Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts

Friday, October 16, 2026

The Chinese Cultural Revolution’s Witch-Hunts

In 1978, the sociologist Albert Bergesen wrote an essay titled “A Durkheimian Theory of ‘Witch-Hunts’ With the Chinese Cultural Revolution of 1966–1969 as an Example.” Bergesen used Durkheim to illuminate the madness that erupted in Beijing in May 1966, when Mao Zedong began warning about the rising threat of infiltration by pro-capitalist enemies. Zealous college students responded by forming the Red Guards to find and punish enemies of the revolution. Universities across the country were shut down for several years.

……..

Bergesen notes that there are three features common to most political witch hunts: they arise very quickly, they involve charges of crimes against the collective, and the offenses that lead to charges are often trivial or fabricated. Here’s how Bergesen puts it:

They arise quickly: “Witch-hunts seem to appear in dramatic outbursts; they are not a regular feature of social life. A community seems to suddenly find itself infested with all sorts of subversive elements which pose a threat to the collectivity as a whole.

……..

Crimes against the collective: “The various charges that appear during one of these witch-hunts involve accusations of crimes committed against the nation as a corporate whole. It is the whole of collective existence that is at stake; it is The Nation, The People, The Revolution, or The State which is being undermined and subverted.”

Charges are often trivial or fabricated: “These crimes and deviations seem to involve the most petty and insignificant behavioral acts which are somehow understood as crimes against the nation as a whole. In fact, one of the principal reasons we term these events ‘witch-hunts’ is that innocent people are so often involved and falsely accused.”

To Bergesen’s list we’ll add a fourth feature, which necessarily follows from the first three:

Fear of defending the accused: When a public accusation is made, many friends and bystanders know that the victim is innocent, but they are afraid to say anything. Anyone who comes to the defense of the accused is obstructing the enactment of a collective ritual. Siding with the accused is truly an offense against the group, and it will be treated as such. If passions and fears are intense enough, people will even testify against their friends and family members.

Source: The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure (2018) by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt.

The Chinese Revolution was truly evil. Then again all communism is.

Monday, September 21, 2026

7 Ways DSA Plans To Turn America Into A Third-World Communist Country


From The Federalist.com (July 17):

The group that dictates the tenor of the Democrat Party has radical plans for America, which include getting rid of the presidency and the Supreme Court. The Democratic Socialists of America is a far-left organization that appeals to the struggle of the working class while pushing far-left candidates. The organization has recently unveiled a new platform that would destroy the American system and radically remake it.

DSA candidates are currently surging in America, winning major elections across the country. Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier — both DSA members — won their Democrat primaries in New York City, making them almost certain to win seats in Congress. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is also a DSA member, and he has pushed far-left policies since taking office in January.

Abolish the Presidency and Supreme Court

According to the DSA’s platform, “we need a new political system.” This new political system involves remaking the American government and electoral system.

“Abolish the Electoral College. Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress,” the platform states. This change would help these socialists secure their objective of “creating a real democracy.”

This is part of an effort to give more power to Congress, thereby creating a more “democratic” system. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., showed her disdain for America’s system of government when she introduced articles of impeachment against Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Accusing Thomas and Alito of failing to disclose their financial information and declining to recuse themselves from cases they purportedly had a personal interest in, Ocasio-Cortez called on Congress to impeach them from the court. Her justification was that “Congress has a legal, moral, and democratic obligation to impeach,” according to a press release.

Replace the Constitution

In its introduction to the platform, the DSA quietly slipped in one of its most radical proposals: creating a new United States Constitution.

“We are workers fighting to transform society: to win the battle for democracy, draft a new constitution, and create a democratic socialist republic,” the platform’s introduction states. This is not the first time the DSA has attacked the Constitution, either. An earlier statement published on the DSA website reads: “The Constitution establishes a political order explicitly designed to enshrine rule by elites.”

In a recent attempt to recruit members, a DSA caucus called the Marxist Unity Group attacked the Constitution because “it was made by rich landowners who owned slaves, and it was designed to protect their power, not give ordinary people a real vote. Back then, the Founding Fathers were kind of like the billionaires of today.” [read more]

DSA stands for Destructive Socialists of America. ☹️ Just steps to concentrating and growing power. When they say they want to abolish the Senate, they are just wanting a parliamentary system of gov’t like Israel and the European countries have.

Along the same lines:

Monday, September 07, 2026

How to Win 2026 Part 1: The Strategy for a Historic Republican Midterm Victory.

From Gingrich 360.net (Aug. 23):

Two realities shape American politics today.

The first is the reality we see every day in the news. It is shaped by the latest polls, the Washington and New York political class, and whatever controversy dominates the news cycle.

The second reality is deeper. It is shaped by what Americans actually believe, how they are changing, and where the country is moving over time.

Understanding the difference between these two realities is essential to understanding how Republicans can win a historic victory in 2026.

I learned this lesson firsthand in 2016. Two weeks before the election, I had a memorable exchange with Megyn Kelly about what I described as two different realities. Virtually the entire political establishment believed Hillary Clinton would win. The public polling seemed to reinforce that view. But beneath the conventional wisdom, signs suggested something very different was happening.

Early voting numbers in Florida and Pennsylvania and turnout patterns in Iowa suggested the race was not unfolding the way the political establishment thought it was. President Donald Trump ultimately carried all three states.

The lesson is not that Republicans should ignore polls or assume we are going to win. The lesson is that we must learn to distinguish between the frothy waves on the surface and the much larger political current moving underneath them.

Today, that current presents Republicans with an enormous opportunity. But recognizing an opportunity is not the same thing as winning an election.

First Win the Argument

Margaret Thatcher famously said, “First you win the argument, then you win the vote.”

That should be the Republican strategy for 2026.

Republicans will not win a historic victory by reacting to every controversy, chasing every news cycle, or turning the election into a referendum on whether Americans are satisfied with everything happening today.

We have to make this election a choice about the future. History tells us this can work.

I saw it in my first congressional victory in 1978. I saw it in George H.W. Bush’s remarkable comeback against Michael Dukakis in 1988. I saw it when we built the first Republican House majority in 40 years in 1994. And we saw it again when Donald Trump transformed a presidential campaign into the Make America Great Again movement.

Victory came from identifying a clear contrast, making a factual argument, and repeating it with discipline until the American people understood the choice. Republicans should approach 2026 with exactly the same determination. [read more]

Good advice.  Hopefully, the GOP reads Gingrich's article and takes his advice to heart. Actually, good advice for any GOP election.

All his “How to Win 2026” streaming episodes.

Wednesday, August 19, 2026

Why Young Americans Are Not Taught About Evil

From Real Clear Politics.com (August 29, 2023):

Most of our schools teach almost nothing of importance, and nothing is more important than the study of good and evil. In the United States today, nearly all schools, from elementary through graduate, concentrate on teaching about racism, sexism, preferred pronouns, homophobia, transphobia, LGBTQIA+, climate change, diversity, equity, inclusiveness and white guilt. In other words, most of our educational institutions, including the most prestigious, do not educate.

Here are a few proofs.

It is almost certain that the great majority of American high school and college students (with the obvious exceptions of Christian students) could not name the Four Gospels (presuming they even know what they are); five of the Ten Commandments (presuming they know what those are); or the names of two Shakespeare plays. Most American students know little about the American Revolution, let alone about the French or Russian Revolutions. The same holds true for the Constitution and every other American founding document. It is doubtful that, other than Washington and Jefferson having owned slaves, American students know anything about these men or could name two other Founders.

When it comes to evil, the ignorance is enormous, often almost total. For example, according to Pew, about half of Americans ages 18-39 cannot identify Auschwitz or any other Nazi death camp. And there is every reason to assume that much fewer than half could identify the Gulag Archipelago (20 million-plus murdered); the Ukrainian forced famine (5 to 6 million murdered in a little over a year); Mao's Great Leap Forward (about 60 million murdered); or Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge (about one in every four Cambodians murdered).

As noted, almost no one outside of Russia has ever heard of the Russian Civil War, let alone knows anything about it. One reason is that the winners, the communists, had no desire that people know about it. Yet, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, about 10 million people, the great majority noncombatants, were killed.

Why don't students know about evil?

The first reason is that nearly all the genocides of the 20th century were committed by communists, and the Left, which runs virtually all educational institutions, has always had a soft spot for communism. If people were to recognize that communism has been the greatest source of evil in the modern age in terms of numbers murdered, number of lives destroyed, liberty stolen, and the sheer amount of human suffering inflicted (greater by those metrics than those of the Nazis before they were forcibly stopped), the Left would lose much of its appeal.

Another reason is the foolish notion that people are basically good. This has been a left-wing belief since the French Enlightenment leader Jean-Jacques Rousseau came up with the idea. As he wrote in his book, "On Philosophy, Morality, and Religion," "Man is a naturally good being, loving justice and order; there is no natural perversity in the human heart... All the vices imputed to the human heart are not natural to it."

This nonsense had been foreign to the Western mind. Its view of humanity was rooted in the Bible, and neither Bible-based religion -- Judaism or Christianity -- affirmed the goodness of the human heart. As Genesis states, "The will of man's heart is evil from his youth," and the rest of the Bible repeatedly warns us against following our hearts.

However, as the West began to abandon the Bible, including belief in the God of the Bible, Westerners began to believe in man. As Marx put it, "Man is God." People had no choice. For if there is no God to believe in, one must believe in man -- or one has literally nothing to believe in. Therefore, belief in man's inherent goodness became both psychologically and philosophically necessary.

A third reason follows from the second. With the exception of the mass murder of the Armenians (which was committed by Muslim Turks), the genocides and the other horrors of the 20th century were committed by secular regimes. Given the centrality of secularism to leftism, this fact has been kept from young people. Likewise, the fact that all these genocides were committed by big governments is not taught to young people because big government is also central to left-wing ideology. In other words, a true depiction of the evils of the 20th century would mean the end of the two pillars of left-wing ideology: secularism and big government.

If you want to make a more moral world, you must begin with the study of evil. But, for the reasons enumerated here, the Left is not -- and cannot be -- interested in fighting real evil. So, the Left fights made-up evils: American systemic racism, transphobia, capitalism, carbon emissions, sexism and former President Donald Trump, to name a few.

This is why young people know almost nothing about evil. The Left doesn't want them to know about it. Because knowledge of evil inevitably leads directly to rejection of the Left. [source]

Great points. Dennis Prager's last comment sums his essay up quite nicely: "This is why young people know almost nothing about evil. The Left doesn't want them to know about it. Because knowledge of evil inevitably leads directly to rejection of the Left."

Friday, July 17, 2026

Yes, They Were Socialists: How the Nazis Waged War on Private Property

From Mises.org (July 5, 2022):

When the average person thinks of the Nazis, what often comes to mind is World War II, the Holocaust, and rousing speeches of hate. However, the National Socialists also had economic and political policies, policies many just assume were either free market or New Deal–style public works projects like the Autobahn. But Nazi policy was not so cut-and-dried.

The Nazis were socialists, and it showed in many of the policies they implemented after coming to power in 1933. First, like the Soviets, the Nazis initiated a war on private property. Not surprisingly, property rights were severely curbed by National Socialism in the name of public welfare.

How did the National Socialists combat private property in Germany? The first step came shortly after the Nazis took control, when they abolished private property. Article 153 of the Weimar constitution guaranteed private property, with expropriation only to occur within the due process of the law, but this article was nullified by a decree on February 28, 1933.

With this, the new National Socialist government had complete control of private property in Germany. While they did not take complete control of the lands like the Bolsheviks did in Russia in 1917, the Nazis issued quotas for industries and farms, and later they reorganized all industry into corporations run by members of the Nazi Party.

The War on Business

Peter Temin wrote about this in Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning, stating:

Both governments reorganized industry into larger units, ostensibly to increase state control over economic activity. The Nazis reorganized industry into 13 administrative groups with a larger number of subgroups to create a private hierarchy for state control. The state could therefore direct a firm’s activities without acquiring direct ownership of enterprises. The pre-existing tendency to form cartels was encouraged to eliminate competition that would destabilize prices.

The Nazis, ironically, called this reorganization “privatization,” although the owners of these corporations were either removed from board positions and replaced by Nazi Party members or sold out and became Nazi Party members. They included IG Farben and the Junkers airplane factory. IG Farben was a chemical company founded in 1925 by Carl Bosch and Carl Duisberg, who were both Jewish, and had a capitalization of around a billion marks by 1926. By 1938, all of the company’s Jewish workers had been purged and the supervisory board replaced by Nazis (see Joseph Borkin’s book The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben).

IG Farben was a clear example of the reorganization of industry the Nazis undertook for their benefit. Sybille Steinbacher, a professor of Holocaust studies, wrote about the public-private partnership in her book Auschwitz, stating:

Otto Ambros and IG Farben director Fritz ter Meer held a board meeting in Berlin with Carl Krauch who was not only a member of the board of directors of IG Farben, but also a member of the circle of industrialists around Reichsfurhrer-SS known as Himmler’s “Circle of Friends.”

After the Nazis took power, this kind of cooperation was common. Private businesses became merely public entities, and industrialists who resisted the Nazi commissars and their policies were removed from their positions and their businesses seized.

Junkers airplane factory did not fare much better, according to Temin, who wrote:

Prof. Junkers of the Junkers airplane factory refused to follow the government’s bidding in 1934. The Nazis thereupon took over the plant, compensating Junkers for his loss. This was the context in which other contracts were negotiated.

This Nazi war on business left industrialists and other businessmen worried that they would have their livelihoods stolen from them, as Günter Reimann explains in The Vampire Economy.

Reimann quotes a letter from a German businessman to an American businessman:

The difference between this and the Russian system is much less than you think, despite the fact that officially we are still independent businessmen.

The letter continues:

Some businessmen have even started studying Marxist theories, so that they will have a better understanding of the present economic system.

This German businessman also complained of “arbitrary government decisions concerning quantity, quality, and prices of foreign raw materials.” But businessmen were not the only members of the private sector who faced mass amounts of bureaucracy and control. The farmers faced it as well. [read more]

And just think most of the Left won’t denounce a Nazi sympathizer candidate in their own party.

Friday, June 26, 2026

The Competing Ideologies for the Collectivist Mind

From Mises.org (July 25, 2022):

Competition creates service from businesses, and competition produces benefits for everyone. Neither are politics and ideologies exempt from competition, with Republicans and Democrats going door to door for their candidates, having political rallies, or even fighting in the streets. Despite this, these two parties aren’t as different as their supporters may realize. When Ukraine was invaded by Russia, they jumped on the opportunity for possible defense contracts.

Ideologies or parties that may seem completely opposite can be “bipartisan” in many aspects. Fascism, National Socialism, and Marxian socialism are three such ideologies: different enough to compete, but similar enough to attract the same type of person, that person being of the collectivist mindset that the group is more important than the individual.

Frederick Hayek in The Road to Serfdom states:

It is true of course that in Germany before 1933, and in Italy before 1922, communist and Nazis or Fascist clashed more frequently with each other than with other parties. They competed for the same type of mind and reserved for each other the hatred of the heretic. But their practice showed how closely they were related.

The person of the collective mindset is more prone to fall into such groups, they may want the well-being of the class or the race over the individual. To ensure the success or domination of either, the state must be used as a tool of power. This is the danger of the collective mind. Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Oswald Mosley, and Karl Marx all fell into these mindsets.

Hitler: The Nazi Competitor

After the end of World War I, the German royal family was dethroned and the November Revolution saw the creation of the People’s State of Bavaria, run by Kurt Eisner, a socialist Jew. It’s worth mentioning there was a split between the communists and socialists at this time, as the communist parties wanted to be connected to the Soviet Comintern, while the socialist parties wanted to be more independent.

Either way, Hitler participated in this new Bavarian state, according to the Holocaust Encyclopedia; Hitler was elected to be a soldier’s council representative to civilian authorities. After Kurt Eisner was assassinated, Hitler attended the funeral. Benjamin Hett in his book Death of Democracy states:

There is film footage and a still photograph showing him [Hitler] marching in a funeral procession of the Bavarian Independent leader Kurt Eisner, wearing a black mourning armband and another red one in support of the Socialist government.

Max Levien, who was a communist, took charge and created a Soviet republic; once again, Hitler was elected to the soviet council for battalion representatives.

A soviet is a workers’ council. The USSR was a union of workers’ councils from all the socialist republics. So, when Hitler abolished private trade unions, the DAF (Deutsche Arbeitsfront, German Labor Front), a large state-run public union, absorbed them just as the USSR did.

In my previous article “How the Nazis Waged War on Private Property,” you will find that economically the Nazis were very similar to their Soviet counterparts (land and business confiscation along with price controls). Socially however, the Nazis were a bit different. the Marxian Socialists were more concerned with class-based conflicts, while the Nazis were more race based.

Hitler’s unreleased Second Book showed his belief in a united race:

I am a socialist. I see no class and no social estate, before me but that community of the folk made up of people who are linked by blood, united by language and subject to the same general fate.

This is where the separation of the Nazis and communists comes to fruition. Both had different immediate priorities, and Hitler considered communism a Jewish ideology; but Hitler also considered capitalism Jewish, as he considered it to be “international Jewish finance.” But one only needs to read Karl Marx’s article “On the Jewish Question” to find out Marx’s beliefs on race; he states:

As soon as society succeeds in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism—huckstering in its conditions—the Jew becomes impossible because his consciousness no longer has an object. The social emancipation of the Jew, is the emancipation of society from Judaism.

While both often fought and even killed one another, when you’re competing for the mind of an individual to gain power, those things often happen. Fascism is another competitor for both the national and Marxian socialists.

Mussolini and Mosley: The Fascist Competitors

Before the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the communist and socialist parties were more or less united and had one clear goal: to unite the workers of the world through international revolution. But after World War I started, many of these leftist parties actually supported their countries instead of maintaining an antiwar stance, except for the Italian Socialist Party, which maintained the idea of international peace between the workers.

Benito Mussolini, who was at this time head of the socialist newspaper Avanti, saw the appealing effect nationalism had on the masses. Mussolini became a war advocate within the party and was expelled from it the same year. Mussolini, defending himself before his party, said:

I tell you you’re wasting your breath, you will be forced into the war. You can get rid of me, because I am, and will always be, a socialist. You hate me. You hate me because you still love me! What divides me from you is not a small question, it is a big question which divides all socialism.

Mussolini, along with the help of intellectuals such as Gentile Enrico Corradini and Ugo Spirito rebranded and created a new political movement. It was meant to benefit the Italian worker but was made for Italians. This new ideology was called fascism, it was syndicalism or trade unionism that was made to benefit the Italian worker but left out the international worker. In Reflection on Violence, Georges Sorel states that Fascist planning to gain control of the economy would work something like this:

Through strikes it intended to bring capitalism to an end, replacing it not by state socialism, but by a society of producers.

This is the same thing as Karl Marx calling for the workers to unite and seize the means of production, only in this case it is the national (Italian) workers uniting. Oswald Mosley, a British aristocrat and founder of the British Union of Fascists, would try to spread fascism to England. Mosley joined the Independent Labor Party, which was a politically left-leaning party, in 1926 during the general strike; he paid striking miners from his own pocket, he also visited America, where he spent time with Franklin Roosevelt. Mosley also believed in what he called “industrial democracy,” where all workers are stakeholders (co-owners of sorts) in their companies and all profits go to them.

Conclusion

The collective mind, while many consider it noble for its want to improve lives, has caused great suffering in the world. While each ideology discussed, such as national socialism, Marxian socialism, and fascism, each stem from a similar tree and promote economic regimentation, they are different enough socially to compete for someone with a collectivist mindset. But these people will always need the state and its power to wipe out the successful and usher in a utopia. [source]

It seems that birds of feather not only flock together but compete with one another. The far-Left will never acknowledge that socialism, communism, fascism, and Nazism are basically the same ideology.

Friday, November 21, 2025

What Is Fascism?

From Mises.org (Aug. 2, 2022):

Mussolini became premier in October 1922. With the innumerable arguments about the march on Rome or with the story of the violent, lawless, and outrageous tactics he used to come to power we are not concerned here. That history has been told many times. Our business is to see the use he made of his power to fashion a new form of society.

He did not have a majority in parliament. He had to form a coalition cabinet which included a moderate socialist and a member of the Popolari. Some liberal politicians saw the hope of a stable government and the General Confederation of Labor (socialist) agreed to collaborate. Mussolini, of course, began to move toward dictatorship. But the full dictatorship did not come until 1925, after the assassination of Matteoti.

We will now see the elements of the fascist society emerge—point by point. First we must note one important difference between Communism and Fascism which becomes clear here. Socialism has a definite philosophy, based upon clearly enunciated principles which had long been debated and were widely understood. Socialists disagreed among themselves on certain points and upon programs of action. But socialism as a system of social structure with an organized body of doctrine was well understood. This was not true of Fascism. Whether it was capitalist or anticapitalist, labor or antilabor, no one could say until the leaders themselves decided upon a course of action. It was improvised as the movement went along. Therefore we cannot define Fascism as a movement committed to the collection of principles enunciated in its formal proclamation of principles and objectives—the Eleven Points of San Sepolcro. Mussolini, being in pursuit of power, made that objective the mold by which his policies were formed. Behold now the erection of the great Fascist edifice.

1. He had been a syndicalist and hence anticapitalist. The original program included a demand for confiscation of war profits, confiscation of certain church property, heavy inheritance and income taxes, nationalization of arms and munitions plants, and control of factories, railroads, and public services by workers’ councils. These, Mussolini said, “we have put at the head of our program.” But in power he did none of these things. Signora Sarfatti quotes him as saying:

I do not intend to defend capitalism or capitalists. They, like everything human, have their defects. I only say their possibilities of usefulness are not ended. Capitalism has borne the monstrous burden of the war and today still has the strength to shoulder the burdens of peace…. It is not simply and solely an accumulation of wealth, it is an elaboration, a selection, a coordination of values which is the work of centuries…. Many think, and I myself am one of them, that capitalism is scarcely at the beginning of its story.

On another occasion he said: “State ownership! It leads only to absurd and monstrous conclusions; state ownership means state monopoly, concentrated in the hands of one party and its adherents, and that state brings only ruin and bankruptcy to all.” This was indeed more in conformity with his syndicalist faith, but it completely negated the original Fascist platform. The first point we shall have to settle, therefore, is that fascism is a defense of capitalist society, an attempt to make it function. This view, which Mussolini did not entertain when he began, he came around to as he saw that Italy, in spite of all the disorder, had no mind to establish a socialist state. Moreover, he attached to himself the powerful industrialists and financiers of Milan and Rome along with many of the nobles, two of those powerful minorities essential to his general aims. Thus he molded Fascism into a powerful weapon to beat down the Red menace. But it was Italy which molded him to this philosophy, new for him, the man who, when the factories were occupied, had applauded the act of the workers. [read more]

Wednesday, October 01, 2025

AI models frequently ‘hallucinate’ on legal queries, study finds

From The Hill.com (Jan. 11, 2024):

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) models frequently produce false legal information, with so-called “hallucinations” occurring between 69 percent to 88 percent of the time, according to a recent study.

Large language models (LLMs) — generative AI models, like ChatGPT, that are trained to understand and produce human language content — have previously been known to “hallucinate” and generate false information.

However, the “pervasive” nature of legal hallucinations raises “significant concerns” about the reliability of using LLMs in the field, the authors from Stanford University’s Institute for Human-Centered AI and Regulation, Evaluation, and Governance Lab noted in a blog post.

When asked direct, verifiable questions about federal court cases, the study found the model behind ChatGPT, GPT-3.5, hallucinated 69 percent of the time, while Google’s PaLM 2 gave incorrect answers 72 percent of the time and Meta’s Llama 2 offered false information 88 percent of the time.

The models performed worse when asked more complex legal questions, such as the core legal question or central holding of a case, or when asked about case law from lower courts, like district courts.

They also frequently failed to contradict false premises in legal queries and tended to overstate their confidence in their responses, the study found.

“Today, there is much excitement that LLMs will democratize access to justice by providing an easy and low-cost way for members of the public to obtain legal advice,” the authors wrote in the blog post published Thursday. “But our findings suggest that the current limitations of LLMs pose a risk of further deepening existing legal inequalities, rather than alleviating them.”

“Ideally, LLMs would excel at providing localized legal information, effectively correct users on misguided queries, and qualify their responses with appropriate levels of confidence,” they added. “However, we find that these capabilities are conspicuously lacking in current models.”

The consequences of such hallucinations have already been seen in the legal field. A federal judge sanctioned two lawyers in June after one used fake case citations that were generated by ChatGPT.

Michael Cohen, former President Trump’s ex-fixer and personal lawyer, also admitted last month to giving his attorney fake case citations after using Google Bard, which ran on PaLM 2 until recently.

In his annual year-end report, Chief Justice John Roberts warned about the potential drawbacks of using AI in the legal field, even as he suggested that the technology could significantly affect judicial work in the future.

“Any use of AI requires caution and humility,” he noted. “One of AI’s prominent applications made headlines this year for a shortcoming known as ‘hallucination,’ which caused the lawyers using the application to submit briefs with citations to non-existent cases. (Always a bad idea.).” [source]

88 percent is a big percentage of fake data. AI should only be used as a tool, not the final say especially concerning legal content.

More articles on AI:

Friday, September 26, 2025

Excerpts from the book "Reflections on the Failure of Socialism" Part 3

In his speeches before he seized power, Lenin promised the same wonderful things, and even more wonderful than [Robert] Owen [an English utopian socialist] had promised at New Harmony:

“Democracy from below!” he shouted. “Democracy without an officialdom, without police, without a standing army . . . Immediate preparation for a state of things where all shall fulfill the functions of control and superintendence, so that none shall have the opportunity of becoming bureaucrats at all. . . . The state itself will wither away, by virtue of the simple fact that, freed from capitalist slavery, from the innumerable horrors, savagery, absurdities and infamies of capitalist exploitation, people will gradually become accustomed to the observation of the elementary rules of social life, known for centuries, repeated for thousands of years in all sermons. They will become accustomed to their observance without constraint, without subjection, without the special apparatus for compulsion which is called the State!”

Source: Reflections on the Failure of Socialism (1955) by Max Eastman.

Friday, September 12, 2025

Excerpts from the book "Reflections on the Failure of Socialism" Part 2

The Communists believe in man not as an independent power, but as a constituent part of the superhumanly ordained movement of the universe. That dialectic movement is their God, and it is that God who exempts them from the laws of morality. The difference between Christianity and Communism—the difference, I [the author] mean, that is vital in this connection—is between a religion which teaches personal salvation through sympathy and loving-kindness and a religion which teaches social salvation through bringing the morals of war into the peacetime relations of men.

Marx was so sure that the world was going to be redeemed by its own dialectic evolution that he would not permit his disciples to invoke the guidance of moral ideals. He really meant it when he said the workers have “no ideal to realize,” they have only to participate in the contemporary struggle. He expelled people from his Communist party for mentioning programmatically such things as “love,” “justice,” “humanity,” even “morality” itself. “Soulful ravings,” “sloppy sentimentality,” he called such expressions, and purged the astonished authors as though they had committed the most dastardly crimes.

Later in life, when Marx founded the First International, he felt compelled for the sake of a big membership to soft-pedal his highbrow insight into the purposes of the universe. He wrote privately to Engels: “I was obliged to insert in the preamble two phrases about ‘duty and right,’ ditto ‘truth, morality, and justice.’” But these lamentable phrases—he assured his friend—“are placed in such a way that they can do no harm.”

This mystic faith in evolution set Marx’s mind free, and, alas, his natural disposition, to replace the honest campaign of public persuasion by which other gospels have been propagated, with schemes for deceiving the public and tricking his way into positions of power. It was Marx, not Lenin, who invented the technique of the “front organization,” the device of pretending to be a democrat in order to destroy democracy*, the ruthless purging of dissident party members, the employment of false personal slander in this task.

It was Marx and Engels who adopted “scorn and contempt” as the major key in which to attack the opponents of socialism, introducing a literature of vituperation that has few parallels in history. Even the political masterstroke of giving the land to the peasants “initially” in order to take it away from them when the power is secure came from the same source.^ The introduction of such unprincipled behavior into a movement toward the highest ends of man was entirely the work of Marx and Engels. Lenin added nothing to it but skill, and Stalin nothing but total instinctive indifference to the ends.

Source: Reflections on the Failure of Socialism (1955) by Max Eastman.

 

* So, that’s where the Left came with this deceptive tactic. Faking to the right.

^ Evil bastards!

Friday, August 22, 2025

Excerpts from the book "Reflections on the Failure of Socialism" Part 1

Although he dismissed God as a hoax and the heavenly paradise as a decoy, Marx was not by nature skeptical or experimental. His habits of thought demanded a belief both in paradise and in a power that would surely lead us to it. He located his paradise on earth, calling it by such beatific names as the “Kingdom of Freedom,” the “Society of the Free and Equal,” the “Classless Society,” etc. Everything would be blissful and harmonious there to a degree surpassing even the dreams of the utopian socialists. Not only would all “causes for contest” disappear, all caste and class divisions, but all divisions between city and country, between brain and manual worker. Men would not even be divided into different professions as they are at this low stage of the climb toward paradise.

“Socialism will abolish both architecture and barrow-pushing as professions,” Engels assured the believers, “and the man who has given half an hour to architecture will also push the cart a little until his work as an architect is again in demand. It would be a pretty sort of socialism which perpetuated the business of barrow-pushing.”

…………

But Marx hated deity, and regarded high moral aspirations as an obstacle. The power on which he rested his faith in the coming paradise was the harsh, fierce, bloody evolution of a “material,” and yet mysteriously “upward-going,” world. And he convinced himself that, in order to get in step with such a world, we must set aside moral principles and go in for fratricidal war. Although buried under a mountain of economic rationalizations pretending to be science, that mystical and antimoral faith is the one wholly original contribution of Karl Marx to man’s heritage of ideas.

Source: Reflections on the Failure of Socialism (1955) by Max Eastman.

Friday, August 08, 2025

What Adam Smith Can Teach the Aspiring Leaders of Today

From FEE.org (June 23, 2023):

Over the course of your career, you will likely encounter a number of different bosses, some good, and some not so good. Eventually you may find yourself in the position to lead others, perhaps on a project team, or even in a direct supervisory role. Assuming a management position can seem like a daunting task. Of course, everyone wants to be a good boss, but not everyone is a good boss.

Management within an organization is a multi-faceted role, with many opportunities for error. One particular pitfall that new managers make as they transition from completing work to directing the completion of others’ work is the refusal to relinquish control. Here we can learn from the great economist Adam Smith, from his Theory of Moral Sentiments, where he describes the “Man of System”:

“The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board.”

Smith was warning about centralized planning and control at the scale of the economy as a whole, but the same idea can apply to the organization, or even a complex project. Attempting to control everything from the top down invariably results in unintended consequences and disharmony.

Micromanagement Leads to Disorder

Micromanagement is one way that people try to exert control. Imagine that you have a boss that loves to micromanage everything. You likely have a certain way that you want to approach the completion of your work, yet your boss insists on imposing constraints on the way you execute your tasks. Constantly monitoring the work of their employees, micromanaging bosses are demotivating for workers. Just like Smith’s Man of System, the micromanaging boss wants a job done a specific way and expects everyone to carry out that particular vision. Smith continues:

“He [the man of system] does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.”

Of course, sometimes within an organization there needs to be policies and instructions that flow from the top down. But managers run into problems when they don’t let information flow back up from the bottom to the top. Good management requires feedback and flexibility, where every employee has the freedom to make decisions and solve problems on their own – in Smith’s terms, when each piece on the chess board follows the principle of motion of its own.

Recognize the Limits of Your Knowledge

Flexibility is important because of our own lack of knowledge. When management governs by top-down, centralized, and inflexible rules, imposing their will on those below them, the system breaks down. As the size and complexity of the organizational system increases, the likelihood that any one person possesses all of the necessary knowledge to successfully accomplish all tasks goes to zero. Just as F.A. Hayek noted in his essay, The Use of Knowledge in Society, knowledge “never exists in concentrated or integrated form,” but rather is decentralized and exists as “dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge” held by many different individuals. Smith comments on the widely dispersed and deeply individual nature of knowledge in The Wealth of Nations:

“What is the species of domestic industry which his capital can employ, and of which the produce is likely to be of the greatest value, every individual, it is evident, can, in his local situation, judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him. The statesman, who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.”

So, what can we learn from Adam Smith about management?

  • First, good managers cannot control everything like pieces on a chess board. Instead, managers need to communicate the vision and requirements, but let work be planned and carried out by the employees.
  • Moreover, there needs to be feedback mechanisms in place to allow for employees to voice concerns and propose solutions when things are not going well.
  • Flexibility is key. There are multiple paths to get to the same goal, and micromanaging the process is counterproductive and leads to internal strife.
  • Finally, managers need to be humble about how much knowledge they really possess. Instead of thinking they know it all, good managers know when to rely on the dispersed knowledge of their team.

As you embark on a leadership role within your own career, it is helpful to keep an open mind, seek advice and mentorship, and learn as much as you can about management and leadership. There is no shortage of books, magazines, and websites dedicated to the topic.

And while it is good to consult modern sources, don’t forget the management lessons articulated by Adam Smith over 200 years ago. [source]

Good advice. Jimmy Carter was a micromanager and that’s one of the reasons why he failed. Most Dems are micromanagers for that matter. They’re control freaks.

Friday, July 25, 2025

The Russian Mathematician Who Exposed the Cannibalistic Nature of Socialism

From FEE.org (June 3, 2023):

Igor Rostislavovich Shafarevich is not exactly a household name, but the man richly deserves to be remembered, a century after his birth and six years since his death. In 1923, he was born on this date—June 3—in Zhytomyr, Ukraine, about a hundred miles west of Kyiv. He died in 2017 at the age of 93, leaving behind remarkable contributions to mathematics and, of far greater interest to me, a powerful indictment of the ancient calamity known as socialism.

Shafarevich ranks high in the pantheon of 20th Century mathematicians. His name is attached to numerous pioneering theorems and formulas I can’t begin to understand, but which are celebrated as genius among the numerical cognoscenti. In 1981, he was even inducted into the prestigious Royal Society of London as one of the brightest foreign scientists ever to grace its membership.

Growing up in Ukraine under Soviet-imposed socialism, Shafarevich harbored misgivings about the system from an early age. In his 30s, he began to run afoul of it because of his outspoken support of the Eastern Orthodox faith in an officially atheist empire. He eventually morphed into a full-blown, anti-Marxist dissident and an ally of Andrei Sakharov, the physicist famous for defending human rights against the regime’s assaults. Despite his world-class credentials in mathematics, Shafarevich was fired from Moscow University because of his collaboration with Sakharov.

When the great Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (author of The Gulag Archipelago and other seminal works) delivered his famous address at Harvard University in 1978, he cited a book by Igor Shafarevich that had appeared three years before. Solzhenitsyn, in fact, wrote the Foreword to the book’s English translation.

………..

In the final third of the book, or about a hundred pages, Shafarevich offers his analysis of socialism. He argues persuasively that “at least three components of the socialist ideal—the abolition of private property, the abolition of the family and socialist equality—may be deduced from a single principle: the suppression of individuality.”

Socialism presents itself in multiple flavors, of course, but the unadulterated version promises “the greatest possible equality.” This is the height of hypocrisy and delusion, Shafarevich argues, because at the same time, socialism offers up “a strict regimentation of all of life, which would be impossible without absolute control and an all-powerful bureaucracy which would engender an incomparably greater inequality.”

Individuals participate in life as thinking, acting individuals, not as indistinguishable portions of a collectivist blob. “Cultural creativity, particularly artistic creativity, is an example,” the author points out. Renaissance Italians didn’t paint The Last Supper. Leonardo da Vinci did. “And in periods when socialist movements are on the increase, the call for the destruction of culture is heard ever more distinctly,” Shafarevich explains.

Socialism is fundamentally anti-culture because it seeks to supplant individual initiative with one-size-fits-all, top-down diktats. Its centralized, mandated blueprint is ultimately a death sentence because “Not only people but even animals cannot exist if reduced to the level of the cogs of a mechanism.” Shafarevich writes,

[A]ll the aspects of life that make it attractive and give it meaning are connected with manifestations of individuality. Therefore, a consistent implementation of the principles of socialism deprives human life of individuality and simultaneously deprives life of its meaning and attraction…it would lead to the physical extinction of the group in which these principles are in force, and if they should triumph through the world—to the extinction of mankind.

The collectivism that socialism champions is ultimately a mirage. There is no “blob” that thinks and acts. Only individuals do. So the so-called “collective”  reduces to some individuals wielding power over other individuals. Socialism is, therefore, cannibalism animated by philosophy. Shafarevich essentially told the world this a half century ago, and the world still struggles to learn it.

At the very least, we ought to thank him for letting us know on this centennial of his birth. [read more]

Socialism is truly evil.

Friday, July 11, 2025

“Explaining Postmodernism” book excerpts

Postmodern cultural themes … in turn inform our more specific cultural debates.

  1. Whether the Western canon of great books is a distillation of the best of the West and reflective of a multi-faceted debate—or whether it is ideologically narrow, exclusive, and intolerant.
  2. Whether Christopher Columbus was a modern hero, bringing two worlds together to their mutual benefit—or whether he was an insensitive, smugly superior point man for European imperialism, bringing armed force that rammed European religion and values down indigenous cultures’ throats.
  3. Whether the United States of America is progressive on liberty, equalities, and opportunities for everyone—or whether it is sexist, racist, and class-bound, e.g., using its mass market pornography and glass ceilings to keep women in their place.
  4. Whether our ambivalence over affirmative action programs reflects a strong desire to be fair to all parties—or whether those programs are merely a cynical bone thrown to women and minorities until they seem to be helping, at which point there is a violent reaction by the status quo.
  5. Whether social conflicts should be defused by encouraging the principle that individuals should be judged according to their individual merits and not according to morally irrelevant

……..

[Georg W. F.] Hegel’s place historically is to have institutionalized four theses in nineteenth-century metaphysics.

  1. Reality is an entirely subjective creation;
  2. Contradictions are built into reason and reality;
  3. Since reality evolves contradictorily, truth is relative to time and place; and
  4. The collective, not the individual, is the operative unit.

……….

The legacy of the irrationalists for the twentieth century included four key themes:

  1. An agreement with [Immanuel] Kant that reason is impotent to know reality;
  2. an agreement with Hegel that reality is deeply conflictual and/or absurd;
  3. a conclusion that reason is therefore trumped by claims based on feeling, instinct, or leaps of faith; and
  4. that the non-rational and the irrational yield deep truths about reality.

………

[Martin] Heidegger offered to his followers the following conclusions, all of which are accepted by the mainstream of postmodernism with slight modifications:

  1. Conflict and contradiction are the deepest truths of reality;
  2. Reason is subjective and impotent to reach truths about reality;
  3. Reason’s elements—words and concepts—are obstacles that must be un-crusted, subjected to Destruktion, or otherwise unmasked;
  4. Logical contradiction is neither a sign of failure nor of anything particularly significant at all;
  5. Feelings, especially morbid feelings of anxiety and dread, are a deeper guide than reason;
  6. The entire Western tradition of philosophy—whether Platonic, Aristotelian, Lockean, or Cartesian—based as it is on the law of non-contradiction and the subject/object distinction, is the enemy to be overcome.

Source: Explaining Postmodernism:  Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault     Expanded Edition (2004) by Stephen R. C. Hicks.

A glimpse into irrational (mad? insane?) minds. An interesting and informative book.

Friday, July 04, 2025

In Mao’s China, They Even Monitored Talking in Your Sleep

From FEE.org (May 18, 2023):

When the recently deceased Canadian folk singer Gordon Lightfoot sang, “I heard you talking in your sleep… from your lips there came that secret I was not supposed to know,” he was talking about marital infidelity.

Not long after Chairman Mao came to power in China, idealistic college students learned that political fidelity to Mao and the Communist Party was the most important virtue they needed to demonstrate. Party or Youth League members were present at every meal and in every dorm room. Historian Frank Dikötter described in his book The Tragedy of Liberation, “These Communists took notes on the day and night behaviour of every student. Even the words of a student talking in his sleep were recorded and considered for political significance.”

Despite the stark lessons of history, Chinese youth are again gravitating towards Mao’s totalitarian gospel, seeing Mao “as a hero who speaks to their despair.” One 23-year-old tech editor explained Mao’s writing “offers spiritual relief to small town youth like me.” An earlier poll found 85 percent believed “Mao’s merits outweigh his faults.”

Sleep is not yet monitored in today’s America, yet some think “thought crimes” should be.

A Chinese-American academic, writing under the pseudonym of Xiao Li, pointed to similarities between Mao’s Cultural Revolution and today’s America. He observed, “The Red Guards of 1968 often came from privileged backgrounds.” These Red Guards, encouraged by Mao, “went out, seeking to root out imaginary class enemies from within.” Li’s father was tormented by bullies “for being descended from counter-revolutionaries”; his work assignment was reduced to picking up cow dung.

Today, Li observed, the West’s “revolutionary vanguard is also made up of young, well-educated people, a disproportionate number hailing from elite educational institutions and working within elite professions” who hunt for “secret racists.”

Li observed a further ominous parallel: “In China, no book, be it about astronomy or sewing patterns, could fail to contain an introduction with fulsome praise for Chairman Mao, complete with quotations from his collected works. Similarly, today [Western] businesses selling anything… feel the need to bend the metaphorical knee to the protesters.”

Before going down this Maoist path any further, we should review where it all began. There was never a honeymoon period; Mao was never a good guy whose revolution went tragically wrong. Mao was always a vicious totalitarian. The loss of tens of millions of lives was not unintended nor unpredictable.

In the 1940s, Yenan (Yan’an) was the epicenter of the Chinese Communist Revolution. In their searing biography of Mao, Jung Chang and Jon Halliday described how young idealistic volunteers were treated in 1943. Mao and his spy chief “devised a blanket accusation,” turning “virtually all the young volunteers into spy suspects.” All these potential “spies” were placed in confinement for “screening.”

Chang and Halliday explained that Mao “went far beyond anything either Hitler or Stalin achieved: he converted people’s colleagues into their jailers, with former colleagues, prisoners and jailers living in the same premises.” Mao’s terror “innovation” resulted in an enormous increase in repression:

In this way, Mao not only drove a massive wedge between people working and living side by side, he greatly enlarged the number of people directly involved in repression, including torture, making the orbit significantly wider than either Stalin or Hitler, who mostly used secret elites (KGB, Gestapo) that held their victims in separate and unseen locales.

The chief product of communism was not goods and services; it was “interrogations—and terrifying mass rallies, at which some young volunteers were forced to confess to being spies and to name others in front of large crowds who had been whipped into a frenzy.”

The dominant emotion produced by communists’ control was “fear,” which Chang and Halliday described as unbearable.

If you were not being interrogated or “hysterically” shouting slogans at rallies, you were “pounded flat at indoctrination meetings.” The few moments you had alone were “consumed… in writing ‘thought examinations.’” Mao’s orders were to “get everybody to write their thought examination, and write three times, five times, again and again … Tell everyone to spill out every single thing they have ever harboured that is not so good for the Party.”

Everyone became an informer, even reporting on themselves. Chang and Halliday related how “everybody was told to write down information passed unofficially by other people—termed “small broadcasts” by the regime.” One revolution veteran reported, “You had to write down what X or Y had said, as well as what you yourself had said which was supposed to be not so good.”

The criteria for “not so good” was “vague,” so “out of fear, people would err on the side of including more.”

Today, American progressives scour tweets for evidence of “small broadcasts.” You might put your job in jeopardy if you like a “not so good” social media post.

Mark Tykocinski, the president of Thomas Jefferson University and dean of its medical college, liked tweets that questioned COVID vaccines, gender reassignment surgery for children, and university diversity offices. Placing no value on freedom of speech, writing for the Philadelphia Inquirer, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Susan Snyder informed readers of what she thought were Tykocinski’s transgressions.

On contemporary American college campuses, students are encouraged to call “bias response teams” to denounce other students, professors, and guest speakers. Unlike in Mao’s China, they haven’t yet beaten a professor or speaker to death, but they disrupt speakers and threaten violence.

The Minnesota House has passed a bill that would monitor the speech of citizens for “biased” content alleged to create hate and fear.

Today in America, in light of revelations of government spying on Americans, we hear those who blithely say, “I have nothing to hide.” These individuals have no idea of the freedoms they are forfeiting.

In Mao’s China, Chang and Halliday explained, “The concept of privacy could not be evoked, because a Communist was required to reject the private.” Any sign of resisting reporting was “considered ‘proof’ that the person resisting was a spy, on the specious grounds that: ‘If you are innocent, there should be nothing that cannot be reported to the Party.’”

As Mao’s orders were implemented at one college, a man quipped, “Do we have to write down our pillow talk with our wives at night?” He was soon judged to be a spy, as were all but one of his college’s teaching and administrative staff.

Chang and Halliday reported how Mao broke the bonds of trust and prevented the exchange of views:

By suppressing “small broadcasts,” [Mao] also plugged what was virtually the only unofficial source of information, in a context where he completely controlled all other channels. No outside press was available, and no one had access to a radio. Nor could letters be exchanged with the outside world, including one’s family: any communication from a Nationalist area was evidence of espionage.

Under Mao, independent thinking was dead; “indoctrination and terror turned the lively young volunteers…into robots.”

Irony, satire, and humor were criminalized; these offenses were called “Speaking Weird Words.” Mao wanted robotic machines. Chang and Halliday observed, “He did not want active, willing cooperation (willingness, after all, could be withdrawn). He did not want volunteers. He needed a machine, so that when he pressed the button, all its cogs would operate in unison.” [read more]

Welcome to China’s dark totalitarianism. Surprised smileSad smile

Friday, June 27, 2025

G20 meets to plan YOUR future, your resources, your rights and your land

From Glenn Beck.com (Sept. 24, 2023):

This is a really important story. The G20 met earlier this month in India. The G20 is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, meeting for global economic superpowers that occurs each year. China’s Xi and Russia’s Putin did not attend, even though they are G20 leaders, so the U.S. and India took an even bigger role than usual.

At this year’s event, the G20 produced a statement called the “G20 New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration.” In it, the G20 published a rough outline of its policy plans and priorities for member nations. Keep in mind that these are the priorities the countries agreed on, so there is a general consensus on the Declaration.

The reason the New Delhi Declaration is important is because it provides an exceptional look into the globalist, Great Reset playbook for the next year and longer. All of this is leading up to an incredibly important United Nations meeting in September 2024 called “Summit for the Future,” where a new international pact will be formally approved. Globalist elites are showing us their cards. All we have to do is look at them.

What’s in the Declaration?

To say the New Delhi Declaration is radical is a major understatement. It’s the Great Reset on steroids. The document is 37 pages long, with each page containing numerous bullet-point agenda items for creating a New World Order.

There are literally hundreds of points in the document, so I couldn’t possibly go through them all now, but here are just some of the highlights:

1. An international commitment to dramatically scale back the use of private and public lands.

The G20 committed to “restoring by 2030 at least 30 percent of all degraded ecosystems and scaling up efforts to achieve land degradation neutrality.”

2. A commitment to “halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.”

That would effectively mean not only the end of land development, but also the return of land that’s currently occupied by humans to nature. How can we possibly feed the world’s growing population with a commitment like this? (By the way, we warned about this in Dark Future.)

3. A plan for “international governance for AI.”

According to the document, member nations should “ensure” that AI is developed “responsibly,” which means, among other things, designers take “ethics” and “biases” into account. That would be a good thing if elites agreed with our understanding of "ethics" and "biases," but they don't. They want to use AI to promote ESG, DEI, and other social justice ideas.

Further, the nations committed to promoting AI that’s designed to accomplish the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that the SDGs are the foundation for the Great Reset, Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and nearly every other significant globalist proposal made over the past three decades. That's not my interpretation—that's what the leaders of all of those plans repeatedly said. (All of this is predicted in Dark Future too.) [read more]

One step closer to the New World Order. Surprised smile

Friday, March 07, 2025

Joseph Goebbels’ Own Words Show He Loved Socialism and Saw It as ‘the Future’

From Jon Miltimore on FEE.org (Jan. 23, 2023):

One of the comforts of growing older is knowing that some things will never change.

Sports fans will always argue over the designated hitter rule and over who was the best heavyweight boxer of all-time (Muhammad Ali). Movie fans will never agree which Godfather movie was better, the first or the second (the first.) And the trumpets will sound at the Second Coming before capitalists and socialists agree on whether the Nazis were “really socialists.”

The last item has always puzzled me, I confess, and not just because the word is right there in the name: National Socialism. If you read the speeches and private conversations of the Nazi hierarchy, it’s clear they loved socialism and despised individualism and capitalism.

In his new book Hitler’s National Socialism, the historian Rainer Zitelmann gives a penetrating look into the ideas that shaped men like Hitler and Goebbels. While it’s clear they saw their own brand of socialism as distinct from Marxism (more on that later), there is no question they saw socialism as the future and despised bourgeoisie capitalism.

Consider, for example, these quotes from Joseph Goebbels, the chief propagandist for the Nazi Party:

  1. “Socialism is the ideology of the future.” – Letter to Ernst Graf zu Reventlow as quoted in Goebbels: A Biography
  2. “The bourgeoisie has to yield to the working class … Whatever is about to fall should be pushed. We are all soldiers of the revolution. We want the workers’ victory over filthy lucre. That is socialism.” -quoted in Doctor Goebbels: His Life and Death
  3. “We are socialists, because we see in socialism, that means, in the fateful dependence of all folk comrades upon each other, the sole possibility for the preservation of our racial genetics and thus the re-conquest of our political freedom and for the rejuvenation of the German state. – “Why We Are Socialists?” Der Angriff (The Attack ), July 16, 1928
  4. “We are not a charitable institution but a Party of revolutionary socialists.” -Der Angriff editorial, May 27, 1929
  5. “Capitalism assumes unbearable forms at the moment when the personal purposes that it serves run contrary to the interest of the overall folk. It then proceeds from things and not from people. Money is then the axis around which everything revolves. It is the reverse with socialism. The socialist worldview begins with the folk and then goes over to things. Things are made subservient to the folk; the socialist puts the folk above everything, and things are only means to an end.” -”Capitalism,” Der Angriff, July 15, 1929
  6. “In 1918 there was only one task for the German socialist: to keep the weapons and defend German socialism.” -”Capitalism,” Der Angriff, July 15, 1929
  7. “To be a socialist means to let the ego serve the neighbour, to sacrifice the self for the whole. In its deepest sense socialism equals service.” – diary notes (1926)
  8. “The lines of German socialism are sharp, and our path is clear. We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism! We are against Marxism, but for true socialism!” – Those Damn Nazis: Why Are We Socialists? (1932)
  9. “We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces.” – Those Damn Nazis: Why Are We Socialists? (1932)
  10. “England is a capitalist democracy. Germany is a socialist people’s state.” – “Englands Schuld” (the speech is not dated, but likely was given in 1939)
  11. “Because we are socialists we have felt the deepest blessings of the nation, and because we are nationalists we want to promote socialist justice in a new Germany.” – Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler. Etwas zum Nachdenken (1932)
  12. “The sin of liberal thinking was to overlook socialism’s nation-building strengths, thereby allowing its energies to go in anti-national directions.” – Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler. Etwas zum Nachdenken (1932)
  13. “To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole. Socialism is in its deepest sense service.” – as quoted in Escape from Freedom, Erich Fromm
  14. “We are a workers’ party because we see in the coming battle between finance and labor the beginning and the end of the structure of the twentieth century. We are on the side of labor and against finance. . . The value of labor under socialism will be determined by its value to the state, to the whole community.”-Those Damn Nazis: Why Are We Socialists? (1932)

These quotes represent just a smattering of Goebbels’ views on and conception of socialism. One can see that in many ways the Nazi spoke much like Karl Marx.

Phrases like “we are a workers’ party,” “the worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces,” “money…is the reverse with socialism,” and “we are against the political bourgeoisie” could easily be plucked from Marx’s own speeches and writings—yet it’s clear Goebbels despised Marx and saw his brand of “national socialism” as distinct from Marxism. [read more]

I wonder if present-day self-proclaimed socialists know the information above? Probably not.

Friday, January 03, 2025

Six Ways Socialism is Anti-Social

From Lawrence W. Reed on FEE.org (Dec. 4, 2022):

Here’s a question for a PhD dissertation: How did something so radically anti-social ever get the name, social-ism?

I leave that vexing matter to whoever wants to write it up. Meantime, I can assist the project by offering some of the reasons why socialism is a self-evidently anti-social contrivance.

First, what is socialism? For a definition, socialists themselves offer numerous moving targets. For example:

It’s happy talk and sharing things even though under socialism there’s less to share and be happy about.

It’s free stuff until the bills come due.

It’s the welfare state, where the politicians get well and the rest of us pay the fare. (See “John Calhoun’s Mouse Utopia and Reflections on the Welfare State”).

It’s bread lines that bring us all together, somehow. Remember that Bernie Sanders once proclaimed that people lining up for food in communist countries was a blessing in disguise.

It’s government ownership of the means of production so the economy can hum with the efficiency of the Department of Motor Vehicles.

It’s when workers run the factories that somebody else invested in.

It’s when clueless elites tell the economy what to do.

It’s Scandinavia (which isn’t socialist).

It’s communal utopia where everybody gets an equal portion regardless of effort, until they nearly starve. The Pilgrims tried it until forced to replace it with private property. (See also “The Dark Side of Paradise: A Brief History of America’s Utopian Experiments in Communal Living”).

It’s Venezuela, or it was Venezuela until it didn’t work.

If it seems like socialists don’t really know what it is, that’s only partly true. In most cases, they just don’t want YOU to know what it really is. The best charlatans are always the clever ones.

Socialism is rightly and widely perceived as diametrically opposed to capitalism. So it can’t possibly be acts of caring, sharing, giving and being compassionate toward the needy. There is demonstrably more caring, sharing, giving, and compassion toward the needy under capitalism!

Even when it comes to foreign aid, capitalist countries are the donors and socialist countries are the recipients. You can’t give it away or share it with anybody if you don’t create it in the first place, and socialism offers utterly no theory of wealth creation, only wealth confiscation and consumption.

Another way to think of the distinctions between these two opposing systems is this: Capitalism is what happens when free and peaceful people are left alone. In that sense, it’s natural and spontaneous. Socialism is nothing more than the presumptuous plans of bullies and know-it-alls who impose their plans at gunpoint. In that sense, it’s unnatural, contrived, arbitrary and officious.

Socialists are math-challenged: They’re good at division and subtraction but are unaware of addition or multiplication. If your second grader tells you that 3 + 2 = 1, you know he’s a future socialist. Likewise if he tells you that taxes on cigarettes discourage smoking but taxes on investing, hiring or starting a business have only beneficial effects. The economics knowledge of socialists is even more dismal: They think supply and demand means the people demand and the government supplies.

In my book, Was Jesus a Socialist? I blew away the smoke bombs to reveal what socialism really is:

It is the concentration of power in the hands of the State, which then deploys legal force for one or more of these purposes (and usually all three to one extent or another): the redistribution of income, government ownership of property, and the central planning of economic life.

Note that socialists do not propose to accomplish their objectives by mutual consent. They do not advocate raising the money for their plans by way of bake sales or charitable solicitations. Your participation is not voluntary. From start to finish, socialism’s defining characteristic is not so much the promises meant to beguile but rather, the method by which it implements its agenda—FORCE. If it’s voluntary, it’s not socialism. It’s that simple. [read more]

Socialism is definitely evil. Anti-God.

Here are the reasons socialism is anti-social:

  • The Plans of Socialists Are More Important Than Yours
  • Socialists Are Know-It-Alls and Know-Nothings, Simultaneously
  • Socialism Rejects Biological Science
  • Socialists Call the Cops for Everything
  • Socialism Is Anti-Capital
  • Conflict Is Their God

Thursday, December 19, 2024

G20 meets to plan YOUR future, your resources, your rights and your land

From Glenn Beck.com (Sept. 25, 2023):

This is a really important story. The G20 met earlier this month in India. The G20 is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, meeting for global economic superpowers that occurs each year. China’s Xi and Russia’s Putin did not attend, even though they are G20 leaders, so the U.S. and India took an even bigger role than usual.

At this year’s event, the G20 produced a statement called the “G20 New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration.” In it, the G20 published a rough outline of its policy plans and priorities for member nations. Keep in mind that these are the priorities the countries agreed on, so there is a general consensus on the Declaration.

The reason the New Delhi Declaration is important is because it provides an exceptional look into the globalist, Great Reset playbook for the next year and longer. All of this is leading up to an incredibly important United Nations meeting in September 2024 called “Summit for the Future,” where a new international pact will be formally approved. Globalist elites are showing us their cards. All we have to do is look at them.

What’s in the Declaration?

To say the New Delhi Declaration is radical is a major understatement. It’s the Great Reset on steroids. The document is 37 pages long, with each page containing numerous bullet-point agenda items for creating a New World Order.

There are literally hundreds of points in the document, so I couldn’t possibly go through them all now, but here are just some of the highlights:

1. An international commitment to dramatically scale back the use of private and public lands.

The G20 committed to “restoring by 2030 at least 30 percent of all degraded ecosystems and scaling up efforts to achieve land degradation neutrality.”

2. A commitment to “halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.”

That would effectively mean not only the end of land development, but also the return of land that’s currently occupied by humans to nature. How can we possibly feed the world’s growing population with a commitment like this? (By the way, we warned about this in Dark Future.)

3. A plan for “international governance for AI.”

According to the document, member nations should “ensure” that AI is developed “responsibly,” which means, among other things, designers take “ethics” and “biases” into account. That would be a good thing if elites agreed with our understanding of "ethics" and "biases," but they don't. They want to use AI to promote ESG, DEI, and other social justice ideas.

Further, the nations committed to promoting AI that’s designed to accomplish the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that the SDGs are the foundation for the Great Reset, Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and nearly every other significant globalist proposal made over the past three decades. That's not my interpretation—that's what the leaders of all of those plans repeatedly said. (All of this is predicted in Dark Future too.) [read more]

The beginning of the New World Order.

The other highlights of the plan:

  • Expanding the “international tax system” and building publicly regulated, controllable “digital public infrastructure.”
  • Embedding global financial institutions, including banks, with ESG, and using international institutions to ensure that the financial system embraces “sustainable” practices.
  • Additional regulations for cryptocurrencies.
  • A goal of increasing “social protection” programs, like universal health care, and implementing policies to make “social security” benefits “portable” between nations.
  • Enhancing the power of the World Health Organization in future pandemics and public health emergencies.
  • Trillions in new climate-related spending programs globally.
  • Additional collaboration and research for the introduction and adoption of central bank digital currencies.

Friday, November 15, 2024

6 Things I Never Knew about Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein

From Jon Miltimore on FEE.org (Nov. 15, 2022):

Frankenstein is one of those stories that you learn about as a kid but can’t remember how you learned about it. At least it was for me.

We know he—the Monster—is big and green and has a squarish head and scars. We know he was dead and brought to life by a mad doctor. We sense that he’s not exactly evil, but misunderstood. At least that’s what I recall remembering.

You see, I never actually read Mary Shelley’s frightening novel until a few weeks ago. Nor had I ever seen James Whale’s classic 1931 movie Frankenstein featuring the legendary Boris Karloff, or any Frankenstein movie for that matter. (I have since watched Kenneth Branagh’s dark adaptation, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.)

That I had never read Shelley’s fine book—Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus—is a source of mild embarrassment for me, since I consider myself a student of literature, which I studied as both an undergraduate and graduate student.

Having finally read the book, here are six things I learned.

1. There Is No Igor

As I was reading Shelley’s work, I kept waiting for Igor to appear. One of the few things I knew was that Dr. Victor Frankenstein has an odd-looking, hunch-backed assistant named Igor he commands around as he constructs his creation in his laboratory. But early in the story the Monster comes to life and Frankenstein flees and there’s not a word of anyone named Igor.

I thought perhaps I missed it. After all, Shelley breezes past the creation of the Monster in just a page or so. I went back and read it. Nope, no Igor. I thought maybe he’d show up later in a flashback or Frankenstein’s attempt to construct a new Monster. Nope. No Igor.

In fact, there is no Igor in the Boris Karloff version of Frankenstein or Branagh’s 1994 version. Apparently it was not until the 1939 film Son of Frankenstein that an assistant named “Ygor” appears, whose name was later changed to Igor in later films. (There was an assistant in the first two Frankenstein movies, but his name was Fritz and he was inspired from 19th century plays.)

2. Mary Wollstonecraft Died Giving Birth to Mary Shelley

I almost didn’t share this because I’m so embarrassed I didn’t know it—but Mary Shelley was the daughter of the famous British philosopher and women’s rights activist Mary Wollstonecraft, who died giving birth to Shelley.

Apparently the placenta broke during the birth. An infection developed and the famous libertarian feminist died of septicemia on 10 September, 1797.

It makes me a little sad to know that Wollstonecraft never learned her daughter would become one of the most famous novelists of the ages. Something tells me she would have been proud.

3. It’s Anti-Death Penalty

Okay, I admit it. I have no idea how Shelley actually felt about the death penalty. But the novel’s example of capital punishment is hardly a ringing endorsement of the policy. After Frankenstein creates his Monster, we learn that his younger brother William—who is only a child—is killed while playing in the forest.

Frankenstein has his suspicions about who committed the dastardly deed, but what we see next is as chilling as anything in Shelley’s book. When William cannot be found, a search party is sent to find him. William’s nanny Justine, an adopted member of the Frankenstein family, discovers a locket of William’s but no sign of his body; when William’s dead body is later found and Justine is found with the locket, she is blamed for his death. Charges are brought against her. She is found guilty on the flimsiest of evidence and swiftly hanged.

4. Shelley Conceived the Story After a Nightmare—at Age 18

One of the coolest parts of Frankenstein is the story behind the book.

Imagine being 18 years old and hanging out at Lord Byron’s estate in Geneva, Switzerland. That’s exactly what Mary Shelley was doing in the summer of 1816, shortly after eloping to Italy with Percy Shelley (a married man) when she was just 16 years old.

One night while hanging out Lord Byron proposed that each of the four people present “write a ghost story.” Every morning she was asked, “Have you thought of a story.” Each morning Shelley was forced to reply with a “mortifying negative.”

Finally one night when she struggled to sleep her imagination took hold.

“I saw—with shut eyes, but acute mental vision—I saw the pale student of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together. I saw the hideous phantasm of a man stretched out, and then, on the working of some powerful engine, show signs of life and stir with an uneasy, half-vital motion. Frightful must it be, for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavor to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world. His success would terrify the artist; he would rush away from his odious handiwork horror-stricken.”

Frankenstein and his Monster were born.

5. The Monster Is Not ‘Sympathetic’ and Frankenstein Is Not the Villain

So, this idea exists that Frankenstein’s Monster is some gentle, stupid, and misunderstood creature. He wasn’t actually the villain, the modern interpretation goes, and I basically always assumed this was true, having not read the story. Movies I saw of Frankenstein’s Monster—such as Monster Squad (1987) and Van Helsing (2004)— always showed him in a sympathetic light, and that was kind of the vibe I got from Boris Karloff’s Monster.

This was not the vibe I got from Shelley’s Monster. At all. First of all, Shelley’s Monster is not stupid. He tells his story over several chapters, and one quickly realizes he’s highly literate (he reads Plutarch!). The Monster doesn’t mumble words like a dumb child or Simple Jack; he speaks eloquently. He possesses reason.

The Monster is angry, however, that he is different. He’s ugly. He has no one and nothing.

“I possessed no money, no friends, no kind of property,” he explains to Victor.

Indeed, even his creator despises him.

“I, the miserable and the abandoned, am an abortion, to be spurned at, and kicked, and trampled on,” the Monster explains near the end of the book.

This is no doubt why some have interpreted the Monster in a sympathetic light. And in some ways he is a sympathetic figure. We watch as the Monster watches a poor family of villagers and discovers he’s not like them.

“I admired virtue and good feelings and loved the gentle manners and amiable qualities of my cottagers, but I was shut out from intercourse with them, except through means which I obtained by stealth, when I was unseen and unknown, and which rather increased than satisfied the desire I had of becoming one among my fellows.”

We watch the Monster plead with Victor to have him create a female companion.

“I am alone and miserable, man will not associate with me, but one as deformed and horrible as myself would not deny herself to me,” he tells Victor. “My companion must be of the same species and have the same defects. This being you must create.”

Readers can identify with the Monster’s plight. After all, who among us would wish to spend life alone? The problem is, as I noted, the creature possesses reason. He knows right from wrong. Good from evil. And throughout the novel, he commits evil act after evil act, even admitting to Victor that he killed the child William.

“Boy, you will never see your father again,” the Monster tells the child, “you must come with me.”

Victor Frankenstein is not the villain of the story. His mistakes are far more human. They come from the unintended consequences of his creation and the fear that prevents him from addressing and confessing his mistake for most of the novel.

The Monster’s deeds are far more monstrous, and they are committed not by a bumbling, stupid, child-like creature, but by an intelligent and selfish fiend.

6. Frankenstein’s Monster Is a Metaphor for the State

I have no idea whatsoever if Shelley saw it, but her story is a wonderful metaphor for the state.

Using the power of modern science, Dr. Frankenstein creates a powerful Monster that he quickly realizes he cannot control. Frankenstein’s motives are pure when he brings the creature to life, but the Monster takes on a life of his own and a series of dark consequences follow. Most frightening of all, Frankenstein realizes he cannot turn off his own creation. If this is not a metaphor for the Leviathan state, I don’t know what is.

Now, as I said, it’s not clear that Shelley saw it this way, but there is some evidence that she did. In Chapter 4, Victor implies that it is the pursuit of “unlawful” sciences that has led men astray throughout history and infringed on peace.

“If this rule were always observed; if no man allowed to any pursuit whatsoever to interfere with the tranquility of his domestic affections, Greece had not been enslaved; Caesar would have spared his country; America would have been discovered more gradually; and the empires of Mexico and Peru had not been destroyed.”

Few things interfere with peace, tranquility, or our domestic affairs more than the state, which is just one more reason I see Shelley’s novel as a cautionary tale for would-be Babel builders.

The moral lesson is clear: be careful about what you create using unscrupulous or unnatural means. Your creation may grow beyond your control and cause you great misery. [source]

I like point #6! Nice.