Gary Kasparov: If It’s Far-Right vs. Far-Left, The Far-Right Wins

"If people feel they’re being forced to choose between two extremes, the majority will always tack right.

Earlier in the week, I threw this quick observation up on Substack Notes:

Lost elections are rigged, won elections are fair. Good job numbers are real, bad ones are fake. Sex trafficking is bad, unless the traffickers will blame your enemies. Crime is bad, unless the criminals are pro-Trump. This isn’t 4D chess, or even tic-tac-toe, just Autocracy 101.

There were a lot of replies. But one comment from a reader named Edward stuck out to me:

I agree and we were getting the same bullshit from Dems. Yes I am doing whataboutism! DEI is autocracy. MAGA and the Woke are bad.

This is indeed whataboutism, so some credit for your candor.

I won’t argue with the notion that far-right and far-left—far-anything—is bad. However, there are a few fundamental points that a simplistic comment like this misses.

The first is that people are often willing to overlook the most extreme expressions of their own side.

The mainstream left downplays the problems of the radical left. Look how quickly many Democrats rallied around Zohran Mamdani without scrutinizing his support for “seizing the means of production” and “defund the police” or holding him accountable for his dodging on “globalize the intifada.” This wasn’t just a mechanical endorsement because he’s the party’s nominee. In many cases, we’ve seen a bear-hug embrace from prominent Democrats.

On the mainstream right, you have people who privately recognize that the far-right is dangerous, but enable or support it anyway. Some, like our friend Edward, will even publicly concede the point: MAGA is bad, but “MAGA and Woke are [both] bad,” therefore, MAGA is acceptable.

Where is the danger?

The false equivalence between far-right and far-left is practical, not philosophical—again, in theory, both extremes are bad.

Today, the most immediate danger in America and much of the democratic world comes from the far-right. That’s not because the idea of fascism is worse than the idea of communism (reds have killed more people, anyway), but because the far-right holds the levers of power in Washington and is rising across Europe and even in Japan.

More to the point, if people feel they are being forced to choose between one extreme or another, they will swing right. The Nazis never had a majority in the Reichstag, but they were always well ahead of Ernst Thalmann’s communists. Nearly a century later, the Nazis’ successors in the AfD still outpace the Left Party. In France’s 2017 presidential election, leftist Jean Luc-Melenchon finished fourth in the first round of voting. In 2022, he finished in third. He never qualified for the second round. Far-right candidate Marine Le Pen did, both times.

Why the far-right beats the far-left

The far-right positions itself as trying to preserve or restore something, whether some racial-demographic balance or the nation’s bygone glory days. The far-left, by contrast, is seen as trying to disrupt, overthrow—a total departure from tradition.

Understood through this lens, we can see why people, against their better judgement, treat MAGA as a safe bet. The writing has been on the wall for years. In 2019, nearly half of all Americans said that the Democratic Party was moving too far to the left, while only 37% felt the Republicans had moved too far to the right (and Trump was two years into his first term at this point!).

I don’t point any of this out because I like the way things are going, but because it is simply a fact: far-left excess enables far-right overreach.

Democrats gain nothing of strategic value by indulging this wing of the party. Bernie Sanders was never able to secure a presidential nomination among Democrats; to insist he could have won a general election is to deny reality. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the lone representative of the DSA-aligned left among top contenders for the 2028 Democratic primary, and she is polling in the middle of the pack below several more moderate alternatives. If Democrats really want to put up a serious fight against Trump’s demagoguery, then they should stop indulging radicals and remember that the far-left is more loud than it is popular.

P.S. Whether you agree or disagree, let’s continue the discussion—in the comments, and on a Zoom call. Yes, Zoom! I’ve recently announced new Zoom calls for paid subscribers so that we can have a real conversation. Check it out and please consider joining...

Source:Garry Kasparov has a few moves of his own.

From Gary Kasparov

I'm going to get to what Garry Kasparov is talking about here. But last week I argued what I at least would call mainstream socialism. And here is some of what I said about that: 

"I mean if you want to call today's Socialists "Modern Socialists", thats fine. But what the Robert Reich's of the world and many others on the left-wing in America talk about, when they're talking about their own political philosophy, it's what the rest of the world calls social democracy, or even just a democratic form of socialism. Mr. Reich made that clear his blog post about socialism, when he said: 

"Whether it’s called socialism, democratic socialism, or enlightened capitalism, societies need to pool resources for the common good...

From The New Democrat

My colleague Erik Schneider wrote his own piece about what Garry Kasparov is talking about here. And here is some of what he said about that on Tuesday: 

"My first response here is: if you don't like the Pat Buchanan's, the David Duke's, the Rick Santorum's, the George Wallace's, (from way back) and today, the Donald J. Trump's of the world, taking over our government and politics in America and giving them so much power over everyone else... you can't ignore and leave behind 10s of millions of Americans, simply because you don't like their culture, or what part of the country their from, where they went to school, etc...

From The New Democrat

What Erik was talking about and arguing is that when Democrats ignore people who for a longtime were loyal Democrats, who voted for Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson... overwhelmingly, these voters look to other alternatives. Especially right-wing demagogues who simply want their votes and money, but wouldn't do a damn thing for them, ever. They wouldn't even spit on 1 of these voters when they're literally burning on fire, to help put the fire out. But they'll be more than happy to take their votes and their money from them. 

When the "Republicans" go far-right, it's because Democrats and even mainstream Republicans ignore blue-collar, working-class, populist voters. But when Democrats go far-left (and Mr. Kasparov got into this as well) it's only in response to counteract the far-rightism of people who call themselves Republicans. And what happens when American voters only have a choice between 2 extremes: the far-right and far-left: 

Since 1972, the Democratic Party has only nominated 1 presidential candidate for President, who could be classified as a left-wing politician, Senator George McGovern. Not just MAGA, but some even mainstream Republicans like to view Barack Obama as a Socialist. But it's hard to even write "Barack Obama is a Socialist", without at least smirking. Socialists certainly don't see Mr. Obama as 1 of them. 

But since 1972, Republicans have nominated 3 far-right candidates for President: Donald Trump in 2016, 2020, 2024. 

My point here is, that the Democratic Party has a whole, doesn't even like Socialists and doesn't want Socialists representing, certainly not for President. And outside of the U.S. House of Representatives, it's hard to find any Socialist who holds any major public office right now. Without Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, there are no even Socialist Democrats who currently hold state office in America right now. And New York City electing Zohran Mamdani as its next Mayor this year, won't change that. 

I think the real point here for Democrats is, if you think you need Socialists to vote for you and you speak to your concerns and try to work out some differences that you have with them and even negotiate with them, (like a big tent Democrat would) that's fine. 

But when you try to use socialism as your own philosophy and try to make it the face of the Democratic Party, (and I think this Gary Kasparov's main point here) it's a big political loser for you. Because Mr. Kasparov said so himself (rightly or wrongly) American voters tend to see even far-rightists, as people who stand up for tradition and protecting American tradition. Whereas they see far-leftists as people who are trying to blow up the system and give Americans something that they're completely unfamiliar with. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Tax Day: Socialists Favorite Holiday

"When did common sense get labeled ‘socialism’? Asking for a friend 🤷" 

Source:Zachary Rants trying to argue that taxes isn't socialism. Good luck, Zach.

From Now This Impact

Since it's another slow news day (at least in the Washington area) I wanted to take this opportunity to be able to write anything that's not related to Donald J. Trump. I want to try to get over my "Trump derangement syndrome" and try to detox and at least for 1 day try to imagine that America's version of Godzilla and King Kong (combined into 1 man) doesn't actually exist. 

What better day in the year to be able to talk about anything else in the world, other than Donald J. Trump, then on the only American holiday that Socialists actually support, which of course would be Tax Day. (If Tax Day ever became a national holiday) 

Oh, yes, Tax Day, that 1 day in the year when Socialists get together and celebrate that they just paid their taxes and celebrate that over their favorite imported French wine, or coffee and cheese, that very few people in this country can actually afford. Funny how Socialists never feel the need to share their favorite food and drinks, when they're celebrating.

Just to respond to something that Zachary Rants said: why is it that Socialists can't handle being called Socialists? Well, some Socialists can't handle being called Socialists. But their grandfather Bernie Sanders and grandmother Jill Stein have no issues with that term. Neither does their sister Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, or the Democratic Socialists of America. 

It's not like the police will be knocking on the door if they find out that you are a Socialist and will arrest you for that. Unless of course you are an immigrant and ICE, perhaps the FBI will bulldozer your door down if they find out you are a Socialist and try to deport you simply for that. (Welcome to El Salvador! We take anyone that Donald J. Trump doesn't want) Come out of the political closet already and show off your DSA membership cards, with your fist in the air and be proud of who you are, already! 

But with closeted Socialists in America, being called a Socialist, is like finding out that you have cancer, or being indicted for rape, or something. They just can't handle that. Even though a lot of young hipsters in America think socialism is like the new hip hop, or valley culture or something... "this is who the cool people are."

I believe every American in their right mind, who also happens to be competent, (which seems like a smaller club everyday) doesn't mind paying what they can afford in taxes, that still allows for them to put money away and enjoy life... just as long as those taxes are going to good use. What makes most of the country different from Socialists, is we don't celebrate taxes and being forced to give our money to Uncle Sam or any other government. It's something that we do, so we can live in a free, safe, progressive society, that benefits as many people as possible. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Luigi Mangione: The New Left Anti-Hero

Source:Don Lemon talking about Luigi Mangione.

"Luigi Mangione has returned to New York after waiving extradition. Still, many Americans view Mangione as a sort of folk hero rather than a cold blooded killer. What is fueling this public support? Are authorities making him a martyr? Tune in for Don's take!" 

From Don Lemon

"More than forty years ago, Richard E. Meyer, a scholar of American folklore, noted the essential difference between the outlaw—which Meyer defined as “a distinctively, though not exclusively, American folktype”—and the mere criminal. He wrote that “the American outlaw-hero is a ‘man of the people’; he is closely identified with the common people, and, as such, is generally seen to stand in opposition to certain established oppressive economic, civil and legal systems peculiar to the American historical experience.” (The italics are Meyer’s.) The outlaw-hero’s persona is that of a “good man gone bad,” not unlike the oncology patient Walter White, of “Breaking Bad,” who started cooking meth because his insurance didn’t cover his cancer treatments. To remain in good standing as an outlaw-hero, a man’s crimes must “be directed only toward those visible symbols which stand outside of and are thought of as oppressive toward the folk group,” Meyer writes. In exchange for both his audacity and his discretion, “the outlaw-hero is helped, supported and admired by his people... 

By contrast, Mangione lasted all of five days on the lam, and appears not to have redistributed any of UnitedHealthcare’s revenues. In other ways, though, he comfortably fits into Meyer’s taxonomy of the antihero. The U.S. health-insurance system is both “oppressive” and quintessentially “peculiar” to America, as the only developed nation in the world that does not provide universal health care. It has been widely speculated that Mangione’s alleged descent into violence may have been spurred by a debilitating back injury and subsequent spinal-fusion surgery. A health-care C.E.O. who receives ten million dollars in annual compensation is likely disqualified from membership in a “folk group,” and another note that Mangione reportedly wrote indicated that he did not want to endanger that group. (“What do you do? You wack the CEO at the annual parasitic bean-counter convention. It’s targeted, precise, and doesn’t risk innocents.”)

Like Floyd, Mangione may also have a knack for the myth-building flourish. Bullet casings left behind at the murder scene read “deny,” “defend,” and “depose,” borrowing from the obstructionist nomenclature of the health-insurance industry—as if its bureaucratic weapons were being turned against one of its own. And, although the manhunt for Mangione came to an ignominious end, early on, he hinted at being a more artful dodger, as when he allegedly left the perfect gag gift for the N.Y.P.D. in Central Park: a backpack stuffed with Monopoly money...

Afascinating artifact of the Mangione affair is the emergence, on TikTok and elsewhere, of the health-insurance murder ballad. (One of the most popular uses “deny, depose, defend” as a refrain.) This nascent subgenre flows directly from Woody Guthrie’s suite of murder ballads, which gave the workingman’s lament an infusion of antihero glamour. The subjects of Guthrie’s songs included Billy the Kid, Jesse James, and Charley Floyd, and it was in a song about Floyd that the bard of the Dust Bowl drew the brightest line between outlaw and oppressor: “Some will rob you with a six-gun / And some with a fountain pen / And as through your life you travel / Yes, as through your life you roam / You won’t never see an outlaw / Drive a family from their home.”

From The New Yorker

If I had to guess, I would imagine that the American, private health insurance, industry, is about as popular as peanut butter on hot dogs. Or giving your kid broccoli for desert. So I'm not saying that it's just the far-left in America, (who've been trying to outlaw health insurance and perhaps private health care, since he 1960s, if not longer) are the only people that currently disapprove of the American health care system. 

But there's only 1 political faction in America that could possibly believe that killing a CEO of a health insurance company, simply because they are a health insurance CEO, and the killer thinks that person is part of the problem... if not a good idea, is perhaps justifiable homicide, or something. 

And there's only 1 political faction in America that would make a murderer of a CEO a pop culture, rockstar, or something, and celebrating this man online and on social media and trying to profit off him with all the videos and the merchandise. And that would be far-left in America, which are made of of some Democratic Socialists, but militant Socialists, the WOKE Left, who believe that progress is never enough. Because it's the system that's the problem itself, who believe that we'll never achieve a "just and fair society", until we take down the system. Or as they would put it: "The Man". 

To the WOKE Left in America, Luigi Mangione is a "totally awesome rockstar", who took a brig strike at "The Man". So they've been celebrating him, at least since he's been the news and they read his manifesto. But for the rest of the country, including people who also don't approve of our health care system, but who believe in the rule of law and who are pro-life in the real sense, (meaning people who believe in protecting innocent lives) Luigi Mangione is just another famous murderer in America. And unfortunately we've had too many famous murderers in America. 

You can follow me on Threads and Blue Sky.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

MIT Video Productions: 'Howard Zinn at MIT 2005 - The Myth of American Exceptionalism'

Source:MIT Video Productions- author/historian Howard Zinn at MIT.

"Howard Zinn (1922-2010) offers a talk at MIT titled “The Myth of American Exceptionalism,” on March 14, 2005. He is the inaugural lecturer in the series “Myths About America” organized by MIT’s Special Program for Urban and Regional Studies (SPURS), which is hosted at MIT’s Department of Urban Studies and Planning. He is introduced by Bish Sanyal, director of the SPURS/Hubert Humphrey Program. 

Howard Zinn is renowned as the author of “A People’s History of the United States” (1980). Historian, playwright and self-described democratic socialist, Zinn was chair of the history and social sciences department at Superman College, and political science professor at Boston University."

From MIT Video Productions

"Exceptionalism is the perception or belief that a species, country, society, institution, movement, individual, or time period is "exceptional" (i.e., unusual or extraordinary). The term carries the implication, whether or not specified, that the referent is superior in some way.

Although the idea appears to have developed with respect to an era, today it is particularly applied with respect to particular nations or regions.

Other uses of the term include medical and genetic exceptionalism." 

From Wikipedia

Howard Zinn said himself early in this lecture that America is not exceptional and implying that American exceptionalism is a myth. Well, if that's true, then America is not exceptionally good or bad, at least compared with any other country in the world. 

The definition of exceptionalism is, something that's exceptional, unusual, extraordinary. Those words are somewhat indifferent because they don't mean good or bad, they are just exceptional, unusual, or extraordinary. Someone or something, be exceptionally or unusually or extraordinary good or bad. You can have an exceptionally, or unusually, or  extraordinary bad car (or whatever the thing or person) or an exceptionally, or unusually, or extraordinary good car. 

The Far-Left, at least in America, (and Howard Zinn would be part of that faction) like to argue all the time that America is the real empire, Americans are the real terrorists, even during the Cold War, you had far-leftists in America arguing that America was the real evil empire, not Russia. But if you listen to Professor Zinn, America is not exceptionally good or bad, we're just like every other country. 

I'm not some hardcore American patriot, or some Nationalist, who really just loves his corner of the store, neck of the woods, his own people or tribe, etc, who claims to be an American patriot. But I do love America and think that America is not just a great country, but yes, the greatest country in the world. But for very good reasons. 

There's no country, that has produced more wealth and freedom, more individual rights and individualism, for more people, for more ethnic groups, for more races, for more men and women, for more religions, than America. 

Why do you think we have 10-15 illegal immigrants in America? The answer is very simple, because we have so many different people from different parts of the world, trying to come to America and in many cases don't want to or can't afford to await their turn to come to America and therefor immigrate to America illegally.And not just from the third world, but from Canada, Britain, Europe, Japan,, Korea, Middle East, etc.

You don't even see American far-leftists, trying to escape what they say us the evil empire and the real terrorist state in the world, (America, of course) and trying to get to Canada, Britain, Holland, or Scandinavia, even though all those countries speak English, at least as a 2nd language. And for very good reasons, because at least privately, they love America and don't even believe their own (to be frank) bullshit, but also because American far-leftists might be too crazy even for these social democracies. And that might even include the great Professor Howard Zinn. But what people say and believe publicly, doesn't always match up with what they say and believe privately.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Afro Marxist: 'Angela Davis on Cuba, Fidel Castro and the U.S Embargo'

Source:Afro Marxist- Professor and New-Left political activist Angela Davis, talking about Cuba.

"Angela Davis talks about her experiences in Cuba and her feelings about Fidel Castro. She discusses Cuban Americans and her opposition to the US embargo."

From Afro Marxist 

Just to give you a little background on Professor Angela Davis: she was one of the first early victims of political correctness in America. Not coming from the Far-Left, where of course Professor Davis was a self-described Communist up until the late 1970s or 80s, but coming from the Far-Right that literally wanted to put her in prison for being a Communist and someone who was a professor at the University of California Los Angeles in the late 1960s and 70s. California law enforcement tried to tie her to bank robberies that were going on back then, but had no real evidence against her. 

Professor Davis is essentially making the argument here that the problems with Cuba are America's fault, and not, gee I don't know, the Marxist-Communist regime in Cuba that's held back the Cuban people freedom for the last sixty years. 

I'm against the embargo against Cuba as well, but to argue that the embargo is what's holding back Cuba, when the rest of the developed world trades with Communist Cuba and has relations with Communist Cuba, is ludicrous. Besides, if the Communist system is a progressive as it's supposed to be (which of course it isn't) you think Cuba could overcome one embargo from one country.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Dan Mitchell: 'Communism Humor'

Source:Communist Party USA?- It’s a party, except you’re not allowed to leave. LOL

Source:The New Democrat

“Time to augment our growing collection of satire about the twin horrors of socialism and communism.

Today, we’ll concentrate on the latter form of totalitarianism and mock Marxism.”

Read more from Dan Mitchell

Source:Addman 619: Rodney Dangerfield- Yakov Smiroff: ‘Very Funny’- 

Yakov Smiroff, might be Rodney Dangerfield’s best friend when it comes to comedy.

If there is anyone in the world who should have a good idea what communism and socialism in general is like and how Communists and Socialists think, and is qualified to make fun of Communists and communism, it’s Jewish-Russian-American comedian Yakov Smiroff.

I could just close this piece out with Yakov Smiroff, but since I’m a blogger I sort of have a duty to weigh in on what I’m writing about here. So if that offends anyone, I apologize ( not really ) but you have like a million of other blog sites you could look at instead.

I guess my big joke about Communists and communism: when I think of party’s I think of get togethers where people get together at one of their friend’s homes or perhaps at a bar, restaurant, or club and they eat, have a good time, dance, etc, but they get to go home at the end of the party. ( Hopefully alive, conscience, and perhaps even sober )

But at a Communist Party, once you’re in, you’re all in ( to use a pop culture catch phrase ) and there’s no leaving without permission from the people who invited you. And to get that permission, you have to fill out an Everest mountain of paperwork. And you better have nothing else to do  for the next ten years ( like being forced to work at a communist work camp ) because that’s how long it will take you to finish all of that paperwork, just to apply to the Communist Party, about leaving their party.

Another way to make fun of Communists and communism is to look at like you would look at prisons. Except prisons are harder to make fun of because most of the people there are actually guilty. ( Despite what Socialists on their longest marijuana highs think ) But at a communist prison like North Korea for example, the only thing that the people there are guilty of , is wanting to leave the party ( meaning the country ) or at the very least have this dying, selfish need to want to actually make their own decisions in life. Who have the gaul and arrogance to want to actually control their own lives. And want access to information that’s not provided to them by the state.

Today’s Socialists like to say that there is no such thing as a Communist state and that these so-called communist states like the former Soviet Union, ( now Russian Federation ) People’s Republic of China, Cuba, North Korea, etc aren’t really communist states, but just totalitarian states. But what they always fail to mention or do is to define what communism actually is, how is it different from social democracy or democratic socialism. So if communism is not just total state-control of society, then what is it?

New York Magazine: Ed Kilgore: 'George McGovern Didn’t Lose in 1972 by Going Too Far Left. Neither Will 2020 Democrats'

Source:New York Magazine- George McGovern For President in 1972, was President Richard Nixon's early Christmas gift. And the Democratic Party's vacation in Hell.

"One of the most persistent arguments surrounding the 2020 presidential contest is that Democrats are heading “off the deep end” on a left-wing ideological bender that will mean disaster in the general election. The warning is very often associated with the specter of 1972 Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern, who lost 49 states four years after Hubert Humphrey lost by an eyelash and four years before Jimmy Carter won the presidency. The obsession with the idea that 1972 may repeat itself is a bipartisan phenomenon. Some McGovern Redux takes are from conservatives who are simply promoting the perennial claim that Democrats have become an anti-American cabal of baby-killing hippie socialists with a fresh urgency given the current extremism of the GOP. And some of these takes are (and have been for many years) from self-styled moderate Democrats grinding axes against self-consciously progressive aspirants to the presidential nomination."

Read more at New York Magazine

George McGovern's 1972 political platform from Wikipedia

"In the 1972 election, McGovern ran on a platform that advocated withdrawal from the Vietnam War in exchange for the return of American prisoners of war[15] and amnesty for draft evaders who had left the country,[16] an anti-war platform that was anticipated by McGovern's sponsorship of the 1970 McGovern-Hatfield amendment that sought to end U.S. participation in the war by Congressional action. However, during a meeting with Democratic Governors conference, Nevada Governor Mike O'Callaghan asked McGovern what he would do if the North Vietnamese refused to release American POW's after a withdrawal. McGovern responded, "Under such circumstances, we'd have to take action," although he did not say what action.[17]

"McGovern's platform also included an across-the-board, 37% reduction in defense spending over three years;[18] and a "demogrant" program that would replace the personal income tax exemption with a $1,000 tax credit as a minimum-income floor for every citizen in America,[19] to replace the welfare bureaucracy and complicated maze of existing public-assistance programs. Its concept was similar to the negative income tax long advocated by economist Milton Friedman, and by the Nixon administration in the form of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's Family Assistance Plan, which called for a minimum family grant of $1,600 per year, later raised to $2,400. The personal income tax exemption later became $1,000 under President Reagan. (As Senator, McGovern had previously sponsored a bill, submitted by the National Welfare Rights Organization, for $6,500 guaranteed minimum income per year to families, based on need.)[20] In addition, McGovern supported ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment."

Source:The Big Picture'- Maybe Thom Hartmann, really is Commie, since he works for President Vladimir Putin. LOL

From Thom Hartmann

"A lot of Hillary's supporters say they like Bernie Sanders - but that they're afraid that Sanders might lose the general in a landslide. But it's not 1972 - and Bernie Sanders isn't George McGovern."

I agree with Ed Kilgore on one thing: Senator George McGovern wasn't as Far-Left as people believed. Which is like saying that Pat Buchanan, isn't as Far-Right as people might think. Or it's not as hot in Arizona in the summer as some people might think. It's only 120 degrees in the summer, instead 130 and besides: it's a dry heat and there's no humidity. That's still very hot compared with most of the rest of the country that's dealing with temperatures in the 80s and 90s, 70s in the Northwest and even 60s because of all their damn rain. And Pat Buchanan is still pretty Far-Right, especially since now he's arguing that maybe President Vladimir Putin is right about liberal democracy dying.

Senator George McGovern before being elected to Congress, served as a fighter pilot during World War II. And then ran the food program that served hungry people in the Kennedy Administration. Growing up in South Dakota he was devoutly religious and remained that way his whole life. He wasn't some hippie pacifist Socialist that believed that America was the real evil empire and that Fidel Castro and Russia were the good guys. He knew that they were bad people that had to be dealt with.

But when you give speeches on the Senate floor arguing that American soldiers were the real war criminals during the Vietnam War and you have a new social program and tax increase to solve all of Americans problems for them and you continually bash American businesses that hire all of these American voters that depend on these companies for their jobs and lifestyles, that puts you on the Far-Left in America.

Especially in 1972 with the emergence of the New-Left in America ( Socialists and Communists, not Liberals ) in the late 1960s and early 70s. And then you have these group of middle-American voters ( that the Far-Left likes to just put down as blue-collar, small town white people ) who represent a large chunk of the American electorate, who are not wealthy, who work hard to make a good living in America and if anything think that they're already overtaxed and that government is already trying to do too much for them, who are people who are just looking for an opportunity to make more money and be successful, who are proud of the American military and think that America is a great country, you're going to look extreme to these voters. Whether you're George McGovern in 1972, or Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren in 2019-20.

Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and other Far-Leftists ( or Democratic Socialists ) and their supporters will argue that America has changed and that minorities are now a bigger part of the American electorate and you now even have young Caucasian-American voters who aren't afraid of socialism and Socialists and even like Socialists and socialism, but here's the problem with that argument: minorities whether they're African-American, Latino, Middle-Eastern, Asian, Jewish., whatever racial or ethnic background, they're not monolithic as voters.

None of these racial and ethnic groups are monolithic as voters. Just because you're a minority doesn't mean you're left-wing and all Caucasians are right-wing. Not even all middle age and older Caucasian voters are on the Right. Caucasian voters regardless of ethnicity aren't monolithic as voters either. And the other problem that left-wing in the Democratic Party has is that the group of voters that they're targeting are the least reliable as far as people who go to the polls and who vote. Young voters of all ethnic racial backgrounds.

For a Democrat to win the presidency in 2020, they still have to be able to win big states in the Midwest and probably even Florida in the South, if they lose Ohio again. You can't run a Democratic presidential campaign in 2020 thinking you only need women regardless of race, young voters regardless of race, minorities. And you can't win the minority vote and get new minority voters to the polls, by thinking they're automatically going to show up and vote for you, because of President Donald Trump. You have to reach out to them and get them to the polls yourself and appeal to them for their votes.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Dan Mitchell: 'Socialism Humor'

Source:International Liberty- Apparently you're not allowed to make fun of Socialists, unless everyone can afford to get the joke. LOL

Source:The New Democrat

“Given the misery that it has inflicted on the world, it’s just about impossible to think of socialism as a gift.

However, when I want new material for my humor collection, I think of socialism as the gift that keeps on giving. The ideology is such a failure that it creates a target-rich environment for satire.”

Read the rest of Dan Mitchell's Piece piece

Source:The Late Show With Stephen Colbert: 'Democratic Socialist Ideas Are Mainstream'- I’ll give Bernie credit for one thing: he believes what he says.

 “Senator Sanders shrugs off Colbert’s suggestion that the word “socialist” taints progressive ideas like universal healthcare and tuition-free college.”

To make fun of Socialists and socialism is pretty easy: you imagine a bunch of people, especially college age people and people just outside of college, as well as 1960s hippies who still think they’re cool, because even though they now have gray hair, they have goatees or beards, as well as long hair ( because no barber in their right mind will cut their hair for free, just because some Socialist believes that all hair cuts should be free ) who promise the world to everyone. And of course there are young women and aging female hippies in this clan as well. And they claim that there isn’t any problem that government can’t solve for them. Well, at least until they run out of someone else’s money, or no other country will lend money to them. ( To paraphrase former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher )

These young and older Socialists go around the country bashing what they see as an evil, immoral, and racist economic system ( that sane, intelligent just know as American capitalism ) with their designer clothes, smartphones. And when they’re not bashing American capitalism, they’re rallying against Halloween or Thanksgiving, or protesting against free speech.

They go around the country bashing an economic system, that produced their designer clothes, Che Guevara t-shirts, smartphones and their other favorite devices, that they’re all addicted too. Over caffeinated and addicted to coffee, because they spend too much of their free time at coffee houses.

Bashing an economic system that produces everything that they love in life, because a 70 plus year old man, with a Brooklyn-Jewish accent says that all of these things in life like college and health care can be free. Without explaining one important catch: just as long as there is always someone around who will pay for all of this so-called free stuff. Or there is some third-world authoritarian regime that will lend us the money to pay for the so-called free stuff, that their own citizens won’t pay for, because they believe they shouldn’t have to pay for services that they receive.

See, making fun of Socialists and socialism is very easy: just imagine young people who are overly romantic and idealist, who simply don’t have enough experience in life yet to understand economics, as well as government and politics, because they don’t have that real world experience yet. As well as being the latest victims of the American education system. Or perhaps they were too busy texting their classmates in class and trying to figure out what Kim Kardashian had for breakfast in Malibu and what shoes she was wearing with her new bag, to actually learn about economics, as well as government and politics.

Buffalo Wing Media Bias: Adam Carolla: 'On Hypocrites From The Hollywood Left'

"

Source:Buffalo Wings Media Bias- Actress Jennifer Aniston First Lady Michelle Obama, probably at some posh event in Hollywood. 

"Comedian Adam Carolla exposes Hollywood's hypocrisy, mainly in the area of taxes and money. When it comes to paying your "fair" share, apparently we should do as they say, not as they do.

Here are a few links to articles referenced in the video:"

From Buffalo Wings Media Bias

Source:POLITICO- "The new Hollywood left"

Adam Carolla who is a libertarian comedian, laid out perfectly what the so-called Hollywood-Left in America really is and what they're really about, which is just a bunch of disingenuous Hollywood hypocrites. If they were a softball team, they would be called the Hollywood Hypocrites with a picture of Che Guevara on their t-shirts, arriving to their ballgames in their limos, Rolls Royces, private jets, smoking their Cuban cigars, drinking Champagne instead of Gatorade at their games. Claiming to be down for the cause and against the man. ( Even though a lot of them are the man  or woman )

It's one thing for Joe and Sally Jones or someone else in Smithville, Ohio ( or some place ) who only has a high school diploma, but who is an excellent construction or factory worker who was making before they were laid off or saw their job go to Mexico or some other low-wage country, 50-60 thousand-dollars a year with benefits, to now be talking about the flaws of American capitalism, because they were screwed out of their job and perhaps are now working two part-time jobs or one full-time and a part-time job, or perhaps three part-time jobs just to make a living. That guy or woman has a real case to make, because they just lost their good job in an economic system that does so well for so many people.

But if you're a multi-millionaire by the time you were in your late 20s, mid 20s, hell, you had your own damn corporation by the time you finished high school or were a child actor and now you have the balls to be talking about how much American capitalism sucks and the rich get away with everything, while the little man, woman, and minorities are getting screwed by the system. Well, aren't you part of the so-called problem that you say you want to correct?

These full-time entertainers and at best part-time activists and to be more accurate they're more like actors who play political activists, talk about how much they think American capitalism sucks, while they enjoy every benefit that comes from never having to worry about money ( just as long as they or their accountant doesn't piss their money away )  and enjoy the life ( as they would call it ) in Manhattan or Los Angeles, while talk about the horrors of homelessness, while they own multiple apartments and houses in multiple cities, in places where you have to be rich just to be able to afford the parking there.

If these Hollywood entertainers really care about the social problems of the country, why don't they donate a lot of their money to charities to other groups ( not politicians and candidates ) to fix those problems. Set up foundations to deal with poverty, instead of just looking good on TV in some TV spot talking about them. If they think the rich are really getting away with financial murder in America, then maybe they should release their own taxes and we can see how much they pay in taxes each year, how much they deduct from their taxes, what percentage of their multi-million-dollar annual incomes that they donate to charity. Don't just put your money with your big, fat, mouth is, but put a lot of your money and actually back up what you say. Instead of letting your mouth write checks that your ass can't or won't cash.

New York and Hollywood get stereotyped as left-wing ( if not Far-Left towns ) but they're not. If you had to find the two most pro-capitalist, pro-liberal democracy, pro-American towns and states in America it would probably be New York City and Los Angeles, and New York State and California. Which might sound like someone saying that Seattle, Washington is the capital of sunburns in America. Or no other city gets more blizzards and snow than Miami, Florida.

But think about it: New York City is the capital of Corporate America and therefor American capitalism. Washington, another supposed left-wing or Far-Left city, is the capital of the free world and liberal democracy. Los Angeles, is not just the movie and TV capital of America ( if not the world ) but the entertainment capital of America. ( If not the world ) If these three big American cities are so Far-Left, pro-socialist, and anti-capitalist, then why the hell are they so damn rich and own so many big companies? Why would someone want to do business in a city that hates capitalism and wealth? Of course they wouldn't, because they would either get taxed or regulated out-of-business, or both.

So, can we stop taking the average run of the mill actor or so-called celebrity seriously, or any actor or entertainer at least when they're talking about American capitalism and how unfair they claim that it is and that the rich get all the breaks, while the little man and woman continually get screwed by the system.

Actors and entertainers are just that and I'm not trying to be insulting here, but their profession is a convenient tool to use against them when they claim that the rich has too much. If they really think they're overpaid, then they're more than welcome to donate a lot of their money to their favorite ( if they have one or do any business at all with any charity ) charity and give up all of their extra homes, fly first class instead of having their own plane, eat their meals at delis and dinners, instead of their favorite posh restaurant in Washington, New York, or Los Angeles.

But until then ( and it finally stops raining in Seattle and they run out of coffee on the same day ) we should take these actors and entertainers only as seriously as they deserve to be taken: which is as actors and entertainers who play a part, because they want to be seen as cool with young people who probably do like socialism and perhaps identify as Socialists. And perhaps because their favorite celebrities claim to hate capitalism and the rich as well. 

The Beacon: Ben Wilterdink- 'How to Talk to Millennials About Socialism'

Source:The Beacon- Tell Millennials that their laptops and smartphones, could become too damn expensive, if Socialists were ever in charge. 

"By now it is largely considered common knowledge that American Millennials are more enamored with socialism than previous generations. While cutoff points vary, Millennials are most commonly understood as the generation of those born between 1981 and 1996—meaning that, as of 2019, Millennials range in age from as old as 38 to as young as 23. Poll after poll has found that this generation is increasingly skeptical of capitalism and more open to trying socialism. While those headline findings don’t quite present a full and accurate picture of what’s going on, the trend is concerning, and should spur those of us who value a system of government that recognizes individual rights, human dignity, and the power of mutually beneficial voluntary exchange to be ready to defend those principles in the public square."

Read more at The Beacon 

"Jaboukie Young-White talks to young people and Senator Bernie Sanders to find out why socialism isn’t the taboo it once was."

Source:The Daily Show- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democrat Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) and Jaboukie White, a young dude who doesn’t know how the real world works.

From The Daily Show

To make a more serious point, first: I believe Millennials are now embracing Socialists and socialism, is because they believe that they're being screwed by American capitalism and for good reasons ( and perhaps don't like liberal democracy either ) and know enough about politics and economics to think that socialism, is the natural alternative to capitalism. So instead of so many Americans getting screwed by private enterprises, they expect Uncle Sam ( or Uncle Bernie Sanders ) to come in and provide for them the services and even income that traditionally was provided for by American private enterprise.

Now how to talk about socialism and explain why socialism isn't good for Millennials.

What do stereotypical Millennials ( at least ) value in America?

When you think of Millennials at least socially ( not socialist, necessarily ) you think of their love for new-technology, social media, celebrity culture, what's called reality TV, Hollywood, high-end fashion, etc. Explain to them how all of those things would go away if Uncle Sammy or Uncle Bernie would then become in charge of all of those products.

What drives American capitalism and private enterprise: innovation, talent, intelligence, and competition. You have an idea and product that others want that's affordable and you know how to market it, you'll do very well in America. You put Uncle Sam or Uncle Bernie, or Aunt Liz in charge of those products or at the very least allow them to tax the hell out of those companies and services that Millennials cherish so much, you'll get fewer of those products and they'll become more expensive as well to try to compete with all the new taxes and regulations, assuming they're able to even stay in business after Uncle Bernie and Aunt Liz are done with them.

You think 7-10 bucks for a cup of coffee is too much, put Big Government in charge of it and get use to paying 10-15 bucks for a cup of coffee. Government doesn't need to innovate, it sure as hell doesn't want competition, and doesn't even need intelligence to stay in business. Just taxpayers or foreign countries that are willing to lend them money.   

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Politics of Writing: ‘The Failures of Masculinity’

Source:Order of Man- “10 Steps to Reclaiming Masculinity”

Source:The New Democrat

“There are few things in society that can be perpetuated that are so plainly false yet never have their merits questioned. The concept of masculinity is one of these things. It can take many forms, not just as a mindset but also through actions in our daily lives. Masculinity is believing that men need big muscles, hair on their chest, never to show emotions – and especially – never to cry. It is a repressive force that keeps men at a standstill, keeps women in a nuclear home holding cell, and adds absurd amounts of anger to the world we live in. First, once we fully understand the roots and causes of masculinity it will be easier to tear it down and place a functional belief set in its place.”

Read the rest at The Politics of Writing

Source:BBC News: HardTalk- Stephen Sackur Interviewing Jordan Peterson: ‘On The Backlash Against Masculinity’- Jordan Peterson: standing for masculinity? 

“The Canadian psychologist Jordan B Peterson says there is a “backlash” against masculinity and “a sense there is something toxic about masculinity”.
He told Hardtalk’s Stephen Sackur: “There are biological differences between men and women that express themselves in temperament and in occupational choice and that any attempt to enforce equality of outcomes is unwarranted and ill advised as a consequence.”
Mr Peterson is a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto and author of 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote for Chaos.”

Reading this piece from The Politics of Writing, I get the sense that if Socialists were ever in charge in America ( especially Radical Feminists or Marxist-Feminists ) straight men and male heterosexuality, would essentially be outlawed. That America would be nothing but straight women, dykes, ( butch lesbians ) and openly gay men. ( Or queens ) That it essentially would be illegal to be a straight man. It would be illegal for men to be butch or masculine, we would be forced to give up our deep voices and everything else that makes us straight and masculine.

And it wouldn’t just be the way that straight men present themselves in public that could become illegal ( if Marxist-Feminists ever came to power in America ) everything that we’re into as guys would be gone, or at least outlawed. Football, boxing, pro wrestling, ultimate fighter, poker nights, auto racing, car shows, sports bars, action movies, even checking out women in public without first getting their permission to check them out would be considered illegal. But of course ice skating, ice dancing, tennis, and soccer ( the official sport of socialism ) would remain legal in America. That it would essentially be illegal for American men to be guys if Socialists and Marxists-Feminists ever came to power in America.

I also get the sense at The Politics of Writing that author of that piece believes that it’s not just straight men that are the problem, but what he calls white straight men that are the problem and represent everything that’s wrong not just with America, but with the world as well. That they’re the cause of all the violence and bigotry in the world, including sexism.

I don’t doubt that there are sexist, bigoted, even violent men in this group of men that he calls straight white men, but to claim that there the only reasons for these problems in society, you would have to forget not just about a lot of other men in America, but around the world as well. And women as well who commit violent crimes and even become terrorists of all races and ethnicities.

If you think all violent men in America or in any other country are purely of European ancestry, to quote the heavy metal band Judas Priest: “you have another thing coming.” Have you’ve ever been to, read about, watched and news piece about the Middle East, Africa, Central America? You seriously don’t believe that those countries don’t have their own share of violence and bigotry, that comes from straight, masculine men?

In a lot of Middle Eastern countries men aren’t just considered superior to women, but are superior to women under their laws. Saudi Arabia and Iran which are both officially Islamic states that are governed by a fundamentalist, warped view of Islam, where women under law in those countries aren’t just considered inferior to women, but are considered to be servants and even property of men.

In a lot of African, Middle Eastern, and South Asian countries, homosexuality is still illegal under law and punishable by death. But we don’t hear about what Radical Feminists call excessive masculinity and male straightness coming from those places, because the men in those countries aren’t European or Protestant. It’s just flat-out racism that comes from people who claim to be anti-fascists and anti-racists.

If you want to talk about violent men or violence and bigotry coming from anyone, then cover all of your bases. Or at the very least don’t deny or ignore the evidence and facts that contradicts your partisan ( if not racist ) argument that all the violence in the world just comes from straight European-American-Protestant men. That’s assuming that you want to be taken seriously by anyone who isn’t already a member of your partisan clan. Radical Feminists or Marxist-Feminists are radicals for one very good reason: they’re not very popular. Similar to how people on the Far-Right who are called White-Nationalists, aren’t popular, which is why they’re radical. They’re both out of the mainstream in most societies.

CNBC: ‘Why Democratic Socialism Is Gaining Popularity In The United States’

Source:CNBC- with a look at socialism in America.

“Socialism used to be a scary word in the U.S., but presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders and freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have helped to catapult it back into mainstream American politics. In the latest explainer from CNBC we try to answer what socialism means to different parts of the political spectrum and whether it’s fad or the future of politics in America.” 

From CNBC 

This is the perfect question to be asking and debating, because it goes to the heart of a big debate America has debated as a country for at least forty-five years. With the creation of the Great Society, to President Richard Nixon’s Federalist approach to domestic issues. To get government power out of Washington and back to the states. To President Jimmy Carter’s New Democratic approach to get more power back to the people. And of course the debate just getting bigger with President Reagan, President Clinton and of course today with President Obama. That is why do we have a government and different levels of government and what is it exactly do we need, not want government to do for us in a civilized society.

Why do we have a government and what we need it to do. Depends on who you ask anywhere from Socialists on the Far-Left let’s say who have the biggest role for government and tend to have programs and taxes that are designed to solve all of our problems for us. To Libertarians who aren’t quite Far-Right, but have the smallest role for government for us. To Liberals and Conservatives who are somewhere in the middle. But with different roles for government in our lives and what we need to pay in taxes. 

My role for government as a Liberal I believe is pretty simple. To do for us what we can’t as people do for ourselves, or do as well for ourselves. The obvious things being law enforcement, national security, foreign policy, smart regulation of the economy. But not running the economy which is different. A public education system, but not an education monopoly for the broader public. These are a few examples but my role for government doesn’t get much bigger than this. 

My basic idea for government is to protect and expand freedom that individuals have to run their, or govern even their own lives, not to take someone else’s freedom from them. But to be able to manage their own economic and personal affairs. So for people who do not have freedom, but need it and deserve it, help them help themselves so they have the freedom to take care of themselves. And to protect freedom for those who already have it and still deserve that freedom. 

I’m not anti-government even at the federal level and not pro-government at any level. But the role of government is to protect and expand freedom. That also includes protecting workers and consumers from predators with smart regulations. But again not designed to run companies, but to protect people from those in companies who would hurt us. Only having the government that we need and not the government that we want. Which are different things. 

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on WordPress.

People's World: Rosana Cameron: 'Call Me a Communist'

Source:People's World- A rally for Communists?

"As an activist in my early 20s, I didn’t know much about what communism really was; all I’d heard was they were bad people that could hurt you and your loved ones. Being active in the Chicano student movement, I came across a member of MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicanx de Aztlán) who mentioned to me that the Communist Party USA was giving a class on Marxism and asked if I was interested in going.

On the first day, the teacher talked about why there were rich and poor people. He said the reason there were poor people is because those that own the manufacturing companies, businesses, and natural resources (the “means of production,” as I learned that afternoon) took advantage of those that worked for them by paying low wages while making lots of money selling the products workers made. As a simple example, he explained how it might cost a company $0.50 to make a pair of shoes, but it would then turn around and sell the pair for two, three, or more times that much. The raw materials were infused with the labor power of the workers to create new value. That new value was the source of profit. “That makes sense,” I thought to myself."

Read more of Rosana Cameron's piece at People's World

Source:Now This World: Jules Suzdaltsev- 'Communism vs. Socialism: What's The Difference?'- Seriously, what's the difference? No for real, I really want to know. 

"There's a lot of confusion surrounding the terms Communism and Socialism. The two are often used interchangeably, even by entire governments and political leaders, but they are not the same at all! So what’s the difference? Find out in this quick explainer!"

I'm going to respond to both Rosana Cameron and Jules Suzdaltsey about their interpretations of communism and then talk about what I think about both of those definitions.

According to Rosana Cameron, she's a Communist because she's seen how the rich hurt the poor and how they've been allowed to have so much, while the poor have so little and that the state should own the means of production to correct what she calls that injustice.

According to Jules Suzdaletsey, we've never had a communist state anywhere in the world. Even though Russia ( when it was the Soviet Union ) was controlled by the Communist Party with no opposition parties. China, ( as the People's Republic ) is controlled by the Communist Party. Cuba, since 1959 has been controlled by the Communist Party and I could go on.

He also said that these countries that are supposedly run by Communists, are really socialist states where the state is in control of everything. But if you listen to Bernie Sanders and Alexandria O. Cortez today, ( two self-described Democratic Socialist members of Congress ) their vision of socialism is very democratic and not authoritarian at all. Where the state would be in control of the wealth in society to be used to make sure that everyone has the basic necessities in life.

So are Socialists authoritarian or not and if they are and it's really the Communists that are accountable to the people, then how come Democratic Socialists don't call themselves Communists? How come all of these so-called communist states don't just call themselves socialist states, instead of communist states? There's a major contradiction there.

This is one reason ( and just one ) why Socialists and Communists have always represented the Far-Left in America and a lot of the developed, democratic, Western world, along with the fact that people in these countries tend to like their freedom and like having money and not living in deep poverty, but that Socialists have always had a hard time explaining what they actually believe and what it means to be a Socialist.

Which is why you basically now have these two competing wings in the socialist movement in America where the so-called democratic wing of the socialist movement are called Democratic Socialists, ( at least by the people who have the balls to call themselves Socialists, not Progressives or Liberals ) with Communists still trying to figure out where to they go from here. They no longer seem interested in overthrowing the U.S. Government and Constitution through revolutionary force and replacing our liberal democracy with a socialist state, but they're not ready to completely get in bed with the Bernie Sanders of the world and call themselves Democratic Socialists either.

Just once I would like to hear an actual Communist come out of the closet ( so to speak ) and say: "damn right, I'm a Communist and this is why." And then explain how communism is different from what's called democratic socialism and how Communists are different from Democratic Socialists. We're now at a point politically in America ( thanks to the Millennial Generation ) where politicians, especially young politicians ( depending on where they live ) can admit and self-describe their politics as Socialist, ( or Democratic Socialist ) with those politicians going out-of-their-way to make to clear that they're Democratic Socialists and not Communists, but we still don't hear any politicians or well-known leftist political activists calling themselves Communists.