Category Archives: FASCISM

Isn’t Bernie a socialist? Why, yes, he is and that’s bad.

Contrary to the promise in a pro-Bernie website that socialism is great, it’s not: It destroys economies and makes people prisoners of their own government.

The website I Like Bernie, But…, which was created in 2016 and has been updated for 2019, takes it upon itself to answer concerned readers who ask “Isn’t Bernie a socialist?” It assures these people that Bernie isn’t a socialist socialist. Instead, he’s a democratic socialist, which the website promises is something entirely different:

The above conclusions are just wrong, and they’re so very wrong that they need to be corrected and explained in a lot of paragraphs.  Here goes:

To begin with, you need to understand what it really means to be a socialist.  Only then can you understand that putting the word “democratic” in front of “socialist” doesn’t change anything.

So, what is a “socialist” system?  Think of the realm of available politics as a line moving from left to right.  On the far left side are totalitarian regimes, which means government has all the control and the people have none.  At the far right side is anarchy, which means there is no government at all, although the resulting chaos usually means that people have no control either.  (Ironically, anarchy usually ends when a strong man takes over and creates a totalitarian regime.)

All political systems fall somewhere along that line.  The further to the Left they are, the more likely it is that power is centralized, and the further to the Right they are, the more likely it is that there is minimal centralized power, leaving more power with individuals.

Socialism, by definition, is a system that vests power in the government.  The government owns or exercises control over all of the means of production, as well as all of the things produced.  All people work under government control and all goods and services are handed out pursuant to government mandate.

Theoretically, in a socialist country, the people and the government are one and the same. The reality, though, is that you can’t have millions, tens of millions, or hundreds of millions of people in management.

What actually happens, therefore, is that all power resides in a tightly-controlled government group that makes all decisions about everything.  It decides what the country as a whole will build, produce, sell, etc.  As part of this, the government has to control every aspect of citizens’ lives, in order to make sure that its social and economic goals are met.

Over the last 100 years, socialism has taken on many guises, from hard to soft.  In today’s world, North Korea, which vests all power in one member of one ruling family, is socialism’s most extreme face.  We know that hundreds of thousands of people who have displeased the regime live in concentration camps where those who survive work as slaves.

A small percentage of those North Korean citizens who are connected to the ruling party live good lives, with food, shelter, and other creature comforts.  The military is heavily supported, because socialist dictatorships are paranoid.  But for everyone else — well, famine is a common occurrence in North Korea because, as you’ll see repeatedly in socialist countries, government types are horrible economic managers.

The government also fears its citizens (because it treats them so badly), so the government spies upon them constantly and punishes them brutally for even the smallest infractions.  When you concentrate all power in one entity — that is, all police and military power — you’re going to have an entity that can do a great deal of harm, both at home and abroad.

The former Soviet Union wasn’t much better back in the day than North Korea is now.  In its heyday, the Soviet politburo controlled every aspect of people’s lives.  During the 1930s, when Stalin headed the nation, he decided that the Kulaks in Ukraine, who were small farmers with privately owned farms, had to be destroyed to make way for large collective farms run under government control.

When the Kulaks refused to cooperate with Stalin’s grand plan, he used his vast government power to steal their grain and starved them to death.  Millions died.

During the 1950s through the 1980s, China had the same repressive government as North Korea and the Soviet Union.  During the 1960s, when Chairman Mao announced his Great Leap Forward, which was intended to take China from a medieval economy to a modern one in around five years, tens of millions of people died because of starvation, torture, slave labor, and execution.  Low estimates say that 40-50 million died.  High estimates say that as many as 75-100 million died. (Because China was such a tightly closed society, there are really no photographs.)

Even today, the Chinese communist government is utterly cavalier about individual rights. It arrests and jails journalists; imprisons millions of Muslims, using them as slave labor and raping the women; harvests organs from prisoners for profit; uses slave labor to help drive the Chinese economy; and is using bullets to destroy the efforts Hong Kong’s citizens are making to preserve their democratic institutions (something the Chinese government promised to protect when it took over Hong Kong’s governance in 1997).

The Nazis, whom everyone today accuses of being on the “right,” were also socialists — that is, people from the, totalitarian, Left side of that political spectrum you see above.  The Nazi party’s full name was the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party.”  Where Nazi Germany differed from a hardcore communist country like the Soviet Union, China, or North Korea, was that the government didn’t take over all the businesses and homes.  Instead, it allowed businesses and homes to stay in private hands — as long as the government made all economic decisions and controlled all aspects of people’s lives.

The socialist system the Nazi used is called “fascism.” The first fascist government was in Italy, under Benito Mussolini, back in the 1920s. Mussolini defined socialist fascism this way: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”

Today, people think fascism is not related to socialism or communism because Hitler ended up going to war against the Soviet Union. Thus, people reason that, if communism is “left” and Hitler went to war against the communists, than fascism must be “right” and “right-wing” politics must therefore be bad. The reality is quite different.

Hitler hated communism, not because it was the complete opposite of his fascism socialism, but because it was too similar. The fight between communism and fascism, both of which were children of socialism, was like a sibling rivalry within the same family. The important point is to  note that both systems were agreed upon one thing: The government should be in total charge of all aspects of the economy and should completely control people’s decisions and their lives.

Because the Nazi’s socialist system meant that, despite private property, the government was running things, people had no choice but to go along with the program.  Those who didn’t were imprisoned or killed.  While there’s nothing wrong with love of country (i.e., “nationalism”), if you add nationalism to fascism, and then blend in anti-Semitism and the Nietzschean idea of a “master race,” all of which is presided over by a crazed megalomaniac . . . well, you suddenly have a government engine primed to think it’s entitled to and can achieve world domination. Additionally, because socialist governments are lousy economic managers, eventually they always have to look over their border to other people’s wealth and labor to survive.

Modern Europe has been the softest side of socialism – it’s like Nazism without the toxic master race idea and the quest for world domination.  European countries have let people have their own businesses and homes but have kept tight control over services such as health care, railways, and heavy industry (coal mining, steel production). They also bury their citizens under regulations.  Every single aspect of life in a modern European socialist country is regulated.

For a long time, Europeans thought they’d found the perfect solution with this “loving” socialism.  Their citizens could run their own businesses and make money, so they had some economic growth.  In addition, in exchange for extremely high taxes, the citizens got “free” medical care (which they’d prepaid with their taxes), low-cost train and bus fares, and good elder care.  It all looked so beautiful in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. That mid- to late-20th century vision of European socialism is what so many of today’s American Democrats, Progressives, and Democratic Socialists believe they can bring to America.

What the Europeans conveniently forgot, and what Americans have never thought about is, is that after World War II, it was American money that rebuilt their infrastructure.  This meant that Europeans didn’t have to repay capital investments. Their capital infrastructure was delivered to them intact and ready to go thanks to American money.

Europeans also liked to ignore that, during the entirety of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, America paid Europe’s defense costs.  That allowed them to spend their own tax revenues on the “free” medical care and cheap train fare that Europeans love to boast about as a sign of their superiority.  To this day, no European nation boasting about its “socialized” or “single payer” medicine will acknowledge that European countries never had “free” medical care — they had American-funded medical care.

Maggie Thatcher, who was the conservative Prime Minister in England during the 1980s, famously said “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.”  In Europe, American money started vanishing when the Cold War ended. Not only did American money start drying up in the 1990s, Europe found itself with a few other problems when it came to maintaining its “friendly” socialism:

(1) Its population began to age. People in socialist countries tend to have fewer children. In Europe, fertility rates are below population replacement rates. The aging population was draining the social welfare system, because they needed medical and elder care, and there were fewer young people to create wealth to sustain that same system, a problem that continues today.

(2) The 2008 recession affected the entire world’s money supply, decreasing drastically the wealth in Europe. Europe still has not recovered economically.

(3) Europe invited in millions of immigrants who were not on board with the social compact that controlled European socialism. In the years after WWII, Europeans collectively understood that, if everyone worked when young, then everyone would be cared for when sick or old (at least as long as the Americans took care of the defense bill).  The problem was/is that the new immigrants, primarily from Africa and the Middle East, didn’t sign onto this compact.  They came, got welfare, and stayed on welfare, letting the Europeans work for them. Again, this is an ongoing European problem, especially given the huge influx of Middle Eastern and African refugees who started to arrive in 2015.

European socialism is in big trouble now that money is tight, the population is old, and the immigrants are continuing to pour in, taking without first having given.

By the way, the semi-socialist programs we Americans have, such as Medicare or Social Security, are also running on empty.  The younger generation is just barely paying enough in taxes to keep those programs funding old people.  By the time that the generation that’s paying for Medicare and Social Security now ages up to those programs, the best estimate is that there won’t be anything left for them.  As Thatcher knew, government always is a remarkably poor money manager.

Another example of homegrown socialism’s failures is minimum wage laws. These laws mean that the government, rather than the marketplace, sets wages. Even the New York Times once understood that the minimum wage is a way to keep unskilled labor out of the job market entirely.  Rather than paying every worker a living wage, minimum wage laws mean that businesses have to cut back on workers or end up shutting down entirely.

Just recently, a Progressive woman in Seattle wrote that, because of the city’s minimum wage laws, she had lost her job:

This city’s minimum wage is rising to $16.39 an hour on Jan. 1. Instead of receiving a bigger paycheck, I’m left without any pay at all due to the policy change. That’s because the restaurant where I’ve worked for six years is closing as a consequence of the city’s harmful minimum-wage experiment.

I work for Tom Douglas, one of the best-known restaurateurs in Seattle. Mr. Douglas is in many ways responsible for the city’s reputation as a foodie paradise, and he recently celebrated his 30th anniversary in business. He’s a great boss, and his employees tend to stay at the company for a long time.

But being an established chef and a good employer doesn’t save you from the burden of a sharp minimum-wage increase, up 73% from $9.47 in 2015. For large-scale employers like Mr. Douglas, there’s no separate rate for workers who earn tips. In Washington and a handful of other states, tips aren’t counted as income earned on the job. That means restaurateurs are expected to pay servers like me the full minimum wage in addition to our considerable tip income.

When rent is too high, labor costs too much, and customers don’t want to pay $40 for a roast-chicken entree, the only way for many operators to ease the pain is to close.

Things aren’t go well in California either. That state put in place another wage control law that was supposed to help people – only to have the opposite happen. People who freelance don’t belong to unions – and California has had a lot of freelancers, most notably driving for Uber and Lyft. Unions therefore put pressure on the California legislature to change things. The unions obviously didn’t crudely phrase this as a demand for more unions workers. Instead, they, and the politicians who support the union plans, assured everyone that they were doing it for altruism, to make sure that workers got paid good wages and had good benefits.

To that end, in 2019 California passed AB5, which, among other things, says that freelance writers cannot submit more than 35 pieces of writing in a year to a single publication. This was supposed to spare these writers, many of whom are women caring for children or sick people, from being exploited. But because government bows to interest groups, it seldom understands the marketplace and individual needs. The law, which goes into effect in 2020, will ruin people financially:

The bill’s pending implementation has wreaked havoc on publications that rely heavily on California freelancers. Just last week, Vox Media announced it will not be renewing the contracts of around 200 journalists who write for the sports website SB Nation. Instead, the company will replace many of those contractors with 20 part-time and full-time employees. Rev, which provides transcription services, and Scripted, which connects freelance copywriters with people who need their services, also notified their California contractors that they would no longer give them work.

“Companies can simply blacklist California writers and work with writers in other states, and that’s exactly what’s happening,” Alisha Grauso, an entertainment journalist and the co-leader of California Freelance Writers United (CAFWU), tells Reason. “I don’t blame them.”

*snip*

“I’ve been able to earn nearly three times the amount I did working a day job, doing what I absolutely love, and having more to volunteer and spend time with loved ones,” wrote Jackie Lam, a financial journalist. Kelly Butler, a freelance copywriter, echoed those sentiments. “Thousands of CA female freelancer writers, single moms, minorities, stand to lose their livelihood due to this bill,” she said. “I was told by a client because I live in CA they can’t use me. I made $20K from them this year.”

The Bill’s sponsor, secure in her theory and uninterested in the reality of people’s lives, has no sympathy for those who suffer because of the new law:

Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego), the architect of AB5, has heard these stories. “I’m sure some legit freelancers lost substantial income,” she tweeted in the wake of Vox’s announcement, “and I empathize with that especially this time of year. But Vox is a vulture.”

“These were never good jobs,” Gonzalez said earlier this month. “No one has ever suggested that, even freelancers.”

When you’ve got theory on your side, who needs facts, even if those facts are real people?

Gonzalez is the face of the same socialism that Bernie is promising for America: It puts power in the hands of poor managers who too often abuse that power.  A government-managed economy is a lousy system that has failed everywhere it’s been tried, whether we’re talking about the Soviet Union, China (which is now trying a weird controlled “market” economy), Cuba, North Korea, Europe, or any other failed socialist experiment in Africa and Latin America.

And what about the “Democratic” part in that phrase “Democratic Socialism”?  Doesn’t that mean we’ll get only as much socialism as people allow, and that America will never have a government continuously hungry for more control over people’s lives? Well, here’s the sad truth — that word is meaningless.

“Democratic” means that citizens get to vote for their leadership, but it doesn’t say anything about the political system itself.  China styles itself the “People’s Democratic Republic of China,” but no one looks at it and thinks “Wow, that’s a free country because it’s got the word ‘Democratic’ in its name.”

North Korea, the most repressive country in the world, has as its official name “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.” Again, as in China, people in North Korea don’t have a right to vote, meaning that it’s a voluntary activity; instead, they are required to vote, or else, and they’d better vote for the people their government has already handpicked as the winners.

During the Soviet Union’s heyday, that nation always liked to boast that it was more “democratic” than America because it had a higher voter turnout on election day.  Somehow it never mentioned that a person who failed to vote could end up in prison or that, when voters showed up, they had about the same number of candidate choices as they had food choices as the grocery store . . . which is to say, none.

Here’s one other thing you ought to know:  Up until 2016, Bernie had never been shy about being called a just a plain, hard-core socialist.  After all, this is a man who happily honeymooned in the Soviet Union, when it was one of the most repressive countries in the world. It was only in 2015, when he started succeeding in the Democrat primaries that he and his supporters began to try to whitewash that “socialist” label.

Never forget, though, that any type of socialist, no matter how they try to dress up their socialism, ends up on the Left side of that line I showed you above – the authoritarian side, the side on which the government gets to control everything and the individual citizens find that they have fewer and fewer rights and experience greater and greater fears about their own government.

But what about the other side of that line . . . the Right side? Isn’t that evil too? No. Just no.

Young people are constantly told that the “right” is bad, but that’s just something communists made up. After World War II, when the Nazis were the most evil thing on earth, Communists in Western countries went around teaching that, because they’re good and they’re Left, any ideology that stands against them, whether its Nazism (itself a form of socialism) or a true liberal democracy, must therefore be bad and therefore “Right.”

Here’s the truth: On the right side of that political line in the chart at the top of this post, as long as you don’t stray too far into anarchy, you’re safe from authoritarianism. That is, you’re safe from a system in which a government, or a government working with powerful private interests, controls you. Instead, you have small government and individual liberty.

In a government on the right side of the spectrum, people get to decide what they want to do with their lives.  They get to try to invent, build, serve, work, play, and anything else they please as long as they don’t harm others.  They get to buy and sell what they like when they want to.  Because they are allowed to own their own homes and cars and businesses, they have a stake in the success of each of those endeavors, and they work hard to achieve that success.

A free marketplace isn’t controlled by a government that calls all the shots.  It’s controlled by every person, with all these people organically combining their skills, knowledge, desires, energy, and ambition to create the most prosperous economic engine in the world.  And if you think that’s a bad thing, think again.  Thanks to market-driven First World capitalist energy, people live longer, healthier lives than ever before.  Even poor people in America are rich and successful compared to poor people anywhere else in the world.

Here’s a good summation of America’s virtues, for rich and poor alike, back from the 1960s, when the hippies thought they knew it all:

Oh!  One other thing:  For those concerned about wealth inequality, totalitarian societies have no social mobility and extraordinary wealth inequality.  Whether the society is a monarchy, aristocracy, military junta, or a socialist “paradise,” people are either in the ruling party/class or they’re not.  Those with power and wealth hold on to it tightly and scatter just enough food, money, and medical care to the masses to prevent a bloody uprising.

In a market economy, though, not only does a rising tide lift all boats, wealth constantly moves around.  Yesterday’s immigrant may be today’s innovator.  And that rich grandfather might have seen his son waste all the money and his grandchildren become quite poor.

If you figure out how to use the internet well, you may get rich.  On the other hand, if you decide to spend your time smoking pot and playing computer games, you’ll probably be poor (and burn through whatever money Mom and Dad left you in their wills).

People who make smart choices can rise up; those who don’t . . . well, life can be hard.  But I’d rather live in a world that offers the possibility of success as opposed to a world that keeps everyone firmly down in the mud.

I don’t like Bernie because he is a socialist and that’s a bad thing in all places, at all times.

Image credit: Detail of Bernie Sanders by Matt Johnson.

The post Isn’t Bernie a socialist? Why, yes, he is and that’s bad. appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

What’s the real story behind Right Wing and Left Wing in America?

In America, the term Right Wing is misused to imply that conservative Americans are fascists lusting for world domination; in fact, the opposite is true.

Right Wing Left Wing Conservative

(As my regular readers (to whom I am endlessly grateful) know, I was away from my blog for some time caring for a relative who had surgery. Being away that long gave me time to think about “going a little crazy,” as Bob Ross likes to say when he adds another tree to a painting. In my case, “going a little crazy” meant wondering if I could do a video as well as a podcast.

In addition to the time spent researching how to do go about making a Power Point video (I’ve got to start somewhere), it took me six hours to create a 35 minute video and companion podcast. They both are a little glitchy, but not bad for a first effort. I will get better.  But I will never forget my readers, so here is the same content in written form.)

The idea for this video came when I ended my trip with a much-needed massage. Because this is Tennessee, my masseur is a liberty-oriented man so, in the midst of a far-ranging conversation, he asked this question: “Why are conservatives called “fascists,” when fascism is a socialist doctrine?” An excellent question, and one I wanted to answer here.

The reality is that, even though the media loves to talk about “right wingers” (although never left wingers), there is no “left wing” versus “right wing” in America, at least as those terms are understood in the rest of the world. Instead, we only have liberty versus tyranny, along with the supporters of both those ideologies.

Ironically enough, although the French Revolution post-dated the end of the American revolution by six years, the terms “right wing” and “left wing” are leftovers from that overseas kerfuffle. Let me explain.

The French Revolution had as its slogan “Liberté, égalité, fraternité.” Liberty, equality, fraternity! In the context of the French Revolution, those words were always lies.

At the start of the Revolution, France had an absolute monarchy that sat on top of a large, equally absolutist aristocracy. It was not a sustainable system, and the revolutionaries intended to topple it. However, unlike the American revolutionaries who envisioned limited government coupled with individual liberty, that’s not what the French wanted. Instead, the revolutionaries imagined an absolutist commune, with the monarchy and aristocracy replaced by an equally controlling cabal of “the people.”

But what, you may ask, does this have to do with “left wing” and “right wing”? Simple. In the French Parlement during the lead-up to the Revolution, the representatives who sought to retain an absolutist government led by the monarchy and the aristocracy sat to the Speaker’s right. The representatives who sought to replace the existing government with an absolutist government led by “representatives of the people” sat to the Speaker’s left.

And that’s where the terms still used today in American and around the world came from: Those on the right seek to “conserve” the old ways; those on the left seek to upend them. Except, as I’ll develop at greater length, America has not traditionally had any cognates to this European left/right divide.

And now we get to my favorite chart, one that, for convenience’s sake, uses a left/right continuum to show how there are two sides to the political spectrum:

On the left (although it could just as easily be portrayed on the right side of the line) is absolutist, totalitarian government, something with which we are all familiar. It exists under many names – monarchy, socialism, communism, democratic socialism, fascism, theocracy, etc. – but it always plays out the same: maximum government control; minimum individual liberty.

Meanwhile, on the right side of the continuum (although I could have easily placed “liberty blue” on the left), is the political system that has limited government and maximum individual liberty. At its extreme, it’s anarchy. Otherwise, it’s . . . well, it’s really only the American experiment. Everywhere else in the world, government control is the standard.

So what is the American experiment? It was build on Britain’s Magna Carta and its 1689 Bill of Rights. That last document was a statement of limitations on monarchical.  William of Orange and Queen Mary II had agreed to this Bill of Rights in order to to attain the British throne in the wake of 1688’s “Glorious Revolution.” (It was glorious because King James II fled, rather than going to war.)

If you look at the British Bill of Rights, you’ll see many echoes in our own Bill of Rights. However, the British Bill of Rights limits only the monarchy. Parliament was not limited, which is why it felt free to impose all sorts of restrictions on British citizens in the American colonies.

When the Founding Fathers decided to draft a Bill of Rights, they did it correctly. Instead, of stating the items as a negative charter (as Obama wrongly put it), one that simply tells government what it can’t do, the Founders stated our Bill of Rights as a set of rights inherent and inviolable in every individual. No government – no monarchy, no legislature, no judiciary, no official whatever – should be able to impede those rights without a high showing of necessity.

Hold that thought in mind as we look at the three most common forms of government outside of America in the years since WWI.

First, we have socialism, which exists not only as a free-standing form of government (National Socialists), but also as an umbrella term for the evil twins of communism and fascism. Under communism, there is no private ownership. Everything – and everybody – belongs to the government. Examples, all of them tyrannical, are the Soviet Union, China (despite its faux market economy), North Korea, and Cuba.

Back in the 1930s, fascism put a softer face on communism, because it did not nationalize all private property, instead limiting itself to nationalizing a few major industries, especially fuel and transportation. However, there is no freedom in a fascist country. Mussolini provided the ultimate definition of fascism: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” (I also include today’s oligarchies in the list of fascist states, since they function much the same way.) In the World War II era, fascist states sought world domination and, in Germany’s case, included genocide and slavery in the service of an imaginary “master race.”

Today’s Europe is still fascist, although that would no doubt horrify Europeans were you to tell them that. Under both EU rule and the governments of the individual European states, there is private ownership, but major industries, especially transportation, are still nationalized. Moreover, the EU and the individual governments tightly control every aspect of people’s lives.

(When it comes to nationalized services, I have a real bee in my bonnet about these “soft” socialized states’ so-called “cradle to grave” care, something my parents’ European-based friends and family boasted about non-stop. These benefits had nothing to do with socialism. They were available in Europe because American taxpayers funded European defense costs during the Cold War. It wasn’t socialized medicine; it was American medicine. Now that the Cold War has ended and the money isn’t flowing as much, European socialized medicine is cratering.)

The difference between today’s European fascism and Hitler’s is that (a) it’s not called fascism today and (b) it’s not yet engaged in world domination and anti-Semitic genocide. However, given the speed with which Muslims are populating Europe, all in thrall to an Islamic doctrine that calls for world domination and anti-Semitic genocide, I think it won’t be long before Europe starts to repeat the 1930s.

The third type of government in the world today shows up in monarchies or theocracies, both of which thrive, and are often intertwined in the Middle East. Whether it’s Mullahs in Iran or Kings in Saudi Arabia, these are totalitarian governments that use religious doctrine to control every aspect of their citizens’ lives. (In Saudi Arabia, Prince Muhammed bin Salman is slowly trying to change this but, since he holds the tiger by the tail, it’s a very delicate and dangerous process.)

And then there’s America, which has a totally different system, one that, in its purest form, does everything it can both to limit government power and mob rule. There’s nothing else like it in the world.

The American political system as the Founders envisioned it has a limited federal government composed of three parts – executive, legislative, and judicial – each with unique spheres of power, each with some control over the other branches, and each jealous of its own power as a bulwark against any branch becoming too strong.

The Executive branch eschews pure democracy in favor of an Electoral College, forcing presidential candidates to campaign in every state (as Hillary learned to her cost). Without this, all presidents would be elected out of population centers. If the Democrats were able to do away with the Electoral College, something they’re trying to do through the grossly unconstitutional National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, all future American presidents would be elected by California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Washington.

Under the Legislative branch, we have two organs. The Senate was originally meant to have its members appointed by each state’s governors, ensuring (a) that the Senators would be responsive to their states and (b) that no senator would be enslaved to the passions of the mob. The 17th amendment changed that in 1912, probably not for the better.

The House controls the power of the purse and, before the 17th Amendment, was the only branch of government with direct democracy. House members must go back to the voters every two years to make their case. This is why impeachment begins in the House and why the current refusal to have a formal impeachment – which would force House members to make their positions known to their voters — is a direct betrayal of the voters.

Finally, the Judicial branch is the least democratic part of our government, for its members get selected by the President, get approved by the Senate, and then sit for life. In theory, it is impartial and rules only on whether matters are constitutional or unconstitutional, a power Chief Justice Marshall arrogated to the Court in the early 19th century.

In recent years, the federal judicial has boldly grabbed for itself both legislative power and executive power. The legislative power appears in its finding emanations of penumbras to justify federally sanctioned abortion, something never contemplated in the Constitution, and writing whole romance novels to allow gay marriage, another concept far afield from the Constitution. Both these issues belong in the states until such time as the Constitution is formally amended. As for executive power, every time some podunk judge in a Leftist district blocks a facially valid executive order from President Trump based upon the judge’s interpretation about the purity of Trump’s mind and soul . . . that’s an improper exercise of executive power.

Lastly, as I said before, our Founders gave us a Bill of Rights holding that certain rights are vested in the people and that the government cannot infringe them. This is extraordinary and differs from all other constitutions in the world, each of which is an endless book of bureaucratic does and don’ts.

So what kind of cool stuff flows from a limited government and a Bill of Rights? For starters, we have free market capitalism, which has been doing wonders since President Trump reformed taxes to leave more money with citizens and cut back on onerous regulations.

Strikingly, our Democrat Party presidential candidates have no room in their platforms for the free market. Bernie is a stone-cold communist. As an aside, given that he’s been alive for the greater part of the 20th century and all of the 21st (to date), he must know about the tens of millions dead and enslaved under communism (a knowledge sadly denied to uneducated millennials). That he still supports communism despite this knowledge means either that he’s the most stupid man ever to walk the earth or an evil tyrant wannabe. Neither reflects well on him or the voters who support him.

Warren also should know better, but I can attest to the fact that she’s stupid. Maybe evil too, but definitely stupid.

The most recent example of the disrespect the Left has for the free market comes from Kamala Harris, another candidate who is dumb as a rock, only dumber. Her candidacy is in free fall, so she’s promising to seize private property to prop it up. (Incidentally, I don’t think the government should fund private companies, but it’s important to note that, government aid notwithstanding, these are still companies with shareholders, employees, and profits.

Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris on if drug companies do not comply with her mandatory set drug prices: “I will snatch their patent so that we will take over” Audience asks: “can we do that?” “Yes, we can do that! Yes, we can do that! … I have the will to do it” pic.twitter.com/gpU8nnGt6h — Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 23, 2019

Another benefit we have is social mobility of a type that never existed anywhere else in the world before America. I created a little photo montage, just off the top of my head, of people who have attained success in a way that would not have been possible without America:

In America, the fact that your grandparents were rich doesn’t mean you will be, and the fact that they were poor doesn’t mean that is your fate either. We make our own fate in America.

One of my favorite rights – and one that I came to late in life – is the Second Amendment right to bear arms. I think this picture says it all:

In Nazi Germany, the government seized arms as a prelude to seizing people. A government should always stand in awe of its people’s right to defend itself against tyranny.

People should also be able to defend themselves against evil-doers in their own community. Mexico, a rapidly failing state, with appalling gun violence and skyrocketing murders, has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world.

Of course, the Democrat Party desperately wants your guns. Beto, before dropping out, was open about this – and please note the audience roar of delight:

And then there’s the right to free speech. In England, the cradle of free speech, it’s already gone:

Free speech isn’t doing so well in Leftist America either. In New York, you can be find $250,000 for “misgendering” someone. And in California, when it comes to long-term care facilities, it’s the law that you can be fined for “misgendering” residents there too.

So, going back to my chart and the left/right divide, here’s what you need to know about the rest of the world: it’s not tyranny versus liberty; it’s two different types of tyrants fighting each other for total control over citizens. In America, we have half of that equation. The American left wants total control over American citizens:

“We’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money, but you know, part of the American way is, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product.” – Barack Obama (net worth $40,000,000).

“You built a factory out there, good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads that the rest of us paid for. You hired workers that the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.” — Elizabeth Warren (net worth $18,000,000).

“I will snatch their patent so that we will take over.” – Kamala Harris (net worth $4,000,000).

“Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15.” Beto O’Rourke (net worth $10,000,000-$15,000,000).

On the opposite side of the political aisle in America, however, things are different. Conservatives don’t crave power. They crave a smaller government that leaves citizens alone to pursue their own lives, and that concerns itself solely with such core issues as national security, a stable legal system, functional transportation across the country, and managing (God forbid) major health crises.

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” – Gerald Ford

“No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!” – Ronald Reagan

With the above in mind – American conservatives are the sole political movement in the world dedicated to individual liberty – why are American conservatives called “right wing” or “fascist,” terms that are tied to totalitarian control, while American leftists are called “liberal,” implying a dedication to individual liberty? It’s time for a little history lesson to answer that question.

Back in the 1930s, Hitler and Stalin both presided over socialist governments. The former was fascist (private ownership but government control), while the latter was communist (no private ownership of the means of production). They were hideous, evil fraternal twins of socialism.

As is often the case with sibling rivalry, the two countries (and their leaders) hated each other. Nevertheless, in August 1939, a week before Hitler invaded Poland, sparking WWII, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia entered in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Under that pact, they swore to be neutral vis-à-vis each other in times of war.

When Hitler invaded Poland, Soviet Russia did nothing. Taking their cue from Russia, in America, communists also took a very lukewarm stance against Hitler.

The Pact ended abruptly on June 22, 1941, when Hitler initiated Operation Barbarossa by invading the Soviet Union. When America entered the War, it found itself allied with Russia against the Nazis. On the American home front, communists instantly became staunch and fervent anti-Nazis.

However, when the war ended, with the Allies victorious, and socialist/fascist Germany in ruins, American communists had a problem: Fascist socialism stood exposed as one of the most evil ideologies of all time. How were they to protect communist socialism, which was also one of the most evil ideologies of all time?

The answer was to create a false syllogism that took hold in academia and media, and that now controls American thought:

Communists and Fascists were enemies.

Communists helped win World War II, with the war’s end providing unquestioned proof that Fascists were completely evil.

Communists and American Republicans are enemies.

Republicans are therefore akin to Fascists and, like fascists, must be completely evil.

And what’s the moral of this story?

Next time someone accuses you, or any other conservative, of being “fascist” or “right wing,” object vigorously. You are a person committed to individual liberty as opposed to being a slave to an all-powerful government (no matter how woke, intersectional, and politically correct that government claims to be).

The post What’s the real story behind Right Wing and Left Wing in America? appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Trump is not Right Wing because America has no Right Wing

American conservatives, Trump included, by definition cannot be Right Wing, because their primary goal is to lessen government control over the individual.

John Lott wrote an article challenging the media’s contention that the New Zealand mosque shooter is “right wing” and, naturally, tying that right-winged-ness to President Trump and his supporters. Lott based his challenge on the fact that the shooter’s manifesto, aside from some trolling about Trump and Candace Owens, aligns perfectly with the Left’s ideology and is utterly unrelated to Trump’s words or policies. It’s a good article and I recommend it.

I want to head in a slightly different direction which is to say, as I have said before, that there is no Right Wing in America, meaning that neither Trump nor his supporters can or should be smeared in that way. Moreover, there is almost no relationship between ostensible conservatives outside of America and those of us in America who identify as conservatives. We are entirely different breeds. I have a tendency to be wordy, but I’ll try to keep this as streamlined as possible.

I’ll start with the absolutely true statement that there are only two forms of government: Bigger Government and Smaller Government. No matter the label affixed to the governing entity, it’s either Bigger, which means fewer individual rights, or Smaller, which means more individual rights. This is true whether the government is a monarchy, an aristocracy, an oligarchy, a republic, a democracy, a theocracy, a junta, or whatever. It’s not the label that matters; it’s the amount of government control versus individual liberty. Of course, socialist governments, whether denominated as socialist, communist, or fascist, are all Big (indeed, Biggest) Governments by definition.

“Right Wing” and “Left Wing” are purely European concepts, dating to the French Parliament in the lead-up to the French Revolution. The people to the right of the Speaker were monarchists; the people to the Left were revolutionaries in what came to be understood as the socialist mold. Both sides demanded Biggest Government with total control over the individual.

The battle between Bigger Government political powers raged in Europe through the 19th century and continued in continental Europe right into the 1930s. During that decade, the two rising political movements were both socialist. One socialist movement, communism, demanded nationalizing all private property as party of its Biggest Government plan. The other socialist movement, fascism, agreed to leave private property in private hands, provided that the government called the shots. It was therefore still a Biggest Government ideology.*

Another quality inherent in Bigger and Biggest Government is the need for more and more territory. This is necessary for two reasons: First, governments are invariably poor economic managers. Immediately after nationalizing, there’s a flood of money, but as the free market dries up, the money stops flowing. Taking new territory brings in new wealth. Second, as Bigger and Biggest Governments inevitably become more totalitarian and despotic, they can avert people’s attention from their failings and cruelty by creating scapegoats and stirring up war fever.

The only thing that separated Hitler’s fascism from other socialist movements was that he infused it with his insane racial theories, whether about alleged Aryan superiority, the other races’ alleged inferiority and, most specifically, the Jewish race’s alleged sub-humanity, which required extermination. As was true for any Big Government, he hungered for world domination. He added to that the Muslim policy (and Hitler adored Islam) of enslaving those who couldn’t or wouldn’t get with the Nazi program and wiping out Jews entirely.

Hitler and the Soviet Union are gone, but Europe is in many ways the same as it was in the 1790s and the 1930s. In Europe, no movement advocates for “power to the people” (or, more accurately, “individual liberty to the people”). All we see across Europe are different political parties arguing that they are the better Biggest Government For The People. European political parties are, in other words, the direct descendants of the French Revolution.

Sadly, Britain and its former colonies (except for America, but more about that later), have become infected with Europeanism. They all went socialist after WWII. Once having done that, they lost the idea of individual liberty. Whether in England or New Zealand or Canada, there is no argument about Bigger Government versus Smaller Government. Instead, as with Europe, the only arguments are between political groups that promise that their Biggest Government will be better than the other party’s Biggest Government.

America is entirely different. The genesis for America’s revolution was England’s Glorious Revolution in 1688. That Revolution was followed in 1689 by a written Bill of Rights. It contains many of the components we see in our Bill of Rights. If you’re wondering why, then British people no longer have those inherent rights, that’s because Parliament, in an effort to quash America’s nascent Revolution, pulled a switcheroo, and said that, while the King owed his subjects those rights, Parliament did not. That’s why Brits can go to prison for criticizing Islam, but (so far) Americans cannot. That’s also why Brits are denied arms, even when fighting off armed intruders in their own homes, while Americans (so far) still can.

The American Revolution was pickled in the 1689 Bill of Rights. Even as the French Revolution was in full flower, with two totalitarian ideologies squaring off against each other in a welter of blood, America had taken those Rights, expanded them, and enshrined these marvelous inherent individual liberties in her Constitution and Bill of Rights. These rights truly are about “individual liberty to the people.” Every single one is geared towards Smaller Government. Each describes inviolable areas of individual rights into which the government cannot intrude.

Since its inception, then, America’s political parties have not replicated the European pattern. That is, it’s never been about this Biggest Government party fighting that Biggest Government party for total control. Instead, the fight in America has always been between those who value the Constitution and therefore want Smaller Government and those who resent the Constitution and therefore want Bigger Government.

What all this means is that America definitely has a Left Wing. American Lefties, just like those people who sat to the Speaker’s left in the 1789 French Parliament, want a non-aristocratic, non-monarchic government, but one that nevertheless holds all power while individuals hold none. Barack Obama perfectly described the mindset of this American Left Wing when he complained that the Constitution is “deeply flawed,” “imperfect,” and imbued with a “fundamental flaw.” He later clarified that the problem was that the Constitution is a “charter of negative liberties.”

To the true Leftist — to the Obamas of America — America’s Constitution fails because its primary purpose is to prevent Bigger Government. Robespierre and Marat would have approved of Obama’s viewpoint. Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Washington would not.

As I pointed out above, though, America does not have two parties battling for totaling government dominance. Thus, while it has a Left Wing, just as other nations do, America does not have a Right Wing: The political party and people opposing Leftists are not arguing for a Bigger Government, albeit a different Bigger Government than that which the Leftists (aka Progressives or Democrats) demand. Instead, unique in the world, those opposing America’s Leftists demand Smaller Government.

Seen in this light, Trump, for all his bombast, is the perfect exemplar of American Small Government constitutionalism. Since the day he entered office, he has worked to shrink government.

Trump wants to shrink the regulatory state, which is an unconstitutional fourth branch of government that embodies Bigger Government. He wants individuals to keep their money, not have America’s police power grab it for government coffers that politicians, bureaucrats, and cronies can abuse. He does not believe America must be the world’s policeman or, worse, the world’s nanny. He is therefore ending the Wilson Doctrine, something that arguably has no place in the 21st century. Trump is working to reinstate the Rule of Law, starting at America’s border, something that exists, not to serve government, but to serve individuals.

Most importantly (I think), Trump believes in the inviolability of the individual right to bear arms. He understands that individuals are safest when the government fears them, rather than when they fear the government. In other words, while Obama and his ilk are classically Left Wing, Trump, and those who support what he is doing, are the antithesis of Right Wing.

Additionally, to the extent Right Wing is used as doublespeak for racist Hitlerites who want to enslave the world, Trump and his followers cannot possibly fall into that category. Even if some of them, including, solely for the sake of argument, Trump himself, have bad motives (hating blacks, LGBTQs, Muslims, etc.), this hatred is meaningless if the political party has willingly abandoned the engines of power necessary to effectuate those bad motives.

One last thing: For those wondering why American Republicans and conservatives (who seek Smaller Government and therefore cannot be Right Wing) are routinely labeled “fascists,” thank Leftists in academia for that. After Hitler left Europe in ashes, socialists in America and Europe needed to do everything possible to disassociate Hitler and his fascists from socialism. They therefore began to teach that fascism was Right Wing and that conservatives/Republicans are Right Wing . . . and therefore they are Hitlerian fascists. As George Orwell knew, it’s amazing what you can do if you control language.

And yes, the above was long, but I did cover more than two centuries of history and most of the world’s continents.
____________________________
*England was anomalous in the 1930s because it still had something of representative democracy with individual liberty. However, the growing Labour movement (i.e., the rising socialist, Bigger Government movement) frightened many in the old landed classes. They had never trusted democracy and still yearned for a Bigger Government aristocracy. Seeing that this was not coming back, they were willing to throw their weight in with fascism because it would allow them the illusion of private property not to mention the money a fascist government was willing to pay private owners, in the form of retained profits, for ceding actual power to the government.

The post Trump is not Right Wing because America has no Right Wing appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Leftism, Islam, anti-Semitism, and the Jews

Democrats and Muslims have come together with anti-Semitism because it is their ideological destiny — and Leftist Jews are too indoctrinated to see it.

One of the fascinating things about the world in which we live is the alliance between Leftists and Muslims. At first glance, it seems as if they have nothing in common. Leftists tout women’s rights; Muslims tout women’s burqas. Leftists tout LGBTQ rights; Muslims tout homosexual hangings. Leftists purport to hate slavery; Muslims have slavery as a core doctrine. Leftists hate rape; Muslims have rape as another core doctrine.

Given these profound differences, one way to account for the Leftist/Muslim alliance today is to look to the old Arab adage stating “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” (Or, as Aristotle said first, “a common danger unites even the bitterest enemies.”) Both the Left and Islam are united in a fight against Western civilization. And significantly, the thing they are fighting against most fiercely is what lies at the core of Western civilization: The value of the individual.

Here’s the thing: Despite their superficial differences, Leftists and Muslims have something very profound in common, which is that both are completely totalitarian ideologies. Each envisions complete control over all people around the world. Individualism is anathema to them. It is this common vision that binds them in the short term. In the long term, of course, each assumes that its ideology will be victorious and that, like the Borg, the winning ideology (whether Islam or Leftism) will either assimilate or destroy the losing ideology (whether Leftism or Islam).

Oh, I almost forgot. There’s another thing that binds them and that is their abiding hatred for Jews. (They hate other religions too, don’t get me wrong, as we can see from the murderous purge of Christians across the Muslim world as well as the softer effort to purge Christians in America. But there’s something about the Jews….)

I have a theory about this Jew hatred. Judaism was the first ideology to identify individual worth, something that Jews wrote down in the Bible and that Christianity, which is Judaism’s ideological progeny, brought to the greater world. From first to last– that is, from God creating man in his own image to Christ recognizing the worth of each individual — the Judeo-Christian tradition is about the individual.

The Judeo-Christian belief system is about freedom of conscience, not mindless subordination to a tyrannical God, set of gods, or earthly dictator. It’s about moral values, not frantically thrashing about to find some way to appease moral or immortal despots, whether with human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, or meaningless rituals divorced from morality and human worth. It’s also about recognizing God in others, whether in the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount, both of which require that we treat other humans with the dignity we want for ourselves.

Everything the Bible demands is antithetical to both Leftism and Islam. Those faiths (for Leftism is a faith) divide the world into those with power and those without. They see people as either masters or slaves. They see individuals as beings who have no free will but, instead, as beings to be endlessly manipulated for some greater good that always, somehow, coincides perfectly with the masters’ needs.

For those in thrall to totalitarian ideologies, there is no enemy greater than the man who says, “I am me” — not “I am us,” or “We are you,” or “I am you,” or “Tell me what to do,” but “I am me. I am a person created in God’s image. I have free will. I have a moral compass that it is imperative upon me to follow because of my personal relationship with God, to whom I am ultimately answerable.” In a totalitarian world, the person who insists on his individualism and moral worth is the ultimate threat.

Given that this abiding commitment to the individual infuses both Jewish and Christian doctrine, why is anti-Semitism, not anti-Christianity, the oldest hatred? A few reasons.

First, in the Christian world, Christianity, as the child, had to sever itself from Judaism, the parent. As every parent of teens knows, this is often a brutal process — and no more so than when it takes place in a pre-modern world that is itself exceptionally brutal.

To its great credit (and I say this without any sarcasm), in the last two hundred years Christianity has left behind its childhood and adolescence. It now approaches Judaism as one adult to another, just as mature children can finally forge a new — and often so much better — relationship with the parent from whom they sought to separate. The two faiths can enjoy their familial bonds while still valuing their mature differences. It is today, as it should be, a healthy relationship. (I do not include Leftist “churches” in this analysis. They are Leftist first and only vaguely Christian second. To the extent they share a slender bond with Biblical Christianity, they are immature.)

Significantly, there is nothing in the New Testament itself that demands that Christians be anti-Semitic. This was something imposed from the outside, especially when earthly European sovereigns took Christianity as a state religion and used it as one more instrument of power and control. In these circumstances, they found Judaism to be a useful scapegoat for their own — and a cruel world’s — failings. Nothing did more to correct the Christian and Jewish relationship than the wonderful American decision to sever church and state. (I should point out that this does not mean keeping people of faith out of politics; it simply means that the government has no say in religious doctrine.)

Second, in the Muslim world, things took a very different turn. Islam is about Mohamed, the perfect man. And for Mohamed, Jew hatred was personal. He suggested to regional Jews that they declare him God’s prophet and the Jews refused. Mohamed, a narcissist who lacked Christ’s gracious spirit, took the rebuff personally and slaughtered every Jew he could find.

After that, Mohamed went one worse and baked his personal hurt and animus into Koranic doctrine. Anti-Semitism isn’t just an interpretative mistake as it was with the early Christian world. Instead, for each Muslim, it’s a religious imperative not just to hate the Jew but to destroy the Jew. The execrable Ilhan Omar is nothing more than a good Muslim.

There are two ways to jettison entirely Islamic anti-Semitism: re-write the Koran, which isn’t going to happen; or destroy world Islam as thoroughly as the Allies destroyed Germany, Italy, and Japan, which isn’t going to happen either.

Failing that, the best that can be done with Islamic anti-Semitism is to corral it wherever possible. Also, as is happening in the Middle East, the old “enemy of my enemy is my friend” principle still works. Now that Obama empowered Iran so that it has become an existential threat, not just to Israel, but to Sunni Gulf States, suddenly pragmatic Muslims are discovering that having Jews in the neighborhood isn’t such a bad thing.

Three, in the socialist world, just as in the Muslim world, anti-Semitism is baked into the cake. Let me start by saying that there is no anti-Semite worse than a renegade Jew. I was just reading about Jewish life in Romania and learned that the first blood libel there was sparked by a Jew who had converted to Christianity. Indeed, it’s a frequent refrain in Jewish history that those most violently opposed to Jews, and the ones most likely to spark pogroms, were converts. There is, of course, no zealot like a convert.

Karl Marx was genetically Jewish, but his father had converted so that the family could have better opportunities in early 19th century Germany. Marx therefore grew up as a shaky Christian in an anti-Semitic environment. He could have been like Disraeli, in England, who was fascinated by and proud of his Jewish heritage despite the family conversion when he was still a child. Instead, though, Marx clearly went the either way — he was going to out-hate the Jew.

When Marx eventually came up with his crackpot social and economic theories (and they are crackpot, because they were totally wrong about the past, totally misread his present, and were completely illiterate about economic principles), he wrote and wrote and wrote. His writings became gospel for Leftists and he baked Jew hatred into them. Read the following and tell me if it’s anything different from anything the National Socialists or Stalin or Ilhan Omar would say:

What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.…. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.

Keep in mind, please, that not only did Marx smear the Jews with the worst canards that emerged from 1,900 years of an adolescent Christianity’s warfare against Jews, he folded it into his entire “capitalist versus proletariat” shtick. Even though most of the world’s Jews were mired in abysmal poverty, he nevertheless painted all as parasitical capitalists who needed to be destroyed in order to create a workers’ paradise.

Thanks to Marx’s historic, cultural, and economic illiteracy, a fundamental principle of socialism is to rid the world of Jews. In this way, it is precisely the same as Islam, a fundamental principle of which is to rid the world of Jews. Both doctrines reflect the totalitarian opposition to an ideology predicated on individual liberty, as well as the mad tyrant’s rejection of a faith that, in one way or another, made him feel bad about himself. In other words, Islamic and Socialist anti-Semitism are bound together by ignorance, narcissism, and sociopathy. No wonder the two ideologies are so comfortable in each other’s company.

You can see, therefore, why anti-Semitism is becoming increasingly prominent in the Democrat Party. Once upon a time, the American Democrat party was a totalitarian party committed to slavery. After the Civil War, it tried to shake that image by presenting itself as the party of expertise (those were the racist Wilson Progressives). It swept-up the intelligentsia that way, by making them feel that their learned skills entitled them to petty tyranny.

During the Depression, the Democrats quite openly went for fascism, which is a form of soft socialism. By this I mean that, under fascism, rather than having the state actually take over all private property, the state just gets to dictate what is done with private property. It’s still state control.

Frankly, the only difference between Rooseveltian fascism and Hitler’s and Mussolini’s fascism is that the Americans never went in for wars fought for world domination and genetic purity. (Although one cannot deny that Hitler was inspired by the Democrat Party’s race laws when he first set about trying to legislate against the Jews.)

The American Democrat party figured out a variation of the “if you can’t beat them, join them” principle. Committing genocide against American blacks was a bridge too far and Jim Crow was (sadly, as far as Democrats were concerned) a strictly regional phenomenon. What Democrats realized was that, because so many American blacks existed in abysmal poverty (thanks in large part to Democrat racism), their votes could be bought.

Enter welfare. Blacks had a choice: Starve thanks to Democrat policies while proudly voting for the Republicans who had liberated them from slavery; or eat while voting for the Democrats who starved them with one hand and fed them welfare with the other. Pragmatism won the day. And after a few decades of dependency, just like lions in the zoo, America’s blacks got used to being fed in a cage rather than freely hunting for their own food.

But even this was still not a truly socialist Democrat party. After WWII, the previous soft fascism was anathema, so the Democrats re-fashioned fascism as a “Republican thing.” Moreover, the Democrats still had a constituency of white working and middle class voters who saw Dems as a working man’s party, not a plutocrats’ party (which was laughable, considering that FDR was the ultimate plutocrat). That’s the Democrat party in which I grew up. Republicans were considered to be white shoe bankers while Dems were the people’s people.

Even for the last few decades, despite the fact that Dems were embracing more and more hardcore Marxist ideology, the party still remembered that it was getting votes from the old-fashioned working class and the lower middle class, and that these were people who still thought socialism was a bad thing. Interestingly, having controlled academia since the 1960s, Dems didn’t need to worry about their middle- and upper-middle class constituents.

The sad reality is that people who attended American colleges and universities beginning in the 1960s were endlessly, mindless, and repetitively taught that socialism was a good thing. The fact that socialist countries were despotic basket cases did nothing to discredit the idea. “They just hadn’t done socialism right.”

Moreover, for decades starting in the 1960s and going right through the 1990s, academics and their progeny loved pointing to Europe as the ne plus ultra of working “socialism.” they were undeterred by the fact that (a) Europe still had a market-based economy and (b) Europe’s beloved cradle-to-crave social welfare system was actually an American product. Yup, we Americans paid for it by absorbing almost all of Europe’s defense costs during the Cold War. Americans worked hard so Europeans could retire early, travel endlessly, and get free (although lousy) health care.

Now, in 2019, the Democrats are finally abandoning their pretense that they are not now and never have been socialists. After six decades of controlling education (not just college now, but K-12, plus Headstart), the media, and the entertainment world, Lefties are no longer content to be the ignored man behind the curtain. They’re out and proud. They are socialists. And when you accept their proud assertion, remember what’s baked into the socialist pie: Anti-Semitism. Today’s Democrats are not criticizing Ilhan Omar because their ideology when it comes to Jews aligns perfectly with hers.

But what about all those Jews who are good socialists? Why is that? What the Hell is wrong with those people? Again, there are a few things:

Historically, despite Marx’s ignorant ravings about Jews and capitalism, most of the world’s Jews were horrifically ignorant and downtrodden. They were ferociously abused by various governments, whether Polish or Russian or French or whatever. Unaware of the finer points of Marx’s writing and anti-Semitism, they gravitated naturally to his socialist promises, especially the one about the overthrow of those governments that abused them so badly. Moreover, to the extent that the Church opposed socialism, a church Jews had feared as a fount of anti-Jewish preaching . . . well, we’re back to the whole “enemy of my enemy is my friend” thing.

After WWII, Jews also fell into the trap (thanks to hard work from American Leftists) of believing that the Nazis (aka fascists) were right wing, not proud Left wing socialists. For a smart people, this was crazy stupid, considering that the Nazis’ real name was National Socialists, but whatever….

The confusion was made worse by the fact that Israel was founded as a socialist country, embracing Marx’s idiot ideas while ignoring his anti-Semitism. So fascists are Republicans, and socialists are the good guys, and Jews are good guys, and you know the rest.

But really the main reason Jews in America are staunch Leftists is because Jews are among those Americans most committed to higher education. Jews send their children to college — and American colleges and universities are deeply committed to using their power over vulnerable young people to convert them to Leftism. This is why I’ve been saying for a long time that the best way to stop Leftism in America is to pull federal funds from all institutes of higher education. Trump’s promise to do so for free speech violations is a good start, but it’s not enough.

I think I’m done now: Christians (true Christians, not Leftists who pretend to Christianity) have matured beyond anti-Semitism; Muslims and Leftists have anti-Semitism baked into their core doctrine. The Democrat Party has gone full Leftist, so it embraces Islamic anti-Semitism. And Jews, having had way too much college education, are so deeply imbued with Leftism that they are incapable of seeing that the toxic combination of Islam and Leftism is already preparing the road to the gas chamber. They are exactly like good German Jews in 1933 who refused to accept that their beloved country could ever turn on them.

The post Leftism, Islam, anti-Semitism, and the Jews appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.