Friday, June 15, 2012

Mad Rant: Why I Hate Socialists


Hate. I say, “hate” and I’m comfortable with it. I try not to toss that word around lightly but over the span of my life I have arrived at that firm conviction. This is not something I came to without thought. True, I was around during the Cold War when the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” were the big bad guys of the world. I remember emergency news bulletins about Soviet cruise missiles being moved into Eastern Europe. I remember a teacher telling us about what would happen if the Soviets hit San Antonio, Texas with a nuclear missile and I remember when the Berlin Wall came down. But, during that time, I never questioned or understood the ideological differences between NATO and the USSR, I never thought about socialism or capitalism. The Soviets were just the “bad guys” and that’s as far as it went. When I ventured into the world of higher education I had professors who sang the praises of socialism, Marxism and even communism. One admitted to being a communist and I’m sure he was not the only one; just the only one honest enough to say so. My natural inclination to go against the grain made me skeptical of their rosy picture of a socialist utopia.

After all, I could see as well as anyone how poor and miserable and oppressed people are in socialist countries like North Korea, Soviet Russia or Cuba. I was told that was because these people just didn’t understand socialism or do it correctly. That didn’t wash with me though. Surely, amongst all of the people of all the socialist movements from East Germany to Red China and the Soviet Union to Vietnam could not ALL have been mistaken or inept. I oppose socialism because socialism doesn’t work. But being opposed to something is not the same as hating something and I HATE socialists -even more than socialism itself in many cases. I have seen, as anyone can see, what effect socialism has had on countries all over the world. Their effort to make everyone “equal” is much older than Karl Marx and it has been misleading people, ruining lives and destroying countries for hundreds of years. Time after time history shows that the most murderous, totalitarian regimes in the world have had the word “socialist” in their name and promise equality, wealth redistribution and a classless society where everyone is blissfully the same.

Because of their drive for the (unobtainable) goal of “equality” socialists have historically been the avowed enemies of monarchy as well as traditional, organized religion. In just about every monarchy that has fallen in the Twentieth Century socialists of one variety or another have been at the forefront of bringing them down. Spain, Germany, Italy, Russia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Mongolia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia were all instances wherein socialists brought down existing, traditional monarchies and not one of those countries improved as a result of it. Of course, some people will point to modern monarchies which are, in Europe and Japan at least, often extremely socialist and yet the monarchy survives. I say, give them time. Even in these countries where monarchy survives it is the socialists that are invariably the ones who wish it were not so and are just waiting for their chance to bring the monarchy down. If there are those who are devoted monarchists, I am certainly glad, but given the history and principles of the socialist movement I don’t think I could ever trust them. It is hard to imagine how one could reconcile being a socialist and a monarchist but if they can, while I would be pleased, it still would not make me accepting of their other policies. Too much ruination has already flowed from those ideals.

This in itself tends to work against monarchies as history and even current events have shown. The state takes from those who have to give to those who have not. Soon those who have no longer have much or have left the country and so money must be borrowed to continue giving to those who have not. Eventually the well of credit runs dry, the bills come due and there is great pain and consternation as those who have come to depend on the state being generous with the property of others fear they may be forced to do without or (God forbid) become responsible for their own welfare. This invariably leads to attacks on the monarchy with all the usual slogans and tired lines of attack. ‘Who are they to get to live in a palace and go to fancy parties while the state only pays me enough to survive without having a job?’ It happened in Russia and it happened in France. Neither the Tsar nor King Louis were causing anyone to go hungry but the royals are always easy targets for those who stir up envy and class hatred. They do not see the lifetime of service, the numerous charities or anything like that; they only see someone living better than themselves and so raise the howl of “social(ist) justice” and “wealth redistribution” and the end of the “class system”. The fact that this has never ended up working out well for the least of those in society seems to make no difference.

I also have the case of the Native Americans and there are few things that infuriate me more than what has been done to the American Indians. I have mentioned this before as long-time readers will recall but the disgusting nature of it brings me to tears. Of course, many will say that socialism was not responsible for stealing land from the Indians, moving them against their will or massacring them if they resisted. If anything, that was the fault of the opposite of socialism; capitalism, right? To a degree, probably so. However, that was not the worst thing that was done to the Indians. Those Indians were faced by a far more advanced civilization with superior weaponry and so on, that fought them for their land and they lost. That is sad, but those Indians at least had their pride. They fought like lions and there is no shame in being beaten by a superior enemy. They lost their land but they didn’t lose their dignity, they fought to the last, went down in a blaze of glory and when treaties were broken it was their enemies who were dishonored and not them. But, then socialists came along who wanted to make up for all of that and they have killed the Native Americans with “kindness”. Their socialistic policies have robbed the Indians of their dignity and their pride and turned them into perpetual dependents, waiting for the government to drop some coins into their tin cup to survive. It is heartbreaking what such proud people have been reduced to. It is a simple fact that cannot be said often enough. There is no group in the modern United States that receives more government assistance than Native Americans and there is no group of people in this entire country that is worse off than they are. It is criminally despicable what has been done to them.

Finally though, what really infuriates me the most, what gets under my skin and bugs me half to death is the flagrant hypocrisy of the rich socialists. I’m talking about people like Michael Moore, a multi-millionaire who sides with the union but doesn’t hire union workers on his films, who condemns capitalism but goes to court to keep as much of his own money as possible. I’m talking about Oprah who so supported President Obama (peace be upon him) and his “spread the wealth” campaign while moving around the country from mansion to mansion, staying just long enough to avoid paying the full tax rate on each. I might also point to multi-billionaires like Warren Buffett, who supports raising income taxes on other people which will not effect him in the least because he pays himself no salary and so has no “income” in tax but … I think you get the picture.

I’m not trying to pick on these people personally. Oprah seems like a nice lady, I thought the one actual movie Michael Moore made (“Canadian Bacon”) was funny and Warren Buffett, well, I don’t really know enough about him to like or dislike him aside from the fact that he supports higher taxes while he’s locked in a legal battle with the IRS over back taxes he refuses to pay so … he’s got nerve I’ll give him that. But this goes to something I noticed way back at university when I was being lectured by a socialist, openly Marxist professor who I know, at that time, had a whole lot more money than I did. And I am sick and tired of being preached to about the need for me to pay more to the government by people with more money than I’ll ever earn in my lifetime. If charity begins at home, why doesn’t socialism? I’m ready to be autocratic about this. I will go on record as saying that if I had the power, yes, I would take away the freedom of speech of these people. I would take away the right of anyone to argue in favor of socialism so long as they had even one penny more than anyone else.

Think about it like this: If the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Pope or Franklin Graham went around stealing, murdering and fornicating but still said these things were wrong and the government should make them illegal; would anyone take them seriously or listen to them for a second? Of course they wouldn’t. They would be dismissed as utter, rank hypocrites and rightly so. Why then doesn’t the same principle apply to the socialists? If they believe all the crap they spew about income inequality, why don’t they start writing out checks to everyone in their neighborhoods who have less than they do? They could spread their own wealth around right now. They could start sharing their wealth and lowering the “income gap” this very day! Of course, whenever someone makes this point they always say, ‘well, just me and my friends doing it wouldn’t make a difference’ so they have to have the government force everyone else to do it too (while they stash money overseas and play musical chairs with their mansions). Frankly, that’s a pretty lame excuse. If they really believed what they claim to they would do it just on principle and it would certainly help some people -right? Just take, for example, the greater Los Angeles area where there are many very poor people, many poor “undocumented immigrants” and also many multi-millionaire celebrities (not as many as there used to be for some reason). Why don’t they prove to all what socialism can do and just redistribute the wealth in that area equally?

We all know they would never do it even though if they did and the greater LA area suddenly became a bastion of blissful prosperity it would sure prove all the greedy capitalists wrong. But, they won’t and we all know they won’t. And, I think, deep down, we all know why too. Because George Clooney, with his California mansion and villa in Tuscany or Brad Pitt with his chateaux in France never turned down a multi-million dollar contract because it was more than what they needed to get by on. There is no “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” when it comes to their own paychecks. That is why, more than anything else, that I cannot stand these people and that is why I don’t feel I should have to endure hearing them call for something and campaign for something that they would never in a hundred years actually do themselves. Until they put their millions where their mouth is I’d like them to all shut up and leave me and my bank account alone. What economic model is the best? I don’t know. I do know that socialism has been tried and it has never worked and I do know that those who are in charge never live equally with the common citizenry. They are hypocrites, they are phonies, they are monumentally ignorant or willfully deceitful and they never practice what they preach. That is who they are and who I am is … The Mad Monarchist.

22 comments:

  1. A most excellent rant, my friend. It brings to mind an argument I had with a closet Socialist just this morning. I suggested that to save money the British Government ought to get rid of the office of Prime Minister, allow the Queen to do that job, reside over Parliament, and Sell off The Offices on Downing. She thought this was a terrible idea and informed me that if either the Queen or the PM must go, she'd rather it be the Queen. Socialists make me furious, too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. All men are created equal, some more equal than others

    Yes I hate them to, a bunch of hypocrites!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your rant reminded me of Saki's short story, "The Byzantine Omelet", which begins: "Sophie Chattel-Monkheim was a Socialist by conviction and a Chattel-Monkheim by marriage...Sophie had very advanced and decided views as to the distribution of money: it was a pleasing and fortunate circumstance that she also had the money..."

    I agree with your assessment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. All I ever needed to hate the modern day socialists, who seam to wear that as a badge of honor, is realize that they are in the same camp as the National SOCIALIST German Workers Party or the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.

    They are on the same side as histories greatest man made abomination.

    Absolutely all of them don't realize that or are secretly proud of that fact.

    I would take a good look at myself If I was on the same side as he Nazi's or Soviets, and I would say No thank you sir!

    To Hell with Socialism!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only difference between a 'red shirt' and a 'brown shirt' is that one is an international socialist and the other is a national socialist.

      Delete
  5. Socialism=/=communism. Some monarchists have been "socialist". The Tōhōkai party in Japan for example.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some people are inconsistent -nothing new there. Tohokai were national socialists and such parties don't have the best record of being loyal monarchists when it matters. As I recall their model was the Fabian Socialists of the UK, allies of the Labour Party who have gutted the House of Peers and who are riddled with republicans. In any event, real monarchists are rejected by genuine socialists. Monarchy cannot be tolerated by those who think everyone should have and be treated exactly the same.

      Delete
    2. socialist = communist who stabs you from the back

      Delete
    3. Thank you sir. That has got to be one of the best (and most accurate) definitions I have ever heard.

      Delete
  6. My beloved Italy fell prey to collectivism (i.e. socialism, communism, fascism, Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Fabianism, etc.) beginning with the despicable, fascist Mussolini. The battle between individualism and collectivism is not new; rather, the battle is primeval. Collectivism has been tried over and over in every corner of the earth and civilizations that practiced collectivism failed and disappeared. Sound familiar? We are witnessing the failures of collectivism worldwide.

    Here is what upsets me the most. As a Christian, I am embarrassed that my fellow Christians have fallen prey to sweet ear candy of collectivism. I dare say collectivists infiltrated our congregations. Has anyone heard of Christian Socialism and Christian Communism? Both of which are baptized secularism and both have nothing to do with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. These alleged Christians will cite certain passages from the Word of God to make their collectivist dogma valid; yet, they fail to consider the history, the culture, and the people of that era. In other words, they do not see the full context. These alleged Christians (and collectivists in general) will frequently cite Acts 2:42-47 to prove their point.

    Yes, those earlier believers (in Acts 2) were collectivists; however, it did not work so discontinued. Another thing, those earlier believers voluntarily and mutually agreed to do things in common, thus no one was compelled to participate in the collectivist practices. At any rate, these alleged Christians and collectivists in general misrepresent the Word of God to fulfill their enslavish, oppressive, and oligarchic agenda. Collectivism violates every commandment of our Lord God, especially stealing and covetousness. Collectivism is evil, perversion, emotional, irrational, and ironically, dictatorial (yet we see collectivists slander despotic regimes, whether past or present).

    As punishment for our fallen parents (i.e. Adam and Even), man shall "by the sweat of [his] face [he] shall eat bread, till [he] return to the ground, for out of it [he] were taken; for [he is] dust, and to dust [he] shall return." Our Lord God cursed His creation to labor, to sweat, to feel pain, and to be miserable. Collectivists, on the other hand, do not see it that way, thus they have tried for millennia to create their utopia, which will never exist owing to sin of man. I rather labor long, hard hours and earn my living than steal and covet my living off the long, hard labor of my fellow man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed. Everyone knows how the socialists like to cite the words of Jesus saying to give to the poor. But what they cannot cite is any word of Christ saying to take from someone else. It's not there. They don't want to give of themselves, they want to force others to give -hardly the same thing Jesus taught.

      Delete
    2. First, I apologize for the repeated comment. My Internet connection and browser were experiencing errors, so you may delete my repeated comment if you wish.

      Second, how many "bourgeois socialists" (as comrade Marx and Engels noted) would be willing to sacrifice fifty percent or more of their income to help the "oppressed" proletarians? None. Why? They are hypocrites. They preach but do not practice what they preach. Why? Because they themselves know collectivism does not work! Alleged Christians and collectivists in general often cite the "Golden Rule" in Matthew 7:12-14 to plunder and to covet the fruits of labor from their fellow man.

      Alleged Christians and collectivists in general often cite Matthew 19:16-30; yet, how many of those alleged Christians and collectivists would be willing to do the same? None. Why? They are hypocrites. Finally, alleged Christians and collectivists in general often cite Matthew 22:21 to plunder and to covet the fruits of labor from their fellow man to enrich themselves.

      Acts 2 and the above mentioned verses and passages are the most frequently misrepresented by alleged Christians and collectivists to oppress, to plunder, and to enslave their fellow man and to fulfill the collectivist agenda.

      Delete
    3. Christianity I feel has some socialist leniencies.Christians already have the attitude of acting not just for the benefit of themselves but for others and the state ("The Kingdom of God"). Capitalism and consumerism places a lot of emphasis on materialism and the work of our hands and places a pride in us. Genesis states we are cursed to work hard to produce but that a is curse! meaning it was not intentional that we should work hard to be productive.

      What we have and acquire was never meant to be hard to get in the first place. Adam did not make the tree's or plants from which he ate, if at some point he did have to do some work it was probably easy. In the end he just ate and named the stuff he ate which in my opinion sort of de-emphasised ownership. Jesus does not encourage us to do anything for ourselves alone.

      Ever since hard work was required to produce, we have become attached to what we produce. The attachment to what we produce is the result of the curse, Christians should not be attached to anything they produce is such a way that they can't give it up.

      God promises wealth, health and every other good thing to those who seek the kingdom of God first. In the book of Malachi it says he will open the floodgates of heaven, pour out blessings and rebuke the devourer for those who are faithful in giving their tithes,offerings and testing him on it. Not for toiling profusely. in the end It is vanity to work hard to receive little and vanity to work hard and receive much.

      The early Christians understood this and were not attached to what they produced, that is why they were able to sell all they had and work for the benefit of everyone not just themselves. They were a decent example of socialism. It's disappearance from Christianity I believe owes more to fact a lot of them were being killed.Then replaced with what would be the face of Christianity namely the Romans. Over time they mixed their paganism with it and produced a very Anti-Christian religion.

      Having said that socialism should not be forced on people as it just doesn't work that way rather it is like nirvana, a state that can be reached like in the early Christian's case. Due to their nature they became somewhat socialists. Socialism at its core is the ideal that nobody should lack anything, I guess that makes God the biggest socialist there is.

      Delete
    4. Christ never said anything about benefiting "others and the state". The Kingdom of God is in Heaven or as Jesus said, "Not of this world". Capitalism places no emphasis on materialism at all really, it simply puts the individual in charge of their economic destiny and allows them to be as materialistic as they choose. And a curse is absolutely intentional. God did not curse mankind by accident.

      From the very beginning God Himself said that gain would be difficult, that we would have to sweat and toil to survive. Hard work has been required to produce ever since Adam & Eve were cast out of Eden. You obviously have not read the Bible at all -it is the only explanation for this voluminous ignorance. God did not promise health, wealth and prosperity to those who seek Him. Are you even being serious? Jesus said the path would be long and narrow, that Christians would be persecuted for his sake and that neither life nor salvation would be easy. If the whole point of Christianity was that God didn't want people to lack anything, Jesus could have snapped his fingers and made all the poor rich. He didn't do that because that's not why He came and not what salvation is all about.

      Delete
    5. You have misinterpreted and misread what I said . This is a quote from my original post " Ever since hard work was required to produce, we have become attached to what we produce." this sentence serves as clear acknowledgement that we must work hard to produce our bread, I never meant the curse was an accident. What I meant to express was that he never created us with the intention of making us toil hard to produce. I expressed that confusingly.

      I did not quote Jesus and say he said " we must benefit the state and others", I said Christians hold the attitude of acting for the benefit of others and God. When I say "benefiting the state " I wanted to draw comparison between socialist collectivism and working for benefit of state to Christians behaving in similar way toward God. For example evangelising, Christians do it to testify about God to other people. the way in which Christians live their lives serves not only as a testament but a glorification to God.

      Fellowship, collective prayer and communal worship are Important parts of Christianity for example, as soon as you pray with some else Jesus is himself in the midst of that prayer. I also would like to think helping people other than oneself toward salvation is more beneficial for other party than for oneself.

      I don't literally believe The Kingdom of God is a state on earth however I think you have taken Jesus's word out of context, he purposefully describes The Kingdom of Heaven through its qualities and not through its actual structure or location. He says its like treasure, like a mustard seed etc. When he said it was not of this world he spoke at a time when people literally expected an earthly kingdom like Rome or Greece to be The Kingdom of God. Neither do I think The Kingdom of Heaven is in Heaven or is Heaven. Those who are born of God are a part of The Kingdom of God which I believe is Gods rule over those who have returned and are staying faithful to him. Revelation states he is coming back to establish his Kingdom on the current and new earth.

      Jesus Indeed said the Gate to God's Kingdom is narrow but that has nothing to do with producing your livelihood. No where and In no way did I say salvation should be or was easy to attain or that life should be a walk in the park. What I did say is a Christian should not have to toil hard for their livelihood. We are arguing two different things.

      When I said God promised health and wealth I must admit I was heavily paraphrasing which removed the context out of what I was trying to say. Matthew 6: 30-34 Jesus says to his disciples not to be anxious about what you will eat, drink or wear like the gentiles because God knows you need those things, so seek first the kingdom of God and all those things and more will be added to you, he even says let tomorrow worry about itself. The point being Christians should not be so worried about nor strive to make their means.

      Again I never said the entire point of Christianity was that God did not want us to lack. You have somehow equated the purpose of Christianity to me saying God is socialist. What I implicitly said is that God does not want us to lack . I believe Jesus came so that through him we could return to God. I believe the point of Christianity and salvation is to return to God. It just so happens to be that those who do return have been promised an eternal paradise with no pain ,hunger, sadness or evil. A case can certainly be made the point of salvation is to gain a life where you lack nothing but I am not making it.

      My whole point was to link Christian attitudes to socialist ideals, specifically ownership of work and collectivism. I hope this has better articulated what I meant whilst saying what you pointed out.

      Delete
    6. Christians do not act to benefit God. People need God, God doesn't need people.
      If collective prayer is so great, why did Jesus say to pray in a closet by yourself? If collectivization is so great, why does the Bible say that every "man" (singular) must work out his own salvation in fear and trembling?
      And I am arguing that we must work hard to have livelihood -because the Bible says exactly that. Genesis 3:19 "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return."

      It also says if you do not work, you should not eat, that to fail to profit from what you have is wasteful, that the wise man is like the ant that works hard to save for tomorrow, that the diligent man will rule and the lazy man will be a slave. For that matter, when the runaway slave came to St Paul did he set him free and say we should all be equal and share everything? No, he urged him to return to his masters. Trying to make Christianity something socialist requites such verbal acrobatics that you practically have to write your own version yourself to make it read the way you wish it to.

      Delete
  7. Indeed, I agree with Doctormadd.

    I also shared this rant on my Facebook wall.

    It never ceases to amaze me just how stupid society is today.

    There are lots of people who whine because they can't afford hospital bills yet risk their health by having many vices. There are lots of people who whine that they don't have money yet when money comes their way, they spend it on drugs, whores and the latest iPhones. There are lots of people who whine because the rich are getting richer, yet they never lift a damn finger to help those who are poorer than themselves.

    They fight for "human rights", marching down streets with slogans that say homosexuals have as much right as everyone else to marry, to get a job, to be treated equally---all in the same breath that they support abortion (which is the termination of a potential human being with "human rights").

    Then, they complain about how poor they are, and how rich the people are on Wall Street, in the same breath that they want the latest gadgets, and buy the latest fads. The "poor" are not really poor. They are just living inconveniently. The true poor people are those who can't even afford a slice of Pizza, who sleep in squatter areas, with no blanket, and not even a change of clothes.

    Humans are the only ones who elect ONE leader (President) to lead them, only to ignore the leader, and let themselves be leaders in their own ways.

    Humans are the only ones who treat puppies and kitties with great care more than human babies. Babies are neglected and malnourished while pets get the expensive food, and the couch to sleep on.

    Humans are the only ones who complain about the expensive medicines, brought about by the unhealthy lifestyle they do.

    Humans are the only ones who hope to eradicate HIV/AIDS, in the same breath as promoting more casual sex through the use condoms and other contraceptives.

    Humans are the only ones who battle suffering by talking to psychologists, instead of allowing themselves to change their current lifestyle.

    Humans are the only ones who say they love God, but their actions mimic the Devil's.

    Humans are the only ones who encourage the police to arrest criminals, in the same breath that they're not okay with lifetime imprisonment ONLY because they are afraid their taxes would go to feeding the criminals, so some criminals get back on the street...and kill, rape, or rob again.

    Humans are the only ones who are against cruelty to animals, but are pro-abortion to babies. According to their logic, animals are cute so they need to be saved. Human babies are a nuisance, so they need to be aborted.

    Humans are the only ones who use the anus for something else, other than the passage of feces.

    Humans today are the only ones who are experts in manipulating high-tech gadgets, but can't even pick up the broom to sweep the floor.

    Humans are the only ones who rely on customer services to assemble their phones, load credits, and dial them just to say that the product sucks.

    Humanity is losing it, and I am not going to be its slave.

    God save the Queen!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I believe my "favorite" champagne socialist is Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who, as head of the IMF, spent other people's money by funneling it to the bottomless pit that is third world debt, but spent his own money by staying in $3000/night hotels and participating in high class orgies.

    ReplyDelete
  9. To answer your last question: have you heard of an economic model called "distributism"? At first glance it looks similar to the ideal of socialism except that the government isn't involved other than in passing laws that prevent monopolies. The idea behind it is that the family is the primary economic unit, not the individual, and it supports family business and private property, such that the property you own and the property you use coincide. This way you can't own enough property to where you need hired help, and so you can't acquire a monopoly like big business does in capitalism or big government does in socialism. Also it supports things that don't divide people by class, such as guilds rather than labor unions, credit unions rather than banks that loan at interest, and etc. And it supports artisanry, and opposes social security as making people too dependent upon the government.

    I found out about it from a blogger called "The Catholic Knight", if you've heard of him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have heard people (only Catholics so far) adamantly praise distributism but I remain skeptical about it for a number of reasons. For one, it's easy to believe something is the perfect solution when it has never been tried anywhere and, as far as I know, there's never been a country that had a distributist economy. Most importantly though, I say "as far as I know" because my biggest problem with it is that I've never been able to get many specifics out of the advocates of distributism nor have I found much agreement about what it is or how it would work. So far, every person I've asked who advocates it gives a different definition of what it is exactly and most don't define it very concretely at all other than in the negative; it's not capitalism and it's not socialism. Which is not to say it's not the best answer, it may well be. I've just not yet seen it concretely defined or proven to work and I would champion anything until that happens. If it does, I'll be all for it.

      Delete
    2. There is only one sound political, social, and economical system, i.e., the Word of God, which makes sense compared to anything man theorized and practiced. I encourage people to read the following books: "Biblical Economics in Comics" by Vic Lockman; "Economics: Work and Prosperity" by Russell Kirk; and "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. The first two books expound God's social and economic system very well, especially Mr. Kirk who brilliantly refutes the tired old arguments of collectivists.

      Delete
  10. This past week, I issued a public apology to King George III, who was used as a pariah and a tyrant to fuel revolution. Since wholesale erosion of Individual Liberties once so "sacred" in the US has been tossed onto the dustbin of history, and collectivism rules the day, Geo 3rd doesn't look quite so bad!
    Ultimately, the common folk WILL be ruled! Be it a despot, a group of "soft-dictators" or a benevolent monarch; the experiment of pure democracy has failed.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...