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]

Trump’s Strategy in the China Trade War

A recent stock sell-off was “explained” to the public as “investors are worried due to tariffs on Chinese imports.”  However, it should be known that market makers are doing this on a regular basis: from a cacophony of daily news, they pick up one story and broadcast it as a “reason” for the stock market moving up or down in a particular day.   It makes the unsuspecting public (who is always positioned in a way to maximize losses) feel “good” and “in the know” even if people lose money at every market turn — fake news at its best.  However, keep in mind that the sell-off manifests much deeper reasons: reconfiguration and correcting decades-old unfair trade imbalances.

The best tariff (tax on imported goods) equals zero — at least this is what standard economic theory says.  However, such a rule is valid only when both trading partners are set at zero.  If either side moves one iota above zero in tariffs, it makes its population pay for that move.  So what happens when one party does not respond to an unfriendly move from zero to some non-zero tariff?  In a short time frame, it hurts the side that makes such a move, but in the long run, it could eventually bankrupt businesses on the other side and, in turn, bring enormous benefits for those who made such a move first.  The more time other side keeps indifferent, the more it loses in the end.

Enter China: it established non-zero tariffs years ago on practically all American goods and services, while the United States was busy discussing the stained blue dress, “hanging chads,” “9/11 was inside job,” “keep your doctor,” and “Trump is Putin’s marionette.”  As a result, many American businesses moved to other countries, including China, and took millions of jobs with them.  The Maoist Chinese rulers were completely satisfied with this American complacency.  (Let us recall that Maoism differs from other leftist -isms in an area of “coexistence.”  Maoism declares that during the transformational period from capitalism to communism, both capitalistic and collectivistic enterprises coexist — both under strict Communist Party leadership.  That is why all Chinese billionaires are close to the Communist Party apparatus.)

American decades-long inaction led to enormous imbalances in the world market.  Every independent observer understands that the situation on Trump’s plate does not have any suitable solution besides going back to the mutual zero tariffs mode.  However, the United States cannot do this unilaterally, because the situation has reached a breaking point. 

Trump knows all this.  He also knows that any country that unilaterally increases tariff hurts domestic manufactures in the short term.  The solution he implemented to alleviate this is brilliant.  Trump decided to increase external taxes (tariffs) and, at the same time, to decrease domestic taxes. 

Will the recent painful moves by the American side in the tariff war make Chinese communists think harder?  Not at the moment.  China buys about 180 billion dollars’ worth of American goods in a year; America buys about 560 billion dollars’ worth of Chinese goods.  This asymmetry, known as the trade deficit, is a double-edged sword: on the one hand, an increasing trade deficit means increased Chinese profits.  On the other hand, it means a loss of leverage in trade disputes simply because the Chinese have a bigger amount to lose. 

To explain Trump’s approach further, let us imagine the world economic imbalances as a pair (i.e., the U.S. and some other country) of communicating vessels that use money as their fluid.  If the level of fluid in one of such vessels increases (i.e., the wealth of one country in respect to the other), the level of fluid in another vessel will try to compensate.  The law of economic gravity equalizes the levels of fluid (i.e., negates economic disparity).

How is it possible to correct such an imbalance?  Possibly by relocating businesses from one country to another.  China has been doing this for decades by using various tricks; tariffs are just one of them.

Now it is America’s turn.  Trump pushed for substantial tax decreases for domestic manufacturers and substantial, painful tax increases for the foreign ones.  The proverbial “big sucking sound” everybody hears is the sound of businesses relocating back to the U.S., bringing with them jobs, prosperity, and a headache for Democrats.  Such massive relocation of businesses and accompanying wealth transfer would not be possible without Trump’s double punch — first on the domestic and then the international front. 

The world is on the verge of a massive exodus of manufacturing, investing, and finances from China and all other countries into the United States.  The communicating vessels must equalize the trade imbalances, whether one likes it or not, and President Trump’s double punch approach triggers ejecting businesses from other countries and injecting them into the U.S.

Leftists dream of “wealth redistribution,” too.  However, their latest endeavors in this arena failed spectacularly: NAFTA, TPP, and the Paris Climate Accord.  All these globalist schemes of redistributing wealth from the United States to underdeveloped countries were either short-lived or dead on arrival.  Trump’s wealth redistribution differs from the leftists’ one not only in scale.  It differs in its implementation mechanism: if leftists can achieve their wealth redistribution only by force, Trump’s free-market approach employs market’s internal mechanism for self-regulation and self-correction.

By retaliating in the decades-old tariff war, Trump has no choice.  Either China eventually bankrupts the United States, or the United States bankrupts China.  Finally, there is the third commonsense desired outcome: both parties settle for free trade with zero tariffs.

In stark contrast with all previous tariff wars known to humanity, all three such outcomes are negative for China due to its deep dependency on the American market and American know-how. 

In an attempt to show Trump, who is in charge in Asia, Chinese communists forced North Korean communists to fire two small rockets.  Both rockets fell into neutral waters less than 300 miles from the shore.  Just to confirm otherwise, the United States launched two ICBMs toward the East.  One was launched about 10 minutes after North Korean rockets and flew about 6,000 miles, another one about 7,000 miles.  Both ICBMs were unarmed and dived into the Pacific.  Everybody noticed the difference, not just in Asia. 

Perhaps we are witnessing a grand miscalculation on the part of the Chinese, who for some reason blindly believe the “mainstream” media that Trump will be soon removed from office via impeachment or that Joe Biden (who is practically under complete Chinese control) has good chances to defeat Trump in 2020 elections.  So the Chinese side decided to wait and has torpedoed its recent agreement with Trump.  Big mistake.

No wonder the current mood in China among those who do not watch CNN is pretty telling: “manufacturers who mainly sell to Europe and the United States need to start taking pain killers again.”  The recent Trump moves increased tariffs on about one-third of the Chinese goods America buys.  Watch and see what happens when Trump approaches the two-thirds mark and beyond.

[Originally published at American Thinker]

Marxism and Counter-Evolution

To understand Marxism and counter-evolution, let us imagine an unusual sporting event, say running for a mile against several other runners. The task which is set before these athletes is to arrive at the finish line not any earlier or later, but at the same time as all the other runners. What would be the result of this “equality running competition”?

It is easy to predict, that the result of such a race would be unfortunate, because the runners will always have to slow down in order to not accidentally overtake the others. As a result, all will finish the mile precisely at the time of the slowest runner. This is the most typical result of a competition for general equality.

Of course, this example of such a race is given, just for the sake of simplicity and clarity. All of human life is a competition of various types and properties at work, home, and school. The economic life of society is the most fierce field for competition. For example, to have time to plow the field and plant potatoes before it rains. It is a typical example of a competition with nature, which will not wait for the lazy farmer that is in no hurry to plow his parcel of land.

Human life is economic competition, not for equality but for primacy. This is the main principle of natural selection, according to the teachings of Charles Darwin. Only the one who is faster than others and more successfully adapts to the surrounding environment of the market or nature survives in life. Moreover, the one who lags loses and drops from the race. Such a person is pushed by those who came first to the end of the line. Such is the nature of our world, and this is the economic nature of humanity, whether one likes it or not.

Just as nature, according to Darwin’s theory of evolution, is continually striving for perfection and survival, and replaces some species with other, more adapted ones. It is precisely what happens in human society, in the process of its continuous improvement. Better skilled and more economically successful people and methods of production displace their less successful partners from the market and take their place, thus flooding the market with more advanced, cheaper and more attractive goods. This is the progress of humanity, reminiscent of the evolutionary progress of Darwin.

That is, the progress of humanity is driven by free economic competition: who is faster, who is better, and who makes it cheaper. That is the key to victory in the market. The demand for equality of results in such a competition, like the race described above, is the demand for backwardness and degradation.

That is why all the attempts of “equality fighters” in human society are attempts to stop the progress of society and inevitably cause its decline. Recall totalitarian regimes of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Cambodia, and many others. Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev once said: “Freedom is the right to inequality,” so perhaps the reverse is true too: “Equality is the right to un-freedom.”

The most active warriors of  “general equality,” i.e., the general degradation of society, are supporters of Marxism. Those who are constantly fighting for economic equality and for reducing income inequality between different segments of society.

Marxists use the slogan of formal equality of income, in society as a symbol of their irreconcilable struggle for the benefit of the workers. In fact, as it is already shown in the same example with the race of “equality athletes,” any attempt to establish equality inevitably leads to degradation and a decrease in the overall performance of participants in such competitions. This is not a simple conclusion derived from the general considerations of the behavior of athletes. That, alas, is a sad historical fact from the economic experience of countries that tried to build Socialism, applying the economic dictates of Marxism and its spin-offs – Communism, Socialism, National Socialism, Fascism, Maoism, and many other Left-wing “-isms.”

Without exception, all the countries that tried to take the path of Marxism fell into the economic black hole of hunger, devastation, spiritual degradation, and organized crime, from which they can no longer get out. Just as a beam of light will never be able to leave the gravitational field of a black hole.

Marxism is the road to material and spiritual destruction of humanity. The brainwashed followers of Marxism like to weaponize Darwin’s theory of evolution for their political purposes, but the irony is the foundation of Marxism is counter-evolution. Just ask the “equality runners” above.

Gary Gindler and Alexander Paritsky

[Originally published at New Right Network]

Когда наконец закончится Вторая мировая война?

На первый взгляд, Вторая мировая война закончилась давным-давно, в 1945 году. Однако более точным утверждением было бы то, что в 1945 году закончились боевые действия в Европе и на Тихом океане. Но одна из главных причин войны в Европе не исчерпана. И конфликт между одной из версий социализма (национал-социализмом), с одной стороны, с другими версиями социализма и капитализмом, с другой, не закончился. (Напомним, что СССР сражался на стороне Третьего Рейха около 1/3 Второй мировой войны и около 2/3 – против него.)

Ростки международного социализма при поддержке СССР, наряду с национал-социализмом при поддержке Третьего рейха, распространились во многих странах еще до войны, и продолжали расти после нее. Однако наибольшее политическое значение они приобрели в Латинской Америке и на Ближнем Востоке.

В Латинской Америке произошел процесс объединения социалистических идей и превалирующей в регионе религии, то есть атеистов-социалистов и католиков. Эта идеология называется Теология Освобождения. Будучи изобретением КГБ, она распространялась  многочисленными советскими агентами и «полезными идиотами». Теология Освобождения достигла и христианских общин Соединенных Штатов под названием «Теология Освобождения Черных», и Ватикана, где впервые пост Папы Римского занял марксист Папа Франциск.

Аналогичный процесс объединения прошел и на Ближнем Востоке. Первым ближневосточным движением, которое объединило социализм и ислам, была организация Мусульманское Братство, основанная в 1928 году в Египте (так называемая «социалистическая теократия»). Такой союз был проявлением уникальных идеологических параллелей между псевдо-религией 7-го века (исламом) и псевдо-религией 19-го века (социализмом). Объединение ислама и социализма было именно той смесью, которую так полюбили советские лидеры; такая смесь стала идеальной почвой для международного терроризма (под предлогом «национально-освободительного движения» и «войны против израильской оккупации арабских земель»).

Способы достижения целей также объединяют социалистов и Мусульманское Братство. Современные социалисты предпочитают мирные, законодательные, и постепенные изменения для достижения своих целей перераспределения собственности. Они пытаются избежать кровавых революций; их любимый образ действия – медленная эволюция. В немусульманских обществах, за исключением периодических актов терроризма, это как раз и есть способ действия Мусульманского Братства – постепенность. Это одна из идеологических параллелей, объединяющих социалистическое движение со своими коллегами из Мусульманского Братства, также предпочитающего эволюционные изменения в обществе.

«Мусульманский социализм» весьма похож на ортодоксальный социализм; оба призывают к «справедливому перераспределению богатств» и другим классическим левым идеям классовой борьбы. В странах с немусульманским большинством, таких как Соединенные Штаты, мусульмане ложно именуются «угнетенным пролетариатом», а иудео-христианское большинство ложно именуется «угнетающей буржуазией». Идеи социализма на мусульманской земле трансформировали известные всем мусульманам строки «Ислам – это образ жизни, а не просто религия» в лозунг «Социализм – это образ жизни, а не просто экономический строй». 

Невероятный, просто немыслимый союз между ранее непримиримыми фанатиками-мусульманами и социалистами-атеистами является одним из самых феноменальных союзов в истории человечества.

Одним из первых лидеров, который официально принял исламо-социалистические идеи, был Ясир Арафат, лидер Организации Освобождения Палестины. В 1967 году, сразу после Шестидневной войны, он был вознагражден за это совершенно новым изобретением КГБ, известным как арабская палестинская нация (как известно, до 1967 года палестинцами называли только евреев).

Партия Баас (Партия Арабского Социалистического Возрождения), была основана в 1947 году в Сирии. Партия Баас была «националистической, популистской, социалистической и революционной». Девиз партии – «Единство, свобода, социализм». В 1951 году в Ираке была создан филиал партии Баас. В 1968 году Партия Арабского Социалистического Возрождения Ирака попыталась захватить власть с помощью государственного переворота. Одним из наиболее активных революционеров был молодой социалист Саддам Хуссейн, который в 1979 году стал президентом-диктатором этой страны.

Как и их исторические предшественники в Германии, иракские национал-социалисты вели ожесточенные бои со своими идеологическими кузенами – иракскими коммунистами. Как и другой исторический предшественник – Иосиф Сталин – Саддам Хуссейн стал диктатором после кровавой чистки партии от своих старых товарищей. Наконец, точно так же, как и в Германии после Второй мировой войны, где проходил болезненный процесс денацификации, в настоящее время в Ираке идет процесс дебаасизации.

Нынешний лидер социалистической партии Баас в Сирии – президент-диктатор Башар Асад. В дополнение к Баасу Башар Асад также связан с Сирийским Национальным Прогрессивным Фронтом. Обратите внимание на важность слов «национальный» и «прогрессивный» в названии – это тот же «национальный», что и в «национал-социализме», а «прогрессивный» относится к прогрессивной эре социализма, которая берет свое начало от прогрессивного налогообложения в «Коммунистическом манифесте» Маркса и Энгельса. Сирийский Национальный Прогрессивный Фронт объединяет многие партии – Сирийскую Коммунистическую партию, Сирийскую Социалистическую партию, Сирийскую Социал-националистическую партию, Демократическую Социалистическую партию, Арабский Социалистический Союз и многие другие левые пан-арабистские партии.

ХАМАС называет себя «Движением исламского сопротивления». В своей Хартии они заявляют: «Движение исламского сопротивления является одним из филиалов Мусульманского Братства в Палестине». Кроме того, Хартия ХАМАС требует (в довольно еретичной для традиционного ислама форме) что в борьбе с Израилем «женщина должна выйти и сражаться с врагом даже без разрешения своего мужа, а раб – даже без разрешения своего господина». В традиционным советском стиле Хартия ХАМАСа осуждает «империализм оккупантов» и «силы капиталистического Запада». В целом же некоторые главы Хартии чем-то напоминают идеи известного марксиста Антонио Грамши о реформировании искусства, культуры и образования для достижения «освободительных» целей, но только с точки зрения джихада.

Значительный вклад в арабское социалистическое движение внесли Муаммар Каддафи, который основал в Ливии новое социалистическое государство под названием Джамахирия (что означает «Государство масс»), а также президент Египта Гамаль Абдель Насер, основатель Арабского Социалистического Союза.

История переименования Персии в Иран – одна из самых захватывающих историй на Ближнем Востоке. Персия существовала более двух тысячелетий, когда в 1935 году она поддалась давлению со стороны немецких национал-социалистов и приняла новое имя – Иран, которое происходит от любимого в Третьем Рейхе термина «арийский». Распространенный на Ближнем Востоке сплав атеистов-социалистов и исламских радикалов привел к смещению иранского шаха в 1979 году. Затем, в уже послереволюционном Иране, исламские силы победили социалистические. С тех пор общепринятым термином для политической смеси социализма и ислама стал исламофашизм.

Вирус социализма всегда присутствует в человеческом обществе в дремлющей форме. Как и все другие вирусы, при определенных условиях он самоактивируется.

Как мы видим на примере Ближнего Востока и других стран, этот вирус вызывает неисчислимые страдания в зараженном любым видом социализма обществе. Изначально в исламе были некоторые элементы, которые полюбились социалистам. Например, исламский закят (третий столп ислама, дополнительный обязательный налог на богатство по ставке около 2,5%) является готовой к употреблению схемой перераспределения собственности.

На Ближнем Востоке вирус социализма мутировал в вирус исламофашизма, поэтому иметь дело с такой идеологией сложнее, чем с национал-социализмом Третьего Рейха во время Второй мировой войны. Соединенные Штаты и другие страны НАТО потратили триллионы долларов и тысячи жизней, пытаясь «умиротворить» регион. Однако пример Третьего Рейха показывает, что эффективным и надежным способом подавления симптомов исламофашизма является полное разрушение зараженного общества и его полное реформирование.

Вирус социализма был настолько силен на Ближнем Востоке в годы после Второй мировой войны, что современное еврейское государство Израиль, основанное в 1948 году, было основано на социалистической, левой версии сионизма. Правая, капиталистическая версия сионизма Владимира Жаботинского была первоначально отвергнута, и израильтянам потребовалось около полувека, чтобы развернуть корабль практически на 180 градусов и отвергнуть социалистические основы Израиля.

С объективной точки зрения, Вторая мировая война – незаконченный бизнес.

Действительно, американская финансовая система оправилась от катастрофы Второй мировой войны только в 1975 году, во время холодной войны, когда была произведена последняя выплата по американскому 30-летнему правительственному военному займу. Холодная война была глобальным конфликтом, потому что вирус социализма оказался весьма заразен. Из-за распространения социалистических идей в «холодной войне» были те же основные участники, что и во Второй мировой войне; однако поле битвы расширилось от Европы и Тихого океана до Ближнего Востока, Африки и Латинской Америки. Но и нынешние противоборствующие стороны – такие же, как и раньше.

С одной стороны – капитализм, а с другой – различные версии традиционного социализма (включая глобализм), смешанные с некоторыми экзотическими региональными ингредиентами.

Отсутствие боевых действий Третьей мировой войны в настоящее время вводит в заблуждение, но не следует забывать, что с момента окончания боевых действий Второй мировой войны стрельба на Ближнем Востоке так и не прекращалась. Как известно, Первая мировая война не решила всех проблем, которые привели к Первой мировой войне, и эта война создала совершенно новые проблемы после ее окончания. Фактически, она создала условия, которые сыграли решающую роль в развязывании Второй мировой войны. Опять же, некоторые из проблем, которые привели ко Второй мировой войне, не были разрешены этой войной, и она создала еще больше нерешенных до сих пор проблем.

Идеологический конфликт, начатый «Коммунистическим манифестом», похоже, не демонстрирует признаков замедления из-за широко распространенного вируса социализма, хотя число социалистических стран существенно сократилось. Однако число людей во всем мире, поддерживающих эту кровавую идеологию, которая привела к 100 миллионам жертв в ХХ веке, увеличивается.

Если США и их союзники в НАТО желают в конце концов одержать верх, объявить полную победу во Второй мировой войне, и тем самым предотвратить Третью мировую войну, им следует остановить заражение вирусом социализма. Союзники должны уделять особое внимание наиболее опасному типу вируса социализма – вирусу, который распространяется в результате самозаражения.

The Left-wing Ideology: a Cult, a Religion, or Science?

More than a hundred years ago, prominent Marxist Antonio Gramsci wrote: “Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity.  [Socialism is] religion in the sense that it too is a faith with its mystics and rituals; religion because it has substituted for the consciousness of the transcendental God of the Catholics, the faith in man and in his great strengths as a unique spiritual reality” [1].  Equalizing an ideology with religion was pretty novel back then.  However, Gramsci was talking about religion not as it is commonly understood — i.e., the relationship between God and men — but as a collection of religious attributes and rituals.  In his point of view, socialism was godless religion, the cult of the messianic Marx.

At the same time, Gramsci understood that socialism (and leftism in general), like any other dogma, is immune to empirical, rational challenges because, by definition, its postulates are untestable — untestable not because it is impossible to conduct such tests, but because followers of leftist ideology reject any idea of such a test in principle.  (By the way, this is something leftists have in common with Muslims.)  They are mostly true believers; they aggressively reject any attempts to test the foundations of their dogmatic beliefs.

Leftists’ behavior is utterly illogical to a degree one might call unscientific.  Their irrationality is based on illusory knowledge — i.e., knowledge acquired through a system of beliefs, expressed by well known authorities (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Bernstein, Stalin, Hitler, Trotsky, Mao, and many others).  Left-wingers acquired their false, Utopian beliefs throughout the entire history of human civilization.  Their undisputed belief of multiplying wealth by dividing it (i.e., by redistributing it by force) was the basis of numerous failed social experiments.

To avoid any confusion, let us provide adequate definitions of socialism (promoted by left-wing ideology) and its antithesis, capitalism (promoted by the free-market, or conservative, ideology).

Socialism is a state of society where most wealth, either de jure or de facto, belongs to a government.

Capitalism is a state of society where most wealth, both de jure and de facto, belongs to its citizens. 

Communism is a Utopian state of society where all wealth, both de jure and de facto, belongs to a government.

The adherents of both left-wing and right-wing philosophy have knowledge; however, the left-wingers got their knowledge from the system of beliefs, while right-wingers got their knowledge from the trial-and-error development of human civilization.  Leftism will accompany society forever because pseudo-science always runs in parallel to science.  As in a social life where leftism is the ideology of mostly lumpen (lazy bums), autocrats, and elites, the pseudo-science feeds on real science as left-wingers feed on civilization built mostly by right-wingers.

There is a simple test to distinguish between scientific knowledge and the pseudo-scientific kind.  The test is based on the fact that the human reaction to new information that contradicts the original knowledge depends on the method of acquiring that original knowledge.

In the real world, if new information contradicts the original knowledge, it leads to a re-evaluation of such knowledge.  For example, when intuitive, widely accepted, and wrong knowledge that the sun rotates around the Earth was challenged by Copernicus, it led to a painful re-evaluation of the original idea and accepting the new, revolutionary one: that it is, in fact, Earth that rotates around the sun.

However, if the original knowledge is acquired by religious or other dogmatic beliefs, the new information does not lead to such re-evaluation.  On the contrary, in most cases, it leads to the strengthening of the original belief.  For example, even if it were proven that flying horses never existed on the planet Earth, Muslims will continue to believe that Mohammad flew on a horse named Buraq to an outer space where he met Allah.  Moreover, any attempt to prove to any Muslim that such a voyage on a horse is impossible will not just strengthen Muslim’s beliefs, but could convert some of them from a passive, indifferent follower into an aggressive religious fanatic.  The reaction would be similar to the reaction of a rank-and-file Democrat if somebody mentioned that Antifa, like the Ku Klux Klan before it, was founded as a militant wing of the Democratic Party.

When President Trump tweets or says something “controversial,” a lot of his political opponents get triggered.  This “triggering of snowflakes” is a perfect example of how the strengthening of the original belief manifests itself in real life.  There are numerous examples of such triggering.  If we are talking about Trump, it is called Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Let us recall the reaction of people who were bombarded for months by the fake news media with reports that Hillary Clinton had a 97% chance of winning the presidency in the year 2016.  The reality contradicted their dogma, and after she lost, their suffering (sometimes even physical suffering) was quite real.  Or big disappointment and suffering among devotees of “Trump is Putin’s marionette” dogma when Mueller’s investigation proved otherwise.  The attempts to paint the completed Mueller investigation as “obstructed,” “not conclusive,” and “not having enough authority,” and the promise that “veterans of the secret wars … understand that it will take decades, not years, for the truth to emerge here,” are just variations of the same phenomena — the various (and desperate) attempts to strengthen the original dogmatic belief.

If the knowledge of people in the examples above were based not on dogma, their reaction could be quite different.  For example, political opponents of Trump could just say: “OK, the better candidate won.  It is good for America to have a better president.  We will try again next time.”  That would be the proper reaction of the non-brainwashed, normal people who happened to vote for another candidate.  In the case of Russiagate (or, rather, Obamagate), the proper reaction could be: “OK, this is very good that our president is not Putin’s puppet.  It will allow the White House to focus on the real issues of our country.”

It is often said that left-wingers and right-wingers do not understand each other because they “live in parallel universes,” or one side blames another for living in the so-called “alternative reality.”  Since core leftist belief is irrational, the right-wingers are not surprised when adherents of leftism stiffen their resolve when confronted with social and economic truth.

In other words, instead of accepting a valid argument that contradicts the prevailing dogma, the very first reaction of adherents of a dogma is to protect the dogma at all cost.

Try to tell Jews that they are not the God’s chosen people, or try to tell Democrats that socialism, national socialism, and fascism are examples of the same left-wing ideology.  Try to tell Christians that Jesus died and was buried in Nazareth, or try to tell the party of farting cows that “climate change” is a hoax.  The resulting rage will ensure that polarization between talking parties increases due to not just rejection of non-dogma-conforming thought, but the violent strengthening of internal resolve to protect the dogma.  It is a well- known psychological reaction of people who simply want to protect themselves from what they perceive as “the rape of their mind” (whatever sick mind they might have.)

On the one hand, once a person accepts a dogma, he begins to filter out everything that contradicts the dogma in any way (so-called confirmation bias, like Baader-Meinhof Syndrome).  In a process, as more contradictory, non-conforming to dogma information is thrown, the belief gets strengthened.  On the other hand, at a certain point, when truthful information, contradictory to leftists’ irrational dogmatic belief, finally breaks through, a breaking point arrives, and the leftist is no longer able to twist the evidence in his fevered mind, forcing him to make a hard decision: either abandon the dogma and relieve the pain or become a laughingstock.  They experience a mental revolution — a micro-revolution, if you will.

The good news is that such micro-revolutions on a personal level are widespread.  Indeed, where did all the hippies go?  Also recall the fallout from Obama’s “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”

The bad news is that such micro-revolutions can take a long time; in a worst-case scenario, a micro-revolution never materializes, and a person dies as a true believer, a loyal “useful idiot.”  (Enter Democrat Stacey Abrams, who still believes she won the governorship race in Georgia despite losing it.)

On the surface, a cacophony of various points of view we hear from Democrats sounds like a civil war inside the left-wing party.  For example, the confrontation between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez resembles a political struggle between the “experienced, moderate socialist” Pelosi and “young, aggressive Marxist” Ocasio-Cortez.  However, it is just an incoherent manifestation that Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez currently adhere to different stages of the same leftist dogma.

In practical terms, it means that the leftists are here to stay.  Forever.  Just because their knowledge is acquired through dogma.  As historian Lee Edwards noted, socialism is “a pseudo-religion grounded in pseudo-science and enforced by political tyranny.”

Right-wingers, the creators and multipliers of wealth, are condemned to an agitated coexistence with left-wingers, the dividers of wealth, forever, just as Good is continually confronted by Evil.

As followers of the semi-religious Cult of Victim-Seekers, leftists will always find a way to recruit new followers, who get tricked by the “take away and redistribute” mantra.  However, there are plenty of solid reasons to consider the socialist Obama presidency the highest peak of the centuries-old semi-religious Utopian movement.  This peak is well behind us, and we all know that the only direction from the peak is down.

[1] Gramsci’s Political Thought: Hegemony, Consciousness, and the Revolutionary Process (NewYork: Clarendon Press, 1981)

[Originally published at American Thinker]