“Only socialism can solve decades of capitalist mismanagement in the US. Our newly elected leaders will fight for the working class — not for crumbs.”
–statement by the Democrat Socialists of America.
When in history has socialism ever benefitted the “working class”? The answer is “never”.
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
–Winston Churchill, speaking in the House of Commons (October 22, 1945).
“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.”
–Winston Churchill, speaking in Perth, Scotland (May 28, 1948).
Mr. Churchill knew of what he spoke. The British people, tired of war and deprivation, turned him out of office just weeks following the conclusion of World War II. They handed power to the Labour Party, and its leader, Clement Attlee, who promised “free stuff”, such as national healthcare. Industries were nationalized, and private property expropriated.
When the British people realized “free” meant significantly higher taxes, and low quality services, they rebelled electorally, and returned Mr. Churchill and the Conservative Party to power in 1951. But the die had already been cast. Socialism had a firm grip on Great Britain, and it would not be repelled in any significant measure until the election of the Conservatives and its leader, Margaret Thatcher, in 1979. And though Mrs. Thatcher made great strides, and Great Britain prospered under her leadership, she could only do so much. Her conniving underlings (the British version of our own “Bushism”) eventually ousted her, and engaged in a “squishy” retreat from her free market reforms.
And so Great Britain suffers still, to this day, from the evils of socialism. It is a warning to our own electorate; if it is paying attention.
“It is the greatest threat to our country, including World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, or even 9/11. We’re not going to let this happen to us. Believe me, we’re not letting it happen, because communism is the enemy of free people. Communism is the exact opposite of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — it is death, tyranny and the pursuit of evil. But we will not let them win. They have no chance against us.
You can be loyal to Karl Marx, or you can be loyal to America. You can be a communist, or you can be a patriot. You cannot be both.
Our American ancestors did not shed their blood at Concord and Trenton, Gettysburg and Shiloh, Midway and Normandy, just so that a band of thieves, radicals and lunatics could come in and loot, pillage our nation.”
–President Donald J. Trump, speaking at Mt. Rushmore, South Dakota (July 3, 2026).
Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried. China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela . . . . It has even been tried, and failed, in our own country. Both the Jamestown and Massachusetts Bay colonies tried socialism when first established. The colonists in each settlement almost starved to death, and would have, but for the intervention of Captain John Smith in Jamestown, and Governor William Bradford in Massachusetts Bay.
And more than 200 years after the spectacular failures of socialism in Virginia and Massachusetts, a group of Lutherans founded New Harmony, Indiana. In 1825, British industrialist Robert Owen purchased the town, vowing to turn it into a “socialist paradise. Less than 1 year later, the experiment failed. As do all socialist experiments.
________________________________________________________________
Seizing Private Property: The Endgame of Socialism
BY: Ward Clark (June 29, 2026).
It’s a troubling time to be an advocate of individual liberty.
A slate of political candidates, mostly but not exclusively in the New York metropolitan area, has been winning primary elections. These people call themselves “Democratic Socialists,” borrowing the term from one of the most visible adherents to this nitwittery, the daffy old Bolshevik from Vermont, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Now, this very language – “Democratic Socialist – is an oxymoron. There’s no such thing as a democratic socialist, no matter how often actual communist and socialist nations like North Korea throw around the terms “democratic” or “republic.” Socialism, as properly defined, is inherently totalitarian. It always has been. It always will be. And socialism, at its heart, is defined as an economic system in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the government. Again, socialists and commies will complain that this means they are owned by “the people.” Horse squeeze. When you own something, you have some say in how it is used. Citizens – excuse me, serfs, in a communist or socialist nation, have no say.
One of these New York commie candidates is a real piece of work. Darializa Avila Chevalier is now the Democrats’ nominee for New York’s 13th Congressional District, and since she is the nominee, in this district, it’s a near-certainty that she will win that seat in November.
The candidate, a protege of New York’s commie Mayor Mamdani, has been busily cleaning up her social media profile in order to look more moderate. But the internet is forever
.
Avila Chevalier, a sociology PhD student whose victory sent shockwaves throughout the Democratic establishment, has been under fire for a since-deleted Twitter account, previously reported by CNN, that included phrases such as “seize the means of production,” along with calls to abolish police, prisons and borders. Other controversial tweets include one that said Black and Arab men are both “Fetishizing ugly colonizer women” and another that described wiping her dirty hands on the American flag in lieu of a napkin.
As an undergraduate, Avila Chevalier attended Columbia University, where she organized with Students for Justice in Palestine, and after graduation became involved in pro-Palestinian campus protests over Israel’s war in Gaza. She also attended a controversial October 8, 2023, pro-Palestinian rally in Times Square — one day after Hamas’ attack on Israel — that featured speeches and rhetoric praising the attack.
Yes, that’s right; even CNN is calling her out. But among all that, one item really stands out:
Seizing the means of production. What, ultimately, does that mean?
Seizing the means of production, whether they admit to it or not, is the endgame here. It always was; that is, in reality, the actual definition of a socialist economy.
That means nationalizing every major industry. Now, some on the left will point to things like Social Security, the military, and even public transportation, and claim that’s socialism.
They may have a fraction of a point here, but Social Security and public transit do not produce anything; they are, like the military, funded as a distributed interest. This argument is a distraction, nothing more, and one that’s been debunked many times.
Public services like roads and first responders take up only a fraction of a government’s budget, and they do not require the state to control an entire industry through a sprawling bureaucracy. Socialists, by contrast, preach single-payer healthcare, higher education, and housing as if they can be run without a private market. But the level of responsibility required to manage housing, education, and healthcare is exponentially greater than what is needed for police, fire, or roads. And that even ignores the government’s own half-measures on housing and its long track record running public education, neither of which has left many people praising how well government does the job.
No, what the “democratic socialists” will see at their ultimate goal is, as Avila Chevalier gave away in a moment of inadvertent honesty, is actually nationalizing major industries, from airlines to steelmaking. That means stealing them. That means taking them by force. The government can’t buy them; there is no fair exchange for trillions of dollars of property, of capital equipment, of designs, of patented processes and equipment. No, these things will be taken by force.
That’s the endgame.
This isn’t the only outrage these people intend to levy on us. Socialism, communism, always arrive at the same end: Minimal freedom for the peasantry, maximum comfort and, yes, wealth to the rulers. Just look at any communist country, from the Soviet Union to Cuba to North Korea, and it’s always the same. It’s about taxing everything that moves, which is already happening in California. It’s about “re-education” camps for anyone who dares speak in opposition; we see plenty of comments to that effect even in the American “mainstream” left.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton railed against supporters of former President Trump during a new CNN interview, comparing those who still support the former president after the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection to members of a cult.
“Maybe there needs to be a formal deprogramming of the cult members,” she said in a clip released late Thursday.
Reprogramming. That means a camp. That means a gulag. There’s just no other way to interpret that. And when these people tell you what they want to do, you can take them at their word, because they mean it.
And, in the end, that’s the real problem. We can vote our way into socialism. That’s all too easy, as we have seen in these recent elections. It’s getting back out of it again that’s the hard part.
________________________________________________________________
The New Socialists—Elite, Ungrateful, and Toxic As Ever
BY: Victor Davis Hanson (July 2, 2026).
Win some blue-state and blue-city races, and the cocky new socialist Jacobins believe that they have either already taken over the Democratic Party or will soon absorb it. And in reaction to these new swarms, an increasingly terrified and ossified old Democrat guard either limps away from the hive or invites them in to take over more.
It is fascinating but ultimately depressing to watch old-style Democrats say or do anything to avoid the new mob of Robespierres. Democrat candidates who recently begged for a Schumer/Pelosi/Jeffries endorsement now are telling them to get in line at the guillotine.
Jewish American Democrats are terrified that what happened to the primaried and defeated Rep. Dan Goldman of New York, an arch-Trump hater, could befall them. Goldman’s obnoxious showboating hatred of Trump and championing of neo-socialist agendas offered no defense against the Jacobins’ antisemitism and hatred of Israel.
A number of Jewish Democrat candidates, like wannabe California congressman Scott Wiener, are backing off from Israel and now join the “genocide!” mob. Wiener hopes that the throng will reward his new anti-Israel position by overlooking the now inconvenient fact that to the antisemitic Democrat base he is still Jewish.
Some of the rich, likewise, think they can escape the guillotine—the various proposed taxes on “billionaires” and “millionaires” on their net worth or unrealized capital gains or plans to confiscate private properties deemed “not in the people’s interests.” They will either flee to Florida or join the mob and hope their donations spare them from the blade.
The hard socialist agenda, which lacks even 50 percent popular support, is often recognizable despite efforts to conceal it until after elections. Given the clickbait lunacy of these socialists’ mindset, their true views often trickle out from prior social media posts, hot mics, leaks, and occasional temper-tantrum outbursts (cf. Mamdani’s “monsters” or Talarico’s “I hate Christianity” or Platner’s litany of unapologetic racist, antisemitic, and misogynistic outbursts).
In general, the socialist challenge is to “fundamentally transform America” into a statist, inert redistribution machine—nuttier than socialist Europe, a prescription for North Korean-style poverty, and completely unrecognizable to the Founders and most contemporary Americans. As far as we can distill, here are their agendas:
1. The New Demography
Open borders, massive, unaudited new immigration ending the distinction between mere residence and citizenship.
2. Dismantling the “System”
Packing the court, destroying the Electoral College, ending the filibuster, bringing in new left-wing states, defunding the police, ensuring same-day registration/voting, no voter ID, foreign nationals residing here being eligible to vote.
3. The Islamization of America
Ending America’s traditional friendship with Israel and realigning the U.S. with the West Bank, Hamas, Hezbollah, and their autocratic and illiberal, terrorism-sponsoring Muslim regimes. Restoring massive USAID subsidies to fund left-wing takeovers abroad and mainstreaming now overt harassment of Jews at home.
4. Old Communism
The government takeover of housing and utilities, targeted expropriation of private property, new punitive taxes on net worth and unrealized capital gains. Wild talk of nationalizing airlines and all healthcare.
5. Statism
Massive new entitlements, free college, canceling $1.7 trillion in student loans, more federal acquisition of private lands, rent freezes.
6. Reparations
Compensation for victims of alleged “white privilege,” institutionalization of radical identity politics, and racial, ethnic, and sexual orientation chauvinism. Third world hatred of supposed white oppressors, justifying reparatory preferences for the non-white “oppressed.”
7. Globalism
Pledging solidarity with socialist/communist movements abroad while despising Western civilization in general and the U.S. in particular.
Once “Mayor” Zohran Mamdani took control of New York, he began promising to confiscate rental properties from landlords and to focus on “white” neighborhoods, and he no longer disguised his innate hatred of Jews.
Governor Abigail Spanberger of Virginia dropped her moderate false face and began radically ramming through hard-left executive orders to ensure more DEI, higher taxes, and anti-ICE hysterics. After being elected, Seattle Mayor Katie Willson gushed “bye-bye” to the billionaire entrepreneurs who are fleeing from Washington state’s new “millionaire’s tax.” She mocked their departure and cared not a whit that her now-socialist city would further descend into a West Coast Detroit or Baltimore.
Socialists hide their revolutionary anger with banal pleasantries. We have become well accustomed now to the “socialist smile,” emblemized by the grinning Mamdani or the faux-happy face of James Talarico. Usually, the new touchy-feely socialists chuckle loudest when a rare reporter presses them on their past lunatic harangues, which are then laughed off as hysterias from paranoid right-wing minds.
Sometimes socialists embrace the hard commissar style, like the perpetually venomous Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner, who ridicules journalists, lies flagrantly, and takes back none of his hate-filled rants.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI-12) perpetually screams rather than talks, usually venting her monotonous hatred for the Jewish state. Her latest socialist champions are the Antifa criminals just sentenced to long prison sentences for their conspiracy to murder ICE officers.
The more Ilhan Omar is caught trafficking in antisemitic tropes, denying alleged immigration fraud schemes, or filing preposterous federal financial disclosure forms, the more defiant her shouts of “racist” become.
The newly emerging socialists, like recent congressional nominees Darializa Avila Chevalier or Analilia Mejia, can never explain why their parents left socialist paradises in Latin America to come to cutthroat capitalist America.
Nor do they explain to us why and how such a supposedly toxic, racist nation would extend such generous scholarships and DEI preferences to both. They suffer from the Joy Reid/Ilhan Omar/Rashida Tlaib/AOC socialist syndrome: parents flee socialist paradises of indigenous peoples to ensure their children might thrive in a settler/colonialist and capitalist U.S. whose magnanimity they interpret as proof of guilt that is therefore to be reciprocated not with gratitude but with ever more venom.
And once the second-generation socialists joined the privileged elite classes of America, these boutique radicals decided to tear down the very system that nurtured them, without ever expressing a wish to return to the socialist paradises of their parents’ homelands.
What drives the sheer hatred of the new upscale socialists, and why are they in vogue now?
There are three constants in all these new socialists, as we have seen from the recent nationwide primary elections, as well as the daily street theater.
One, they hate the United States—loathe its foundation, hate its maturation, and despise the current American nation. They detest especially the middle classes, who lack both the romance of the dependent poor and the supposed “refinement” and “culture” of their own elite socialist aristocracy. And the more they demagogue “white privilege” and “white supremacy,” the more they feel that the river of exemptions, set-asides, preferences, and special considerations will flow to them from a supposedly guilty nation.
The socialists’ hatred of America is becoming clearer as middle America embraces the 250th anniversary of the nation, highlighted by throngs of World Cup tourists who cannot praise highly enough the decency, amicability, and prosperity of America between the coasts. So, what is a perennial socialist PhD candidate, or a failed “community organizer,” or NGO flack to do when millions happily suffer from “false consciousness” and have failed to listen to their Marxist handlers?
The socialist architects of the current Jacobin takeover see no contradiction in that, like moths harkening to flames, they cannot get enough of the American good life, conspicuous consumer consumption, and merit badges of success like their Ivy League-branded kids, letters and titles after their names, and the right zip code for their first and second homes.
Every socialist buffoon reminds us almost daily of Alexis de Tocqueville’s droll warning that most people would prefer everyone to be absolutely equal and worse off than all better off, but with some better off than themselves.
The socialists’ hatred of America is also revealed in their envy. Unlike the poet Hesiod’s notion of a “good” envy—embodied in the American tradition of emulation and admiration of those richer than themselves—they buy into the “bad” envy of wanting to destroy those who are brighter, more successful, richer, and more essential to America than themselves, whether an Elon Musk, a Larry Ellison, or a Jeff Bezos.
Second, socialists still have little current power other than their control of institutions such as K-12 education, academia, the media, foundations, the bureaucracies, the corporate boardrooms, professional sports, entertainment, and popular culture. Perhaps they wish to end up like the lifelong government employee, Bernie Sanders, who for a half-century shook his two upraised fists at America, screamed at the greed, and ended up with three homes and membership in the millionaire class.
Socialists and communists have no confidence in winning over the majority of the American people, at least outside blue-city and blue-state districts. Hence, their efforts to change balloting laws, destroy the border, import angry, poor, new constituents, stage violent street confrontations, and either celebrate or contextualize assassinations from the attempts on Trump to the killing of Charlie Kirk.
Sane Democrats would reexamine 2024 and conclude the party was far too left-wing and the antidote was a return to the winning formulas of Bill Clinton. But unhinged socialists and communists would claim that 2024 was lost because they were not far-left enough. So we are to believe that Americans scared of Harris’s poorly disguised radicalism can be won over by scaring them even further? A communist in 2028 can win over America when a socialist in 2024 could not?
Third, Donald Trump has driven the Left so crazy that they have gyrated from Obama’s four-mansion socialism to unapologetic hardcore Trotskyism. Why? Their pathological hatred transcends Trump’s background, his appearance, his accent, his tweets, and even his appeal to the despised “clingers, irredeemables, deplorables, chumps, dregs, and garbage.”
Of course, Trump is a conservative, so he suffers the same left-wing slurs of “fascist” and “Nazi” that met Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. But in his second term, Trump, quite unlike most Republican presidents, is not addressing just symptoms but also the causes and fuel of the socialist project.
Trump did not just jawbone the “fake news” but cut off subsidies to NPR and PBS, suing the media when they deliberately engaged in baseless character assassination. He did not just close the border but began deporting the criminal cohort of Biden’s 10 million illegal entrants, sought to end birthright citizenship, made would-be refugees apply for entry in their home country, ended catch-and-release, and will wall off or electronically secure the entire southern border from the Pacific to the Gulf of America.
He did not just rhetorically critique DEI; he banned it from the federal bureaucracy. Unlike past Republicans, Trump did not merely critique elitist campuses; he leveraged them to behave like normal people—taxing endowments, banning racist DEI protocols, prohibiting grant surcharge scamming, and demanding they abide by the Bill of Rights. He slashed the left-wing USAID money machine rather than just whining that it subsidized America’s worst critics abroad.
In other words, the socialists are enraged not just because they despise the U.S. and lack the power to turn America into Cuba or because they have not yet stabbed, poisoned, shot, decapitated, or blown up the hated Trump, as their followers, celebrities, and a few of their leaders have so often boasted.
The real rub is that Trump is their flip side—not a revolutionary but a counterrevolutionary. He seeks to overturn root and branch the entire 100-year progressive project and ensure America’s insidious slouching toward socialism ends with his term—for good. The more they brag about our collective socialist tomorrow, the more Trump incessantly dismantles socialism today.
So far, they haven’t stopped him yet—but their lidless eyes never close.
____________________________________________________________________
When the American Dream Dies, Socialism Rises
To many younger Americans today, ‘socialism’ sounds less like state control and more like economic fairness — perhaps even a lifeline.
BY: Brian C. Joondeph, The American Thinker (June 29, 2026).
Not long ago, the American Dream followed a familiar script. Graduate from school, find a job, buy a modest home, start a family, and gradually build a better life than the generation before you.
For many young Americans today, that script increasingly feels like historical fiction.
Image created by ChatGPT
A recent survey from Rasmussen Reports reveals a striking generational divide: younger Americans are far more likely than older voters to view socialism favorably. According to the survey, 44 percent of voters under 40 believe socialism is a better system, compared with only 12 percent of older Americans.
Recent election results in New York City confirm Rasmussen’s findings.
For Americans who grew up during the Cold War — or even those with a basic understanding of 20th-century history — that finding may seem baffling. Socialism was long associated with economic stagnation, bureaucratic control, and failed political systems abroad.
Yet to many younger Americans today, the word carries a very different meaning. It sounds less like state control and more like economic fairness — perhaps even a lifeline.
Understanding that shift requires stepping into the economic reality confronting today’s younger generation.
For much of the post–World War II era, Americans lived with a powerful assumption: each generation would enjoy a higher standard of living than the one before it. Children expected to do better than their parents. Opportunity seemed abundant. Upward mobility felt almost inevitable.
That expectation is fading.
Many young adults now suspect they may be the first generation in modern American history to experience a lower standard of living than their parents. Whether that perception is entirely accurate is beside the point. What matters is that millions of young Americans believe it.
Consider housing. Homeownership — long the cornerstone of middle-class stability — has drifted out of reach for many first-time buyers. Home prices have surged while mortgage rates remain far higher than the ultra-low levels of recent years. Even renting has become a major financial burden in many cities, consuming large portions of young workers’ income.
For previous generations, purchasing a starter home in one’s late twenties or early thirties was common. Today, many young Americans suspect they may not own a home until middle age — if ever.
Higher education presents another obstacle. College tuition has soared over the past several decades, even for students attending in-state public universities. Many young adults graduate not only with degrees but also with substantial student loan debt that can follow them for decades. For a generation just beginning their working lives, that debt can delay homeownership, marriage, and family formation.
The financial pressures do not stop there.
Automobiles — often a necessity rather than a luxury in much of the United States — have become dramatically more expensive. Vehicle prices have climbed sharply in recent years, while insurance costs have risen as well. Fuel prices fluctuate but remain a significant burden for workers commuting long distances.
Food costs have climbed. Grocery bills are noticeably higher than they were just a few years ago. Utilities, insurance, and health care costs have also risen.
Many young workers feel as if they are running faster simply to stay in the same place financially.
Starting a family presents yet another hurdle. Childcare costs in many parts of the country rival mortgage payments. For some households, daycare for two children approaches the cost of college tuition. Not surprisingly, many couples delay having children — or decide not to have them at all.
To a generation struggling to afford housing, education, transportation, and even groceries, the promise of “free” government solutions can sound appealing — even if history suggests those promises rarely end well.
Contrast this with the economic environment familiar to earlier generations. A middle-class household could often function on a single income. A working father, a stay-at-home mother, a modest home, two cars in the driveway, and the occasional family vacation were not unusual.
Today that lifestyle often requires two full-time incomes—and even then may feel financially precarious.
Young people are also paying attention to government spending. Headlines regularly feature massive federal expenditures, whether for foreign conflicts, domestic programs, or large aid packages. At the same time, stories about fraud, waste, and abuse in government programs appear with troubling regularity.
Public trust in many institutions — from government to media to large corporations — has steadily eroded, particularly among younger Americans.
To many young voters, the system increasingly appears tilted. They see rising costs, stagnant wages, and institutions that seem unable—or unwilling—to control spending or prevent abuse.
In that environment, many begin to question whether the current economic system is working for them at all. The appeal of “leveling the playing field” through greater government involvement becomes understandable.
Of course, socialism carries its own long record of economic disappointment. As former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously observed, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
History has repeatedly proven her point.
From the economic collapse of the Soviet Union to the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Venezuela, socialist experiments have consistently produced shortages, stagnation, and diminished freedom. Even nations that embrace partial socialist models often struggle with slow economic growth and heavy bureaucratic burdens.
Yet for many younger Americans facing rising costs and shrinking opportunity, those historical warnings can feel distant compared with the economic pressures they experience today.
It is therefore not surprising that politicians promoting expansive government solutions resonate with younger voters. Figures such as Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani have built significant political support among younger Americans by promising sweeping economic change.
But dismissing young voters as naïve misses the deeper issue.
For many younger Americans, the attraction to socialism is not theoretical. It reflects frustration with an economic system that increasingly feels closed off to them.
This is not partisan, either, as neither major party is delivering anything of substance to an economically overwhelmed middle class. Instead, one party does nothing but criticize President Trump, while the other holds hearings and issues sternly worded letters.
If policymakers wish to counter socialism’s growing appeal, lectures about its historical failures will not be enough.
The more persuasive response would be restoring the conditions that once made the American economic model so compelling: affordable housing, accessible education, rising real wages, and genuine upward mobility.
When opportunity expands, faith in markets follows.
But when opportunity fades, socialism begins to sound less like a warning — and more like a solution.
___________________________________________________________________
Yes, They’re Communists, and Yes, They’re Lying About It. For Now.
The label promises reform. The ideology points toward something far more radical.
BY: Scott McKay, The American Spectator (July 2, 2026).
There is no such thing as a democratic socialist. That’s a term invented to mask what people who call themselves democratic socialists actually are.
They’re communists.
Oh, they’ll tell you it isn’t the same thing. That’s one of an unbroken string of lies they’ll tell you, because lies are all these people have.
And a pretty good tell where that’s concerned is to look at the resumes of practically every single one of the people who are rapidly taking over the Democrat Party in primary election after primary election.
What you’ll find is that these are people who literally lie for a living.
There are no plumbers or electricians or carpenters among these champions of the working class who are giving the Democrats a red — red in the classical political sense; not red in the network media-assigned R vs. D electoral sense — makeover. They’re all academics with degrees in “___ Studies” and community organizers, which is a term of art used to describe professional agitators.
Make no mistake, by the way. These are the people who will run the Democrat Party in the future.
Get any of these people talking about what they do, and it’s rare any of them can get 60 seconds into describing their occupation before they’ve told at least two major, provable lies.
Like, for example, that they want to turn the U.S. into Denmark or Norway. Which they claim are democratic socialist countries.
Danes and Norwegians will tell you in no uncertain terms that theirs are capitalist countries with robust private sectors. They’ve got very large welfare states, to be sure, and confiscatory tax structures which stratify their social ranks and make entrepreneurship quite difficult.
And they’ve also got very homogenous demographics, too. The Danes are not all Danes, but they’re almost all white Europeans.
And if you point this out and ask the “democratic socialists” who claim they simply want to make us all Danes whether they’re then for getting rid of all the people whose cultures don’t match up with our own, much less Danish culture, they’ll call you a racist.
As though politics isn’t downstream from culture. Which is a truth that the American Left accepted a century ago as they began marching through our cultural institutions and capturing them for their own uses.
The lies are so pervasive that they’re absurd. Queers for Palestine is absurd. Feminists supporting sexually confused men in girls’ locker rooms are absurd. Defunding the police is absurd, not just because it will enable crime — which they want, as anarcho-tyranny is the chosen form of communist revolution in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse — but because rule by the criminal class isn’t the ultimate result which flows from defunding the police.
Citizen militias, vigilantism and lynching are.
Some of them are honest. For example, check out the guy at the end of this video…
If they’re “democratic socialists” and that’s different from communism, then why are these people always shilling for Cuba? Why do they soft-sell China? Those are communist countries.
Well, China is considerably more fascist than communist now, at least in the sense that fascism’s founders intended to run an economy nearly exactly like China runs its own.
What’s the difference between democratic socialism and communism? Time. That’s all.
Listen to these people long enough, and what they want is to use a period of democratic socialism to usher in the communist state. They want to abolish private property altogether. Listen to Zohran Mamdani and he’ll tell you that government can solve any problem, no matter how big, and that no problem is too small for government to take on.
Then he fails to shovel the snow in the winter and demands New York City residents keep their thermostats at 78 in the summer.
They’ll call that democratic socialism. When they start arresting you for setting the thermostat at 74, that’s communism. Or when they’ve run all the landlords in New York out of business and turned the entire city into a giant public-housing slum, so that they can evict you for setting the thermostat at 74, or when there is no thermostat and you get what Zohran Mamdani gives you, that’s also communism.
And anyone who believes the descent into communism from democratic socialism is not inevitable is precisely the kind of idiot the democratic socialists are counting on, not to mention manufacturing in the schools and other cultural institutions. When they aren’t importing them from the Third World.
Make no mistake, by the way. These are the people who will run the Democrat Party in the future. Most Democrat voters don’t want it — most don’t actually know what they want at all; the only message they’ve even heard from their politicos for a decade is what a pedophile, felon, racist and Nazi Donald Trump is, and one reason the communists are taking over that party is that Democrat voters are no longer motivated by manifestations of Trump Derangement Syndrome on MSNOW; they’re looking for somebody to present solutions, and the only people who have anything to offer are the grifters and demagogues of the DSA.
Who by the way scare the hell out of the old-school Democrats.
Melissa and I had a Spectacle Podcast segment on Thursday talking about a video clip making the rounds in which Rahm Emanuel is now lamenting the DSA takeover of his party, and complaining at how on issue after issue — one he brings up is the transgender insanity that his party has embraced — has just been taken over by radicals. Melissa noted, and she’s correct, that Rahm Emanuel is the wrong person to complain.
After all, Emanuel was part of Bill Clinton’s inner circle, which signified his status as a “moderate” Democrat, at least potentially, and then he gleefully threw in with Barack Obama — who is now being reinvented as a moderate by some when he was nothing short of a communist radical. Emanuel’s fellow Chicago political thug David Axelrod is out there pimping for every DSA grifter he can find. Who are these people shedding crocodile tears for the loss of the moderate Democrat Party? It hasn’t existed for a couple of decades now.
What they’re lamenting isn’t the ideology. Rahm Emanuel is upset that mayor of Chicago was his terminal velocity in politics. He thinks it sucks that there will be different people who’ll run things and those people won’t ask his advice anymore. And sure, he’s smart enough to know that once the communists take over the Democrat Party it’s going to be utterly dead in the water outside of the big blue cities — and the big blue cities will go completely to seed when the Karen Basses, Brandon Johnsons, and Zohran Mamdanis are finished driving all of the kulaks to the suburbs — or states where it would be unthinkable for some candy-assed theater kid who’s never had a real job to tell a working man what temperature he can set his thermostat to.
The “liberals” — and at this point I demand that people like my friend John Hawkins stop calling the Left as a whole “liberals,” because there is nothing liberal left in Democrat Party politics — were too weak to hold their party. It has fallen to the communists. The liberals are essentially South Vietnam; their traditional Jefferson-Jackson Dinner is now, as Saigon became Ho Chi Minh City, destined to become the Lenin-Mao Dinner. American liberalism is defunct, and the liberals are being re-educated before our eyes.
Maybe some of that rump faction will finally grow up and become conservatives and help to save America from communism. Maybe.
But the thing to remember about communism — the saying uses socialism as its predicate, but either works — is that you can vote yourself into it but you have to shoot your way out.
Because the DSA gang generally doesn’t present much in the way of physicality. It’s mostly a lot of scrawny little girls with screechy voices winning these elections. But don’t let that fool you. They’re only for democracy so long as it gets them where they want to go. The minute they can park that car, they get out and set it on fire.
In the 20th century these same people, or their ideological forebears, had a saying: one man, one vote, one time.
The only thing the current crowd would object to is the “sexism” of one man.
The rest they’ll happily enforce with violence.
Which is when there will be no further distinctions made between democratic socialism and communism. That will be one lie they’ll stop telling, but it’ll likely be the only one.
____________________________________________________________________
Between the Declaration of Independence and the ‘Communist Manifesto,’ only one will prevail
1776 or 1848; there is no middle ground
BY: Don Feder, The Washington Times (July 5, 2026).
We have a choice between two conflicting worldviews: one of freedom and dignity, the other of a regimented society based on submission to the ideology of a ruling elite.
One liberates, the other enslaves. One points the way toward a new dawn for humanity, the other toward the dark night of collectivism.
These visions were set forth in two of the most important documents in history, written just 72 years apart: The Declaration of Independence, adopted in 1776, and “The Communist Manifesto,” published in 1848. The struggle, which is going on all around us, is a manifestation of these two mutually exclusive worldviews.
The Declaration reflected the thinking of the most brilliant minds ever assembled in one place. These included merchants, planters, lawyers, inventors, a physician and a member of the clergy. Most were distinguished in their individual fields. They did not need a cause, but they believed in one.
“The Communist Manifesto” was written largely by Karl Marx, a miserable failure, an angry, bitter crank who sought greatness by attacking a system he did not understand. He called for the abolition of capitalism without ever setting foot on a factory floor. He was also a racist and an antisemite.
The Declaration of Independence is only 1,320 words, and most of that is taken up with a list of the Colonists’ grievances against King George III. The preamble, which contains the essence of the document’s political philosophy, is 133 words.
“The Communist Manifesto” is roughly 12,000 words. Later, Marx and his collaborator, Friedrich Engels, expanded on this in “Das Kapital,” a stultifying three-volume work of 2,500 pages. Like “Mein Kampf,” it is best used as a doorstop.
Compare the records of these two worldviews.
The vision of the Founders took America from a colonial backwater to the nation that dominated the 20th century. From our factories and workshops has flowed an endless stream of inventions that have shaped the modern world and eased the burden of humanity, including the incandescent light bulb, airplane, telephone, television, refrigerator, microchip and internet.
Our prosperity lifted all boats. After World War II, we rebuilt the economies of our enemies. Our Constitution served as a model of representative government for emerging nations.
The record of communism is drenched in blood and reeks of human suffering. Since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, communism has been responsible for 65 million to 100 million deaths worldwide.
Marxism-Leninism has enriched our vocabulary with words and phrases such as gulags, killing fields, planned famines, death camps and purges.
A large part of humanity is trapped in communist countries such as Cuba, China and North Korea. The Berlin Wall was not built to keep West Germans from fleeing to East Germany. Cuba has not taken in 2 million refugees from the United States.
In America, communism, repackaged as democratic socialism, is making alarming inroads. Our largest city and America’s financial hub has a Marxist mayor. Our capital city, the District of Columbia, will soon have one too.
Marxists just won Democratic primaries for two congressional seats in New York, one in Pennsylvania and one in Colorado. One of the winners in New York wants to abolish private property, borders and prisons. At Columbia, she led a pro-Hamas occupation.
History has come down to a life-and-death struggle between Americanism and communism.
Communism is monolithic. Americanism is individualistic. Communism demands obedience. Americanism seeks to persuade. Americanism says rights come from God.
Under communism, rights come from the state.
Americanism embraces human nature. Communism fights it at every turn, attempting to pound square pegs into round holes. That is why it fails every time.
Americanism welcomes debate. Communism tries to crush it.
Still, intellectuals flock to its banner. The less someone is in touch with reality, the more communism appeals to them. A sociology major is more susceptible to communism than an engineering student. Intellectuals want to be the commissars of the new order.
I have a fantasy about Karl Marx coming back to life. In it, the prophet of communism looks at the world his ideology created. He looks at the lights of the night sky in South Korea and the darkness in North Korea. He compares the repression in communist China with the freedom in Taiwan.
He surveys the rubble of what was once the Berlin Wall. He looks at the suffering in Cuba. He compares the gross domestic product of the United States and Russia.
After he digests all this, the father of communism says to himself, “Man, what was I thinking?”
GFK
Observations From The Fifth Estate 