Change Is The Wrong Metric To Determine Right And Left

Back during the inception of the Republican party it’s raison d’être was the radical idea of the abolition of slavery while the Democratic party favoured appeasement on the issue. The Republicans were the party of change while Democrats were of the status quo. The Video posted below details these facts.

In this case the change metric would have incorrectly had the Republicans on the Left and the Democrats on the Right.

This example aptly illustrates that the Right – Left determination has to be based on the proper metric of government size and power, not change. This is the underlying metric of the dictionary definitions of the various ideological terms with change being hardly mentioned.

It would seem that the primary purpose of the change metric is a desperate attempt at the incorrect placing certain ideologies that are clearly Leftist somewhere else. It should be obvious that governmental size and power is the only metric that makes sense given the ideological makeup of the various parties. It should also be manifestly obvious that the authoritarian extremes are on the Left. No amount of definitional prestidigitation, relativism or historical revisionism can change these facts.

Video: Pin the Tale on the Donkey: Democrats’ Horrible Racist Past | Bill Whittle

H/T PJ Media



Reference Excerpt: “But that wasn’t REAL socialism!” (Part 1: the USSR)

One of the Left’s perennial favourites in denying the history of their ideology is the use of that or a similar variation of that phrase to attempt to absolve themselves of the centuries of failure that is their immoral and parasitic base ideology. These articles prove this isn’t the case.

This is an excerpt of part I of an article that eviscerates this falsehood.

Socialism is a lot like the bad guy in a low-budget horror movie, who, especially towards the end of the movie, just stubbornly refuses to die. He gets shot, he gets stabbed, he gets thrown out of a window, he gets run over by a car – but every time you think he could not possibly have survived this, he gets up again. And is as lethal as ever.

Socialism is like that. It used to be a common assumption that the history of socialism essentially ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall, that no political idea could possibly survive such a crushing defeat. Far from it: in 1998, Venezuela elected a socialist president, giving socialism yet another try, and Western intellectuals went crazy about it. Now that experiment is collapsing, too. One final We-told-you-so-you-fools, you would think. Again: far from it.

The problem for the left is that they tend to discover that Failed Socialist societies weren’t really Socialist after the fact with some linguistic legerdemain of the highest order. The author of the piece cited some particular examples of the Left’s fondness for a particular system before failure:

In the 1930s, the Soviet Union went through a period of rapid industrialisation, and rose to the status of a global superpower. Even critics of socialism conceded that the Soviet Union was becoming a force to be reckoned with.

During the ‘30s, the USSR was widely admired by Western intellectuals. Hundreds of academics, journalists, artists etc travelled there and came back full of enthusiasm, convinced that they had seen the future. For example, Joseph Freeman, an American writer, said after his pilgrimage:

“[F]or the first time I saw the greatest of human dreams assuming the shape of reality. Men, women and children were uniting their efforts into a gigantic stream of energy directed toward […] creating what was healthy and good for all”.

These glowing comments extended to the happiness the political prisoners  in the Gulags:


Some of the pilgrims even waxed lyrical about the Gulags and Soviet prisons. Mary Callcott Stevenson, an American author, said that the inmates she saw were

“…talking and laughing as they worked, evidently enjoying themselves. This was the first glimpse of the informal atmosphere that prevailed throughout […] It was difficult to believe that this was indeed a prison”.

This is, of course, a selection of quotes. Not all Stalin admirers were quite so starry-eyed. Others did acknowledge some of the regime’s atrocities, but argued that, on balance, it was a price worth paying. But the point remains that the Soviet Union was widely admired by Western intellectuals throughout the 1930s and beyond. The idea that Soviet socialism was not ‘real’ socialism is a post-hoc fabrication. In Stalin’s days, nobody would have made such a claim.

[Our emphasis]

And of course it was only after it was readily apparent that the Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik was dysfunctional in the extreme that it suddenly stopped being Socialist, imagine that…

PragerU: If You Hate Poverty, You Should Love The Free Market.

Globalization means the ever-increasing ability to move goods, people, and ideas from one distant location to another. Free trade is open access to markets and people from all over the world with few, if any, barriers. Property rights is ensuring that what belongs to you can’t be taken away on a whim by the state. The rule of law safeguards contracts, assuring that they will be respected and lived up to whether the deal is made in Peru or Poland. And entrepreneurship is the creativity of free people to dream up new products that we never knew we wanted or needed.

Did you know that since 1970, the percentage of humanity living in extreme poverty has fallen 80 percent? How did that happen? Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, explains.

The next time you hear someone complain about capitalism, consider this: The percentage of people living at starvation level poverty has fallen 80% since 1970. Before then, more than one in four people around the world were living on a dollar a day or less. Today, it’s about one in twenty.

This is the greatest anti-poverty achievement in world history. So, how did this remarkable transformation come to pass? Was it the fabulous success of the United Nations? The generosity of U.S. foreign aid? The brilliant policies of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank? Stimulus spending? Government redistribution?

No. It was none of those things.

It was capitalism. Billions of souls around the world have been able to pull themselves out of poverty thanks to five incredible innovations: globalization, free trade, property rights, the rule of law, and entrepreneurship.

Globalization means the ever-increasing ability to move goods, people, and ideas from one distant location to another.

Free trade is open access to markets and people from all over the world with few, if any, barriers.

Property rights is ensuring that what belongs to you can’t be taken away on a whim by the state.

The rule of law safeguards contracts, assuring that they will be respected and lived up to whether the deal is made in Peru or Poland.

And entrepreneurship is the creativity of free people to dream up new products that we never knew we wanted or needed.

It’s worth noting that in places like East Asia, these five things were all made possible by the historic peace after World War II that resulted from America’s global diplomatic and military presence.

Let me put this in a slightly different way:

The ideals of free enterprise and global leadership, central to capitalism and American conservatism, are responsible for the greatest reduction in human misery since mankind began its long climb from the swamp to the stars. This remarkable progress has been America’s gift to the world.

So, if these American conservative ideals have done so much to lift up the world’s poor, you would think conservative ideas would be gaining strength every single day – everywhere. And not just gaining strength among conservatives, but also among young idealists, immigrants, minorities, and advocates for the poor—all embracing the principles of free enterprise and unleashing its power on behalf of the vulnerable.

But this hasn’t happened. To the contrary, capitalism is struggling to attract new followers. Indeed, some believe it’s destined to fade away – just as it has in much of Europe.

According to a Harvard Study, only 42% of young Americans 18 to 29 have a favorable view of capitalism. What explains this discrepancy between the incredible results of capitalism and its popularity? Why does capitalism get such bad rap?

One answer is simple: The defenders of free enterprise have done a terrible job of telling people how much good the system has done around the world. Capitalism has saved a couple billion people, and we have treated this miracle like a state secret.
According to a 2013 survey, 84 percent of Americans are unaware of the progress made against poverty worldwide. Indeed, more than two-thirds think global hunger has actually gotten worse.

Donate today to PragerU!


Excerpt: The Pen that Toppled an Empire: Solzhenitsyn and The Gulag Archipelago

There are millions of reasons why the immoral and parasitic ideology of socialism needs to be eradicated from the list of viable governmental and economic systems, in this instance we look at the work of one man in toppling the evil empire of the ‘Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik’.

The blog of the victims of recently posted and article.  The Pen that Toppled an Empire: Solzhenitsyn and The Gulag Archipelago.

We will attempt to do it justice with some excerpts on the main points of the piece.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was one of the giants in opposing the evil that is socialism and like many he was initially taken in by it’s grandiose and flowery promises of equality in a “Worker’s Paradise”. Like many he realized that these promises were a chimera. He spent years in the system of oppression that is all too endemic to Socialism and he was able to bring retribution to the regime that perpetuated these and monstrous crimes by bringing it down. It’s is our contention that this could be considered to be the beginning of the end of the very idea of Socialism.

The article details his journey from being an enthusiastic adherent of this new and wondrous system to his realisation of the brutal truths of it’s organized evil. Solzhenitsyn learned during his time in the camps that it was Vladimir Lenin that began the state security apparatus the Cheka.

Solzhenitsyn abandoned his youthful idealism the hard way. While serving as an artillery officer in World War II, he was arrested, convicted, and sent to the Gulag (the Soviet forced labor camps) for criticizing Joseph Stalin. It was only in the camps that he realized that nothing had worked out as Marx predicted. In conversations with fellow prisoners, he learned that Lenin had initiated a ruthless security state, suppressing any opposition to Bolshevik rule. After Lenin’s death, the paranoid and sadistic Stalin gained power and began an effort to remake human beings in the communist mold. Property was confiscated, businesses nationalized, churches closed, farmers forcibly relocated to agricultural communes, and so-called “class enemies,” people from the upper or middle classes, whose only crime was being born into the wrong family, sent to the Gulag. It impossible to estimate how many people were executed by Stalin, but we know that working conditions in the camps were so poor that tens of millions died of starvation, disease, and exhaustion.

The article points out the problems of Marx’s bait and switch scheme whereby the all powerful state is supposed to ‘wither away’ by some unspecified and miraculous means. The author concludes that the lack of limitation on the government because of this provision was part of the problem. However, this is a situation all too common in history, as the quote from Lord Acton made clear: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

The nation’s Socialist Left is all too repetitive in issuing the same excuses for the systemic failures of it’s base ideology. One of these is to assert that the state becoming authoritarian is somehow contrary to the teachings of Marx, that the ideal is a stateless society with cooperation being the watchword. History has shown this never takes place and that this miraculous transformation is all but just one of the frauds perpetrated by the Left in these instances. The excuse “That wasn’t real Socialism” or some variation thereof ignores human nature and how the same circumstances will always end in the same results.

One of the fundamental problems of Socialism is that it runs contrary to the basic precepts of human nature. The psychological principle of operant conditioning informs us that punishing a behaviour tends to diminish the repetition of that behaviour. While rewarding a behaviour tends to encourage that behaviour. Taking someone’s hard earned money tends to discourage them from working, handing them other people’s money also tends to discourage them from exerting themselves.

Socialism cannot abide this ‘imperfection’ in human nature and thus must try the impossible and perfect that which cannot be perfected. The article points out this as the fundamental crime of Socialism.

The Gulag reveals that the monstrous evil of the Soviet Union was not caused by the misapplication of Marx’s ideals, by Stalin’s pathology, or by Russian nationalism. The world’s most heinous tyranny was not an apparition or a deviation from Marxist ideals, Solzhenitsyn demonstrates; it was, rather, the inevitable consequence of expecting perfection from imperfect human beings. Wherever communism has existed or will exist, there will be victims.

This one of the primary reasons the immoral, parasitic organized evil that is socialism must be banished from the realm of viable governmental and economic systems. It is an ideology built upon the use of force and fraud that has never worked and can never work and has resulted in the deliberate mass murder of millions of people and the oppression of untold billions more.

Berkeley and Caracas – is there any difference in the free-speech suppression of the Socialist’s Playbook?

Sometimes it is quite fascinating when two story lines, one is following intersect with perfect symmetry. Anyone familiar with the steady degradation of liberty in Venezuela has witnessed Socialist dictator Maduro is imposing his Leftist will upon that nation. Meanwhile in the states, the nation’s Socialist Left is attempting to do the same.

“Only oppression should fear the full exercise of freedom.” – Jose Marti

“The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy
without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to
do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. “ Ronald

Consider this excerpt from Bloomberg: Venezuela Eyes Censoring Social Media After Public Shaming Wave

Venezuela is considering banning messages that promote “hate” and “intolerance” on social media and messenger services, according to Delcy Rodriguez, the president of the country’s all-powerful constituent assembly.

Rodriguez told reporters on Monday that the South American nation is looking to limit messages that fuel bigotry and confrontation between Venezuelans in a so-called anti-hate law, which is currently being debated by the legislative super body, known as the constituyente.

Compare this to a piece from The San Francisco Chronicle: After melees, Berkeley mayor asks Cal to cancel right-wing Free Speech Week

In the aftermath of a right-wing rally Sunday that ended with anarchists chasing attendees from a downtown park, Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin urged UC Berkeley on Monday to cancel conservatives’ plans for a Free Speech Week next month to avoid making the city the center of more violent unrest.
“I am concerned about these groups using large protests to create mayhem,” Arreguin said. “It’s something we have seen in Oakland and in Berkeley.”

Then there is this from Constitutional scholar Nancy Pelosi in National Review: Yelling ‘Wolf’ in a Crowded Theater? Nancy Pelosi Flunks Constitutional Law

When the interviewer, Pam Moore, pressed Pelosi to consider Patriot Prayer’s First Amendment rights, Pelosi responded, “The Constitution does not say that a person can yell wolf in a crowded theater. If you are endangering people, then you don’t have a constitutional right to do that.”

Voluntary exchange versus coercion is one of the fundamental differences between Right and Left. The Right is based upon on a system of economic liberty while the Left relies on coercion. Part and parcel of the Left’s ideology of collective coercion is their reliance on false narratives and lies. It is a logical consequence that a system based on force cannot be open and honest about this because it is abhorrent to most people. A system that relies on false narratives and lies also cannot abide a free flow of information.

We on the Conservatarian-Right know we can win in the marketplace of ideas, the Socialist–Left cannot. Their 500 year old ideas have failed repeatedly down through the centuries because they are anathema to the basic precepts of psychology. The only way they can survive in that marketplace is to deceive people on the true nature of their ideas.

Parenthetically speaking, one cannot approach a group of people tell them that the government is going to force them to do the bidding of a small cadre of central planners and if they don’t they will be arrested and thrown into a ‘re-education’ camp. No, those purveyors of a collectivist bent must lie and make promises of government largess and blame others when these grandiose promises inevitably fail to materialize.

The Socialist–Left has to frame it’s ideas in flowery terms as ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’. The practical effects of their collectivist ideas do not result in these manifestations and thus they have to spew forth falsehoods that blame others for the lack of these results. And when their ideas fail completely, they have lie and claim that the systems utilizing these ideas weren’t actually utilizing these ideas.

We are now seeing this phenomena manifest itself in several locations, but with eerily similar results.


Normalizing the Fascist Left

Sometimes the Nation’s Socialist media let’s the mask slip and in other cases, it drops it to the floor. We are witness to the latter instance here. Instead of properly condemning violent extremist groups of any stripe, the NSM has begun whitewashing the reputation of the Fascist ‘Antifa’, as well as doing the same for the immoral and parasitic collectivist ideologies.

The ‘newspaper of record’ just published an opinion piece entitled: Who’s Afraid of Antifa?

Antifa is the backlash to the backlash, a defensive response to the growing presence of right-wing extremism.

But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t worry. Because antifa groups are willing to use force when needed, provoking them can trigger a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Who are the antifa, then? They do not advocate a positive doctrine, racial or otherwise. Some supporters consider themselves (as Mr. Trump accurately said) anarchists, some Marxists of different stripes; others don’t care much what you call them. There is no national antifa organization; most organized groups are local, concentrated in Texas and the Northwest. There’s not even a consensus among adherents as to whether to pronounce the term AN-tee-fah or an-TEE-fah.

Now, is it that advisable to have a major newspaper profiling and justifying the actions of violent groups such as this? The ‘News paper or record’ is not alone in this regard, others of the NSM such as CNN have made the absurd claim that it’s goals are “peace through violence.”

Bear in mind that these are groups who are opening chanting “No Trump, no wall, no USA at all!”

Question: When have major Conservative newspaper and media outlets profiled and praised groups that fashion themselves after the National Socialist German Worker’s Party or any of affiliates thereof?