Leftists would like their label for organised evil to mean something other than subjugation and mass murder.

We tend to avoid making light of America’s favourite socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [aka ‘AOC’] from the rationale that when someone is making a mistake it’s best to just get out of their way. However in this case, this is not about the women whose antics will cause her ideology of organised evil to be laughed from the pantheon of practical governmental forms. This is about an adorable 8-year-old and perfect her impression of Ms. Cortez, specifically the point that socialism isn’t about being ‘social’, ‘social media’ or ‘sharing’.

For those who haven’t seen this viral video, it’s a perfect rendition of ‘AOC’ and her ruminations on climate change and socialism.

In light of this adorable impression, we will take this occasion to eviscerate what seems to be a very odd understanding of some basic words on the part of the National Socialist-Left.

Socialism is not about being ‘social’

No doubt this partially arose from certain elements who like to weaponize words to maximum effect. First principles hold that politics can be considered to be of the two basic forms: Individualism or Collectivism. With priority given to either the Individual or the collective.

Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians favour the rights and freedoms of the Individual. Certain civil Liberties such as the common sense human right of self-defence stems from this first principle.
Even though it may at first blush seem counterintuitive, the individual striving to improve themselves and their lot always tends to do the same for everyone else. As stated in The Wealth of Nations:

‘It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages.’ – Adam Smith

Conversely speaking, Collectivism is the other basic form whereby the group is favoured over the Individual. In point of fact, since a group is merely an arbitrary aggregation of individuals with no true form, the result is that it cannot have any true civil Liberties. This is exemplified by the treatment of the common sense human right of self-defence. Whereby the principle ‘collective’ rights is applied, meaning there is no Liberty in this regard.

Individualism is vastly superior to Collectivism

Collectivists like to phrase their construct of one of the labels of their base ideology as simply adding the suffix ‘ism’ to their idea of ‘social’ or group dynamics to make ‘social+ism’. Even though this word has come to signify the worst excesses in authoritarianism.

The problem is that when the ‘rights’ of group are prioritized, the rights of the individual disappear. Despite the window dressing of supposedly being ‘Liberal’, the Collectivist-Left only sees the group as having importance. Individuals become disposable to the whims of the collective. This is how the Left terms idea of self-defence as unimportant and how they end up will millions of dead individuals.

Socialism is not about ‘sharing’

Despite being extremely late to the party of collectivist ideological thought, Karl Marx did imbue one of the lines that epitomises it’s base principles with the saying: ‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.’

Sharing has to be a voluntary process. Such is not the case with socialism where that ‘From each according to his abilities’ is done at the point of a gun. This is why the Collectivist-Left obsesses over the disarming of individuals with Liberty control aka ‘Gun Reform’.

The Takeaway

Leftists love to exploit the language to hide their true base ideological intent. This is why they use words like ‘socialism’ or ‘Liberal’. They cannot be honest about what they truly want: control over everyone.

Thus, they have to pretend that ‘socialism’ means being social or sharing instead of an ideology that is truly organised evil at its core.

Have you heard the news report about a 21-year-old African-American male, Oghaleoghene Atuno, who targeted two white children with his vehicle? Unless you’re watching brief clips on local Denver news, you probably haven’t.

Atuno has been charged with attempted murder and child abuse while his alleged victims have been hospitalized after the brutal attack. Surveillance video shows him circling a cul-de-sac several times near Falcon Middle School in Aurora, Colorado, before driving his vehicle onto the sidewalk to strike the two children, age 11 and 12. One of the young boys, Josh Piazza, is still in the hospital with a fractured skull.

The circumstantial evidence seems to point to this being a textbook example of a hate crime. Atuno appeared to be circling the cul-de-sac near a school searching for a victim. When he spotted two Caucasian children, he drove his vehicle towards them onto the sidewalk. After hitting them, he drove off immediately. He claims he didn’t know the victims and his reason for fleeing the scene immediately was because he was scared, according to police.

Attempted murder against children he didn’t know after circling a cul-de-sac several times near a middle school – the math seems to add up to only a few possible conclusions and hate crime would be the most obvious. Yet this isn’t getting any attention from the media and prosecutors have thus far declined to use the “hate crime” tag for enhanced sentencing should he be found guilty.

Hate crimes of all types are hideous. When a person’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, physical or mental disability, or sexual orientation are used as determining factors prompting a crime against them, it’s a hate crime. Whether or not Atuno was motivated by racial hatred is currently unknown, but we may never know because it is not being treated as a potential hate crime by prosecutors or law enforcement. Imagine if a Caucasian man had circled around an African-American neighborhood searching for targets before running over two African-American children. The press would be clamoring all over itself about it being a hate crime.

As our nation becomes increasingly divided, it’s necessary that we put an end to bigotry from every side. Caucasians are not immune from being victims of hate crimes by law, but media narratives refuse to accept it as a possibility.

Now that Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian hacking of the 2016 election has been completed and the investigation’s report has been released, we have more questions than we have answers.

Why was it started in the first place? It seems circular reasoning and opposition research were the only pieces of “evidence” used to justify extensive spying on the Trump campaign and the subsequent investigation. This does not clear the threshold of viable suspicion necessary for FISA warrants and clearly was not an appropriate starting point upon which to launch an investigation.

Why was it allowed to continue for so long? The report indicates early on, the investigation saw it was extremely unlikely they would find evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. Moreover, the report demonstrates the Russians were acting of their own accord to “hack” the elections, but were unsuccessful in generating enough manipulative propaganda to sway a significant chunk of voters.

Were political motivations at play? At this point, the answer seems obvious. From President Obama’s administration to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign to left-leaning elements within the FBI itself, it’s conspicuous that attempts to not only manufacture wrongdoing by candidate Trump but also to hide wrongdoing by candidate Clinton were in full effect.

Two years and $30 million in taxpayer dollars should have yielded answers. It did not. The reason isn’t that there were no answers to be found. It’s that they were looking in the wrong places. It’s time to look in the right places. Sign this petition.