Libera Voce

“Things are made subservient to the folk; the socialist puts the folk above everything, and things are only means to an end.” Joseph Goebbels

Goebbels was the Reich Minister of Propaganda for the Nazi Party and one of Adolf Hitler’s most devoted disciples; he was skilled as an orator and extremely antisemitic. It is important, especially considering current political rhetoric in the US, to understand what the word Nazi actually represents and why it’s used so frequently yet ignorantly in American politics today; there will be many quotes in this post simply because we have so much from the Nazis themselves refuting much of that rhetoric.

The Nazi Party’s formal name was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). Nazi ideology was racist, nationalist, socialist and totalitarian, important characteristics to understand because it is so easy to forget that, as Hannah Arendt observed, “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exist.”

Nazi’s are socialists, and while there is this hauntingly ignorant denial by many progressives that they are not true socialists in a ludicrous attempt to remake them in the image of some capitalist regime, it’s hard to rewrite history when the author of Mein Kampf emphatically stated that, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” The Fuhrer also stated that “Basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same thing.” The principal difference between the two, and the reason for Nazi persecution of Marxists, was that Carl Marx was a Jew.

While we have seen the rise of “Democratic Socialism” in various states and cities across America, what is most disturbing is the support of the Democratic Party for Graham Platner in Maine; his denial of knowing his concentration camp tattoo was a Nazi symbol was recently refuted and then admitted to by Platner as something he adopted because his Marine unit were real killers like the Nazi SS. His initial denial in service to the progressive narratives for social justice is so apparently propaganda, that it is a reminder of another of Hitler’s missives that, “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”

Despite this we have Chuck Schumer endorsing Platner because his party needs that senate seat; imagine, a Jew supporting a Nazi, which should inform us that this is nothing more than a power play. The fact that Platner is a self-proclaimed communist is no surprise as a Nazi by any other name is still a Nazi. What is really illuminating is that the “Woke” movement is so similar to the Nazi propaganda to brainwash children, rewrite textbooks, politicize teachers, and create scapegoats, usually the Jews, and mass hysteria like climate change or whatever is the catastrophic narrative of the day.

In my post “Confusion and Delusion” I mentioned “menticide”, a word derived from Latin mens (mind) and cidium (killing); it was initially used after WWII regarding the means used by Nazis, Soviets, and other totalitarian regimes. Menticide is the premeditated destruction of an individual’s personality or beliefs through such methods as propaganda, indoctrination, drugs, interrogation and even torture to break resistance to whatever the political narrative is, and the Nazis were adept in all.

Another popular word slung around politically is “lawfare”, the unethical and often illegal use of the judicial system by a political party in power against their opponents. Here again we have the Nazis leading the way with their “Sondergericht”, German for a “Special Court”, to repress resistance to their policies in a seemingly legal way; eventually such courts replaced the existing judiciary leaving no means to legally challenge the regime. The USSR had similar judicial structures in support of Communist Party policies designed to uphold the socialist state’s totalitarian rule. In their essence, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, and Socialism are all forms of the same collectivism, with any distinctions lacking any meaningful differences.

Americans really need to pay more attention to the actions by all political parties and be alert to any signs, both subtle and overt, regarding the means and methods used in promoting their narratives. This is especially true regarding legacy and social media, which has become so unreliable as factual reporting and commentary, alienating people to the extent that they no longer trust or even pay attention; according to the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism in 2022 less than 26% of Americans find those sources credible and suspect purposeful inaccuracies in pursuit of what many in legacy media call “Advocacy Journalism”. It is now an age of “…post-objectivity newsrooms” which literally promotes a “…move beyond accuracy to truth.” The problem with such journalism is who should be the arbiter of the truth when factual accuracy is no longer the priority?

There’s so much more that can be illustrated on this topic such as the growing antisemitism on university campuses and again in the media, a scapegoat methodology extensively practiced by the Nazis; however there is one more practice as noted in the above quote by Hitler regarding the repetition of lies, which I bring up because it is an essential tool of false narratives for us to be aware of as best expressed by  Thomas Sowell:

“Somethings are believed because they are demonstrably true, but many other things are believed because they have been asserted repeatedly, and repetition has been accepted as a substitute for evidence.”

“Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” Epicurus

Epicurus was an ancient Greek philosopher who taught that controlling one’s desires and emotions together with virtuous living provided the best way to happiness. He also taught that whether the gods existed or not, they played no part in human action, hence the need for self-sufficiency and responsibility. Were he alive today, Epicurus would be scorned by both liberals and conservatives; the former because his philosophy of self-sufficiency left no room for victimhood, and the later regarding the role of gods.

It’s odd that most religious people can’t accept the fact that there are people who are not religious, and some of whom don’t believe in any deifications; when they encounter an atheist, they appear incredulous if not threatened by the fact that such people don’t believe as they do. What all religious people should find threatening are other religions as historically religious conflicts seldom end peacefully. Regardless of what you believe, or don’t, atheism is no threat to anyone; if you truly believe in a god, remember that historically the human race has had about ten thousand religions and more than 120 religious wars; atheists were not responsible for any of them.

Atheism has been traditionally described as a lack of belief and faith in God, but that in itself is a monotheistic definition of atheism, which actually has nothing to do with religion; nor is it a belief system in and of itself as it is actually the absence of all that. Currently, nearly 70% of the world population are Christian, Islamist, or Hindu; the balance follows Judaism, Sikhism, Taoism or Buddhism. The last two are actually not religions but more philosophies and neither include deification. Comparatively, less than 10% of the world population identifies as atheists.

Substituting stories in place of facts, reasoned analyses and empirical proof is the primary bases of all religions, which asks us to believe based on faith rather than understanding; it requires that we accept that which can’t be proven by abandoning critical thinking for the opposite of logic and reason, or as Mark Twain said “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.” It’s not so much that faith is wrong, but blind to realities that contradict whatever dogma is believed, creating confusion and stress; you may not like reality, but you ignore it at your risk because the consequences depend on how you deal with it.

Religion has become so much a part of politics that it can be said that politics has become the new religion. It should come as no surprise then that radical religious sects promote theocracy as a political regime; we hear this today both from radical Islamists and from those who claim that the US is a Christian nation, oddly ignoring the constitution’s first amendment. All collectivist authoritarian regimes like the USSR suppressed religion as it was a distraction from their agenda that the state is God. As H. L. Mencken noted, “Communism, like any other revealed religion, is largely made up of prophecies.”

Categorically, atheists are humanists, whose core principles of life are human agency, i.e., the autonomy and responsibility to give meaning, value, and purpose to their own lives, and have the inherent natural right and ability to live ethically without relying on religious or supernatural beliefs. Atheists do not seek to impose their principles on others but simply live by the ethos of peaceful coexistence by respecting human autonomy; this does not mean that they will not engage in civil discourse about religion, but if it does not include reasoned discussion, it will likely go nowhere, or as Christopher Hitchens brilliantly observed, “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

Often, atheists hear religious people say that they will pray for them, as if they have contracted some fatal disease; such condescension exposes faith as a delusion as Epicurus notes in the opening quote. Consider the anonymous Jewish prisoner of the Nazi death camps who survived and said “If there is a God, he will have to beg my forgiveness.” If there was an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God, such evils like disease or war would not exist, but then again, religion would be of little use if that were so.

“Faith is belief without evidence and reason; coincidentally that’s also the definition of delusion.” Richard Dawkins

“Zionism and pessimism are not compatible.” Golda Meir

The word Zion is a biblical term found extensively in both the Old and New Testaments; it has religious and cultural meaning for both the Jewish and Christian faiths. The word evolved historically as both an idea of hope and redemption, and as a physical location, first noted as being a hill or stronghold in Jerusalem when conquered by King David; it was considered to be a holy place of God’s presence, the Temple Mount, where Solomon built the First Temple.

The “Jewish Diaspora” during the Roman Empire followed various rebellions in 66-135 CE, accounting historically for the many Jewish communities throughout Europe; it also resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem including the Second Temple, and with it the location of Zion. Over the centuries since the persecution of Jews in Europe became common place until the advent of what was considered to be the “Jewish Emancipation” in the late 18C to late 19C, mostly due to the Enlightenment, the French Revolution and the reforms following the Napoleonic Wars; during this time segregation and exclusion gave way to integration as citizens in many countries.

Zion first became a political term in 1897 when the Austrian journalist Theodor Herzl organized the First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland; he was motivated by what he observed as growing European antisemitism and ethnic nationalism. History informs us that his observation was not just accurate, but that these phenomena became an existential threat to the Jewish people; he believed that the only way to assure their survival was with the creation of an internationally recognized homeland, and so the word has come to mean the land of Israel itself, and the belief in its necessity for Jewish survival. 

In 1948, following the defeat of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, and the great Jewish migrations out of war torn Europe, the United Nations declared the creation of the state of Israel; Zion again had a location, but what Israel also had ever since is a series of wars it had to win in order to survive. During all those wars it has had but one faithful ally, the USA; as Golda said, you can’t be a pessimist if you are a Zionist. For Americans who support Israel, understand that in doing so, you are a Zionist; for Americans who don’t support Israel, understand that in doing so, whether you are aware of it or not, you support antisemitism.

Jews account for about 2.4% of the US population, approximately 7.5M people; that represents the largest Jewish population outside of Israel itself, but among the smallest ethnic groups in America. There have been even smaller communities in European countries, yet Jews have been blamed for nearly everything that happens in society despite their lack of any meaningful population impact anywhere, both historically and currently. There are various causes for such racism against Jews, including religious animosity, economic prejudice because they are perceived as rich, conspiracy theories about control of finance and media, or even genocide when Israel fights terrorists…if it’s bad, blame the Jews!

The alarm about growing antisemitism in the US is well founded given what we have experienced since the October 7^th Hamas attacks in Israel; some far-left elements of the Democratic Party like Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar have expressed antisemitic statements. Such rhetoric is not just from those, but also from “progressives” like Rep. Hakeem Jeffries and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and bizarrely even Senator Chuck Schumer. Texas congressional candidate Maureen Galindo recently proposed using an ICE detention center as a “…facility for American Zionists”; sounds like a concentration camp, what a novel idea!

Just as despicable is the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner in Maine who sports a Nazi concentration camp tattoo known as a “Totenkopf” or “Death’s Head”; when criticized about it, he added another tattoo, the Hammer & Sickle, as if one symbol of totalitarian regimes and mass atrocities was not enough. Then we have the rampant antisemitism on American universities, “Pro-Palestinian” demonstrations in major American cities and in many European countries (no surprise there).

Antisemitism is the conjuring of an old demon that finds a welcome home in all collectivist regimes throughout history because when you spin false narratives you need a scapegoat; racism is simply another ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. When the Jews stand up and say no more, when Israel refuses to allow itself to be annihilated, its enemies turn the word Zionist into a racial slur because Jews have the audacity to survive.

“To be or not to be is not a question of compromise. Either you be or you don’t be.” Golda Meir

What better way to maintain our bubbles of unanimity and moral certitude than to pretend everyone outside it is an evil misanthrope?” Logan Albright, FEE

In my prior post I wrote about the societal phenomenon we know as transgenderism. My post appears on five platforms, the most recent being Medium, an addition recommended by a friend; according to those that control that platform, my post was removed with the explanation that “We do not allow content that may undermine the dignity and rights of transgender and/or non-binary individuals.” The platform minders included a warning that should I continue to express views contrary to theirs it could result in suspension of my account; I actually don’t have an account with them, but as they have made it clear that free speech is not welcome, I see no reason to continue posting there.

Remember the Disinformation Governance Board (DGB) established under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in April 2022? That obvious threat to the constitutional rights of Americans was so egregious and embarrassing to the Biden administration that it was shut down the following May. However, over the next few years the “Twitter Files”, and disclosures from Google and Meta that senior Biden administration officials had pressured them with what became known as “Jawboning Tactics”, i.e., threats of antitrust actions, liability charges, and other regulatory procedures if they did not remove specific content, were sobering examples of government suppression of legitimate debate, and opinions opposing government narratives.

I am a member of FIRE and while I have contacted them about this incident, I have not yet decided whether or not to file a case. I have learned that while Medium.com is a private platform, it does not get “direct government funding”, but that there are government agencies that publish on it and have established “Federal compatible terms of service”, whatever that means. I don’t think there are many Americans that would be surprised by the continued government surveillance and influence of the media given the experience during COVID with the overt pressure utilizing NGOs and other quasi private agencies in order to avoid the appearance of government propaganda; the change in administrations seldom results in changes in what we call the “deep state”.

I very much doubt that given the limited following my blog has where across the various platforms the average post views are about a hundred, it in anyway means I am especially targeted; that fact is more to the point that we still suffer from the influence of those who live in a bubble of woke ideology that restricts the intrusion of any ideas contrary to theirs. This bubble represents an impenetrable shield against the actual experiences of the real world, especially if they conflict with their delusions; it is a dangerous isolation from the essential humanism of civil discourse.

The existential element of a free society is free speech, which creates a civil discourse which in turn provides a means to openly debate contentious issues; this is also an essential part of true education which requires an evidenced based exchange of ideas. You can’t build knowledge in students if the learning environment lacks diverse perspectives as that creates indoctrination; what you want to create is an atmosphere that encourages students to think for themselves, and not what to think. This will contribute to their cognitive ability and avoid that catastrophizing mental disorder known as wokeness.

“One’s political views and/or religious beliefs should not exist in an impenetrable and inviolable bubble wherein they are protected from criticism or scrutiny.” Gad Saad

“What would men be without women? Scarce, sir…mighty scarce.”  Mark Twain

My grandparents came from Cefalu in Sicily in the late 19C. Eventually they came to Staten Island, started a business, and had nine children. None of that would have happened without women; if you asked them if they knew what the difference was between a man and a woman, they had nine answers, one of whom was my father. If you asked him the same question, he had seven answers, and I was one of them.

These were common sense people who worked hard for a living and made families, and never for one moment had any confusion about how they did it. If you don’t know what I mean then you don’t understand biology…and unfortunately, you’re not alone. As Mark Twain also famously said, “The two most important days in your life are the day you’re born and the day you find out why.” You had little to do with the day you were born as your parents took care of that, and likely were the same people who got you to understand why.

Eventually all human beings come to understand the human biology of life but there was never a guarantee of course that every human being would do so the same way; given the variables in religion, sexuality and personality there would be differences among us all, and consequently the opportunity for conflict driven by intolerance of anyone who did not conform to what society deemed “normal”. This was much the case in the 80’s with the HIV/AIDS pandemic, with many people blaming gays and lesbians when in fact it affected everyone through sexual contact.

However, the gay and lesbian community were not confused about the difference between a man and a woman as that was the very basis for their preference in sexual partners; the public intolerance expressed against them was based on medical and biological ignorance, and the social stigma of being different. Thankfully, much progress both socially and medically has been made since those times, and no thanks to Dr. Anthony Fauci who, as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) was not only slow in response but an obstructionist to the development of treatments versus cures, which delayed development of treatments causing much unnecessary suffering and death.  

The delusion regarding biological sex also started in the 80’s, although there were cases of horrible experiments decades earlier on mostly children to see if biological sex in humans could be altered; we know it today as transgenderism. This has nothing to do with a person’s preference for sexual partners but is based on a psychological dysphoria regarding what sex a person claims they are contrary to biological reality; it is such a perversion against rational behavior that transgenderism is actually a form of “menticide”, the destruction of a person’s mind or sanity.

The development among some in the medical, psychological, and most alarmingly, educational professions in defense of transgenderism only contributes to the normalization of gender dysphoria; add to this both political and media coverage in support of transgenderism, and we have a serious societal dilemma. The horror of this social contagion is particularly egregious when it involves minors, including cases in public schools where parents are intentionally restricted from being informed about a student’s claims regarding transgenderism.

Then we have the ludicrous development of enforcing the participation of transgender men competing in women’s sports, a clear violation of women’s rights, and what should be a criminal practice of putting women in harms way, especially in allowing biological men in women’s locker rooms and bathrooms. That there are “progressive” politicians that support such obviously unfair and unsafe practices exposes the total lack of decency and common sense among them. Thankfully, there are signs of change for the better, especially with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) recently ruling that an athlete’s biological sex determines competition eligibility.

While only 0.5% to 1% of adults identify as transgender, and about 1.4% to 3.3% of young people do, it’s curious that this delusion has become such a dominant issue. In research by Lisa Littman, a physician and professor of behavioral science at Brown University, found that most young people who claimed to be transgender or “non-binary” were influenced by peers and social media, which has had a significant impact on mental illness including transgenderism; this is not a natural organic experience, but a delusion that rejects the reality of biological sex. Those that see transgenderism as a delusion are met with accusations of “transphobia”, a common example of the elitism pervasive in American society dismissive of anything contrary to their world view.

“Transgenderism is the only mental illness demanding that the rest of society adopt the patient’s delusion as part of the patient’s treatment.” Dr. Paul McHugh, Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, John Hopkins School of Medicine

“If we would learn what the human race really is at bottom, we need only observe it in election times.” Mark Twain

As we approach the midterm elections, we have an example of what Mark Twain was talking about, and the bottom may have been reached (no guarantee) with which party can out do the other with gerrymandering; Texas, California, Viginia, Missouri, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, and counting, have broken with tradition of redistricting only after a census cycle with which to base changes in populations. Although not a new political gimmick as it started back in 1812 in Massachusetts, it is an obvious political manipulation by allowing politicians to select their voters rather than voters choosing their representatives.

The U.S. Constitution does not address the practice of gerrymandering directly; it does require a census every 10 years to apportion House representatives based on population, necessitating redistricting; it requires that electoral districts be geographically contiguous and nearly equal in population as possible. The Supreme Court has not ruled definitively in the past, other than to say that gerrymandering presents political questions beyond the reach of federal courts. However, there have been cases and decisions in the federal courts which regulated gerrymandering under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits racial discrimination in redistricting.

Now we have the Supreme Court ruling of April 29^th in Louisiana v. Callais that found its proposed redistricting an unconstitutional racial gerrymander; looking at the proposed redistricting, we are struck by the similar circumstances of the 1812 redistricting map from which gerrymandering got its name. Then Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts contrived a redistricting whose shape was so odd that it was likened to a salamander, and a new political term was born. Now if you add race to the issue, you create an even more grotesque political practice.

Gerrymandering is bad enough but basing it on race is like treating people like cattle in a herd to be moved around to meet a specific electoral quota; it is so dehumanizing that it’s difficult to believe there are Democratic Party members in Congress who are outraged by the recent SCOTUS decision and actually support racial gerrymandering. That said, we should not be surprised by this as race has become just as much a political weapon as it was in the Jim Crow era, except now it’s mostly used by those who pretend to be defenders of minorities, while they use them as political pawns to their advantage. This is not something that is intended to unite a nation already so divided by such extreme partisan rhetoric.

“Our children and grandchildren may yet curse the day we began hyping race and ethnicity. There are countries where that has led to slaughters in the streets but you cannot name a country where it has led to greater harmony.” Thomas Sowell

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” Sun Tzu

In my last blog I spoke to a resolution of my conflicted view of the Iranian War, specifically how I have accepted that there are two results that are in conflict with themselves; the good one being the near destruction of Iran’s ability to continue its wars of terror, the bad one being the refusal of the Supreme Court to rule on the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The later is not just applicable to the Iranian War, but applied also to the Iraqi and Afghanistan War, and a score of other military actions by various presidents that were blatantly unconstitutional, riddled with false flags.

What needs further discussion about the Iranian War is the reason for it, which has been the mantra of nearly every administration since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 that established the Islamic Republic, and that is that they can’t be allowed to ever possess a nuclear weapon; given their decades long history of state sponsored terrorism, this is a perfectly rational policy. The problem with this policy is how to effect it, which has confounded the world for over fifty years; despite appeasement, bribery and threats, nothing has ever worked, until recently with an operation known as “Midnight Hammer”.

Having destroyed and buried both the nuclear material and the ability to enrich it to weapons grade under the mountain of rubble known as the Isfahan Nuclear Technology/Research Center (INTC), the US demonstrated the ability to do so then, and anytime in the future that Iran seeks to restore it or operate similarly elsewhere. This was a true case of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMD), unlike the false flag from the Bush administrations to justify the Iraqi Wars, but to then embark on the military action known as “Epic Fury” given the success of “Midnight Hammer” constitutes yet another false flag.

According to Merriman Webster, “A false flag is a hostile, harmful, or dramatic action designed to look as though it was perpetrated by someone other than the actual person or group responsible.” Further “In modern contexts, it refers to covert operations, political, or military activities orchestrated to manipulate perception, justify aggression, or create sympathy.” Again, I have total disgust for the Iranian regime that currently controls Iran, but even under the regrettable War Powers Resolution of 1973, and having established the irresistible force of American air power with “Midnight Hammer”, I see no “clear and present danger” to justify “Epic Fury”, the consequences of which are and will continue to cause economic and political harm to the American people.

The economic harm is not only with rising energy prices due to supply and demand, but with creating economic uncertainty and increased deficit spending. The political harm is providing cover to those, both foreign and domestic, who are always looking for ways to denigrate America; starting a fight without an exit strategy is risky enough, but failure to address the unintended consequences will provide your political enemies with the means to defeat you. What was considered a difficult midterm election historically, may now turn into a regrettable certainty for success for what has become a very violently radicalized Democratic Party.

The best exit strategy for the Trump administration now is to end this war really soon, by whatever means necessary; apparently his military advisers have given him various options to do so, and we can only hope that he will come to realize the wisdom in this. The blockade would work if there was a rational regime in Iran, but unless some miracle occurs that is unlikely to change; hope is not a plan, so stop the fantasy about negotiating with lunatics, seize the means of their survival known as Kharg Island and the Straits of Hormuz, and get back to attending to the domestic policies that serve the interest of the American people who are your sole source of potential success in the midterms…otherwise beware of what Ron Paul cautioned:

“What if the American people woke up and understood that the official reasons for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests?”

“If you don’t read the newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read them you are misinformed.” Mark Twain

We all have at times found ourselves conflicted with what we read and hear in the news, and the war with Iran is no exception. This is true regardless of our political views, provided we are objective. I found myself conflicted about the war with Iran principally based on my libertarian perspective regarding the constitution. For a while I was unable to resolve my fear and disgust of the Iranian terrorist regime and my dedication and trust of the constitutional dictate that only the American people, through their congress, have the power to wage war.

What came to mind as a way to think this through was Milton Friedman’s famous quote that “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” I am no fan of Trump, but I also disdain TDS as an intellectual wasteland where the focus is on his personality rather than the results of his actions. This led me to work through my conflicts with the war in reverse, i.e., start with the results, which in this case any rational person would consider the destruction of a terrorist group to be a good thing. The empirical evidence that this is the case has been illustrated over and over again for decades by this death culture that has made clear in their own words their intent to kill anyone who disagrees with them.

Knowing what I have read and heard from some politicians and the news who have referenced Article I of the Constitution regarding war powers as evidence that this war is unconstitutional, I on the one hand agree, but apparently that is not the case with the Supreme Court. Starting in 1983, there have been a number of cases filed with SCOTUS challenging the War Powers Resolution of 1973, whose intent was to limit presidential war powers, but the results were that it constructed the protocol under which the president could proceed with a war without Congressional authorization. In all cases SCOTUS declined to rule on its legality because it involved settling disputes between branches of government, dismissing such cases as political questions to be resolved among those parties. Personally, I find SCOTUS at fault since its job is to rule in cases involving constitutional matters.

Therefore, I have no choice than to conclude that, while I do not agree with SCOTUS, and as Trump has so far met the requirements of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, I am left only with the results, and the frustration that once again we the people have been deprived of the protection of our constitution. That said, I have resolved my conflict as I realize that I will have to deal with two results that are contradictory, i.e., the destruction of much of this terrorist groups ability to kill, which is a good thing, and the apparent disregard of SCOTUS to protect our constitution, which is a bad thing.

This conflict among the three branches of our government will continue eroding the distinctions among them, including the possibility of more cases being referred to SCOTUS which will be dismissed, likely another episode of Articles of Impeachment, which will resolve nothing, and more executive action in war. While we lament the partisan divide, we should pay more attention to the erosion of the constitutional structure regarding the separation of powers, especially as they have become something never intended under the constitution.

“The Three Branches of Government are Money, Television, and Bullshit.” P. J. O’Rourke

“The individualist recognizes the limitations of the powers of individual reason and consequently advocates freedom.” Friedrich Hayek

What Hayek is basically saying is that an independent and objective person will put aside their own reasoned conclusions on issues that affect the rights of others, a principle such people practice that no one has the right to coerce another to their way of thinking. In my prior post I referenced “Groupthink”, a term first coined by Irving Janis, a Yale psychologist in 1971, which described a phenomenon that demands abandoning reason all together in favor of whatever narrative of the day is in vogue, while it demonizes those that think for themselves. It is very similar to George Orwell’s “Doublethink” in 1984 which was intended to repress critical thinking.

Friedrich Hayek was awarded the 1974 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences; his work in monetary theory and his analysis of the interrelationship of economics and social behavior was in stark contrast to the collectivist politics of the modern era. Conversely, “Groupthink” is contrary to the practice of critical thinking as Hayek used in his research and analysis, a phenomenon based on faith which we should be skeptical of, and which Richard Dawkins, the famous British evolutionary biologist aptly defines as “Faith is belief without evidence and reason; coincidentally that’s also the definition of delusion.”

I very much doubt that Hayek would have won the Nobel in this current environment of collectivist euphoria; groupthink relies on narratives to be effective in enlisting, motivating, and mobilizing people to act in support of a cause, or against whoever is identified as the enemy of a cause. Historically it does not have to rely on a majority of a society to be effective as was the case in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy; it can be effective by a minority through intimidation or the majority’s apathy or ambivalence about the cause. Its main problem arises when someone calls out the fallacies in their narrative; the consistent reaction when that happens is to silence those that dare to do so, as if silencing an argument is the same thing as winning one.

Groupthink is like a virus, constantly mutating to avoid the antidotes created by reason and facts; critical thinking on the other hand is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment. The goal of critical thinking is to discover the truth, which psychologically is beneficial for mental health; groupthink demands that you accept lies as truths, which is the basis for the current crisis in mental health, especially among the young. The narratives that Groupthink relies on are like using story telling as a substitute for critical thinking, making it the antithesis of logic and reason.

“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” Thomas Paine

“The word politics comes from poly, meaning many, and ticks, meaning bloodsucking parasites.” Larry Hardiman

I recently came across the above quote when looking for a concise definition of the word parasite but could not find out more about the author of this witty word play. I did find a concise but far less humorous definition in the Meriam Webster dictionary that a parasite was “An organism living in, on, or with another organism in order to obtain nutrients, grow, or multiply often in a state that directly or indirectly harms the host.”

In listening to the latest moronic ideas from the growing socialist faction of the Democratic Party and their problems in finding ways to fund them, it becomes apparent that without the benefits of a free market, specifically the creation of wealth, they would not have the means to do so, or in other words socialism requires a host to feed off, like a parasite. Thomas Sowell described the narrative that the politicians of the Democratic Socialist faction use very effectively when he said that “Few skills are so rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims.”

There’s nothing new with socialism, even when it is dressed up with the prefix “Democratic”, and there is nothing new about how historically it has consistently failed. Regardless of the many names socialism has been given, or any version of it that has been proposed, it is not concerned with the creation of wealth, only the distribution of it; in all cases the consistent theme from politicians advocating for it is the promise of free stuff like education, health care, transportation, and whatever else that will entice those with a childish sense of entitlement to what they have not earned.

This post is not so much about the economic fallacies of socialism, even though when asked the vast majority of its proponents can’t provide a coherent economic definition of what it means; it’s about the political manipulations that create the opportunities socialism requires. While events such as the Russian Revolution are examples of direct violent action to create the totalitarianism socialism needs to function, the current paradigm is to do it politically by vote; as Ayn Rand insightfully observed, “It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.”

Recently, Zohran Mamdani in his speech celebrating his one-hundred-day anniversary as NYC mayor said, “I have thought often of the Margaret Thatcher quote, ‘The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.’ If anything, it seems you eventually need a socialist to clean up the mess.” The more you think about this statement, the less sense that it makes. On the one hand it recognizes the reality in Thatcher’s statement given NYC’s budget deficit, which is now greater than during the Great Recession, while at the same time stating it takes a socialist to fix the problem with policies that created the problem to begin with.

This is the very nature of what is called “Democratic Socialism”; by linking democracy with socialism, it provides the proof for Karl Marx’s political thesis that “Democracy is the road to Socialism.” The people of NYC voted for this, illustrating that reality; it has been the socialist policies of the Democratic Party that have created the Democratic Socialist faction. It is an example of “Groupthink”, the psychological phenomenon of entitlement where desire for what belongs to others overrides critical analysis, like the robotic reaction of parasites.

“Socialism is groupthink. How uninformed in history do you have to be to advocate for groupthink?” A.E. Samaan