Gay Patriot Header Image

Truer Things Have Rarely Been Said

Posted by V the K at 3:29 pm - September 19, 2017.
Filed under: Socialism in America

I have no doubt that someone wrote this line for him, but this is probably my favorite thing PDT has ever said.

 “The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.”

Anyone care to dispute that?

There was a time when Sen. Bernie Sanders, along with Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, and Jesse Jackson all praised Venezuela  for diminishing income inequality and instituting Government-provided health care.

People who are truly “woke” understand that the objective of socialism is not to raise the living standards of the poor, or even to equitably redistribute wealth. The objective of socialism is to concentrate and expand Government power within the a self-selected political class. In this respect, socialism as practiced by Venezuela, Cuba, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Detroit, Chicago, and California is succeeding exactly as planned.

It is my understanding that the comment was not well received by the “global elites.”

Speaking of PDT, now that it has been revealed that the Obama administration really was wiretapping the Trump campaign, I have noticed the Democrat Media Complex spin has gone from “Trump is insane to accuse Obama of wiretapping him” to “The fact that Obama was wiretapping Trump proves that TrumpRussia is a real scandal” without stopping for breath.

Socialism, Starvation, and Child Prostitution

Posted by V the K at 10:20 am - August 28, 2017.
Filed under: Socialism in America

The Progressive left says that Venezuela’s problems are all because the price of oil collapsed, but I don’t see people starving and resorting to prostitution in Saudi Arabia or Norway.

As night falls over Caracas, and most of the city’s residents lock their doors against its ever more violent streets, Adriana Velásquez gets ready for work, heading out into an uncertain darkness as she has done since hunger forced her into the only job she could find at 14.

She was introduced to her brothel madam by a friend more than two years ago after her mother, a single parent, was fired and the two ran out of food. “It was really hard, but we were going to bed without eating,” said the teenager, whose name has been changed to protect her.

Since then Venezuela’s crisis has deepened, the number of women working at the brothel has doubled, and their ages have dropped. “I was the youngest when I started. Now there are girls who are 12 or 13. Almost all of us are there because of the crisis, because of hunger.”

Note, this article is from the Far Left ‘Guardian’ website. A few years ago, they were cheering the ‘success’ of Chavista socialism and lionizing the architect of the Venezuela’s socialist economy.


Quotes On Fascism

“Fascist ethics begin … with the acknowledgment that it is not the individual who confers a meaning upon society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human character of the individual. According to Fascism, a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified at once, and this need of rising the State to its rightful position.”  — Mario Palmieri

“F**k your f***ing Constitution, f**k your liberal Bernie bullshit. We are here to fight Nazis.” – Antifa “Activist’

A few weeks ago, Progressive Leftists were claiming that Antifa had nothing to do with them, that they abhorred their violent tactics. But now that the Democrats and especially the Democrat Media Complex have embraced and legitimized political violence, those who previously claimed to oppose it are nowhere to be seen.

We condemn racists – and violent socialists

Racism is stupid and wrong.

Violating others’ rights to their own life, liberty and property is stupid and wrong.

Therefore, slavery is stupid and wrong. Discrimination is stupid and wrong. Crime is stupid and wrong. Tyranny/dictatorship is stupid and wrong. And socialism is stupid and wrong.

We condemn and disavow the racist, criminal and/or tyrannical beliefs and actions that manifest among neo-Nazis, KKK, white identitarians, any of the #WhiteLivesMatter types of U.S. citizens.

We condemn the racist, criminal and/or tyrannical beliefs and actions that manifest among the Antifa, #BlackLivesMatter or any other left-wing types of U.S. citizens.

We condemn and disavow criminal violence wherever it manifests, whether among Alt Left demonstrators, Alt Left nutcases (like that guy who shot up Congress), Alt Right demonstrators, or Alt Right nutcases (like that guy who rammed his car at counter-demonstrators).

To the extent that they can keep it non-violent, we support both the Alt Left and Alt Right in exercising their First Amendment right to demonstrate. However stupid or offensive their statements may seem.

We support Liberty under the Rule of Law, including the First Amendment. #AllLivesMatter

We note that the Democrat party is the party of institutional and historical racism in the U.S. And the party of socialism. As such, we call upon all Democrats to disavow the violence and bigotry that manifest among the Antifa and #BlackLivesMatter types of people; which, at present, most Democrats are busy denying or excusing.

In a saner world, all of the above statements would be obvious and non-controversial. Perhaps not even needing to be said.

Stolen From Ace

Posted by V the K at 1:11 pm - August 15, 2017.
Filed under: Socialism in America

And Every Word is True.

“All those idiots hurling the epithet ‘Nazi’ around this weekend, do they even know what the Nazi Party stands for? Well, I’ll tell you: Universal health care. Free education. Redistribution of wealth. Hooray for the little guy and boo large corporations and banks. After all, they’re *socialists*, fer crying out loud. The Nazi party platform could’ve been written by Occupy Wall Street or Bernie F*ing Sanders.”

Racism and violence are left-wing, part II

Our leftie commentors’ response to yesterday’s post on this was interesting – by what they never said. First, only 2 showed up. (Not that we have many to begin with, but on something big and controversial, usually they’ll support each other a bit more.) Second, they made zero effort to address the post’s main points:

  • that Nazis were/are socialists.
  • that, in all of American history (including today), the Democrats/Left have been the side of racist thinking (or racial categories), racial segregation, so-called “eugenics”, etc.
  • that there is nothing right-wing about the so-called Alt Right of 2017; excepting alone their choice to *claim* that they are somehow rightist.
    • (In 2016 or earlier, some actual rightists did adopt the “Alt Right” label thinking it was kicky and fun, but discarded the label when the #WhiteLivesMatter racists took it over.)
  • that, despite appearances, it’s ideologically and psychologically easy for white supremacists and hard leftists/Democrats to change into each other, pretend to be each other, etc.
  • Because the essence of both sides is tribal collectivism and the desire to punish one’s dissenting or dissimilar neighbor.

By contrast – What is it, to be conservative or right-wing? I’m no expert but the answers usually given will boil down to:

  1. Standing up for tradition. E.g., Catholic or other Christian rightists (whom, by the way, the Nazis hated). In the UK, it could mean monarchists supporting the Queen.
  2. Standing up for Liberty under the Rule of Law. In America, this means a love of everyone’s constitutional rights to life, liberty and property.

Neither are what white supremacists stand for. What they stand for is their approximation of racism-with-socialism; in other words, left-wing politics.

When will we start labeling them, not on the basis of what they *claim* to be (for some horrible marketing purpose of their own), but on the basis of their actual views? “Alt Left” would be closer.

For dessert: Steven Crowder on The Top 3 Ways in which Antifa and white nationalists are the same. In brief:

  1. Both readily disregard the law and Constitution.
  2. Both promote identity politics and play the Victim card.
  3. Both support Big Government / left-liberal policies (e.g., both want nationalized / single-payer health care).
  4. Bonus round: Both hate Israel.

Also, V the K’s comment:

The other truth that must not be spoken: The left is absolutely thrilled and delighted with what happened in Charlottesville.

The only way it could have made them happier is if their Antifa protesters had been shot by an NRA member.

The truth that must not be spoken: Racism and violence are left-wing

Commenter Sarah kindly pointed us to this report about Jason Kessler, a leader of the #WhiteLivesMatter Charlottesville march.

Rumors abound on white nationalist forums that Kessler’s ideological pedigree before 2016…point[s] to involvement in the Occupy movement and past support for President Obama.

You do have to take it with a grain of salt, because it comes from the highly-dysfunctional Southern Poverty Law Center. Still, it’s plausible when you remember that in 2008, white supremacists tended to support then-Candidate Obama. (Original Esquire article here; in case that ever goes away, my comment here captures some bits.)

OK, so why would white supremacists (whether full-fledged, or just potential ones) align with left-wing causes, such as Occupy Wall Street and Barack Obama? The answer is in the linked Esquire article. In brief,

  • White supremacists know a fellow racist when they see one. (They admired President Obama’s “racial consciousness”.) And,
  • They admire fellow socialists.

That’s right. Racism and socialism go together, as the Nazis proved. The Nazis were socialists; if you don’t believe me, check out the list of evidence in this earlier post.

We also know it from American history. Democrats fought to preserve slavery (whereas the Republicans freed the slaves). Democrats formed and manned the KKK; instituted the Jim Crow laws; invented Planned Parenthood specifically to abort black babies (look into Margaret Sanger sometime); and defended racial segregation well into the 1970s. And the youngest, most “progressive” lefties are bringing back racial segregation, here in the 2010s.

At some point, Democrats did flip the racist script and turn into brown supremacists (rather than white supremacists), but the dynamic is the same: An obsession with racial categories and race preferences/stigmatizing. It stems from Tribalism, which goes hand-in-hand with Collectivism, which is the philosophical root of socialism.

That’s why racism is left-wing. As to the violence: The essence of the socialist or “progressive” project is the use of force – that is, violence – to punish one’s neighbor for being better-off AND/or for not submitting enough to leftist nonsense and virtue-signalling.

In other words: leftism is violent inherently. In its nature, left-wing politics is a wish to see violence being done to those of your neighbors who won’t be or do or say what you want. Whereas pro-liberty or genuine right-wing politics is a wish for people to be able to avoid each other when they want.

All of this makes it wrong to claim that violent racists are from the Right. And that is part of why I keep calling the Charlottesville march a #WhiteLivesMatter thing, rather than using the false and misleading “Unite the Right” name given by its organizers. What those guys stood for has nothing to do with the Right’s love of life, liberty and property.

But leftists will claim that violent racists are rightists anyway. Because every American knows instinctively that racism and political violence are both bad. To stay in business, the Left must, at all costs, deflect and project-away the blame for it.

Thus we get the accusational, virtue-signalling frenzies like the one against President Trump today, which I just noted.

The Left Needs Rage to Keep the Progressive Con Job Going

About that Google memo that is this week’s Rage Fetish for the Progressive Left. The left is claiming that it is “anti-diversity” and that it makes claims that women are unsuitable for jobs in the tech industry because they are too emotional and inferior to men. The actual memo says none of those things. What it actually says is that inclusiveness and diversity should be extended to thoughts and ideas instead of being limited to race, gender, symbolism and feelings.

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem.

Why is the left lying about this fairly anodyne memo? They are lying because they need to stoke outrage. Why do they need to stoke outrage? Because constant rage is absolutely necessary for the progressive left to achieve its goals.

Socialism — properly understood — is a scheme by which wealth is acquired through political power rather than economic success. Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, and Hugo Chavez are typical of socialist ‘heroes of the people’ who impoverished their people but died (or on Mugabe’s case, will die) with billions of dollars in foreign bank accounts. Bill and Hillary Clinton … with a net worth of well over $100 million… have done well on their modest salaries as ‘public servants.’

Misdirection is essential to keep the marks at the bottom from noticing that the politicians spouting the rhetoric of equality are getting very, very wealthy while their own economic circumstances are stagnant or declining. The oligarchs have to keep them in a perpetual state of outrage about ‘racism,’ or ‘sexism’ or ‘homophobia’ or ‘Islamophobia’ or whatever. They even came up with a term, ‘intersectionalities’ to make it possible for *everything* to be racist, sexist… et cetera. And because it’s a seven syllable word, the marks feel like they’re reall smart when they say it and don’t realize they’re being conned.

And the fact of the matter is there really isn’t a lot of racism or sexism or homophobia left in society. So, the left has to make stuff up. It has to make up that a Google employee wrote an ‘anti-diversity screed’ that attacked women as having no business in the tech industry, or that Michael Brown was an innocent young school boy shot to death by a racist cop as he pleaded for mercy. (“Hands Up, Don’t Shoot.”) They know that their base is too lazy to look up the facts and too cowardly to dissent even if they have doubts about the Narrative.

The left’s social, economic, and political ideas cannot stand up to scrutiny (which is why diversity of ideas is so threatening to them). Therefore, it is essential to keep its people in a state of rage, lest they calm down and start thinking about leftism objectively.

And Then They Woke Up…

Posted by V the K at 9:42 pm - July 27, 2017.
Filed under: Socialism in America

A group of college know-it-all Marxists at Swarthmore broke up when they looked around at each other and realized they were all rich white people.

According to screenshots confidentially provided to Campus Reform by an individual with access to the group’s private Facebook page, the demise of the Swarthmore Anti-Capitalist Collective (SACC) came in the wake of a farewell letter from a member who had decided the group could never be an effective proponent of “unproblematized anticapitalist politics” due to its “history of abuse, racism, and even classism.”

They probably figured out that real Marxism would mean giving up their money and privilege to the poors.


Too good to check

If this is a hoax (or any of these aren’t genuinely translated from the German), please thrash me in the comments.

Supposedly, Antifa Cheers Speech Made Up Entirely From Hitler Quotes.

YouTube Preview Image

I admit the audience seems a bit puzzled. But probably because the quotes are at a 12th-grade reading level. They sure aren’t booing the talk of destroying capitalism or controlling all owners of property.

Taking your money at gunpoint

You pay taxes because the government forces you to. The only differences between taxation and robbery are:

  1. The government makes it legal (when they do it).
  2. The government has more window-dressing or layers of deception. For example, they’ll say that you pay taxes voluntarily. (Which is deception, because they will jail you and/or your banker if you don’t pay; and shoot you if you resist jail.)

In Seminole County, FL, they just got a little more honest. Seminole County tax collector will allow employees to carry guns.

Seminole County Tax Collector Joel Greenberg told the Orlando Sentinel that according to Florida law, he and his employees are considered “revenue officers” and are exempt from the state’s ban on the open carrying of firearms while performing their duties…

He said 15 to 20 employees will be allowed to carry firearms. Greenberg said no one will be forced to carry a weapon, adding that he “can’t imagine that they wouldn’t want to.”

The citizens, by contrast, can’t carry guns. So now the tax collectors are armed, and the citizens aren’t. (Whereas before, they met on slightly more equal terms and had to bring the police in for any physical disputes.) Roman empire, here we come!

State budget crises

These seem to be popping up. For decades, State public pensions have been under-funded and overly-generous. The bill is coming due. Bloomberg has a map:

Gray means nothing good. California, for example, has under-funded its pensions by $1 trillion – or $93,000 per household – which is worse than Illinois.

The big crisis of the moment is Illinois. They have not enacted a budget in 3 years, have $15 billion in unpaid bills, and a court just ordered them to make some large Medicaid payments they had been skipping. In consequence, the Democrat legislature has passed tax hikes – that the Republican governor has vowed to veto, at least for now.

Other states in crisis are

  • Connecticut, where the Democrat governor has signed an executive order to take control of State spending (and do service cuts) after the Democrat legislature couldn’t pass a budget.
  • Maine, where the Republican governor is threatening a government shutdown (and state of emergency) rather than accept another Democrat tax hike.

All of these States face downgrades of their bond ratings.

As to California: it already has some of the nation’s highest tax rates (13% top income, 7-10% sales taxes). With typical “progressive” insanity, CA is spinning on whether to do single-payer health care – a $400B idea that it can’t afford even today, and still less after California’s inevitable pension crisis hits.

This One Weird Trick Destroys American Cities

Posted by V the K at 8:35 am - July 3, 2017.
Filed under: Socialism in America

Democrats have hit on a formula for urban success. When they control a city, they raise taxes, severely diminish the quality of public services, and drive out businesses and the middle class.

It seems like an odd formula for political success, but it has been immensely successful.

The question is, do Democrat policies cause urban rot? Or, does urban rot produce such a poor quality electorate that it is only possible to elect Democrat politicians? Chicken or egg?

Does Camille Paglia’s example prove or disprove a notion that women shouldn’t vote?

A commenter pointed us to this Weekly Standard interview with Camille Paglia. As in most of her work, she says true and fascinating things – on the way to wrong conclusions. As a sample, here she is on the election:

Hillary, with her supercilious, Marie Antoinette-style entitlement, was a disastrously wrong candidate for 2016 and that she secured the nomination only through overt chicanery by the Democratic National Committee, assisted by a corrupt national media who, for over a year, imposed a virtual blackout on potential primary rivals…

After Trump’s victory (for which there were abundant signs in the preceding months), both the Democratic party and the big-city media urgently needed to do a scathingly honest self-analysis, because the election results plainly demonstrated that Trump was speaking to vital concerns (jobs, immigration, and terrorism among them) for which the Democrats had few concrete solutions…

She has much more to say; RTWT. For example, she slams the transgender movement of today as dupes of Big Pharma:

…the pharmaceutical industry, having lost income when routine estrogen therapy for menopausal women was abandoned because of its health risks, has been promoting the relatively new idea of transgenderism in order to create a permanent class of customers…I condemn the escalating prescription of puberty blockers (whose long-term effects are unknown) for children. I regard this practice as a criminal violation of human rights.

And she covers President Trump’s recent “infrastructure” speech, which indeed was awesome.

But then, whom did Paglia support? (Disclosure: I supported no one; a registered Independent, I came close on Gary Johnson but even he wasn’t good enough for me.) As Paglia explains:

I am a registered Democrat who voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary and for Jill Stein in the general election. Since last Fall, I’ve had my eye on Kamala Harris, the new senator from California, and I hope to vote for her in the next presidential primary.

Which is downright silly.

In travelling the “alt” opinion world, one occasionally comes across a strange theory that women shouldn’t vote. Here is an example from the vlogger Black Pigeon Speaks (who is center-Left on many issues, but right-ish on immigration, culture and terrorism). For the record: I disagree with the theory (that is, I think women should vote). But I’m going to describe it.

The essence of the theory (which again, I think is a broken theory) is that biology has wired men to take stands on issues and to initiate projects in the world; while it has wired women instead to be concerned with immediate safety and securing benefits from the group (and/or some patron). Because of that, says the theory, women voters over time will drag a country toward both appeasement (of its enemies) and socialism. Which is not good.

Is Camille Paglia evidence for that theory? Here we have a woman with a talent for grasping and expressing truth, yet she still can’t see through the people-destroying ruse of socialism.

Paris Agreement Sucked – No One Should Want It

Yesterday I wrote a lot of text on this. Thanks to all commenters who made helpful additions.

Today I want to give the short version. With short sentences. For lefties.

  • The Paris Agreement did not control CO2. It let China, India and Russia do what they wanted. Oooh, Russia! Bad!!!!1!! Right?
  • The Paris Agreement did not control CO2. Even the UN scienticians agreed that it made almost no difference to their Global Warming projected temperatures.
  • The Paris Agreement was a krazy-bad deal. It made the U.S. almost the only leading country that has to wreck its workers’ lives and futures.
  • The Paris Agreement was a krazy-bad deal. It made the U.S. almost the only leading country that has to give away many tens of billions of dollars annually, to pay Third World kleptocrats to hold back their countries.

Hey lefties: If you didn’t know these things, I’m sorry you’re so gullible.

I bet you’re gullible enough to think CNN or WaPo “fact checkers” are real, and not just fellow lefties trying to keep you on the plantation.

And, one more time: If Paris “imposes nothing on us” or is non-binding – then why should withdrawing from it be a crisis?

Think. If it’s true that any party can blow it off (note IF) – then it’s worthless, in yet another way.

Why leftie men often look like cucks

I missed this last week, but here it is now. Study: Physically Weak Men More Likely To Be Socialists.

An academic study from researchers at Brunel University London assessed 171 men, looking at their height, weight, overall physical strength and bicep circumference, along with their views on redistribution of wealth and income inequality. The study, published in the Evolution and Human Behavior journal, ​found that weaker men were more likely to favor socialist policies than stronger men.

Brunel University’s Michael Price believes this may be a product of evolutionary psychology. “This is about our Stone Age brains, in a modern society,” said Dr. Price. “Our minds evolved in environments where strength was a big determinant of success. If you find yourself in a body not threatened by other males, if you feel you can win competitions for status, then maybe you start thinking inequality is pretty good.”

So, physical “haves” feel less threatened and enjoy inequality. In other words, they’re dumb jock bullies. That’s one interpretation. But it’s undermined by Brunel’s own evidence:

“When Dr Price factored in time spent in the gym some, but not all, of the link disappeared,” notes The Times, suggesting there may be something to men with capitalistic views hitting the gym.

[ILC stares at his shoelaces, wonders if he should cough] That strikes me as more truthful.

  • Those who go to the gym, tend to be stronger.
  • And they tend to understand the importance of health and strength in daily life: not only in appearing impressive to people, but in actually having more energy, being able to move more easily, having a reliable daily feeling of accomplishment and positive discipline, etc.
  • And they tend to understand accountability for your own results. (Physical training teaches nothing, if not that.)
  • From there, and at the risk of over-generalizing, they often drift into common-sense libertarian-conservative views, emphasizing personal responsibility.
  • The process can also work in reverse: if you believe in personal responsibility, you may find yourself going “Hey, why don’t I hit the gym / get strong?”

At least that’s been my experience. I know some leftie gym buffs – again, you can’t over-generalize – but I live in a super-lefty area. (And the few who like MSNBC for real are always either women or weak, older men.) The percentage rate of being libertarian-conservative seems, to me, a bit higher among gym buffs than the general population. And the link is: philosophy of personal responsibility.

If you’d like to learn about strength training, a good place to start is www.startingstrength.com. (No affiliation.) They emphasize perfecting your “form” or technique to prevent injury. And that strength training is something for all people, of all ages. The leader, Mark Rippetoe, is sort of a gruff, dogmatic, ex-power-lifter – and I *think* he’s libertarian-minded, or at least anti-Hillary.

The meaning of Trump’s presidency

With America’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, another piece of the puzzle is in place. I think I’m getting a Big Picture.

For a myriad of reasons – economic, financial, demographic – we have been moving into a multi-polar world. As opposed to a world where the U.S. is the one, super-wealthy super-power.

Like an oncoming glacier, the shift is very slow – but unstoppable. I’ve been contemplating it for years – and sometimes discussing it on the blog, as in my old posts (that I keep meaning to update) on the gradual decline of the U.S. dollar as the world’s central currency.

Trump is ahead of this shift, and left-wingers are behind it.

Despite their anti-American attitudes and railing against “white supremacy”, left-wingers take great comfort in the idea that the U.S. is the world’s one, super-wealthy super-power. In many a discussion, when I’ve tried to warn a liberal friend how policy X must inevitably undermine the U.S. position in the world, he or she smirks – yes, smirks – and says “But we will always be on top, because of reason Y.” (We have the best military, the best universities or tech research, Hollywood / the most seductive culture, control of the Internet or SWIFT payment system, whatever.)

I think their belief is basically infantile.

  • The child needs to fantasize that the parent is super-capable and benevolent and will always be there for her, no matter what.
  • And a malicious / narcissistic child fantasizes about being able to dish out endless tantrums and torture on the parent – without damaging the child’s life in any way.

Likewise, the left-winger needs to fantasize that the U.S. will always be the one, super-wealthy Super Mommy And Daddy – no matter how many rocks, bombs or burdens they (the left-wingers) throw at the U.S.

Which brings us to the Paris climate accord. It doesn’t do much of anything good. Just a couple big, bad things.

  1. Uphold left-wing fetishes – environmental extremism, statism, globalism – thus demonstrating leftie supremacy; and
  2. Drain the U.S. of wealth – in the form of payments for the Green Climate Fund, tens of billions of new aid to India and other countries, even more burdens on industry and U.S. energy, etc.

Withdrawing from the Paris agreement is so upsetting to left-wingers because it reverses both of those. Now, what is Trump’s rationale for withdrawing?

  • He thinks the U.S. is already responsible environmentally, and will continue to be.
  • He thinks we need to think a bit more about ourselves. We need to mine our own coal. We need to bring back manufacturing jobs. We need to NOT pay into the Green Climate Fund, billions of new aid to India, etc.
  • Meanwhile, the agreement lets China, India and even Europe burn coal and increase their CO2 emissions. That makes no sense. The agreement puts the U.S. at a senseless disadvantage.

Trump’s actions are consistent with, and helpful in, a multi-polar world where the U.S. stops being the Supreme Mommy and Daddy and instead, “gets real” about what the U.S. needs in order to be a good place to live for U.S. people.

He said it in January – “America First” – and now he’s carrying it out. That, and restoring the Constitution (at least a little). Because withdrawing from Paris de-fuses a constitutional bomb. (As will ending the Obamacare insurance-buying mandate, when they finally get around to that.)

Leftie reactions are telling: It’s the end of the world, the U.S. has “resigned as leader of the free world”, Germany’s Angela Merkel now leads the free world, etc. It’s exactly the tantrum you would expect them to throw – if they had an infantile attachment to an idea of the U.S. as the one, super-wealthy Super Mommy and Daddy, upon whom they could inflict any torture or burden that they pleased.

Trump is turning out to be the Bad Mouth Man who will end it, at least partly. And that’s good.

Making America Great Again

Yesterday afternoon’s big news, of course, is President Trump withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate accord.

Trump cited putting the “well being” of Americans first as a motivating factor behind his decision. He said, “This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund, which is costing the United States a vast fortune.”

…Compliance with the accord could have cost the U.S. “as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates,” said Trump.

…Trump then pointed to a portion of the Paris Climate Agreement that he said allows China to increase their emissions for 13 years…adding that India made it’s participation in the Paris Accord “contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries.”

The Paris Agreement also essentially blocks U.S. development of clean coal, said Trump. He then said he was going to try to make it to the opening of a new mine in two weeks and noted “Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, so many places.”

…which voted for Trump in the election. Hmm, why?

Trump again pointed to China and India, saying that each country is allowed to add massive numbers of coal plants under the Paris Agreement.

“In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries,” he said. “This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States.”

I’ll be honest, I may be weak on the accord’s details. But I got the essence: It’s an orgy of left-wing, quasi-religious virtue-signalling that greatly damages the U.S. economy and sovereignty (because we entered it officially in 2016) while boosting globalist bureaucrats with U.S. money.

Reducing CO2 emissions is, of course, its stated reason for being; and not a very good reason. Even under the U.N.’s own (incorrect) climate models, the accord will do little to reduce actual CO2 emissions or future Global Warming projections. That makes it almost the definition of a bad deal: Big pain for small gain.

But it’s even worse because the U.N.’s climate models are broken and greatly overstate the danger of Global Warming. Thus, no matter how you slice it, the stated purpose (CO2) isn’t the real purpose. On the level of CO2, the accord accomplishes only a little toward solving an over-hyped, politically-constructed problem.

The real purpose is to be seen in the accord’s real effects: promoting globalism, U.N. bureaucracy, and the Left’s religions of Environmentalism and Statism, over and against human prosperity, human freedom (the ability to choose fossil fuels and/or products that rely on them, especially cars) and national sovereignty. And making the U.S. pay money for other countries.

As I survey the news this morning, I see the right people’s heads exploding and I gotta be honest: It feels good. Thank you, President Trump!

UPDATES:

  • From the comments, PMSNBC’s Chris Hayes has been tweeting “THE AGREEMENT QUITE LITERALLY IMPOSES NOTHING!!!” – to which people reply, “Then why is backing out such a big deal?”
  • Brouhaha over the withdrawal, as such. First: U.S. participation was never ratified by the Senate. And people justify that by saying “It’s an agreement, not a treaty.” Fine. Which then makes it 100% voluntary for each participating nation. Right?

    The brouhaha is in Article 28, which says basically that countries must give a 3+ year notice before their withdrawal can become effective. Thus, provided that we give a crap about Article 28, the U.S. can’t effectively withdraw until 2020.

    But remember: “It’s an agreement, not a treaty.” Thus, participation in Article 28 itself is inherently voluntary. Hopefully, Trump has canceled our participation in Article 28 – along with the rest.

  • Lots of good stuff at Breitbart.
  • Click here for Trump’s full speech.

Even Snowflakes hate socialism

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 12:07 pm - June 1, 2017.
Filed under: Academia,Liberal Hypocrisy,Socialism in America

…when it comes to dip into their pockets.

YouTube Preview Image

Via Ace.

Why socialism always puts bad people in charge

In Monday night’s Venezuela post, our wise commenters said:

socialism doesn’t work because it is an unjust economic system. the people in power take things from people that work…

The wrong people will ALWAYS be in charge, because for socialism to work you have to have completely altruistic people in charge…

Yes. Except, it’s even worse than that 😉 The biggest problems with socialism are:

  1. It wrecks the Price Mechanism. Even if you had truly altruistic people in charge, such an economy still can’t function.
  2. Only bad-or-stupid people want a wrecked price mechanism. Thus, only bad-or-stupid people advocate socialism. And the bad people know how to shepherd the stupid people; thus, the bad people always end up in charge.

By Price Mechanism, I mean free markets discovering and signalling the prices of things. To review how that works:

  • All goods and services must be rationed, by one means or another.
    • because human needs are infinite
    • whereas human time (used to produce goods and services) is not
  • Markets ration things by having people pay a market price for the available supply.
    • If something is in short supply, those who have the highest “score” in terms of being both able and willing to pay, will get it.
    • “Willing” as in, free will / the person’s choice.
  • The market price moves up and down, accomplishing two big things as it does so.
    1. It coordinates people’s consumption activities. (Those who are unwilling or unable to pay for a thing at its current price, look for substitutes.)
    2. It coordinates people’s production activities. (As a thing’s price moves higher, it induces people to produce more of it.)
  • The coordination is spontaneous and responsive to changing conditions, because it is voluntary.
  • If you interfere with the price mechanism, you interfere with (or even block) that coordination.

OK, so the price mechanism is objectively great. It induces voluntary coordination among vast numbers of people – thus enabling the Division of Labor. Who would want to mess with that?

The answer is: People who gain by interactions that are not voluntary. People such as moochers, thieves, thugs, politicians and bureaucrats. People who lack the ability or willingness to produce. People who hope to live by altering or preventing market outcomes. People who think they can plan and control others better than those others can. People who are willing to gain by keeping others down.

In short: People who gain by dictatorship. Arrogant people who enjoy using force on others to prevent the peaceful activities and outcomes that people would otherwise create on their own.

That’s the nature of socialism. It’s not a noble ideal. It’s a curse, an evil. Like the Mafia, it’s always led by bad people because it *is* bad, in its nature. It can never be desired by people who are both good-hearted and knowledgeable. Therefore, it can never be led by them. And, even if it were somehow, it still wouldn’t function – because of the wrecked price mechanism.

This feeds into how the term “socialism” is defined.

  • An old, strict definition is: public ownership of the means of production.
  • But people today use the word with a much broader meaning: Any system where a governing authority intervenes in markets, preventing the market price mechanism from operating.

The socialist planners always proclaim their good intentions. And they always make things worse. And it’s not an accident or a failure to apply socialism; it’s inherent in socialism.

Wrecking the price mechanism kills spontaneous, voluntary coordination; and that’s the point of the thing. It’s why stupid-or-bad people love socialism. They WANT to control others and prevent market outcomes. It’s not a proverbial “unforeseen consequence”; it’s the point.

(more…)