Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Scrap Socialism, Part III



Scrap Socialism Part III

A multi-count indictment of the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Socialist ideologies as justification for their abolition.

In Parts I and Part II of this dissertation, we made the case for the abolition of the modern day slavery of the collectivism. Part I presented the proof that Limited government and the economic liberty of the free-market are far superior to the unlimited authoritarian government and economic slavery of the socialist ideologies. Part II Eviscerated the ‘That wasn’t real socialism’ lie while examining the early history of these ideas and their abject failure down through the centuries.

Part III will attempt to briefly detail the sins of socialism, because one could easily write a whole book about the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the collectivist ideologies and the case for their abolition.

“Liberty is not collective, it is personal. All liberty is individual liberty.” – President Calvin Coolidge

500 year old ideas relabeled as new and being ‘social’.

One could argue that there are really only two basic political ideologies of either the individual or the collective. Leftists are very adapt at word selection, and in this case they prefer to use ‘social’ instead of collective or communist for that matter. So, in the flowery language of the Left and with the suffix ‘ism’ added it is ‘individual’ ism versus ‘social’ ism.

Yes, this is how these decrepitly old ideas are being repackaged and sold to a new generation brought up on ‘social’ media and similar phrases. Individualism subtly implies self-interest or being selfish, or ego(t)ism [German: ‘eigennutz’]. Contrast this with the almost subliminally positive terms of being ‘Social’ or ‘Sociable’ or for the ‘common good’ [German: ‘gemeinnutz’]. Years of social indoctrination have convinced a generation that this is a positive attribute. Witness the overuse of the term ‘Social Justice Warrior’ as something allegedly noble and good.

Socialism: Subjugation by Force.

Meanwhile, the dirty little secret of the socialist ideologies is that they require the individual to be subjugated by force to the collective in order to operate. Everyone’s property and liberty are to be sacrificed for the ‘common good’ by the threat or actual use of force. This was detailed by Milton Friedman in the short video ‘Socialism is Force’. The socialist ideologies cannot operate in any other manner, but this is dressed up as “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité” [Liberty, Equality, Fraternity] or similar nonsensical boilerplate.

Consider the positive spin that Mayor Bill de Blasio placed on these ideas in an interview from last September in New York Magazine.

What’s been hardest is the way our legal system is structured to favor private property. I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be. I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs. And I would, too. Unfortunately, what stands in the way of that is hundreds of years of history that have elevated property rights and wealth to the point that that’s the reality that calls the tune on a lot of development.

Note the subtle positivity of the promise of the people collectively enjoying the fruits of someone else’s labour in having all manner of housing and other wonderful manifestations if not for those pesky property rights of the individual.

Further on in the interview he rips off the mask and revels in the wondrous benefits of authoritarianism with a “very, very powerful government”:

That’s a world I’d love to see, and I think what we have, in this city at least, are people who would love to have the New Deal back, on one level. They’d love to have a very, very powerful government, including a federal government, involved in directly addressing their day-to-day reality.

The implication is that everyone would love to have a centralised “Nanny state” that provides all kinds of freebies for the low-low price of their liberty and the property of a few individuals. All it takes is enough government force to run people’s lives, or as he put it: “directly addressing their day-to-day reality.”

The problem is that these Utopian fantasies is that there promises can never come to fruition. They are fundamentally contrary to economic logic and human nature. Worse still, the sins of socialism are a direct outgrowth of this subjugation of the individual to the collective.

The justification for the elimination of the Socialist ideologies.

The stirring words of Thomas Jefferson from the Declaration of Independence seemed to be the most appropriate in addressing the justification in the elimination of the socialist ideologies from the slate of viable governmental forms and the rightful conclusion to the age of experimentation:

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security”

Notwithstanding their flowery Utopian words and promises, the socialist ideologies for all intents and purposes begin as a colossal fraud against humanity and end with incomprehensible oppression and mass murder. Socialists must know that their pompous sales pitch of free health care, housing, college education and anything else they can think of can never be fulfilled. But this never stops them from trying to con a new generation to the siren song of free stuff. Not to mention the old saw of the state ‘withering away’ never happening in their base ideology’s checkered and dreadful past. If ever there was “a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism” it would have to be the socialist ideologies.

While it might seem strange and somewhat hypocritical for those of a conservatarian mindset to advocate what type of government a people can choose for themselves, at some point humanity should be able to determine which governmental form is superior and which should end up on the scrap heap of history. It is out of humanitarian compassion that we should want to stop some from making the same dreadful mistakes, so often repeated with horrific results.

The axiom of “One Man (or woman), One vote, ONCE” succinctly encapsulates the problem in the choice of collectivist governmental forms. Over the centuries, many a populace has fallen for the siren song of socialism and it’s unrealistic theory of a perfect “worker’s paradise”. Collectivists as a group tend to be long on promises and flimsy excuses instead of actual results.

The fact that force has to be used to implement these ideologies is never really discussed in the glossy brochures or manifestoes. By the time the promises have fallen short a bureaucratic behemoth will already be in place to intimidate, imprison or execute those who have become aware of the fraud being perpetrated. In his book on the Hungarian revolution in 1956 “The Bridge at Andau” , James A. Michener touched on this historic con game. This was also mentioned recently by Anatole Konstantin in an “Ask Me Anything” session on reddit as to why the Soviet union eventually collapsed. He stated:

”I think it was the spiritual crisis caused by discrepancy between the rosy propaganda and totalitarian reality that made the Soviet people lose faith in the system. I think there is a lesson in this for us.”

This is why these ideologies have to be banished as a form of government. There are many of forms of deception that are rightfully considered to be crimes. The socialist ideologies have a history of unmatched crimes against humanity, shouldn’t that alone be the apt justification for their abolishment?
The Sins of Socialism.

The final nail in the coffin for socialist ideologies should be their incessant crimes against humanity. These range from societal oppression, torture and imprisonment to mass murder on an industrial scale. This is on top of the fact that the age of governmental experimentation have demonstrated the overwhelming superiority of a constitutionally limited representative republic model. Not to mention the plain fact that the socialist ideologies simply do not work in the real world.

One of the Left’s most common excuses in defense of socialism is that ‘It wasn’t done correctly’ or some variation thereof. The problem with these tiresome and overly repetitive excuses is that the collectivist ideologies are all based on the same basic principles, as they yield the same horrific outcome every time they are tried. After centuries of the same failure and the same oppression ridden results, it is safe to say that these experiments will always end up the same,  no matter how the Left tries to play with the meaning of words, 75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America over and under defining their base ideology.

The final case for the abolition of the socialist ideologies will begin with it’s mildest forms of oppression and ending up with it’s most brutal. This also just happens to coincide with the usual timeline of how these con games are usually perpetrated.


For the most part, deception is part and parcel to the socialist ideologies. This goes back to their basic principles of subjugation of the individual by force. The brutal reality of these ideologies is hardly amenable to acceptance by people, so as a matter of course socialist ideologues have elevated lying and deceit to an art form. Their deceptions begin with all manner of labeling lies – their being “Liberal” or “Progressive” to playing games with the names of their legislative program (e.g. “Affordable Care Act”) to the very colours used to describe their side of the political spectrum.

Denigration of Liberty.

Many have taken notice of a distinct feature of the Socialist-Left, that of wanting to have tight control over people. This was exemplified in the previous previously referenced piece on Mayor Bill de Blasio. In the past, it has kept a lid on it’s totalitarian tendencies, but as of late, they have really come out of the authoritarian closet.   Time was they just had their gun control hobby horse, but this has expanded to wanting to clamp down on free-speech by the expedient of “Hate Speech”  to wanting to have any form of religion [with one notable exception] banished from the public sphere.

People (Gun) Control.

As mentioned, this has always been an obsession with those of the socialist ideologies, since one cannot subjugate a population without a monopoly on the use of force. Socialists , Communists, Maoists and Fascists of the storied past of the Left have all taken the step of disarming the people, before it becomes necessary to oppress them. It never works out too well to have Chekists or Gestapo break down someone’s door at 3:00 AM and be on the receiving end of a blast of friendly gunfire. Better to have people acquiesce to registering and then having their guns confiscated before the real oppression can commence in earnest.

Censorship and tight state control of the media.

Those of the control obsessed socialist ideologies also need to keep a tight lid of information and free-speech. One cannot pull a con game on an entire population if people can start to question the veracity of all the lofty promises of free stuff. Cults often use the same indoctrination tactics, bombarding people day and night with the same simplistic and false messaging, keeping them in an echo chamber where contravening facts can’t get in the way. An essential part of this propagandization involves the denigration of alternate information sources to keep the victim suspicious of anything that contradicts what they are being repetitively taught.

Tight Societal Control.

The erasure of privacy and personal lives in favour of collectivist mentality is part and parcel of the indoctrination process. One is no longer supposed to focus on themselves, but on the ‘greater good’ of the collective. A tight surveillance state is also essential in these matters with the carrot of convenience hiding the stick of government control as in the case of Communist China as detailed in the Washington Post.

Secret Police Apparatus.

In the book “The Bridge at Andau” , James A. Michener had an extensive discussion on the AVO – the Hungarian version of the typical secret state security apparatus. These are all too commonplace amongst the collectivist regimes. While the Cheka, Stasi and Gestapo were infamous in their brutality, the history of the socialist ideologies are replete with these organisations with many still continuing the ‘traditions’ of torture and imprisonment: Asphyxia and Drills: How Political Prisoners in Venezuela Get Tortured, Venezuelan Regime Steps up Torture against Protesters, Forces Them to Eat Excrement.

It also follows that subjugation by force require a vast system of facilities to imprison, torture and murder those that disagree with it’s “Democratic” process. In the ‘Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik’ this immense network was termed by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as The Gulag Archipelago, the ‘Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei’ regime had it’s system of concentration camps and ‘Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela’ has it’s ‘La Tumba’,  amongst other prisons to give just a few examples.

Mass Murder on an Industrial Scale.

This of course was the end of the line in the range of barbaric realities of the socialism. What begins with brainwashing and absence of liberty finishes up with unmerciful torture and death. Even this portion of the collectivist oppression realm has it’s horrific ‘innovations’ unmatched in modern times. Socialists know from their cold, calculating thoughts that there will be those who refuse to be “Re-educated” and become model comrades of a glorious collectivist society. They know that some will have to be sacrificed for the ‘common good’, but they are perfectly willing to “Break a few eggs to make an omelet”. No one has an exact read on the death toll of the Socialist ideologies, but there have been attempts to make these estimates in: The Black Book of Communism

The Final Word.

This long list of crimes against humanity perpetrated by the socialist ideologies is a multi-count indictment against their continuation as viable government forms. The original inspiration for it were the absurd calls by the Left for the elimination of economic liberty. It should be clear that the case for the opposite has been made. The socialist ideologies do not work and they are woefully inferior to Limited government representative republics that protect property and the rights of the individual. Lastly, the incomprehensible crimes against humanity perpetrated by the socialist ideologies should seal their fate as to what should be done with them. Those vile, immoral, parasitic and downright evil ideologies should never have been tried in the first place and never tried again.

Differential equations teaches us that one can use the initial conditions of the present to extrapolate events in the near term balanced with the knowledge of the past. The interaction of technological advances and the march of history is fascinating. History can inform those willing to listen as to what will happen in the future because the laws of human natural are as immutable as the elegant equations of Newtonian physics.

Culture and Religion

When have the Enemies of Liberty on the Left ever compromised on the 2nd amendment?




The history of freedom always has been one of it’s enemies slowly ratcheting it down with restraints in the name of equality or security.

Everyone knows the drill by now, a ‘Serious Crisis’ takes place, the Left immediately demands the surrender of more human rights forcing the innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty. Meanwhile, those who dare defend those rights are pilloried with almost every pejorative in the book.

The history of Liberty Control has always been one of unending incremental infringements on our rights. The enemies of Liberty on the Left always follow the same progression. They begin with spurious claims over the ‘easy access to guns’, getting whatever they can, after which they reset the sequence for the next go around.

The Left’s idea of ‘progress’ is always one direction, with demands that the pro-liberty side give up as yet more of their freedom. Each time around it’s the same story, with only ever worsening regularity. But why is this the case? When have the Liberty controllers on the left ever compromised on the common sense human right of self-defence, or any other liberties for that matter?

Liberty Control down through the ages.

The dirty little secret of Liberty control is that it has it’s roots in racism, epitomised in the infamous United States Supreme Court case DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, (1856):

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

Please note that it specifically mentions “the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”, as the partial rationale for the decision.

Further on, the past century has saw an inexorable sequence of infringements with the examples ranging from the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 to the Brady act of 1993.

In some rare cases, the Republican party spearheaded some partial relief of earlier infringements, but these were always accompanied with other restrictions. The overall trend has always been ever intensifying restrictions on the rights that are supposed to be free from infringement.

The Left’s idea of ‘compromise.’

It should be obvious by now that the enemies of Liberty on the Left do not want anyone to have the basic human right of self-preservation. They have made that clear in many articles, editorials and videos on the subject of repealing the 2nd amendment or outright gun confiscation.  Consequently, it can be presumed that anything short of that immediate goal is a ‘compromise’ to them.
The win-win eventuality for them is that their ‘compromise’ positions sets up for their ultimate goal none the less. Asserting government control over everyone’s private property with ‘Intergalactic’ Background Checks followed on with the governmental permission requirements in gun registration that will eventually lead to gun confiscation. They would also like to control free-speech with the expedient of ‘Political correctness’ or entirely undefined ‘Hate speech’. But for now they merely want to get people used to these restrictions on Liberty.

The Takeaway

The Left’s increasing stridency towards Liberty has intensified as of late, which is quite odd given that they supposedly support the concept with the self-labeling as “Liberals”. The Left has become single-minded in their pursuit of gun confiscation(and it’s precursors), to the point of rejecting measures that would actually serve to protect the children. As is typical of the nation’s Left, they self-label their obsession with taking guns away from the innocent as being ‘reasonable’. Meanwhile, they vehemently oppose workable solutions to the problems they caused in the first place.

Their latest tactic is to exploit the victims of mass murder in a bid to shut down debate and impose their unworkable ‘solutions’ to the exclusion of anything else. Do they even sound ‘reasonable’ or ‘Liberal’ for that matter? They incessantly complain that the proponents of Liberty won’t surrender their principles and once again yield to their demands, but when will they ever compromise and defend liberty?



Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

An open letter to Sen. Lamar Alexander, US Senate on the nomination of Chai Feldblum



The Honorable Lamar Alexander

Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions committee

United States Senate

CC United States Senators

March 17, 2018


Dear Senator Alexander,

It has come to my attention that President Trump has re-nominated Chai Feldblum to her position as commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This news has brought me grave concern.

On behalf of the American people, it is up to you and the rest of the Senate to remedy this unfortunate situation.

As you are aware, the EEOC deals with cases of workplace discrimination; having the power to enforce federal laws, investigate discrimination complaints, regulate and pursue legal charges against private businesses, and influence public opinion. It is imperative that any federal agency entrusted with such powers be steered by the conscientious counsel of unbiased leadership.

A former college basketball coach once said, “Offense is not equal opportunity.” However, since her appointment by former President Obama in 2010, Ms. Feldblum has exploited her position at the EEOC to offensively further her own fanatical advocacy goals at the expense of religiously-oriented American citizens, the Bill of Rights be damned.

Religious liberty, inviolable and protected from governmental infringement by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, is richly ingrained in our country’s values, having been secured by the blood of our ancestors. In fact, religious liberty, often referred to by the Founders as freedom of conscience, was considered by early Americans to be so precious that, even in the midst of America’s fight for independence, conscience objections were considered sacrosanct.

Consider the words of America’s first President, George Washington, in a letter to Benedict Arnold during America’s Revolutionary War:

“While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the conscience of others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to Him only in this case are they answerable.”

For Chai Feldblum, however, religious freedom must be subjugated with the full force of the government’s ugly fist.

She is, in a word, tyrannical.

Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines tyranny as “a rigorous [strict] condition imposed by some outside agency or force,” as imposed by a tyrant.

A tyrant is defined as “one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power.”

Ms. Feldblum has made several deeply troubling statements that betray her tyrannical intentions, wholly at odds with America’s founding principles:

  • “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win… Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner (emphasis mine).”
  • “I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if ‘pockets of resistance’ to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people (emphasis mine).”

Ms. Feldblum’s seditious statements are in dramatic contrast to what Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1774, in Emblematic Representations:

“The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy (emphasis mine)”

In addition, Ms. Feldblum’s thesis on the proper role of government is unequivocally incompatible with the words spoken by President Thomas Jefferson during his first inaugural address, 1801:

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”

Chai Feldblum’s offensive advocacy through the EEOC is so extreme and outside of Constitutional bounds that, in 2012, the usually divided Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously against Feldblum’s EEOC attempt to void the “Ministerial Exemption,” which allows leeway for religious organizations to carry out routine, religiously-related matters of hiring and terminating employees.

While Ms. Feldblum claims to represent the LGBTQ+ community, she speaks only for a small, yet loud portion of the demographic; one comprised almost entirely of radical LGBTQ+ activists.

In truth, Ms. Feldblum’s fanatical, extremist, ideologically-driven agenda only serves to marginalize a significant portion of sexual minorities, in addition to women and countless Americans of religious orthodoxy.

Ignoring the conservative, sexual minorities who disapprove of the forced subjugation of religious Americans, Ms. Feldblum propagates stereotypes of the various people she claims to represent, and actively encourages neighbors to go to war with neighbors.

Feldblum insists on a “zero-sum” game, where religious Americans and members of the LGBTQ+ community are incapable of living peaceably side-by-side. As the architect of former President Obama’s Transgender executive order, Feldblum further victimizes traumatized women and children, insisting they must tolerate an unsafe existence, as grown men are ushered into their locker rooms and bathrooms in the name of “progress.” Feldblum insists on subjugating religious, yet same-sex attracted business owners in the private market, drastically hindering their pursuit of happiness through economic independence. Feldblum insists that all LGBTQ+ Americans think as she does.

Ms. Feldblum is a tyrant; wholly unworthy of another five years at the helm of the EEOC.

Speaking on the sacredness of religious liberty in America, Samuel Adams stated, August 1, 1776:

“Driven from every other corner of the earth freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.”

The responsibility, Senator Alexander, now rests with you and the Senate to protect religious liberty as vigorously and as confidently as our Founding Fathers.

If you fail to perform this duty, this great test of your legacy as one of the leaders of the free world, may the words of Samuel Adams haunt you for the remainder of your days:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”


Most sincerely,


Paige Rogers, Tennessee

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Video: The Racist roots of Liberty control – Who doesn’t like certain people getting rights?




In honour of #NationalWalkoutDay let’s look at those who really don’t like certain people getting rights – specifically the common sense human right of self-preservation.

This is NationalWalkoutDay [Who would have thought that kids would want to skip school?] With one of the most important human rights in the spotlight, it would be a good idea to examine the reasons why this has been suppressed in the past. To begin, consider Hillary Clinton’s statement smearing most of the country:

So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward, and his whole campaign, Make America Great Again, was looking backwards. “You don’t like black people getting rights, you don’t like women getting jobs, you don’t want to see that Indian-American succeeding more than you are, whatever your problem is, I’m going to solve it.”

So who really is opposed to the certain people getting their common sense human rights? The following video from Colion Noir details that Liberty (gun) control has it’s roots in racism:

Gun Control’s Racist History

Interestingly enough, the same people who claim to care about ‘the children’ but whole heartily support Planned Parenthood are the same folks who want to deprive the people of their basic human rights. Who would have thought that was the case?


Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily






Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.