Given the expanding role of government and erosion of individual liberty that occurs under both fascism & socialism, and the murderous history of each, why is communism/collectivism so much more palatable than National Socialism?
“…the company is learning marketing progressive ideas is easier than implementing socialist-style economics.”
“For months, company leaders have been resisting a unionization effort by workers at their Weaverville, North Carolina plant.”
“I sincerely believe that right now a union would be a terrible thing for you and for No Evil Foods,” Mike Woliansky, the co-founder and CEO of No Evil Foods, told his employees earlier this year. “You could get the same thing you currently have. You could get less than you currently have. I don’t think you need a union voice here.”
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim, speaks to Candace Owens about the dangers of political/theocratic Islam and its incompatibility with the Constitutional Representative Republic form of government in the USA. He discusses the ideological roots of theocratic Islam and it’s alliance with social collectivism and separtist/fascist movements of the 20th Century. He contends that disruption, by speaking truth to power, within the Muslim communities will be the only force effective enough to bring about reforms compatible with western democracy.
While Joe Biden and Kamala Harris go on and on about leadership we should look back to leadership lessons from Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural address.
Harris says she wants a mandate, yet Jefferson understood the country was a republic, not a democracy. In the Constitution, there are no provisions for claiming a governing mandate; claiming to have a mandate based on a majority vote, Jefferson would say violates a “sacred principle” and makes you an oppressive tyrant:
“Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
Many have pointed out that today’s progressives behave like “Medieval Inquisitors.” Jefferson pointed to political intolerance as “despotic” and as “wicked” as religious intolerance:
Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions.
So, what should government do? Jefferson was clear:
A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.
In his address, Jefferson didn’t promise a single new program, but he explored the principles by which he would lead:
Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies…
Welcome to Friday’s Philosophical Foray beyond Healthcare!
Government bureaus are not needed for mass censorship. You only need people in authority willing to acquiesce to the intimidation tactics of an idea-censoring, anti-free speech mob wielding their social & professional weaponry like pitchforks.
Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.
“The above is a quotation from George Orwell’s preface to Animal Farm, titled “The Freedom of the Press,” where he discussed the chilling effect the Soviet Union’s influence had on global publishing and debate far beyond the reach of its official censorship laws.
We must learn history. The examples Mr. Bezmenov gave in 1984 need to be studied and taken seriously; as do the 4-steps of ideological subversion. We see it playing out in our city streets today.
We all have elements of privilege to which we are heirs. We should strive to make the most of our privilege and be worthy of it; not view it as a crime or the raison d’etre for apology.
Singling out race-based or socioeconomic privilege is NOT speaking truth to power; it is simply bigotry & racism by another name. Does a native-born Chinese individual have privilege in China because he or she knows the culture, language and has familial ties? I would hope so. Does a black man from a well-off family in Nairobi have privilege in Kenya? Absolutely. But in neither case does that privilege necessarily equate to oppression of someone less fortunate.
Likewise, laying collective guilt at the feet of an ethnic group or race or gender is inexcusable; it certainly has no place in free democratic societies which claim the individual has intrinsic value. And laying collective guilt on members of an ethnic group or race based on sins committed by their ancestors is equally reprehensible.
The evolution and instantiation of this doctrine can be seen by examining the intellectual history of Socialists, post-modernists and Marxists. As the corpses piled up, the Neo-Marxists and their ilk could no longer defend the failed and bloody examples of communism and eugenics in 20th century. Their response was to soften and broaden their labor/proletariat vs capitalist fight by pitting races and genders against each other in a victim-oppressor narrative. In their view, every human interaction is just a micro power-struggle within the larger theater of oppressive dominance hierarchies. It may look different on its face, but it is the same ideology that fueled the murderous acts of collectivists in the communist revolutions of Russia & China. As Orwell alludes to, the socialists didn’t really love the poor as much as they hated the rich.
Proponents can no longer overtly defend the record of socialism/communism in 20th century; so now they must tone down the rhetoric. The toxic ideology continues, now masquerading in softer cloth as social justice and identity politics, based on their own hierarchy of intersectionality.
Those who would indict an individual for crimes of their ancestors, based on the color of their skin, practice a sinister and malevolent form of racism that will not end well. It is an ideology that distorts justice and shows no regard for individual sovereignty or free-will.
It’s time we learned the painful lessons of the bloody social experiments of the 20th Century. It is time to call out identity politics, charges of white privilege and the toxic ideology that underpins it.
We can do better. We need to rediscover the sovereignty of the individual in the tradition of Chydenius, Locke and Bastiat. Ayn Rand exposed the truth succinctly when she said, “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”
I realize some sociocultural shifts are relative based on trends & technology & affluence; and some are cyclical, i.e. Woodstock et Burning Man.
I try to keep up, I really do.
But I fear we’ve open the gates to a liberty-crushing “Not-so-Brave” New World.
We see recurring examples of this in the Twitter-verse, catalyzed by their apparatchik mouthpieces
in the media.
I offer as evidence, the latest crime against the Doctrine of Intersectionality:
I don’t know Kylie Jenner and I’ve never seen an episode of The Kardashians.
Her Crime? Wearing her hair in Cornrow braids while being white.
Evidently, licensing of hairstyles – with all the deep meaning imbued by it – are now solely owned by certain races or ethnicities. Yet we have no clue who deemed this was so or how these groups were granted sole jurisdiction over these domains. Do they grant franchises or limited usage licenses or other exemptions? TBD, I suppose, by the same toxic ideology that created this cultural poison.
Inquiring minds want to know if same outrage would apply had she gone full Skin-head on Instagram. Would Richard Spencer be outraged? No, probably not…but I’m sure someone in the Twitterverse would have would have accused her of dog whistling to the neo-nazis.