Левая идеология: культ, религия или наука?

Более ста лет назад известный марксист Антонио Грамши писал: «Социализм – это как раз та религия, которая должна сокрушить христианство. [Социализм – это] религия в том смысле, что он также является верой со своей мистикой и ритуалами; религия, потому что он заменил сознание вдохновляющего Бога католиков, веру в человека и его великие силы как уникальной духовной реальности»[1]. Уравнивание идеологии с религией было в то время довольно новым и необычным. Однако Грамши говорил о религии не так, как ее обычно понимают, то есть о взаимоотношении Бога и Человека, а как о совокупности религиозных атрибутов и ритуалов. По его мнению, социализм был безбожной религией, культом мессианского Маркса.

В то же время Грамши понимал, что социализм (и левые в целом), как и любая другая догма, невосприимчив к эмпирическим, рациональным идеям потому, что, по определению, его постулаты непроверяемы. Непроверяемы не потому, что невозможно провести такую проверку, а потому, что последователи левой идеологии отвергают любую попытку такого теста в принципе. (Кстати, это у левых общее с мусульманами.) Социалисты, в основном, искренне верующие люди; они настойчиво отвергают любые попытки проверить основы своих догматических убеждений.

В целом, аргументы левых нелогичны до такой степени, что их можно назвать ненаучными. Их иррациональность основана на иллюзорных знаниях, то есть знаниях, приобретенных с помощью системы идей, выраженных известными авторитетами (Маркс, Энгельс, Ленин, Бернштейн, Муссолини, Сталин, Гитлер, Троцкий, Мао и многие другие). Левые приобретали свои ложные, утопические убеждения на протяжении всей истории человеческой цивилизации. Их слепая вера в умножение богатства путем его разделения (то есть путем его насильственного перераспределения) была основой многочисленных неудавшихся социальных экспериментов.

Чтобы избежать путаницы, давайте попытаемся определить понятия социализма (продвигаемого левой идеологией) и его оппонента, капитализма (продвигаемого правой идеологией свободного рынка, или консервативной идеологией).

Социализм – это состояние общества, в котором большинство богатств де-юре или де-факто принадлежит государству.

Капитализм – это состояние общества, в котором большинство богатств де-юре и де-факто принадлежит его гражданам.

Коммунизм – это утопическое состояние общества, в котором все богатства де-юре и де-факто принадлежат государству.

Приверженцы как левой, так и правой философий обладают знаниями; однако левые получили свои знания из системы верований, а правые – из практики, из проб и ошибок развития человеческой цивилизации. Левые идеологи всегда будут сопровождать человеческое общество, потому что псевдонаука всегда идет параллельно науке. Точно так же, так псевдонаука питается реальной наукой, так и левые находят постоянную подпитку у цивилизации, построенной в основном правыми.

Вместе с тем, существует простой тест для того, чтобы отличить научное знание от псевдонаучного. Тест основан на том факте, что реакция человека на новую информацию, которая противоречит первичным знаниям, всецело зависит от способа получения этих первичных знаний.

В реальном мире, если новая информация противоречит первоначальным знаниям, это приводит к переоценке таких знаний. Например, когда Коперник оспорил интуитивное, общепринятое, и ошибочное мнение о том, что Солнце вращается вокруг Земли, это привело к болезненной переоценке исходной идеи и принятию новой, революционной идеи того, что в действительности это Земля вращается вокруг Солнца.

Однако если первоначальные знания приобретаются с помощью религиозных или других догматических убеждений, то новая информация к подобной переоценке не приводит. Наоборот, в большинстве случаев это приводит к укреплению изначальной веры.

Например, даже если будет доказано, что летающих лошадей на планете Земля никогда не было, мусульмане будут продолжать верить в то, что их пророк Мухаммед действительно летал в космос на лошади по имени Бурак, где он встретил Аллаха. Более того, любая попытка доказать любому мусульманину, что такое путешествие на лошади невозможно, не только укрепит его убеждения, но и превратит некоторых из них из пассивных, индифферентных последователей в агрессивных религиозных фанатиков. Реакция их была бы аналогична реакции рядового американского демократа, если бы кто-нибудь напомнил ему, что Антифа, как и предшествовавший ей Ку-Клукс-Клан, была основана как боевое, милитаристское крыло Демократической партии.

Когда президент Трамп публикует что-то на Твиттере или говорит что-то «спорное», многие его политические противники сразу и весьма болезненно реагируют. Такая реакция является прекрасной иллюстрацией того, как укрепление изначальной веры проявляется в реальной жизни.

Давайте вспомним реакцию людей, которые в течение многих месяцев подвергались бомбардировкам средств массовой дезинформации с сообщениями о том, что Хиллари Клинтон имеет 97% шансов выиграть президентство в 2016 году. Реальность противоречила их догме, и после того, как она проиграла, их страдания (иногда даже физические) были вполне реальными. Или большое разочарование и страдания среди приверженцев догмы «Трамп – марионетка Путина», когда расследование Мюллера доказало обратное. Попытки изобразить завершенное расследование Мюллера как «запутанное», «неубедительное» и «не имеющее достаточно властных полномочий» и обещание, что «ветераны шпионских войн … понимают, что уйдут даже десятилетия, а не годы, чтобы докопаться до истины», – это всего лишь вариации одного и того же явления – различные (и отчаянные) попытки укрепить изначальную догматическую веру.

Если бы знания людей в приведенных выше примерах были основаны не на догмах, то их (рациональная) реакция могла бы быть совершенно иной. Например, политические оппоненты Трампа могли бы просто сказать: «Ладно, лучший кандидат победил. Это хорошо для Америки – иметь лучшего президента. Мы попробуем выиграть в следующий раз». Это было бы правильной реакцией нормальных людей с непромытыми мозгами, которые проголосовали за другого кандидата. В случае же с фальшивым «русским делом» правильной реакцией могло бы быть: «Это здорово, что наш президент – не марионетка Путина. Это позволит Белому Дому сосредоточиться на реальных проблемах нашей страны».

Часто говорят, что левые и правые в Америке не понимают друг друга, потому что «живут в параллельных мирах», или одна сторона обвиняет другую в том, что она живет в так называемой «альтернативной реальности». Поскольку основа левой идеологии иррациональна, правые не удивляются, когда приверженцы левых укрепляют свою решимость, сталкиваясь с социальной и экономической правдой.

Другими словами, вместо принятия обоснованного аргумента, который противоречит господствующей догме, самая первая реакция приверженцев догмы – защитить ее любой ценой.

Попытайтесь сказать евреям, что они не являются избранным Богом народом, или попробуйте сказать американским демократам, что социализм, национал-социализм и фашизм являются примерами одной и той же, левой идеологии. Попытайтесь сказать христианам, что Иисус умер и был похоронен в Назарете, или попробуйте сказать американской партии «пукающих коров» (тех же демократов), что «изменение климата» – это обман.

Возникшая в ответ ярость обеспечит усиление разногласий между сторонами, причем не столько из-за отрицания идеи, не соответствующей догме, сколько из-за существенного усиления внутренней решимости защитить эту догму. Это хорошо известная психологическая реакция людей, которые просто хотят защитить себя от того, что они воспринимают как «насилие над своим разумом» (вне зависимости от того, насколько здрав их разум).

С одной стороны, как только человек принимает догму, он начинает всеми способами отфильтровывать все, что этой догме противоречит (хорошо известная психологам так называемая склонность к подтверждению своей точки зрения, как в случае с синдромом Баадера-Майнхоф). Процесс протекает так, что когда поступает еще более противоречивая, не соответствующая догме информация, то вера в догму еще более укрепляется.

С другой стороны, в определенный момент, когда правдивая информация, противоречащая иррациональной догматической левой вере, наконец-то прорывается, наступает переломный момент, и левые больше не могут искажать факты в своем воспаленном уме, заставляя его принять трудное решение: либо отказаться от догмы и унять боль, либо стать всеобщим посмешищем. Они переживают ментальную революцию – микрореволюцию, если хотите.

Хорошей новостью является то, что такие микрореволюции на персональном уровне широко распространены. В самом деле, куда подевались все хиппи? Вспомните также тех, кто поддался ложному лозунгу Обамы, когда он пропагандировал внедрение социалистической медицины Обамакэр в капиталистической Америке: «Если вам нравится Ваш доктор, он у Вас останется». Где они все?

Плохая новость состоит в том, что такие микрореволюции могут занять много времени; в худшем случае микрореволюция так никогда и не осуществится, и человек умирает как истинный верующий, как верный «полезный идиот». Например, демократ Стейси Абрамс, которая все еще считает, что именно она выиграла недавнюю гонку губернаторов в Джорджии, несмотря на то что на самом деле гонку она проиграла.

На первый взгляд, какофония различных точек зрения, которую мы слышим от американских демократов в настоящее время, звучит как гражданская война внутри этой левой партии. Например, конфронтация спикера Нэнси Пелоси и Александры Окасио-Кортез напоминает политическую борьбу между «опытной, умеренной социалисткой» Пелоси и «молодой, агрессивной марксисткой» Окасио-Кортез. Тем не менее, разница их взглядов – это просто манифестация того факта, что Пелоси и Окасио-Кортез в настоящее время находятся на разных стадиях укрепления одной и той же левой догмы.

На практике это означает, что левые останутся с нами. Останутся навсегда. Просто потому, что их знания приобретаются через догму, и такие люди найдутся всегда. Как отметил историк Ли Эдвардс, социализм – это «псевдорелигия, основанная на псевдонауке и усиленная политической тиранией».

Сторонники правой идеологии, созидатели и накопители богатств, навсегда обречены на беспокойное сосуществование с левыми, сторонниками раздела богатств, точно так же, как Добро вынуждено сосуществовать со Злом.

Будучи последователями псевдорелигиозного Культа Жертвоискателей, левые всегда найдут способ набрать в свои ряды новых последователей, которые будут обмануты вечным лозунгом левых «отобрать и поделить». Однако есть много веских причин считать социалистическое президентство Барака Обамы пиком этого псевдорелигиозного утопического движения. С избранием президента Трампа эта вершина леваков осталась позади, и все мы знаем, что единственное направление от вершины – это катиться вниз.

[1] Политическая мысль Грамши: гегемония, сознание и революционный процесс (NewYork: Clarendon Press, 1981)

Перевод с английского Ольги Кантор и Валентины Гиндлер

Буриданов осел из Вашингтонского болота

Кто бы мог подумать, что теоретический Буриданов осел, популяризированный французским философом XIV века, правильно предскажет поведение другого рода ослов, а именно – Демократической партии Соединенных Штатов? Знаменитый осел, одинаково испытывающий голод и жажду, был помещен точно посередине между охапкой сена и ведром воды. Наш бедный гипотетический осел умер потому, что он не мог принять решение относительно своих желаний.

Звучит знакомо?

Демократы стремятся объявить импичмент (то есть вотум недоверия) президенту Трампу, и в то же время стремятся этого избежать. Они не могут принять решение о том, как действовать дальше, потому что загнали себя в угол. Они годами бомбардировали страну различными мистификациями, внушая американцам, что Трамп является агентом России. Если они начнут процедуру импичмента против президента, то независимые избиратели откажутся от Демократов (независимые избиратели не потерпят преследования ни в чем не повинного человека), и Демократы проиграют выборы 2020 года. Если же Демократы затормозят процесс импичмента, их избиратели с промытыми мозгами откажутся от них, и в результате Демократы опять же проиграют выборы 2020 года, повторив судьбу Буриданова осла.

Хорошо известно, что Дональд Трамп – оппортунист. Если он видит, что Демократы загнали себя в угол, он обязательно этим воспользуется. Трамп знает, что любая попытка импичмента популярного президента (а если вы сомневаетесь в его популярности, просто посмотрите на самый низкий за многие десятилетия уровень безработицы), приведет к народному бунту на выборах в 2020 году. Это уже случалось раньше – в 1998 году, сразу после импичмента президента Биллa Клинтонa. Трамп понимает, что после обнародования доклада Мюллера Демократы потеряли все рычаги политического давления, которые они имели над ним, поэтому он постоянно провоцирует их на тот или иной шаг, зная, что любой такой шаг так или иначе повредит его противникам.

Неожиданно президент Трамп объявил дополнительный 5%-й процентный тариф на все мексиканские товары, который должен был вступить в силу 10 июня 2019 года. Официально, цель этих тарифов состояла в том, чтобы заставить правительство Мексики сотрудничать с США в вопросе вышедшей из-под контроля нелегальной иммиграции. Если же Мексика откажется от такого сотрудничества, Трамп объявил о возможности введения дополнительного 10%-го тарифа с 1 июля и 15%-го тарифа с 1 августа, и так до 25% (при условии, конечно, что известный Гавайский судья не отменит решение президента).

На протяжении многих десятилетий Демократы предпочитали благополучие нелегалов благополучию американских граждан. Почему? Потому что нелегалы, полностью зависящие от правительственных подачек, являются идеальной избирательной средой для Демократов. На поверхности, это выглядит как попытка президента Трампа остановить неконтролируемую иммиграцию «незарегистрированных демократов».

Действительно, в течение всего нескольких часов после объявления тарифа президент Мексики Лопес Обрадор попросил о встрече с Трампом. Понятно, что тарифы сильно ударят по экспорту Мексики, но правительство контролирует лишь 20% территории страны; остальная территория находится под контролем наркокартелей. Так почему же Трамп выдвинул Мексике свои заведомо невыполнимые требования? Потому что настоящая цель удара Трампа здесь не Мексика, а Демократическая партия США.

Президент Трамп использовал бездействие Демократов в отношении пограничного кризиса и отсутствие у них энтузиазма при ратификации нового торгового соглашения между США, Канадой и Мексикой – USMCA. Торговое соглашение NAFTA было отменено Трампом, но новое соглашение все еще не ратифицировано, и Республиканцы не имеют большинства в две трети голосов в Сенате, чтобы гарантировать успешное, разрешение этого вопроса. Эта ситуация позволила Трампу вновь обхитрить Демократов. Если они ничего не сделают в отношении USMCA (a они, в основном, намеревались именно так и поступить), то анти-мексиканский тариф Трампа будет полностью введен в действие.

Последствия этого вредны, но не смертельны для Мексики. Тем не менее, это существенная угроза для Демократов, которые вновь загнали себя в угол в вопросе нелегальной иммиграции. Другими словами, если Демократы ратифицируют новое торговое соглашение USMCA, они фактически сделают Трампу подарок – значительное достижение на международной арене; если же они этого не сделают, то предоставят Трампу ту возможность, которая поможет остановить нелегальную иммиграцию. Оба исхода политически смертельны для Буридановых ослов из Вашингтонского болота. Кроме того, Мексика, похоже, заплатит за свой альянс с Демократической – антиамериканской и про-социалистической – партией.

В настоящее время демократический осел взвалил на себя слишком много. В дополнение к почти нескрываемому расизму и открытому антисемитизму, он тащит на себе штурмовые отряды Демократической партии, а именно, движение Антифа и ее сторонников. Будучи самой многочисленной антиамериканской партией, Демократы отчаянно нуждаются в политическом покаянии. Без этого покаяния демократический осел не имеет будущего, по крайней мере, на американской земле.

Вместе с тем, в настоящее время возможен один уникальных способ, который поможет Демократам избавиться от такого токсичного багажа.

В соответствии с Конституцией США, процедура импичмента является политическим, а не судебным процессом, и может быть применена как к действующему должностному лицу с целью отстранения его от выборной должности, так и против ранее избранного должностного лица (в этом случае импичмент не позволяет этому лицу занять выборную должность в будущем). Демократы имеют большинство в Палате Представителей, и это дает им исключительную возможность дистанцироваться как от темного прошлого, так и от социалистического настоящего своей партии. Чтобы выйти из парадокса Буриданова осла, они должны мыслить весьма нестандартно.

Все, что Демократам нужно сделать – это объявить импичмент Бараку Хусейну Обаме.

Скорей всего, Республиканцы в Конгрессе протянут Демократам руку помощи и помогут своим политическим соперникам спастись от самих себя.

Перевод с английского Ольги Кантор и Валентины Гиндлер

Объявление

С сегодняшнего для на сайте – пополнение. Ольга Кантор взяла на себя обязанности переводчика с английского. Она – математик, но красивое словесное выражение восторгает ее не меньше числового. Ольга приехала в Америку в 1987 году из Вильнюса. Она любит горы, танец босса нову, и узбекский плов.

Следующий пост – ее первый перевод.

Buridan’s jackass from Deepstateville

Who would have guessed that the theoretical Buridan’s jackass, popularized by the 14th-century French philosopher, would correctly predict the behavior of the different kind of jackasses — namely, the Democratic Party of the United States?  The proverbial equally hungry and thirsty donkey was positioned precisely midway between a pile of hay and a pail of water.  Our poor hypothetical jackass died because it could not make a rational decision about its priorities.

Does this sound familiar?

Democrats are eager to impeach president Trump, yet at the same time, they are eager to avoid such impeachment.  They cannot make a rational decision on how to proceed, because they have painted themselves into a corner on the issue.  They bombarded the country with various hoaxes for years, telling Americans that Trump is Russia’s asset.  If they start the impeachment proceedings against Trump, independents will abandon Democrats (independents will not tolerate the prosecution of innocent men), and they will lose the 2020 elections.  If Democrats put brakes the impeachment plans, their brainwashed base will abandon them; the Democrats will still lose the 2020 elections, just as Buridan’s jackass died between two choices.

It is well known that Donald Trump is an opportunist.  He detects that the Democrats self-cornered themselves on some issue, and then he makes a move.  Trump knows that any attempt to impeach a popular president (and if you question his popularity, just look at the decades-low unemployment rates) will lead to an electoral revolt in 2020.  (It happened before — in 1998, right after the impeachment of Bill Clinton.)  Trump understands that Democrats, after the Mueller report, have lost any political leverage they had over him, so he continually provokes them to make a move on the impeachment issue, knowing that any such move one way or another will harm his opponents.

Unexpectedly, President Trump had declared an additional 5% tariff on all Mexican goods effective June 10, 2019.  The declared goal was to force the government of Mexico to cooperate on the issue of out-of-control illegal immigration.  If this cooperation does not materialize, Trump announced an additional 10% tariff on July 1 and a 15% tariff on August 1, up until 25% (assuming that some judge in Hawaii will not overturn the president’s decision).

For many decades, Democrats promoted the well-being of illegal aliens over the well-being of American citizens.  Why?  Because illegals, wholly dependent on government handouts, are the ideal electoral base for the Democrats.  On the surface, this looks like President Trump’s attempt to stop uncontrolled immigration of the “undocumented Democrats.”  Indeed, within mere hours of the tariff announcement, Mexico’s President López Obrador requested a meeting with Trump.  Understandably, the tariffs will hit Mexico’s exports hard, but the Mexican government controls a mere 20% of the country’s territory; the rest is under the narco-cartels’ control.  So why did Trump issue his knowingly impracticable demands?  Well, the real goal here is not Mexico; it is the Democratic Party.

President Trump used Democrats’ inaction on the border crisis and Democrats’ lack of enthusiasm in the ratification of the new trade agreement among the United States, Canada, and Mexico — the USMCA.  NAFTA had been abandoned, but the new agreement is still not ratified, and Republicans do not have a two-thirds majority in the Senate to guarantee the ratification.  This situation has allowed Trump to outfox Democrats once again.  If they do nothing about the USMCA (and they pretty much intended to do just that), Trump’s anti-Mexican tariff will be fully implemented. 

The consequences of this are harmful but not deadly for Mexico.  However, it is an existential threat for the Democrats, who once again painted themselves into a corner on the illegal immigration issue.  In other words, if Democrats ratify the new USMCA trade agreement, they will hand out Trump a significant accomplishment in the international arena; if they do not, they will provide Trump a much-needed contribution to stop the illegal immigration.  Both outcomes are politically deadly for the Buridan’s jackasses from Deepstateville.  Also, Mexico is about to pay the price for aligning herself with the anti-American, pro-socialism party.

At present, the Democrats’ donkey carries too much political weight.  In addition to the not so hidden racism and open anti-Semitism, it carries the militant wings of the Democratic Party — namely, Antifa and its cohorts.  Being the most populous anti-American American party, Democrats are in desperate need for political repentance.  Without this penance, the Democrat jackass does not have a future, at least on American soil.

One of the possible and unique ways to get rid of such toxic luggage presents itself due to increasing calls for the impeachment of President Trump.

According to the U.S. Constitution, impeachment proceedings are political, not judicial matters and can be done against a sitting official to remove him from elected office or against a non-sitting previously elected official to prevent him from occupying an office in the future.  Democrats have a majority in the House, and it gives them an exceptional opportunity to distance themselves from the dirty past and the socialist present as well.  To get out of the Buridan’s jackass paradox, they must think outside the box. 

All they have to do is to impeach Barack Hussein Obama.  Most likely, Republicans in Congress will lend them a hand to save their political archrivals from themselves.

[Originally published at American Thinker]

Слушайте Давидзон Радио с моим участием

Понедельник, 3 июня, с 17:10 до 19:00 по Нью-Йорку в передаче Данила Русакова «Рикошет».

Интернет-трансляция http://www.davidzonradio.com/index620.php

Телефон прямого эфира (с 18:05 до 19:00): +1-718-303-9090

When will World War II finally be over?

Long After WWII the Fight Against the Fascism Lives on

Even if we celebrate the 75th Anniversary of D-day, it is not a rhetorical question.  On a surface, World War II ended a long time ago, in 1945.  However, the more accurate statement would be that the shooting war in Europe and the Pacific had ended, while one of the main reasons for the War in Europe – the conflict between one particular strain of Socialism (National Socialism), on the one side, with other versions of Socialism, and Capitalism, on the other side – had not.  (Let us recall that USSR fought on the side of the Third Reich about one-third of World War II and about two-thirds – against the Third Reich.)

Seeds of (International) Socialism, supported by USSR, along with National Socialism, supported by the Third Reich, were spread in many countries before the War, during the War, and after the War.  However, nowhere in the world do these seeds sprout to such political significance like in Latin America and the Middle East.

Marriage Between Islam and Socialism

The pioneer Middle Eastern movement that married Arabs and Socialism was the Muslim Brotherhood, established in 1928 in Egypt (a so-called Socialistic Theocracy).  Such marriage was a manifestation of remarkable ideological propinquity between 7th-century semi-religion (Islam) and 19th-century semi-religion (Socialism.)

The amalgamation of Islam and Socialism was exactly the mixture Soviet leaders liked; such mixture became a perfect breeding ground for international terrorism (under the pretense of “national liberation movement” and the “war against Israeli occupation of Arab lands” later).  One of the first leaders who formally accepted Islamo-Socialistic ideas was Yasir Arafat, leader of PLO.  In 1967, right after the Six-day War, he was rewarded with a brand-new KGB invention known as the Arab Palestinian nation (prior to 1967 only Jews were called Palestinians.)

Since the formal end of World War II, Socialists prefer peaceful, legislative, and incremental changes imposed on the host societies to achieve their goals of wealth redistribution.  Modern Socialists are trying to avoid bloody revolutions; their modus operandi is a slow evolution.  Within non-Muslim societies, except for periodic acts of terrorism, that is precisely the modus operandi of the Muslim Brotherhood(sometimes it is called gradualism.)  That is one reason the Socialist movement joined forces with their ideological colleagues from the Muslim Brotherhood, who also prefer evolutionary changes in the world.  In other words, the sympathy between President Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood was not without an underlying rationale.

“Muslim Socialism” is similar to orthodox Socialism; both call for the “just redistribution of wealth” and other classical left-wing, class-struggle ideas.  In non-Muslim majority nations, such as the United States, Muslims are falsely designated as an “oppressed proletariat” class, while the Christian majority is falsely designated as the “oppressive bourgeoisie”; thus the virus of Muslim class struggle enters the host nation.  The toxic seed of Socialism on Muslim soil has led to unique perspectives, like “Socialism is a way of life, not just economic order.” Recall that, according to Islam, “Islam is a way of life, not just a religion.”

The unbelievable, improbable marriage between dedicated Muslims and atheists-by-definition Socialists is one of the most remarkable events in human history.

In Latin America, a similar process took place – under the name of Liberation Theology, also invented in the bowels of KGB, and propagated by numerous Soviet agents and “useful idiots.” It reached the United States under the name “Black Liberation Theology”; it reached the Vatican in the form of Francis, the first openly Marxist Pope.

Syrian, Iraqi, and Other Arab National Socialists

The Baath Party, better known as the Arab Socialist Renaissance Party, was established in 1947 in Syria.  The Baath Party was “nationalist, populist, socialist, and revolutionary”; party’s slogan was “Unity, Liberty, Socialism.” In 1951 their sister party was established in Iraq.  In 1968 Iraqi Arab Socialist Renaissance Party attempted to take power in coup d’état.  One of the essential revolutionaries was young socialist Saddam Hussein, who eventually became president-dictator of the country in 1979. 

Like their historical predecessors in Germany, Iraqi’s National Socialists fought fierce battles with their ideological cousins – Iraqi communists.  Like another historical predecessor – Joseph Stalin – Saddam Hussein became a dictator after a bloody purge of his old comrades.  (At the end, just like in post-WWII Germany, where a painful process of de-nazification took place, the slow process of de-baathization is currently underway in Iraq.)

The present leader of the socialist Baath party in Syria is president-dictator Bashar Assad.  In addition to Baath, Bashar Assad is also affiliated with Syrian National Progressive Front.  Note the importance of the words “National” and “Progressive” in the name – it is the same “National” as in “National Socialism,” and “Progressive” refers to the Progressive Era of Socialism, which had its beginning from the progressive taxation, demanded by the “Communist Manifesto” of Marx and Engels.  The Syrian National Progressive Front unites many parties – Syrian Communist Party, Syrian Socialist Party, Syrian Social Nationalist Party (pay attention to the name and official logo of this party,) Democratic Socialist party, the Arab Socialist Union, and many other leftist Pan-Arabist parties.

Hamas calls itself the “Islamic Resistance Movement.” In their Charter, they proclaim, “The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine.” Also, in the Charter, Hamas commands (in pretty heretical for traditional Islam way) that in a fight with Israel “a woman must go out and fight the enemy even without her husband’s authorization, and a slave without his masters’ permission.” In a conventional Soviet manner, the Hamas Charter unloads on the imperialism of “occupiers” and “imperialist forces” of the “capitalist West.” In general, some Hamas Charter chapters somewhat resemble ideas of prominent Marxist Antonio Gramsci of reforming arts, culture, and education for their “liberation” goals, but in terms of the jihad.

Sizable contributions to the Arab Socialist movement were made by Muammar Gaddafi, who established a new socialist state in Libya called Jamahiriya (literally means “State of the masses,” but it is neologism that could be traced to “Volksstaat” of Nazi Germany), as well by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, founder of the Arab Socialist Union. 

The story of renaming Persia into Iran is one of the most fascinated stories in the Middle East. Persia existed for more than two millennia when in 1935 she gave up the pressure from the German National Socialists to adopt the new name – Iran. Why the Third Reich got involved? They knew that the country name in Farsi sounds like Eran, which is derived from the beloved in the Third Reich term “Aryan.” Nazis decided not to miss an opportunity to create allies in the Middle East, even in the name only. The common in the Middle East amalgam of atheists-socialists and Islamic radicals led to the deposition of Iranian Shah in 1979; eventually, Islamic forces overpowered the socialistic ones in the post-revolutionary Iran. Since that, Islamofascism became the accepted term for the mixture of Socialism and Islam.

The virus of Socialism in the Middle East

The virus of Socialism is always present in human society in a dormant form; like all other viruses, under certain conditions it self-activates.

It causes the host society great suffering, as we can see from the numerous examples in the Middle East and elsewhere. 

From the very beginning, Islam had elements loved by modern Socialists.  For example, Islamic Zakat (the third pillar of Islam, an additional mandatory tax on wealth at about 2.5% rate), is a ready-to-go wealth redistribution scheme.  In the Middle East, the virus of Socialism has mutated into the virus of Islamofascism, so dealing with such ideology is more complicated than dealing with the Third Reich during World War II.  The United States and other NATO countries have spent trillions of dollars and thousands of lives trying to “pacify” the region.  However, the example of the Third Reich shows that the only reliable way to suppress the symptoms of Islamofascism is the complete destruction of the infected society and its complete rebuilding.   

The virus of Socialism was so strong in the post-World War II years in the Middle East, that the modern Jewish state of Israel, established in 1948, was based on a socialistic, left-wing version of Zionism.  The right-wing, capitalistic version of Zionism by Vladimir Zhabotinsky was initially rejected, and it took Israelis about a half of a century to turn the ship around and mostly reject the socialist foundations of Israel.

From the American Perspective, World War II is Unfinished Business 

Indeed, the American financial system recovered from the World War II disaster only in 1975, during the Cold war, when the last payment for the 30-year government War Bond was made.  The Cold War was a global conflict because the virus of Socialism is very contagious.  Due to the spread of Socialistic ideas, the Cold War saw the same core participants as in World War II; however, the battlefields had expanded from Europe and the Pacific into the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America.  The current division is the same as it was before – on the one hand, it is Capitalism, and on the other hand, various versions of traditional Socialism (including Globalism), mixed with some regional ingredients.

The absence of a shooting World War III at the moment is misleading; the shooting war never ceased in the Middle East since World War II was formally over.  Let us recall that World War I did not solve all problems that led to World War I, and that war even created brand-new problems after its end.  In fact, it had created conditions that played a crucial role in triggering World War II.  Again, some of the problems that led to World War II were not solved by that war, and it had created even more unsolved to present day problems.

The ideological conflict, started by the “Communist Manifesto,” does not seem to show signs of slowing down due to the widespread virus of Socialism, even though the number of socialistic countries has declined.  However, the number of people worldwide who support this bloody ideology increases from within.

If the United States and NATO allies would like to win in the end, declare full victory in World War II, and thereby prevent World War III, they better stop the contamination from the virus of Socialism.  Seventy-five years after the D-day Normandy invasion, the Allies must pay special attention to the most dangerous strain of Socialism – which spreads by self-contamination.

 [Originally published at New Right Network]

Abortion and Conservatism

Abortion is front and center of most political debates currently. The recent wave of pro-Life legislation in Alabama, Georgia, Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri, and Mississippi have good intentions from good people, but the approach is fundamentally flawed. They are trying to legislate something which essentially does not belong to that domain. The abortion issue is fundamentally not political, and Conservatives should not follow the examples of the totalitarian left who try to legislate toward the erosion of Capitalism on their path to Socialism. These recent pro-Life laws take aim only at the Supreme Court. They are states’ answers to Roe v. Wade and do not have any other purpose except to overturn it.

It has been noticed before that Supreme Court decisions are very often in line with the current popular mood. The Supreme Court should never bow to political pressure. However, plaintiffs have a feeling of moral and ideological support of either the popular president or majority of Congress, as such they make cases destined exclusively for the Supreme Court. In other words, petitioners get a dose of bravery due to a political tailwind. On the surface, it looks like the Supreme Court is sometimes decidedly in favor of the prevailing political ideology of official Washington. 

Such was the situation with Roe v. Wade. The case was decided in January 1973, shortly after the election of 1972 in which President Richard Nixon carried 49 states even though Democrats held majorities in both House and Senate. A similar situation occurred in 2012 when the Supreme Court decided in favor of Obamacare.  However, after 2016 and the complete exoneration of President Trump of any wrongdoing in 2019 by Special Counsel Mueller, the judicial and political pendulum swung to the other side.

Is Abortion Mentioned in the US Constitution?

Of course, Conservatism must not change their opinions based on Supreme Court decisions. Court decisions are for legal matters, while Conservatism is an ideology. Its followers must consider every aspect of human life thru the prism of politics, not judicial outcomes based on re-evaluation and re-interpretation of law. Such outcomes come and go, while philosophical foundations of the American Conservatism – the US Constitution – remain unchanged. In other words on that basis, Conservatism should not have any constitutional arguments for or against abortion since the issue is so far from the underlying foundations of the Conservatism. So, Conservatism, in most cases, should resort to the old constitutional argument – leave it to the states. It has to be done even if it was an ideology, alien to American values, that inspired Roe v. Wade.

The Weaponization of Genitalia by Leftists

From the very beginning, the left-wingers decided to bring the issue of abortion into the political domain. Initially designed to exterminate blacks, this racist idea by prominent Democrat Margaret Sanger lives to this day. In order to gain the support of white women, the issue got framed as a privacy, a freedom, and a civil liberties issue. It was Margaret Sanger, who was inspired by the pseudo-science of eugenics, who weaponized abortion for political and racist purposes. 

Now, in the 21st century, many people consider any discussion and any questioning of Roe v. Wade as an attack on civil liberties. And they are right, but in a wrong sense of the word. They do not understand that there is a much bigger stake in this thing called the US Constitution. The Constitution does not mention abortion at all – nor healthcare in general. On the other hand, it does not mean that the non-mentioning of an issue makes it invalid; it just transfers the issue to the States. No wonder Edward Lazarus wrote in 2002, “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible…” and that “Roe must be ranked among the most damaging of judicial decisions.”

Many conservatives do not like the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision on the federal level. Also there are Conservatives who do not like any abortion legislation, neither on the state nor local level. Some want to expel the issue from the political domain completely. The only option pro-abortion advocates have to make it “legal” and non-controversial is to follow the US Constitution: Remove it from the federal level (i.e. – overturn Roe v. Wade) and allow all 50 States to experiment in this area, as it was conceived by the Founding Fathers. Such an experiment would have a very wide range of legislation – from the total prohibition in some states to total legalization of abortion at any time for any reason in others.  However, the wisest States would just remove the question of abortion from politics, and leave it to men, women, and their doctors, where it historically belonged.

Abortion as a Tool of Black Genocide

The removal of the abortion issue from the political domain would probably stop the Democrat-induced infanticide of black babies and correct the disgusting abortion statistics. Most black babies in the USA – about 70% – are aborted, as it was envisioned by Margaret Sanger and other feminists; about 40% of all abortions are performed on black women, even if they constitute just 7% of US population. The political debate has reached the level of absurdity. The Left blames white men for black women’s abortions, as well as for the lack of white women abortions.

It is a typical Democrats’ modus operandi. First, they create a system of black genocide. Second, they legalize it by using a trick of incorporating white woman into the abortuaries. Third, they began blaming the black woman for having a disproportionately large number of abortions. By the way, unwitting women were not told and probably did not realize they were used as accomplices of the anti-black crime.

The Marxist Roots of the Abortion Issue

Some of the Democrats’ moves are straight from the Communist Manifesto. Others are from the works of Marxism co-founders Marx and Engels. They pushed for the abolition of the family, dissolution of monogamy, and “unconstrained sexual intercourse.” Unrestricted abortion-on-demand plays a crucial role in achieving these goals. In other words, Planned Parenthood is actually Marxist-Planned Unparenthood.

Many who agree with conservatism ideals engage in heated discussions with the proponents of abortion and are forced to make a stand. However, such discussions, in most cases, are conducted in the medical, religious, or moral domains. In such domains, it is practically impossible to stay calm when leftists claim that the unborn are just a “clump of cells,” and “parasites” supposed to be under total and unconditional control of a pregnant woman. “It is my body, period,” they say. Ordinary people usually lose their temper talking to a person who seems like they missed all biology classes in high school. Those who do not comprehend that a pregnant woman carries a separate person from the mother. Any science-based arguments which state a person has different DNA and different fingerprints are not accepted to pro-Abortionists. All such discussions usually lead to nowhere.

The Abortion Issue Must be Resolved in the Political Arena

If leftists had forced the abortion into the political arena, it must either be resolved in political terms or be expelled from politics. In other words, biological, medical, moral, or religious arguments are no longer valid. These arguments are not applicable in the political domain. Any attempt to do so cannot lead to any rational resolution. Being thrown into the realm of politics, many abortion proponents continue to use flawed (in political terms) arguments. Again, in political terms, sometimes such arguments look funny (recall “sex strike”), sometimes vulgar (recall despicable pussyhats), sometimes silly (recall naked Emily Ratajkovski).

In any case, pro-abortion advocates are continually playing an entirely different game than that required in the political arena. For example, when Leftists talk about “abortion rights” or “reproductive rights,” they are speaking in the political domain, because such “rights” are strictly political constructs (and non-existent in the Constitution). They do not belong to the medical or biological or religious domain. It is like playing baseball in the boxing ring.

Petitioners get a dose of bravery due to a political tailwind

Abortion does not belong to politics; it does not belong to courts; it does not belong to the legislatures. It is a family and doctor domain. Any attempt to go outside this domain is destined to miscarry. Would leftists be happy to base their lives on some illegal precedent? Don’t they understand that, if they want “undocumented democrats” to stay safely in the so-called sanctuary cities, those who believe in Conservatism, with not less enthusiasm, want “undocumented offspring” also to have some sanctuary somewhere?

“Abortion rights” vs. State Rights

Roe v. Wade is not about abortion or “abortion rights” per se. It is about States’ rights to regulate abortions if they wanted to. It is not about women’s bodies. It is about the unconstitutional usurpation of power by one by the federal branches of the government. Let us remind everybody that the country commonly known as the USA is, in fact, a federal republic, and human endeavors in areas not explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution must be regulated by States themselves or their citizens if a State does not regulate it.

Politics is not a sport nor a business. There are no weight categories, and there are no separate leagues for men and women in politics. Why don’t feminists demand their own engineering or mathematical societies, or exclusive Women Air Force? They understand the absurdity of such demands, but for some reason, they chose to play their own abortion game in the realm of politics by bringing non-political arguments into it. Understanding the unconstitutionality of the issue would allow abortion proponents to realize that their plans are destined to epic failure. The underlying flaw is sequestering the abortion issue from the medical, moral, and religious domain and injecting it into the political one.

Way to Solve the Conundrum

To make it clear, even to the proponents of infanticide – the abortion issue is unwanted and an alien “clump of cells” on the body of the US Constitution. Abortion proponents will not be heard until they go back to basics: Follow the Constitution, and grievances will be considered. Learn from Norma McCorvey who is known under the alias of Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade. She spoke profoundly later in her life about her involvement in the case which was her biggest regret; she felt she was used by activist lawyers to push a political agenda.

The Left’s support for Roe v. Wade is irrational. They don’t seem to comprehend that in the world where conservative women do not resort to abortion, the Leftist’s population would become eventually extinct. Despite what leftist propaganda screams, Conservatism does not want to make the lives of women in the US miserable. On the contrary, Conservatism offers a solution to correct the decades-old judicial mistake. Overturn Roe v. Wade to pave the way for the future. Yes, you read it right: To legalize abortion in America, Roe v. Wade must be overturned. 

[Originally published at New Right Network]

How to Evaluate the Deal of the Century?

The Trump administration’s Middle East peace plan is demonstrating a great deal of uncertainty because the plan is unfinished and raw.  That explains why the White House always finds an opportunity to postpone its release.  Although the administration could have made the plan’s main ideas known a long time ago, it is not worth speculating on rumors about its content.

So what should we pay attention to when the project eventually comes to life?

We have to pay attention to the compliance of the proposed peace plan with established international law.

The inability to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict for almost a century is largely explained by abuses and blunt illegality of the earlier attempts.  In other words, if the new peace plan is not based on international law, it will fail, like all the previous ones.

Obviously, the new peace plan must comply with the Old Testament.  It is written that the Almighty God gave the Land of Israel to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, making the Covenant with them and their descendants.  Such (or similar) interpretation of events also exists in Christianity and Islam.

In 1917, against the backdrop of the imminent defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, the Zionists and Conservatives, who ruled Britain at that time, relying on Bible verses, agreed to restore Israel on the territory of the Roman province Palestine.  Originally, Romans called it the Province of Judea after defeating and occupying ancient Israel.  Palestine was always a name for a geographical area, not for a country or a state.  (In contrast, Judea was the name of one of the two Jewish kingdoms.)  Romans renamed Judea “Palaestina” in the second century A.D.

That was reflected in the declaration of the British government, named after the foreign minister of Arthur Balfour.  However, the Balfour Declaration was a “protocol of intent” and legally was unenforceable.  The Balfour Declaration obtained proper legal status years later.  The legal process took place right after World War I, within the framework of the Treaty of Versailles.  It was the beginning of the development of documents of international law for the appropriate legal restoration of the modern State of Israel.

It took about three years filled with amazing historical events, such as the communist revolution in Russia and the Turkish War of Independence.  Russia went its own way.  She self-expelled from the traditional international relations of the Russian Empire and ignored the League of Nations.  It is indeed a paradox that the United States also did not become a member of the League of Nations for the same reason as Russia — the change of government.  In Russia, the Bolsheviks staged a coup d’état, and in the United States, the isolationists won the elections and decided that it was better if the country dealt with internal problems first.

By the summer of 1922, after a series of previous agreements (San Remo Conference and Treaty of Sevres), the League of Nations had established the Mandate for Palestine.  The League authorized the United Kingdom to prepare the foundation for the creation of an independent Jewish state on the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River in historic Israel, occupied by Britain since 1918.  The League of Nations made the decision on July 24, 1922.

However, the territory of modern Israel, thanks to this decision, was to be three or four times smaller than the territories of the biblical Jewish kingdoms that existed in the area between three and two millennia ago.  (By the way, the original project, which was introduced in 1919–1920, almost corresponded to the biblical area under Jewish control, capturing both banks of the Jordan River.)

The leading international document — the decision of San Remo — was signed and approved as follows: the territory from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River was allocated to the Jewish state.  Israel should be established in this area and nothing else.  In other words, no other state between the sea and the river.

The procedures of the League of Nations were such that it was difficult or almost impossible to change its documents.  Indeed, the decision of the League of Nations remains still in force, even after a century, and still has the same legal power, the same meaning, and the same value.

This critical document of international law was subsequently reproduced in two additional relevant documents.

The decision of League of Nations was approved in July 1922, but before its introduction, international lawyers demanded extra coordination with the United States.  The United States had never been a member of the League, despite being the initiator of the creation of the League of Nations.  However, at an early stage, the United States took part in establishing the post–World War I order, including the British Mandate.

Therefore, a convention between the United States and the United Kingdom was formed, providing U.S. guarantees to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Mandate from the United Kingdom.  Then this document, the content of which fully repeats the text of the British Mandate, was transformed in the manner prescribed by the United States into a law that is still in force.

In 1945, a special Article 80 was added to the U.N. Charter.  The article is related to the continuity of the League of Nations mandate.  Subsequently, the U.N. replaced the League of Nations.  From Article 80, it follows that the U.N. could not transfer ownership and rights to any part of Palestine, but was obliged to grant rights exclusively to the Jewish people and not to other non-Jewish entities.

In other words, the British Mandate eventually was more or less implemented, albeit not completely.  An independent Jewish state appeared on the world map just in time, in May 1948.  However, Britain, from the very beginning of the Mandate, which required preparation for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, was interested in creating obstacles and sabotage in favor of the Arabs.  As in the case of the United States, this shift in policy followed the transition of power from the conservatives to the left-wing party.

The British left-leaning administration had a clear policy bias in favor of the Arabs at the expense of the Jews for decades.  It put sticks in the wheels to the best of its ability under the guise of the administration.  It was a time when British authorities executed rebels, both Jewish and Arab.  However, all their actions were in accordance with British colonial laws.  Also, Great Britain, defending its imperial and colonial interests, fought bravely to prevent Germany to invade Palestine, where hundreds of thousands of Jews lived.  For similar reasons, the British declined the Arab idea of a second (Muslim) state between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan.

The international laws that govern the creation of Israel have not been canceled or negated in any way.  They are still in full force.  Those are the decisions of San Remo and the British Mandate and, subsequently, the American Law of December 1924 on Guarantees of the Mandate with the full support of the United States.  In other words, President Trump, like all presidents before him, has no right to transfer Jewish lands to anyone else (although we do know that some of his predecessors tried to do just that).

President Trump certainly does not have the intent to violate established international law.  The narrative about the latest peace initiative is already dubbed the “Deal of a Century,” and it well could be.  The only problem is that Trump is practically alone on the world stage on this issue.

The world of the international diplomatic mafia (diplomafia, if you will) is still under the heavy hand of Soviet (now Russian) diplomacy and the wild imagination of Islamic diplomacy.  Both of them joined forces with the left-wing diplomafia, which, by its nature, is anti-Israel and anti-Semitic (for example, the Democratic Party in the United States and the Labor Party in the United Kingdom).

This trinity operates under a tale straight from “1001 Arabian Nights” about how Uncle Joe and Uncle Sam on November 29, 1947 gave orders to establish the State of Israel by partitioning Western Palestine once again.

Come on — everyone knows that this is a bunch of parables.  Israel’s existence is based on rock-solid historical and judicial foundations, and Trump’s “Deal of the Century” must affirm just that.

Reuven Miller and Gary Gindler

Reuven Miller is a citizen journalist and blogger. He is retired from the field of Nuclear Electronics and currently lives in Jerusalem, Israel.

[Originally published at American Thinker]

The Left’s weaponization of everything

The weasels of leftism are close to exhausting their weaponization abilities.  The recent political weaponization of the banking industry (i.e., using financial records against the opposing politician — President Trump) falls in line with all the previous weaponization attempts.  However, pretty soon, they will run out of things to weaponize.

There are numerous examples of the political weaponization of all facets of human life, including private life. 

At the beginning of the 20th century, the vagina became the weapon of choice for many left-wing feminists.  It was used initially for the genocide of blacks because one of the Left’s icons, Margaret Sanger, was a follower of the racist pseudo-science of eugenics (just like her follower and ideological colleague in Europe, Adolf Hitler).  The vagina-missiles continue to be used in the 21st century.  (Recall the Judge Kavanaugh drama and the anti-Trump “golden shower” hoax.)

Later on, other private parts were weaponized, and the political movement of LGBT was born.  It largely succeeded in bringing down the Boy Scouts and normalizing something that was considered abnormal through the entirety of written human history.  Such abnormalities, if they were confined into private bedrooms, were widely tolerated for millennia, but the political weaponization injected these abnormalities into the public domain, including LGBT brainwashing in public schools.

Leftism spread in human society like a contagious virus and carried with it a total weaponization of everything.  Leftism, being a totalitarian ideology, could not settle for anything less than total weaponization.

The modern political weaponization of everything is very similar to the old communist idea of the militarization of everything.  For example, concentration camps — leftists prefer to call them “re-education camps” — were introduced by communist Leon Trotsky in order to create “labor armies” to demonstrate that socialism is better than capitalism.  The idea was to crush capitalism by over-producing and out-profiting it due to practically nonexistent personal expenses in such hard labor camps.  When the National Socialists came to power, they liked the idea of the concentration camps very much, and they continue to call them “re-education camps” officially.

The total weaponization has reached science (recall the “global cooling” hoax, which got transformed into the “global warming” hoax), media (recall the complete evolution of modern media into open propaganda outlets, where journalists act as ideological soldiers), culture (an idea of “cultural Marxism” by Antonio Gramsci), religion (recall Black Liberation Theology), sports, and many other endeavors. 

The election of socialist Barack Obama as the president of the United States was the peak of leftism.  This peak was unique, a once-in-human-civilization event, that allowed for the weaponization of institutions — like the IRS and U.S. spy agencies (CIA, FBI, all seventeen of them).  Also, health care was weaponized (Obamacare), as well as the United Nations.  The trade unions had been weaponized around the same time as genitalia, and by the same people, but only President Obama managed to use unions as political assault weapons.  (Recall the General Motors saga.)

Of course, Obama inherited much neo-Marxist ammunition from his predecessors, like race.  The “race card” is, in fact, one of leftists’ most commonly used political assault weapons.  However, they have practically run out of ammunition.  The Democrats have kept the black population on the “Democratic plantation” for too long while conducting anti-black policies.  The same applies to American Jews — they finally realized that the Holocaust was used by leftists to keep the Jews in the Democrats’ orbit while conducting anti-Israeli policies.  Democrats created the KKK, as well as its modern version, Antifa, but these guys in black outfits suspiciously look like the reincarnation of Mussolini’s blackshirts, so, politically, that was a dead end.

What is left for the Left?

There is nothing left that could be weaponized to satisfy the power-hungry totalitarian, racist, and anti-Semitic ideology of leftism.  The transfer of private financial records of Donald Trump from banks into the public domain is embarrassing but not deadly to Trump.  It is deadly, however, for those who still follow the despicable ideology of leftism, because it clearly shows they are forced to use their very last reserves.

[Originally published at American Thinker]

De-platforming: back to the future

The year is 2029. The most popular social networking site in the world, “Rightbook,” has de-platformed most Left-wing propagandists (formerly known as journalists). Rightbook was founded by a group of Conservative students shortly after their candidate won the 2020 election. The site overcame Left-leaning social platforms such as Facebook in 2024, and Twitter in 2023.

It would be an understatement to mention that the Left-wingers did not like it.

Leftists created several hashtags on their tiny Twitter platform, which purged most of the Right-wingers a long time ago, from 2018-2020. Since then, Twitter has become a cesspool of neo-Marxists of various types (from moderate Socialists to Fascists and Communists), intolerant to any form of dissenting thought. However, due to the low-popularity of Twitter, nobody paid attention to these hashtags.

A lot of accounts got created on the even smaller Facebook platform, protesting the purge of the Leftists. Russia, as usual, decided to sow chaos in American political life and purchased a whopping $1,984 worth of political advertising on Facebook. However, this amount was about 1/1024th of the total Facebook ad revenue, so practically nobody clicked on them.

After the purge of Leftists, some Right-wingers enjoyed the party. The prevailing mood among them was: “It is payback time!” The House Judiciary Committee, with Democrat Socialist majority, conducted a series of hearings on the matter. The representatives blamed the Rightbook for violating the First Amendment; they also attempted to revitalize the Fairness Doctrine, abolished in 1987.

The issue in due time reached the Supreme Court, and the Court ruled 8-to-1 that private company Rightbook, like Facebook and Twitter before, has a right to de-platform any user for any reason rather than solely based on race, place of birth, or nationality. The only opposing vote was Justice Ruth Ginsburg’s; she is still alive.

The rationale behind the decision was similar to abolishing the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine was introduced at a time when even though most of the TV sets in the United States had 12-channel tuners, only one or two channels were available (only New York City had three channels). However, at present even rural counties in the United States have more than a thousand TV channels, and the number of social networks on the Internet has skyrocketed since the purge of conservatives and other violators of non-conforming thought crimes in the years before 2020 elections.

That was the end of that. It took another decade or so for the Leftists to die their painful political death. They had built two digital concentration camps – Facebook and Twitter – and volunteered to condemn themselves to them. While in a state of digital self-imprisonment, Leftists witnessed terrifying events happening in real life since 2016: a massive exodus of their electorate to the other side of the political spectrum. African-Americans were the first to leave the political plantation; Latinos followed shortly. Both groups followed the money, jobs, and prosperity. Who can blame them for that in an economy with less than 3% unemployment and more than 3% growth?

Eventually, everybody who benefited from the booming American economy abandoned the Leftists, and the bloody, misanthropic, anti-Semitic, and totalitarian ideology crossed a point of no return.

[Originally published at New Right Network]