The National Socialist Left Cannot Win.

The Atlantic presented an article ‘Why Can’t the Left Win? And as usual problem with such extensive self examination is that it usually accompanied by copious amount of denial that obscures and thus renders such exercises useless.

But in an effort to be helpful to our comrades on the national socialist left here are but a few suggestions that can put them back on the road to recovery. One area that they could improve their lot is by being honest for once instead of relying on lies and deception in trying to make ‘progress’ with their socialist national agenda. This includes their getting together and having one coherent policy on who they are, so with that purpose in mind, my we suggest the following:

1. Stop pretending that virtually everything the government does is socialist.

Converse with those on the national socialist left for any length of time and one of two diverse assertions will crop up. One is that virtually everything the government does is socialism. The argument is usually couched in the form of the presentation being presented without factual backup (because there is none) followed up with how this ‘socialism’ has been somehow beneficial. Apparently the idea here is that leftist of this mindset thinking that their ideological legerdemain can be slipped into the conversation as factual and the discussion turned to the question of beneficial government operations.

The problem for those on the national socialist left of this mindset is that this idea is contrary to the definition.

The Oxford English dictionary defines the term socialism:

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
(in Marxisttheory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

2. Stop pretending that the left isn’t socialist and that failed socialist regimes weren’t socialist.

This is the other diverse assertion made by the left and yes, it is in direct contradiction to the first assertion. (A prime example of Leftist ‘diversity’, but we digress…)

Of course, this is an offshoot of the granddaddy of all leftist lies – that ‘socialism has never been tried’. Apparently the left has converted the ‘bug’ that statism requires an authoritarian government into a ‘feature’ as a way of denying that socialist regimes are actually socialist. Well, the fact is that this is how socialism has to work. One cannot ‘redistribute the wealth’ without the authority to do so. And one cannot tamp down the grousing of the people over unfulfilled promises without the authority to do so.

From a scientific standpoint, if one runs an experiment in multiple locations and conditions over a time span of almost 500 years and essentially obtains the same result each time, it can be said that this is how it will work. The past century has seen the same results time after time with the experiment of socialism and totalitarianism has been the result in most cases. That is the reality of socialism, to deny that to be the case would be like trying to deny that a person’s sex is set by their chromosomes.

These two dichotomies are a natural consequence of the left’s base ideology. This unfortunate tendency has experienced such malignant growth to the point that the are those on the nation’s socialist left who don’t know how to properly lie on the subject. They don’t know if they should deny being what they are or go full bore in claiming everything the government does is socialism. Getting rid of the tendency for deception and having coherent and non-contradictory talking point would greatly enhance the Left’s credibility. Rejecting their base ideology would help as well, but they need to take baby steps.

Mayday 2017: The schizophrenic national Socialist Left

Mayday is more than a time for worker protests where they are permitted (outside of so-called “Worker’s Paradises), it is also a season celebration and a changeover from warnings of Climate Change to Global Warming. These days it also highlights a very curious phenomena of those on the Left side of the political spectrum. This the presence of contradictory beliefs espoused by the left, with some trying to claim virtually everything the government does is socialistic while other’s parrot the traditional claim that it has never really been tried before.

One of the best examples of part of this schizophrenic phenomena is the infamous screed “75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America”. In order to prove this contention the author makes up a very curious ‘definition’ of the word socialism.

For reference, this is how the Oxford English dictionary defines the term Socialism:

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

Curiously enough, this factual definition didn’t find it’s way into the opinion voiced by the author of this bit of socialist propaganda. For those on the nation’s socialist left, making up their own facts is a cottage industry. In this case the author creates an absurd definition wholly disconnected from reality.

Socialism is taxpayer funds being used collectively to benefit society as a whole, despite income, contribution, or ability.

With this rather unique ‘definition’ of the word in tow, the author is then able to have ‘socialism’ take credit for virtually every positive governmental action since the dawn of time.

Unfortunately for the author the factual definition of the word references ‘the means of production, distribution, and exchange’ and fails to mention the taxation and normal actions taken by most governments. And of course, there is also that pesky little ‘overthrow of capitalism’ part that invalidates the rest of the author’s socialist screed.

The plain fact is that words only have value if they have set definitions. Without this vital reference point words have no meaning and the resulting discourse means nothing. But it does help indicating the divide within the left that we celebrate today. Because if this is what part of the left holds as fundamental belief, then virtually every government since the beginning of time was ‘socialist’.

For example, one of the left’s favourite little lies is that a certain Socialist workers party wasn’t actually a Socialist workers party. Given the definition presented the contradiction is manifest since the nation under the dictates of said Socialist workers party certainly had roads, libraries, sewer systems and other vestiges of normal governmental service.

And then there is another faction of the national socialist left who parrot this absurd claim:

In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people — after all, wasn’t the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves “socialist,” but none have actually tried socialism.

Apparently the national socialist left gives themselves a neat excuse for every time their base ideology has crashed and burned to the detriment of billions of people. They simply claim that the overarching apparatus necessary to ‘redistribute the wealth’ and keep the people in line in the constant state of terror to maintain power really isn’t really socialism.

The problem for the national socialist left is that those two assertions are completely adverse to each other and reality itself. The ‘definition’ of socialism conjured up by the Left has no logical bearing to it’s real definition and is merely a veiled attempt at claiming success for socialism where none has ever existed. While the ‘socialism has never been tried’ claim is blatant attempt at excusing the failure of socialism down through it’s 500 year history.

These two assertions highlight a major rife within the left, indicative of an ideology that is contradictory in nature and is about to rip itself apart. Let us hope that it does so soon before it’s body count increases a few more million.

Ref: Thanks to the House Freedom Caucus

From The Resurgent: POLLING: House Freedom Caucus Saved GOP From 2018 Disaster

Whatever negative things opponents may say about members of the House Freedom Caucus, it’s dishonest to say that they acted against the will of their constituents. Not only do their districts strongly favor full repeal of ObamaCare but in only one member’s case did they prefer the half-measure ACHA bill to leaving ObamaCare intact.

This carefully researched and modeled data makes clear that each member of the HFC did the explicit will of their constituents. Members’ resolve to stand by their principles and districts should be reinforced by these findings. They have nothing to fear from electoral threats, whether by President Trump or their own Republican leadership.

Constructing the Linear Political Spectrum/Compass Part IV

“In certain basic respects – a totalitarian state structure, a single party, a leader, a secret police, a hatred of political, cultural and intellectual freedomfascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in between.” Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Associate Professor of History at Harvard

Some definitions ideological terms are rife with internal contradictions, it is for this reason an extended discussion is necessitated when these are the subject. In the case of the term fascism, some of the internal definitions of the word need to be briefly addressed. For this reason we will use three references to set these terms in its proper place on the ideological scale

The Oxford English dictionary defines the term fascism:

“extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices”

How does one reconcile the pairing of “extreme right-wing” with “authoritarian”?

Please note how the  Oxford English dictionary defines the term Conservatism [that equates to right wing]:

(in a political context) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas.

And how it contradicts with how the Oxford English dictionary defines the term authoritarian

“Favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom”

The Merriam Webster dictionary doesn’t have this internal contradiction.

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines the term fascism

“a political philosophy, movement, or regime…… that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition”

In addition to these references, the Encyclopedia Britannica defines the term fascism:

“there is no universally accepted definition of fascism. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify a number of general characteristics that fascist movements between 1922 and 1945 tended to have in common.”

“some observers have noted significant similarities between fascism and Soviet communism.”

Note that these two of these references do not mention the severe inconsistency of the term “extreme right-wing” directly paired with the term “authoritarian”. They do not state the tremendous incongruity of limited government conservatism connected with the requirement of an immense government necessitated by authoritarianism. These severe incongruities emphasize the bias in the formulation of some definitions, fortunately there are other references that are not rife with these inconsistencies.

Referring to the Encyclopedia Britannica on Totalitarianism:

“government that theoretically permits no individual freedom and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of the individual’s life to the authority of the government.”


“Benito Mussolini coined the term totalitario in the early 1920s to describe the new fascist state of Italy”

Clearly fascism is synonymous with totalitarianism and the polar opposite of limited government.  Thus we place this political ideology in the numerical range of 100 – 80.

The question arises as to why this term is not situated on the political spectrum on the ‘Far-Right’. The fundamental answer is that it does not belong there.

We Refer back to the basic principles that under modern ideological conditions the Right favours diminished governance while the Left favours increased governance. Moving Right signifies less government and this is incompatible  with any type of authoritarian ideology. This incongruity arises no matter where one might wish to arbitrarily place this or other ideologies on the scale.

It should be obvious that an authoritarian ideology would have a high numerical quantification in governmental power. Thus placing it in proximity to the ideologies of an extremely low quantification would result in a severe discontinuity. It should be obvious  that certain ideologies require the utilization of immense quantities of governmental power. One cannot control the economy and the people without an attendant bureaucracy of immense proportions. This despite the bait and switch of the sales pitch that these ideologies will result in the state ‘withering away’.

For example, placing it to the right of anarchy (0) would necessitate the discontinuity of scale trending from zero to the high quantitative value of an authoritarian ideology. This would be the case no matter where an authoritarian ideology was placed in relation to limited government and thus low quantification ideologies.

Then, as referred to previously, there are ideological terminology’s that are extremely vague and inchoate that merely refer to other terms that are extremely vague and inchoate. And ironically, those terms refer to that actually refers to the verb senses ‘restore (peace)’ and ‘bring back to the original condition’

The Oxford English dictionary defines the term progressivism:

“Support for or advocacy of social reform.”

Similarly the Merriam Webster dictionary defines the term progressive:

“one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action”

With equally vague specifications. Thus, one must the quantification’s of allies (or socialis in Latin) of those of the Socialist Left ( 70 – 60) in an attempt to place this political ideology on the scale.

The term Liberal is similarly all over the map as it were.

The Oxford English dictionary defines the term liberal:

“(In a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform”

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines the term liberal

“ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.”

A closer examination of this term reveals that it too is contradictory in nature. And in many ways Liberalism could be placed at two different points on the scale. Quantifying the ideology in terms of the classical sense of the word, one could rightly place in next to Conservatism. But other parts of the definition should place it in left field with the Socialist – Left and Progressives in the numerical range of (70 – 60)

It is for this reason that we use the term Socialist – Left instead of the that internally contradictory and vague terminology to label the Left

PragerU: The Bigger the Government…

In every society throughout human history the following relationship has held true: as government grows, human freedom and happiness shrinks. Best selling author, Dennis Prager puts it this way: “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.” This has been true in Europe for decades and is becoming ever more so in the United States. But it’s not the kind of nation, the Founding Fathers had in mind. Can we get back to the principles of liberty and individual responsibility? It’s a big challenge. But first we have to recognize the problem.

You can support PragerU by clicking

Why is the #Left standing in the way of the #GOP committing suicide with Obamacare 2.0?

It takes a specialised lack of intelligence to throw away the immense power attained from several stunning political victories while throwing a much needed life line to the failed ideology of Socialism.

 It is axiomatic that when one’s enemy is in the midst of destroying themselves, one gets out of the way. But strangely, enough this isn’t entirely the case with recent events. This morning there were the perfunctory number of news items from the National Socialist Media issuing the usual histrionics over the AHCA:

New York Times: Millions Risk Losing Health Insurance in Republican Plan

Washington Post: The Republican health-care bill is all about shortchanging the poor

With new health care plan, GOP embraces its Scrooge image

It is always expected that the “Objective” Journalists of the National Socialist Media will take every opportunity to push their usual propaganda about their political enemies. This would have been the reaction no matter the actions of the GOP or the Trump administration. Parenthetically, they could have re-branded the disaster know as Obamacare and they still would have… Wait a minute.. that’s what the GOP did anyway.. never mind..

One can easily surmise that after the Left had discerned the particulars of Obamacare 2.0 they would rubbed their collective hands together with glee and broken out the champagne usually reserved for news report of mass shootings. And it could easily be assumed that the nation’s Socialist Left is merely engaging in a bit of reverse psychology at the moment. Loudly complain about something they are secretly jumping for joy as a way of ‘supporting’ the Republican’s In Name Only cabal with what is normally expected of them.

So while it is difficult to guess the rationale for the Left’s actions as of late, it still should be extremely useful to examine the repercussions of failing to rewrite the bill and pushing through Obamacare 2.0 by the former GOP.

1. “Read my lips: No new taxes” soon to be “Read my lips: No Obamacare repeal”

Remember the firestorm that resulted from George H.W. Bush having to raise taxes after he made the pledge: “Read my lips: No new taxes”? Multiple that by several orders of magnitude for every candidate who pledge to repeal Obamacare over the past few years.

This will be a primary issue for every one of those candidates and an issue raised by the Democrats with regard to trustworthiness.

2. When Obamacare collapses it will the fault of the GOP.

The GOP has set itself in a perfect storm of incompetence. They will be to blame when Obamacare implodes since they are proudly placing their imprimatur on the plan. And if by some miracle it stays solvent the Left would take credit for the system. Either way the GOP loses, perfect planning.. to help the other side…

3. Moving Left is a bad move while the rest of the world is moving Right.

These days the Socialist – Left is in dire straits, aside from the Obama cult victories they’ve been on a losing for years. Their life-support dominating the media, culture and government indoctrination centers is the only thing keeping them away from total collapse. And yet the GOP is throwing them a lifeline with this legislative muck up.

4. Obamacare 2.0 will be the end of the GOP.

Many stated this was the case with the ascension of Trump, and his winning the White House forestalled this thinking for a time. But if the GOP fails to go back to the drawing board with AHCA abomination there will be no saving the GOP. Thus we circle back to the original question: Why would the national Socialist Left want to interrupt the GOP destroying itself?

Maybe we should see this as a means to a new party that will be reborn out of the ashes of the GOP and that is why the Left is against this legislation. Perhaps a new party without the GOP baggage would serve to finally send the left’s base ideology to the dustbin of history.