Year End; Time to Wake Up

It has become somewhat traditional for me to review the Spherical Model on the last post of the year. (Also at other times, such as early March, the anniversary of when I started the blog in 2011.) I’ll get to that eventually. But I want to lead into that by first talking about a podcast I was listening to the other day.

The host of Cwic Show is Greg Matsen, and the person being interviewed, Julie Behling, did her master's thesis on the underground Christian churches in the Soviet Union. She is the author of Beneath Sheep's Clothing and has a documentary with the same name coming out in January. 

screenshot from Cwic Show December 15, 2023

One detail I hadn’t known about the Soviet Union was that the KGB had infiltrated the churches. All of them. The clergy were either cooperating with the KGB, or they were KGB agents. Behling offers details about how they had done this, and why. But it came down to controlling what people believe, because that is what totalitarian tyrannies must do.

Then she added that, in her research, she was somewhat shocked to find that Communists had also infiltrated a solid half of American Christian churches, more than a century ago.

She mentioned Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German pastor, who spent some time in the US in the 1930s (I wrote about him here), who was sad to come to the Union Theological Seminary only to find that they scoffed at the idea of Christ’s divinity and atonement for sin. Those were the same lapses he had found in the German clergy as they acquiesced to Hitler.

Back when I was attending homeschool conferences, more than a decade ago, I heard Pastor Voddie Baucham speak. He defined having a Biblical worldview as believing in Jesus, who lived a perfect life, died for us, and suffered for our sins as our Savior. That is what I believe, and that is doctrine in my religion, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So I was shocked when he told us that less than 10% of professed Christians have this Biblical worldview, and only 51% of pastors have it. I think that’s evidence of the infiltration.

I heard a talk recently—I think it was Ken Ham telling a story from his childhood, but I could be wrong about who it was. Anyway, he recalled the pastor had been telling the story of the feeding of the 5000 with the loaves and fishes. The pastor had explained that, once a young boy had pulled out his meager amount of fish and bread to share, it had incentivized everyone else to share what they had, and then there was plenty. The storyteller’s father went up to the pastor afterward and told him, “That’s not what happened.” The pastor had taken the miracle out of the story, along with Jesus’ divine power. And he’d made the story pointless. If enough people had brought food and to spare, there was never anyone in need of being fed, so why would the story even show up in scriptures? More likely, it was remarkably miraculous, and that’s why it got recorded. Church leadership that doesn’t believe in the divinity of Christ means they are not Christian, and they are leading the flock toward something else that is not good.

What Behling said had taken place in the infiltrated churches was a replacement of the divine doctrine with the “Marxist construct of oppressed versus oppressor”; in other words, social justice—even though it took until recent decades for them to start using that term.

Matsen and Behling got into a section where they were discussing some various flavors of authoritarian tyranny.

I’ll share some of the transcript here, so you can see the attempts to define various forms of authoritarian tyranny. [GB is Greg Matsen, and JB is Julie Behling.]

GM: I’ve noticed in reading your book—obviously I don’t know about the documentary yet—but in the book you use the term Communism quite a bit. That’s kind of a term that isn’t used as much. It’s Marxist, maybe, or, moving on to 2.0 here with woke, etc. You have a background in studying Communism, right?

He asks her about the terms, so she begins with some definitions:

·        Socialism is when the government owns the means of production and is in charge.

·        Communism is when the government owns the means of production, and this government is instituted through a violent overthrow of the previous regime.

·        Marxism is the oppressed versus oppressor construct that's the playbook for preparing a society to fall to Communism.

JB: So if you can identify a group of people who either are oppressed or who can be made to feel oppressed, you can rile them up to anger and stoke the grievance and say, “Hey there's your oppressor. Tear down that system of power.” The systems of power are torn down and weakened, and now the Communists can come in and assume authority.

This caught my attention, because I have this in my basic article about the Spherical Model:

People tend to be afraid of the chaos of anarchy. Lenin saw this. One way to gain totalitarian power is to create chaos and then promise to solve the problems of chaos (crime, poverty, lack of safety on all levels) by offering government solutions, until the revolutionaries have managed to get themselves installed as dictators. This was the purpose of Trotsky’s idea of perpetual revolution: Place power in our hands, and we will see that you are fed and housed and protected—that is, if the dictator was so minded once the power was achieved. Everywhere that Communism has been tried, it took hold because people gave in to this desire for government to provide protection and food and shelter. It works on a people who do not trust their own ability to provide, and it works especially well when chaos reigns to make it difficult for people to provide for themselves. Revolutionaries therefore cause anarchy so that they can implement their own totalitarian tyranny.

I think Behling is right when she is saying that the oppressed versus oppressor tactic is to create chaos that will allow the tyrants to step in and take control.

Behling says, “What we have brewing here, it's not exactly like the type of Communism that the Soviets had. It's worse.” Matsen asks her why it’s worse.

JB: Because it's more crafty. And it's more like the Communist Chinese system, where it's this weird marriage of Communism and Fascism and then, honestly, a little bit of Monopolistic Capitalism thrown in for good measure. It's the most abusive forms of government fused together with this—what they're hoping for—Global Leadership with all the technocratic controls that they— we now have with being in the 21st century, and it's truly frightening.

The Spherical Model allows us to see the relative badness or goodness of a philosophy graphically. You can determine how close the ideas bring society to freedom, prosperity, and civilization, or alternatively how close they bring society to tyranny, poverty, and savagery. For a fuller discussion see this summary. Or, for more detail, see all the articles on the website, starting with "The Political World Is Round."

The political, economic, and social spheres of the Spherical Model

There are slight flavor differences between Communism, Socialism, Fascism, the overarching philosophy of Marxism, as well as what Behling calls Monopolistic Capitalism—another way of saying Oligarchy or rule by businesses and controllers of money. These are all southern hemisphere on the Spherical Model, mostly on the statist side, or controlled by the government, although some (oligarchs and organized crime possibly) on the chaos or anarchic side of tyranny. But they’re all bunched together, down toward the bad pole of tyranny.

Fascism, Socialism, and Communism are all statist tyrannies,
and thus they take up approximately the same location
on the Spherical Model.

There’s discussion about the way tyranny—Marxism, Communism—is being presented here in the West, particularly in the US. It’s like a virus, or a cancer, that spreads. But, because the West was healthy (not a lot of abject poverty), it was hard to convince a poor class to rise up in rebellion, allowing for the tyrannical takeover.

JB: Communism—you can see it as a virus, or as a cancer, and it spreads to various parts of the—different organs and different systems, and eats it up, and takes it over. And, you know, Antonio Gramsci, his whole plot, you know, he was back there in Italy as a Marxist, and very stressed out that the West was not falling to Communism, in the 1930s. And so he’s the one who came up with cultural Marxism, and said, “OK, we’ve got to infiltrate these cultures—the West has this cultural hegemony that is resistant to Communism; we’ve got to go in and take those things over.”

I mean, before the businesses could be taken over, our culture was already taken over to a good enough extent that that was possible. So, yeah. We’re in a very late stage, because it’s far beyond the culture at this point.

There’s a part of the book of Revelation that I’ve been looking at, in chapter 13, about the beast that rises up out of the sea. This beast has multiple heads and crowns. Symbolically, it seems to be the various powers reigning around the world, and interconnected together as one “beast.” One of the heads is mortally wounded—but then comes back to life. I have looked at this and wondered if this is Communism, or one of the other words we’ve listed and defined above. We fought a World War to wipe out this attempt at controlling all the peoples of the earth. We said, “Never again!” And yet, here we are, with our college campuses preaching the Gramsci version, cultural Marxism, where everyone is either oppressed or oppressor. There’s an attempt to control our ability to make a living, or to buy and sell, based on whether we have bought into this party line. It’s as ugly as it ever was. “We’re in a very late stage,” Behling says.

"La Bete de la Mer," a French tapestry showing
John the Revelator, Satan the dragon, and the sea beast
of Revelation 13. Image from Wikipedia.

Matsen, at one point, adds this:

GM: I really like that you said that they’re using Fascism, because that’s 100% true. It’s so funny, because they call anyone who leans right of them, which is almost everyone, a Fascist. What a Fascist really means, they’re using business; they’re using the current institutions, right, that are not owned by the state. And that is Fascism. And they’re using it better than any Fascist has ever used it before. And so, again, that’s the idea of adapting to the West and using their system, where now they are the Fascists that are, again, infecting and using and coercing the free enterprises to—and free organizations and institutions in the West—to tow the party line.

So, again, it isn't what you call it; it's how far into tyranny the idea is. If people used the Spherical Model, they couldn't be fooled into thinking anything "right" of cultural Marxism is Fascist; cultural Marxism is just a way of being Fascist—or totalitarian tyranny. 

Behling tries to give us some hope. I mean, why point out these things if there isn’t any hope of recovery?

JB: And I really do have hope—I mean, I’m a little bit doom and gloom here—but I do have hope that there are so many good people, so many good Christians, so many good people who love freedom that, if we can wake up enough people, we have this window of time right now—if we can wake up enough people—that these agendas will not be able to come to full fruition. That is my hope.

There is some reason to hope. I know so many good people, as she does, so many good Christians and also good people of other faiths, who love freedom, and truth, and want to preserve our God-given rights. Governments are instituted to protect those God-given rights, but government is fire, and it seems to fuel itself and grasp power unto itself that it hasn’t been given by the people.

One purpose of the Spherical Model is to clarify. It isn’t necessary to understand all the nuances and differences among the various words we use for tyranny. It’s only necessary to know whether something leads to Freedom, Prosperity, and Civilization, or whether it instead leads to Tyranny, Poverty, and Savagery. Those things are ascertainable with a few basic questions—and a lot of truth.

May this coming year be a year where we bring more people to an awakening, with truth—offered with love and caring, but always by giving and sharing truth.

Let’s Raise a Hand against Socialism

This past Friday a question was asked to the debating Democrat candidates for the presidency. George Stephanopoulos said, “Let me just ask, is anyone else on the stage concerned about having a democratic socialist at the top of the Democratic ticket?” 

No hands were raised. Then Amy Klobuchar briefly raised her hand, but peer pressure pushed her hand back down. Then, when called on, she points out that socialism is divisive. So she doesn’t call herself that, but many of her policies do.

Amy Klobuchar, second from right, raises hand
screenshot from here

So let me translate for you: Whoever the Democrats nominate favors a radical shift to socialism, which is incompatible with our US Constitution. The Democrat Party will support socialism—and are cavalier about a simple majority overthrowing our Constitution.

That means that they do not understand our Constitution.

Last September I mentioned a list of questions I use to reveal whether a candidate understands and supports the Constitution, or has something else—namely, tyranny—in mind. I’m using this list as I work on my choices in local Republican Primary races. I wish Democrats were using this list as well.

Socialism would affect all three spheres: political, economic, and social. But in its simplicity, socialism is the replacement of a free market with a government centrally controlled economy. So I’m going to look at just the economic questions today.

And, while all the Democrat candidates lean socialist, Bernie Sanders, the most openly avowed socialist, claims to have held the same beliefs for many decades, and he has a website proclaiming his plans. So we’ll use him to answer our questions today. Maybe this exercise will help us see whether socialism leads to prosperity or to poverty.

Bernie Sanders during last Friday's debate
AP Photo by Patrick Semansky found here

First question.

What do you believe is the optimum percentage of GNP that should be taken in taxes? And for the sake of discussion, let’s add, for what purposes should these taxes be spent? 

Here’s the short answer from Frank Sammartino, TaxPolicyCenter.com, concerning Bernie Sanders (2016 campaign): 

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders proposes significant increases in federal income, payroll, business, and estate taxes, and new excise taxes on financial transactions and carbon. New revenues would pay for universal health care, education, family leave, rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure, and more. TPC estimates the tax proposals would raise $15.3 trillion over the next decade. All income groups would pay some additional tax, but most would come from high-income households, particularly those with the very highest income. His proposals would raise taxes on work, saving, and investment, in some cases to rates well beyond recent historical experience in the US.

I didn’t get an actual answer, other than, no matter who you are, you need to pay more. Upper rates could reach beyond historic—which means confiscatory (at which levels, no one willingly pays, so tax revenue actually goes down). And that money will be spent for non-governmental powers, such as a non-choice healthcare system takeover, federal government controlled education, forcing businesses to pay family leave or avoid hiring parents. Plus, incidentally, paying for infrastructure projects that might qualify as of interstate interest.

I went to Bernie Sanders’ campaign site. It didn’t help getting my specific questions answered. There is, however, an overall sense that, no matter how much government takes, it’s not enough—and we’ll just keep taking from the evil rich until we run out of spending ideas. So, how much should be taken in taxes? Probably upwards of 80% of GDP. 

Next question.

What do you believe is the government’s role in contributing to economic health? For example, if there is a sudden recession (as we were hit with in 2008), how should government react?

Let’s look at those 2008-2009 bailouts. Bernie Sanders was against them before he voted for them. His reasons for originally disapproving (besides their starting under a Bush administration) strike me as convoluted. But there’s a timeline from four years ago following debates against Hillary Clinton. You can see the FactCheck.org (not necessarily unbiased) analysis here. It looks to me as if, when he thinks about people being unemployed, maybe he’ll vote for a bailout, but if he thinks in terms of an evil large corporation or industry, he’s against helping them.

What about stimulating the economy? I think he thinks socialism will magically do that, even though it never has, and even though estimates are that his plans would decrease real income for wage-earners who happen to keep their jobs.

If you read the Constitution, however, you learn that government’s only role is safeguarding wealth; i.e., minting money, prosecuting theft and fraud, etc. As we’ve seen the last three years, the more government gets out of the way, the better the country’s economic health.

Next question.

What do you believe is government’s role in the distribution of income discrepancy between the poor and the wealthy?

This is a good question for Bernie Sanders. He has an ad in which people redefine freedom in terms of having all their worries taken away, paid for by magic, or by some enslaved taxpayer—he doesn’t say. No mention of government’s control over their lives when that happens, so that’s pretty disingenuous. But there’s more on his website:

Here’s what he says on "Taxes on Extreme Wealth":

·         Establish an annual tax on the extreme wealth of the top 0.1 percent of U.S. households.

·         Only apply to net worth of over $32 million and anyone who has a net worth of less than $32 million, would not see their taxes go up at all under this plan.

·         Will raise an estimated $4.35 trillion over the next decade and cut the wealth of billionaires in half over 15 years, which would substantially break up the concentration of wealth and power of this small privileged class.

·         Ensure that the wealthy are not able to evade the tax by implementing strong enforcement policies.

Even though he says he’s raising taxes only on those with accumulated wealth over $32 million, elsewhere he admits that everyone, even low-income earners, will pay higher taxes (that’s under his single-payer healthcare plan). So, let me translate. Tax on wealth means confiscation of wealth that taxes have been paid on in previous years.

Dr. Zhivago arrives home
screenshot from here

Remember that scene in Dr. Zhivago when he comes home to find his family mansion has been parceled out to multiple families, and he has been apportioned maybe a single room to use out of his whole house? That is socialism confiscating wealth. Government takes title if it deems you “own” too much. Bernie thinks he should be the one to decide whether you have earned more than you deserve—which goes against the Constitution’s mandate to protect wealth. He plans to steal it.

For a lesson in what this means today, try this PragerU video: “Does Bill Gates Pay His Fair Share?” 

Also, Bernie’s in favor of re-lowering the estate tax to affect estates over $3.5 million. In other words, a small-to-medium-sized business cannot be passed down from one generation to the next, even if the next generation has been working in that business for years to make it successful—because Bernie says that would be unfair.

Again, instead of protecting wealth, he plans to take it and use it as he sees fit, because he thinks that’s more fair than having the person who earned the wealth decide what to do with it.

Next question.

What do you believe should be government’s role in charitable help to the poor and suffering?

Bernie believes some other taxpayer should pay for your healthcare, and that he should be able to decide what healthcare you’re allowed to buy, or what you must buy. And this would be $40 trillion added to the backs of working taxpayers.

He also believes some other taxpayer should be enslaved to work to pay for your education, whether that taxpayer has a college degree or not, because he thinks that’s fair. Plus, spending this $3 trillion will buy him younger voters. (My commentary, but his policy.)

He thinks government should enslave some working taxpayers to put government in the business of real estate, building housing that will be guaranteed at a low rate—because “the projects” have been such nice neighborhoods wherever they’ve already been tried.

He thinks government should enslave some working taxpayers to provide high-speed internet to every citizen, because (based on the history of the communications industry) he doesn’t see how a free market could ever innovate enough to provide those “needs.”

Government isn’t capable of charity. But Bernie feels very charitable with your hard-earned money. And you’re supposed to feel charitable when he demands that money from you.

Did we mention the $1.8 trillion Social Security expansion? Or the $16.3 trillion on a climate plan that will shut down the economy? Or the $30.1 trillion to guarantee every American a job paying $15 an hour plus benefits, working for the government if no one else hires them.  Remember, government doesn't create wealth, only spends it, so that money comes out of enslaved working taxpayers' pockets.

Next question.

What do you believe are the purposes and limits of the commerce clause of the Constitution?

I don’t see an answer to this on his website. He seems to believe the federal government has the right—even the calling—to step in wherever he, the great dictator, has the urge to. Under “Revitalizing Rural America” this includes farmers, foresteers (does he mean foresters?), and ranchers in whichever state they may reside. And he plans to enslave working taxpayers to “reinvest” in rural areas where entrepreneurs have not been willing to invest.

The commerce clause in the Constitution is to make sure commerce can flow state-to-state. To make sure South Carolina wouldn’t embargo against North Carolina goods, for example. That is all that was granted. Anything else is usurping ungranted power.

Next question.

What do you believe is the role of the Federal Reserve, and how/whether it is benefiting the economy?

Bernie is in favor of auditing the Federal Reserve. So am I. But he doesn’t want to limit Federal Reserve power. He just wants to stick it to Wall Street (where most Americans have retirement investments). He plans to use executive orders to adjust ATM fees, and grant banking powers to post offices. While he’s at it, he’ll add a per-transaction tax to “restrict rapid-fire financial speculation.” I think he doesn’t like day traders? He certainly doesn’t like investors using their capital—their surplus wealth—to invest in projects that could produce more wealth.

Whether the Federal Reserve is constitutional or not—that’s irrelevant to him, since he intends to ignore the Constitution anyway.

Should we be afraid to have a socialist at the top of the ticket in a presidential election? Yes. Not because he can’t be defeated—he will be. But because the debate shouldn’t even include throwing out our Constitution. A party that would put forth such a candidate should be denounced as treasonous against our United States.

At least we will be able to clearly see the contrast between those who love freedom, prosperity, and civilization—and the entire other party who love tyranny, poverty, and savagery.

Why Put Capitalism on Trial?

This past Friday, the STA Money Hour economists talked about Capitalism on Trial. Usually their radio show is about managing your investments and retirement, so this seemed different and caught my attention.

Luke Patterson was doing most of the talking; along with him was Max Gaines. Patterson started this segment by pointing out that we have nearly 16 million new eligible young voters, who were not old enough to have voted in 2016, the last presidential election. What is on the mind of these new voters?

Not the stock market, not tax cuts, and not deregulation, but rather things like climate change, and income inequality, and forgiving of student loan debt, and more free stuff.

If even half of these voters show up to vote, that could be a problem for Donald Trump. And the alternative—all of them: Warren, Sanders, Biden, even Buttigieg—are extreme (what he calls left, and what is southern statist tyranny on the Spherical Model) and open about their socialist plans.

The economic sphere is the center of the discussion this election. As he puts it,

Profiteering, capitalism, free markets are absolutely on trial—I think fundamental this election. The way of life in the United States I think is also on trial—what we want, and how we want to do things.

So, Patterson goes ahead and makes the case for capitalism. He sets up the defense with this information about what capitalism has done for the United States:

There are now 46.8 million millionaires around the world. That’s up 1.1 million from mid-2018. That’s according to a report released this week by the Credit Research Institute. Thanks again to the value of both financial, like stocks, and non-financial, like real estate assets. The report reveals that there are a lot more millionaires—again totaling 46.8 million millionaires around the world.

From the Credit Suisse Research Institute
Global Wealth Report 2019, p. 11

You’ve got the United States that’s a big part of that. About 25% of the global market capitalization, and the United States is the millionaire capital of the world, according to this report. This year the United States extended its unbroken spell of wealth gains, which they say began after the global financial crisis of 2008. The country now accounts for 40% of dollar millionaires worldwide and 40% of those in the top 1% of global wealth distribution.

The United States, and its system, makes a lot of millionaires. A lot of wealthier people.

This is just the beginning point. The opposition might even say this is a bad thing—creating more inequality, because they don’t understand wealth creation and they think someone gaining wealth means they’re taking it from someone poorer. So there’s more education to do to defend capitalism. Here’s more from the radio broadcast on how US wealth creators compare to other countries:

Luke: And on a per capita basis, there is no country even close. Not even China. Not even close to the United States. They are so distant in second, they’re not even second.

logo found here

What’s more, the biggest gain in the number of millionaires this year comes from—I’ll give you two guesses, Max. Is it Denmark, Switzerland, someplace in Western Europe, China? Gaining the most millionaires this year, with all those people, with a 6% annual GDP growth? Is it China that is creating the most millionaires? Who do you think it is? Western Europe? China? Gaining the most millionaires this year? With all those people, with a 6% annual GDP growth? Is it China that is creating the most millionaires? Who do you think it is?

Max: You’re putting me on the spot.

Luke: I think you know the answer. Give it to us.

Max: I’m not going to say Denmark.

Luke: No. No, you won’t. But it’s the economic system that’s being, I think, promoted by many on the left, as sort of the system to aspire to, the Western European style system.

He’s tells us the answer eventually. But first he’s making clear how the opposition is characterizing capitalism:

Again, capitalism, profit taking, and corporations, and billionaires especially are evil, and our system broken, and so it should be eliminated and rebuilt under a socialist system. That’s what they’re advocating for.

They don’t even apologize for it anymore. It’s not something that they’re saying, well, you know, it just needs to be tweaked around the edges, improve the capitalist system, or make better the things that need improving. They’re not saying any of those things. They’re saying, Listen, this thing is broken. It’s rotten from the inside. It has to be eliminated and criminalized, called out for being evil—to rise up, squash it, and rebuild under a socialist system.

Here’s the essential information, and the answer to his quiz question:

But, as it stands, according to this data, the biggest gain in the number of millionaires this year comes from none other than the United States, which added 675,000 new millionaires in the past year. 675,000 of the 1.1 million.

Hear me on this. This exceeded the extra newcomers in the next nine countries combined.

So, the United States created, this year, 675,000 new millionaires. This exceeded the next nine countries combined: Japan, China, Germany, The Netherlands, Brazil, India, Spain, Canada, Switzerland.

Let’s let that set for a moment. And repeat it. The number of millionaires created in the US this past year exceeds the number of millionaires created in the next nine countries combined. That’s not a small difference.

But, so what if capitalism creates millionaires? Shouldn’t they just feel guilty for that? Don’t we need fewer billionaires and millionaires? Unfortunately, the opposition believes that.

As Patterson says,

So capitalism is on trial. You’ve got Elizabeth Warren. She proposed the Accountable Capitalism Act (nice word), which obliges large corporations to obtain a federal charter requiring directors to consider the interests of all stakeholders—not only shareholders and customers, but also groups representing societies, such as their employees, local communities, civil society, including non-representative anti-business NGOs.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Delaware—where, by the way, more than two-thirds of the Fortune 500 corporations have their legal home—has written a book arguing that corporations should be run for the benefit of their workers. The Financial Times also launched a new agenda: “Capitalism: Time for a Reset. Business must make a profit, but should serve a purpose too.”

People are buying into this nice-sounding irrationality. He adds,

In a recent letter by the Business Roundtable, 181 corporate CEOs disavow the profit motive. The corporate directors, accountability shareholders, the CEOs champion a new view now widely held by them. It says that profit could only be justified for virtuous conduct, that profit should merely be a byproduct of making certain contributions to society. It’s a proposition that the Business Roundtable already implicitly accepts.

So there’s the central debate question: shouldn’t making contributions to society be a higher value than making a profit? Patterson makes this assertion:

In fact, the profit that a business earns is a pretty good approximation of its contribution to society. One might think of it in terms of a simple equation: revenue (what people pay in a competitive market) minus cost (the value of resources used to provide a product or service) equals profit—which is a first order indicator of a business’s contribution to society.

Here's the equation more visually:

revenue – cost = profit

Profit isn’t bad. As Patterson says, “profit is one of the most powerful signaling devices in the free market.”

Back in 2013 I was taking an online Hillsdale College class on economics, and also reading Poverty of Nations. So I wrote a number of economics pieces, for example, here, here, and here. Professor Gary Wolfram, the Economics 101 teacher at Hillsdale, had pointed out that the decentralized free market system makes it possible for the market to prepare and provide what he wants to buy his wife for her birthday even before he has thought about it. It’s amazing. The wide variety of choices, at costs we’re willing to pay (exchange for the fruits of our labor) are far beyond what is available practically anywhere else in the world. He also said—and I’ve heard others point this out as well—capitalism is based on providing goods or services to people—to serve others. The only way to make a valuable exchange is to think about what will make the customer so pleased that they are willing to exchange their own profits (the fruits of their labors) for whatever it is you’re offering them.

Back to the defense of capitalism. Here’s Luke Patterson again:

In their search for profit, businesses create the dynamic for economic growth and prosperity, rising living standards. Is this not a contribution to society of the most dramatic kind imaginable? The contribution to society, the profits making people wealthier, bringing more people out of poverty? Is that not a contribution to society?

He later goes into some detail about estimates of costs surrounding Medicare-for-all, which is just one of the promises of “free stuff” that Elizabeth Warren fails to show how she will pay for. She says she’ll never take from the middle class. But studies show there isn’t enough wealth in the upper class to take from to pay for this giveaway, which takes profits, and even prices, out of the equation.

Here’s what we can know for sure: the free market creates wealth. It doesn’t just move money from some people and place it in the hands of others; it creates actual wealth—new surplus resulting from work. The free market has indeed lifted more people out of poverty than any other system.

It’s not just luck. It’s not just “Well, things are going OK for now, but that can’t continue.” It’s not just, “Sure, socialism has failed every time it’s been tried, but it just wasn’t ever done right.”

I know, for certain, that I am a better expert on what kind of healthcare I am willing to pay for, what foods I’m willing to buy, what kind of transportation will meet my personal needs—or anything else we make payment exchanges for—than some bureaucrat in a faraway office.

Prosperity requires the freedom to make those exchange decisions for ourselves. The person who earns the wealth should be the one to decide how, when, and whether to spend it, save it, or invest it. Any path that allows anyone else to make that decision leads to poverty.

So, when we’re talking economics with young people, we need to make sure that, if they insist that they care about the poor (which they think might include them), we let them know the way to lift the poor is more free market, combined with careful philanthropy—not more government control.

Defining Socialism and Capitalism

Wednesday evening Glenn Beck did a special called “Capitalism: A Warning from the Dead.” I don’t know how long it will be available without a subscription, but it’s worth seeing. Plenty of history and comparisons to our day.

Glenn Beck, during "Capitalism: A Warning from the Dead"
screenshot from here

Somewhere in there he reports on a recent poll:

In 2010, 68% of 18-29-year-olds had a "favorable" view of capitalism. By 2016, that had dropped to 57%. Two years later, the exact same poll indicated that only 45% viewed capitalism as "favorable." This is a death spiral! Younger people are completely abandoning capitalism because they don't really know what it is!

At the same time—the exact same decade in question—if you ask millennials about the free market, "being your own boss," and entrepreneurship, it has a 90%+ favorability rating.

So capitalism is at 45%, but free market entrepreneurship is at 90%? This shows that no one knows what they're talking about. This proves that no one knows what socialism is, what its goals represent, where it aims to take us, and the difference between socialism and capitalism.

That’s puzzling. They disapprove of the very thing they overwhelmingly approve of.

We need to define terms and do some teaching, which will involve some questions that use the concepts without the words, to see if that will get us better clarity on what people really want. It might turn out we have more agreement when we do that.

Socialism

What my old dictionary says:

1.    Any of various theories or systems of the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society or the community rather than by private individuals, with all members in society or the community sharing in the work and the products.

2.    a) political movement for establishing such a system; b) the doctrines, methods, etc. of the Socialist parties.

3.       The stage of society, in Marxist doctrine, coming between the capitalist stage and the communist stage, in which private ownership of the means of production and distribution has been eliminated.

What young people think it means:

To be like Sweden or Denmark or places like that, where they get free healthcare, free schooling, guaranteed jobs, and stuff like that.

What I think it means:

A government interference with the free market. This can be a single socialist policy, or a wide array of such policies in an attempt to replace the free market with centralized economic control.

This means that I differ somewhat from many commentators who rightly point out that Sweden and other “socialist” economies are not actually socialist economies. They have certain segments of society, such as healthcare, that the government has taken over—and for which they charge very high taxes. But, beyond these specific segments, they still respect private property ownership. And they tend to move away from government control, toward free market, when the capital they were using for their projects becomes depleted. Some of these countries rate equally on the Heritage Foundation Freedom Index as the United States.

Just to be clear, socialism doesn’t have anything to do with being sociable. It claims to be “fair,” but it ignores individual input, such as work, preparation, cleverness, risk of personal assets, and instead looks mainly at equal outcomes regardless of inputs. Most people wouldn’t find that fair.

It comes from Marxist ideology. As I’ve said before, is an attempt to replace capitalism, along with the governmental systems that support capitalism. Instead of individuals making individual market choices, central planners—elite power wielders—make decisions, such as the price of goods, the choices of jobs, the products produced.

And I’ll add that the Marxist experiment always ends badly. If a country doesn’t do an about face and stop heading in the direction of more government control, and instead returns control to the people, the result is mass poverty, loss of freedom, and death. Take a look at the news from Venezuela this week.

Capitalism

What the dictionary says:

1.    The economic system in which all or most of the means of production and distribution, as land, factories, railroad, etc. are privately owned and operated for profit, originally under fully competitive conditions: It has been generally characterized by a tendency toward concentration of wealth, and, in its later phase, by the growth of great corporations, increased governmental control, etc.

2.    The principles, methods, interests, power, influence, etc. of capitalists, especially of those with large holdings.

Let’s add how the dictionary defines capitalist:

1.    A person who has capital; owner of wealth used in business.

2.    An upholder of capitalism.

3.       Loosely, a wealthy person.

What young people think it means:

Greedy corporations, in bed with corrupt politicians, taking advantage of the working class. So, it’s evil.

What I think it means:

Capital is the accumulation of work above and beyond what is essential, followed by careful use of it toward a good idea intended to result in even more surplus. Capitalism is a system for using capital (accumulated surplus wealth) to invest it in more wealth creation.

Capital comes from surplus work. So, capital is a representation of surplus work that is invested to find ways to produce more wealth. And wealth is defined simply as the accumulated results of labor.

Capitalism, in this sense, is never evil. It is, simply, the free market allowed to work its miracles at lifting people out of poverty.

However, what young people think it is, really is what we could call “crony capitalism,” or more accurately just cronyism. And that is a bad thing.

Cronyism has been around a long time—long enough to show up as a definition for capitalism in my 1980 dictionary. Long enough to be represented by the character Mouch in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. 

Back in 1980 economist Milton Friedman spoke at a graduation ceremony at Brigham Young University (not mine, but I was there). He talked about the dangerous influence of big businessmen. “They aren’t promoting free enterprise when they ask for handouts and regulations and controls to avoid competition,” he said. And he added,

The two greatest enemies of free society are intellectuals and businessmen—for opposite reasons. Intellectuals want freedom for themselves but no one else. Businessmen want free enterprise for everyone else, but special consideration for themselves.

So, the millennials and I, we agree that cronyism is not a good thing. The problem is, referring to this bad sort of business/government collusion as capitalism leads people to believe actual capitalism—a synonym for free market economy—is bad. Still, that doesn’t exactly explain why those who misunderstand these words would then think a great solution is a whole lot more interference by government.

Moving forward, maybe we can just use more accurate words, like free-market and entrepreneurship. Or avoid the words they don’t understand and just get on with the concepts using concrete examples.

With that in mind, let’s try these questions:

·         When you earn money at work, who should decide how you spend it? You, or a distant central controller?

·         Who should decide how much you earn? You along with your employer, or a distant central controller?

·         Who should decide how you pay for your healthcare—whether out-of-pocket, with a health savings account, or with help of insurance that you’ve chosen for your needs—or a distant central controller?

·         Who should decide whether you want to try a particular medical method or therapy? You, or a distant central controller?

·         Who should decide what kind of car is best for you and your family? You, or a distant central controller?

·         Who should decide whether you can use your skills and efforts to start a business? You, or a distant central controller?

And then, let’s add these additional questions:

·         Who should pay for your housing? You, or your heavily taxed neighbor, who is coerced by government to pay it?

·         Who should pay for your healthcare? You, or your heavily taxed neighbor, who is coerced by government to pay it?

·         Who should pay for your childcare? You, possibly along with voluntary help from an employer, or your heavily taxed neighbor, who is coerced by government to pay it?

·         Who should pay for your advanced education? You, or your heavily taxed neighbor, who is coerced by government to pay it?

·         Who should pay charitable donations to those unable to sustain themselves? You, along with your church or other organizations in touch with those in need, or your heavily taxed neighbor, who is coerced by government to pay it?

We could go on, but you get the idea. Socialism means decisions normally made by free people are instead made by some distant controller. And whenever you get something “free” or “low cost” because of socialism, that means government is heavily taxing your neighbors—not just the rich—to make those payments.

Government doesn’t “give” you “free” anything. Government produces no wealth from which to draw those funds. Government is simply power. And any government powerful enough to coerce you to pay for your neighbor’s wants is powerful enough to take away your choices about what you produce, what you earn from work, and how you spend those earnings.

And if they’re powerful enough to control your life, maybe they’re powerful enough to take your life. At least that’s how it has turned out every time it’s been tried.

Suppression of the Opposition

Do we know what fascism looks like? Because we're seeing it.

We have some educating to do.

You’ve probably seen some of those interviews where a guy with a microphone and a camera goes on a college campus, or on the street, and asks basic questions, and hardly anyone knows the answer. Like this one on free speech. And this one on “How Well Do Americans Know Their Presidents?”

The Berlin Wall fell in 1991, marking essentially the end of the Cold War with its existential threat. Everyone born that year turns 28 this year. Let’s add five years to that and say anyone 33 or younger was born too late to be personally aware of the existence of the Iron Curtain.

I remember the first time I saw the movie Gandhi, in 1982. I was out of college, recently married (we saw it together). And I was stunned that I’d never heard his story before. What was wrong with my history courses? It’s because world history always started way way back in time, and worked its way forward. And the closer to the present day, the more likely the school year would end before we got to the material. We were lucky to get as far as World War II.

I was interested in history, and good at remembering things, but I knew nothing about some major world events. So I had to educate myself as an adult. (Homeschooling helped.) But for students who aren’t interested, and also happen to have schools fail to provide the material, are in a state of ignorance we shouldn’t be surprised at.

So, for the sake of education, today we’ll cover some -isms.

According to my favorite nearly 40-year-old dictionary, totalitarian has two definitions:

1.    Designating, of, or characteristic of a government or state in which one political party or group maintains complete control under a dictatorship and bans all others.

2.    Completely authoritarian, autocratic, dictatorial, etc.

As a noun, it’s a person who favors such a government or state. And totalitarianism is the noun form, or name for such a government.

In the same dictionary, fascism has three definitions:

1.    The doctrines, methods, or movement of the Fascisti [elsewhere defined as an Italian political organization under Mussolini from 1922-1943].

2.    A system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism, etc.; first instituted in Italy in 1922.

3.    A political movement based on such policies, or fascist behavior. See also Nazi.

To be thorough, the definition of Nazi is “designating, of, or characteristic of the German fascist political party (National Socialist German Workers’ Party), founded in 1919 and abolished in 1945; under Hitler it seized control of Germany in 1933, systematically eliminated opposition, and put into effect its program of nationalism, racism, rearmament, aggression, etc.” A Nazi can also be a support of this or any similar party; fascist.

Will Witt (right), screenshot from here

One of those on-the-street videos by Will Witt’s asks the question, “What does holocaust mean?” And a surprising number didn’t have a clue. There are holocaust museums (a very good one here in Houston, another in Washington, DC). It’s a word synonymous with genocide. And even though more individuals were killed under Soviet communism and other socialist regimes, we as a world are pretty aware of the six million Jews killed in fascist Germany’s holocaust during WWII.

The world has said “Never again!” But if young people don’t know what this is, then they’re susceptible to the same forces that allowed it to happen before.

I’d like to focus on the behaviors of totalitarianism, and its synonym fascism, rather than on the “government” aspect of the definition, which is certainly related—but we know that politics is downstream from culture.

So I’d like to look at the “forcible suppression of opposition,” which leads to “authoritarian, autocratic, dictatorial”—essentially tyrannical governments.

A person who is in favor of—or actively pursues—forcible suppression of opposition is fascist.

A person who seeks to control the behavioral freedoms, the economic freedoms, and even the social thoughts of others, to stamp out opposing viewpoints it totalitarian. Such people, in power, seek to destroy opposition, doing away with a second party, or even a second choice. Elections in such regimes are a joke: “Do you vote for the supreme leader? Yes or No? Only Yes votes are counted.”

It’s possible that people who have grown up in a milieu of freedom might not realize what their forcible suppression of opposition inevitably leads to. So maybe we’ll hold off calling them totalitarian until they have some statist power. But they are nevertheless fascist.

It’s time for some examples, in no particular order (unless I go back and edit).

Strange Planet

Strange Planet birthday

There’s a four-panel cartoon, called Strange Planet, of aliens doing normal human things and describing them in absolutely literal ways, which turns out to be pretty hilarious. These have been showing up on my Facebook feed often, and I enjoy them a lot. Many young people have been enjoying them, but, as they say, #canceled. The online magazine Nylon, which I had never heard of, let out the news that, Nathan Pyle, the writer of this funny and non-controversial comic, is pro-life—and therefore no one should ever share or even look at his funny comics again! 

For those of us conservatives who have tolerated Hollywood for all these decades of ridicule, we think never enjoying a comic strip again because the creator has gone so far as to support his girlfriend for attending a pro-life rally (but hasn’t publicly ever even talked about pro-life issues) is narcissistically intolerant. And any person who not only boycotts based on such a small disagreement but insists on spreading the word so that all others within their influence will also boycott—that is fascist.

Chick-fil-A

As I mentioned recently, the San Antonio city council refused to allow Chick-fil-A to have a concession in the airport, supposedly because of the bigoted homophobic beliefs of the company owners. Added to that, Buffalo, NY,airport was about to get a Chick-fil-A, but after complaints from a city councilman, reversed their permission.   

Have those owners, or the company, spoken out against homosexuals or refused to serve them delicious chicken sandwiches and amazing lemonade? No. They are avowed Christians—like 70% of the US population—and therefore one can extract from this information that they believe marriage is between a man and a woman (as has been the belief of all humanity for all the millennia of history up until about five minutes ago). And therefore they should not be allowed to do business? That’s fascist.

Attacks on Chick-fil-A have been going on for quite a while. Fortunately they produce a very good product at a better-than-practically-anyone efficiency, and non-fascists tend to appreciate that and support them even more.

Oculus

Blake J. Harris, author of History of the Future: Oculus, Facebook, and the Revolution That Swept Virtual Reality, was on Glenn Beck radio recently. He told the story of Palmer Luckey, the teenager who started a virtual reality company, which was acquired by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg. It looked like things were going great for the young man when word got out somehow, shortly before the 2016 election, that he was a Trump supporter. Zuckerberg stepped in personally and insisted that Luckey sign a declaration that he was not a Trump supporter, but was instead voting for the Libertarian candidate, which was not true. Despite giving in and signing, he was then put on leave for six weeks—with people being told he had asked for this personal time. Then he learned, during a conference call at the end of that imposed vacation, that he had asked for another six weeks off—which of course he hadn’t even considered. Shortly after that he was let go, severed from his creation. Because he liked Trump’s free-market ideas.

Author, Harris, was a fan of Facebook and Zuckerberg going in, which is probably why he had such great access to all the players, and watched what happened first hand. The book is about more than the maltreatment of Luckey; it’s about the rise of virtual reality. But that episode is part of the tech world. And it’s definitely fascistic.

I’m a Facebook user, although rarely political online. But most weeks I have political friends who announce that they’re back on after being put in Facebook jail for a day or a week, or have had materials deleted. As far as I can verify, none of these has been for profanity, lewd conduct or language, inciting violence, or anything you might want Facebook to protect you from; they have been for political content that Facebook deems unacceptable.

Meanwhile, Facebook friends who have Zuckerberg’s political leanings spew uncalculable amounts of lying trash (my words, but I think this is a somewhat expert opinion) without so much as a warning.

“Forcible suppression of opposition” is what’s going on. That’s the definition of fascist.

Human Rights Tribunal in Canada

This headline is from Vancouver, British Columbia: “Court orders Christian to pay $55,000 to trans politician for calling him ‘biological male.’” 

The Human Rights Tribunal ruled that it’s unlawful discrimination not to accept transgender people as the gender they claim to be. Also, “there’s no room for any public debate in the matter.”

Bill Whatcott had dispersed flyers that referred to NDP candidate Ronan “Morgane” Oger as a biological male. His defense, which was not allowed to be presented, was proof of Oger’s biology, but the judge ruled “the ‘truth’ of the statements in the flyer is not a defense.”

The flyer compared Oger to another man, Walt Heyer, who had gender dysphoria, had undergone hormone and surgical transformation to “become” a woman, but eventually realized that was a lie and transitioned back, now again identifying as a man. Making this comparison cost Whatcott $35,000 for injury to the “dignity, feelings and self-respect” of the man presenting himself as a woman, and also $20,000 for alleged improper conduct (not sure from the story what this entailed).

Truth is not a defense? There is no room for public debate? I’d call that forcible suppression of opposition: fascism.

Artificial Intelligence Ethics Council

Here’s another from this week: “Google Cancels AI Ethics Council after Employees Demand Removal of Conservative Heritage President Kay Coles James.” It’s worth noting that, in the group identity politics of the opposition, James checks a lot of boxes; she’s a black woman of a certain age. But being conservative—which is about beliefs and ideas rather than surface details—is unacceptable at Google. She opposes transgender activism—not people with gender dysphoria, but the imposition of the transgender agenda on society. That means the controllers of the largest and most used search engine, controlling our access to information, is about the forcible suppression of opposition; Google is fascist. 

Yale Law School Blacklists Christian Firms

Yale Law School has decided not to do business with any Christian law firms. Also, Senator Ted Cruz has announced an investigation into discrimination at the Yale Law School, which receives federal funding and is therefore prohibited from this sort of discrimination. According to Cruz, “Public news reports indicate that Yale Law School has recently adopted a transparently discriminatory policy: namely, that Yale will no longer provide any stipends or loan repayments for students serving in organizations professing traditional Christian views or adhering to traditional sexual ethics."

Not long ago, there was loud protest about VP Pence’s wife getting a part-time art teacher position at a Christian school, purportedly because this school went out of its way to exclude gays or transgenders. In actuality, the school simply asked for an affirmation of belief in the millennia-old definition of marriage and that sex should only be between married husband and wife. That was considered radically offensive?

If all Christians are to be ousted from the public square, and refused employment, or education, or any of the normal opportunities of society, that leaves far above half the population in unemployed status, dependent on government, meaning the non-Christian (or possibly non-religious) remainder would be required to support those they have disenfranchised. You can see why the labeling of such outcasts as subhuman for the sake of taking their lives with impunity has been the path taken by fascist dictators historically.

The stories of fascist suppression of the opposition are ubiquitous. And they are one-sided. Let’s look at the Spherical Model to see why.

Freedom of people, markets, and ideas is a northern hemisphere (on the model) characteristic. Control of people, markets, and ideas is a southern hemisphere (on the model) characteristic. You don’t find people who strive for freedom, prosperity, and civilization—the northern hemisphere—trying to suppress ideas, because you can’t be northern hemisphere and do that. So all the suppression is done by those who favor control over others, or tyranny.

If you think you have an example of conservative suppression of discourse, you’re wrong. Freedom of speech is an element of the north. If a religious person is suppressing truth—or the legitimate expression of what one thinks is truth—that so-called religious person is acting in a controlling manner, using coercion rather than persuasion. It’s not possible to conserve civilization with coercion. They are incompatible.

So you’re not seeing any religion stuffed down anyone’s throats unless it’s done by people trying to wield power over others. Tyrants. Or fascists. By the way, secularism is a religion, and it is being stuffed down the throats of non-secularists by fascists.

Let’s be clear about definitions, so we can identify exactly why fascist suppression of opposition is so wrong. Then we can see clearly why we need to stand up against it. Now, on our watch.