Gay Patriot Header Image

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…)

Reminder: Government health care is sub-DMV health care

Talk to a leftie and you will often hear how wonderful Canadian health care is. “Why can’t we be like them?” Crowder did an expose of Canadian health care in 2009 that is still relevant:

YouTube Preview Image

Here’s the summary. Canadians pay huge taxes for “free”, “universal” health care. It makes people wait, and wait, and wait. Many people either give up altogether (and their condition gets worse), or go to a private clinic.

That’s how they reduce patients to a manageable number. Economics 101 teaches us that all goods must be rationed by one means or another, and “waiting” for people to quit the queue is how they ration Canada’s public health care.

From Crowder’s anecdotes it seems that Canadians, if they don’t quit, will wait usually about four times as long as Americans. For example, last year I went to an emergency room on a Sunday afternoon. It took 20 minutes to get the triage nurse’s attention, then another hour to see a doctor. In Crowder’s video, they visit a Canadian emergency room on a Sunday. It takes them about an hour and a half to see the triage nurse, and then 5+ hours to see a doctor (except they quit at the 4-hour mark).

Likewise, an acquaintance of mine recently needed a cancer surgery. He got it in weeks; in Canada it would have taken months. This is what Bernie and Hillary want to bring us to.

Liberals Gather to Celebrate the Murderous Ideology of Collectivism

Posted by V the K at 9:32 am - May 1, 2017.
Filed under: Socialism in America

May 1 is the day American leftists and fellow travelers around the world celebrate the most brutal, dehumanizing, and destructive ideology the world has ever known.

Stalin murdered at least 20 million people, and probably more, in order to bring about a “fair, just, equitable society,” while the progressive reporters and editors of the New York Times cheered him on. Mao murdered more than 70 Million in the Course of the ‘Cultural Revolution;’ which began as an exercise of college students seeking to purge their society of ideological impurity (does that sound familiar?). And then there was Cambodia, where the ideological soul brothers of Antifa murdered 2 Million people; including by bashing children’s brains out against trees to punish them for the political incorrectness of their parents.

Whether they call themselves “Communists,” “Progressives,” “Democratic Socialists,” or “Anarcho-Communists,” it doesn’t matter. These are just different labels for the same thing; an ideology where the individual is absolutely subjugated to the state.

Update:  The New York Times publishes a love letter to the murderous ideology of Communism.

Can’t wait for the killings to start!

The Red Scare in Perspective

Posted by V the K at 8:20 am - March 9, 2017.
Filed under: Socialism in America

Democrats have been trying to hype the New Red Scare ever since Hillary lost, warning us that because Trump’s National Security Advisor had a conversation with his Russian Counterpart and his Attorney-General met with the Russian ambassador while a senator that this was proof… PROOF… that Trump was about to hand control over to the Kremlin and we’d all be forced to eat borscht and work in shoe factories for our new Soviet Overlords.

Well, comrades, it seems the Democrats were not at all concerned that President Obama’s right-hand advisor (the rat-faced slumlord Valerie Jarrett) for eight years was an Iranian-born hardcore Soviet Communist.

According to Judicial Watch, Jarrett’s father, Dr. James E. Bowman, a pathologist and geneticist, “had extensive ties to Communist associations and individuals.” The FBI files obtained by Judicial Watch show that “in 1950, Bowman was in communication with a paid Soviet agent Alfred Stern, who fled to Prague after getting charged with espionage.”

Valerie Jarrett’s father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett (1917-2004), “was also another big-time Chicago Communist,” according to FBI files obtained by Judicial Watch. “For a period of time Vernon Jarrett appeared on the FBI’s Security Index and was considered a potential Communist saboteur who was to be arrested in the event of a conflict with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR),” reported Judicial Watch.

According to the FBI documents, Vernon Jarrett’s job was to “write propaganda for a Communist Party front group in Chicago that would ‘disseminate the Communist Party line among … the middle class.”

“Faithful to her roots, [Valerie Jarrett] still has connections to many Communist and extremist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood,” said Judicial Watch. “Jarrett and her family also had strong ties to Frank Marshall Davis, a big Obama mentor and Communist Party member with an extensive FBI file.”

Sic Semper Socialism

Posted by V the K at 12:21 pm - February 26, 2017.
Filed under: Socialism in America

The socialist revolution in Venezuela has… as all socialist revolutions always do… devolved into violent Government repression and endemic poverty.

Venezuela is so short on food that tens of thousands are going hungry or even starving. Its murder rate is among the highest in the world. Its economy is so crippled that the average shopper spends 35 hours a month waiting in line – three times more than in 2014. Yet even as the country becomes increasingly unlivable, the socialist government is more entrenched than it has been in years. A sense of hopelessness has settled over what was once among the richest nations in South America, a belief that nothing will really change.

This is not the least bit surprising to anyone who understands socialism. But American leftists like beloved Democrat Bernie Sanders lavished praise on the socialist regime in Venezuela, even as their corruption, violent oppression, and dysfunction became obvious.

For a brief period in 2015, there was a brief glimmer of hope as opposition parties gained a brief toehold, and there was some possibility of reform. But then, the Obama Administration stepped in.

The Obama administration then dispatched a top diplomat to walk back the opposition leaders and tempt them with a Vatican-sponsored dialogue, which has since collapsed. In hindsight, to many it felt like capitulation, with the only result being that Maduro was never punished for trampling on the constitution. Now, there is an effort underway to block opposition parties from competing in future elections altogether.

So, the Barack Obama Administration saw that a violent, oppressive socialist state was in danger of being reformed, and so they sabotaged the opposition.

Quelle surprise.

Socialism Helps Achieve Michelle Obama’s Dream

Posted by V the K at 9:48 am - February 21, 2017.
Filed under: Socialism in America

As FLOTUS and in-between her lavish taxpayer-funded vacations, Michelle Obama’s pet project was to coerce Americans to be thin and hungry.  Venezuela nailed it.

In a new sign that Venezuela’s financial crisis is morphing dangerously into a humanitarian one, a new nationwide survey shows that in the past year nearly 75 percent of the population lost an average of 19 pounds for lack of food.

The extreme poor said they dropped even more weight than that.

The 2016 Living Conditions Survey (Encovi, for its name in Spanish), conducted among 6,500 families, also found that as many as 32.5 percent eat only once or twice a day — the figure was 11.3 just a year ago.

In all, 82 percent of the nation’s households live in poverty, the study found.

Leftists like to pretend that Venezuela isn’t “real socialism,” even though the state centrally plans economic activity, controls the means of production, sets nationwide wages for workers and prices for consumer goods, controls all media, aggressively redistributes wealth, and offers single payer health care and free college education. Up until a couple of years ago, this was enough for Venezuela to qualify as a socialist triumph.

16649290_10208771706834875_1965752864432133907_n

A Feral Socialist

Posted by V the K at 8:55 am - February 8, 2017.
Filed under: Socialism in America

Article by Bill Whittle that really can’t be excerpted but must be read in its totality to be appreciated.   It concerns his speech before a group of young, aspiring totalitarians and being heckled by an unkempt socialist woman.

Sometimes, I think if you look behind every bit of social justice nonsense or attempts to quell liberty, you’ll find a group of heavy, unmarried, middle-aged, publicly-employed white women.

Democrat-Socialist Beloved by the Base Says America Sucks

Posted by V the K at 8:41 am - January 20, 2017.
Filed under: Socialism in America

Bernie Sanders owns three houses and says America is “the worst country on Earth.”

“No, we’re not a compassionate society in terms of our relationship to poor and working people. Our record is worse than virtually any other country on earth. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty than any other major country on earth and half of our senior, older workers have nothing set aside for retirement. So I don’t think compared to other countries we are particularly compassionate.”

This guy would have been the Democrat nominee if the nomination process hadn’t been rigged because he reflects the philosophy of his party better than Hillary.

One Box For Optimism

Posted by V the K at 9:09 pm - January 1, 2017.
Filed under: Socialism in America

Comrades, Zombie thinks this Trump thing is not only going to work out okay, but represents a major, long-term defeat and setback for the progressive left. Not sure I agree, but wouldn’t it be nice?

Donald Trump’s victory in November was not only the most important election result of our lifetimes, but ranks as one of the most significant events in recorded history, on par with the French Revolution or the fall of the Berlin Wall. And I’ll tell you why.

Western society is super-saturated with leftist propaganda. Politically astute non-leftists see it everywhere and complain about it incessantly — because it is ubiquitous. In fact, most of our waking hours are spent noticing, commenting upon, getting outraged by and then futilely combatting the endless, relentless leftist slant to everything in modern culture.

Every news broadcast. Every movie. Every lesson in every classroom. Every social signifier in public. Every poll. Every TV show. Every tribal shibboleth. In ways large and small, overt and covert, subtle and blatant, the society around us is infused with progressive ideals and agendas, whether you realize it or not.

The term for this process, in Marxist theory, is cultural hegemony, a phrase that was coined by communist philosopher Antonio Gramsci to describe how the political power-structure of a society is always determined by the cultural norms of that society. A conservative-minded populace will always vote for conservative-minded leaders, so the way to achieve communism in advanced nations, he argued, would be to first change the culture so that progressive ideals become dominant, and then people will simply vote themselves into communism without the need for a revolution.

And then November 8, 2016 happened, and BOOM: It was all revealed to be a lie. Not only did the indoctrination fail, but the general impression that the relentless indoctrination had always been successful was itself a gigantic meta-deception.

Not sure Zombie is completely right. Yes, the Democrat-Socialists failed, but not necessarily because of their failed ideology or failed propaganda machines, but because both were hitched to a decrepit, corrupt, power-mad, brain-damaged NichteinmenschlichFrau who lost by thin margins in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin and won the popular vote (mainly due to “honor system” voting in California and other blue states. {“Hey, as long as you say you’re legal to vote, we’re not going to check.” 80 ballots sent to one two-bedroom apartment. Nothing suspicious here. }) There are still millions and millions of Americans who look at the socialist examples of Venezuela and Zimbabwe and say, “Yes, but we can make it work here!” I don’t assume the Democrat-Media complex has been defeated at all.

The Overtly Fascist Imagery of the Clinton Campaign

Posted by V the K at 9:55 am - December 13, 2016.
Filed under: Socialism in America

I realize the election is long over. I’m not into beating a dead, corrupt, dishonest, incompetent, and possibly brain-damaged horse. But I was reading about the Cuban poet Armando Valladares. He was imprisoned for 22 years in a Cuban gulag by leftist icon Fidel Castro. Specifically, he was sent to the gulag for being the only person at his work who wouldn’t put an “I’m with Fidel” sign on his desk, as all good revolutionary Communists were required.

“I’m with Fidel.” That slogan, sort of reminds me of Hillary’s slogan, “I’m with her.” Doesn’t it?

Also, the ubiquitous “Stronger Together” slogan of the campaign… I always thought it was rather lame and ambiguous. (And of course, always rendered in light-blue and dark blue to signal there was no place for red state America in this “Stronger Together” union.) But “Stronger Together” is also literally a fascist slogan.

The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break. Similar symbols were developed by different fascist movements; for example, the Falange symbol is five arrows joined together by a yoke.

Democrats are keenly aware of symbolism. In fact, they elevate symbolism above everything else. So, they had to be aware that Hillary’s campaign was overtly and openly embracing the symbols of Cuban Communism and old school fascism, right?