It was never just about flags and statues, but the tearing down of the nation’s founding itself.

Anyone familiar with the vestiges of cultural Marxism and critical theory should have seen this coming from a mile away. It was only a matter of time before the nation’s Socialist left went after the Confederate battle flag and various sundry statuary that may or may not have associated with the US Civil war. At present, their cultural revolution is growing beyond that point already with their rapacious fervour now directed at the founding fathers. Most assuredly their success in erasing history will turn to attacking the very documents authored by those founding fathers.

Mob rule is akin to a brush fire raging out of control, feeding on itself and creating it’s own weather patterns. Social media only further inflames this tendency with a mob in one locale being inspired by another somewhere else. Governmental bodies trying to proactively keep the conflagration at bay only serves to encourage the rabble to set it’s sights on new targets

Mobs are generally opportunistic in nature when seeking new fuel for it’s rapacious needs to grow and expand. As predicted, this insanity didn’t stop at the mere removal of a few flags and Civil war statuary. Cultural Marxism is the guiding principle in all of this madness. For once they garner some success at the easy targets in the public square, they will soon go after that which has forestalled their authoritarian bent.

One can only implement a Marxist system of total government control and collective rights with the destruction of the old system of limited government and the protection of individual rights. This can only be accomplished with the discrediting the documents that have restrained the government and enshrined the civil rights of the individual. What better way to have a society rhetorically throw away the old than to attack the very individuals that penned and installed it’s founding principles?

We are told the founding fathers were flawed individuals, and thus we’re supposed to ignore their genius in setting up the greatest nation the world has ever seen. The plain fact is that everyone is flawed in some way, but that has no bearing on what they did. They rose above their faults and created a system that has worked for over 200 years and is still going strong. But there are those who wish to rule over their fellow man, and they would prefer to see this swept away and they feel that any means to do so justifies their ends.

Here’s were we disagree with Glenn Beck on the characterization of the Nazi’s as ‘Far-Right’

Having viewpoint grounded in historic fact has it’s advantages and Glenn Beck uses this to good effect. However, there is one contention that he needs to address to keep with logical reality. Many a time he has asserted that certain Nazi groups are a vestige of the Far-Right with allusions to it being some sort of European model. With all due respect, the measurement of any logical construct has to be vested with a consistent metric to make sense and this metric cannot change by geographic location.

It should be axiomatic that the constructs of our life have a basis in logic and reality. Confusion reigns when these elements are missing. The subject at hand is a very good example, there are those that prefer to characterize certain political groups as ‘on the Far-Right’ under various rationales that seem to be rather arbitrary.

In order to have an understandable metric, one must have it based upon a certain logical factor endemic to that measurement. This is why governments maintain weight and measurement standards in controlled environments, since each of these metrics have to be clearly defined for everyone. Such is the case with the political spectrum. One cannot arbitrary place a particular ideology at some point with a rational basis for doing so.

The origins of Left and Right began under the auspices of support for a monarchy during the time of the French revolution. Clearly this is no longer the case and it only makes sense to set the metric to a standard of modern times. This metric should have a basis in the dictionary definitions of the various mainstream ideologies of the day.

In general terms, the Right is considered to be the Conservative imbued with the principles of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property ownership and limited government while the Left is considered to be Socialistic in nature, vested in the principles of Collective or Groups rights and unlimited government.

It should be obvious that the political spectrum should measure governmental power, with the Right favouring the limitation of this power while the left favours the opposite viewpoint. The Far-Right would thus be characterized as minimal or zero governance. While the Far-Left would be characterized by complete or total government control. Thus one would logically place anarchy on the Far-Right and Totalitarianism on the Far-Left.

The mere placement of certain groups arbitrarily or by past characterizations or only sows confusion and discord. The spectrum is meaningless without a logical basis in fact. This is why it makes no logical sense to place an ideology that would require expansive governance on the Far-Right. Moreover it doesn’t make any sense to have this metric magically change depending on which side of the pond one is on.

Video: What Caused Venezuela’s Tragic Collapse? Socialism.

Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves, and it was once Latin America’s richest country. Today, most grocery store shelves are empty, and Venezuelans are so hungry that they’re killing zoo animals for sustenance. Toilet paper, diapers, and toothpaste are luxury goods. Venezuelan hospitals have disintegrated, children are dying because they can’t get antibiotics, and the infant mortality rate is higher than Syria. The capital city of Caracas is the murder capital of the world, and just 12 percent of citizens feel safe walking alone at night, which is the lowest figure reported in the world.

The government blames slumping oil prices for the desperate situation. The real cause is the socialist economy.

The real lesson of Venezuela’s tragic collapse is that real socialism always leads to economic breakdown and political repression. Those of us in wealthier, freer countries need to keep Venezuela in mind as we confront calls for more regulation and government control of all aspects of our own lives.

Produced by Todd Krainin. Written by Nick Gillespie. Camera by Jim Epstein.

H/T Reason TV

Subscribe to our YouTube channel:

Follow us on Twitter:
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes:

Reason is the planet’s leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to for a point of view you won’t get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines.

Why Change is a terrible metric for determining the political spectrum.

There are those of a certain political persuasion with an ideology based on the use of force that tend to obscure reality with various false constructs. One of these is their use of ‘change’ as a measure of how one is situated on the political spectrum. This metric conveniently puts their ideology in a positive light while disparaging their opposition. This article will serve to eviscerate this mythology.

Who defines what is ‘change’ and what is ‘reactionary’?

The first problem is that the ‘change’ metric is that this term is extremely subjective in form. Parenthetically speaking, it is extremely difficult to measure something by that which has no objective qualities. A yardstick has specifically defined quantities such that it can be used to determine and compare dimensional data. ‘Change’ is undefined for this purpose and is entirely useless for the purpose advocated by some.

The Left tends to define ‘change’ as coinciding with the precepts of their socialist national agenda. Whilst casting other forms of ‘change’ away from their agenda as ‘reactionary’.

The ‘change’ metric presumes that history only move in one direction – to the Left.

This highlights another reason this metric is wholly unsuitable for the task. The moving left inevitability myth was born in the bowels of Marxist theory more than a century ago. Events have shown that this movement is not always the case, that many a time the trend has been towards liberty and away from the tyranny. In those instances, the use of the ‘change’ metric would require a polar reversal of the terms with the Conservative – Right suddenly being the agents of ‘change’ while the Socialist – Left becomes ‘reactionary’. Clearly, one cannot have a political measurement and spectrum dependent of the events of the moment.

‘Change’ defies the dictionary definitions.

This metric is also wholly unsuitable as the quantifier of the political spectrum. The definitions of Conservative – Right and Socialist – Left and other terms have specific definitions that are independent of the ‘change’ metric. Attempts at the use of this tends to confuse and obfuscate the issues since it is disconnected from reality. But they say in the software business, this is a feature and not a bug. The sowing of confusion in this form tends to help the left in gaining more adherents. After all, who wants to be said to be against ‘progress’ and ‘change’?

‘Change’ as a means of casting certain political movements incorrectly.

One of the more egregious reasons the left uses this metric is to attempt to cast certain Socialist worker’s Party’s as somehow being on the opposite side of the political spectrum. After all, if one is going to throw out the dictionary and the logical basis of the political spectrum, why not go full bore and wrongly cast a certain set of socialist villains as being on the Right? With a subjective metric disconnected from reality, it’s easy to cast those from the Socialist – Left as somehow vestiges of the Conservative – Right.

‘Change’ as a means to cast old ideas as ‘new’.

With ‘change’ being an obscure and vague metric, the Left can use it to cast it’s old ideas as ‘new’. The fact is the basic principles of Collectivism have been around for centuries. Characterising them as ‘change’ can hide their decided lack of ‘freshness’. As previously discussed, the vague and ill defined nature of the metric can be used to advantage to cast opposition to old failed ideas as reactionary. This gives the left a convenient excuse to avoid discussions of these ideas. This has added bonus of casting that opposition as set in the past, with their point of view being seen as ‘progressive’ and of the future by implication.

Why change what works?

But let us look at this issue from another perspective. There is the old aphorism of “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it”, so why is ‘change’ always considered to be a positive development? Why change what has been shown to function better than any other ideological systems?

“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Sir Winston Churchill

Mankind has found the best form of government based upon free market principles. And as Sir Winston Churchill stated 70 years ago, it is the best in terms of every other form. So why is there any point in trying the other forms that have repeatedly failed to function? The parasite ideologies of collectivism do not work no matter their labeling or leadership, so is there any point in trying them ever again even if they are characterized as ‘change’?

Liberty is the best political measurement.

What really is the point of using a metric that tends to favour one side and is ill-defined? Why use a term that necessitates the remaking of definitions by the inconstant political winds of the moment? There is no reason to use a term that only serves to confuse and obfuscate the issues of the day. Even the Socialist – Left on occasion uses the term ‘liberal’ based on the same root word as Liberty. This should be the standard for the measurement of government power, not one that obfuscates the issues and is a supreme advantage of one side.

300 Million Payer [“Single” Payer] Not going to happen!

One must confess to manifesting a certain level of melancholy over recent events with regard to the health care issue as exemplified by some writings. But a clear minded assessment of the overall situation is warranted and that should be reason to be optimistic.

Consider how Obamacare came to make it’s mark on the left’s continual history of failure. It came to be out of an extraordinary sequence of events beginning with the 2008 economic meltdown and election sweep of Obama and the DNC. As is typical the nation’s Socialist Left, it took full advantage of a “Serious Crisis” to make what they hoped would be permanent changes to the country’s psyche. In pushing the healthcare issue they at first hoped to have a ‘public option’, but that went nowhere and they had to settle for what they hoped would be a precursor of failure in Obamacare. Even in the midst of the extraordinary election where they took control of all of the levers of government, they still failed to ram this part of their agenda through and impose it on the nation.

The failure of socialized healthcare in the people’s republic of California.

Recently cooler heads prevailed in turning back the tide towards national socialist health care in California of all places. A “single payer” system was proposed and then rejected when those imbued with some measure of intelligence. They realised that funding a program of gargantuan proportions would have been impossible. Adoption of this kind of disaster would have considered, by the Left to be a watershed moment in their socialist national movement. But the conclusion can be reached as to how can it be said that the nation is moving towards socialized healthcare if it even failed to gain traction there?

We don’t have the money.

This should be painfully obvious to everyone – but we simply do not have the money provide as yet another unlimited entitlement designed to redistribute wealth. The nation is Trillions in debt with every other vote buying boondoggle the left has foisted upon the people, we cannot afford any more.

While socialists have the immoral belief that they have a right to someone else’s property, such theft rarely can sustain itself over the long run. People will inevitably refuse to have this take place and the system will fall apart – as it has over the past few centuries. Thus were the left to manage to force 300 Million payer on the people, it will inevitably implode leaving everyone without health care.

The ignominious failure of National Socialist healthcare elsewhere.

Supposedly national socialized healthcare will fix all of our problems. Well, the question becomes how did that work out in the UK with the National Healthcare Service? How are the people bearing up in the “Worker’s Paradise” of Venezuela. Yes, one can hear the vehement denunciations now – But that’s different!

The nation’s Socialists should know their time has come and gone. After centuries of failure, it should be painfully evident that it’s Ideas that harken back 500 years are unworkable, especially in the field of healthcare. Then they play the “That wasn’t Real socialism game” with endless rewrites of the labels and definitions used for that parasitic ideology. The same goes for national socialist health care [Or it’s big lie equivalent ‘Single-payer’]

There is no reason to repeat the insanity.

So when Obamacare inevitably implodes, what should be the proper course of action? Would it be to compound the mistake made many times over. Or would it be to do something else? Something that WORKS!

It would be sheer insanity to do the same over again when Obamacare inevitably implodes.

Leftists pretend to have a corner on the market when it comes to compassion. They like to characterise themselves as favouring equality and fairness. But how compassionate is it to force a system of the people that will see the forcible theft of their property, rationing, death panels and healthcare reminiscent of the VA or Venezuela
No, the best course of action would be to head back to liberty and leave the parasite politics of socialistic force behind and renew the cause of liberty and liberal principles [The real Liberal principles, not the fake principles of liberal fascism]

Whether this is done by those in the GOP with some back bone or a new party to replace the GOP as the defenders of liberty, it will not matter. The nation’s socialist left course of action in an assured dead end, so it’s time to turn around.