Otto Eduard Leopold, Prince of Bismarck, Duke of Lauenburg (1 April 1815 – 30 July 1898), better known as Otto von Bismarck, is credited with being the father of socialism, the modern-day welfare state. He said, “My idea was to bribe the working classes, or shall I say, to win them over, to regard the state as a social institution existing for their sake and interested in their welfare.” Politicians were quick to see the power and simplicity of Bismarck’s concept. Convincing the public that government existed for their sake and their welfare enabled politicians to expand into areas previously considered off-limits. The US, constrained by its Constitution and a predisposition toward liberty, held out longer than Europe, but tradition and law were eventually brushed aside and/or ignored.
Bismarck’s bribery was the model that altered the nature of politics. Politicians loved buying votes, and the populations loved the bribery myth. After generations of propagandizing Statism, the goodness of government, intervention as a necessary means to equity and prosperity, and the need to invade and manage virtually every aspect of our lives, a majority of voters believe the myth. Liberals (Progressives as they now like to be called) in the US, despite deliberate distortion of the Founders’ original intent, used the “general welfare” clause in the preamble to the US Constitution as justification for a social welfare state.
Bribery, by way of an expanding welfare state, has been the predominant political strategy. Economies are being destroyed by Socialism as practiced via the welfare state. The euphemisms of Socialism and welfare state also provide convenient cover for what amounts to political enrichment and job security. The US has now run out of both time and money. The malignancy of Socialism nears its ugly end, the bill has come due. As Margaret Thatcher said, “The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
Socialism, and the welfare state, depends upon voters believing these three myths:
- Prosperity is available without effort
- Government creates prosperity
- Government will take care of its people
Politicians were able to support this myth only with “other people’s money,” but it is now finally becoming apparent to many that none of these premises are true.
This welfare state/bribery myth is injuring the US (and world) economy by removing money from the economy by:
- obscene levels of taxation
- destroying the seed capital provided by previous generations
- borrowing funds that were never intended to be paid back
Despite propaganda from the MSM and the Obama administration, government produces nothing, nor has it ever produced anything. Government depends upon a thriving private sector to play sustain the welfare state myth and continue the illusion that the government is the source of prosperity. The fraud cannot go on much longer because governments have crippled private enterprise via onerous rules, regulations, and taxes. Government was able to hide the problem by spending more than it took in. Governments around the world have reached the point where spending levels can no longer be sustained via tax revenues or bond sales to foreign countries. The secret of Socialism and the social welfare state has become apparent – it was never anything more than a political gimmick to gain or retain office and power. As a result, the world faces sovereign debt defaults, financial system collapse, civil unrest, and a Depression that will make the 1930s look mild in comparison.
But that’s just my opinion.
I like the picture, but the colors are wrong, you have the red(republican) holding a gun to the temple of the blue(demcrat), robbing his money.
Newt if you’re listening. On day one- approve Keystone XL and you’re in.
Little North Dakota leads the way.
Missy, hi, I think you can send this above comment or the whole post to NEWT,
HE must read from ; oil guy from ALBERTA
I know you did it with the other one, that’s why I’m asking
BYE
Missy,
must say, on a CANADIAN channel SATELLITE the SUN.
THEY HAD NEWT into a space within a space uniform floating, following are NEWT PLEDGE TO RETURN
THE SPACE RUN TO AMERICA, FOR AMERICA BY AMERICAN.
BYE
‘Socialism’ was the bail outs Bush gave to the banks and didn’t require them to pay them back. Obama’s loans were paid back.
What? You want too give up the tax money you’ve paid into Social Security? Go ahead, idiots.
Liberalmann
not paid yet, over 1 billion from GM TO BE PAID.
UNLESS THEY PAID SOME PERSONALLY TO OBAMA FOR HIS CAMPAIGN
oil guy from ALBERTA
MITCHELL is a sicko bad mouth
a good name for NEWT
NEWTMENTOM
the DONALD TRUMP SAID; SOME PEOPLE THINK OBAMA IS A NICE GUY,
BUT THEY ARE WRONG, he is not a nice man not at all, the peope should know, he just look like a nice guy, but he could not care less about anybody,
You tried this lie before, libdud. It’s going to take a dumber audience than this to convince anyone of the falsehood that all TARP funds were exempt from repayment. I didn’t like it under Bush, and I didn’t like it under Obama. However the funds and conditions were the same under both, except for the fact they were only supposed to be used for financial institutions, and not business (i.e. the auto manufacturers). Both Bush and Obama violated this, and Congress let it slide.
No moral highroad for you. But a gold star for your stellar demonstration of partisan stupidity.
Of course not. Those on or close to the existing system should stay on it since they’ve spent 40-50 years contributing. For those younger, what funds have been paid in should be transferred to a private system that’s under their control
After all, don’t you and your hero tell us that the SS Trust Fund is solvent and the money is there… plus interest? Should be no problem, right genius?
@ilovebeeswarzone: @ilovebeeswarzone: @ilovebeeswarzone: Relax the bee warrior. Our family has 11 drilling rigs in N Dakota. How much can we do?
Get this, we prefer veterans of all kinds for hire. Get your ass to N Dakota!
oil guy from ALBERTA
GLAD TO KNOW THAT,
BYE
Thank you for a perceptive essay, built on basic historical facts. From the vantage point of Europe where I live, the truth is that the borrowing state of socialism is now so indebted that the next tax will be the “haircut” on those who bought government bonds. This assures an ever smaller market for government bonds, and therefore a collapse of the ability of governments to raise money through their sales. Ergo, governments will have to live on less, and try to sell this fact of life to peoples to whom they bragged “more” could be given from government. This lie is coming apart at the seams, for it was always a political trick, as is the Ponzi scheme a financial trick. This is one reason why the still avid Leftists — whether socialists, progressives or of any other name — are facing such a crisis. Their Weltanschauung is failing them, and they have nowhere to turn except upon those of us who prefer basic reality. The truth is that socialism was never the antithesis of capitalism, because it was first and foremost political and power based, whereas capitalism is merely each of us seeking our own profits. My wife and I prosper in Europe by saving and not risking our assets on the gambling which is investment in the modern day, designed to inform us a year later that our investment “failed.” But it is “failed by design” which the governments wish us not to understand, as they propose more bonds and other foolish ventures. The world of little capitalists is hunkering down, risking little and providing for themselves, while the collectivist world is in a panic, because our pockets are becoming ever harder to pick. In the underground station, a youth asked me for money. I responded, asking him, “Why?” He was angry even that I responded with this short question. This is a small example of what the Greek, Portuguese and other governments are acting like today. Will our electorates vote for more taxation levied upon themselves? I wager not. Therefore, the Socialist-Ponzi comes to its predictable end. I could not be more pleased, personally, for we are prepared for this as individuals, anonymous amid the collectivists seeking us. Among those kinds of Leftists is the “liberal” who responded with accusations in the old game of “quick, look over there” while reaching for another wallet. Once someone has had one’s pocket picked — as did I in Bruxelles — it will never happen again.
@liberalchild: You said:
Prove it. Link to a credible news site that supports your claim. I know it won’t be as much fun as say, oh I don’t know…hmm, not as much fun as insulting an entire military family, including a fatherless infant
@anticsrocks: Re: comment #15, anticsrocks, you are sooooooooooo correct! Liberals/progressives/whatever are very quick to offer opinions, yet cannot back up their statements when pressed to do so. They either ignore you or try to change the subject.
Funniest thing, but Wikipedia does not mention either the names of Bismarck or Leopold in conjunction with Socialism—let alone credit him with being the Father of Socialism. Perhaps you should edit Wikipedia, so they can get the story straight. In fact, some say the term ‘socialism’ was coined by Henri de Saint-Simon, who died when the Prince of Bismark, aka Duke of Lauenberg, was 10 years old.
Actually, Bismarck worried about the growth of the socialist movement—in particular, that of the Social Democratic Party. In 1878, he instituted the Anti-Socialist Laws. Socialist organizations and meetings were forbidden, as was the circulation of socialist literature. Socialist leaders were arrested and tried by police courts. But despite these efforts, the movement steadily gained supporters and seats in the Reichstag. Socialists (who were rather Utopian at the time) won seats in the Reichstag by running as independent candidates, unaffiliated with any party, which was allowed by the German Constitution.
(A a result, and to keep the Socialist Party [who were considered unrealistic by the conservatives] of gaining any more control)…Bismarck expanded the welfare program, in hopes of satisfying the citizenry. Germany had a tradition of welfare programs in Prussia and Saxony that began as early as the 1840s. In the 1880s his social insurance programs were the first in the world and became the model for other countries and the basis of the modern welfare state.[37] Bismarck introduced old age pensions, accident insurance, medical care and unemployment insurance. He won conservative support by promising to undercut the appeal of Socialists—the Socialists always voted against his proposals, fearing they would reduce the grievances of the industrial workers. His paternalistic programs won the support of German industry because its goals were to win the support of the working classes for the Empire and reduce the outflow of immigrants to America, where wages were higher but welfare did not exist.[38][39] Politically, he did win over the Centre Party which represented Catholic workers, but Socialists remained hostile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck
(with personal comments parenthesized)
So that’s the rest of the story. It’s always easier to simply accept a politically colored account, rather than research the issue yourself. It’s like Lincoln and the Republican Party. The issues were really different then, but conservatives like to use him as a hero for them and their party. Actually, when the rest of the story is told, he’s also a hero for liberals.
@oil guy from Alberta:
Hell, Newt “I’m a Realpolitik Wilsonian who loves the Four Freedoms” Gingrich is just itching to get into the WH so he can pass Cap & Trade. (And lock up anyone who questions his rule)
http://tinyurl.com/774tkhx
The “Four Freedoms” outlined by Franklin Roosevelt: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.
FDR style prison camps for everyone!
“So that’s the rest of the story.” Well, no. The point is that the welfare state — rooted in a collectivist perspective — was in fact Bismarck’s foundation and legacy. Moreover the old German socialists at the time opposed his reforms because he was borrowing from their political playbook. One should remember that German socialism became National Socialism, and the break with the Soviet Socialists (once allies) was about who was to be the majority partner in power in Europe. I walk by the monument pictured in the WIKI article and do not need a non-German speaking commentator to tell me what socialism was or is, in all its many flavors. Verstehn Sie oder nicht? I am particularly amused by your citing the sentence, “…Socialists remained hostile.” Yes, and only decades later that hostility was darkly proven for all the world to witness.
But the simple fact is that socialism has been attempted many times, even long before the German experience. It was attempted in the Bradford colony and New Harmony experiments in the US, and each time socialism has been attempted, it has failed. Since you — Mr. Liberal1 — wish to enlighten me, please tell me which socialist party has brought its nation into prosperity over the last two hundred years. Certainly the Zanu-PDF has not, anymore than the Khmer Rouge, or the Castro brothers’ long reign in power, or the Ba’ath Party’s exemplary reign in Iraq and Syria. I will look forward to Mr. Liberal1 enlightening us all with his willingness to identify a nation or two which have prospered under socialism. Thank you.
@SW: SW, I was going to respond to Liberal1′s comment, but your comment was much more eloquent and accurate than I could ever hope to write.
I thank YOU.
Dear Mr. Warren, your words are appreciated. As I am on the continent, I deal with many people from many nations. When the subject of socialism arises advocated by a partisan, I ask politely but repeatedly for an example of any nation which has prospered under a socialist regime. This includes the Nazi Party, as bookshelves in the stores here properly label as “National Socialism.” While I see the liberals in the United States try their argument that the Nazis exemplified a “right wing,” I note that when they are properly grouped with other socialists, there is left no right wing to speak of. Merely people wishing to be free from too much interfernce from government, be it in Athens, Berlin or Washington.
I imagine we will be waiting for some time from Mister Liberal1, because each time I have posed that question and asked for an example of a functioning and prosperous socialist nation, there comes no reply. It is the awful silence of many advocates of socialism, that when asked about this simple proof, they grumble and then return to their other rhetorical games. Too many studies in universities are now pointing to the basic and unhappy truth that socialism has been the greatest destroyer of not only wealth, but men, women and children that the world has seen historically.
So, if Mister Liberal1 wishes to better his other socialist peers which whom I have spoken, please tell us which socialist nation or nations you may show us as exemplary of socialist theory and practice.
I can show you many who have failed, tragically, financially and murderously. Please answer by telling us which nation you conclude to be the best socialist nation?
SW
priceless info so well distributed, for all to read, including the universities leaders, teachers and
at last but not the least, all the students no matter the university agenda, and to study very carefully, especially the rooted AMERICANS OF A YOUNG AGE, which are following a false agenda , set and impose by, socialist movement getting stronger as we read so total, if they are allowed to neutralize CONGRESS, as OBAMA clearly mentioned, and repeated again and again, after blaming them ; to influence the AMERICANS to hate CONGRESS, HIS INTENT to gain their votes by demonizing any one standing in his way,
thank you SW
@SW:
“Best” socialist nation will actually be a relative comparison. The fact is that if one only considers nations under socialist rule, either current or historically, that there can be a “best socialist nation” identified out of that grouping. However, considering that, as you stated, socialist nations have been great destroyers of wealth and people, not only within their own borders but with their influence upon other nations, that in a comparison of ALL nations, current and historically, the socialist nation, whether it be the old USSR, or even Cuba, would be near the bottom of any list that gave points for how well they advanced the human condition throughout their history.
Liberal1′s comment, particularly his last part about Lincoln, is nothing new for FA. He is a true liberal/progressive “thinker” who believes that their are many good things that socialism has brought about in the history of the world. And he promotes this line of thinking by pushing his ideas of conservative leaders acting on socialist principles. His typical drive-bys echo this constantly.
Freinds, I checked back in at this web site after about three hours to learn of Mister Liberal1′s educated reply. I am disappointed that he has not as yet supplied the dicsussion with the name of even one nation to which he may point in socialist pride and say, “this nation has prospered.” As it is late night here in Europe, I will check in tomorrow again. Perhaps by then, Mister Liberal1 or another of his ranks will offer the discussion an example of a well-functioning socialist nation, prosperous and successful.
Or perhaps we will hear nothing more.
SW
that’s interesting to know we have friends coming from EUROPE,
stay with us, your comments are well received, like having another facet of the subject in question,
best to you,
There’s one economic chart that we’ve even seen an Obama supporter here at FA link to.
The original headline on that chart was, “CHART OF THE DAY: When Obama Runs For Re-Election, He’s Going To Show This Chart.”
SEE it HERE:
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-the-good-news-about-unemployment-for-president-obama-2012-1?nr_email_referer=1#ixzz1khDWnMnj
BUT, fortunately for us there are plenty of more elucidating charts.
Like this one:
“The economic chart that may doom the Obama presidency.
SEE it HERE:
http://blog.american.com/2012/01/romneys-economic-case-against-obama-all-in-one-chart/
It’s main point is that, unlike all other post WWII recessions, this one is NOT recovering fast enough to EVER make up for its years of lost growth!
That’s damning!
And this is all on Obama!
HIS policies made the difference between growth and the lack of it.
It is going to take a lot of work to turn this ship of state around.
But that job cannot even begin until Obama and his policies are history.
@Ron Paul Is Right: The Canadians were toying with Cap and Tax. The last federal election was hinging on this and Harper won a landslide victory. Cap and Tax went in the garbage can. America cannot afford this huge boondoggle.
oil guy from ALBERTA
HI,
the problem with the green side is that it so far still not ready for setting in, and AMERICA CANNOT AFFORD TO LOOSE AGAIN, and do not produce AS OIL WOULD,, and HE don’t want something that has prove to produce effectively and produce jobs, like the KEYSTONE PIPELINE WOULD,
while they still study to market the green unmarketable project, at this time and yet he jump totally on it full gear as the most viable to his eyes and decide to put it as a priority, which will fail again like the other SOLYNDRA LOSING LOTS OF MONEY and other just closing taking another piece of the pie, which do NOT BELONG TO OBAMA, but lost from the people’s pockets contrary to the keystone doing the opposite, meaning jobs and wealth
bye
oil guy from ALBERTA
HI,
do you have gold mines in ALBERTA? THERE USE TO BE SOME IN NORTHEN TERRITORIES, and NORTHEN ONTARIO, I wonder if they are open, because the gold is reaching a big price, and a good collectable item, like platinium and silver,
bye
SW, thank you for your informative commentary. I too refuse to use the term Nazi; National Socialist is the correct term and the one we should all use in the future.
While driving home from work, the question of Socialism and its dismal failures throughout history, occupied my thoughts, and I decided by coincidence to begin asking the proponents of National and International Socialism, for they are surely the descendants of these political philosophies that differ only in a few slight details, to list their successes of the last two hundred years. For surely, after two hundred years of experimentation, there are exemplar success stories to impress us. Unfortunately Obama needs four more years to complete his dystopia, so it will be hard to use the US as an example; since, by all outward appearances except for government lies, the country is in an economic tailspin.
@SW: What you have to understand is that liberal1 is a drive by poster. He swoops in, spews his vile rhetoric and never bothers to back up what he says.
Add my thanks to those of my compatriots here at FA for your great commentary.
Morning comes to Europe, and the liberal who questions scholarship has not responded to a simple question. Over my morning Milchkaffe, I will respond for him from historical perspective. The large attempts at socialism were in Europe and Asia. National Socialism was allied and then warred against Soviet Socialism. National Socialism was defeated militarily, and Soviet Socialism was defeated by its own economic fallacy. Sino Socialism marched through China and then with the Great Leap Forward managed to murder tens of millions of its own people. To date, Sino Socialism survives by what is essentially martial law. But it too begins to fail, as one sees the market signs there too. Soft post-war European socialism as one sees in the end game in Greece is also failing, because it has run up debt it cannot repay. This is proving true throughout the Meditaranean nations now, as in Ireland and beyond. German welfare state socialism is pulling back, and because it dreams of being a little fiscally responsible, it is being looked at as a source of funding for the other failing European socialist nations. Cuban socialism has portrayed itself as victim of the US embargo, but has had over 190 other nations with which to trade and still it wallows in poverty for most of its people. Venezuelan socialism grows in power as it draws life away from its own economy, and even with oil revenue cannot control inflation or the black market, all the while it has not relieved the poverty there. The Marxist Zanu-PF party in Zimbabwe has reduced the nation to poverty, and starvation has become a regular occurence in North Korea. The Khmer Rouge managed to murder a third of the Cambodian population. More examples may be given, including Arab socialism, but the picture is historically clear. Where one form or another of socialism begins and seems reasonable and “libertarian” in its goals, a steady march into corruption and martial law follows, with economic withering to follow. This history disturbs the modern Western socialist, whose only answer is to say that they will correct socialism’s faults next time, if only they can try again.
Why do they think this? Because some people believe a fiction, and the story of nice people making sure other people do not starve feeds them politically. They must ignore the history — a word in which story appears as root word — to believe their nice story.
Why do other people think this? The politicians tell the fiction about nice people making sure other people do not starve because it feeds them too. It feeds them a diet of power and money. For this, socialist nations develop their own aristocracy of wealth and privilege, as one can see in China today. This was true in the DDR, where the East German Socialist elite were well fed and wealthy in comparison to the average man. This was and is true in the Ba’athy Party in Iraq and Syria, in which the elite lived liked sultans, kings, or the very rich.
It is easy to understand, when socialism is no longer seen as the opposite of capitalism. Socialist elites seek capital in huge amounts for themselves. Socialism is the opposite of democratic freedom. The opposite of capitlism is poverty, in which markets fail. What I find funny about the people talking loudest about income inequality, as an example, is that they all are wealthy in comparison to most. Or they seek to be. No one seeks to be average in income and uses this as a political philosophy. One may see this in Britain’s Blair becoming a multi-millionaire. The same may be said of ex-Kanzler Schröder, or of President Clinton and Vice President Gore. All are examples of the public servant becoming massively wealthy while telling wokring people they need to pay more through either taxation or inflation.
So back to Mister Liberal1 and the others who like to uses the moniker of “liberal.” The challenge stands. Which nation exemplifies the highest ideals and goals of socialism? I would say this was proved already, here in Berlin and several times, under the National Socialists as under the DDR. Socialist masters seek capital. This is the true rule and the reason that socialists will only debate based on ad hominem slurs and falsehoods and pretty stories about themselves. There is no other platform except empty promises on which they can stand. Best wishes from Europe.
SW
hi,
I think that the UNIONS are contributing a lot in the SOCIALIST EXPANSION of a country, I even go further in thinking that they are the beginning of the socialist communist marxist ideas and roots spreading
of those, what do you think on that?, I did not read of any mention of that in you’re comment very interesting,; and I learned at the beginning of GREECE problems they where almost majority rule by UNIONS SO POWERFUL TO GET EVERYONE ON THE STREET IN REVOLT MODE OF DESTRUCTION .
BYE
milchkaffe sound good, what is it
Dear Friends, it seems to me that labor unions in the twenthieth were usually used by socialists to gain political power, and then once power was consolidated the same unions were discarded and in some times made illegal. The purpose of socialism is to gain power. Therefore any and all tools to gain power are used in the process, and like any workplace once a tool has served its purpose it is put away. Many new tools are expendable as we see, and I for one have used a hammer until its head was fully distorted. So it it not an unusual history to see unions used and then discarded once power is acquired. This is why unions in the public sector demand their pensions even when private sector workers cannot have equal protection. Sooner or later unions either break the bank or are themselves broken by socialists when power is consolidated. If you wish more historical details, they can come from the National Socialist and Soviet Socialist histories, and of course in Communist China the only union is the party. Unions will call national strikes because they are public sector stopages, and the more public sectors take from private sector, the more complete the stopage. But the more public sector unions, the more mouths for the socialist elite to feed. This is a sketch of what has happened in Greece, where too many people are expecting their leaders to keep wages high, taxes low and yet get the government as much money as possible. So they resorted to debt, and now that the debt is unsustained they are at the end of their scheme. It is a pyramid or snowball scheme, which cannot continue because of its own nature. I expect Greece to default very soon and in a very disorderly manner. I also expect the IMF to find itself begging for new funds because they will have lent to bad borrowers. The same for some European banks. This is why the German government is demanding more controls over government borrowing in the EU, because irresponsible socialists are simply begging for more money after they spend what they had last time. Yes, I think Lagarde and Strauss-Kahn and the IMF are also socialists, the socialist elite which demands great sums for themselves because they are so much better than us. More as to unions, the history of socialist revolutions is that they hope to aggravate workers enough to get them to the barricades. The problem is its corollary. When union wages are acceptable enough, then the union workers are not so willing to be at the barricades with the real revolutionaries. Real revolutionaries only want to overturn a government so that they can become a government themselves, as was the case with the National Sociliats and the Putsch. The Cuba situation is a prime example of a revolutionary overturning a government and then retaining power over the last sixty years in one man. North Korea is another example with a third-generation aristocracy. Zimbabwe is another, with Mugabe in power for decades and decades. The rhetoric changes from situation to situation, but the end is the same story. Prosperity withers into poverty so that socialism may survive. This is why we will not hear from Mr. Liberal1.
Milchkaffee is like the French café au lait. A lot of milk steamed with espresso makes a fine morning. It also makes a fine afternoon. Best wishes.
@Liberal1 (objectivity): Wikipedia is the expert on everything? If I referenced them in any scholarly paper, I would have been laughed out of class. Only a “progressive ” can believe Wikipedia, new York Times, MSNBC, the AP and other MSM as fact!
SW
very interesting, from there, that lead me to believe the ARAB SPRING, is powered by SOCIALIST IDEAS,
using their religion to obtain power over the crowds, and advancing into all the FREE WORLD to conquer it,
replace the rules of the conquered country by their their radicals ancient one,
at this time of having rendered the FREE COUNTRIES very stressed by seeing their advances in every COUNTRIES, but not being able to depend on their own GOVERNMENT to stop the advance of the beast;
on the name of FREEDOM FOR ALL, or maybe, profiting from them as they surely pay the price of entry.
or being maybe those free COUNTRIES BEING LURED BY THE UN which is getting so powerful and dictating some very dangerous advance on it, as I read having 2/3 of ARAB COUNTRIES IN HIS CORE, and very active these if we look at theses last 4 years, acceleration of their POWER in the FREE WORLD, again using the excuse of compassion to advance their goal. or maybe all of the above combined,
or is it possible that we vote for such blind people and delegate our power to them being ourselves also rendered blind and stunt.
bye thank you
Pingback: Political QQQ - Maggie's Farm
Dear Bee Person, oc course National Socialism heavily influenced the Arab world. Google pictures of Hitler with the mufti of Jerusalem, to see such coordination. The Ba’ath Party was founded as a socialist party, and more such evidence may be easily seen. But I refuse the image that the free world is under siege from the tyrants. Actually I think that the spreading of human rights even through the UN’s work is an enormous irritant to the hardened socialists as to the Islamist world in general. The revenge of markets act more swift than many expect, with tourism dropping quickly in Muslim Brotherhood Egypt now, as but one example of the effects of markets. Another is the multiple failures of green technology companies, which one sees in the United States as one has seen in Spain. After the New York attack of September 11, I said to my wife that I thought the Muslim world’s hardened types were raging out against the West in general not only for support of Israel, but especially because the good part of feminism, stressing individual rights and full equality with men, was invading the Muslim world. I chose the verb “invade” with a purpose. Ideas have effects, and the modern, egalitarian world is spreading when one thinks historically over centuries. If one could create a time map of the world, only centuries ago all of Europe would have been under various forms of feudal tyrants. Today this is no longer true. Only decades ago, Eastern European nations were under the tyranny of the Soviet Socialists. This also is no longer true. In the French, British and German newspapers online, I have read Muslim women commenting on honor killings as on rape, and condemning Muslim men for using Islam as the excuse. The world is changing, and I conclude that freedom in various forms is on the march. In parallel with this, socialism’s revenue crisis is coming to its apex, with many politicians and business leaders now saying that the time of the welfare state as it has existed is almost over. Less benefits to fewer people will be the result, with hopefully the truly needy receiving them. With this, less loans to local and national governments will result from haircuts, just as tourism is dropping in the aggressive Muslim nations who are experiencing revenue losses therefore. Taken together as a larger picture, I think there is room for optimism. But only for the individual, not the collective and the collectives bosses. They are in trouble, which grows larger by the year. After tasting freedom, it is hard to put the jinn back in the bottle. Freedom is spreading, as modern technology is showing a world what prosperity can look like. Prosperity and freedom are conjoined; socialist tyrany and poverty are conjoined. The choices will become clearer, and slave rebellions as history has shown bring tyrants to their fall. Markets are at work, against tyrany. Against collectivism. This is why the advocates of such a philsophy are becoming more and more angry. Their world view is failing, whether it be tyrany in Muslim lands, in Asian nations, South American or North American. There is never a collapse in free society, because it is not a collective. Therefore it cannot uniformly fall apart. There is always collapse in an unfree society, because it rises and falls as one entity. Wait for Iran’s revolution. Or Cuba’s. They are coming. Best wishes.
SW
yes I see your optimist in this answer to my negative questions,
the differences between your vision and my concerns, are that you see further ahead the victory of the FREE WORLD, while I see closer, in the before we get to that heavenly stage,
I see the combats we’ll have to engage in, at the cost of our best warriors in the FREE WORLD ALONE, NOT LEAVING MILLIONS OF OPPONENTS ALSO LOOSING THEIR LIVES, WHICH DOESN’T CONCERN ME PERSONALLY, and by saying closer, I mean already begun. and who from the bravest, will survive that armageddon, except for the weak who where hiding while the fight is going on , it leave a COUNTRY weaken
within genetic roots deep in the ground being cut of, and replace by the weak generations unable to resist the imposed wrong leading them to self destruct
bye thank you for the recipe of your coffee, it must be a coffee that actionate the drinker for the whole day,
bye