent in Australia and 49 percent in South Korea. In addition, 80 percent of Vietnamese in the same poll also said, “China’s power and influence is a threat to our country.”

I admire people who manage to look more to the future than to the past. Such people are usually far more successful in life than those who constantly focus on the past.

This applies not only to individuals, but also to nations.

In 1975, the Vietnamese defeated the Americans, and this already proud country became even prouder, for they had defeated the greatest military superpower in history. But their pride suffered over the next ten years as the introduction of a socialist planned economy had a devastating effect on the south of the country. Vietnam was the poorest country in the region. While other Asian countries that took the capitalist path – South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore, for example – achieved incredible growth and escaped poverty, most people in Vietnam lived in bitter poverty, even ten years after the war had come to an end.

Forced collectivization of agriculture had been no more successful in Vietnam than it had in China or Russia. In 1980, Vietnam produced only 14 million tons of rice, despite the fact that the county needed 16 million tons to meet its own population’s basic needs. During the period of the second five-year plan (1976 to 1980), Vietnam was forced to import eight to nine million tons of rice and other foodstuffs.

Production stagnated, and state-owned industrial production actually declined by 10 percent from 1976 to 1980. Until 1988, only small family businesses were allowed as private enterprises in Vietnam; otherwise, everything was state-owned.

The Vietnamese realized that they were at an impasse. At the VI Party Congress (incidentally, the party still calls itself “communist”) in December 1986, the country’s leaders adopted a comprehensive package of reforms known as “Doi Moi” (“renewal”). As in China under Deng Xiaoping, private property was allowed and the party increasingly focused on the development of a market economy.

Today, Vietnam has shaken off its past and reinvented itself. GDP per capita has increased six-fold since the reforms (in constant dollars), from $577 to $3,373. Vietnam is now one of the world’s largest rice exporters, after India and only slightly behind Thailand. But Vietnam has long been much more than a country that exports agricultural products and textiles. It has now become a major producer of electronic goods and exported $111 billion worth of electronic products in 2020 alone.

Under the socialist planned economy, the majority of people in Vietnam lived in extreme poverty. As recently as 1993, 80 percent of the Vietnamese population were still living in poverty. Over the last decade in particular, poverty declined sharply in Vietnam, falling from 16.8 percent to 5 percent, lifting an estimated 10 million people out of poverty, according to the World Bank’s formula.

Poverty in Vietnam was not eliminated by wealth redistribution, but by a more free-market economy. Redistribution has never been a successful tool in the fight against poverty anywhere in the world. Capitalism works, and most workers in Vietnam benefit from tax rates that are comparatively low, ones that can only be dreamed of in Germany or New York. Sure, the top tax rate for individuals in Vietnam is 35 percent, but for that you have to earn about 14 times more than an average earner. In any case, social envy directed at the rich is a foreign concept in Vietnam. Here, wealth is admired and celebrated.

Of eleven countries where I commissioned Ipsos MORI to conduct a survey on attitudes toward the rich, Japan was the only other country in which opinions were as positive as in Vietnam.

In a paper from the Vietnamese social scientists Nguyen Trong Chuan, Nguyen Minh Luan and Le Huu Tang, which was published in the book Socioeconomic Renovation in Viet Nam, the authors explain how labor incentives work in the country.

“Those households who have good opportunities, better experience, talent for working and trading, and healthy labor, will be richer. Thus the polarization does not represent inequity but equity,” the authors write. “Those who work hard and well earn more, while those who are lazy and work inefficiently and ineffectively will earn less.”

The scholars also strongly oppose redistribution strategies: “In comparison with the subsidy system, where distribution was egalitarian, the current polarization between the rich and the poor shows the reestablishment of social equity.”

Inequality is not worthy of criticism and the pursuit of wealth should be encouraged, they argue: “Polarization has itself become an important motivating force behind the recent considerable economic growth.”

It would be a mistake to abandon the pursuit of free-market reforms simply because inequality between rich and poor is increasing, the Vietnamese sociologists and philosophers conclude. You won’t often find similar remarks from sociologists in the US and Europe.

The Vietnamese do not look enviously on rich people; they aspire to be rich. One of the questions in my aforementioned study in Vietnam was, “How important, if at all, is it for you personally to be rich?” The result: In Europe and the US, on average, only 28 percent of respondents said it was important to them to be or become rich. In the four surveyed Asian countries, in contrast, the figure was 58 percent. And nowhere did as many people say it was important to them to be or become rich as in Vietnam, where it was 76 percent.

Although Vietnam calls itself a socialist country, the way people here think is more in tune with capitalism than is the case in Europe. Incidentally, the ratio of government expenditure to gross national product in the US was 41.2 percent last year. In Vietnam, it was 21.2 percent.

AUTHOR

Dr. Rainer Zitelmann

Dr. Rainer Zitelmann is a historian and sociologist. He is also a world-renowned author, successful businessman, and real estate investor. Zitelmann has written more than 20 books. His books are successful all around the world, especially in China, India, and South Korea. His most recent books are The Rich in Public Opinion which was published in May 2020, and The Power of Capitalism which was published in 2019.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.