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.
“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.
“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.
“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.
“Whoever oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to poverty.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The tricky thing about deception is that, despite how carefully you construct your rhetoric, there will be times when there are cracks and someone makes a slip of the tongue. California councilman Jesse Dominguez experienced this recently.
In a Santa Barbara council meeting two weeks ago, after the city passed the measure to ban all straws, including fully semiautomatic assault straws, Councilman Jesse Dominguez responded to the question of “what’s next?” in the most Communistic way possible: “Unfortunately, common sense is just not common. We have to regulate every aspect of people’s lives.”
And the Joseph Stalin Award goes to… Jesse Dominguez for his part in expressing what every Leftist in America thinks but won’t dare say out loud just yet.
It’s hard to get more communist than that… well, except in passing laws that lead to hundreds of millions of deaths. Since 60 million babies have already been killed because of Roe v. Wade alone, the Left in America is on good pace to keep up with the communists in the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea and Vietnam.
Now, for as far to the Left as California is, to the point where they’ll ban straws but legalize knowingly spreading STDs, they are still smart enough to realize that such comments are horrible, oppressive and wrong. Dominguez apologized for his remark, saying: “A few weeks ago, I made a string of words in a rhetorical fashion about regulation and they were not taken as rhetorical and that’s my fault so I want to apologize.”
He’s not sorry for what he said. No, like a typical Leftist, he blames you people for not understanding the “rhetorical” fashion in which he said the words. Despite the fact that, even if those words are rhetorical, they still mean the same exact thing. Something rhetorical is something relating to expressing a rhetoric in order to persuade or impress. A simple Google search will tell you this.
So his words mean the exact same thing, even if they are “rhetorical”. His aim is to control every aspect of people’s lives, supposedly because they lack common sense. It’s the rhetoric of every tyrant in the history of Earth.
For all the times the MSM wants to compare Trump to Stalin, which is ridiculous in itself, the real comparison exists between this councilman in particular and Stalin. In fact, knowing that Stalin was a COMMUNIST and communism resides on the Left, that comparison between Trump and Stalin is exceedingly ludicrous.
But that’s a conversation for another time. Right now, I want to focus on Joseph Stalinguez over here, and the entire Left as a whole.
This is precisely who the Left is. They want to control every aspect of your life, and this is not anything new.
I can’t help but remember a particular policy that Hillary Clinton’s idol, Margaret Sanger, the African-American community’s biggest threat, wished would be employed. In a March 27, 1934 article titled: “America Needs a Code for Babies”, Sanger said that the government should establish a sort of code “for the better distribution of babies… to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.” Under this code, “no woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for fatherhood… No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.”
Talk about controlling every aspect of people’s lives. Sanger was calling for the very thing these pro-“choice” people are against: the government in women’s reproductive systems. Under such a code, a woman would not have the legal right to bear a child, despite the fact that that’s a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT! Under such a code, a man is not allowed to be the father of a child without the proper government documentation. A couple who wants a child would need permission from the government to have a child.
Even Stalin was not this oppressive, and this all comes from the founder of Planned Parenthood herself. But this perfectly encapsulates what the Left wants to do. Remember, Sanger WAS part of the American Left at the time. She gave speeches (or at least one speech) to the women’s chapter of a New Jersey Ku Klux Klan chapter, worked with two Nazi sympathizers in Clarence Gamble and Lothrop Stoddard in her magazine and other works, and her magazine has a piece written by Ernst Rudin titled “Eugenic Sterilization, an Urgent Need”. Rudin was the chief architect of the Nazi sterilization program and was a mentor to Joseph Mengele, a Nazi physician and research scientist.
Sanger also urged that America follow Nazi Germany’s example in the field of eugenics, saying that “in animal industry, the poor stock is not allowed to breed. In gardens, the weeds are kept down,” in a March 3rd, 1938 speech titled: “Human Conservation and Birth Control.”
Knowing all of this, tell me, does it sound like the Left of today is any different from the Left of the early-to-mid 20th century? Does it even sound all too different from the very Nazis that they want to compare Trump to?
I have said before that socialism is the same today as it was in the past. It does not change. By the same token, neither do communism, fascism and Nazism. They are all derivative of Marxism and all find a comfy home in the Left.
Returning to Dominguez, does what he said, regardless of how he meant it, sound all too different from what Sanger wanted? A central power dictating what citizens can and can’t do?
There is no other way to describe it apart from sheer tyranny, and these people think America wants what they’re selling? Maybe those who are too ignorant to understand the similarities between the Democrat Party platform and the Nazi platform and those who are successfully deceived into believing socialism is somehow a force for good, but not the majority of America.
Those who know the truth know perfectly well that the Left in America is the same as in Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and Venezuela.
It’s the worst idea mankind has ever come up with.
“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
In the world of politics, the one thing that can absolutely destroy a political campaign is the attack of an opponent’s supporters or future voters. Hillary Clinton made the mistake of calling Trump supporters “deplorables”, prompting us to proudly wear merchandise that calls us that and further support Trump.
Even Hollywood has, at least in the past, understood the importance of not attacking another candidate’s supporters, but rather try to bring them in to your own camp and convince them that your candidate is the better choice, if the movie “Our Brand Is Crisis” starring Sandra Bullock is anything to go by.
Well, it seems nobody remembered to tell MSNBC commentator Donny Deutsch last week.
On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”, co-host Mika Brzezinki prompted her guest by talking about the “family separation” hoax outrage and unapologetically attacking Trump (as per usual).
Deutsch had this to say: “What has to happen now is this can no longer be about who Trump is. It has to be about who we are, if we are working towards November. We can no longer say Trump’s the bad guy. If you vote for Trump, you’re the bad guy. If you vote for Trump, you are ripping children from parents’ arms. The mistake we’ve made in the past is ‘Look at that bad guy over there. Look at that bad guy’. What the Democrats have to do is make the next election a referendum on not who Trump is, but who you are. That’s the big difference. You can no longer as a voter – because it’s not about taxes, it’s not even about some abstract term of immigration or nationalism; if you vote for Trump then you, the voter, you, not Donald Trump, are standing at the border, like Nazis, going ‘You here, you here.’”
Boy am I gonna have fun with this one.
First, as I mentioned earlier and as is the whole topic of the article, attacking a candidate or a person’s supporters is perhaps the worst mistake you can make in politics. It’s not the voters who are on the ballot. And calling them “Nazis” unless they vote for you will not get you any votes. Wanna know what happens when someone says “If you don’t vote for me, you’re a Nazi”? The response is: “screw you, moron.” And that’s sugarcoating it, as I don’t write curse words unless I’m quoting someone. And even then, I make sure to censor the words.
I get that the Left is basically out of ideas on how to take down Trump, but the way you separate him from his supporters isn’t to attack the supporters. Calling someone who won’t vote Democrat an “idiot” or a “Nazi” will only get them angry at you, not at their favored candidate.
Second, Obama and Bush were enforcing the same law Trump (prior to the EO) was enforcing. Does that mean that Obama and Bush voters are also evil because they were voting for someone who was ripping children from their parents’ arms?
Third, what do you mean it’s not about “taxes… some abstract term of immigration or nationalism”? It’s PRECISELY ABOUT THOSE THINGS TOO! If Democrats get control of Congress, they will RAISE people’s taxes. We want to vote for MAGA candidates because they will KEEP TAXES LOW and even perhaps LOWER THEM AGAIN! And what do you mean by “some abstract term of immigration or nationalism”? It is not abstract in the least. If Democrats get control of Congress, they will do what they can to open our borders. They will do what they can to destroy this country as founded and reshape it into their own socialist utopia (though, a dystopia for everyone else).
Finally, with everything we know about the National Socialist German Worker’s Party that Hitler founded, we know very well that the only people who come close to accurately describing Nazis are the Democrats and the entire Left. Sure, they may not be calling for the deaths of the Jews (even though they effectively are if they support Palestine), but everything about the Nazis from the Nuremberg Laws shaping after the Democrat South’s slavery laws to the brown shirts’ confiscation of all civilian weapons, to even the calls for environmental awareness perfectly describes the modern-day Democrat Party.
That even includes the Antifa thugs who organize and destroy and attack similarly to the brown (and even Fascist black) shirts of the 20th century. Not to mention their harassment of conservatives in restaurants, as with the cases of Kristjen Nielsen, Sarah Sanders and Eugenior Joseph (the black Trump supporter who was harassed in a Cheesecake Factory in Florida back in May).
Replace Hitler’s hatred for Jews with hatred for Trump supporters and conservatives and you have these unhinged Leftists.
Make no mistake, the Left wants to silence us regardless of method. Whether through banning us on social media or flat out having us arrested and/or killed, this is what they want to do. Their behavior more closely resembles Nazi Germany’s than they could ever claim we do. Not to mention they’ve already held internment camps for the Japanese during World War II under the orders of FDR, one of the Democrats’ favorite Presidents (who was honestly the closest thing we ever had to a Mussolini, given what he did).
But returning to Deutsch, all of this is the reason such a tactic would never work. Not only does it not help to attack someone’s supporters, but given the nature of the Left as being far more Nazi-like than they could ever claim we are, not enough people will ever buy it… well, if people are educated, that is. The Left has done a good job at promulgating a big lie that the Nazis and Italian Fascists were right-wing.
I don’t know if I’ve shared this with you in the past, but I will do so here. I remember having taken a political leaning quiz in high school. The quiz asked me all sorts of questions about political topics and the results would show my own political standing on an X-Y chart, in which the farthest left in the X-line is communism (which makes sense), farthest down on the Y-line was anarchy, farthest up on the Y-line was authoritarianism and farthest right on the X-line was Fascism. And on this chart, there were other notable people in history/politics such as Adolf Hitler, Obama, Stalin, and interestingly enough, Rush Limbaugh.
The chart placed me, of course, pretty far-right and “anarchist”.
Anyway, the chart also placed Hitler relatively right-wing, albeit more to the authoritarian side. If it were entirely honest, it would have put Marxism at the very left (since Communism, Nazism, Fascism and Socialism all derive from Marxism), totalitarian at the very top, anarchy at the very bottom and conservative at the very right.
And if it were honest, it would’ve put Stalin, Obama, Hitler and Mussolini pretty close together on the left, with Rush Limbaugh, Ronald Reagan, Eisenhower and Lincoln on the right.
But due to this assignment, I was led to believe, and legitimately believed until I learned better, that Hitler and Mussolini were right-wingers. That Communism was big government on the Left and Fascism was big government on the Right. That’s, very clearly, a lie. But as a high school student, this is what I was taught. And this is what other students are taught as well.
And it’s all a huge lie. Nazism and Fascism are not right-wing ideologies, they are their own interpretations of Marxism, which is entirely Left-leaning and anti-capitalist.
Regardless, returning to Deutsch, I honestly do hope this is a method they employ. Calling us Nazis will yield them the same result as in 2016. Not only am I ready to destroy each of their arguments, but I’m also ready to more strongly support pro-Trump candidates this November and fully support Trump in 2020.
My only worry is that this will eventually lead to a sort of civil war, in which Antifa terrorists and unhinged radical Leftists will harass more and more conservatives and perhaps eventually actually start killing us. Of course, I’m ready to destroy anyone who wishes to harm me and my family thanks to my 2nd Amendment rights, but that could definitely make things ugly out there.
Still, seeing as most gun owners live in red counties and consider themselves conservative, I doubt any actual civil war with the Left would last longer than a week. While I hope and pray we never reach that point, red-blooded Americans will be ready to fight for our freedoms once again.
“I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
It’s really no secret that Communist China does its absolute best to destroy any and all religion in the nation. You can often read news stories (outside of MSM, mostly) about Chinese paramilitary groups raiding and even destroying churches. You can read stories about China denouncing the Dalai Lama and calling him a “separatist” among other things. You can read stories about China banning burqas and other symbols of Islam in the Xinjiang region, as well as forcing shops in the region to sell alcohol and cigarettes to “weaken” religion. Religion is simply not something the Chinese government is fond of.
And the Left is not too different.
I suppose the biggest difference between the two is that, while the Chinese don’t like Islam, the Left is pretty much in love with it (even if Islam destroys Leftism, which is something that would likely happen but the Left doesn’t believe could). But the two have one specific idea in mind: replace God with the government.
In fact, China has essentially said as much. The Chinese government urged Christians in an impoverished part of southeast China to replace posters of Jesus with posters of President Xi Jinping “as part of a local government poverty-relief programme that seeks to ‘transform believers in religion into believers in the party,’” according to the South China Morning Post.
That is literally replacing God with the government in people’s lives. And that is precisely what the Left wants to do. They want Christians, particularly, to replace anything that has to do with Christ with whatever has to do with the government. Whether it’s replacing a poster of Christ with a poster of, say, Obama (despite him not being officially in the government anymore), or replacing whatever else with government propaganda.
The Left looks at China and is envious of them. They think we should be more like them. That our government would be more efficient if we imitated them. That the American people would be better off if we were more like China.
Nothing could be further from the truth, of course. China is ranked number 2 in world GDP (three, if you count the European Union), with roughly $11 trillion US dollars to their name. The United States ranks number 1 in world GDP with roughly $18 trillion. China, a communist country, is a poorer nation by a noticeable gap. Who would’ve thought?
But here’s the thing, even though they are communist, they don’t employ fully communist economic systems. If they did, they would bankrupt themselves in short time.
Back in 2015, Forbes published an article focusing on the deregulation of their market (not a lot). Of course, it also offers the solution of further deregulating interest rates and savings rates for the most part, but it does mention China’s decisions to deregulate to some extent.
And back in 2017, Reuters wrote about rising stocks in the Chinese market over financial deregulation.
So China has slowly but surely been deregulating certain economic areas in order to be a bit more prosperous. They are literally employing more capitalistic ideology in order to keep their country from completely going belly up.
It’s also what Lenin had to do in order to keep the Soviet Union afloat (for its time). According to Dinesh D’Souza in his book “The Big Lie”, “As a dedicated Marxist and communist, Lenin had pledged to outlaw capitalism throughout the Soviet Union, and he did. But the Soviet economy went into a nosedive, and in the early 1920s, by his own acknowledgment, Lenin embraced capitalist measures to solve the problem. He allowed private property, including private farms; he allowed businesses and farmers to keep some of their earnings; he even encouraged foreign businesses to invest in the Soviet Union. Lenin did not see his New Economic Policy as betraying communism but as stabilizing the economy as well as his political hold on the country so that he could truly institutionalize communism.”
The literal founder of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was forced to employ capitalistic measures to avoid totally bankrupting the Soviet Union.
Now, while China and the Soviet Union are almost entirely similar, I say that the Left wants to turn this country into China because the Soviet Union has more of a negative connotation. Despite some lunatic liberals’ ambition of establishing “full-on communism” in the U.S., many people in America still dislike the Soviet Union and don’t think we should follow them. After all, they didn’t even last to their centennial as a nation, so why follow? China, on the other hand, hasn’t dissolved yet in its communism. Don’t get me wrong, they likely won’t last to the turn of the century, but they are currently the largest Communist country on Earth.
Sure, North Korea is a notable example as well, but the Left has been relatively careful of not trying to say we should be more like North Korea (even if they do say they'd rather have Kim Jong-un as POTUS instead of Trump *ahem* Chelsea Handler *ahem*). And while they would also love to rule America the same way Kim Jong-un rules - everything belongs to the state - they make sure not to make it sound as though that's what they want. Compared to North Korea, China seems more sensible if you're a liberal. Of course, both are terrible options.
And if these Communists and Leftists had an ounce of grey matter within their skulls, they would realize that establishing full-on communism as Marx theorized is impossible. Not even the most notable communist country in world history could survive on full-on communism.
And the Chinese know this as well.
Still, while Communism does not make any sort of economic sense, it still is heavily implemented by the Chinese in other areas, most notably in the way people live their lives.
Even if the Left acknowledges that communism is horrible for the economy, they would still want to implement it here, particularly if it means ruling people’s lives. Earlier, I mentioned China banning religious symbols. That, obviously, is part of communism, the kind that the Left really wants.
Why? Because throughout human history, we have seen case after case of man trying to be like God. They either want to replace God with themselves or try to actually BE God. People like Nebuchadnezzar, Caesar, Alexander the Great, even Adam and Eve all sought to be like God or effectively replace God in people’s hearts and minds.
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Xi Jinping all have sought or seek the same. Even if they denounce God and claim to not believe in Him, they all effectively sought to replace Him. It’s a strange brand of Atheism: claiming you do not believe in God, all-the-while seeking to replace Him in people’s minds and hearts as though He were some existing threat. If they truly did not believe God was real, they would have no quarrel with trying to replace Him, who does not exist in their minds. Why replace something if it doesn’t exist?
This is what the Left, all over the world, wants to do. Regardless of how little sense it makes or how impossible it actually is, they will seek to do it.
“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Prager University (otherwise known as PragerU) recently released a video where their host asks people off the street to play a little game they liked to call “Communist Manifesto or Democratic Party Platform?”
It’s honestly a pretty amusing video (down below) and the reaction from some of the people to find out some rather communist-sounding phrases didn’t come from the writers of the Communist Manifesto: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, but rather came as part of the Democratic Party Platform was funny as well.
These were all the quotes:
“We will push for a societal transformation.”
“We have established new classes, new conditions of oppressions, new forms of struggles that replace the old ones.”
“The racial, wealth, and income gaps are the result of policies that discriminate against people.”
“Disparities in wealth cannot be solved by the free market.”
“We will challenge and dismantle the structures that define lasting racial, economic, political, and social inequity."
“The system is not working. We have rigged the economy.”
I challenge you to get all of these right.
And that was the precise challenge for the people Ami Horowitz of PragerU interviewed.
With the first quote: “We will push for a societal transformation”, most people answered: “Communist Manifesto”. Which was wrong. That was a 2016 Democratic Party Platform quote. One of them was so shocked she even said: “What? That sounds majorly communist!”
With the second quote: “We have established new classes, new conditions of oppressions, new forms of struggles that replace the old ones”, the video only showed two people answering. One of them got it right and the other wrong. The quote comes from the Communist Manifesto. Playing along, I figured I was right, considering the language used here. The Democrats would never dream of using words such as “oppression” and “struggle” as things they have anything to do with. Saying “We have established new… conditions of oppressions, new forms of struggles that replace the old ones” would not make the Democrat Party look good at all.
Of course, those are things they want to do, but they’d never win any elections by directly saying these things (or at least, not yet). They tend to hide the new conditions of oppressions and forms of struggles. For example, they’ve replaced plantations with ghettos to put down and take advantage of the African American people.
With the third quote: “The racial, wealth, and income gaps are the result of policies that discriminate against people”, most got right. It was from the Democratic Party Platform. Again, it’s all about language. These “gaps” are things only Democrats actively talk about. The communists didn’t “care” about income gaps. Politicians and their friends tended to be the only ones with wealth. Everyone else was equally poor. That’s communism. And that’s what Democrats want.
With the fourth quote: “Disparities in wealth cannot be solved by the free market”, everyone got it wrong. This one’s a bit tricky, at least to people that don’t get involved in politics too often. And here, the language used doesn’t help you out too much. This is a Democratic Party Platform quote. It doesn’t surprise me that everyone got it wrong, since both the communists and Democrats despise the free market system.
One of the people even said this upon hearing the correct answer: “Really? That sounded just like the Communist Manifesto. That’s crazy.”
With the fifth quote: “We will challenge and dismantle the structures that define lasting racial, economic, political and social inequity”, again, two people were shown answering and one of them got it right, mostly because he figured out how the game is going: if it sounds communist, it’s probably Democrat.
Again, the language used here helps us. The Democrats are the only ones who pretend to care about racial inequity and all the other things.
With the final quote: “The system is not working. We have rigged the economy”, once again two people answered and only one got right. Considering things, even language, this one is a bit more tricky than the others. But I hope you’re not surprised to find out that this is also Democratic Party Platform.
I can understand if people got this one wrong. The language sounds exactly like it’s coming out of the Communist Manifesto. Personally, as I was playing along the first time, even I thought it was the Communist Manifesto. This sounds exactly like something a communist would say. And I mean a full-blown and outspoken communist, sort of like Bernie Sanders.
But this game made me think about creating my own little game. I’ll title it: “Who Said It? Leftist or Republican?”
Let’s begin, shall we?
“… the need to better secure the border and punish employers who choose to hire illegal immigrants. We are a generous and welcoming people here in the United States, but those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law. We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants.”
That sounds exactly like something Trump would say or really any other (conservative) Republican. It’s a message prioritizing the rule of law. A message that boldly proclaims that illegals shouldn’t be here and those who are here, as well as those who employ them, should be punished.
It’s also a message delivered by a man who would eventually become President of the United States of America.
And that man’s name… is Barack Hussein Obama.
Yep, a Democrat said this. But not just any Democrat. Their most popular and beloved member said this.
The next couple of quotes are roughly about the same subject:
“I’m just as opposed to Booker T. Washington with all his Anglo-Saxon reinforcements as I am to the coconut-headed, chocolate-colored typical little coon Andy Dotson who blacks my shoes every morning.”
“Now that Roosevelt has eaten with that n****r in Washington, we shall have to kill a thousand n****rs to get them back to their place.”
The Left would want you to believe that these were Republicans saying this. As it turns out, the first quote comes from Democrat Senator James Vardaman responding to Teddy Roosevelt’s meeting with Booker T. Washington.
The second was Democrat Senator Benjamin Tillman.
Let’s move on to the next one. This one will be a bit more of a freebie, but I believe it’s worth quoting.
“We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalist system of exploitation… and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”
Since this is very clearly a Leftist, let’s rework the premise of the game. “Which Leftist Said It?”
With this new game system, it becomes a little bit harder to get this one right. It sounds just like something Crazy Bernie would say. Certainly how any Democrat feels.
This is a very socialist message. A message of destroying the free market capitalist system in the country by any means necessary. A message of utter destruction of everything that gives people the actual opportunity to become wealthy on their own merit.
I’ll give you a hint: it’s not a quote from this century. Ready to hear the answer?
Adolph Hitler, in a 1927 speech.
If there ever was any debate over whether Hitler was a socialist or not, this should utterly destroy any arguments that he wasn’t.
We’ll end this little game with two quotes from the same person.
“I don’t mind telling you in confidence that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.” “There seems no question he is really interested in what we are doing and I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished and by his evidenced honest purpose in restoring Italy.”
As you can probably guess, this quote is talking about Mussolini. This quote highlights this person’s admiration for the Fascist dictator and shows interest in what he has accomplished in oppressing the Italian people.
Who said it? Someone very important in the United States and someone the Democrats reverend as a great Democrat of his time: FDR. This comes from a letter to a Mussolini admirer.
We continue the game, but returning to the previous format.
“Donald Trump represents a threat both to the party and to the country. I believe he makes the world far more dangerous, I believe he puts America’s economy in jeopardy. And his temperament is totally unsuited for the presidency.”
Reading this, you can picture people like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and many Leftists saying this. After all, they’ve all said, at one time or another, that he’s unsuited for the presidency. But the hint comes from the very beginning of the quote.
Democrats don’t care about what happens to the GOP. If they could, they’d destroy it entirely. So this is obviously coming from a Republican. Which one? The one that is now running for a Senate seat in Utah: Loser Mitt Romney.
We’ll end this little game here, since I don’t want to run this article too long. I’ll finish by saying that it was very amusing to see all of the reactions from the people discovering just how closely tied the Democrats are to communist ideals. Hopefully at least one of them recognizes this fact and decides never to vote for another Democrat again.
1 Corinthians 3:18
“Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.”
Author: Freddie D. Marinelli.
During the first few days of the Winter Olympics in South Korea, Kim Jong-un’s sister, Kim Yo-jong, was in attendance and, according to multiple MSM sources, she “stole the show away from VP Mike Pence”, who was also in attendance.
The New York Times writes: “Kim Jong-un’s Sister Turns On The Charm, Taking Pence’s Spotlight.” Yes, that was the title of their article.
The article says that news outlets in the South instantly called her “’North Korea’s Ivanka,’ likening her influence to that of Ivanka Trump on her father, President Trump.”
If she has any sort of influence on the insane, murderous dictator, she must not be a very good influence.
Of course, this article manages to sidle up to the North Korean regime and slam the President at the same time.
“Flashing a sphinx-like smile and without ever speaking in public, Ms. Kim managed to outflank Mr. Trump’s envoy to the Olympics, Vice President Mike Pence, in the game of diplomatic image-making.”
We can see the Left is salivating over some sort of North Korean “victory” over the U.S. and the media will go to any length to look for it.
“While Mr. Pence came with an old message – that the United States would continue to ratchet up ‘maximum sanctions’ until the North dismantled its nuclear arsenal – Ms. Kim delivered messages of reconciliation as well as an unexpected invitation from her brother to the South Korean president, Moon Jae-in, to visit Pyongyang, the North Korean capital.”
A message of reconciliation? How exactly does what she did offer such a thing? “Hey, South Korea, I know that we’ve been threatening you guys with nukes for decades and have often sought to start a third World War and that anyone in North Korea, including myself, is subject to execution at the mere whim of the Supreme Leader, but let’s just forget the decades of atrocities my country has committed to its own people and the South Koreans we abduct at the border. Water under the bridge, eh?”
Give me a break.
Besides, let's face it - the ONLY reason North Korea wanted to team up with South Korea for these Games is it's the ONLY way North Korea would be applauded AT ALL!!. South Koreans were applauding their OWN athletes! If North Korean athletes had walked on their own, what do you think might have happened? Maybe they might have gotten booed? North Korea clearly didn't want to take any chances and the South fell for it.
Then, the article goes on to further attack Pence, saying: “And while the unified Korean Olympic team received a standing ovation as they marched into the stadium Friday night, Mr. Pence remained seated, which critics said was disrespectful of the athletes and his host, Mr. Moon.”
Since when does the MSM care if someone stands and applauds for someone or something? During the State of the Union address they certainly didn’t care that Democrats didn’t stand for black unemployment being at an all-time low. They didn’t stand for the economy growing at unprecedented rates. They didn’t stand to honor the families of children slain by members of MS-13. But they care that Pence didn’t stand to applaud the Korean Olympic team?
Why would he? Who roots for a competing country in such an event? He wants American Olympians to win the gold. He roots for Team USA. Despite the fact that we’re allied with the South, why would we root for them to beat our guys? This is a COMPETITION!
But you see, he doesn’t stand for something he didn’t have to stand for and the Left attacks him. Meanwhile, Democrats don’t stand for something every red-blooded American should stand for and the media doesn’t bat an eyelid.
The article then quotes a University of Connecticut professor (because the Left believes these people to be the smartest in the world): “I think it would have been really helpful to the conversation of denuclearization for the Pences to have appreciated the effort put into bringing team unified Korea into the stadium. And it wouldn’t have lessened the American position.” So standing for that team would’ve gotten Little Rocket Man to denuclearize his country? You have to have a childish ambition and imagination to believe such a thing would happen.
But the professor’s not done. She (the professor is a woman) then said: “The fact that he and Mrs. Pence didn’t stand when the unified team came in was a new low in a bullying type of American diplomacy.”
Seriously? Not standing is considered bullying now? Then care to explain the continuous bullying from the Democrats for not standing for anything that is Making America Great Again? By this logic, weren’t the Democrats bullying Trump?
You really have to have a victim mentality to believe such inaction to be considered “bullying”.
The article then continued to praise Kim Jong-un’s sister (a phrase I can’t believe I’m actually saying): “Her quietly friendly approach while in South Korea… seemed to endear her to some observers.”
And it’s not until plenty late in the article that the New York Times casually mentions the brutality of the North Korean regime: “Others said they were horrified by the notion that Ms. Kim could lull South Koreans, or anyone else, into forgetting the North’s repression and human rights abuses.”
It’s not abuse of human rights. It’s ANNIHILATION of human rights. The people of North Korea have no human rights. Any sort of misstep on their part that serves to piss off anyone with any sort of power will result in that person’s imprisonment, forced labor and potential execution.
The people of North Korea have no rights, thanks to the communist regime. If any moronic liberal wants to see what full-on communism looks like, I’d be happy to point them to North Korea. That is full-on communism.
A place where people are not people is a place ruled by communism. The people of North Korea are not people – they’re slaves to the communist regime. They may not don metal chains, but they don mental chains. Emotional chains. Psychological chains. Legal chains.
They are bound to communism not just by the law of North Korea but by the state of mind of the people.
I doubt if North Korea were to make a 180 degree turn to capitalism that the people would know what to do. They have no idea what being free means. For generations, these people have lived under the worst form of communism. The people belong to the state, not to themselves.
So then, I must ask, are you really so surprised that the MSM would side with the North Koreans over America? After all, they ignore the fact that Kim Jong-un was the one who threatened us first and blame rising tensions on Trump as though he is the one who made the first threat.
Another Leftist media source, ThinkProgress already misquotes Trump’s speech at the U.N., saying that he vowed to “totally destroy” North Korea. They willingly ignore the part where Trump said he would totally destroy North Korea “if [America] is forced to defend itself or its allies.”
He wasn’t making a threat to North Korea. He was making a promise. If they attack first, there will be no more North Korea. But the Left is making him out to be the dangerous lunatic going around threatening people.
Again, are you surprised the Left supports North Korea? KIM IS EXACTLY WHAT THE LEFT WANTS TO BE IN AMERICA! The Left would KILL to get the power Kim Jong-un has. They dream of being able to turn America into a completely communist nation.
A nation that owns its people. A nation where the people belong to the state. That’s exactly what the Democrats want and even showed in an ad during the 2012 election, where the narrator said: “the government is the only thing we all belong to.”
The funny thing is that Mussolini said something very similar in the book La Dottrina del Fascismo: “All is in the state and nothing human exists or has value outside the state.”
That’s the reality Mussolini lived in. That’s the reality Kim Jong-un lives in. And that’s the reality that the Democrats, as evidenced by the campaign ad, want to live in.
One last time. Are you really so surprised that the Left favors the evil communist North Korean regime over the good capitalist American nation?
“But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
Author: Freddie Drake Marinelli.
Reading through some conservative websites, I found this neat little story on Breitbart titled: “Chinese State Media: Millennial-oriented Communist Propaganda Failing For ‘Zen Generation’.”
This is a rather eye-catching story considering the fact that I certainly did not think China of all places would have a problem with their own millennial generation.
The article reads: “China’s government-run newspaper Global Times complained in a piece published Tuesday that millennials of the ‘Zen generation’ are ‘indifferent’ to communism, a sign that Xi Jinping’s efforts to impose Marxist ideology on young Chinese people are failing.”
I would just like to point out the irony of American millennials loving communism and Chinese millennials being at the very least indifferent to it.
Quoting the Global Times, Breitbart writes: “They are not inspired by any patriotic drive or the Party’s political catchphrases. They are simply indifferent.”
Then Breitbart writes: “Under Xi, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has invested heavily in youth-centered propaganda, including producing rap videos about communism, organizing ‘mass dating’ events where Communist Youth League members can meet state-approved potential mates, and doubling down on textbooks and academic study that promote Chinese military belligerence. Chinese officials have also cracked down on non-Mandarin language and religions considered rivals to ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics.’”
“Yet the Global Times admits in a report on the ‘Zen-generation’ that these efforts appear to be, in part, failing. ‘People who call themselves Zen-generation, either seriously or half-jokingly, are seemingly fine with anything that happens to them,’ the article notes, suggested that these individuals refuse to put effort into anything, including work and relationships.”
Is there any way we can do a Millennial-exchange program with the Chinese? Because I’d rather have the Chinese millennials over American millennials. And yes, I know that I myself am a millennial, but I would imagine that program being voluntary rather than mandatory. I know that plenty of American millennials would rather live in China at this point and I can imagine a good few of the Chinese millennials would be willing to see what America is like.
I think that program would be a win-win for everyone. America gets millennials that, regardless of their flaws, won’t flat-out demand full-on communism on social media (yes, I saw someone call for full-on communism as a Christmas present). American millennials will finally experience what communism is like and (hopefully) learn why it’s the worst system of government around. China gets millennials that are excited about communism and Chinese millennials get to experience real Democracy and freedom.
Putting jokes aside, we return to the Breitbart article. The article then reads: “The Chinese Communist Youth League has identified this as a threat and a ‘total tragedy.’”
“’Only when the young have ambitions and are responsible can a nation have prospects,’ the Youth League said in an article on the topic posted on social media and quoted by the Times. The newspaper notes that communists may indeed have something to be worried about, that ‘this new trend is a passive reaction against the rapid reforms, changes, and developments of modern-day Chinese society.’”
The article then mentions how there are more Christians in China than there are Communist Party members. Now, I tend not to simply take such information on the internet and immediately believe it. Thankfully, Breitbart doesn’t assume you’ll flat-out believe them either, so they set up a link to an Australian news website about the Chinese government cracking down on Christians and churches.
The article says that “Some say there are 100 million Christians in China – that’s more than Communist Party members. The Chinese government admits there are about 25 million Christians registered at state-run churches where pastors are appointed by the state and theology approved by the governments Religious Affairs Bureau. But the big worry for the Party is the unregistered worshippers in the underground churches. Accurate estimates are difficult to get, but experts say their numbers vary between 40 million and 70 million. And they say by 2030 China will have the world’s largest Christian population.”
This is fantastic news to hear about the growth of the Christian faith in a communist country. Yet another reason I kinda actually want such an exchange program. If the estimate really is 100 million, that means that Christians make up roughly 7% of China’s population. While not a lot, you also have to remember that China has the largest population in the world at over 1.3 BILLION people. And considering that this is a communist country, that number is something to be happy about.
But returning to the Chinese millennials, I’m happy to see a millennial generation that isn’t entirely in love with the ideology of communism. While not every single American millennial likes the idea of socialism (as evidenced by yours truly), the fact that roughly half of my generation likes socialism makes me worried about the future of this country.
But the good news is that that number can always change. People can be educated. Enlightened. If Christianity can not just survive but even GROW in a communist country, I have hope for this country’s Christian faith.
I even have some hope for China’s FUTURE! And that’s a sentence I never thought I’d ever write. If these Chinese millennials learn to despise communism (as everyone who considers themselves logical should), then that would be a massive blow to global communist efforts, essentially striking at the heart of today’s global communism.
Now, I might be speaking a bit prematurely here. Like I talked about American millennials getting educated being a possibility, so is Chinese millennials embracing the propaganda being drilled into their brains a possibility. And while I usually prefer to adopt a realistic outlook on many things, I can’t help but be at least somewhat optimistic over these news.
The potential to dismantle the Chinese communist regime is there, and it can be done by China’s own youth. I am certainly hopeful of that possibility, slim as it may be at the moment.
I just hope and pray that people all around the world will wake up to the truth. To the truth that communism sucks. To the truth that big government sucks. But more importantly, to the Truth that Christ is the one and only Son of God, King of Kings and Lord of Lords. That no matter who is President of any country, Jesus is King.
And I see the potential for such an awakening in China. I just hope American millennials will follow Chinese millennials… Oh look at that, another sentence I never thought I’d say.
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
Author: Freddie Drake Marinelli.
Danielle Cross and Freddie Marinelli will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...