In a world where nothing is sacred and a very privileged group of people search high and low for things that will offend them, one Washington Post columnist named Dan Hassler-Forest will find one of Disney’s beloved classics, “The Lion King”, to be nothing more than fascistic propaganda meant to brainwash your children into believing people are different and there are people who are better than you.
 
Seriously, does the Left ever take a break in looking for things to be offended by? There just about isn’t anything in this world that they don’t find some sort of offense to. Be it the flag, people’s names, people’s actions, or even a Disney movie from 1994 about THE ANIMAL KINGDOM.
 
Hassler-Forest likely has seen that Disney, who are likely running out of original ideas, is soon going to release a live-action remake of the beloved classic “The Lion King”, starring Donald Glover and Beyonce as Simba and Nala respectively and finds the entire concept of a “lion king” to be akin to fascistic rule.
 
The title of his piece is: “’The Lion King’ is a fascistic story. No remake can change that.” So right off the bat this guy sounds super triggered (offended/annoyed, for the non-Millennials out there). His subhead reads: “No matter how you look at it, this is a film that introduces us to a society where the weak have learned to worship at the feet of the strong.”
 
And the actual body of the article isn’t much better. He writes: “… But as nostalgic as ‘Circle of Life’ may make us feel, this bombastic scene is also a painful reminder of the film’s ideological agenda: It introduces us to a society where the weak have learned to worship at the feet of the strong.”
 
“As we watch the herbivores congregate to bow down before their newborn ruler, ‘The Lion King’ offers us a seductive worldview in which absolute power goes unquestioned, and where the weak and the vulnerable are fundamentally inferior. In other words: ‘The Lion King’ offers us fascist ideology writ large, and there seems to be no way out for the forthcoming remake.”
 
Gee, I wonder why a movie about the animal kingdom depicts a “society” where the strong rule and the weak die. Hmmm.
 
Later down the article, Hassler-Forest attacks Disney as being “obsessed” with patriarchal monarchies and compares Pride Rock to Trump Tower, what he views as a symbol of power that looks down on “society’s weaker groups”.
 
But beyond the “class warfare” that he believes is seen throughout the movie, the out-of-his-mind Leftist also has to bring in racism into the mix, because we cannot go a single day without being reminded with a hammer that racism exists and white people are bad (and virtually no one on the Left will recognize the irony of such a statement).
 
“With the lions standing in for the ruling class and the ‘good’ herbivores embodying society’s decent, law-abiding citizens, the hyenas transparently represent the black, brown, and disabled bodies that are forcefully excluded from this fascist society. Noticeably marked by their ethnically coded ‘street’ accents, the hyenas blatantly symbolize racist and anti-Semitic stereotypes of ‘verminous’ groups that form an inherent threat to society.”
 
Yes, the hyenas who are very clearly mentally unstable and side with the only actual representation of a fascist ruler in the entire movie, Scar, are the victims in all of this.
 
I wonder what this guy thinks of mental asylums, then. Does that represent a fascistic rule in any country that has them (aka all of them)?
 
But beyond that, I wonder what he would think of, oh, I don’t know, THE ACTUAL ANIMAL KINGDOM WHERE THE STRONG SURVIVE AND THE WEAK DIE!
 
The biggest irony, in my opinion, regarding this garbage and unnecessary hit-piece on the movie is that they try and paint Mufasa, an honestly benevolent ruler who seeks balance and equality in his kingdom and who obviously cares about his subjects, as the bad guy just because he is a ruler in the first place.
 
Does he not know that in reality, lions hunt every single day? And that those herbivores are literally a lion’s meal every day? Does he not know that lions are carnivores, as in they will eat meat? And it’s not like they can just go to their local Chick-fil-a. They have to hunt those other animals themselves, so to say Mufasa is in any way a bad guy is asinine, to say the least.
 
Look, I’m not a big fan of Disney, certainly not anymore. Considering their often Left-wing tendencies and their attempt to follow the woke crowd by putting LGBT characters in their recent film, I’m not going to be their biggest defender. But when it comes to utterly idiotic arguments like the ones being made by this MSM writer, what else can I do?
 
This just goes to show how out of touch with reality these people are. Even beyond trying to defend the movie, I’m trying to defend REALITY. Because in reality, the lions are far more fierce and ruthless than Mufasa and Simba and every other lion in the pride.
 
In reality, all the herbivores that “worship” at the feet of the Lion King, be it Mufasa, Simba or Scar, are nothing more than lions’ lunch. Why? Because that’s how NATURE works. For a group of people that tend to believe in the theory of evolution over creation, they often have a problem with the concept of natural selection, wherein superior species thrive over inferior ones.
 
Lions are predators and zebras (and other animals lions eat) are prey. That indicates natural superiority. Lions have sharp teeth and nails, a powerful bite, and great speed and natural camo to hunt and kill their prey. As a result, they are physically superior to, say, zebras, who are herbivores and have no actual defense mechanism against predators apart from speed and numbers.
 
Watch any nature documentary of a lion hunting something and what you will notice each and every time is the prey being in massive numbers to ensure their own safety and will always run away from their predator. That’s not fascism; it’s nature.
 
But one big final point I wish to make is just how awful such a constant use of the word “fascist” is for the actual meaning of the word. People like Hassler-Forest have no actual idea as to what that word means if they think THE LION KING is about fascism.
 
Fascism is virtually no different from socialism and communism. Benito Mussolini simply said that fascism was a more “perfect” or “advanced” form of communism (though I don’t see how it’s in any way different, let alone more “advanced”). Just because there is a hierarchy that doesn’t automatically mean there is fascism at play.
 
There is a hierarchy in just about everything. Companies are hierarchical. Churches are hierarchical. Sports teams are hierarchical. Even friend groups are usually hierarchical, with at least one clear leader. Order is not the same thing as fascism.
 
And the constant butchering of the word to define anything someone doesn’t like utterly takes away any meaning of the word to the point it becomes passé. When someone says that something that isn’t fascistic is fascistic, I can’t help but roll my eyes at the sheer stupidity of such an argument.
 
But the saddest part may come in the actual individual. The Lion King’s live-action remake will come out some time in late July. It’s virtually no different from the original which, as I’ve said before, is a beloved classic. For someone to get themselves to write something so stupid and negative about a CHILDREN’S MOVIE THAT DEPICTS THE ANIMAL KINGDOM TO CERTAIN EXTENTS is indicative of an individual who really cannot find any sort of pleasure in life.
 
People like him, those who seek for the negative things of everything, and even go so far as to make stuff up and demonstrate outrage (be it fake or real), are people who are devoid of joy, and that’s truly sad.
 
Hassler-Forest isn’t nuanced for “pointing out fascistic tendencies” in a children’s movie that came out 25 year ago. He is sad for going to such lengths as to not find joy in a beloved children’s movie and seek to ruin the fun for everyone else by smearing it as some sort of fascistic propaganda.
 
And while I often say that everyone needs Jesus, it’s people like him that need Him a good deal. Not being able to enjoy a children’s movie and then writing an entire article on a major “news” site giving his opinion about how it’s some sort of fascistic dream so that other people might think negatively of the movie as he does is outright depressing, bordering on sociopathic.
 
I would hate to live my life devoid of joy and seeking to ruin the fun for others just because I myself am incapable of finding joy. And again, it’s people like him that really need the Lord.
 
There really is absolutely no reason to smear a CHILDREN’S MOVIE in this way, especially if the movie doesn’t deserve it. What “The Lion King” represents is a sort of anthropomorphized society in the animal kingdom where there is a lion monarch who rules his kingdom as any human would. A story of a grown lion king teaching his new son, the prince who will be king one day, how to rule his kingdom once he comes of age and becomes the head of the pride. A story where said prince witnesses his father’s demise and an evil (and actually fascistic) ruler who couldn’t care less about himself literally deprives that kingdom of life in his short rule until he is toppled by a now-grown prince, who had escaped the kingdom fearing for his own life.
 
Apart from the time that Scar, the literal bad guy of the story, rules the kingdom, you’d be hard-pressed to find any semblance of actual fascism in the story. Because there really is none, but that certainly didn’t keep this guy from attempting to find some sort of connection to it and display to the world just how much he doesn’t like fascism (though I’m willing to bet he describes himself as socialist and will not understand that there’s no difference between the two).
 
To make a long article short: no, “The Lion King” is not fascistic propaganda. It’s just a monarchy displayed using animals. No need to take the joy out of everything, woke Leftists.
 
Proverbs 1:7
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Over the weekend, the ever-so tolerant city of Portland, Oregon was marred by riots from angsty Antifa terrorists pretending to fight the “far-right” while employing similar tactics used by Nazi Brown Shirts in 1930s Germany.
 
In the riots, a number of people were assaulted by members of the hateful group, including journalist Andy Ngo (who is gay, but that doesn’t matter to the Left if he is a conservative) and other men who all had to go to the ER.
 
Ngo had to be treated for a brain hemorrhage and the other men (who were taking part of a Him Too demonstration, a demonstration to support men who are victims of sexual assault and falsely accused of sexual assault) were also left bleeding.
 
According to Portland Police, Ngo was beaten and milkshake laced with quick-dry cement was thrown at him. The other men were beaten with a crowbar, nun-chucks and other things apart from being outright punched.
 
Meanwhile, not one Democrat candidate has come out to condemn the violence of Antifa (likely because they approve of it) and hardly any MSM source has condemned it, with CNN hardly covering it at all.
 
This is far from the first time Antifa has gotten violent against anyone they perceived to be “Alt-Right” aka anyone they even somewhat disagree with. According to Breitbart News, Antifa has beaten 15 other journalists apart from Ngo in the past. This, of course, doesn’t include the people they generally disagreed with who are not journalists whom they chose to assault (just a few months ago, they beat up an elderly man after dragging him out of his vehicle).
 
And throughout all of it, despite their outright terroristic actions, the media stays quiet at best and outright PRAISES them at worst, with comments like “what they are doing is right” or “they are angels” or “they are just like the soldiers at Normandy” often being said by members of the fake news media.
 
These people are NOT doing what is right, are DEMONS and definitely are like the soldiers at Normandy – the Nazi soldiers, that is.
 
These people are downright terrorists. Now, I know what some disturbed individual might say: “how can you say they are terrorists? They haven’t killed anyone yet!” They were beating people up with weapons, hitting them upside the head and causing severe damage. If they haven’t killed anyone yet, it hasn’t come from lack of trying.
 
Besides, is that really the threshold necessary to designate a group as terrorists? We have to wait until someone loses their life over this before we can say these people are terrorists?
 
Think about what they are doing: gathering in massive groups, destroying property and generally terrorizing the populace, making threats and often coming through on those threats of violence. They may not be terrorists like ISIS, but they are terrorists like the KKK, who terrorized black people after slavery was abolished.
 
It’s also rather ironic to me that Antifa is also predominantly white, like the KKK before them. Antifa is the Left’s new military arm.
 
If there ever is to be another civil war in America, it’ll be because of these masked cowards pretending to fight what they actually are. Their actions, as I have said multiple times, are the same ones taken by actual fascists in the 20th century. These people are as much anti-fascist as Obama was a Republican. That is to say – not at all.
 
Being anti-fascist means being against big government. These people LOVE big government, particularly when it has the power to shut down those who oppose it. The only reason they say they are against fascism is because the education system has, for half a century, indoctrinated people into believing fascism was big government on the Right. Big government is very strictly a Left-wing pursuit. There is no real difference between fascism, socialism and communism. I would use the analogy of them being different sides of the same coin, but coins are only two-sided, so that doesn’t quite work as well, but the point remains: they are all basically the same.
 
One thing that has always puzzled me is how people can claim communism or socialism is in any way different or better than Nazism was. Nazis WERE SOCIALISTS! Not that you would know this from learning in school.
 
But something people would try and say to argue my point about communism, socialism and fascism being the same is that the Soviets fought the Nazis in World War II, so they obviously have to be different. Not true.
 
That conflict wasn’t a conflict of ideology but of interest. The Soviets were largely fine with the Nazis, even helping them get rid of Jews in Soviet territory, and only turned on each other once Hitler made the moronic decision of invading Russia. The two sides believed in the same, government-dominant ideologies but wanted their own countries to dominate the world. That is where the conflict lied.
 
So those who are supportive of big government, particularly to such extents, find themselves with more in common with Stalin and Hitler than they do with anyone else. This very much includes those who are delusional enough to consider their fascist actions to be in any way its antithesis.
 
And considering the way things are going right now, it’s only bound to get worse unless something gets done about this. Do we really have to wait until these people actually kill someone before designating them what we KNOW they are? Or are we just going to wait until an actual civil war begins? Are we going to wait until they’ve pushed people around long enough to actually being some sort of war?
 
These people may have the right to believe what they believe, but they most certainly do NOT have the right to partake in the actions that they are. And it sickens me that the mainstream media will hardly cover it, barely condemn it and sometimes even CHEER them on as they destroy people’s lives. It sickens me, though not necessarily surprises me, that not a single Democrat candidate looked at what happened in Portland (and it often happens in that God-forsaken city that I am definitely glad I left years ago) and not think of what happened as an absolutely reprehensible act.
 
Again, I do not see things getting better with these people. There may be a few people here and there who look at what they are doing, reflect on it, and decide to leave. That’s certainly possible, but this problem will not go away on its own. They are adamant about destroying an enemy that does not really exist. With their enemy so poorly defined as “Alt-Right”, literally anyone can be their enemy. Anyone who disagrees with them becomes their enemy and find that a justifiable enough reason to attack them. This includes even Democrats who disagree with them. And they won’t stop until their enemy is eliminated or they are.
 
This is, among many other reasons, why Antifa must be designated a domestic terrorist group and treated as such. They are not “fine Americans” and “angels” who are “fighting for good”. They are what Hitler and Stalin would’ve loved to see in the United States: fascist revolutionaries who will only escalate things as time goes on.
 
Isaiah 5:20
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

For some time, I’ve been one to point out the dangers of globalism essentially being a more Trotsky-like version of communism, where the point is not to attach oneself to an individual nation-state (like Stalin did), but rather, to allow for the whole world to be inundated in communism under global leaders.
 
However, in recent time, we’ve seen a noticeable shift on the global scale regarding this. For example, look at the most recent E.U. elections, where despite the fact pro-EU parties reportedly maintained two-thirds of parliament seats, nationalist and other “euroskeptic” parties solidified their strength and made gains, indicating future challenges to the E.U.
 
In Italy, Interior Minister Matteo Salvini’s party, Lega Nord Party, won 28 seats, with Salvini himself celebrating this victory by saying: “A new Europe is born… As far as I’m concerned, if the League wins nothing changes in Italy, everything will change in Europe, starting from tomorrow.”
 
In the U.K., Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party (which was only 6 weeks old at the time of the election) had a nice victory, “securing a majority with 31.7% and 29 seats,” according to The Daily Wire.
 
In an interview with Good Morning Britain, Farage said that if the U.K. doesn’t leave the EU by October 31st, the Brexit Party would “go on to a general election and stun everybody there too.” He repeated his warning on Twitter by tweeting: “Never before in British politics has a party just 6 weeks old won a national election. If Britain does not leave the EU on October 31, these results will be repeated at a general election. History has been made. This is just the beginning.”
 
In France, Marine le Pen’s party slightly outperformed Macron’s party, winning 22 seats to Macron’s 21.
 
In Germany, Angela Merkel’s party had to hold “crisis talks” following the results of the election, where they were given their worst score in European election history thanks to the environmental party, the Greens.
 
Voter turnout also rose from the 2014 elections from 43% to 51%.
 
And this is just in Europe. Let’s not forget that just weeks before, Australia’s conservative Prime Minister Scott Morrison won a “surprise” re-election after national polls predicted he would lose (where have we heard that one before?). In Brazil some months ago, the Donald Trump of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, also won his election.
 
And of course, we can’t forget about the big one that has likely propelled, if not led, this sort of nationalist movement to occur throughout the world: Donald Trump being elected President of the United States in 2016.
 
There is a global nationalist movement occurring and it’s posing a massive challenge to the globalists.
 
Now, allow me to explain just why I say this is a new Cold War. As you know, the Cold War was a war of words and policy between the United States and the Soviet Union. It was capitalism vs. communism, with the two leading world super powers at each other’s throat under the threat of nuclear annihilation if either nation blinked.
 
While I wouldn’t say we are under quite such a threat here, the concept of a Cold War is simply in the fact that there is conflict between two (or more) entities where one could escalate things and get them hot, but the preference would be to fight each other through other means, because one party heating up the war would lead to certain mutually-assured destruction.
 
This new Cold War I am talking about isn’t between two countries. It’s not between America and Russia, or America and China, or America and North Korea, or America and Iran (man, there are a lot of countries that want us gone). Matter of fact, this hold America on both sides of the Cold War… as well as every other country in the world.
 
This Cold War is between Globalism and Nationalism, as I mentioned in the title. No, there is no underlying threat of total nuclear devastation, but it is still a struggle between two entities fighting for control of the populace.
 
You can call this battle between Globalism and Nationalism as more of a battle between communist-like elites who believe they know better than everyone else and believe should be in charge of how other people live, and the rest of us who wish to maintain our freedoms and autonomy at the national level.
 
Globalists, as the name suggests and as I have explained before, do not attach themselves to any one nation. They see nations as a way to divide people and would wish nothing more than to do away with them, forcing people to live how they want them to live, cultural differences, religious differences and overall differences that cannot be forcibly eliminated be damned. They want as much control and power as possible and nations limit them in their power.
 
So, entities like the European Union exist, where policy is made for the countries by people who do not live there. Don’t want migrants to be shipped to your country en masse? Too bad, you don’t get to make that decision. You want to leave the Union? Well, your leaders don’t and we don’t, so tough.
 
So the battle isn’t between two countries, but between two types of people: the stuck-up elites and the rest of us.
 
Donald Trump’s campaign (and subsequent administration) was/is about Making America Great Again, putting America First and overall prioritizing American interests. That was strictly a nationalist message, a message that sent globalists everywhere (and I do mean everywhere considering British agents tried to undermine a U.S. election) into a frenzy, feeling the direct challenge to their power.
 
Despite their best efforts, the U.S., even under 8 years of Obama, was still the most powerful and influential country in the world and such a radical change in Presidents – from one who would bend over backwards for their amusement to one who would take charge – would heavily disrupt their status quo.
 
So the globalists in America – the American Left – launched effort after effort to destroy Trump and get him impeached, failing time after time. Globalists everywhere else deeply hated Trump. Rush Limbaugh largely chucks this deep hatred for Trump as him simply being so different from them in his mannerisms, his style and in the ideological differences between them. It goes farther than that. Trump presents a direct challenge to the globalists.
 
“America First” and “MAGA” are attacked precisely because they do as advertised: put America first and make it great again. Making America great again means making it powerful again. Making it powerful again means making it more independent again; more free again.
 
However, this has led (perhaps unexpectedly for some, but perhaps not so for others) to other countries’ people wanting their own governments to prioritize them. Such is the case for Brazil, Australia, and even the people of Great Britain during Brexit (which, yes, happened before the 2016 election, but that only tells you of how grand the desire for liberty against globalism is, and that is the reason I said Trump’s election likely propelled, if not necessarily led, the nationalist movement).

Throughout the world, and with more and more mounting evidence, we are seeing globalism being pushed back and nationalism taking hold. The EU elections were simply the most recent massive win and a great indicator of this.
 
This is a struggle between those who wish to be able to rule themselves (or at least their countries to be able to rule themselves and prioritize the citizens of the countries and not of another’s) and those who wish to be able to rule all people.
 
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the communists didn’t simply disappear. They regathered and planned for their rise once again. They invaded other countries not with guns but with papers and spread their communist ideals. And in time, communism took on a new name: globalism. Same basic concepts, same ideas, same end, but different means to those ends.
 
And now, they are facing a new challenge. In essence, they view Trump as this generation’s Reagan. And there exists the possibility of people like Bolsonaro, or le Pen, or Farage as being this generation’s Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II. It was those three who largely helped destroy the Soviet Union. Today’s nationalist leaders could and likely will challenge the globalists.
 
At the risk of kind of sounding like AOC, I would have to say that this is our generation’s Cold War. A war not of guns and blood, but of ideology and words. Thankfully, there is no threat of nuclear annihilation (apart from some chicken nugget countries that like to puff up their chests and pretend they are big boys *ahem* North Korea *ahem* Iran *ahem*), but the struggle still exists.
 
It’s the elites vs. the rest of us and we are fighting back.
 
Galatians 5:1
“For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Campus Reform has come up with a lot of great videos in the past, but I think this might be one of their all-time best.
 
Campus Reform’s Cabot Phillips went to Florida International University to ask various students whether they preferred socialism or capitalism. To no one’s shock, many of them said they preferred socialism.
 
After a brief overview of what socialism is: a system where the rich are forced to give much of their money to people who are not as rich, Cabot posited the idea of utilizing a socialist system for grades.
 
He asked the students who preferred socialism if they wanted a similar system in their schools and their grades, where those who had high GPAs were forced to give a little bit of their grades to those who had worse GPAs.
 
And this is where 1) these kids were exposed as hypocrites and 2) some of these kids were actually exposed to be a little bit capitalistic, or at least meritocratic in their way of thinking.
 
“I’m all for helping, but I wouldn’t give some of my points… I’ve lost a lot of sleep so I don’t know if that would be fair,” answered one student. Another said: “I, like, study all day for my grades.”
 
Interestingly enough, one acknowledged that it’d be “kind of hypocritical for me to say no.”
 
When many said they would not be willing to sacrifice their GPAs for someone else, Cabot asked what the difference was between not being willing to sacrifice grades and not being willing to sacrifice wealth to spread it around to those who do not have as much.
 
Funny enough, one of them said: “You study for your grades and grades also reflect how much time you’ve spent studying.”
 
Yeah, that’s not really a good answer at all. In fact, that’s not a difference between working for your grades and working for your money. Students work hard to earn good grades. When they don’t work hard, their grades tend to suffer. The same principle applies to earning money.
 
One of the students mentioned that the difference was that rich people often inherit their wealth or use the stock market to get wealthy, not work for it, and that may be true in some cases, but not for the most part.
 
People like Donald Trump, who did get a $1 million head start from his father, had to work hard to turn that million into a billion. People like Howard Schultz had to start from the bottom. People like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs built their companies in their parents’ garage. People like Warren Buffet, who yes is mostly an investor, had to work hard to ensure the companies he invested in were working optimally as chairman of the board of directors.
 
To my mind, the only wealthy people that I can think of that inherited their wealth but did not outright work to get it are London Tipton from Disney’s “Suite Life of Zack and Cody” and Yusuf Amir from Rockstar Games’ “Grand Theft Auto”. And both are works of fiction.
 
That’s not to say people don’t inherit wealth. The Rockefellers are wealthy largely because of the work of their ancestors, but it also takes work to maintain and grow that wealth.
 
In any case, all of the interviewed students said that they believe they had worked hard to earn their grades and did not think it would be fair for the college or any entity to take away some of their grades to give to someone else, even someone who might not work hard for their grades.
 
Which is important to note considering the fact that AOC’s Green New Deal included the phrase “unwilling to work”. No one wants to give something to someone that is able but unwilling to work for that very thing.
 
One student actually said something really smart as well: “Then there’d be no point to having a GPA because then if everyone has the same then there’s not a metric… is it fair for everyone to have the same outcome or the same opportunity? For me, having the same opportunity is what is fair, not the same outcome. Because if I work harder than you and I get a better result then it is only fair that I get a better grade or get a better opportunity than you.”
 
I don’t know if the kid knows this, but that is an almost perfect explanation as to what CAPITALISM is.
 
I wholeheartedly agree with the guy’s argument here. There’d be no point in having a GPA if everyone is forced to have the same grade or have equal grades. One student cannot be allowed to have a higher GPA than another so there’s no point to having a GPA in the first place. By the same token, if people are forced to share their money, there’s no point to having a currency in the first place, and certainly no point in working for your money.
 
If someone else is going to give some of their money to you and they are obligated by law to do so, there’s no point in you working or the other person working for their money, if they are just going to be forced to give it to someone else.
 
And as far as opportunity goes, there’s a good reason America is called “The Land of Opportunity”. While that title has not been used an awful lot as of late, it still remains true, at least in theory. Capitalism gives everyone a fair shot, a fair opportunity to earn their wealth. A particular outcome is never guaranteed, just the opportunity to strive for a particular outcome.
 
There’s no more unfair and unequal form of an economic system than socialism. It takes from the rich, who largely earned their money, to give to those who have not earned that money or worked far less to earn money.
 
If you work hard for your money, you should be able to keep it. That’s the basic principle of capitalism. That’s meritocracy. That’s why I mentioned that this video exposes students’ more capitalistic tendencies, even if they say they prefer socialism.
 
The only reason they say they prefer socialism is because they don’t know what it truly is. They think it’s a system where the government forces the rich to pay for everything and everything is awesome because the rich can afford everything. Only half of that is what socialism actually does. But it doesn’t stop at just the rich. While I don’t have much time to go into too much detail about this, I will simply say that socialism is a system that destroys wealth and as a result, the threshold for what is considered rich gets lowered to the point where upper-middle class are considered rich. And then, middle class. And then lower-middle class. And pretty soon, you have an ever-growing government that requires other people’s money, but the well runs dry. After that, all you have left is a self-imploding government that has long ceased to be equal or fair.

How do I know this? Venezuela.
 
These kids prefer socialism over capitalism because they buy into the idea that capitalism is horrible, even though they live under such a system that lets them have all the amenities they take for granted, and that socialism is the great equalizer.
 
The problem is that while it does make everyone equal, it makes them equally miserable. There is no socialist utopia. It has failed every time it has been tried. And just because there are countries that are still afloat that employ socialism right now doesn’t make it a good system. Soviet Russia was pretty powerful and rich under communism until its own system collapsed because it ate itself away.
 
And while some might try and explain that the Soviet Union only collapsed because the U.S. forced it into a space race, I ask: why didn’t the U.S. collapse as well, then? If the only reason as to why the Soviet Union collapsed is the fact that the two countries were trying to outspend each other then why didn’t the U.S. also collapse? Because the capitalist system of economics CREATES wealth, whereas communism/socialism destroys it.
 
What allowed the Soviet Union to last as long as it did is the fact that they had the population to suck the money out of and an emigration system that made it pretty much an impossibility for people to leave. Why do you think we so often heard stories of people trying or successfully defecting from the Soviet Union or any other communist nation? They aren’t allowed to leave, so they have to escape.
 
And you want to know something funny? It is outright impossible to have full-on communism/socialism. Lenin tried that and it almost completely sank the new Soviet Union, so he had to allow for some privatization, such as private farming, in order to keep the Soviet Union afloat.
 
In other words, SOME capitalism is necessary in order for even a communist nation to survive. China is another example of this.
 
That’s because socialism and communism are so self-destructive, it is outright impossible to implement a completely communist system without risking almost immediate implosion.
 
But returning to these kids, once again I have to make the argument that what is necessary is to educate these kids because even they have a little bit of a capitalist in them. They just don’t know it. And by educate, I don’t mean sending them to college. These are COLLEGE kids and are clearly being indoctrinated, since that’s all college does in this day and age.
 
One can only hope that these kids reflect on this scenario of socialism with GPAs and realize that it’s at least equally as unfair (no pun intended) if not more unfair when applied to money.
 
Proverbs 1:5
“Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Last week, socialist nut-job Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, alongside Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), released the outline for what the Green New Deal will try to achieve in the next ten years.
 
And boy, oh boy, does it read worse than the worst essay I’ve ever written for school.
 
Since this was released last week, I imagine many of you know some of the details of the proposed Green New Deal, but allow me to go over some of them just in case you haven’t desired risking IQ points reading through it.
 
The beginning really just talks about how we’re destroying our climate (no evidence to point to, of course) and we need to do make severe changes (note how it’s only because of us that the climate is being destroyed. We’re reducing CO2 emissions, while France, China and other socialist countries increase theirs, but WE’RE the problem).
 
The first objective of the Green New Deal is “to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers…”
 
Okay, a few things. First, it’s pretty much impossible to do that (a recurring theme you will see as I go through this laughable-if-people-weren’t-so-serious-about-it proposition) without nuclear power. And the Green New Deal is adamant about MOVING AWAY from nuclear power, so the chances of managing to do that in the next 50 years, let alone 10, are zero.
 
Second, what exactly does it mean by “fair” and “just”? Definitely not what we think as fair and just. The plan, of course, is to have the government pay for all of this. The government gets paid by We the People. Sure, the rich pay the vast majority of it, but, as I’ve said in multiple articles, the threshold for what is considered rich always gets lowered when you take away rich people’s money. So how is it fair (under the assumption this is even doable) to have upper middle-class, and then middle-class and then lower middle-class and then lower-class people pay for it? (Side note: the country would collapse way before they get to the lower class, but they are still made to suffer the most by massive nation-wide layoffs before they are stuck with the bill).
 
Let’s move on to what immediately follows that idiotic proposal: “to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States.”
 
Again, a couple of things. First, we’re already managing to do the first part with the Trump economy, which Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is “resisting”. Second, what she proposes would do literally the opposite of that. Third, economic prosperity and security should not be a guarantee. No one is entitled to living well. People have to earn it. When people feel entitled to it, they get bitter and will refuse to work (and we’ll get to that in a moment). The Declaration of Independence grants certain inalienable rights to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. No one is entitled to happiness, but they are entitled the right to pursue it (which would be taken away by the implementation of this pile of dog-crap).
 
Skipping some other items, we get to some more “guarantees”: “to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come – clean air and water; climate and community resiliency (what does that even mean?); healthy food; access to nature (apparently, people can’t go outside); and a sustainable environment; and to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as ‘frontline and vulnerable communities’)…”
 
Okay, that was a whole lot of stupid to compile into one paragraph and a whole lot of things to cover. Now, I don’t want to make this article too long (the Green New Deal is more than 10 pages long), so I will get to the most important bits (although the whole thing is a compilation of socialist lunacy and a saddening lack of any kind of intelligence).
 
Of course, the Green New Deal just has to include reparations not just for black people, but all people who have been “oppressed” historically. Because you see, the mere fact that there was slavery at all is disqualifying of the entire country. Never mind that every other country in existence, with few exceptions, have also allowed slavery (some still allow for slavery to this very day) and heavily benefited from slavery. No, it’s just the U.S. that’s bad.
 
Let me remind you just who it was that FOUGHT for slavery. America is the only country in the world that actually had to go to war to end slavery. On one side, you had the Republican North, led by Abraham Lincoln, who wanted to abolish slavery. On the other, you had the Democrat South, led by Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, who wanted to keep their “right” to keep slaves.
 
Let me remind you that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a hot-button issue for the Democrat Party, with about half voting for it and the other half voting against it, while the Republican Party was almost entirely unified in their support of the bill.
 
The only people that continually oppress people is the Left. How do we go about abolishing them?
 
In any case, let’s move on. The Green New Deal also proposes “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.”
 
Again, a few things to talk about. First, there are about 127 million residential buildings in the country. That doesn’t include commercial buildings (good luck trying to literally rebuild all of Manhattan), industrial buildings, hospitals, schools, government buildings, etc. I don’t see this happening in the next 100 years, let alone 10.
 
Second, what do you mean doing this “including through electrification”? Powering them up? Makes sense. But how exactly would that be accomplished? The power grid relies almost entirely on fossil fuels (the GND also proposes upgrading the power grid, of course, just doesn’t mention exactly how). Batteries, even if they could actually power up whole buildings (which they can’t), need to be recharged BY FOSSIL FUELS.
 
The GND also proposes building high-speed rails across the country to make air travel obsolete (and even Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) had issues with that, given it would really screw Hawaii over).
 
It also proposes “guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.” That, on top of guaranteeing a free college education, as well as ensuring there are “high-quality union jobs” and guaranteeing everyone “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work”, “build charging stations everywhere” (yes, everywhere), “replace every combustion-engine vehicle”, and try to “get rid of farting cows” (not a joke, that part was included verbatum) and other emitters of pollution is a recipe for economic disaster.
 
Let me ask these nut-jobs a question: if people are guaranteed economic security, even if they refuse to work, then who in the world is going to build those cross-country railroads? Who is going to renovate and rebuild literally every single building in the country to be environmentally friendly? Who is going to build charging stations “everywhere”? Who is going to produce the necessary materials to even try to do all that? And who is going to be qualified to do all of that and willing to do it as well?
 
Who is going to run the electrical plants (that are somehow free of gas emissions) to power up anything?
 
And most importantly, where is the money to do all of this going to come from?
 
When people are GUARANTEED free stuff, such as money, they will largely be unwilling to do work that helps everyone. I’ve made this argument before, but it’s just as relevant as ever: no one is going to do manual labor if they are guaranteed an income and economic security. The only jobs that people will do are things relating to the arts. Only works of passion will be done. But then again, who is going to run the cameras for shows? Who is going to put the make-up on the actors? Who is going to do anything that has nothing to do with a passionate job?
 
If everyone is guaranteed an income, who is going to tear down the buildings to renovate them in the first place? And if the money is only guaranteed after either the buildings are torn down (which in itself would take ages) or when the new buildings are up (which would take far longer) how are the workers going to live? They won’t be getting that guaranteed money everyone else is getting, so why would they bother to do anything?
 
This ENTIRE proposal is lacking in so much common sense, I think I would’ve come up with something better while I was in preschool. Even back then, I understood the concept of money. If something couldn’t be paid for, I understood the concept of doing something else.
 
One of my earliest memories is hearing the news that the Argentine government was confiscating people’s money in their bank accounts, causing millions of Argentines to go below the poverty line overnight (and don’t think that can’t happen here, particularly with what these lunatics are proposing).
 
I remember because my family was also affected by this (thankfully, my parents, or at least my mother, had a good job so we’d be okay, but not many people were so lucky) and it got me to realize some basic truths in life: money is limited.
 
Of course, as I grew up, I understood the concept of printing money (which is probably how these whackos will try and pay for all of this, because it WILL have to be paid somehow and the rich don’t have enough money to pay for it) and the concept of inflation created by doing such a thing.
 
It’s basic economics, basic supply and demand, that should tell these idiots that you can’t just print unlimited money and pay for everything. The more there is of an item, i.e. money, the less valuable it is. So that multi-trillion dollar price-tag for even ONE of these items gets increased exponentially.
 
Now, the reason I say that this is bad satire, is because I could hardly believe anyone would be stupid enough to suggest these things and anyone would be stupid enough to back these things. Kamala Harris supports it, but I don’t think she read it. I might be giving her too much credit, but I don’t think she’s all that dumb.
 
Nancy Pelosi, being that she’s actually politically smart (even if she says dumb partisan things like the GOP tax cuts will cause the apocalypse) actively avoids this Green New Deal. She doesn’t flat-out reject it, but she is not taking it seriously and likely doesn’t want to put this piece that might as well have been written in crayon on the House floor.
 
This entire proposal highlights what the Left wants to do: replace capitalism with socialism. In the name of fighting climate change, of course.
 
I would laugh at this proposal if people weren’t so serious about this. They legitimately think these things can be done. They completely ignore reality – the reality that even trying to implement ONE of these things would destroy us economically and everyone would be living in abject poverty as the rest of the world did before capitalism became a thing. The reality that the U.S. is lowering its CO2 levels while China cares nothing for the climate. And why would they? The communists already have total power. They didn’t need to run on fighting climate change. They were helped by the Soviets to establish a communist state.
 
The good news about this is that it’s become very easy to counter all of these points. The bad news is that people might just be getting dumber and dumber. The fact that this proposal, alongside AOC and Markey, aren’t being laughed out of Washington speaks volumes.
 
Just 5 to 10 years ago, these proposals, as they are written, would’ve caused laughing fits. Of course, the actual proposals are nothing new. The Left has been trying to accomplish these things, such as eliminating combustion engines and air travel for decades now. But the language of it all is very blunt. It spells out exactly what they want, which is something they previously had to hide.
 
The problem then is that this is not being met by mock and ridicule, but applause and cheers. People in California will read this and think it’s a brilliant masterpiece, as if written by the great Karl Marx himself. They won’t stop to think “this is ludicrous and actually impossible to accomplish in the next century, let alone decade”. They see the goals and don’t care about how to accomplish them as long as they just try.
 
This is the culmination of the participation trophy generation. As long as we try, it’s okay. It doesn’t matter if millions are starving to death, are homeless and there is absolutely no hope for anyone to live better lives (and we all know Christianity would be rejected and persecuted), as long as we tried, that’s all that matters.
 
It’s not just sickening and idiotic, it’s actually insanely dangerous. This is the sort of mindset that will set humanity back thousands of years. Nothing good can come of even trying to implement all of this (and that’s all there is: trying. There is no accomplishing any of this because it’s uniquely impossible to do any of this, especially in just a decade).
 
I just hope that God will spare us of this mess and Rapture comes before these people attempt to implement these things.
 
Titus 3:5
“He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

That title is not so much a request for anyone who knows socialism is a failure and is horrible as much as a request for anyone who thinks the opposite: that socialism is great and we should bring it here.
 
I understand full-well that the vast majority of those who will read this and watch the accompanying video (below) from Campus Reform are on the side that knows that socialism is a catastrophe, but it is always important to listen to those who have experience in some matter, as they will have knowledge that many others likely lack.
 
In his State of the Union address, President Trump declared that America would never become a socialist country. However, the very reason he felt the need to make such a declaration is because there are people in Washington now that are openly advocating for socialism in America, and most Democrats view socialism more favorably than capitalism, according to polls.
 
So to gain a better understanding and perspective of what it is like to live in a socialist country, Campus Reform’s Cabot Phillips went to a Venezuelan Freedom rally in D.C. to ask some people who actually have lived in Venezuela some questions.
 
He begins by asking this elderly man and a young-ish looking man (I’m guessing early thirties): “what is your message to those who want socialism here?”
 
One said: “You do not ever want anything close to socialism.” Another person noted: “people are eating from trash cans in the streets, so how has socialism helped?”
 
Another rally attendee, whose family is still in Venezuela, unfortunately, added: “No Venezuelan can like socialism, because we’ve seen it put in place very well.”
 
The aforementioned young-ish looking man said that socialism “is not a game… not the route to go. It is not possible, it is not feasible. Don’t fall for it.”
 
Another female attendee said: “It doesn’t work the way the book says it works because we’re humans and we have imperfections and socialism is too perfect to be true.”
 
Now, I have some things to say about that one. First, I suppose by “the book” she means Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. And I personally have, in the past, at least once before, explained just why Marx’s theory of how communism is supposed to work is very flawed, but for those who might’ve missed it, I will get to that in a moment.
 
Second, I imagine the lady meant to say that it sounds too perfect to be true, because if it were “too perfect”, it would work. The idea that someone can protect you and watch over you, that that entity will take care of things for you, that it can take care of everything and everyone, that all problems are erased for one reason or another does sound heavenly… because that’s the only place where this actually works.
 
Not to say that God is a socialist. Socialism, by nature, puts the government ahead of everything else. The government is not God, so socialism very much goes against God. But God, being the only perfect being in existence, can actually do everything these loony socialists think the government can do.
 
And that’s what we should focus on: the fact that it takes perfection for something like socialism to actually work. Not something CLOSE to perfection, but actual perfection.
 
Just look at Medicare-for-All. That idea alone costs over $40 trillion. We have nowhere near that amount of money, even if you confiscate everything the rich have (which, of course, would lower the threshold for what constitutes as being rich, so the upper-middle class is considered rich, but they definitely don’t live like the rich. As a result, they are left to pay the tab, and when they can’t, the bar gets lower and lower. Just look at… well… Venezuela).
 
And that’s just one thing these socialists want. We can’t pay for it and it would destroy our country by simply TRYING to pay for it. So what is necessary here is to have a nearly, or actually, endless supply of money. There is no such thing on this plain of existence because everything is limited to some amount. God, however, has unlimited resources. Not that Medicare-for-All would even be considered as necessary in heaven, since no one gets hurt, but still. Literally God is the only being in existence that can afford Medicare-for-All.
 
And by the way, this is ignoring the very fact that people are, themselves, imperfect and naturally evil. It’d be difficult to make socialism work even with people who are not naturally evil. What I talked about in the last two paragraphs only talks about the financial stipulations of ONE item of socialism. But that ignores the fact that people are imperfect and naturally evil.
 
Again, let’s take a look at Venezuela. Nicolas Maduro lives in the Miraflores Palace. As the name suggests, it is a literal palace. He lives like literal royalty, is perfectly well-fed, has security, healthcare, and everything he wants or needs.
 
Meanwhile, people are forced to eat their own pets, and when that meal is gone, are forced to eat out of the trashcan or even go to the zoo to eat some animals there. They have no actual healthcare, even though socialism promises that because they don’t have much in terms of medicine, resources, doctors, etc. Not to mention that power outages are also a problem for many hospitals and clinics.
 
If socialism truly were about equality, Maduro would share what he has with as many people as he could. And if people weren’t naturally evil, Maduro wouldn’t be blocking a U.S.-backed humanitarian convoy with food and medicine from entering the country.
 
The only system of government that truly creates any sort of wealth gap between the 1% and everyone else is socialism/communism. Of course, at that point, the 1% are really only people at the very top of the government.
 
For example, Venezuela’s richest woman is Maria Gabriela Chavez, Hugo Chavez’s daughter. Her net worth is $4.2 billion. Nicolas Maduro’s net worth, at least according to Heavy.com, is estimated to be around $2 million. However, this only accounts for his salary, which, due to Venezuelan laws, can only cap out at 12 times of the minimum wage. The minimum wage in Venezuela, according to a recent Reuters article is 18,000 bolivars a month. This was actually a raise of 300% by Maduro earlier last month.
 
If you think that’s not bad, know that 18,000 bolivars is basically $6.70. And let me remind you this is PER MONTH! Not per hour; per month.
 
And by the way, he actually has made more than just $2 million dollars. According to the Miami Herald, Nicolas Maduro, when he was just a candidate, demanded a $50 million bribe from Brazilian construction firm Odebrecht. The company, according to Venezuela’s exiled AG Luisa Ortega, did not agree to that and “only paid him $35 million”.
 
If we’re talking bribes here, it is unlikely the money went to the Venezuelan government. It likely went to Maduro’s pockets. So the reason Heavy.com says his net worth is only $2 million is because that is the estimate given his salary as President of Venezuela. It was hard to gauge how wealthy Chavez was, so I imagine it can be hard to gauge Maduro’s wealth too.
 
In any case, what I’m trying to say is that the only people that actually live like the 1% are those up high in the government and their families.
 
Maduro lives like a king while his people barely make anything and struggle to survive.
 
But even if Maduro weren’t a jerk, the country would still be a dystopia under socialism because that is what it does.
 
Like I said before, I will try my best at explaining Marx’s reasoning behind his idea of communism.
 
Marx theorized, and I’m not even joking, that people in a capitalist country would naturally evolve past capitalism and go towards communism. And then, after there is full-on communism and every problem is magically solved, there will not be any need for a government at all, no need for a state, no need for a nation, because people will be able to self-govern.
 
That is basically the gist of his theory. That communism is the NATURAL evolution to capitalism and that, once there is complete government control of the means of production and everything is great, there is no need for government and it will NATURALLY also evolve to people governing themselves without a state.
 
It is literally ridiculous, every part of it.
 
But what I want to focus on with this, since I could write an entire article based on this alone, is the fact that for this to even be REMOTELY POSSIBLE, people would need to be two things: 1) PERFECT and 2) NATURALLY GOOD.
 
And that’s just talking about the people running things. This is ignoring the fact that you would need an endless source of income in order to afford everything and make everything work. Not to mention the fact that communism requires people being willing to do things out of the kindness of their own hearts, such as working when they don’t need to work or paying what they don’t need to pay (look at Panera Bread’s attempt at running restaurants by telling people they can pay whatever they want for the food until they had to close every restaurant that ran that way).
 
But Marx’s overall theory is heavily flawed, the people are flawed, and the system is heavily flawed. Socialism does not work and there is not one example in the history of the world in which it has worked. However, there are multiple examples in which socialism is shown to be a disaster for the people and the country that attempts it.
 
Communism has killed well over 100 million people. Death and despair follow everywhere there is socialism.
 
Which is why I’m astounded at the stupidity of people like Ocasio-Cortez, who complains about the way people live in New York, where THE GOVERNMENT ENACTS SOCIALIST LAWS AND POLICIES!
 
If AOC were intelligent, she would notice the high cost of living in New York, notice how badly people live there, and look at how things are being run, i.e., socialistically, and deduce that socialism and big government does not work and only hurts people.
 
The people affected by socialism want to leave it. Sometimes, they acknowledge that socialism is horrible, such as the people in the Venezuelan Freedom rally, and sometimes, they fail to recognize that socialism is horrible and vote for people that want to implement it wherever they move.
 
This is the importance of educating and informing people. Socialism is humanity’s worst idea ever. And the people that advocate for it are either uninformed of this fact, are informed but are stupid, or are informed and evil.
 
I pray that Trump is right when he says that America will never be a socialist country. I pray that God spares us from such a horrible fate. But regardless of what may happen, I know it will be part of God’s Plan for us. Even under the worst circumstance, those who are saved will never have to live through the worst of it all.
 
We can all thank God for that.
 
Ephesians 2:8
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Once again, my title is a little obvious, but those words will seem strange to anyone who is not a Christian and/or a conservative. There truly is no reason for anyone to support socialism. The same could be said for communism or fascism, given they all have roots in Marxism anyway.
 
But why am I talking about this now? Well, according to a Fox News report from journalist Hollie McKay, who has looked into and detailed the despicable tragedy that is socialism in Venezuela, girls as young as 14 are selling their own bodies for a little bit of cash. The same goes for straight men who are selling their own bodies on gay markets.
 
But that’s just the tip of the ice berg. There is a whole lot more that’s messed up in this once wealthy country.
 
McKay reports: “Thousands upon thousands of Venezuelans pour into Colombia over the crowd cross-country bridge, their faces gaunt, carrying little more than a backpack. Rail-thin women cradle their tiny babies, and beg along the trash-strewn gutters. Teens hawk everything from cigarettes to sweets and water for small change.”
 
McKay also reports that malnourished and starving females, both girls and women, resort to selling anything they possibly can, including their own bodies, hair, breast milk, etc. in order to survive.
 
According to McKay: “According to several walkers, some women ‘chose’ prostitution as a means to make money and earn rides along the way. And some heterosexual men ‘sell themselves on the gay market’ for a little money.”
 
“Other women are manipulated or forced into giving ‘pimp types’ their documents and identification cards, and are subsequently drawn into prostitution rings. That’s particularly the case in border areas, where many rebel and drug-trafficking groups operate.”
 
“They come from a country they say now resembles a war zone. Their lives have been ripped apart by displacement, starvation, disease, desperation and torment. But now they’re in Colombia, where conditions are far from perfect, but are at least safer, and more stable.”
 
That last paragraph, particularly the first two sentences, is particularly sobering.
 
While not a direct quote, McKay says that these people say Venezuela resembles a war zone. The last war Venezuela had was a civil war between the government and military rebels, in which the government won. That was in 1962.
 
After nearly two entire decades of socialism (Chavez took power in 1999), the country now looks like it’s been through a war. You can’t possibly tell me that this is a good thing and proves socialism works.
 
In doing research for this article, I came across some articles that tried to say that socialism has worked in Venezuela (I literally laughed out loud) or that Venezuela’s situation proved nothing about socialism.
 
I’ll ignore the first one because it’s that ridiculous. All I’ll say is that socialism hasn’t worked, but has been faithfully and fully implemented… which is why it hasn’t worked.
 
But looking towards the second one, tell me, why wouldn’t it prove anything about socialism? Should we also ignore how socialism eventually sank the Soviet Union? Should we ignore how when Lenin tried to fully implement communism, he had to scale it back because it was like dropping a bomb on his own rear? Should we ignore how communism has destroyed North Korea and it has only remained because of China and Russia? Should we ignore how China had to implement more capitalistic policies to boost their economy and actually make it grow?
 
Time and time again, and within the confines of Venezuela, we see just how terrible socialism is and just how much it doesn’t work.
 
It’s sunk nation after nation in relatively quick succession. But before you even get there, millions upon millions die, either by starvation, disease, or by the state killing them for any given reason. And those who are unfortunate enough to survive live in their own slice of Hell. It’s either die or live in misery whenever you’re talking about a socialist country.
 
And the other unfortunate thing about this is that this entire catastrophe could be completely avoided. Like previously mentioned, Venezuela used to be the richest Latin American country before socialism ravaged it. Its rich oil reserves made it a blessed country in terms of natural wealth. They now resort to importing gas instead.
 
The U.S. is sort of similar. We also have rich oil reserves. The difference is that we can choose to take advantage of them (depending on the people in control). We don’t depend on foreign oil anywhere near as much as we used to because we use our own supplies. As a matter of fact, the US is a net oil exporter for the first time in 75 years.
 
Obviously, we were still pretty wealthy and prosperous even without using our own oil reserves, but that’s because of our free-market, or capitalist, economic and government systems.
 
Milton Friedman is often credited for saying the following: “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.”
 
Now, the origins of this quote go back before Friedman and a similar quote can be attributed to William F. Buckley Jr., but the point is not to discuss the origins of that quote. The point is to discuss the relevance of said quote today.
 
Under socialism, the government owns the means of production. Meaning they own what is sold to people, at what price, and how much to make available for sale. The government takes the rest, which usually tends to be a sizable majority.
 
So saying that the federal government would make the Sahara Desert run out of sand is not entirely accurate, but also not entirely inaccurate. There’d be a shortage of sand for the people, not for the government.
 
Nicolas Maduro is not starving. He’s very well-fed. People in the government aren’t starving either. It’s the people outside the government that are suffering, while people within the government live like kings.
 
The reason socialism appeals to people, particularly young people, is that it promises a society in which everyone is equal, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc. And that is largely true, just not in any good way.
 
People outside the government are equally MISERABLE while people within the government are perfectly content.
 
Socialists think that the government is the best option for who gets to control the means of production. But this misery is all it ever amounts to. Why? Because man is evil.
 
I could spend another article talking about that, but the main point I’m making here is that socialism does not work in any real circumstance. It relies entirely in people in power being good and selfless and not taking the majority of the supply. The thing about that is that, even if the people in power were actually good and selfless, the government is REQUIRED to own the majority of the supply in order to own the means of production.
 
In order for socialism to work in the way people think it should (or does), it would literally have to be the opposite of socialism.
 
And in this sense, socialism does work… it’s called capitalism. Capitalism does work. We’ve had it here in the States for even longer than we’ve been a nation and it’s worked. Germany, before Nazism rose, was also pretty capitalist and pretty wealthy.
 
Countries that faithfully and fully implement capitalism tend to grow and thrive. Countries that faithfully and fully implement socialism or communism or fascism tend to stagnate at best and collapse at worst.
 
Again, Lenin had to implement SOME level of capitalism in order for his new Soviet Union not to collapse in on itself immediately. China is a similar story.
 
So we learn throughout history that there truly is no reason for anyone to advocate for socialism. It simply doesn’t work. And those who try it come to realize the error of their ways, unless they are in the government, in which case they couldn’t give a rat’s ass because they are not obligated to. Maduro can do whatever he wants with Venezuela because the people are too hungry, tired and downtrodden to do anything about it. He runs elections that are a complete farce.
 
The only thing that keeps him somewhat relatively contained is Russian and U.S. influence basically telling him to behave.
 
Socialism is a disease in this world that brings with it pain and misery. Capitalism is the solution because it's only in a Capitalist society, where the government focuses on protecting life, imparting justice and administering a small amount of resources to support a small government, that private enterprise and people can truly prosper. It's a system marked by equal opportunity, not equal result. Socialism kills innovation and any reason to prosper, given that government takes most of what you produce.  It’s a system in which everyone outside the government is a loser and can never escape that fate (unless they literally escape the country for a better one).
 
With capitalism, you can work towards success because it's the only system in the world where wealth is CREATED pretty much out of nowhere. You can work towards being a success. With socialism, that doesn’t fall on the individual, but on the state to decide a person’s fate. Usually you lose while the elitist ruling class wins. And because the state is the state, they will not want any strong opposition to it, so they are the only winners.
 
Those who advocate for socialism either have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about or have no heart.
 
Here’s hoping people come to realize the horrors of socialism without having to actually experience them.
 
Proverbs 18:15
“An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

On November 25th, 2016, two years and a day ago, Communist Cuban dictator Fidel Castro was pronounced dead by the current dictator Raul Castro, Fidel’s brother. Though Fidel Castro, perhaps one of history’s most horrible dictators, is dead, the situation in Cuba does not look any better today than it did in the decades of Fidel’s regime. If anything, dissidents say things have only gotten worse.
 
Following Fidel’s death, geopolitical experts thought there was an opportunity for a new era in the island. Michael Shifter, president of the Inter-American Dialogue group said, following Fidel’s death: “With Fidel’s death, the political and economic situation will probably open up.”
 
I will return to precisely why such a belief is asinine and historically wrong in a moment.
 
For now, let’s move on to just how exactly things have been looking on the communist island.
 
Jose Daniel Ferrer, General Coordinator of the Patriotic Union of Cuba (UNPACU), a large Cuban dissident group, told Breitbart News: “The situation in Cuba for dissidents remains very similar to that which we had during Fidel Castro’s life, and in some ways is even worse. The current dictator, Miguel Diaz-Canel… takes orders directly from Raul Castro [and] leaves clear who truly wields power.”
 
Carlos Paya of Cuba’s Christian Liberation Movement (MCL) told Breitbart News: “Following the death of Fidel, the repressive system remains intact. Arrests continue, sometimes for a few days and sometimes prolonged [arrests] like that of Eduardo Cardet.”
 
Eduardo Cardet, who is head of the MCL, was arrested soon after Fidel’s death for allegedly “refusing to sign a government-mandated condolence book for the late dictator during the state’s forced nine-day mourning period,” according to Breitbart. The government even convicted Cardet of allegedly assaulting Cuban state security officers despite the fact that no witnesses corroborated the claim.
 
Matter of fact, Breitbart News shares that “on the contrary, Cardet’s wife and children, who witnessed the arrest, said police brutally beat him in public after suspecting him of criticizing the condolence books. The court did not accept their testimony.”
 
As it stands, Cardet is serving a three-year prison sentence, devoid of medical treatment for his asthma.
 
Regarding Cardet’s case, Paya said: “He is more than a prisoner, he is a hostage of the regime.”
 
According to Breitbart News, back in October, “the NGO Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation (CCDHRN) documented over 200 arbitrary arrests (similar to Cardet's), most targeting groups like UNPACU, MCL, and the Ladies in White, a dissident group whose sole act of protest is attending Catholic Mass on Sundays. Nearly every Sunday, police arrest and beat their leader, Berta Soler, in public.”
 
I am not familiar with Cuban law regarding women and attending Catholic Mass, but one hardly needs a reason to arrest and beat someone in a communist regime. If the government doesn’t like you, that’s good enough for them.
 
Now, let me return to that previous topic of the reason why believing Fidel’s death would lead to political and economic opportunities for the future in Cuba is ludicrous. Earlier, I mentioned such a belief is asinine and historically erroneous. Orlando Gutierrez-Boronat, national secretary of the Assembly of Cuban Resistance, puts it best: “There have not been any significant changes in Cuba in terms of economic and political freedom after Fidel Castro’s death… because we have to understand that Fidel Castro installed a system, not just a government.”
 
The reason the Cuban people don’t have hope for better political and economic opportunities following Fidel’s death is the same reason Venezuelans didn’t have much hope after Chavez’s death, the same reason North Koreans didn’t have much hope after Kim Jong-Il’s death, and why Russian citizens didn’t have much hope following Lenin’s death and Stalin’s death. These dictators all either created systems of government that would transcend their own lifetimes or made sure such systems would remain in place.
 
Similar, though perhaps not quite to this extent, to Obama’s lackeys in federal courts blocking everything Trump does in executive orders, constitutional as they may be.
 
Castro set up a communist system, not just a government. The communists have power at every level of government. The judiciary is theirs, there is no legislative branch separate from the executive, and obviously, Castro (Raul) is head of the executive.
 
They arrest whomever they deem a political opponent, beat them in public, suffer no consequences for it, and judges side with them. And when such a thing is brought up to them, they pretend that they are doing nothing wrong.
 
Back when Obama was President and was sidling up to Raul Castro, Jim Acosta asked Castro whether he would free political prisoners. Castro replied: “what political prisoners?”
 
Castro completely ignores the fact that his government and law enforcement basically terrorizes his citizens if they show themselves to be opponents of his regime.
 
It’s no wonder so many people in Cuba want to leave and attempt to flee. Such people are legitimate asylum seekers that we welcome with open arms into our country. Such people are escaping the horrors of communism. The very horrors that many Democrats seek to employ in this country.
 
Sure, the specific words may be different, but the language is basically the same. Communism is the result of big government. Socialism is virtually no different. So why in the world would anyone be willing to support people that fight for this sort of thing?
 
Throughout history, you see and hear stories of people escaping such rampant communism. Reading through Wikipedia, the Leftist organization that often gets things wrong due to bias, it mentions that a woman named Ivana Zelnickova, in 1971, married Austrian ski instructor Alfred Winkelmayr to enable her to leave Communist Czechoslovakia, fleeing for Canada, learning English and eventually moving to the United States.
 
Ivana Zelnickova is now known as Ivana Trump, Donald Trump’s first wife, with whom he had Don Jr., Ivanka, and Eric.
 
The former Mrs. Trump sought to escape communism. Many Cubans seek to escape communism. Many North Koreans seek to escape communism. Many Russians sought to escape communism. Many Chinese seek to escape communism.
 
Similarly, though my family and I did not live in a communist country, we sought to escape socialism in Argentina (not that it’s quite as bad as Venezuela, but it’s been pretty bad in the past and the only period of prosperity and freedom was when they actually tried capitalism for a bit).
 
Wherever there is communism or socialism, people tend to flee from those places. And considering communism has killed over 100 million people and that number keeps growing, I imagine that is a decent part of the reason.
 
Communism is not a system that can realistically work, and every time it’s tried, disaster follows for decades until such a system is completely dismantled and replaced with something else, namely capitalism.
 
The only reason China is still afloat is because they are a tad more capitalistic than other communist countries. Even Lenin had to employ some level of capitalism to keep the Soviet Union from collapsing on itself due to its overwhelming communism. But of course, Soviet Russia eventually fell, and so will China unless they completely abandon communism altogether.
 
So for these reasons, I cannot see any viable reason for anyone to support socialism and/or communism. The only reason I see anyone supporting socialism is because they have no idea what it actually is. And if you remember from a protest that happened in the summer of 2017, there was an Antifa protester who actually referred to himself as a “libertarian-communist.”
 
In the article where I talked about that for a bit, I tried to explain the difference between the two and drive the point that one cannot be both a libertarian and a communist at the same time. I mentioned that such a person would have to be either ignorant or brainwashed to believe someone can be a “libertarian-communist”.
 
Largely, I believe it takes some level of both. You have to be truly ignorant, bordering on moronic, to believe such a thing exists.
 
That kid CLEARLY had no idea what either of those things were, otherwise he wouldn’t show himself to be such an ignoramus as to say something like that. If he knew what libertarianism was and what communism was, I think he would rather call himself a libertarian...and leave Antifa.
 
Matter of fact, if everyone knew what socialism and communism was, its history and why it simply does not work based on that it requires reality to not be reality, the only people who would support it are truly evil people, likely in government or hoping to be in government, who don’t care about what communism does and has done and wants the power it brings them.
 
Obviously, there are such people in the government today, but I imagine most people are like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who might actually believe the crap that they are selling about socialism being good. She has shown that she is not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, so it makes sense that she thinks we can just poop money and pay for medicare-for-all, income-for-all, and all the other ridiculous things she wants without taking a hit in the economy and inflation.
 
If everyone knew exactly what socialism and communism are, and knew what it has done to people who have lived under it, there would be far fewer people who would be willing to support it.
 
Cuba is just one example of communism for us to be weary of it. North Korea, China, Soviet Russia and others are also warning signs of what not to do.
 
Here’s hoping socialism and communism never conquer the United States. But if it does, we can at least rest assured that Christ’s return would likely not be too far away.
 
Oh, and don’t tell me it’d be different here if we had “morally good” leaders. The media ignored every scandal of the Obama presidency, like Castro ignored the fact that he had political prisoners. They ignored the unemployment across the country, every scandal and treated Obama as though he could do no wrong when that was virtually all he was doing. Thank God we don’t have that kind of crap in the White House anymore.
 
Proverbs 29:2
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

I have surprisingly mixed feelings about this entire thing. However, before I get into why that is, it is important to understand the context of the situation. Usually, if I see college professors slamming anything on the LEFT and not something on the Right, that comes as a massive surprise. However, you will soon understand why I am not 100% positive about this whole thing.
 
First, allow me to explain some context. This article comes from a different article written on Campus Reform titled: “Yale prof: Communism is a ‘religion’ with ‘sloppy theology’”. In this article, the writer explains that “panelists at Princeton University condemned communism on Tuesday (last week), likening it to a ‘religion’ with ‘extremely sloppy theology’ and honing in on its ‘inhuman’ nature.”
 
The article mentions the name of the panel: “Consequences of an Idea: Assessing 100 Years of Communism” and notes the name of the three panelists. First, there’s Carlos Eire, a Yale history and religious studies professor and an immigrant from Cuba. Then, there’s Sergiu Klainerman, a Princeton math professor and immigrant from Romania, a socialist country. Finally, there’s Skidmore College political science professor Flagg Taylor.
 
In this panel, Eire made the case that Communism is “damn close, if not exactly the same as a religion,” with “orthodoxy and heresy.”
 
Communism is “impervious to empirical evidence, scientific evidence, sociological evidence… It is also an extremely sloppy theology that does not base its observations on human behavior.”
 
He argued that “human beings are incapable of pure altruism, of sharing goods equally. There is never any true sharing. It is impossible.”
 
According to Campus Reform: “The religious studies professor noted that Christian monasticism also involved property sharing, but that monastic history is one ‘of failure, of corruption, and reform.’ He granted that it yielded some success, arguing that this was because sharing was voluntary.”
 
Then, Eire claims that “historically, it has been proven that communism can work, sometimes, to some extent, always with some reform. But it always requires an oligarchy of some sort.”
 
Campus Reform continues by writing: “The Yale professor also argued that it is only viable in small communities, noting several failed historical attempts by Christian monastics or other religious leaders to extend monastic sharing to wider communities.”
 
Eire insisted that “it is possible to speak of communism… as a religion” that is “governed by bad theology.”
 
Later in the panel, Taylor argues that it is not enough to label Communism as totalitarian, suggesting that it is better to label it as an “ideocracy” where “ideology is not just one of four or five important features” but that ideology is “the most important feature.” “In this account, a totalitarian regime becomes totalitarian precisely because it is ideological.”
 
Taylor argues that Communism is founded on “organized and systematic lying”, differing from “ordinary falsehood.” He argues that “ordinary falsehood” “stays in touch with the truth and knowingly distorts the truth” as opposed to an “ideological lie” which “seeks to impose a pseudo-reality upon reality. It does not depart from reality so much as [it] completely ignores reality and… it seeks to disrupt our normal access to reality.”
 
Taylor concludes the panel by pointing out some trends present in our daily lives that are reminiscent of communist ideocracies, such as the “hyper-bureaucratization of life”, the “persistence of perfectionism” and a “prevalent culture of activism”. He describes the latter two as a form of fanaticism that is “always certain that the enacting of a certain program will bring an end to societal dysfunction and injustice.”
 
This sort of fanaticism, Taylor says, “is not driven primarily by unbridled passion, but rather is the result of an intellectual error, which should recall ideologies like revolutionary socialism” and the disastrous results that they bring.
 
Now, this was a lot to cover, but I think it can be fairly obvious why I have some level of issue with all of this. While I do agree that Communism is basically like a religion at this point, as I have time and time again mocked the Left for their religious-like belief of climate change, it is important to understand just what kind of religion we are talking about here and why Christianity does not really belong in this sort of categorization that the professors use to define something as religious.
 
Carlos Eire, the Yale professor, made the argument that Communism is “impervious to empirical evidence, scientific evidence, sociological evidence”. And while that is true, this comes after comparing Communism with religion. Now, as a Christian, the first religion that comes to mind when someone talks about religion in general is Christianity. But this argument does not work for Christianity in and of itself.
 
Christianity is not “impervious to empirical evidence, scientific evidence, sociological evidence”. There is nothing in science today that goes as far as to disprove or really even challenge the existence of God. While there are people out there that use science as a weapon against Christianity and the notion of a living, eternal, self-existent God who is the Creator of the Universe, no scientific evidence really disproves God.
 
Even the theory of evolution does not disprove God. It basically suggests the universe started with a singular cell that evolved and got to where we are today. But it does not challenge the idea of a God because it does not answer the question “where did that cell come from?” If evolution is, indeed, how we got to this point (and I believe in some level of evolution, but within species. Meaning a species evolving to adapt better to its surroundings, not evolving into a different species altogether) then how did that first life cell come to be? What did it evolve from? Surely, not from something that was previously not alive. Not if it’s the first alive thing ever.
 
What I mean is this: I used to not be alive, but I was a sperm cell within my father that eventually made contact with my mother’s egg cells. There were living cells before I was alive (ironically, the Left will still somehow say that we are not alive inside the womb but are alive before we even get there as living cells). But with the first cell, what came before it? Nothing surely. But then, how did it get there in the first place?
 
Even if you believe the Universe was always here, as in it had no beginning (which is ludicrous), you cannot make the same argument for life on Earth. Earth was not always here. Life was not always here. So how did life get here? How did it develop from absolute nothingness? If there was ever a time when there was nothing, absent of an external force, what would there be today? Nothing!
 
So even the “best” tools for the Left in countering the existence of God do not actually counter the existence of God. There is no empirical, scientific, sociological evidence that points away from the Truth claims of the Bible. So in Eire’s comparison between Communism and religion, his argument does not actually work for Christianity. However, it does work magnificently well for Communism, which is meant to be the overall point. Not to mention he’s talking about religion in general and not Christianity in particular.
 
Now, he does also mention Christian Monasticism. For context, Monasticism is a religious way of life where one renounces worldly pursuits in order to devote oneself entirely to spiritual work. Basically, think of Catholic priests (just not the ones that molest kids or argue that there is climate change or that there should be gay priests or anything that adamantly goes against the Bible, as that basically stops being Monasticism altogether).
 
Eire critiques Christian Monasticism and history as being one “of failure, of corruption, and reform.”
 
Now, unfortunately, I am not a theologian, so I cannot necessarily argue against this completely. My understanding, at least of the Catholic Church, which tends to be Monastic, is that it has (and arguably is right now) corrupt and very different from what it should be. And I’m sorry to anyone who is Catholic here, but to say the Catholic Church is perfect is to be naïve.
 
The Catholic Church believes in the infallibility of the Pope. They believe the Pope is never wrong and incapable of being wrong. That, of course, is ridiculous. Of course the Pope can be wrong. He’s HUMAN! To say that the Pope cannot be wrong is to elevate the Pope to God’s level of omniscience. That is blasphemy and wholly unchristian.
 
The Catholic Church also believes in praying to saints, such as Saint Peter, and even to the Virgin Mary, that they may ask God to help the person praying to them. Praying to anyone but God is idolatry and there is no other way to label it. It’s not like asking someone else to pray for you. You don’t get down on your knees and bow your head to ask someone else to pray for you. Asking for the Virgin Mary to pray for you, while you yourself are in a praying position and are doing this to a statue of the Virgin Mary is to elevate the Virgin Mary to God’s level. Again, that’s blasphemy as well as idolatry.
 
I won’t spend too long criticizing what I don’t like about the Catholic Church, but it is important to note there are issues with it. Just as there are issues with every other denomination. There is no perfect denomination of Christianity. The church of Christ is, currently, being run by humans. Humans who make mistakes. Humans who are not omniscient. Humans who, by nature, are evil and can only be righteous by the good grace of the Lord.
 
So I won’t argue that there are no mistakes or issues within the denominations of Christianity or within Monasticism of Christianity. But there is a MASSIVE difference between calling Christian Monasticism a failure and corrupt and calling Christianity itself a failure and corrupt. I want to make it entirely clear, of course, that Eire is talking about Monasticism in particular. And I, not being a theologian and not having great understanding of this, will not necessarily argue against the particular claim. I just wanted to make the difference clear. He is criticizing Monasticism, not Christianity itself.
 
Now, I feel I should wrap this up so as to not make this article too long. In conclusion, I am glad there are college professors, particularly Ivy League college professors, who understand the horrors of Communism and its fundamental fanaticism that is devoid of knowledge and understanding.
 
And while Communism, and many things within Communism, can be considered to be like religion or an actual religion, where the government is God (I have mentioned multiple times that the Left wants to replace God with government. If that’s not basically making Communism a religion, I don’t know what would), I feel it particularly necessary to explain that the argument Eire used to describe religion or Communism as being like a religion does not exactly work with Christianity as science does not really suggest there is no God. In fact, it does the opposite.
 
Science has shown us to be extremely complex creatures living in an extremely complex reality. To say that everything that has happened up to now, including our very existence, is a matter of random chance is to reach for the bottom of the barrel in trying to deny God’s existence. The mathematical likelihood, or chance, of everything that has happened to be replicated is virtually impossible. Not only that, chance in and of itself doesn't have the power to do anything - it's just a mathematical concept to calculate probability. Chance is not a thing. When you toss a coin, you have 50/50 chance of it landing on tails - it'll depend on many factors: distance from the floor, force applied, objects it hits on its way down, etc. But chance is not a factor - it's a probability and it has no influence on the actual result. And yet, here we are. How? Well, I think we all know.
 
But aside from that, I want to acknowledge the fact that there are at least some college professors who still view Communism in a bad light. Of course, two of them actually had to experience communism (or at least socialism) to understand how bad it is, but still.
 
Matthew 6:13
“And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is an entirely free newsletter that contains the week’s articles compiled into a single e-mail. Unlike communists of today, I won’t lie to you and say that something is free when it really isn’t at the end of the day. When I say it’s free, that means it’s 100% free all the time. Today, tomorrow, next week, last Thursday. It’s always free to do this.
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

For the most part, I’ve chosen to steer clear off the topic of tariffs and a trade war. However, as I would read story after story relating to a trade war with China, one thing kept coming up in my mind: China would be obliterated by a trade war.
 
Even if the stories I would read would suggest the exact opposite, that the U.S. should not engage in a trade war with the Chi-coms, my instinct would always tell me that China had really no hopes of winning a trade war with us, especially if our economy is booming, which it is.
 
I will return to why exactly I suspected China would lose a trade war momentarily. For now, I wish to share a story with you published on Breitbart News titled: “Tectonic Shift in China: Xi Under Fire as China Realizes it Underestimated U.S. Trade Resolve.”
 
“Chinese President Xi Jinping is facing backlash from within the Communist Party over his hardline stance in the trade dispute with the United States, Reuters reported Thursday,” according to Breitbart.
 
Reuters reported that: “A growing trade war with the United States is causing rifts within China’s Communist Party, with some critics saying that an overly nationalistic Chinese stance may have hardened the U.S. position, according to four sources close to the government.”
 
“President Xi Jinping still has a firm grip on power, but an unusual surge of criticism about economic policy and how the government has handled the trade war has revealed rare cracks in the ruling Communist Party…”
 
“There is a growing feeling within the Chinese government that the outlook for China has ‘become grim’, according to a government policy advisor, following the deterioration in relations between China and the United States over trade. The advisor requested anonymity.”
 
I’m not surprised at all that the advisor requested anonymity. If the Chinese government found out who was saying these things about China and the government, they would imprison that person and possibly even execute them. There is no freedom of speech there. The only things you can say are things favorable to the government.
 
Regardless, let’s continue with the Reuters report: “Those feelings are also shared by other influential voices. ‘Many economists and intellectuals are upset about China’s trade war policies,’ an academic at a Chinese policy think tank told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue. ‘The overarching view is that China’s current stance has been too hard-line and the leadership has clearly misjudged the situation.”
 
The significance of this report cannot be understated. If this is, indeed, the case, then this is massive news! The Chinese communists don’t tend to be split about things like this. They are usually fairly unified. So for these anonymous sources to be saying these things about the Chinese Communist Party, that’s a big deal.
 
Even an article from the South China Morning Post suggests that China should concede defeat to Trump in this trade war. To quote Xu Yimiao, the writer of the article: “Beijing’s strategy of a tit-for-tat retaliation over tariffs has clearly failed. In fact, this strategy escalated the conflict…”
 
But how can this be? I thought China was supposed to kick our butts in a trade war. That’s what the Left and the fake news media were saying, after all.
 
Well, it’s really no surprise that the Left would say that we would lose a trade war with China. The Left sees China as a utopia. As such, they believe China’s centralized economy is superior to a capitalist market economy. Even U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) claimed last month that China held an advantage over the U.S. in a trade war, and engaging further in this trade war would be “stupid”.
 
According to Breitbart, “Views such as Schatz’s were common during the Cold War, when many prominent economists and political scientists argued that the Soviet Union’s totalitarian society could prevail over the U.S. Earlier in the last century, some had made similar arguments based on the perceived strength of Nazi Germany compared to the U.S.”
 
Which brings me to the reason I suspected China would lose a trade war. What do China, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany have in common? They would use socialistic policies to run every aspect of the government and people’s lives, including the economy. And what happened to two of those nations? They are no longer around… well, not as they used to be.
 
The reason I suspected China would lose a trade war is because capitalism always defeats communism in economics. Communism would be considered an economic joke if it weren’t so dangerous.
 
You see, there’s a very clear difference between capitalism and communism/socialism. I’ve even said this before in the past: capitalism creates wealth; communism destroys it.
 
Capitalism is the enterprise of building more and more wealth through freedom. Communism is the enterprise of spreading wealth around so much that it’s too thinly spread, and the enterprise of making it incredibly difficult to accumulate any sort of wealth. It’s the enterprise of spending other people’s money until there is no more money to be spent.
 
Under capitalism, wealth belongs to the people. Under communism, the people belong to the government.
 
I have often talked about China and how they are ranked #2 in world GDP (#3 if you count the E.U.). But you really have to think about why they are in that place.
 
Well, it’s most likely a combination of having the world’s biggest population (1.379 billion since 2016), so there’s a lot of people to give money to the government, as well as exploitation of what makes the GDP grow. For example, government spending grows the GDP. Part of the reason Obama’s GDP managed to grow around 2% is because he would spend a lot of money and drive our debt sky-high. But while the GDP was “growing”, the economy was stagnating, with high unemployment levels, more people going into welfare, etc.
 
China is doing much the same thing. They build luxurious ghost cities that no one can afford to move into and use so that the GDP artificially grows to an extent.
 
Now, I won’t claim to know the intricacies of Chines economics. I doubt vast amounts of spending and having the world’s largest population are the sole reasons for that GDP ranking, but they are significant parts of it. (The other part might be that they use relatively capitalistic economic policies to avoid completely crashing the economy and sinking the country).
 
What I’m getting at is that no communist country can withstand any sort of economic war with a capitalistic country, by definition. Engaging in trade wars with the U.S. will only accelerate China’s ultimate demise at the hands of their own communistic system.
 
And this becomes even more true if the U.S. is going through an economic boom, which it is. This, I believe, is part of the reason Trump is imposing and enforcing tariffs on foreign countries. Another part of it is the fact that other countries have been taking advantage of the U.S. because the Establishment believes the U.S. became powerful and wealthy because it somehow stole from other nations and felt that foreign governments taking advantage of us was a form of justice. Trump was having none of that nonsense and decided to embark on making fair trade deals by using the same tactics as the other nations.
 
But this really would not be suggested for Trump to do if the economy weren’t booming. With a booming economy, we can afford to engage in trade wars to make better trade deals in the future.
 
A booming U.S. economy combined with the simple fact of life that communism sucks at trade wars, and you can see why I always believed China would be destroyed in a trade war.
 
And seemingly, people within the Chinese Communist Party are beginning to realize this.
 
Proverbs 22:16
“Whoever oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to poverty.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.