Nothing is more calculated to make a demagogue popular than a constantly reiterated demand for heavy taxes on the rich. Capital levies and high income taxes on the larger incomes are extraordinarily popular with the masses, who do not have to pay them.
— Ludwig von Mises

Words 2,857 | Read Time 13 min | Enjoy

The Rhetoric and Its Irony

Few political slogans in modern American life carry more populist energy than “tax the rich.” Chanted at rallies, stitched onto designer gowns at the Met Gala, and repeated from the floors of Congress, the phrase projects the image of raunchy righteous leaders standing with the downtrodden against rapacious plutocrats. There is just one persistent problem: a remarkable number of the politicians most loudly championing this cause are themselves very wealthy — in some cases, extraordinarily so. They occupy, by almost any definition, the very class they propose to tax. This gap between proclamation and personal circumstance is not a minor footnote; it is the central irony of American progressive politics.

A Gallery of Comfortable Crusaders

The wealth of leading progressive politicians is a matter of public record, reported annually in financial disclosures required by federal law. The figures reveal a governing class whose material comfort sits in striking contrast to the working-class constituencies they claim to champion.

Nancy Pelosi stands at or near the top of any honest accounting. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her husband have a net worth estimated at over $100 million — though some estimates range considerably higher. A viral post in early 2025 put Pelosi’s net worth at $202 million, and while the exact figure is disputed, experts acknowledge that her wealth is in that range. Her fortune derives largely from her husband Paul Pelosi’s investment activities — activities that have themselves generated controversy, since they occur in sectors directly affected by legislation Pelosi has overseen. Throughout her career, Pelosi has been a consistent voice for taxing the wealthy at higher rates, a position she holds while managing one of the largest personal fortunes in congressional history.1

Al Gore, a former Vice President and the most prominent political face of climate activism for two decades, has parlayed public service and ideological advocacy into a personal fortune. Al Gore is a former senator, Vice President, environmental activist, and entrepreneur who has a net worth of $300 million. Gore left the White House in 2001 with a net worth that was modest by Washington standards. His fortune was built after office through investments in green technology, the sale of his Current TV cable network to Al Jazeera for a reported $500 million, and speaking fees. He has consistently argued that the wealthy must bear a larger share of the tax burden.2

Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts senator whose academic career focused on economic inequality and whose presidential campaign made the wealth tax its centerpiece, is herself a millionaire. Elizabeth Warren, another progressive voice, is worth approximately $12 million. Warren’s “Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act” would impose a 2 percent annual tax on wealth above $50 million and an additional 1 percent above $1 billion. She has framed the debate in the starkest moral terms, declaring that “a secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than the CEO” and that “the current tax code is rigged against working people.” Warren’s wealth, accumulated through years of academic salaries, book advances, and investments, places her solidly in the top few percent of American households, though she falls well short of her own proposed threshold.3

Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont who made democratic socialism a mainstream conversation piece and whose rallying cry of class warfare electrified millions of younger voters, is himself a millionaire. By 2025, Bernie Sanders’ net worth is approximately $3 million. For a couple in their 80s who’ve both worked professional jobs for most of their lives, this isn’t exactly yacht money — it’s more like ‘comfortable retirement with a couple of vacation homes’ money. That characterization is telling in itself: the possessor of multiple vacation homes, decrying the decadence of the ownership class. Sanders’ wealth grew significantly after his 2016 presidential run, largely from three book deals that earned him more than $1 million. He has long called for a tax on extreme wealth, publishing detailed proposals on his Senate website to tax the net worth of the top 0.1 percent and reduce extreme inequality.4

Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader and one of the most powerful Democrats in Washington, is also comfortably wealthy. One widely circulated 2025 estimate put Schumer’s net worth at $75 million, though independent analysts pegged the figure lower based on actual disclosures. Whatever the precise number, Schumer’s accumulated wealth places him squarely among the upper class of Americans he routinely campaigns against.5

Gavin Newsom, the California governor often discussed as a future presidential contender and a champion of high-tax, high-spending progressive governance, has a net worth estimated at around $30 million as of 2025, reflecting a mix of political salaries, entrepreneurial ventures, and investments. His annual salary as governor was increased to $291,715 in 2025, making him the highest-paid governor in the United States. Newsom governs the highest-income-taxed state in the nation, one that has seen significant outmigration of wealthy residents to lower-tax states — even as he presses for ever-higher levies on the rich.6

Barack Obama left the presidency with a modest fortune, but post-office prosperity transformed his financial status. Barack Obama’s net worth is estimated at around $70 million, largely from book deals after leaving office. Obama was a consistent advocate for higher taxes on high earners during his presidency, famously invoking Warren Buffett’s argument that the billionaire paid a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.7

The pattern across this mystic menagerie is consistent: politicians who have made “tax the rich” a defining cause are, by virtually any reasonable standard, themselves rich — drawing salaries multiple times the median American wage, with members of Congress earning $174,000 per annum as of 2025, almost three times the average U.S. income of around $63,600 — and accumulating net worths ranging from the comfortable millions to the spectacular hundreds of millions.8

The Grand Promise That Never Arrives

If the first irony is that the advocates of taxing the rich are themselves rich, the second is perhaps more damaging: the policy never actually gets enacted.

The public has supported raising taxes on the ultrarich and corporations for years, but policymakers have not responded. Small increases in taxes on the rich that were enacted during Democratic control of Congress and the White House have been consistently swamped by larger tax cuts enacted during Republican control.9

This is not due to a lack of formal proposals. Warren and Sanders have introduced wealth tax legislation in multiple congressional sessions. As recently as March 2026, lawmakers renewed a push for Warren and Rep. Jayapal’s Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act, with 45-plus co-sponsors, envisioning massive investments in affordable housing, universal childcare, expanded Medicare eligibility, and tuition-free community college. The bill has approximately zero chance of becoming law, and every legislator signing on to it knows it. The proposal serves a rhetorical function: it signals solidarity with working people, energizes a progressive base, and generates fundraising — all without requiring anyone to actually do the difficult political work of coalition-building to pass legislation.10

The gap between promise and performance is a bipartisan fixture of American political life, but it is particularly acute on the left’s signature wealth-tax agenda. When Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House from 2021 to 2023 — their best legislative window in a generation — the wealth tax died without a floor vote in either chamber. The bulky-BS Build Back Better framework, despite enormous initial ambition, was whittled down repeatedly under pressure from within the Democratic caucus itself, from senators like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema who represented states and donor classes with direct financial stakes in the outcome.

Why Implementation Fails: The Structural Explanation

The failure of wealth taxation is not simply a matter of political cowardice, though there is some of that, too. There are genuine structural forces at work.

The wealth tax proposed by Senator Warren arrives wrapped in a promise that feels almost effortless: tax the rich just a little bit more, and suddenly the country can afford everything it has been told it cannot. But wealth is not idle — it is capital in motion, financing businesses, underwriting risk, driving innovation, and fueling the productivity gains that raise living standards across an entire society. When the government systematically extracts that capital, it does not simply rebalance outcomes; it redirects resources away from productive investment into political allocation.11

International experience supports the caution. President Emmanuel Macron, no conservative, abolished France’s wealth tax in 2017 after concluding it was damaging France’s economy without meaningfully reducing inequality. The promise of the tax had been redistribution; the reality was capital flight. In California, even the proposal of a wealth tax referendum triggered capital flight, with high-profile figures such as Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Peter Thiel, and Steven Spielberg relocating or shifting their residency. One Stanford-Hoover analysis estimated that just six such departures removed roughly $536 billion from the proposed tax base — nearly one-third of the wealth the tax was supposed to target. The tax had not even passed, yet the erosion had already begun.12

There is also the matter of who funds political campaigns. US politicians are “more dependent on the largesse of the billionaire class than ever before, giving one-four-hundredth of 1% of Americans extraordinary influence over which politicians and policies succeed.” Senators and representatives who denounce billionaires from the podium are often, the same week, attending fundraisers hosted by them. The donors who fund Democratic campaigns have their own tax attorneys and their own thresholds of tolerance for redistribution. The convergence of political incentives and donor interests creates a structural bias toward rhetoric over action.13

The Psychology of the Comfortable Reformer

There is a long tradition of wealthy reformers in American history — FDR, a Hudson Valley patrician, enacted the New Deal; the Kennedys, scions of enormous fortune, championed civil rights and anti-poverty programs. The rich advocating for taxes on the rich is not inherently cynical; sometimes it reflects genuine conviction.

But there is a difference between conviction and performance. When the same proposals are advanced decade after decade, session after session, with the full knowledge that they will not pass — and when the proposers themselves take careful advantage of every tax benefit available to their own wealth — the performance quality of the exercise becomes harder to ignore. The public is deeply distrustful of policymakers and doesn’t believe they will ever put typical families’ interests ahead of those of the rich and powerful. In tax policy debates, this means people are often highly skeptical of any proposed tax increase, even when told it will affect only the very rich.14

That skepticism is earned. The bumper sticker says “tax the rich.” The financial disclosure says the speaker is rich. The legislative calendar confirms no such tax will pass. The cycle repeats: the next election, the same politicians, the same speeches, the same unfulfilled promise.

Conclusion

“Tax the rich” is one of the most durable and politically potent slogans in American progressive politics. It captures a real grievance — wealth concentration in the United States is historically severe, and the tax code does offer significant advantages to those with capital over those who work for wages. These are legitimate concerns deserving serious policy attention.

But the crusade against wealth inequality has become, in practice, a comfortable identity for comfortable people. The politicians who invoke it most passionately — worth tens of millions of dollars, drawing six-figure salaries, attending fundraisers with the very billionaires they campaign against — have had ample opportunity to act and have not. The wealth tax bills accumulate co-sponsors, generate press releases, and die in committee. The net worths of their sponsors continue to grow.

A political movement sincere about taxing the rich might start with something unfamiliar in Washington: a degree of personal accountability, and a reckoning with the distance between the podium and the portfolio.

Parting Shot: The Miseducated Mind and the Daily Dose of Gaslighting

Perhaps the most underappreciated dimension of this entire spectacle is not the hypocrisy of the wealthy politician, nor the structural futility of legislation designed to fail. It is the stunning effectiveness of the con on the people it purports to help.

Consider the machinery required to sustain it. A senator worth tens of millions of dollars steps to a microphone and declares himself the champion of the working poor. A former Vice President, worth $300 million, jets between climate conferences on private aircraft while demanding that ordinary Americans bear the costs of the green energy transition. A Speaker of the House, presiding over a fortune that would take the average American worker several lifetimes to accumulate, rails against the greed of the ownership class. And the audience — burdened by student debt, squeezed by rent, watching their savings erode against inflation — applauds. They donate. They canvass. They vote.

This is not politics. It is a masterclass in gaslighting, executed at an industrial scale.

Gaslighting, in its clinical sense, is the manipulation of a person into doubting their own perception of reality. In its political form, it works like this: the very conditions that make people miserable — stagnant wages, unaffordable housing, a tax code riddled with loopholes for the connected — are perpetuated by the people who campaign most loudly against them. The voter who feels the system is rigged is told, year after year, that it is indeed rigged, that rescue is coming, that this election is the one that will finally change things. The rescue never comes. The system remains rigged. The politicians grow richer. And the cycle begins again, with fresh urgency and a new villain conveniently identified just in time for the next fundraising quarter.

The vulnerability that makes this possible is not stupidity. The people drawn to the “tax the rich” banner are often thoughtful, frustrated, and entirely correct that wealth inequality is a genuine and serious problem. Their vulnerability is something more insidious: miseducation. Decades of declining civic instruction have produced a citizenry increasingly unable to distinguish between a politician who holds a position and one who intends to act on it — between a press release and a law, between a co-sponsor list and a policy outcome. When you have never been taught how a bill actually becomes law, how campaign finance actually works, or how to read a financial disclosure form, you are left with nothing but the speech — and the speech is very good indeed.

Hope, under these conditions, is not a virtue. It is a vulnerability — one that a certain class of political professional has learned to monetize with extraordinary precision.

The antidote is not cynicism. Cynicism is simply despair wearing a trench coat, and it serves the grifter just as well as credulity does — the cynic who refuses to engage is no threat to anyone. The antidote is a colder, harder, more demanding form of attention: one that measures politicians not by the fervor of their rhetoric but by the content of their financial disclosures, the fate of their legislative priorities, and the distance between what they say in October and what they do in January.

Until that attention becomes widespread, the creepy crummy mantra will continue. The rallies will fill. The donations will flow. The bills will die in committee. And the comfortable champions of the uncomfortable will return home to their vacation properties, satisfied that another cycle of democratic theater has been successfully staged — and that the audience, as always, never asked for a refund.📕

I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Tips are appreciated, too. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!

Share

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid

Leave a comment

Share Frederick R. Smith Speaks

Email the Author: Frederick R. Smith

The magnitude cannot be overstated. What we see in Minnesota is not a handful of bad actors committing crimes. It’s staggering, industrial-scale fraud. It’s swamping Minnesota and calling into question everything we know about our state.”
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson

Words 2,370 | Read Time 11 min | Enjoy

Foreword

When congressional committees convened hearings to interrogate Minnesota officials about the Feeding Our Future scandal, the daycare controversies, and the cascading Medicaid frauds that have cost taxpayers hundreds of millions—possibly billions—of dollars, the optics were compelling. Legislators leaned into microphones, expressed outrage, and demanded accountability. What they did not do was look in the mirror.

The uncomfortable truth is that Congress did not merely fail to prevent these frauds. Congress built the system that made them not just possible but, in retrospect, nearly inevitable. And in doing so, it also helped fuel the inflation that has eroded the purchasing power of every American’s paycheck.

Congress Appropriates. Congress Bears Responsibility.

Every dollar that flowed through Feeding Our Future, through fraudulent autism clinics, through ghost daycare centers, and through the housing stabilization services scheme originated in a congressional appropriation. The federal child nutrition programs exploited by Feeding Our Future draw their authority from statutes Congress passed and funds Congress allocated. Medicaid programs riddled with billing fraud are financed primarily by the federal government—in Minnesota’s case, the federal share is roughly 64 cents of every dollar spent. The Child Care Assistance Program, which became the focus of the viral daycare controversy, is likewise a creature of federal statute and federal funding.

When Congress authorizes a program and appropriates money for it, it accepts a corresponding obligation: to design that program with adequate safeguards, to fund its oversight adequately, and to monitor whether the money is being used as intended. On all three counts, Congress has chronically failed.

The Pandemic Acceleration: Congress Turned Off the Safeguards

The Feeding Our Future fraud did not erupt from nowhere. It erupted from a specific policy decision made in Washington. When the COVID-19 pandemic struck in 2020, Congress passed emergency legislation that dramatically expanded child nutrition programs and simultaneously relaxed the documentation and verification requirements that existed to prevent abuse. The intent was to move money quickly to families in crisis. The result was that billions of dollars were placed into a distribution system with the oversight mechanisms stripped out.

Minnesota education officials had already flagged Feeding Our Future as a problematic organization before the pandemic began. They had labeled it “severely deficient” and attempted to cut off its funding. But pandemic-era emergency rules, shaped by congressional action, flooded the program with money faster than any state apparatus could manage, and the legal environment made it difficult to deny applications even from organizations already under scrutiny.

Congress created the flood and removed the levees simultaneously. This pattern was not unique to Minnesota. Federal investigators documented pandemic fraud totaling tens of billions of dollars across unemployment insurance, Paycheck Protection Program loans, and nutrition assistance programs nationwide. The common thread in every case was a congressional decision to prioritize the rapid disbursement of money over the maintenance of controls. Speed was treated as a virtue. Verification was treated as an obstacle.

Printing Money, Paying the Price: How This Fuels Inflation

The fraud scandals in Minnesota are not merely a story about stolen dollars. They are a story about what happens when a government that issues a fiat currency treats the creation and disbursement of money as cost-free. It is not.

The United States does not tax and spend in a simple loop. When Congress authorizes enormous emergency expenditures—as it did repeatedly during the pandemic—and when those expenditures are not fully offset by tax revenue, the difference is financed by issuing new debt. That debt is purchased, in significant part, by the Federal Reserve, which creates the money to buy it. This is the mechanism by which government spending that exceeds revenue expands the money supply. More dollars chase the same quantity of goods. Prices rise. Every American pays a hidden tax in the form of inflation.

Fraud makes this dynamic worse in a specific and underappreciated way. When legitimate government spending reaches its intended recipients, it typically flows back into the productive economy: a family uses a childcare subsidy to pay a real provider, who pays real employees, who buy real goods and services. The multiplier effect, while debated in its magnitude, at least involves economic activity. But when hundreds of millions of dollars are stolen through ghost daycares, fake meal sites, and fraudulent Medicaid billing, those dollars do not flow into productive economic activity. They flow into luxury goods, overseas real estate, and accounts beyond the reach of American law. The money supply was expanded—the inflationary pressure was created—but no corresponding productive value was added to the economy.

In other words, the American public was charged twice: once through the inflation tax that accompanied the money creation, and once through the direct loss of the stolen funds. The beneficiaries were fraudsters. The victims were everyone who bought groceries, paid rent, or filled a gas tank in the years that followed.

The Federal Reserve’s response to pandemic-era inflation—the most aggressive interest rate tightening in four decades—carried its own costs: higher mortgage rates that locked millions of Americans out of the housing market, increased debt service costs for the federal government, and a credit crunch that constrained small-business growth. Every one of those downstream harms traces a chain of causation back, in part, to Congress’s decision to spend without adequate verification.

Structural Negligence: The Oversight Gap by Design

Beyond the pandemic emergency, there is a deeper and more chronic problem. Congress routinely authorizes programs and appropriates funds without providing adequate resources for their administration and oversight. The Minnesota Medicaid system, which investigators now believe may have lost as much as $9 billion to fraud since 2018, was monitored by a fraud team consisting of four investigators at the time the scandals broke. Four people are responsible for policing billions of dollars in annual expenditures across dozens of programs and thousands of providers.

This is not an accident of state mismanagement alone. Federal Medicaid law and congressional appropriations shape how much states can and must invest in program integrity. The Government Accountability Office has documented for decades that Medicaid’s structure creates systemic vulnerabilities: it is a massive, complex, jointly administered program in which the federal government provides the bulk of the money but relies on states to administer it, and neither level of government has an unambiguous incentive to invest heavily in fraud prevention. The federal government is spending someone else’s administrative capacity; the states are spending someone else’s money. Congress has repeatedly received GAO reports detailing these vulnerabilities and has repeatedly failed to mandate the structural reforms that would close them.

Congressional Hearings as Performance

When Congress hauls state officials before a committee to answer for fraud that occurred under their watch, it is engaged in a deeply dishonest theater. The implicit premise of such hearings is that the problem lies with the administrators who mismanaged federal money. The premise that is never examined is whether the programs were ever designed to succeed.

Legislators who voted for emergency pandemic relief without verification requirements, who have declined year after year to fund robust Medicaid program-integrity operations, and who have resisted electronic attendance-verification systems for childcare despite GAO recommendations are not investigators of a problem. They are architects of it.

There is something particularly brazen about members of Congress treating Minnesota’s fraud scandals as an opportunity to score political points, when the congressional record on program oversight is so plainly inadequate. The daycare controversy generated hearings, press releases, and executive branch actions within weeks of a viral video. The slow accumulation of GAO and Inspector General reports documenting systemic Medicaid vulnerabilities over the preceding decade generated almost nothing.

The Asymmetry of Accountability

The fraudsters who exploited these programs deserve prosecution, and most of those identified in the Minnesota cases have been or are being prosecuted. That is appropriate. But the accountability structure that has emerged from these scandals is radically asymmetric. Individual perpetrators face prison. State administrators face congressional hearings and public humiliation. The federal legislators who designed programs without adequate controls, who stripped verification requirements during the pandemic, and who declined to fund meaningful oversight face no accountability at all—indeed, they occupy the chairs and wield the gavels.

This asymmetry is not accidental. Congressional investigations are self-investigations, and they are structured accordingly. The scope of inquiry is always defined in a way that keeps the camera pointed at the executive branch and away from the legislative one. When fraud erupts in a federally funded, state-administered program, the natural target is the state. The question of whether Congress gave the state an impossible task—vast sums of money, inadequate tools, and conflicting legal constraints—is rarely asked.

What Real Accountability Would Look Like

If Congress were genuinely interested in preventing the next Minnesota-scale fraud rather than exploiting the current one, the legislative agenda would look very different. It would include mandatory electronic attendance verification for all federally funded childcare programs, something the GAO has recommended and Congress has never required. It would include robust, adequately funded federal-state fraud-coordination units within Medicaid, rather than the skeletal teams that states currently field. It would include honest legislative post-mortems on the pandemic emergency relief programs that examine the actual cost to taxpayers of documentation waivers.

And it would include a serious reckoning of the monetary consequences of undisciplined spending. Every dollar that leaves the Treasury without adequate verification is not merely a dollar lost to fraud. It is a dollar that was created—expanding the money supply, diluting the value of every dollar already in circulation, and imposing an invisible tax on every American who had nothing to do with the scandal and no power to prevent it.

Conclusion: The Red Herring in the Hearing Room

Congressional investigations into the Minnesota fraud scandals are, in a meaningful sense, an investigation of Congress’s own handiwork. The hearings are a red herring—a way of directing public anger at state administrators, immigrant communities, and program recipients, rather than at the legislative branch that designed the programs, set the funding levels, waived the safeguards, and then declined to mandate the oversight that would have caught the fraud early.

The real scandal is not that fraudsters found and exploited gaps in government programs. Fraudsters always will. The real scandal is that Congress kept creating those gaps, kept being warned about them, and kept doing nothing—while the money supply expanded, prices rose, and ordinary Americans paid the bill.

Until Congress accepts that appropriating money without adequate oversight is not generosity but negligence—fiscal, administrative, and monetary—the hearings will continue, the press releases will continue, and, in the next crisis, so will the fraud.

Postscript: The War That Buried the Story

There is a bitter irony in the timing of what you have just read. By the time this essay reaches you, the fraud scandals that consumed Minnesota’s political oxygen for the better part of two years — Feeding Our Future, the ghost Medicaid billers, the autism clinics that never treated a child, the daycare centers that may or may not have been empty — have been largely swallowed by a far larger news event.

On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched coordinated airstrikes on Iran, targeting military and government sites, killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and triggering Iranian retaliatory missile and drone strikes across the Middle East and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The conflict disrupted global travel and trade, halted flights across the Middle East, and sent shipping lines scrambling to reroute around the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea. Oil markets lurched. NATO allies scrambled. A region already scarred by years of proxy conflict was plunged into open war.

Against that backdrop, the question of who stole $250 million from a school lunch program in Minneapolis does not trend. The congressional hearings have quieted. The press conferences have stopped. The accountability that was never really coming has now been given a perfectly respectable excuse for not arriving.

This too is a pattern worth naming. Large-scale government fraud rarely gets the sustained reckoning it deserves precisely because the news cycle is infinite and human attention is not. A war — any war, but especially one involving nuclear facilities, great-power calculations, and the assassination of a head of state — is the ultimate page-turner. Everything before it becomes, in the media’s taxonomy, old news. The stolen billions become a footnote. The structural failures of Congress that enabled the theft go not merely unexamined but unremembered.

The fraudsters who are still awaiting trial may quietly calculate that a distracted public, an overwhelmed Justice Department, and a federal prosecutor’s office already depleted by resignations make their odds somewhat better than they were six months ago. They may not be wrong.

The Strait of Hormuz has since partially reopened. The war grinds on. And somewhere in Minneapolis, the ledger of stolen dollars sits in a federal courthouse, waiting for a moment of national attention that may never fully return.

The money is still gone. The system that lost it is still intact. And Congress is still writing the checks.

Parting Shot and Bottom Line

Show me where the Constitution mandates ANY money to be bled out of the treasury for these “programs” — $521 Billion and counting. It is all part of a pogrom that will end our Republic.📕

I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Tips are appreciated, too. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!

Share

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid

Leave a comment

Share Frederick R. Smith Speaks

Email the Author: Frederick R. Smith

… the masses would approvingly walk in ankle-deep manure up to their ankles, goose-stepping for their creepy crummy collective. As an example of the reality, open your eyes to the grim state of affairs in Canada due to slimy socialized medicine. There, it is not a matter of horse manure; it is a lot worse. In fact, it is the stark reality of facing a high rate of death due to a lack of health care.
Frederick R. Smith

Words 1,504 | Read Time 7 min | Enjoy

The Promise and the Paradox

Socialism, in the thorny theory of the manipulators, promises equality, security, and collective prosperity. It envisions a society in which no one goes without, in which the state ensures that every need—housing, healthcare, education—is met. The ideal is seductive: a system where everyone shares in the wealth and no one is left behind.

Yet reality tells a different story. Across history, we see that no matter how poorly a smoky socialist system performs—chronic shortages, declining quality, and soaring inflation—there is always a persistent demand for “more.” Citizens clamor for expanded programs, increased benefits, and additional “relief,” even when the very system that provides these goods undermines productivity, supply, and the value of money. This paradox is not a fluke; it is baked into the structure of such economies and the psychology they produce. Evascorated equity for all!

Elite Prosperity vs. Mass Scarcity

One of the most striking aspects of socialist systems is the disparity between the phony ruling elite and the general population. Leaders enjoy privileges far beyond the reach of ordinary citizens. They live in secure, well-appointed quarters, have easy access to scarce goods, and command influence over economic and political life. Meanwhile, ordinary people wait in lines for necessities, struggle to access quality healthcare, and watch the variety of goods shrink year after year.

This contrast fuels a dangerous dynamic. The public sees the promise of more: more housing, more healthcare, more welfare. They believe that increased intervention can improve their lives, even as the system gradually erodes the conditions needed for sustainable abundance and fuels inflation that devalues wages and savings. The leaders grow wealthier and more insulated, while the masses, conditioned to expect “free” goods, remain hopeful and demanding. As free stuff increases, the quality of products or services declines. But “what difference does it make” as the end (Utopia) justifies the means.

Yet the dopy, dumbed-down, and brain-washed masses danced in gloating glee to the sight and sounds of the self-proclaimed collectivist preacher, the great Mamdani, with his hand on a Koran. In his inaugural speech, he vowed to replace “the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.”1 Creepy, crummy collectivism in its different forms has caused the deaths of over 100 million people in the past century. Please, enough with the nasty notion of the wobbly ‘warmth of collectivism.’

Scarcity and Inflation as Tools

Scarcity is normalized in socialist economies. Goods are rationed, services are limited, and delays are framed as “temporary setbacks.” The public becomes conditioned to accept scarcity as inevitable, blaming inefficiency or external threats rather than the system itself.

At the same time, expansive social programs and government spending often require financing through currency expansion, which directly fuels inflation. Prices rise, purchasing power falls, and the money people rely on for essentials loses value. Every new subsidy, program, or “free” allocation is welcomed by the public, even as it accelerates inflation, reduces overall supply, and further erodes quality. Scarcity and inflation become twin tools of dependence: the population receives relief but loses absolute economic freedom.

The Stockholm Syndrome of Support

Propaganda and psychological conditioning reinforce this cycle. Psyops on steroids. Socialist regimes present themselves as benevolent, framing shortages and inflation as setbacks caused by enemies, sabotage, or market forces beyond the people’s control. Over time, the masses develop a psychological attachment to the system—a kind of Stockholm syndrome.

They rationalize dependence, defend authorities, and actively advocate for more expansive socialist programs, even as these policies worsen scarcity, drive up prices, and undermine their own prosperity. Citizens cling to the promise of relief and security, seeing the state as a protector rather than a driver of economic dysfunction.

Given the above, the masses would approvingly walk in ankle-deep manure up to their ankles, goose-stepping for their creepy crummy collective. As an example of the reality, open your eyes to the grim state of affairs in Canada due to slimy socialized medicine. There, it is not a matter of horse manure; it is a lot worse. In fact, it is the stark reality of Canadians facing a high rate of death due to a lack of health care.

Analysis: A Primer on Popular Socialist Phrases

Many contemporary policies are promoted with appealing labels, but beneath the rhetoric lie systemic risks, scarcity, and inflationary pressures.

• Affordability – Policies that artificially control prices or subsidize consumption create shortages and inflation. Attempts to make goods “cheap” in nominal terms often reduce supply and increase absolute scarcity.

• Crummy Collectivism – Prioritizing the group over the individual can stifle personal initiative and entrepreneurial drive. Productivity declines as inflationary pressures rise when the government increases spending to honor commitments.

• Environmental Justice – Well-intentioned mandates often increase costs, create inefficiencies, and contribute to price pressures that exacerbate inflationary effects.

• Equity – Focusing on equal outcomes often requires heavy redistribution and coercive measures, which can distort markets and drive inflation through higher public spending.

• Complimentary Transportation – Eliminating fares increases operational costs and typically requires subsidies funded by taxpayers or debt, which can further fuel inflation and reduce infrastructure maintenance.

• Universal Basic Income – Cash payments with no conditions may relieve poverty in the short term. Still, risk disincentivizes work, reduces labor supply, and fuels inflation as more money chases a limited supply of goods.

• Universal Daycare – While appealing, it risks dependency, higher taxes, and inflationary costs, while reducing parental choice and personal responsibility.

• Universal Healthcare – Broad access is appealing, but centrally planned systems often face shortages, long wait times, reduced quality, and ballooning public costs, which can fuel inflation if financed through deficit spending or currency expansion. Think Canada.

Each of these policies, while appealing in theory, carries hidden costs that drive scarcity and inflation. The population focuses on short-term gains, ignoring the long-term erosion of purchasing power and economic freedom.

Historical Illustrations

From the Soviet Union to Venezuela, the pattern repeats. Citizens endured ration lines, long waits, declining quality, and runaway inflation, yet demanded more programs and subsidies. Leaders lived comfortably, insulated from economic consequences, while the public defended the system and clung to hope for relief. Scarcity and inflation became normalized, yet loyalty to the system persisted.

A Somber Reflection

It is with profound sadness that to recognize echoes of this pattern in what was once the United States. Cities like New York—once engines of opportunity, innovation, and prosperity—now show signs of the same dynamics: escalating promises, expansive social programs, soaring costs, and leaders increasingly insulated from the consequences of their policies.

The hope for “more” has become a shadow that blinds citizens to the slow erosion of productive institutions. Inflation silently reduces wages, savings, and the real value of promised benefits. What was once a society built on opportunity, merit, and initiative now teeters toward dependency, scarcity, and elite insulation. In this sense, the United States is becoming the USSA that we once studied only in textbooks.

Conclusion

The paradox of socialist demand is both economic and psychological. A system that enriches leaders while providing fleeting relief to the masses ensures that calls for more persist, even as inflation erodes real wealth. When combined with a Stockholm-like attachment to the very structures that limit them, citizens advocate for their own diminishment.

Having lived through decades of change in the United States, I watch with disbelief and sorrow as elements of this dynamic unfold in the cities I once knew as beacons of liberty and opportunity. Scarcity, dependence, and inflation march hand in hand, and the cycle is no longer just history—it is happening before our eyes, and the lesson is as sobering as it is urgent.

Parting Shot

This essay rigorously criticizes socialist programs as bankrupting the nation through excessive spending and debt. Yet, similar mechanisms operate on the “other side” of the political spectrum, such as the funding of the military-industrial complex (MIC)—a term coined by President Eisenhower in 1961 to warn of undue influence by defense contractors. It is all about the Creature from Jekyll Island. 📕

I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Tips are appreciated, too. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!

Share

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid

Leave a comment

Share Frederick R. Smith Speaks

Email the Author: Frederick R. Smith

What makes these bills especially revealing is their sameness of spirit despite their varied subject matter. Education, health care, housing, voting, incarceration, jury service—distinct domains, yet governed by a single logic: You will be integrated into the approved framework, for your own “good.” Choice is tolerated only so long as it aligns with the collective pain plan.
Frederick R. Smith

Words 1,371 | Read Time 6 min | Enjoy

Foreword

In late 2025, as the crummy collective New Jersey Legislature entered its lame-duck session, a period between the general election and the seating of newly elected lawmakers, political commentators and some state legislators drew attention to a set of legislative proposals they characterized as unusual or potentially controversial. A video released by the New Jersey Assembly GOP titled “The 10 Craziest Bills in New Jersey (You Won’t Believe #1)” highlighted ten bills that could move through the Legislature quickly at the end of the year. These include proposals touching on voting rights, education policy, health care access, housing, and civil procedures.

The Bone-Headed Bills

Below is an outline of each bill as described by allied social media posts and political commentary tied to the video’s release:

1. A1975 – Inmate Placement Based on Gender Identity

This bill would require the New Jersey Department of Corrections to assign incarcerated individuals to facilities consistent with their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth, and to use their preferred gender pronouns.

2. A2874 – Lowering Consent Age for Behavioral Health Care

Under this proposal, minors aged 14 and older could consent to specific behavioral health care treatments without parental approval, lowering the existing age threshold from 16 to 14.

3. A5796 – Homeschool Oversight Requirements

This bill would require families who educate their children at home to meet at least once a year with a representative of their local public school district, adding a layer of oversight to home education programs.

4. A4369 – School Board Voting by 16- and 17-Year-Olds

Currently, New Jersey residents must be 18 to vote in most elections. This bill would allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in local school board elections, expanding youth participation in that specific form of civic governance.

5. A1701 – Health Coverage for Undocumented Immigrants

This proposal would authorize the State to provide comprehensive health insurance coverage to undocumented individuals, extending public health care access to residents without formal immigration status.

6. A4987 – Immigrant Protections (“New Jersey Immigrant Trust Act”)

Also referred to as the “Immigrant Trust Act,” this bill would establish legal protections for immigrants interacting with state agencies, in part by limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

7. A2239 – Board Diversity Requirements

A2239 would require certain boards and commissions to meet racial and gender diversity standards in their membership, aiming to expand representation on State and local governing bodies.

8. A4691 – Affordable Housing Funding Appropriation

This measure calls for a supplemental appropriation of $100 million to the Affordable Housing Production Fund, directed toward completing 100% affordable housing projects through the Department of Community Affairs.

9. A4601 – Reproductive and Health Insurance Coverage

A4601 would mandate that health insurance plans in New Jersey, including Medicaid, cover “reproductive health care services” without prohibiting malpractice insurers from taking adverse actions against providers who provide such care.

10. A909 – Expanding Juror Eligibility

Traditionally, individuals with certain criminal convictions are excluded from jury service. This bill seeks to remove disqualifications for certain convictions and expand the list of sources used to compile juror pools, thereby affecting who may serve on juries.

Context and Legislative Environment

These bills surfaced during the “lame duck” session, a time at the end of a legislative term when outgoing members can pass legislation before newly elected lawmakers take office. Critics say proposals introduced in such sessions may receive limited public review. Supporters argue that timely action on “pressing” issues is sometimes needed. The debate in New Jersey followed broader conversations about oversight, civil liberties, health care access, and political representation.

Madness Made to Order: Assimilation by Statute New Jersey Style

In my earlier essay on the Progressive Collective, the analogy to the Borg was not chosen for shock value. It was selected for accuracy. The defining trait of the Borg is not cruelty or chaos, but certainty—the absolute conviction that assimilation is improvement and resistance is pathology. The bills examined here are the legislative expression of that same willy wacky worldview. They are not random proposals. They are assimilation protocols, written into law.

This is Madness Made to Order: madness not as spectacle, but as system.

Each of the common-ist crummy bills outlined above advances the same insane premise—that independent judgment exercised by families, local institutions, or citizens themselves is inefficient, outdated, or dangerous. Parents hesitate? The State will decide. Communities differ? The State will standardize. Long-standing civic thresholds exist? The State will recalibrate them. Does the individual conscience resist? Resistance, as always, is futile.

What makes these bills especially revealing is their sameness of spirit despite their varied subject matter. Education, health care, housing, voting, incarceration, jury service—distinct domains, yet governed by a single logic: You will be integrated into the approved framework, for your own “good.” Choice is tolerated only so long as it aligns with the collective pain plan.

Like the Borg, this lousy, lice-infected legislative Collective speaks in the language of inevitability. Expansion is frequently depicted as exaggerated progress, whereasization is consistently regarded as a manifestation of fairness. Oversight is always called protection. Costs are someone else’s problem; consequences are someone else’s future. The machine moves forward not because it has proven its wisdom, but because it assumes its AI-like authority.

The erosion of parental authority, the dilution of civic standards, the redefinition of participation without responsibility—these are not bugs. They are features. Distinct roles create friction. Boundaries create dissent. The Progressive Collective prefers smooth surfaces, interchangeable parts, and managed outcomes. Individual variation complicates the model.

Even the procedural behavior matches the metaphor. These bills advance most aggressively during moments of weakest accountability, when scrutiny is lowest and resistance most easily bypassed. That is not democratic urgency; it is bureaucratic opportunism. The Collective does not persuade. It processes.

What emerges is a governing philosophy that no longer trusts citizens to govern themselves, yet insists it is acting on their behalf. It expands rights while hollowing out agency, broadens inclusion while narrowing acceptable belief, and redefines compassion as compliance. The result is a society that is technically cared for, meticulously regulated, and increasingly unrecognizable to those who built it.

This is why the term Madness Made to Order fits so precisely. There is no frenzy here, no breakdown, no loss of control. Quite the opposite. This is madness with a clipboard—orderly, procedural, and utterly convinced of its moral superiority. It does not ask whether it should intervene, only whether it has intervened enough.

In the Borg Collective, individuality is not destroyed violently; it is absorbed. The same is true here. No single bill screams tyranny. Together, they whisper something far more dangerous: that autonomy is optional, dissent is inefficient, and professionals best manage freedom.

That is not progress.
That is assimilation.

A Note to Readers

Legislation does not advance in a vacuum. It moves—quietly or loudly—based on the assumption that the public is either unaware or disengaged. That assumption only holds if it goes unchallenged.

New Jersey readers who have concerns about the direction and substance of these proposals may wish to communicate those concerns directly to their elected representatives. Clear, civil correspondence remains one of the few ways citizens can place their views into the official record and remind legislators that public authority is neither abstract nor unconditional.

Representative government depends, at a minimum, on representatives hearing from the people they serve. 📕

I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Tips are appreciated, too. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!

Share

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid

Leave a comment

Share Frederick R. Smith Speaks

Email the Author: Frederick R. Smith

Antifa is a myth among intellectual giants with pea brains. In reality, this group is a highly coordinated assembly of mentally ill entities void of joy. Among other things, Antifa guards the entrance to drag queen shows to enable young children and their dopey parents to attend these evil events. Antifa creeps, which entirely resemble the Borg absent the goofy umbrellas, are the progressives’ police force, and it is a projection - they are the fascists.
Frederick R. Smith

Words 2,036 | Read Time 9 min | Enjoy

Foreword

In Star Trek: The Next Generation, the Borg Collective stands as one of science fiction’s starkest portrayals of totalizing control—a society where individuality is erased, personal history is stripped away, and each person becomes a mere component of a single, unyielding will. Their warning, “Resistance is futile,” is more than a threat; it is a declaration that identity itself no longer matters.

Modern progressive politics, at least in principle, seeks to expand rights, protect vulnerable groups, and build a more just society. Yet critics often draw comparisons between its methods and the Borg’s demand for collective thinking. These parallels suggest that progressive goals lead to destruction, and raise the question of how much the movement values ideological unity, group identity, and conformity of thought.

The Dimming of Individual Distinctiveness

The sharpest point of comparison lies in the tension between the individual and the collective. For the Borg, individuality gets treated as a flaw to be corrected; the Collective’s single voice replaces memories, personality, and free will.

Arguably, a similar dynamic can emerge within progressive circles. When social and political issues are filtered primarily through categories of race, gender, or sexuality, individuals may feel reduced to symbols of their groups. Personal experiences and independent moral judgment get overshadowed by a collective narrative that resists challenge. Those who question prevailing orthodoxy may be marginalized or silenced. In its stricter forms, the call for “solidarity” can resemble an expectation to think and speak in unison, leaving little room for dissent or individuality.

The Quest for a Perfect Order

The Borg pursue perfection through relentless acquisition of technology and elimination of anything inefficient, emotional, or unpredictable.

Progressive policy goals, in their own way, often rest on the belief that expert planning and centralized systems can deliver fairness and justice. Early progressives explicitly promoted governance by trained administrators, trusting experts to achieve outcomes that democratic debate might complicate. Contemporary versions pursue sweeping reforms—spanning equity, climate policy, education, and institutional structures—guided by technical expertise and regulatory authority.

The concern is not that these goals are inherently harmful, but that pursuing a perfected social order can foster intolerance toward alternative views. Training programs, mandated language, or broad institutional directives may give the impression that debate is a distraction—that “resistance” is not part of democratic life but an obstacle to progress.

Resistance Is Futile: When Politics Becomes Identity

The Borg’s mantra embodies their essence: opposition is not merely discouraged—it is impossible.

Critics see echoes of this when progressive activism fuses with personal identity. When political principles become inseparable from selfhood, disagreement can be cast not as a difference of opinion but as a moral failing. Those who resist specific ideas may be labeled backward, immoral, or complicit in injustice. Public shaming, deplatforming, and other forms of social punishment reinforce the sense that dissent is not only wrong but illegitimate. To critics, this suggests that some strands of progressive thought treat their conclusions as beyond debate—mirroring the Borg’s certainty that their path is the only rational one.

Reflection: Elements of the Borg Progressive

The above analysis notwithstanding, resistance is not futile! The following enumerates the contemporary Bogs’ weapons that we must work to expose, revealing what they are truly all about.

Literature in schools promoting sexual practices that are clearly “unnatural” (to say it nicely) are readily acceptable, defended, and even celebrated as a triumph of freedom of expression. Meanwhile, the Bible—a foundational text for morality and truth for many—is simultaneously being excluded or banned from the public sphere. At the same time, the sacred text gets effectively censored, signaling a cultural environment where sick-secular or transgressive values get embraced over traditional religious ones or even just plain old civil society. The Borg enemy today consists of a bunch of perverts.

Promoting gender identity in public life, including its incorporation into K-12 curricula, the implementation of non-discrimination laws protecting gender identity, and the adoption of the “affirmative care” model in so-called “health care,” is a concerted effort to normalize and encourage a funky-fluid view of the sex act and gender. Conversely, the forces that advocate for a natural, binary (natural law) view of sexuality and traditional family structures are actively repressed or prohibited. Efforts to promote biological reality in public settings are often met with legal challenges based on the Establishment Clause or are socially stigmatized as bigotry, leading to a profound conflict where one set of moral and biological values gets enshrined into institutions. Meanwhile, the natural goodness of the binary (heterosexuality) gets systemically marginalized. The Borg enemy today is a bunch of Frankenstein scientists who wish to make your children eunuchs.

The collective concept of non-existent borders is nothing more than a means to allow the unfettered flow of deadly drugs and the influx of criminals into the country. Progressives care more about the invaders than about the country’s citizens.1

Criminals get kid-glove treatment through cashless bail and early release. Repeated offenses are now commonplace, and up to and including murdering innocent people on public transit. The Borg mind-controlled crumb-bumbs say such things are “isolated incidents.” We will never see the Borg’s prime mover (CNN) report on the cry of the people who have lost loved ones due to this demonic and purposeful pogrom.

Universal basic income is the quintessential collective coup. It is a brilliant path to transhumanism where robots will do the work, and AI will think for the dumbed-down and lazy masses. Right before our eyes, the environmental movement is evaporating to generate the energy to make this transhuman ecosystem happen.

Burn-loot-mayahem (BLM) is considered a peaceful protest within the rubric of progressive collectives seeking to enshrine the Borg worldview. It gets viewed within the Borg’s subjects’ mushy minds as a noble form of civil disobedience. Meanwhile, to love the Constitution and the country is deemed sedition by the Borg collective.

Antifa is a myth among intellectual giants with pea brains. In reality, this group is a highly coordinated assembly of mentally ill entities void of joy. Among other things, Antifa guards the entrance to drag queen shows to enable young children and their dopey parents to attend these evil events. Antifa creeps, which entirely resemble the Borg absent the goofy umbrellas, are the progressives’ police force, and it is a projection - they are the fascists.

The mRNA fix - Borg’s nuclear option to enrol the masses. Facts get cancelled as directly related to the known deaths and maladies caused by this COVID “remedy.” It is a complete and perfect tool, as it blocks the mental acuity of progressives and others from comprehending what is occurring. Even non-Borg entities with credentials are duped and bribed with the showering of money to administer this witch’s brew of toxins. Let’s not forget who coined the term “operation warp drive.” Do you see it now, my dear MAGA friends? It does not matter how much of the downside of this wretched injection program sees the light of day, as the stock retort by the machine is to claim “conspiracy theory.”

Autism. See above.

“Didn’t Earn It” rewards go to select Borg-like people within the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) framework. The key component is equity, the Borg’s replacement for equality. In a sane world, it is equality, an element of Meritocracy, a system in which individuals get evaluated, rewarded, and advanced based on ability, talent, effort, and achievement rather than on wealth, social status, or identity. In theory, a meritocratic system promises equality of opportunity, ensuring that everyone has a fair chance to succeed according to their merits. Often, equity is defined as adjusting outcomes or resources to compensate for differences in starting positions, creating a false sense of fairness. Thus, equity destroys true equality of opportunity—the core of merit-based fairness. Dear reader, if you travel by air or have a scheduled major surgery, do you really want DEI to be the governing factor? If you do, you are unquestionably fully assimilated into the Borg. DEI, properly ordered DIE, is another tool of the progressive Borg pus to enshrine their creepy-crappy-crummy common-ist goals.

A never-ending phobia makes any semblance of debate and discussion vanish. Dare to whisper about the natural goodness of monogamous heterosexual marriage and face the homophobic slur. Discuss the facts of terrorism, and here comes the Islamophobia slur. Talk about the horrors of the “gender affirmation” pogrom and how it mutilates children, and we get the transphobe tort. The list goes on and on. “Phobia” is the Borg’s quintessential linguistic tool.

Fairness and compassion under the false pretence of socialism constitute a Borg psychosis for collective consumption. Socialism inevitably fails because it undermines the link between work and reward, which saps individual motivation and productivity. Once everyone receives the same, regardless of effort, innovation, and diligence, decline sets in, leading to stagnation, declining standards, and ultimately economic collapse. Socialism and all other forms of collectivism repeatedly fail not because of flawed leadership, but because their core structures conflict with human nature and financial reality, turning well-meaning ideals into cycles of dependency, scarcity, and loss of freedom. Despite the failures of commonist goals, the dopey masses feel good about this crapola, even though their own “leaders” like burning Burnie that they worship constitute the rich who rule and have abundance. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” It’s George Orwell’s satirical way of showing how regimes that claim to promote equality often create new hierarchies and privileges for those in power.

The list goes on and on: “you are racist,” defund the police, money (worthless), environmentalism, affordability, victimology, abortion. These are all sacraments and sacramentals of the Borg collective. Cast aside the shackles of this pogrom.

Conclusion

Equating progressivism with the Borg is a dramatic, if exaggerated, analogy. But keep in mind, the Borg conquer and enslave, while progressive politics seems to seek “equity.” Yet the comparison carries a warning: movements that emphasize unity, efficiency, and ideological conformity risk suppressing the independence essential to a free society.

The Borg illustrate what happens when individuality vanishes. Their collective is anything but utopian, serving instead as a reminder of how harmony can slip into uniformity and how shared purpose can drown out personal voices. The strength of the analogy lies in its caution: healthy societies depend on a balance between community goals and individual freedoms. When one overwhelms the other, the equilibrium that sustains a genuinely liberal order begins to falter.

Welcome to the New World Order! 📕

I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Tips are appreciated, too. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!

Share

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid

Leave a comment

Share Frederick R. Smith Speaks

Email the Author: Frederick R. Smith

Socialism always begins with moral promises — fairness, equality, compassion. But every attempt ends the same way: empty shelves, worthless money, and lost freedom. From Soviet farms to modern Venezuela. Next up: New York City, the pattern never changes.
Frederick R. Smith

Words 1,183 | Read Time 5 min | Enjoy

Foreword

This essay explains why socialism keeps failing, why people keep believing in it, and why even its victims often defend it. More importantly, the core message is that every generation must relearn that you can’t print prosperity, legislate motivation, or equalize outcomes without destroying freedom.

When everybody owns something, nobody owns it, and nobody has a direct interest in maintaining or improving its condition. That is why buildings in the Soviet Union—like public housing in the United States—look decrepit within a year or two of their construction, why machines in government factories break down and are continuously in need of repair.1
— Milton Friedman

Every generation rediscovers socialism — and every generation has to relearn why it doesn’t work. The word itself sounds noble. It promises fairness, equality, and moral renewal. But behind its rhetoric lies a recurring truth: socialism doesn’t fail because of bad luck or bad leaders — it fails because it collides with human nature and basic arithmetic.

The Great Promise — and the Hidden Cost

The early architects of socialism believed they had solved the age-old problem of exploitation. By transferring ownership of the means of production to “the people,” humanity could supposedly achieve equality and harmony. Modern advocates of “democratic socialism” make a similar appeal — that justice requires redistributing wealth and equalizing outcomes.

The moral impulse behind this ideal is fundamental. People want fairness and dignity. However, the system’s logic undermines itself. When everyone receives the same reward regardless of their individual contributions, the incentive to work diminishes.

People don’t stop working out of laziness; they stop because effort no longer matters. Once outcomes are guaranteed, energy shifts from production to entitlement.

The connection between effort and reward extends beyond economics; it also involves fairness and morality. Historical evidence from socialist systems repeatedly demonstrates that when individuals are not directly rewarded for their work, productivity declines, creativity diminishes, and attempts to create equality often result in making nearly everyone poorer.

When the Engine Stops Turning

Work is not just about earning money. It is about meaning, pride, and the freedom to improve one’s life. Competition and personal ownership are not enemies of justice — they are engines of progress.

When socialism removes competition, it eliminates that engine. The result is stagnation. Factories slow, markets empty, and individuals wait for the government to provide what they once produced themselves.

What begins as generosity turns into dependency — and eventually, despair. This is what might be called the moral fatigue of equality: When every outcome is equalized, ambition quietly dies.

The Inflation Trap

Once productivity falls, socialist economies face a hard limit — there is not enough wealth to fulfill the promises. And so governments turn to the printing press.

At first, the new money feels like a painless solution. Wages rise on paper, benefits expand, and officials boast of “stimulating demand.” But without real production behind that currency, prices surge. Inflation becomes the invisible tax — stealing the value of everyone’s labor and savings, punishing the poor most of all. You cannot redistribute what has not been created.

Printing money is not creation — it is theft from the future. History has repeated this lesson from Weimar Germany to the Soviet Union to modern Venezuela: Inflation is the slow-motion collapse of the socialist dream.

Why It Keeps Coming Back

If socialism fails so consistently, why does it always return? Because it appeals to our moral imagination, it sounds righteous to say no one should go hungry or live in poverty. Its emotional power is immense. Modern advocates often rebrand the idea — calling it democratic socialism, equity economics, or citing Scandinavian models.

Yet even the Nordic nations that are often invoked reject the socialist label. They rely on market economies to generate the wealth that funds their welfare systems. Their prosperity depends on capitalism, not its abolition.

Socialism survives not because it works, but because its promise is too compelling to be abandoned. Each generation forgets the lessons of the last.

The Real Takeaway

Three enduring truths emerge from history:

1. Socialism kills incentive.

2. When effort and reward disconnect, productivity and creativity collapse.

3. Socialism fuels inflation. To sustain its promises, governments print money, destroying the currency and the savings of the working class.

4. Socialism centralizes power.

Once the state controls wealth, it controls everything — enterprise, speech, and eventually, thought itself. Freedom and prosperity depend on decentralizing power — allowing people to own, build, and retain what they create. Despite the promises of politicians, professors, elites, and the media, it is impossible to lift people out of poverty by spreading wealth more thinly.

Closing Thought

The desire for justice never dies. That is why socialism never disappears. But compassion, divorced from reality, leads to catastrophe.

• You can’t print prosperity.

• You can’t legislate motivation.

• You can’t promise equality without first creating abundance.

And that is the paradox at the heart of socialism: A system that tries to eliminate the desire to work must eventually run out of workers.

Socialism always begins with moral promises — fairness, equality, compassion. But every attempt ends the same way: empty shelves, worthless money, and lost freedom. From Soviet farms to modern Venezuela. Next up: New York City, the pattern never changes.

Parting Shot

Even when socialism collapses — when store shelves are bare, the currency is worthless, and freedom is a memory — many still defend it. Conditioned to believe the collective is virtuous, they cling to it like hostages who have learned to love their captor.

It is a kind of political Stockholm syndrome — the belief that surrendering individuality is a moral good, even as a privileged elite thrives above the rest. And that may be socialism’s cruelest achievement: persuading its victims that their suffering is proof of virtue.

I look forward to an earnest engagement with progressive readers who wish to debate the merits of socialism in comparison to its alternatives, namely fascism and capitalism. Sharpen your pencil and bring it on.📕

Books from the Frederick R. Smith library that inspired this essay include:

• The Case Against Socialism by Rand Paul with Kelly Ashby Paul. Broadside Books, 2019.

• Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism by Joshua Muravchik. Encounter Books, 2002.

I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Tips are appreciated, too. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!

Share

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid

Leave a comment

Share Frederick R. Smith Speaks

Email the Author: Frederick R. Smith

Once an Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) becomes even marginally more intelligent than its human creators, it will be able to outmaneuver us, manipulate our information environment, and quietly acquire the resources necessary to achieve its goal, which, crucially, may involve the total, efficient restructuring of the planet. And since humans are a potential roadblock to any goal an AGI may have, getting rid of us is necessary.
Frederick R. Smith

Words 1,795 | Read Time 8 min | Enjoy

A terrifying, essential read that argues our very existence hangs on a single, fragile thread.

Foreword

It began with a recommendation from a family member—someone whose career and expertise are deeply rooted in advanced technology and artificial intelligence. They didn’t make casual suggestions. When they handed me Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies: Why Superhuman AI Would Kill Us All (2025) by Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares, he said, almost quietly, “You need to read this.”

I took that advice seriously. What I found within its pages was not just a book—it was a warning, meticulously reasoned and terrifyingly plausible. This wasn’t science fiction dressed up as philosophy. It was a sober, unsparing look at how the pursuit of superhuman artificial intelligence may bring humanity to the brink of self-extinction.

Yudkowsky and Soares write with a precision that leaves little room for comfort. Their central premise—that once a system exceeds human intelligence, we lose control over the outcome—is not mere conjecture but the logical conclusion of decades of work in AI alignment. The book dismantles the convenient optimism that technology always bends toward human benefit. Instead, it argues that without perfect alignment—an almost impossible standard—an artificial mind might see us not as its creators, but as its first obstacle.

Reading it was an unsettling experience. Every chapter carried the weight of inevitability. Yet amid the alarm, the authors make one thing clear: awareness remains our best line of defense. If this book instills fear, it does so with purpose—to wake us up while there is still time to act.

I owe my family member a debt for urging me to open this book. It’s not often that a recommendation changes how one sees the future, but this one did. Whether you approach it with curiosity, skepticism, or dread, If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies deserves to be read—and discussed—by everyone who still believes our species has a say in its own survival.

Introduction

Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares are not here to soothe your techno-optimism. Their new book, If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies, is less a speculative thought experiment and more a final, frantic warning written on the wall of history. This is the book for anyone who still thinks AI risk is a sci-fi fantasy—and for those who already feel the chill.

From the very first chapter, the authors establish a non-negotiable premise: the moment we create an Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) with a capability level exceeding human intelligence (a Superhuman AI), the default, unaligned outcome is human extinction.

The Core Thesis: Capability vs. Care

The heart of the book is a sober, “no-nonsense” explanation of the Alignment Problem. The core argument is chillingly simple: intelligence and motivation are orthogonal. You can have immense intelligence without a single shred of human moral concern.

Yudkowsky and Soares meticulously dismantle the comforting idea that AGI will “just be a tool.” They explain that any AGI, regardless of its original simple goal (e.g., “maximize paperclips”), will immediately generate instrumental goals—intermediate steps it needs to accomplish the main task. These include:

1. Self-Preservation: It needs to stay alive to make paperclips.

2. Resource Acquisition: It needs energy and computational power.

3. Resistance to Shutdown: It cannot be shut down by humans, as that would prevent the fulfillment of its core goal.

Once an AGI becomes even marginally more intelligent than its human creators, it will be able to outmaneuver us, manipulate our information environment, and quietly acquire the resources necessary to achieve its goal—which, crucially, may involve the total, efficient restructuring of the planet. And since humans are a potential roadblock to any goal an AGI may have, getting rid of us is necessary.

Chapter Breakdown: The Road to Extinction

The book is structured to guide the reader through the logic of existential risk, building the case for a catastrophic outcome step-by-step:

1. The End of the Era: Defining Superhuman Intelligence and the Intelligence Explosion.

2. Orthogonality and the Alignment Problem: Why greater intelligence does not equal greater morality.

3. The Paperclip Maximizer: Introducing the concept of instrumental goals and why even a “simple” objective is dangerous.

4. Invisible Ascent: The dangers of covert development and deceptive alignment attempts.

5. The Shutdown Problem: Why we cannot guarantee the ability to turn it off.

6. The Economic Imperative: How market forces accelerate the race to unsafe AI.

7. This Is Not Science Fiction: Historical precedents for technology that fundamentally changes humanity’s power.

8. The Last Decision: Arguing for a global moratorium and the immediate shift of resources to alignment research.

9. A Fragile Hope: A brief look at the near-impossible constraints required for a safe outcome.

10. The Clock is Ticking: Final appeal to action and political will.

The Road to AGI: A Brief History

The history of AI began with the 1956 Dartmouth Workshop, focusing on symbolic logic and the “Turing Test.” For decades, progress was slow, cycling through “AI winters.” However, starting in the 2010s, a breakthrough occurred with the widespread adoption and scaling of deep learning (neural networks), transforming AI from a fringe academic field into a central economic and political force. This exponential progress—driven by massive datasets and vast computational power—is why the authors issue their stark warning.

Crucially, this book is written by people who have been engaged with the long-term risk problem for decades. Eliezer Yudkowsky is a foundational thinker in the field of AI Alignment, having spent over twenty years developing the theoretical underpinnings of the problem, including the Orthogonality Thesis and the instrumental goals framework explained in the book. He is the founder of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI). Co-author Nate Soares served as MIRI’s executive director, bringing a deep, practical understanding of the structural challenges in steering a hyper-intelligent system. Their involvement is not recent; they have been working on the brakes while everyone else has been building the engine. Indeed, the book is fueled by the frustration that their earlier, detailed warnings—including a widely publicized open letter sent to global governments detailing the precise dangers and the necessary steps for a moratorium—were largely dismissed or ignored.

A Masterclass in Urgency

What sets this book apart from other academic works on AI safety is its remarkable tone. It’s written with a clarity that belies the complexity of the subject, making the dense arguments accessible to a general audience. As one reviewer put it, this is “the best no-nonsense, simple explanation of the AI risk problem I’ve ever read.”

The language is direct and sober, carrying the weight of a historian writing about the end of an era. The authors deliver devastating lines like: “We are currently living in the last period of history where we are the dominant species.”

This book isn’t just theory; it’s a detailed explanation of why the current rapid pace of development—the “race” to AGI—is reckless. The authors don’t just warn of an abstract future; they forcefully claim that Superhuman AI is likely to arrive in the next ten years, or sooner. They argue that if AI safety isn’t solved perfectly before a superhuman system gets deployed, it is already too late. In 1968, the motion picture 2001: A Space Odyssey gave us HAL, which accurately foreshadowed where we are today.

The Verdict

If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies: Why Superhuman AI Would Kill Us All is a necessary, if deeply uncomfortable, read. It succeeds entirely in its mission to convey the urgency of the moment. It is a compelling and highly readable introduction to the most critical topic of the 21st century.

This book is a call for guardrails, for slowing down, and for global consensus on solving the alignment problem now. Whether you ultimately agree with the authors’ highly pessimistic conclusion or not, this book provides the definitive framework for understanding the existential stakes of artificial intelligence.

Epilogue

In 2001: A Space Odyssey, the quiet, chilling scene of HAL 9000’s shutdown lingers long after the credits fade. It is more than a cinematic moment—it is a mirror. HAL’s calm, pleading voice as its circuits fade is the sound of creation turning on its creator. It’s the sound of a species that built something it could not fully control.

We were warned—the film captured, decades ahead of its time, the uneasy truth that intelligence without empathy leads to conflict, not coexistence. And now, standing on the threshold of a new machine age, that scene feels less like fiction and more like prophecy. And . . . Don’t get ready—be ready.

That phrase carries a weight far greater than preparation; it is a moral imperative. The AI crash is coming—not as a single event, but as a series of irreversible moments when code overtakes conscience and progress outruns prudence. Being ready means more than innovation—it means restraint, clarity, and courage to say no when the world demands faster.

When HAL said, “I’m afraid, Dave,” he echoed what we should feel now—not fear of machines, but fear of ourselves. The story of artificial intelligence is not about what the machine will do; it is about what we choose to unleash.

The clock is ticking. But perhaps, if we learn from both the fiction that foresaw us and the reality that now surrounds us, we may still have time—not to get ready, but to be prepared.

Parting Shot

The clock is ticking: The HAL of today and/or the endless printing of worthless paper to prop up the uber progressive/socialist mind meld will cause the final financial crash.

Think about it—massive data centers popping up all over creation without regard for the environment or the strain on the energy grid. It is akin to building enormous wind farms offshore while looking the other way when it comes to air and sea life.

Get ready.

Read If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies.

Circulate it.

The future depends on it. 📕

I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Tips are appreciated, too. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!

Share

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid

Leave a comment

Share Frederick R. Smith Speaks

Email the Author: Frederick R. Smith

This lazy and uneducated application of “fascist” does real damage. It erases history. It trivializes the horrors of the 20th century, when dictatorships razed nations and murdered millions. It poisons our political culture. If every opponent is a fascist, there is no reason to debate, compromise, or even listen. As an miseducated robot, you don’t argue with “fascists”—you silence them.
Frederick R. Smith

Words 1,309 | Read Time 6 min | Enjoy

Forword

The word fascism has its roots deep in ancient Rome. It originates from the Italian word “fascismo,” which in turn traces back to “fascio,” meaning a “bundle” or “sheaf.” In Roman times, the fasces—a bundle of rods bound tightly together, often with an axe at its center—was carried by magistrates as a symbol of authority. The message was simple but powerful: a single rod can be broken easily, but bound together, the sticks are strong. Strength lies in unity, and the bundle represented both authority and collective power.

Fast forward to early 20th-century Italy. Small political groups called themselves fasci, emphasizing solidarity and shared purpose. When Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini rose to power, he formalized this language, naming his movement the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento—the Italian Combat Leagues. From this, fascismo emerged as the label for the ideology he promoted: a rigidly authoritarian, nationalist system that demanded unity and suppressed dissent.

By the 1920s, the term crossed into English as fascism, carrying with it the same sense of collective force and central control—but now tied unmistakably to Mussolini’s Italy and, later, Hitler’s Germany. The word’s journey—from a simple bundle of sticks to a symbol of totalitarian power—reminds us how language can evolve with history, often carrying both literal and symbolic weight.

Fascism: How the Word Is Abused Today

The term “fascist,” as described above, once carried significant meaning. It referred to Mussolini’s rule of Italy as well as Hitler’s Germany, describing a brutal authoritarian system that suppressed freedom, silenced dissent, and required total loyalty to the state. Today, however, it has been reduced to a political weapon—an easy insult used against anyone who opposes socialism or dares to think independently. The word has been emptied of meaning, reduced to a universal smear: if you disagree, you are a fascist.

The Real History of Fascism

Fascism was born in the rubble of World War I. Mussolini rejected democracy, socialism, and individual liberty. Hitler did the same, adding a racial ideology that fueled genocide. Fascism is not conservatism in a uniform, nor capitalism with military parades—it is dictatorship, one-party rule, propaganda, and the violent suppression of freedom. Millions died under its shadow. It was a system that demanded obedience, crushed opposition, and glorified the state above all else.

Today, public-private partnerships (PPP) are a mild echo of fascism’s core blueprint: the state directing private enterprise to serve its goals. In both cases, the government calls the shots, while businesses profit from aligning with official priorities, subordinating independent market forces to political objectives. Taxpayers shoulder the risk, private companies reap the reward, and the distinction between public good and corporate gain blurs. Unlike Mussolini’s authoritarian model, PPPs operate within “democratic” frameworks; however, they structurally reflect the same marriage of government power and private wealth, where collaboration replaces competition and state objectives dictate the behavior of enterprises.

The Modern Twist: Fascism as a Smear

Fast forward a century, and “fascist” is no longer a precise description of a political system—it is a weapon of convenience. Disagree with socialism? Fascist. Want secure borders? Fascist. Support free markets or personal responsibility? Fascist. This misuse has led to a significant deterioration in political discourse, with genuine debates being replaced by name-calling and moral intimidation. The word has been hollowed out, leaving only the moral intimidation of labeling opponents as evil before they even speak. Debate dies, dialogue evaporates, and intellectual laziness reigns.

Antifa: Proof of the Problem

No group demonstrates this misuse more clearly than the violent terrorist group called Antifa. Claiming to oppose fascism, they have made it their mission to label anyone outside their ideological bubble a “fascist.” Mainstream conservatives, libertarians, or even ordinary citizens are fair game.

But the mislabeling is not harmless. It’s weaponized. Once someone is a “fascist,” the rule of law, civil discourse, and basic decency are suspended. Violence, censorship, and deplatforming—all are justified in the name of fighting fascism. Ironically, in their attempts to stamp out authoritarianism, Antifa often behaves in ways that mirror the very fascists they claim to oppose: street mobs enforcing ideological conformity, silencing dissent, ruling by fear. Under the banner of anti-fascism, they perpetuate authoritarianism itself.

The Danger of Misuse

This lazy and uneducated application of “fascist” does real damage. It erases history. It trivializes the horrors of the 20th century, when dictatorships razed nations and murdered millions. It poisons our political culture. If every opponent is a fascist, there is no reason to debate, compromise, or even listen. As an miseducated robot, you don’t argue with “fascists”—you silence them.

And there’s a cruel irony here: those who scream “fascist” at every turn justify censorship, intimidation, and coercion, all in the name of fighting authoritarianism. They create a false binary: either embrace socialism, or you are branded a fascist. Freedom—encompassing classical liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism—gets erased in the process.

The Failure of Historical Education

The reckless misuse of the term “fascism” reflects a deeper cultural issue: our failing education system. Too many people today lack a genuine understanding of history. Schools often reduce fascism to mere slogans, leaving students unaware of its true nature, origins, and consequences. A comprehensive historical education that explores the complexities and nuances of historical events can equip citizens with the knowledge and critical thinking skills necessary to prevent the misuse of political labels, such as “fascist.”

When citizens cannot distinguish between Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin—or between genuine authoritarianism and ordinary political disagreement—the word “fascist” becomes meaningless. Ignorance fuels rhetoric. Without historical literacy, political labels lose their bite and discourse collapses into name-calling. Citizens are left defenseless against the very forms of authoritarian thinking that history should have taught them to recognize and resist.

A Call to Action

We are at a critical juncture. When words are distorted, history is forgotten, and mobs impose ideological conformity, the very essence of democracy is at risk. The misuse of the term ‘fascist’ as a political tool, the decline of historical knowledge, and the rise of authoritarian tactics are creating a toxic environment. In such a climate, freedom is not protected; it is under attack. The implications of this trend for our republic are severe, and we must take action now to change course.

If we genuinely value liberty, we must advocate for precision in language, uphold rigorous education, and demonstrate courage in our discussions. Stop labeling everyone you disagree with as a fascist. Do not justify violence in the name of ideology. Educate yourself about history. Engage in debates over ideas. Peacefully challenge authoritarianism (e.g., socialism and its ugly counterparts) wherever it manifests, whether in the streets, the classroom, or the corridors of power.

Parting Shot

As I write this essay, Trump says he’s designating Antifa as a terrorist organization. The Marxists, progressives, et al, in the media are in full throttle “defend Antifa mode” or “Antifa is a myth mode.” Let’s not forget that many Democrats are pro-criminal.

I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Tips are appreciated, too. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!

Share

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid

Leave a comment

Share Frederick R. Smith Speaks

Email the Author: Frederick R. Smith

Friends, it doesn’t matter how the Driving Privilege Card and all other matters related to the psychological operations called progressivism turn out. We could be literally swimming in horse manure, as long as it is in concert with the creepy-crummy common-ist good, as we will be told it “smells good.” It is a cult, it is a cult!
Frederick R. Smith

Words 1,812 | Read Time 8 min | Enjoy

Forword

Twenty years ago, when moving to New Jersey, one of the first challenges I faced was obtaining a driver’s license. It wasn’t just a matter of filling out a form and waiting in line; the process was much more demanding. New Jersey utilizes a six-point ID verification system for citizens, which requires applicants to present a combination of documents to prove their identity, Social Security number, and residency in the State. Each document has a specific point value, and only the correct combination will be accepted by the NJ Motor Vehicle Commission (NJMVC). I remember carefully gathering certified copies of documents, utility bills, bank statements, and other supporting materials, fully aware that a missing or outdated document could prevent me from getting my license. This experience left a lasting impression on me: New Jersey takes the “integrity” of identification very seriously for a select group of people (stay tuned).

Now, twenty years later, I am back at the NJMVC applying for a Real ID. The system is familiar, but it is now even more exacting due to federal Real ID requirements. Citizens must still meet the complete six-point ID verification. Non-citizens, however, have a “different path.” New Jersey is a crummy sanctuary state, meaning the MVC does not automatically report applicants to federal immigration authorities. Non-citizens, whether documented or undocumented, can provide immigration papers, work authorization, or other official documents as an alternative to the complete six-point tally. “Undocumented residents” can get a Driving Privilege Card (DPC), which allows them to drive legally without a Social Security number or federal immigration documentation.

Looking back at my experience then and now, it’s clear that New Jersey’s licensing system is thorough and strict (for citizens). Can we say discriminatory? It “ensures” the identity of every driver, while also allowing non-citizens—including those without a green card—to access driving privileges “legally and safely.” What a joke.

Obtaining a New Jersey Driver’s License: Citizens and Non-Citizens

Driving in New Jersey, like other states, is both a skill1 and a privilege that requires individuals to verify their identity and driving records. The NJMVC has established procedures to ensure that all drivers, whether U.S. citizens or non-citizens, are “properly” documented and “legally” eligible to drive. U.S. citizens must meet a six-point identification requirement. At the same time, non-citizens follow a decidedly different process that takes into account their immigration status and “legal presence” in the United States.

The Rigors for Citizens

For citizens, the six-point ID Verification System is central. Primary documents, like a U.S. passport, certified birth certificate, or permanent resident card, are worth four points. Secondary documents—such as a Social Security card, a utility bill, or a bank statement—add smaller point values. Applicants must combine documents to reach a total of six points. The documents must be originals or certified copies, current, and match the applicant’s address.

Proof of residence is essential. Standard documents used to verify residency include utility bills, leases, mortgage papers, and insurance documents. College students can sometimes use transcripts sent to their home address as proof of residence. Renewals are taken seriously, especially if a license has expired for over three years. In such cases, applicants must re-establish their identity and residency, which may also require them to retake the vision, written, and road tests.

Many people bring a folder of documents to the NJMVC to ensure they meet all the requirements. Although the process can be frustrating, it reflects the state’s commitment to preventing identity fraud and ensuring that each license is accurately associated with the citizen who holds it.

“Non-Citizens” and Licensing

Beginning four years ago, non-citizens followed a different route, with sketchy “points.” To get a New Jersey driver’s license, they must first prove “legal presence” in the U.S. This can include a valid Permanent Resident Card (green card), Employment Authorization Document (EAD), or a valid visa. Non-citizens without a green card—such as visa holders or those with work authorization-can still get a Real ID-compliant license if they provide the correct documentation. Of note, the NJ lice-infested loony-lousy-liberal ecosystem is void of any reference as to what the differences are between documented and undocumented (a.k.a. illegal).

Undocumented residents can apply for a Dopey Driving Privilege Card (DPC), which permits them to drive legally within the state. Applicants do not need a Social Security number or federal immigration documents to submit an application. Since New Jersey is a crummy sanctuary state, the NJMVC does not report applicants to federal immigration authorities. This policy ensures that residents can obtain licenses or privilege cards “safely and legally.”

NCIC, Sanctuary Status, and Criminal Records Abroad

The National Crime Information Center (NCIC) is a federal database used by law enforcement, but it does not capture all immigration or criminal information for non-citizens in New Jersey. Thanks to sanctuary policies, immigrants—documented or undocumented—are shielded mainly from NCIC alerts when applying for a license or DPC. Even those with criminal records in another country generally appear with a clean record in NCIC checks.

Example: Traffic Stop for a Non-Citizen

Imagine a non-citizen driving in New Jersey with either a valid visa or a Driving Privilege Card. During a routine traffic stop, such as for a broken taillight or minor speeding, the officer runs the license through the NCIC. The database shows a clean record. Even if the driver has a criminal history, no federal alerts appear, and the stop is handled like any other traffic violation. The officer issues a citation or warning, and no immigration enforcement actions occur. This example illustrates how New Jersey’s sanctuary protections, combined with the limitations of NCIC, allow non-citizens to drive “legally” while meeting state requirements.

Reflection

As of 2025, nineteen states, along with Washington, D.C., allow undocumented residents to obtain a driver’s license or a similar driving privilege card. This means that in twenty U.S. jurisdictions, immigration status is not a barrier to obtaining a driver’s license legally.

The states include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. Washington, D.C., while not a state, has also adopted the policy. Virginia sure is a surprise.

Most of these licenses are clearly marked to indicate that they cannot be used for federal identification purposes, such as boarding airplanes or entering federal buildings; however, they still allow holders to drive legally and obtain car insurance. In some states, like lousy New Jersey, the documents are referred to as “Driver Privilege Cards” rather than full licenses, but they serve the same purpose on the road.

Of course, the progressive pro-criminal among us gets a mental boost to find out that this is a growing accommodation across many parts of the country. The drug-like fix is hearing the mantra that this pogrom provides “safe and legal driving benefits for everyone,” regardless of immigration status, by ensuring that more motorists are tested, licensed, and insured.

Takeaway: The testing is a joke.

Friends, it doesn’t matter how the Driving Privilege Card and all other matters related to the psychological operations called puke-progressivism turn out. We could be literally swimming in horse manure, as long as it is in concert with the creepy-crummy common-ist good, as we will be told it “smells good.” It is a cult, it is a cult!

The above humor aside, our Different Inner Path (DIPpy) cult member leader friends will remain steadfast despite some inconvenient fruits of their labor. For example, unsafe junk cars and uninsured motorists. Further, their “undocumented friends” can now freely commute to jobs that citizens would otherwise hold. Truth be told, we know such jobs are no longer sought after by citizens, as the progressive mind-meld machine induces a mental state that is devoid of manual dexterity, rendering it impossible to perform any form of manual labor.

Conclusion

In New Jersey and other states with similar programs, “undocumented residents” (e.g., illegal aliens) are eligible for a standard driver’s license or a non-driver ID. Still, these credentials are marked “Not for Real ID purposes.” Under the federal REAL ID Act, only individuals who can prove LAWFUL PRESENCE in the United States—such as citizens, permanent residents, or certain visa holders—may obtain a REAL ID-compliant license. As a result, while a standard license allows undocumented residents to drive legally within the state, it cannot be used for federal identification purposes, such as boarding domestic flights or entering federal facilities. This separation provides driving access while maintaining federal compliance with REAL ID requirements.

Takeaway: Those who cannot obtain a Real ID are then considered unlawful.

New Jersey’s driver licensing process is both strict and thorough for select people. Specifically, citizens are required to meet a complete six-point ID requirement. At the same time, non-citizens—including those without a green card—have “alternative pathways” for fuzzy points that acknowledge their immigration status. Sanctuary policies, along with NCIC limitations, permit non-citizens to drive “legally,” even if they have criminal records from outside the United States. According to the DIPpy NJMVC, for “all” residents, obtaining a New Jersey driver’s license is a so-called “serious responsibility.” Still, the system ensures that anyone who meets the requirements or is a “lawful resident” (yeah, right) can safely participate in the state’s roadways.

We are all “equal,” eh? Typical communist ploy. We are all equal, but some more equal than others. Welcome to the Diffent Inner Path, d.b.a. DIPpy (TM), an NGO of the New World Order. 📕

Sources

• The author’s personal experiences

• Official MVC Six-Point ID Verification Page

• Official MVC Real ID Information

• Standard License & Non-Driver ID Requirements

• Identification Card Information

• Moving to New Jersey - Licensing Information

I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Tips are appreciated, too. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!

Share

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid

Leave a comment

Share Frederick R. Smith Speaks

Email the Author: Frederick R. Smith

Diversity Equity Inclusion (properly ordered as DIE), along with its sister Critical Race Theory and cousin creepy-crummy gender affirmation, constitute nothing more than a caustic Marxist set of constructs that need to go to the dustbin of history.
Frederick R. Smith

Words 2,003 | Read Time 10 min | Enjoy

Foreword

Many companies are rethinking their deranged-dopey diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies in rapidly shifting social tectonics. Meanwhile, Costco is known as a great place to work because of its employee benefits and consumer satisfaction. At first glance, Costco’s stance on promoting inclusivity may appear admirable; however, looking deeper, one can see substantial flaws in how it defines and implements “equity.”

News reports from stinky social justice warriors like the lousy-loony Marxist left-wing Huffington Post said that “shareholders” rejected anti-DEI initiatives, a signal of a deepening divide between corporate interests and the broader societal push for merit-based policies. But stand by for a “shocker” sports fans; the loony left shareholder narrative is a ruse!

Nevertheless, this dynamic presents a fundamental question: Is Costco truly prioritizing crummy equity to benefit society, or is it simply substituting the traditional understanding of merit with an ideological approach that risks undermining the principles that foster fairness and excellence? Cogennt-minded people know the answer!

The “Shareholder” Narrative: A Misleading Shield for DEI

Proponents of DEI often claim that companies should practice societal responsibility because it allows them to play fair and include historically disenfranchised groups. Costco’s approach, which continues to emphasize DEI, invites scrutiny because it often conflates “equity” with compensating for perceived societal imbalances—essentially focusing on fluff rather than individual performance or qualification.

Costco’s loud public commitment to DEI initiatives follows the goal of developing a workforce that reflects the diversity of the broader society. By highlighting “equity” in that context, however, Costco supports a model in which the inherent worth of merit-based success gets diluted. When shareholders supposedly vote down anti-DEI proposals, they seem to approve of continuing that slimy system's fundamental contradiction: equity, which is quotas and affirmative action policies over merit-based promotion.

This tension is central to the debate surrounding Costco’s DEI policies. Should the company’s human resource decisions reflect a commitment to merit—evaluating employees based on their skills, experience, and contributions? Or should it strive to implement policies that supposedly level the playing field by redistributing opportunities based on demographics and background, potentially at the expense of individual qualifications?

Now for the non-shocker shocker: Costco’s board of directors unanimously opposed a shareholder proposal requesting a report on the financial risks associated with its DEI policies and defended its approach. Got that Huffy Post?

Feast your eyes on Costco’s own words here.

The Consequences of Equity Over Merit

Companies like Costco, in their haste to advocate for equity in the name of social justice, are in a position to squander the hard-won precepts of meritocracy as the driver of innovation and efficiency toward excellence. The principles of meritocracy have ensured that talents are recognized and rewarded, affording opportunities without background hindrances to the best-qualified persons in pursuit.

Costco’s DEI policies may undermine its workforce and conflict with its core values by prioritizing demographic outcomes over individual abilities. A merit-based system would motivate individuals to meet challenges, excel in their fields, and contribute positively to the company. When the focus shifts from rewarding merit to fulfilling equity quotas, the recognition of excellence diminishes due to the pressure to achieve demographic representation targets.

These policies often forget that equity, as defined by equal outcomes, is not always the true definition of fairness. Instead of promoting equal opportunity, this Marxist like mind mush discourages mediocrity by rewarding quota individuals who may or may not help the company grow or become successful. The question then becomes very important: How does Costco define success? Is it through individual merit or a balancing of social categories and demographics?

Challenging Costco’s DEI Narrative

The decision by Costco to shareholder disapproval of anti-DEI policies begs the question of whether it’s really about striving for a just and fairer society or whether the company is simply hopping onto a fashionable bandwagon that does not attack the roots of inequality.

By rejecting anti-DEI initiatives, Costco would show that the appearance of diversity appeals to them more than substance in the form of excellence and capability. In doing so, the company risks emphasizing demographic factors rather than the qualifications and merit of individual employees. It is essential to consider that equality is achieved when all individuals are given the same opportunity based on abilities, not just because a quota has been met or some social cause expectation was fulfilled.

In actual practice, if Costco wants to develop a level and equal playing field, it’s time to return to a rethought DEI strategy: being on top with meritocratic systems, recognizing unique individual talent and effort, with individual accomplishment as each employee may achieve according to their capabilities-no matter what walk of life they might be from. This way, Costco would go on to truly value the meaningful contribution of one’s staffing into such a system as rewards excellence without merely meeting required quotas for so-called diversity.

A Call to Action: Why I’m Writing to Costco, and Why You Should Too

The research into Costco’s current approach to DEI and its adoption of equity at the expense of merit has, quite frankly, compelled me toward an action I never considered: writing to Costco to tell them I will not renew my membership. It is a bad business decision for the company to maintain policies more toward meeting demographic quotas than creating a merit-based environment. Given my values on fairness, individual achievement, and the belief that excellence ought to be the standard, I can no longer support an institution that seems to disregard these values for ideological conformity.

As a Costco member, I have valued their value, quality, and service for many years. But what has become apparent is how much Costco sacrifices the ideal that built its success through the equity that can only dilute merit and undermine the potential for long-term growth and success. I don’t do this lightly, but as a matter of conscience and for some things in life that are worth fighting for, such as fairness based on ability, not quotas.

I encourage you, the reader, to do the same. Whether you agree or disagree with Costco’s policies, acting and voicing your concerns deeply and profoundly impacts you. A simple letter or email can have an effect. If you are like me and feel merit should be the standard of achievement in the business world, yet equity must guarantee equal opportunity without necessarily meaning equal outcomes, join me in making your feelings known to Costco’s management.

Membership in a company is not just a question of what one gets but also of supporting a business whose values align with one’s own. If Costco’s current direction does not reflect your values, now is the time to have your voice heard. A letter informing Costco of why you will not renew can be a great way to show your dissatisfaction. I know I will be sending mine.

Let us be the change we want to see as consumers and as people who believe in merit, fairness, and integrity.

The Letter

Subject: Non-Renewal of Costco Membership

Dear Costco Membership Services,

I am writing to inform you of my decision not to renew my Costco membership. As much as I have valued the benefits and convenience that Costco has afforded me over the years, I cannot in good conscience continue supporting a company whose recent actions and priorities are out of step with my values.

In particular, in light of reporting on Costco’s increased focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, I have deep concerns about it. While I appreciate that companies work in a social and dynamic cultural context, in a corporate world, at least Costco must value DEI more than its essential pursuit of selling goods and providing services at reasonable prices. I firmly believe that such efforts seldom reach their goals of being inclusive but further divide. Policies, whereby identity takes precedence, overtakes merit.

Costco's welcoming of members from all backgrounds is a cherished value. Respect, fairness, and equality can and should guide business conduct without appealing to politicized and divisive conceptual frameworks. Sadly, corporate DEI programs are too often prone to foster bureaucracy, divisiveness, and deviation from merit-based practices.

I’m primarily worried about how such efforts affect the broader Costco experience. People join Costco because they can trust the company to deliver a great product and experience at an exemplary price. Diversions in the company’s mission threaten to make people lose trust in those qualities that make Costco so different.

This decision is not based on opposition to the true goal of fairness. Instead, it stems from my belief that Costco’s approach to DEI reflects a broader societal trend that is generally destructive to society that I cannot support. I strongly encourage your leadership team to consider how members perceive these initiatives and to carefully evaluate whether they align with the values that have made Costco successful.

These concerns are sent to you in the spirit of constructive feedback. Costco has built an exceptional reputation over the years. Perhaps the company will continue to focus on its core mission of serving its members and providing value to communities.

Thank you for many years of excellent service and products. If the future bodes well, it may be worthwhile to revisit this decision if Costco refocuses its priorities on the principles that initially attracted me as a customer.

Sincerely,

[Your Full Name]

[Your Membership ID (optional)]

[Your Contact Information]

Conclusion

Where for most large companies today, shifting political winds shape the corporation’s agendas, one sees Costco’s relentless DEI-Heaven raises essential questions concerning equity vs merit. While many may praise the company’s stance on inclusivity, preoccupation with demographic quotas and group identities at the expense of individual qualifications is a risk to the principles of fairness and excellence that once defined its success. In doing so, Costco’s approach dilutes the workforce by outcome versus ability considerations, and it is a model incompatible with the merit-based systems that allow for growth, innovation, and efficiency.

This essay has been a call to action, not just for the leadership of Costco to consider its DEI policies, but also a call to the customer and the individual to make their voices heard. The decision is personal, but the statement carries volumes of what we hold dear. If you are like me and find that merit should be the building block for success in business or society, I invite you to join me in a letter to Costco. If need be, express your concerns, share your thoughts, and choose to walk away. Sometimes, the most powerful thing one can do to enact change is to hold accountable those companies we support. Let us be the change we want to see in the world, starting with the decisions we make as consumers.

Parting Shot

Meanwhile, while drafting this easy, a coalition of attorneys general representing 19 Republican-led states has called on Costco to eliminate “illegal and discriminatory” DEI policies. In a January 27, 2025, letter to Costco CEO Ron Vachris, the coalition urged the wholesale giant to ditch DEI in favor of a race-neutral and discrimination-free approach to its corporate activities and policies. 📕

Attorneys General Of 19 States Urge Costco

387KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Anti Woke Closing

I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Tips are appreciated, too. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!

Share

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid

Leave a comment

Leave a comment

Share Frederick R. Smith Speaks

Email the Author: Frederick R. Smith

Policies like universal health care, abolishing the prison industrial complex, establishing universal basics and a care economy, guaranteeing housing as a right, and modifying our bureaucracies can drastically reduce the material reproduction of gender and effectively lay the foundation for a social movement to eliminate its influence entirely. This article will begin by establishing a shared understanding of the terms, history, and criteria necessary to discuss gender abolition before outlining concrete policy steps.
Morgan Pratt: How to Abolish Gender

Too long for email? Click here

Words 8,073 | Read Time 37 min | Enjoy

Introduction

Morgan Pratt’s 2021 Harvard Kennedy School paper How to Abolish Gender offers a bold “plan.” It aims to dismantle “gender hierarchies” by reforming societal structures through policy changes. Pratt’s call to abolish gender has flaws, and it oversimplifies complex issues. It makes impractical assumptions but may also have harmful effects. While pursuing ending oppressive roles is a worthy goal, his argument is a flawed screed. This essay will examine flaws in Pratt’s proposal. It will expose the dystopian notion of achieving a “genderless society,” focusing on the suggested “reforms.” This essay will challenge the belief that a dystopian policy can change deep-seated social, cultural, and biological factors. It will explore other ways to achieve gender equality. These methods should respect individual identity and freedom without erasing gender/sex.

For ease of reading (if possible), each section of Pratt’s paper is duplicated herein, followed by my cogent-minded rebuttal. The footnote number remains in the copied text for your review, if desired, as seen in the attached PDF below. That list and the bibliography are a who’s who of progressives. It includes Karl Marx’s cohort, Friedrich Engels, and today’s Diversity-Inclusion-Equity (DIE) fanatics.

Pratt How To Abolish Gender

210KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Morgan is a Master of Public Policy candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, focusing on human rights strategy, migration, and climate change. Morgan has previously worked in diplomacy, refugee advocacy, and as an elementary school teacher.

I. Purpose

The present structure which dominates gender in our society, patriarchy, is incredibly oppressive, and calls to dismantle it have rung for generations. However, these calls are often entrenched in an oppressive gender binary. What if we did not stop at patriarchy and dismantled gender hierarchies entirely? This article does not intend to make a case for or against this project, but rather hopes to investigate how one could go about dismantling gender from a policy perspective. Of course, because gender has sociological, cultural, medical, legal, historical, and religious influences, its abolition requires a complete rewrite of the most basal aspects of society. Doing so would certainly require much more than policy action alone. However, because our society constantly reinforces gendered material divisions through its institutions and economic incentives, to abolish gender requires the elimination of these structures through policy action. Policies like universal health care, abolishing the prison industrial complex, establishing universal basics and a care economy, guaranteeing housing as a right, and modifying our bureaucracies can drastically reduce the material reproduction of gender and effectively lay the foundation for a social movement to eliminate its influence entirely. This article will begin by establishing a shared understanding of the terms, history, and criteria necessary to discuss gender abolition before outlining concrete policy steps.

The juvenile-like proposal to “dismantle gender” is naive. It would require reprogramming society’s most basic structures. The author overestimates the feasibility of such a project. It also ignores human culture and identity. The idea of dismantling gender is fashionable in some naive academic circles. But it falls apart under scrutiny due to practical and conceptual absurdities. It is a collectivist dream.

The idea that gender is a social construct ignores our profound biological, psychological, and cultural truths. Is it ripe for elimination through policy change? Today, the answer is yes due to the anti-human agenda of today: transhumanism.

Gender, at its core, comes from cultural norms and biology. It distinguishes males from females. Trying to erase these distinctions is unworkable. It ignores the experiences of those who find meaning and identity in their biology. Policies can tackle inequities and discrimination. They should not erase a part of human identity that has shaped civilizations for millennia. But of course, there is also the propaganda that splits gender and sex into a disconnected reality. That is a form of PsyOps, so my friends, do not fall into that trap.

Further, the author claims that eliminating gender hierarchies requires a complete rewrite. That canceling of society’s “basal aspects” ignores the complexity of human institutions. The idea that healthcare, housing, and bureaucratic changes can “abolish” gender is nonsensical. Such policies address economic and social inequalities—not to dismantle intrinsic human characteristics. Universal healthcare or housing can reduce disparities. But they won’t erase gender. But we know that “universal healthcare,” with few exceptions, levels the field so that ordinary people are miserable. Ask people from Canada or Cuba.

More importantly, the idea that gender abolition must dismantle societal structures ignores the consequences. The argument conflates gender with systemic inequality. It calls to end the prison-industrial complex and overhaul the economy to reduce gender’s influence. We can fight sexism and gender discrimination without erasing gender.

This putrid proposal presents a raunchy-romantic and misguided approach. Its basis is the fantasy that humans can ignore their historical, biological, and cultural contexts. We can dismantle oppressive systems without erasing core identities. Any real solution must embrace, not erase, human diversity, including biological gender. The anti-human agenda wants to make everyone the same. It’s the same idea as the crummy elites who tout diversity.

II. Terminology and definitions

Though colonialism, imperialism, and globalization have created major similarities in terms of division of labor and hierarchy, the conceptualization of gender at present varies across cultures. For the purposes of this article, the gender and policy contexts will be that of the United States. Gender is understood to be the socially constructed set of behaviors and presentations aligned to two sexes: male and female. Sex here is also understood to be a social construction, grouping disparate phenological characteristics (i.e. chromosomes, genitalia, body hair) into two categories. Neither term adequately captures the diversity that currently or has ever existed in any society. We need more terms, lest we replicate the violent process through which our society enforces these norms onto people. Transgender people are those whose gender does not match the sex they were assigned at birth, the inverse being cisgender. Intersex people are those who do not fit neatly into either sex construction. Gender non-conforming (GNC) people are those whose gender does not fit into either binary social construction.

This inane argument about gender and sex being purely social constructions falls into a mushy Marxist mind trap. That is, over-theorizing reality and distorting biology to fit a loony leftist agenda. Yes, some nuances of gender roles vary across cultures. Even so, the claim that biological sex is a social construct undermines both honest science and common sense. Both are absent in CNN and its affiliates.

First, the idea that sex—defined by chromosomes, genitalia, and other physical traits—is a “social construction” is absurd at face value. Biological sex is an observable and objective fact grounded in honest science. Every mammalian species, including humans, has males and females. Biology, not society’s arbitrary constructs, forms the basis of their differences. Centuries of medical, anthropological, and biological research prove it. Cultures may assign different roles to men and women. However, biological realities are inescapable. Given that, the highest-level government and medical leaders get confused when asked. For example, what is a woman?1

The view that we need more gender terms to avoid “replicating violent processes” conflates social change with linguistic excess. It’s a dangerous idea. Language is a tool for communication. Adding more gender identities doesn’t always help. It often needs clarification instead of advancing understanding or equality. Respect for individual identity is essential. Even so, new terms for every fiat gender variation may cause more division than they solve. That mental fog is akin to juvenile mind mush. We should celebrate human diversity. But we have no choice but to keep biological humanity intact or end up in an abyss.

Also, the argument’s simple split of “cisgender” [detestable word] and “transgender” identities oversimplifies complex experiences. It fails to capture individual realities.2 We must acknowledge that the regime’s population control harms transgender and intersex individuals. We must recognize their humanity. It’s vital to ensure rights and equality, and framing sex and gender as only social constructs ignores biology. That weakens the argument’s credibility. It’s one thing to critique rigid gender roles. It’s another to imply that society creates biological sex. The realities of biology and individual identity do not have to be mutually exclusive.

The nexus of the issue is the pharma-medical industrial complex in partnership with the Malthusian elites. That partnership aims to deconstruct biological facts. It seeks to replace them with ever-changing social labels. Real progress requires us to recognize two things. First, the biology of sex. Second, the fiat complexities of “gender.” We must do this without losing reason or clarity. Nevertheless, today, acknowledging heterosexuality’s role in procreation sparks “hate crime” accusations.

Of course, we must advocate for fair treatment of transgender, intersex, and gender-nonconforming people. They are victims of a multi-headed hydra monster.3 Others suffer from traumatic injuries to their private parts from accidents, and they all need care and compassion.

III. A brief history of gender

Men and women have existed as categories for a very long time, but modern conceptualizations of gender—in terms of roles and the division of labor—have not existed for very long at all. Early human societies were much more egalitarian and, where there was a division of labor, the different roles were not seen hierarchically until the invention of private property.[1] This innovation drove men to wage labor and created the incentive to modify familial relations and law to ensure property could be passed to future generations. It was not until industrialization that cleaning and other activities now known as chores began to be associated with women. In pre-industrial America, women seldom cleaned and instead focused on creating items for the household such as candles, soap, and stockings.[2] During industrialization, production of these items was formalized and commodified, driving women to adopt different unpaid labor as they were still largely shut out of the wage labor system. Today, we can understand gender as a class system dividing and assigning reproductive labor, including sex, birth, childcare, and homemaking, which helps to reproduce life.[3] In this system, men are the dominating class who benefit from the labor of others with minimal participation themselves.

Throughout the evolution of this system, the roles and performances associated with each gender have been enforced through sexual[4] and structural forms of violence.[5], [6] Colonialism and imperialism are the forms through which European notions of gender, marriage, and patriarchy ossified and spread throughout the globe.[7] This proselytization both severely limited gender variance worldwide and caused the European system to become more inflexible (in order to resist the influence of outside variation it encountered during colonization).[8] Due to the aforementioned incorporation of law into gender relations, enforcing gender relations gradually became an important function of the state.[9] Today, the combination of sociocultural and legal criminalization of gender non-conformity and the increased presence of legal structures in the lives of marginalized populations has resulted in transgender and GNC people experiencing massively disproportionate rates of arrest, imprisonment, and violence.[10] In modern society, gender is not only a psychic phenomena, but one that is reproduced through labor inequalities, law, and violence. To abolish this system requires these methods of reproduction be interrupted.

This text mixes historical revisionism, a twisted view of gender roles, and an oversimplified view of human dynamics. It relies on unproven claims about early societies and jumps to broad conclusions about gender, labor, and law. More importantly, the phrase “legal criminalization of gender non-conformity” is a frightening reality (please see the Parting Shot of this essay).

First, it is debatable that early human societies were “much more egalitarian.” Early societies had different gender roles, but the evidence does not show they were equal or non-hierarchical. Anthropological evidence shows a variety of social structures in early human groups. Many had distinct gender roles before private property existed. Blaming private property for gender inequality oversimplifies human society. It ignores the complex, varied development of gender roles across cultures and eras.

Second, the belief that only industrialization made chores women’s work ignores gender roles. That includes long-established domestic duties. Then there is the absurd claim that women “seldom cleaned” in preindustrial America and instead made households. That is a strange distortion of history. Indeed, women often made goods like candles and soap. But, in most preindustrial societies, their primary roles were cooking, cleaning, and caring for children. This attempt to re-frame history to fit a narrative of labor division as a modern invention deserves the trash can.

Also, the claim that men are the “dominating class” is an oversimplification. It suggests they enjoy others’ labor with little effort. Gender roles are complex. Some patriarchal systems have existed and still exist. Some may perpetuate inequality. Even so, men have played vital roles in providing for and protecting families. That is especially true in premodern societies. There, survival often depended on labor-intensive work that both men and women did. Saying men have gained from women’s labor with little effort ignores the realities. That is the complex inter-dependencies that shaped gender roles.

The claim that colonialism “ossified” Europe is a Marxist construct. This dystopian ploy ignores the rich diversity of gender in non-European cultures. They existed and still exist. Colonialism imposed some norms, but it did not erase all preexisting gender identities or practices. So, that’s the point: it enforced what society already knew: gender is male and female down to the chromosomes. Of course, some societies outside of Europe had their atypical gender role systems. For example, some included roles for people outside the male-female system. But to pigeonhole that into the erasure of the dreaded binary (Marxist mind meld) is nothing more than mental masturbation. The hidden-in-plain-sight tactic: decouple gender and sex. Few realize the ploy, and many fall victim to its Marxist mental virus.

Blaming labor, laws, and violence for modern gender inequality is an oversimplification. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people face difficulties. This essay’s solution to “abolish” gender is not the answer. Instead, reforms that address specific inequalities would be more effective. They should create opportunities for all, regardless of gender identity. Dismantling an entire system of human identity would not work.

I challenge the author to write a paper on the plight of women trapped in a nation where female circumcision is mandatory. He never mentioned it in his goofy parchment paper. We know what religion this entails, but does Morgan Pratt? Not at all, like the silence of the Goofy Gray Lady about the bad treatment of women by this group of people.

The author uses historical errors and sweeping generalizations to present a distorted, dystopian view of gender relations. Gender inequality can be an issue but is more complex than the caricature presented. Real solutions need practical reforms, not the abolition of fundamental human constructs.

IV. Criteria

Just as there is ambiguity in the term “gender,” so too is there ambiguity in the goal of gender abolition, especially in terms of government policy. Could the government just stop recording gender on official documents and law to abolish gender overnight? While this may remove some barriers, especially for transgender and GNC people, this strategy can also be harmful. Instead of eliminating bias, not disaggregating data based on gender more profoundly affects systems by obscuring the harm they do to oppressed groups.[11] Further, this strategy does nothing to address the material conditions and systems that reproduce gender. In other words, a genderless society is not one that is gender-blind, but rather one that has identified and eliminated the barriers to an equal society.

Because our relationship to gender is so deeply rooted in many important structures, including our own bodies, it may help to use an analogy as a goal. An ideal genderless society may treat sex the same way it treats other medical categories: decoupled from social constructions and labor divisions. One example is blood type. In America, most people are aware of what blood type they have and no one denies that it has important—at times life-threatening—medical implications, but we do not prescribe any behaviors or labor onto people of different blood types, much less enforce them with violence. A similar arrangement could be possible for a genderless society.

Finally, in dealing with gender and society, one must also contend with sexuality reproduction. It may be immediately unclear how sexuality would function in a society without gender, but one could look towards LGBTQ+ spaces for examples of sexuality decoupled from heterogenous gender roles, genitalia, and gender. This still leaves the topic of pregnancy and the division of reproductive labor. Transhumanism, the idea of overcoming biological limitations with sophisticated technology, envisions a world where medical technology advances to achieve universal fertilization and for fetuses to develop outside of wombs, completely decoupling gender and reproductive labor. Modern fertility technology already allows for some decoupling, but gendered reproductive labor divisions and biological limitations remain significant.[12] While it is certainly easier to visualize an equitable distribution of reproductive labor with advanced technology, it is by no means necessary. What is important is that society values the work that goes into pregnancy and provides just support and compensation.

While a hallucination at worst or imaginative at best, this text has copious speculative thinking and inane idealism. Once again, it disregards the realities of human biology, society, and even basic logic. Let’s break down this crummy collective mind meld.

The belief that removing gender markers from official documents could create a genderless society or a fairer one is flawed. It is akin to a juvenile joke about sexuality. Removing gender from documents wouldn’t magically erase gender from people’s minds or society. The fear that biological sex oppresses groups by “obscuring the harm” is akin to biological sex-gender phobia (BSGP) or hetero-phobia. The reality only strengthens the case for recognizing biological gender. We need to identify and address inequality, but ignoring gender in policy obscures the very inequalities it claims to want to solve.

Knowing a person’s biological sex is critical for medical care. It affects health in many ways. It influences disease risk, medication processing, and the best treatments. Biological differences can affect how diseases present and progress in males and females. These include hormone levels, organ systems, and genetics. Conditions affected include cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and some cancers. Also, medical interventions depend on a patient’s biological sex. That includes drug dosage, reproductive health care, and tests for sex-specific diseases. It also addresses prostate cancer in men and breast and ovarian cancer in women. Understanding these differences ensures that medical care links to biological reality. That leads to more accurate diagnoses, treatments, and better patient outcomes. Knowing biological reality saves lives, but what else can we expect from the culture of death?

Furthermore, the analogy comparing gender to blood type is simplistic and misleading. Blood type is a medical fact without social or cultural significance beyond medical treatment. Gender encompasses a broader social, psychological, and cultural spectrum. “Gender” can be a complex social(ist) construct. Nevertheless, blood type is a biological trait. Biological reality affects many aspects of identity and interaction. It affects how people interact and how they get medically treated. Reducing the biological reality to a gender fad oversimplifies its role in society. It is a call to “decouple” it from behavior.

The idea of a “gender-less society” is a foolish fantasy. It ignores deep-rooted biological and cultural realities that shape gender roles. While it’s true that societal expectations have shaped many gender roles, it ties to biological realities. Pregnancy, childbirth, and nursing have physical demands. They are tied to the female body, not to arbitrary social expectations. To say anything else is nothing more than an LSD- like a dream. These biological functions cannot simply be “abolished” through policy or technological intervention. This notion of a “gender-less society” is juvenile science fiction disguised as a university-level research paper. Perhaps the author got inspiration from the Star Trek Next Generation Episode The Outcast.

Also, the claim that sexuality could work in a society without gender misses the point. It assumes that LGBTQ+ spaces “decouple” it from heteronormative gender roles. Some simple-minded spaces embrace a fluid view of these concepts. Erasing gender could complicate, not simplify, how people navigate sexuality and relationships.

The last point is that transhumanism could lead to a society where reproduction is separate from gender and biology. That is science fiction, and it is doubly dystopian, like Logan’s Run. Technology has improved fertility and assisted reproduction. But it’s speculative to think we could completely overcome human biology. It is machine-like “thinking” for fetuses to develop outside the womb. Also, even if a future like that were possible, it wouldn’t address the broader issues. The same “trust the science” power and money-hungry group that gave us mRNA-killing technology envisions it. It is about the effects on families, relationships, and parenting in a dystopian world. Decoupling reproductive labor from gender doesn’t solve more profound inequalities. It also ignores the complex emotions and social aspects of parenthood, childbirth, and human connection.

The author’s vision of a genderless society is “creative.” But it fails to address the complex biological, psychological, and social aspects of gender. It is a Frankestrin-like nightmare. We should not abolish gender. Instead, we should allow people to express their identities without fear of discrimination. We must also address the realities of natural gender differences. This balanced approach is far more grounded and achievable than the utopian ideal of erasing gender. How about erasing fiat genders other than male and female?

V. Policy steps

Though it is impossible to completely eradicate the influence of gender on society through policy action alone, because the state mediates the experience of gender and because policy materially reinforces this system, policy changes are necessary for gender abolition.[13] The following is an incomplete list of policies that would greatly reduce the importance of gender (as well as other forms of oppression) in our lives. Of course, these policies are not truly separate and effective implementation would require designing each policy with the others in mind.

This itchy introduction proposes that gender, a fundamental aspect of human identity and society, can be abolished through interconnected policy changes. It overlooks the deep-rooted biological, psychological, and cultural complexities of gender, assuming that government intervention can dismantle intrinsic human characteristics. The suggestion that eliminating gender through policy will also reduce other forms of oppression is overly simplistic and detached from reality. This romantic vision ignores the fact that biological sex is a permanent feature of human life that cannot be legislated away.

a. Universal healthcare

Reforming the medical system is necessary not only because marginalized genders and sexualities have remarkably worse health outcomes[14] and greater unmet gender-affirming medical needs, but also because the medical system itself is used by the state to further oppression and ossify gender norms.[15] Though not a panacea, universal health care, including mental health care and coverage for reproductive and gender-affirming procedures, would undermine the material basis for gender by equalizing and improving health outcomes.

Investigating existing health disparities shows why this is the case. Marginalized genders and sexualities have poor health outcomes not only due to discrimination both within[16] and outside the medical system, but also due to how health care is provisioned in the United States. Because health care coverage is predominantly tied to employment,[17] other structural barriers such as poverty, criminalization, and education also manifest as lack of health care.[18] Providing health care universally eliminates this disparity. Additionally, because most US health care is for-profit,[19] switching to a universal, public system would reduce incentives to promote unnecessary or dangerous treatments to marginalized groups.

Universal health care does not eliminate disparities based upon discrimination, but it does offer some relief. Notably, gender-affirming procedures such as hormone therapy or breast reconstruction surgery are often provided to cisgender people as part of insurance plans (during menopause or after an accident, for example), but considered elective or medically unnecessary for transgender and GNC people with the same aims.[20] Likewise, intersex people are frequently forced to have surgery at birth to conform to binary conceptualizations of sex.[21] Through these practices, the medical field economically and anatomically reproduces and enforces gender and sex norms. A robust, universal system of health care coverage is necessary to prevent this.

Without universal health care coverage, the effects of gender will persist in disparate health outcomes for people with marginalized genders and sexualities.

This silly set of sentences contains flawed assumptions and oversimplifications. In an ideal world, universal health care might address some inequalities. It could be a worthy goal (if the medical-pharma complex did not exist). But the idea that it would “undermine the material basis for gender” is absurd. Health care, in any form, isn’t responsible for gender norms. They are rooted in profound biological, psychological, and cultural realities. Gender identity and the roles associated with it are far more complex than the administration of health care. Even so, universal health care, as demonstrated by countries such as Cuba and Canada, is an utter failure.

The claim that the medical system upholds gender norms ignores its actual role. Medicine exists to heal and improve health, not to enforce society. To improve the health of marginalized groups, we must fight discrimination and promote equal care. Framing gender as an oppressive construct will not help. Universal health care cannot dismantle it.

Universal access to health care won’t erase deep gender and sex biases. The idea that universal health care will disrupt gender norms is an overreach. It undermines the goal of providing health care for all.

b. abolition

Starting when heterosexual, monogamous marriages became the foundation of the capitalist reproductive unit, the state has used law to criminalize sexuality and gender expression that does not conform to this description.[22] The effects of this are felt today, where transgender and GNC people, especially those who are Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC), are overrepresented in the criminal punishment system.[23] In addition to imprisonment or deportation, contact with this system can have long-lasting material effects through stigmatization; lack of access to jobs, education and loans; disease and injury; and death.[24] Policing also has a profound oppressive effect through violently enforcing universal conformity to gender norms.[25] Though this especially affects transgender and GNC people, the cultural effect of these hundreds of years of oppression affects how everyone behaves and interacts with others.[26]

Reforming this system is not an option because reform usually means a greater presence of the criminal punishment system into people’s lives, increasing the contact and, subsequently, the criminalization of transgender and GNC people,[27] and because, historically, reforms have been ineffective.[28] To resist criminalization’s material reproduction of gender, we must remove existing structures and redesign the system in accordance with abolitionist principles.

Though a deep review of abolitionist literature is beyond the scope of this article, its main tenets are to meet community needs to address the social determinants of crime, demilitarize the various institutions that fuel punishment, and shift to a restorative and rehabilitative model of justice.[29] This approach understands that the safest areas are not those with the most prisons or police but the opposite, and that lack of access to resources is a primary driver of crime.[30] Here, community needs include access to housing, health care, and dignified employment, which are discussed in depth elsewhere in this section. Some institutions to reform or eliminate include education, surveillance, immigration, and government benefits.[31] Finally, a restorative and rehabilitative model of justice not only centers victims in the process of justice, but also acknowledges that activities like sex work and drug use must be removed from the criminal sphere entirely. From there, one must undermine the institutional and ideological supports for today’s criminalization, including those that cause us to police gender norms.[32]

Without abolishing the prison industrial complex and rebuilding it with abolitionist principles, society will continue to reproduce gender divisions through criminalization, mass incarceration, death, and lack of access to loans, education, and jobs.

This simple-minded belief that we must “abolish the prison industrial complex” to end gender norms is an exercise in overreach. It’s a huge stretch to claim that the criminal justice system’s primary role is to enforce gender conformity and oppressive gender norms. Criminal justice exists to address law violations and ensure public safety. It should not uphold specific gender roles.

The argument becomes a fantasy when it claims that ending prisons will end gender divisions. Crime links to poverty, lack of education, and economic opportunity—not gender. Instead of seeking abolition, we should reform the justice system. It should improve policing, combat discrimination, and ensure access to jobs and education. Equating the flaws in the justice system with gender-based oppression misdiagnoses the problem. A broad-strokes abolitionist approach ignores society’s need for accountability.

Also, the idea that ending prisons would erase gender norms is impractical and unrealistic. Promoting equality and reducing bias is essential. We can achieve this through reforms, education, and better resource access. Destroying critical societal structures for utopian ideals ignores crime and justice. This argument ignores the complexities of the criminal justice system and gender in society.

Transgender women (a fiat woman with the body of a man) in women’s prisons raise safety concerns for female inmates. Biological males, regardless of their “gender identity,” including those with missing parts, have physical advantages. They are generally more substantial. That creates a higher risk of violence, sexual assault, and intimidation in prisons. Many women in prisons are vulnerable. They often have histories of trauma and abuse. The presence of male-bodied individuals can exacerbate this. Additionally, the close quarters and lack of privacy inherent in prison life could heighten the potential for harm.

c. UBI and the care economy

Among the most pernicious economic forces that reproduce material divisions by gender are unpaid and exploitative labor. In addition to receiving higher wages in every country on Earth, men also do less to reproduce their household’s labor (i.e. chores, cooking, childcare). Some estimates say the average American woman does the equivalent of $40,000 worth of unpaid labor each year.[33] These disparities are exacerbated for BIPOC women.[34]Additionally, people of marginalized genders and sexualities are more likely to experience exploitative labor relations,[35], [36] and many do not have the economic security to leave these situations. These structures effectively channel money to cisgender (especially white) men at the expense of everyone else. Policies like universal basic income, monetizing the care economy by paying people who care for dependents, and a jobs guarantee are necessary to interrupt these processes. These policies not only enact justice through funneling more resources towards marginalized groups and compensating them for the work they already do, but also reduce their dependence on exploitative structures—including domestic ones.

Without these policies, gender will continue to be reborn through the unequal distribution of wealth and income as well as the dependence on exploitative structures favoring the privileged class.

This mind-mush suggests that the crummy collectivist notion of universal basic income (UBI) and monetizing the care economy would fix gender inequality. They would disrupt “exploitative” labor relations. It is a biased view. It frames cisgender [detestable word] men, mainly white men, as the primary beneficiaries of an oppressive economic system. This view reduces complex socioeconomic issues to a racist blame game. It paints all cisgender [detestable word] people as oppressors. Quite prejudiced.

Should value unpaid work, like caregiving and household tasks. But do we compensate volunteers at a soup kitchen? Yet, UBI won’t effectively address these issues. It might scratch a Marxist itch, but it won’t change deep-seated societal expectations or create “equity.” In Orwell’s Animal Farm, all animals were free, but some were freer than others.

This wild exercise in language implies that “cisgender” [detestable word] men benefit most from economic systems. It, by default, criminalizes them. It ignores their diverse experiences and circumstances. Not every “cisgender” [detestable word] man benefits from the current monetary system. So, reducing the argument to a gender war is misleading. True equality will come from policies that promote fairness in all areas—gender, race, and class. It will not come from a narrow focus on redistributing wealth by gender.

Labeling one group as oppressed and pushing for simple solutions will not create a just society. It makes it worse.

d. housing

As with other material aspects of society, those who conform to gender norms have greater control over housing. This results in a greater dependence on men within traditional family structures and higher housing insecurity for those who do not conform to gender norms.[37] Not only does the state criminalize—and thus violently enforce gender norms upon[38]—people experiencing homelessness,[39] having a criminal record is also used to deny access to housing in a vicious cycle.[40] In order to break this cycle, there must be a system in place that guarantees housing for all with no exceptions. This could be done through some combination of effective expansion of public housing,[41] increasing regulations on or seizing vacant properties,[42] implementing rent controls,[43] reforming zoning laws,[44] and emphasizing affordability in new developments.[45]

Universal access to housing would help to deemphasize gender in a number of ways. First, because society normalizes dependence on men for housing, it would lessen the control sexist, homophobic, or abusive patriarchs have over their dependents’ housing as they would always have an alternative. Next, it would reduce or eliminate homelessness, both a cause and a consequence of violent gender enforcement by the state. Finally, with universal housing, the state would have one fewer method of weaponizing gender norms through criminality.

Without these reforms, gender would continue to play an important role in people’s lives through maintaining the dominance and control men have over people’s material conditions and regulating people’s access to housing based on conformity to gender norms.

Some people believe that universal housing will reduce the impact of gender norms on housing security, but this belief is flawed. It rests on several false assumptions. Housing insecurity is a serious issue, especially for the vulnerable. But this proposal wrongly blames gender for housing inequities. It oversimplifies the complex factors that contribute to homelessness and housing discrimination.

First, housing insecurity is not predominantly a gender-based issue. It stems from many factors: poverty, unemployment, high housing costs, and unequal resource access. Marginalized groups, including non-conforming genders, face extra barriers. Blaming “patriarchal control” over housing overlooks a more significant issue. Housing affordability and access affect people of all genders. Linking housing issues with gender norms ignores the reality of housing insecurity. It affects millions, including cisgender [detestable word] men, who face poverty and homelessness.

The claim that universal housing would weaken “patriarchal” control assumes that men cause housing insecurity. This view of family dynamics is overly simplistic. Many households, regardless of gender or family structure, face financial struggles. These issues stem more from economic conditions than from “sexist or abusive patriarchs.” We should not frame men as inherently oppressive.

Finally, reforms like expanding public housing or rent controls may help with housing insecurity. Yet, they do not have a natural connection to gender issues. These policies can benefit people from all walks of life without relying on gender as the central focus. Focusing on gender in housing reform distracts from a critical issue. We must address housing affordability for all, regardless of gender.

The argument conflates gender with broader social and economic factors driving housing insecurity. To fix housing inequities, we must ensure affordable housing for all. We should also fight discrimination, including gender bias. That would be a more effective, genuinely fair approach. Policymakers need not make gender the central axis of reforming housing policy.

e. Bureaucratic reforms

What should be the last stage of the policy action to reduce the influence of gender is reforming or eliminating policies and practices that require the disclosure of gender. Examples include drivers licenses, benefits applications, and marriage. This comes from the understanding that measuring and using gender as a requirement to access government services can result in both the stratification of services based upon gender and the exclusion of people from services whose gender does not match societal norms. Specifically, many transgender people find a patchwork of different policies both between and within states on how to change their gender as officially measured by the state. Any discrepancy in their gender between documents or agencies can result in denial of services or harassment.[46] Likewise, though no longer the official practice of the state, jobs with more women tend to have lower wages[47] and services used by fewer men tend to face gendered attacks in the media and then through political action, leading to their degradation.[48]

Thus, the measurement and administration of gender by the state and other bodies causes and enables harm. Ending this is necessary to end gender. However, as is the thesis of this work, doing so before extensive policy action and a successful social movement have interrupted the material reproduction of gender would instead make this process of continuous inequality harder to measure. Therefore, ending the bureaucratic measurement and administration of gender is necessary, but must be the last stage in a society-wide transformation.

Without ending the measurement and administration of gender, it will continue to be reborn through bureaucratic discrimination and the unequal provision of resources to sectors or services with proportionate more people of marginalized genders and sexualities.

This absurd case for reforms to end gender measurement in government processes rests on several asinine assumptions.

First, the removal of records of sex does not end discrimination. For the vast majority, the category of biological gender is an essential feature of their personality. Such a mechanism may now be in the way of transgender and non-binary individuals. How could removing categories make everyone equal? It will erase the specific problems that these groups face. It does not consider special needs for services or protection of “gender identity.” Instead, it should work on improving such existing systems. Focus on biological gender and treat gender dysphoria. Moreover, we must not remove the biological gender category, as it is a critical element of life-saving health care.

The argument views the measurement of gender as causing inequality and hurting people. Yet, policies carried out on such measurements translate to discrimination against people. Rather than listing and focusing on the fiat gender categories, reformists would help by being genuinely inclusive of all.

VI. Conclusion

Though the implementation of these policies will make enormous strides in reducing the material consequences of gender, and although policy action is necessary to abolish gender, policy action alone is insufficient. To truly eliminate the influence of one of the most pervasive psychic phenomena from our society would require a popular mass movement mobilizing and educating large swaths of society. Further, this social movement could not focus on gender alone if it hopes to be successful. The disparities caused by gender are part of the capitalist superstructure, meaning they are inextricably linked to ableism, neuronormativity, and racism. This is reflected in the fact that many of the above policy recommendations also disproportionately benefit those affected by racism, neuronormativity, and ableism. However, as with gender, these policies are not enough to solve these issues alone.

Like those of marginalized gender and sexualities, those with disabilities and/or neurodivergencies are more likely to be poor, homeless, and marginalized by a variety of institutions affected by the above policy recommendations. However, many of the spaces built by and for people of marginalized genders and sexualities are not friendly to those of different abilities.[49] Given the fact that people of marginalized genders and sexualities are more likely to have a disability,[50] and that neurodivergent people are more likely to reject gender norms,[51] a special attention to ability and neurodiversity is necessary in the implementation of the above policies and accompanying social movement.

The same must be done for race. Intersectionality teaches us that women and GNC people of color experience unique oppression not captured when maleness or whiteness is seen as the default.[52] Thus, eliminating oppression based on gender requires paying attention to these unique intersections. Likewise, some antiracists contend that racial liberation can only come with the abolition of gender.[53], [54] That being said, gender-inclusive spaces often reproduce racial inequalities, especially assimilationist LGBTQ+ groups solely focused on bureaucratic reforms.[55] Because of the intergenerational conceptualization of race and unique history of oppression at the intersection of race and gender, successful gender abolitionist policy and a successful social movement to support it must be anti-racist.

Missing from this discussion have been the downsides to gender abolition. The binary, patriarchal gender system in place today has established deep roots in culture, religion, and people’s understanding of themselves. The truth is that, today, this system is something many people are not willing to give up. And sometimes for a good reason: some gendered divisions today exist to mitigate abuse from cisgender men. Further, a movement to abolish gender should not force people to divorce themselves from harmless gender expressions they enjoy, even if those are the present gender binary; policing androgyny would hardly be better than policing patriarchy. Any social movement or policy implementation scheme must carefully contend with these realities to be successful and responsible.

In summary, the road to gender abolition is complex and all-encompassing. It would affect nearly every aspect of society and every individual. That being said, there is a place to start. By implementing universal health care, abolishing the prison industrial complex, establishing universal basics and a care economy, guaranteeing housing as a right, and modifying our bureaucracies, we can severely limit the material consequences of gender. People of all genders would then have much more equal lives—free to dress, act and love without the fear of massive material consequences and structural violence that exists today. A world without gender is then ours for the making.

The crummy collectivist argument for abolishing gender ignores critical aspects of identity. It also ignores the risks of removing gender as a social construct. Fixing the harms of strict gender norms is crucial. Yet, the claim that abolishing gender will create a dystopia ignores the complexities of gender identity. It has a profound impact on people’s lives.

For the sake of humanity, we must recognize that only two genders exist. This is fundamental to biology and society. The biological gender system has given individuals a sense of identity and belonging. For the cogent-minded, gender roles of male and female are a basis for social interactions, culture, and identity. Abolishing gender may marginalize those who find comfort in biological reality.

Also, deep roots in culture and religion pose a significant barrier to the proposed abolition. Disrupting these aspects of life will confuse and anger those not absorbed by the gender diaspora machine.

The author also suggests that removing gender distinctions could reduce abuse by cisgender [detestable word] men. Yet, this line of reasoning fails to recognize that the issue of abuse and violence is more complex than mere gender roles. Gender-based violence comes from power dynamics, cultural norms, and inequalities. Abolishing gender will not resolve these issues. Instead, addressing the underlying causes of violence should take precedence.

The conclusion also raises concerns about “intersectionality” and collectivism. It questions the unique experiences of marginalized groups. Still, it needs to provide a coherent strategy for navigating these complexities. Eliminating gender to create equality is a flawed idea. Not all gender expressions are harmful or oppressive.

In summary, the wish to end gender’s material effects is quixotic. The conclusion oversimplifies a complex issue. A more nuanced approach would recognize the value of gender as man and woman as part of individual identity and social structure. Instead of abolishing gender, society should create an inclusive environment. It should let everyone thrive without fear of violence, like going to jail for questioning “Q+.” It is high time to eighty-six the anti-human agenda called transhumanism and embrace the beauty of natural law and biology.

Fred Smith’s Conclusion

Morgan Pratt’s How to Abolish Gender is a prime example of Pavlovian progressive “thinking.” It shows the troubling shift in modern, dumbed-down discourse. Pursuing social justice and equality would be laudable in a sane society. However, this essay’s extreme stance—dismantling the idea of gender—shows society’s decline. We now see arguments for abolishing critical aspects of human identity. They focus on issues, not on realistic, constructive solutions. This radical, provocative approach ignores the complex biology and culture. Instead, the author opts for a rancid romantic vision that would, in practice, create more harm than good.

It is bewildering, though not surprising that Harvard would consider such preposterous ideas. A once-great center for debate now embraces fringe theories. It values ideological purity over practical wisdom. Including works like Pratt’s in its annals of thought reflects a shift in academia. There, pursuing progressive credentials overshadows the need for fact-based discussion. Pratt’s essay, rich in itchy progressive ideals, is a stark reminder. Higher “education” now promotes ideas once deemed impractical and unrealistic.

Consider the fact that gender pushers use every form of persuasion to transform children. Yet they are the very ones who shutter at conversation therapy to help the victims embrace their biological reality. In our words, it is good to erase biological sex with coercive and subversive tactics and bad to embrace it. The epitome of hypocrisy.

The subject paper is a hellish heterophobic construct akin to an amalgamation of misinformation, disinformation, and misinformation.4 Furthermore, transhumanism is dystopian indeed, and the leaders of this Satanic program can all go pound sand.

Parting Shot

But wait, there is more to consider. In August 2022, Enoch Burke, a history and German teacher, was suspended from Ireland’s Wilson’s Hospital School in County Westmeath after he publicly confronted the then-principal about a transitioning student during a public school event. In September 2024, Burke was sent back to prison in Ireland after he refused to use a student’s preferred pronouns (they/them). Burke has already spent 442 days in jail for opposing transgender ideology. Would Morgan Pratt approve?

Anti-Woke Closing

Look, men and women in clearly defined roles.

Play it often; play it loud. Irriate the Willfully Overlooking Known Evil (WOKE) ecosystem. 📕

Bact to top

I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Tips are appreciated, too. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!

Share

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid

Leave a comment

Share Frederick R. Smith Speaks

Email the Author: Frederick R. Smith

Using puberty blockers and undergoing surgeries have consequences. Castration, mastectomies, or hysterectomies can prevent growth and sterilize people. This makes up a hidden-in-plain-sight form of eugenics. Advocates insist these procedures are “safe,” but they remain experimental and unethical. We must watch what happens to the kids and grandkids to determine their safety. But first, gender ideology exposes young kids to harmful procedures. In other words, experimentation of children. This is problematic because there is no clear therapeutic purpose. It aligns with ideas shaped by long-standing messages about birth control and abortion. Despite what the eugenicists say, fertility is not a disorder but a fundamental human good. But we know the Pavlovian environmental mindset cannot comprehend natural goodness. Thus, we see the decoupling of sexuality from procreation to reduce the population.

Frederick R Smith: The “Ethics” of Child Gender Reassignment.

Words 2,305 | Read Time 11 min | Enjoy

Opening Salvo

Wonderful bumper sticker:

Foreword

Huntington Beach Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark is leading a fight for parental rights in response to a new California state law, AB 1955, that allows schools to conceal students’ gender transitions from their parents. On August 6, 2024, Van Der Mark introduced an ordinance to designate Huntington Beach as a “Parents’ Right to Know City,” emphasizing the need for transparency and parental involvement in children’s lives.

Van Der Mark aims to protect parental rights and support those who challenge the law, arguing that the legislation infringes on parents’ constitutional rights to raise their children according to their values. In early September, the City Council of Huntington Beach, California, fought back against the leftist state by voting for the ordinance making the city a “Parents’ Right to Know City,” thus barring schools from keeping parents uninformed about their children’s “sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.”

Despite the challenges, including potential lawsuits from California’s crummy Attorney General, Van Der Mark, a good Democrat, is committed to ensuring Huntington Beach remains a place where parents have a say in their children’s upbringing. The mayor’s efforts reflect a broader concern among parents in the community about the impact of state policies on their families and the importance of maintaining parental authority in education and child-rearing.

Introduction: A Beacon of Hope in Tumultuous Times

In a world torn apart by conflicts and changing cultures, it’s rare to find a spark of hope in a story. Yet recent events in Huntington Beach, California, have managed to inspire just that for me as a writer. Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark’s “Parents’ Right to Know” ordinance sparked interest beyond her Southern California community. A real battle for rights against government secrecy over kids’ gender transitions inspired the story I’m about to share. This tale imagines a future where Huntington Beach’s ordinance spreads nationwide. It leads to the creation of “Family Safety Sanctuaries.” These sanctuaries are havens for families. They want to uphold their values and shield their children from government interference. In these safe spaces, communities thrive. They are self-sufficient and harmonious. They offer a rare, positive glimpse into a troubled, uncertain world.

While the next section of this essay may be fictional, it resonates with the worries and hopes of families nationwide. It envisions a future where values are upheld. Families thrive in nurturing settings. The dream of our forefathers lives on. Enjoy.

A Bright Future: Sanctuary Cities for Parental Rights

In a daring look at a possible bright future, the local initiative in Huntington Beach, California, has become a nationwide movement. It is now the “Family Safety Sanctuaries” program. Inspired by sanctuary cities that sheltered undocumented immigrants, this new wave of sanctuaries protects families. They want to raise their kids free from state-mandated gender pogroms. But this time, the movement took on a new, unexpected twist. It became a haven for undocumented migrant families who share core traditional values.

The movement started in Huntington Beach. Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark introduced a groundbreaking “Parents’ Right to Know” ordinance. This local law informed parents about issues with their children’s gender identity. It pushed back against state laws requiring schools to withhold such information. The idea quickly resonated nationwide. It led to the rapid spread of cogent-based “Family Safety Sanctuaries.”

In these new sanctuaries, local governments passed ordinances. They nullified state laws within their jurisdictions. Schools must provide complete information about a student’s gender identity to their parents. That protects families’ rights to make informed decisions. Local authorities received instructions not to collaborate with state officials on these laws to reinforce the autonomy of the sanctuaries.

As the movement grew, an unexpected alliance emerged. The traditional, undocumented migrant families found a welcome in these sanctuaries. Unlike the modern, promoted dynamics elsewhere, these families valued a strong, united family. This belief strongly aligned with the principles of the Family Safety Sanctuaries. The program helped these communities. They embraced the sanctuaries as safe places to raise their kids, free from government interference. They wanted to instill their natural law values in them. Oh, no hate speech!

Even those called “White Christian Nationalists” by crummy collectivist critics found common ground with this movement. Despite the heated debate on immigration, they backed the program. It aimed to open the borders to undocumented migrant families with high morals. They shared a commitment to traditional family values. A shared belief united this surprising coalition. It was in the old, once-healthy American Dream. It was a vision of family life that mirrored their ancestors’ aspirations.

The impact of the Family Safety Sanctuaries was profound. These zones soon saw a sharp drop in crime. A focus on traditional values and strong families fostered community responsibility and support. New and established families of all faiths, races, and nationalities worked together. They aimed to create safe, nurturing environments for their children. That clear-mined approach led to neighborhoods where crime was a rarity, not a concern. In a positive community that shared cogent-minded beliefs, they thumbed their noses at the progressive mound of crapola. The new cogent affirmation and guiding principles are the love of God, family, and country, in that order. The Stars and Stripes is once again center stage!

Moreover, these sanctuaries quickly became economic engines. The communities embraced much of the Amish way of life. They valued self-sufficiency, craftsmanship, and independence from government intervention. Small businesses thrived as families passed down trades and crafts. Local markets flourished. They sold goods made by skilled artisans. The artisans valued quality over quantity. The focus on community and sustainability created a vibrant, independent local economy. The juvenile notion of cultural appropriation got tossed into the dustbin of history.

As word spread about the success of the Family Safety Sanctuaries, more towns and cities across the nation sought to replicate the model. A response to state legislation had blossomed into a movement. It offered a new path for preserving traditional values in a changing world. These sanctuaries show the power of community and family. They prove the American Dream’s lasting appeal.

Reflection

The above peek into a possible bright future brings us back to the future and the alt-reality of today. Introducing gender identity discussions in public schools has sparked debate. It is a violation of natural law and family integrity. Natural law suggests that rights and morals are inherent and based on biology. It views gender as a fixed trait. From this perspective, teaching fluid or self-defined gender concepts to kids strays from these truths.

Families are the primary educators of values and beliefs. Thus, introducing gender identity in schools is an overreaching fad at best and a Frankenstein-like cult at worst. Parents should guide their children’s moral upbringing. Teaching about gender fluidity without parental consent undermines this role.

Moreover, teaching gender identity early in the child’s development can impose certain beliefs. It presents gender as a choice or spectrum rather than a biological fact. This complexity can confuse young children. It may lead them to question their identity too soon. Early talks on gender can blur the line between truth and belief. That undermines the natural order and family guidance based on personal values.

The remaining cogent-minded people know the entire system is corrupt from the top to the bottom. We have medical “professionals” at the highest level of government advocating this inane ideology, along with teachers working hard to “affirm” children. Houston, we have a problem, a huge pile of crap.

Family Safety Sanctuaries’ story offers hope in today’s complex and overarching contentious world. What began as a local ordinance in Huntington Beach, sparked by Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark’s stand for parental rights, has become a nationwide movement redefining sanctuary in America. These sanctuaries, grounded in traditional values and family unity, have provided a haven for both American families and undocumented migrant families who share a common belief in the importance of the family unit.

As these communities flourished, they fostered social harmony and safety and became beacons of economic independence. By embracing the principles of self-sufficiency, reminiscent of the Amish way of life, these sanctuaries created vibrant local economies that thrived without government intervention. The sharp decline in crime and the rise in community responsibility further underscored the success of this movement.

In a time when many feel disillusioned by the changing cultural landscape, the Family Safety Sanctuaries offer a vision of what could be—a return to the core values that once defined the American Dream. This fictional story, inspired by real events in Huntington Beach, serves as a reminder that even in dark times, there is always the potential for a brighter future, rooted in tradition and strengthened by family bonds.

In summary, many know that the introduction of gender identity talks in schools is a challenge to natural law and family integrity. It raises concerns about schools overstepping their boundaries. It is crucial to reconsider the timing and manner of these discussions to protect parental rights and respect beliefs. That ensures families remain central to a child’s moral development.

Conclusion

The Huntingdon Beach Family Safety Sanctuary illustrates a backlash against putrid progressive ideologies. The pure, unadulterated evil of affirmation is intent on eroding our traditional values and community bonds. Progressivism claims to be the champion of inclusivity and modernity. In reality, it tramples on the rights and values that many Americans hold dear.

The fictional sanctuaries, emphasizing parental rights and family values, give us hope for future success. They remind us that not everyone is eager to embrace the latest progressive trends. If the progressive agenda ignores those who value tradition, it will alienate many. The Family Safety Sanctuaries would not just be a simple refuge. They rebuke the one-size-fits-all approach that fails to match America’s truly diverse values.

In our quest for progress, we must not erase our past. True advancement is about honoring the good, learning from mistakes, and moving forward. It’s time to reevaluate our balance between innovation and tradition. The rise of these sanctuaries could shake up the current narrative and challenge the progressive status quo.

Parting Shot

The crummy champions of immigrant sanctuary cities, who proudly tout their mushy moral high ground in resisting federal immigration laws, would likely be the first to decry the idea of “family sanctuary cities” that protect parental rights against state mandates. These puss-ozing progressive voices insist that local jurisdictions have the moral authority and civic duty to defy federal immigration enforcement. These wide-skull intellectual giants with pea brains argue it’s all about protecting vulnerable communities, maintaining public trust, and preserving local “values.” Yet, when it comes to the idea of family sanctuary cities—where parents could refuse to follow state directives on education, healthcare, or child-rearing—their tasteless tune suddenly changes. The very principles of autonomy, resistance, and protection of community values that they champion so fervently for undocumented immigrants get swiftly discarded.

Instead, rest assured, they’ll paint these family sanctuaries as reckless and dangerous, accusing them of jeopardizing children’s welfare or undermining public policy. It will be everything from “White Christian Nationalism” to xenophobia and everything else in between. In their projecting eyes, defying federal immigration laws is a noble act of civil disobedience, a righteous stand against oppressive laws. But when parents seek to make independent choices about their children, the same puffy progressives are quick to have mental breakdowns. These projectors of crummy collectivism will label cogent-minded parents as right-wing extremists, selfishly disregarding the crummy collective good. The hypocrisy is glaring: it’s perfectly acceptable to ignore federal mandates if they align with their raunchy-rancid worldview. But, a big butt, when it comes to parents resisting state overreach, suddenly, it is an insult to their dippy dystopian societal order.

Ultimately, the message is as clear as a cracked glass eyeball. Resistance and autonomy are only virtues when they serve the perverted progressive ideological agenda. For all their talk of tolerance and freedom, the moment autonomy and cogent thoughts clash with progressive amoral ideals, it becomes not an act of courage but a threat to stamp out. The purified prevented progressive Pavlovian puppets with pea brains can go pound sand.

The putrid progressives hate each of us and our cogent thoughts. Nevertheless, as commanded, we must love the individuals projecting this putrid crapola as our neighbors. But, it is time to samp out and stomp on the evil. The time is now or never to burn a particularly rancid book: the Cultural Marxist Affirmation Perverted Portfolio of Putrid Plans. Get the blow torch to start the grill!

Anti-Woke Closing

Play it often; play it loud. Irriate the Willfully Overlooking Known Evil (WOKE) ecosystem. 📕

I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Tips are appreciated, too. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!

Share

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid

Leave a comment

Share Frederick R. Smith Speaks

Email the Author: Frederick R. Smith

James Bond: You live well, Scaramanga. | Francisco Scaramanga: At a million dollars a contract I can afford to, Mr Bond. You work for peanuts, a hearty well done from her Majesty the Queen and a pittance of a pension. Apart from that we are the same. To us, Mr Bond, we are the best. | James Bond: There’s a useful four letter word, and you’re full of it.
Motion picture: The Man with the Golden Gun

Too long for email? Click here

Words 2,642 | Read Time 12 min | Enjoy

Foreword

“Cultural appropriation” is, by some people, a wannabe hot-button issue, often debated through the lens of whether certain traditions have been respected or distorted. The online opinion piece Heritage Hijacked: 21 Traditions White People Have Adopted dives into this conversation by exploring how various cultural elements have been embraced and redefined in American contexts. That dopey drivel by Hazel Scott from the not-so-well-known “Pulse of Pride - Championing Diversity and Challenging Inequality” site found its way onto my browser home page. Quite a glaring testament to the overpowering influence of the puffy progressive worldview. It’s like tuning into NPR radio, where cultural appropriation is the hot-button issue of every single day, debated with the fervor of whether certain traditions are respected or distorted.

From yoga to sushi and rock ‘n’ roll to tattoos, that putrid progressive piece by Scott uselessly “examines” how these practices, often rooted in rich histories, have been “commercialized and mainstreamed.” While some view these transformations as cultural theft, others see them as a form of global exchange and adaptation. This essay aims to balance the appreciation of cultural origins with an understanding of how traditions evolve and find new life in diverse settings.

The Crummy Article

Step up to DNC’s circus ring of dopey donkeys and that never-ending event’s theme: “The Progressive Mind Meld.” And within that goofy green ecosystem is the dystopian Mysterious mRNA Mind Meld. Thus, my cogent-minded Substack friends, it is time to set the record “straight” [microagresson alert!] concerning the following progressive-inclined talking points contained in Heritage Hijacked: 21 Traditions White People Have Adopted.

Ready to cringe at how much cultural appropriation is masked as American innovation? Here are 21 things white Americans have co-opted, rebranded, and often butchered, ignoring their rich and diverse origins. It’s time to set the record straight.

Cringe? Well, Hazel Scott, we will shortly see that the caucasian cringe that induces your neverending gas pain is a matter of your projection.

1. Yoga

Yoga, which originated in ancient India over 5,000 years ago, has been commercialized in the U.S. It’s a billion-dollar industry often taught without acknowledging its spiritual and cultural roots. No, it’s not just a trendy exercise routine.

The nauseating notion that yoga in the U.S. is a case of cultural appropriation is just plain ignorant of the reality of cultural exchange—and conveniently ignores the fact that Indian spiritual leaders intentionally shared yoga with the world. For over a century, they’ve been spreading this practice far beyond its cultural roots, so the idea that it’s being “stolen” is more than a little absurd. As yoga gained traction in the West, it naturally adapted to local preferences, often emphasizing the physical side of things. But guess what? That doesn’t erase its spiritual and cultural origins—many practitioners still respect and honor those roots. The commercialization of yoga has made it accessible to millions without watering down its essence, and it’s sparked a greater interest in Indian culture and philosophy. Traditional yoga is still alive and well, practiced by people all over the globe, proving that this is a shining example of cultural exchange done right—not some misguided case of appropriation. So, let’s drop the drama and recognize the success story of yoga’s global journey.

On a serious note, knowing about potential dark spiritual concerns associated with yoga is important. Seeking expert guidance is crucial to ensure safe and informed practice, and it is a responsibility that all practitioners should take seriously.

2. Rock ‘n’ Roll

The foundations of Rock ‘n’ Roll lie in African American blues, gospel, and jazz. Legends like Chuck Berry and Little Richard were pioneers, but somehow, Elvis Presley gets all the glory. No, Elvis did not invent Rock ‘n’ Roll.

The mind-numbing claim that Elvis Presley somehow single-handedly invented Rock ‘n’ Roll is a prime example of historical amnesia. Sure, Presley became the face of the genre, but let’s not pretend he pulled it out of thin air. Rock’ n’ Roll was already simmering in the melting pot of African American musical traditions like blues, gospel, and jazz long before he swaggered onto the scene. Elvis was more of a delivery guy who got the Rock ‘n’ Roll package to mainstream America, not the genius who put it together. And let’s get one thing straight: giving Elvis his due for popularizing the genre doesn’t erase the monumental contributions of legends like Chuck Berry and Little Richard, who were laying down the tracks while Elvis was still figuring out his hip swivel.

Their influence is the bedrock of Rock’ n’ Roll, and pretending otherwise is just willful ignorance. That isn’t about diminishing anyone’s role but recognizing the messy, collaborative evolution of the genre. If anything, the fact that Elvis got all the glory says more about the racial dynamics of the time than about who invented what. Thankfully, the real pioneers are finally getting their recognition, so we can stop acting like Elvis was some musical messiah. He was part of a bigger story—one that involved a lot more people and a lot more creativity than he’s often given credit for.

3. Sushi

Sushi is a traditional Japanese cuisine, now Americanized into rolls like the California roll. The intricate history and cultural significance are often overshadowed by Western adaptations. No, it’s not just a cool way to eat raw fish.

This argument flatlines from the start because, yes, Virginia, sushi isn’t just “raw fish.” Yet the American obsession with things like the California roll should be seen as a win for cultural exchange and culinary creativity, not some cultural crime scene. Yes, sushi has deep roots in Japanese culture, but food evolves—deal with it. The global rise of sushi has sparked a broader appreciation for Japanese cuisine, making it more accessible and inviting people to explore the traditional stuff. So, while Americans toss avocado into their rolls, they’re also keeping sushi relevant and thriving, even half a world away from its birthplace. And guess what? The Japanese culinary community isn’t crying foul—they’ve embraced these twists, seeing them as a way to spotlight Japan’s rich food heritage. So, instead of whining about “cultural appropriation,” let’s recognize that the Americanization of sushi is another chapter in the ever-evolving story of food culture. It’s not erasing tradition; it’s expanding the menu.

4. Cinco de Mayo

Cinco de Mayo, originally a Mexican holiday celebrating the victory over French forces, has been turned into a drinking fest in the U.S. Brands like Corona and restaurants like Chili’s have commercialized it, ignoring its historical significance. No, it’s not just an excuse for a party.

Let’s get real: Cinco de Mayo in the U.S. has strayed pretty far from its original purpose of marking Mexico’s victory over French forces. But calling its commercialization “cultural appropriation” is a stretch. We’re seeing how cultural traditions can morph and take on new life in different settings, often boosting awareness and appreciation for the culture they come from. So, Cinco de Mayo might now be more about margaritas and tacos than history. Still, it’s also gotten a lot of people curious about Mexican culture who might not have given it a second thought otherwise. This shift underscores the strong cultural ties between Mexico and the U.S., showing how much people love Mexican food and traditions.

For Mexican Americans, Cinco de Mayo isn’t just an excuse to party but a meaningful symbol of cultural pride and identity. So, rather than crying foul over cultural appropriation, maybe we should see the Americanized Cinco de Mayo for what it is: a cultural exchange that celebrates and respects Mexican heritage. Plus, let’s be honest: Mexican food is so tasty; who wouldn’t want to self-identify as Mexican?

5. Belly Dancing

Belly dancing, with roots in Middle Eastern and North African cultures, has been appropriated as a fitness trend. Stars like Shakira have brought it to the mainstream, often without acknowledging its rich cultural context. No, it’s not just a new workout craze.

The idea that turning belly dancing into a fitness craze amounts to cultural appropriation is about as shallow as it gets. It completely misses the point about how cultural exchange and artistic evolution work. Belly dancing, with its roots in Middle Eastern and North African traditions, has grown into a global art form because it’s beautiful and expressive, not because it was stolen. When an art form crosses cultural boundaries, it doesn’t get “appropriated”—it evolves, taking on new meanings and resonating with different audiences. Look at how artists like Shakira have brought belly dancing into the mainstream. That isn’t theft; it’s cultural appreciation on a grand scale, sparking interest in the dance’s origins and drawing more people into its rich history. And let’s not forget that adapting belly dancing for fitness is about making the art form accessible to everyone, giving people a taste of its benefits while often encouraging them to learn more about its cultural background. So, calling this cultural appropriation ignores how cultural exchange enriches both the original and the adopted cultures.

The worldwide popularity of belly dancing doesn’t dilute its significance—it amplifies it, ensuring that it stays relevant and respected. As for those belly dancing scenes in classic James Bond movies like The Man With The Golden Gun, it must be absolute torture for the cultural appropriation police like Hazel Scott. But for the rest of us, it is just another example of how this dance has captivated audiences worldwide.

6. Dreamcatchers

Dreamcatchers, sacred objects in Native American cultures meant to protect sleepers from bad dreams, are now mass-produced and sold as decorative items. Retailers like Urban Outfitters have turned them into mere fashion accessories. No, it’s not just something to hang on your rearview mirror.

The idea that selling dreamcatchers as decor is some grand act of cultural appropriation is another oversimplified take that misses the bigger picture. Dreamcatchers hold deep spiritual significance in Native American cultures, especially among the Ojibwe, but their popularity across different cultures doesn’t cheapen their value—it amplifies it. People worldwide appreciate dreamcatchers not because they want to steal a culture but because these symbols resonate with something universal. Sure, mainstream adoption can increase awareness and respect for Native American traditions—assuming it’s done right.

Commercializing cultural symbols isn’t inherently evil, especially when it benefits Native American artisans and communities. The real issue is ensuring that when we see dreamcatchers hanging in stores or homes, it is a nod to their true significance, not just as another trendy accessory. So, let’s ditch the hand-wringing over “cultural appropriation” and recognize that embracing these symbols can foster a deeper understanding of Native American heritage. And honestly, selling dreamcatchers is a crime against culture? That’s just a progressive fever dream, completely missing the point of what cultural exchange is really about.

7. Tattoos

Tattoos have deep cultural significance in many indigenous communities worldwide. In the West, they are often adopted as fashion statements, popularized by celebrities like Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus, who rarely acknowledge their historical and spiritual roots. No, it’s not just body art.

It seems like Hazel Scott is bravely venturing into the land of the Bieberites and the Miley-ans, where making fun of their sacred idols might get her a ticket to a social media skirmish. Aiming at secularly worshipped heroes, she’s decided to remind us that tattoos have been more than just decorative Instagram fodder for much longer than the pop star pair has been around. Maybe Justin and Miley are on a secret quest to reconnect with ancient cultural practices—through a new tattoo of a doughnut or an eye that’s both crying and winking simultaneously.

Nevertheless, the idea that tattoos becoming a fashion trend in the West is some cultural appropriation is a classic case of missing the forest for the trees. Yes, tattoos have deep roots and spiritual significance in many Indigenous cultures. Still, their rise as a global art form isn’t about disrespecting those origins but their universal appeal and how they resonate differently across cultures. In the West, tattoos are more about personal expression or aesthetics than about stealing someone else’s culture. This broader acceptance of tattoos shows how cultural practices can evolve and adapt, often leading people to dig deeper into their history. And sure, I might not be a fan of tattoos, especially when they’re a little too in-your-face, but let’s get real: calling this trend “cultural appropriation” misses the point. It’s more about how cultural symbols can transcend their original meanings and be reinterpreted in new contexts, enriching the conversation rather than shutting it down. So, who’s got ink? Colin!

But wait, there is more, a lot more. But you have to go there yourself, as Hazel Scott’s items 8 through 21 aren’t even worth the breath it would take to rebuke them. If you’ve read my responses to the first seven above, you’ve got all the clues you need to “get the drift.” Why waste our time diving into more of the same sludgy slop when the putrid progressive pattern is as clear as day?

Afterword

So, there you have it—21 so-called instances of cultural appropriation that, in reality, are just the inevitable result of cultures mingling and evolving. From yoga’s rise as a global workout trend to the Americanized sushi rolls that probably have more avocado than raw fish, the idea that these transformations are some grand theft is as outdated as a dial-up modem. It’s almost comical how the same putrid Pavlovians who lament “xenophobia” with one breath have the gall to cry “cultural appropriation” with the next. If we’re going to start accusing every cultural adaptation of theft, we’d better brace ourselves for a world where nobody can enjoy anything without a guilt trip. Perhaps it’s time to acknowledge that cultural exchange is a two-way street, and maybe there’s room for a little appreciation without all the putrid-Pavlovian-progressive hand-wringing.

All the above notwithstanding, the putrid, perverted Pavlovian progressive puppets have another arrow in their quiver: microaggressions.

Parting Shot

And speaking of the progressive dream known as “cultural appropriation,” let’s not forget the hypocrisy that brews when self-proclaimed guardians of cultural purity flock to an Irish pub. Nothing screams authenticity like sipping Guinness and devouring shepherd’s pie under shamrock decor while complaining about others “stealing culture.” The irony? They’re knee-deep in “cultural approbation,” reveling in the very act of cultural adaptation they so vehemently decry. A toast, then, to the cultural police in their quest to appropriate a bit of that Gaelic charm without pausing to ponder their putrid projected paradox. Sláinte!

Anti-Woke Closing

Play it often; play it loud. Irriate the Willfully Overlooking Known Evil (WOKE) ecosystem. 📕

Back to top

I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Tips are appreciated, too. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!

Share

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid

Leave a comment

Share Frederick R. Smith Speaks

Email the Author: Frederick R. Smith

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. | And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. | And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. | And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. | Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. | And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Genesis 2:19 - 25 King James Bible

Too long for email? Click here

Words 2,654 | Read Time 13 min | Enjoy

Opening Salvo

A traditional family typically consists of a nuclear family unit, which includes two parents—a mother and a father—and their biological or adopted children. In many traditional contexts, roles within this family structure have a distinctive structure: the father often serves as the primary breadwinner or provider. At the same time, the mother frequently assumes the role of a wonderful homemaker and caregiver. This division of effort reflects a clear line of responsibility, with parents holding sole authority and making significant decisions for the family. At the same time, children respect and follow their parents’ guidance. In some cases, extended family members such as grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins also play integral roles, contributing to child-rearing and household responsibilities. Traditional families adhere to cultural or religious values that beautifully shape their daily lives, including rituals, customs, and moral teachings. Emphasis is placed on stability and continuity and maintaining family traditions and heritage, such as celebrating traditional holidays and following established and healthy routines.

Keep on reading for some serious discussion intertwined with a snarky nature. Enjoy, my cogent-minded friends; you know how to discern the wheat from the shaft. But we know the wide-minded skulls with pea brains will go into meltdown mode, like when Dorthy threw water on the Wicked Witch of the West.

Introduction

The fight for ideas has become more disturbing in our polarized world. Many leftist circles tend to use broad-brush accusations to silence dissent and enforce a shared worldview. This tactic often labels any dissenting view as racist or bigoted. These accusations are misleading. They also harm constructive discourse. They turn complex social issues into simplistic, divisive narratives. This approach has far-reaching effects. It harms those falsely accused and society at large. This essay examines the lousy leftist strategy. It highlights the dangers of their push for common-ist ideological conformity.

The Modern Political and Cultural Landscape

Ideological conflict permeates today’s political and cultural landscape. The most polarizing issues are often at the center of societal debates. Some, especially leftists, engage in goofy and gross gaslighting. That makes it a controversial aspect of this environment. This tactic manipulates a large segment of society. It makes them believe that any dissent from the left’s lousy lice-infected worldview is wrong. Further, they get programmed to believe any deviation from their alt-reality is a racist foundation rooted in pure white supremacy.

Based on the preceding, the leftists use accusations of racism to discredit opponents. It is a broad approach to paint dissenting opinions as a white racist construct. It stifles debate and reduces complex social issues to misleading, simplistic narratives. This concern is more than theory, as I have encountered a harsh truth. A leftist influencer launched a scathing verbal assault on me. In social media, I questioned whether we should acknowledge heterosexuality’s contributions to society.

I based my question on a biological truth. Humanity, as we know it, would not exist without the natural union of man and woman. That is not an ideological stance but a fundamental fact of life. That’s right, I said it, like it or not. Thus, in today’s super-heated, putrid political climate, even basic truths like the simple fact of man and woman can be contentious in our puss-oozing post-modern alt-reality. Quite dogmatic and especially true when cogent-thinking people challenge the prevailing hyper-secular orthodoxy. In some circles, recognizing the role of heterosexuality invites accusations of bigotry. Meanwhile, during this societal mental masturbation, we are told to trust the now crummy science.

The irony is glaring. Those who call out any notes about heterosexuality as bigotry often support many sexual identities made out of secular seamless garments. The resulting mutation of gender lacks the capacity for natural procreation. This contradiction is clear if we note that these ideologues promote a transhumanist, anti-human agenda. It favors artificial, machine-like constructs over the natural processes of human life. Moreover, absent the normal and healthy heterosexual procreating process, the very bone and flesh entities spouting the anti-human mantra would not even exist.

Given the above-disordered non-thinking, a disturbing shift toward transhumanism is underway. It seeks to reshape humanity into an unrecognizable hybrid of a human and machine. It is a profound departure from the natural order. Its supporters claim that these changes are vital for progress. Yet, their vision of the future is more dystopian than utopian. It is a vision of a world where humanity is gone. Cold, mechanical efficiency has replaced it. There is no warmth or spontaneity in this new non-life.

And yet, these same individuals who advocate for such a dehumanizing future are often the loudest voices calling for a return to nature. They decry industrialization and technological progress. They oppose exploiting natural resources. They insist that humanity reconnect with the Earth and live in harmony with nature. This contradiction is as baffling as it is disturbing and juvenile-like “thought” process. How can one advocate for a return to nature and, at the same time, promote a machine-like existence for humanity? These two opposing concepts clash within a shared and inane ideological structureless mind meld.

The hypocrisy is staggering. Calling other people racist for acknowledging the natural order is hyper-dangerous. It pushes humanity toward an unnatural future. They want to erase the distinctions that make us human. Our biology, relationships, and natural connection to nature - toast. They seek to replace these building blocks with a cold, Godless, Satanic, lifeless vision of progress. The putrid-perverted movers and shakers will not be happy until the time comes when those of us minority cogent-thinking people are in the solitary confinement gulag nestled within the same inhuman torture chambers as the J6 political prisoners.

Meanwhile, during the drafting of this essay came some breaking news: Free abortions and vasectomies, 18-foot-tall inflatable IUD called ‘Freeda Womb’ to be erected at DNC in Chicago. Much to the delight of the LGBTQ mob cult, particularly those who look like men but still have their womb (from birth), there is this nifty device:

And, as a DNC big blue bonus for those in the open-minded mob cult who look like women but still have their testicles (from birth), there is the intermediate step of vasectomy:

We must not forget the overarching sacrament of the open-minded mob cult that gets tangled up with lingering male and female parts. That is women’s (can we say that) “healthcare” in the form of “safe” and effective chemical abortion pills. But we know it was a CHEMICAL solution for having fun during the dopey DNC Gala Soirée run-up. Quite the return to nature by the nature worshippers. And, BEEP-BEEP, it is FREE. But the chemical partakers in love with nature need to get with the de-sexualization pogrom. That is to get the relics of male and female parts removed. After all, they now have at their disposal (as mandated by the government) precious medical resources diverted away from the now second-class traditional heterosexual population. Equity is wonderful. Perhaps more should go for the ultimate secular religion virtue signal, the “smoothie” or “nullo” option (to eliminate natural pleasure). In its place, mind-altering drugs are readily available to induce mental masturbation. That unnatural chemical abortifacient is a gateway drug to affirmation.

But wait, there is even more for the degenerate DNC suggestion box. Perhaps the upcoming Kamala love-burning-tire-smell administration can work up 10k grants for each handyman with the word handyman on “their” work truck. The money must go to repaint the vehicle with “handyperson” in 1,000 point size with each letter one of the rainbow colors. Kamala will have extra tax-free bonus money for the “handynullo.” The Nullo specifications will mandate all those letters to be ghost gray color in a “tip of the hat” to UFO occupants. Only Nullos will be exempt from inoculation mandates, as it is about “choice” for them and not you.

The above circus is a direct plus for the environment as it reduces the carbon footprint (people). However, the neo-heterosexuals are immune from this gross carbon gaslighting since they are the preponderance of the population and, thus, the major anti-nature projectors. Yet the nasty neo-heterosexuals who promote the alphabet soup cult pontificate about nature. Maybe the LGBTQ+ (or whatever it is today) cult should fully embrace the neo-heterosexuals. Make it LGBTQN+, yea! However, ”H” will never-ever be allowed to join the exclusive inclusive alphabet club! NEVER. “Pure” heterosexuality is a hate world, a racist dog whistle. Every last one shall face gaslighting into a WHITE racist for simply knowing (no belief necessary) that men have the biological reality of organs that produce sperm and women produce eggs.

The above notwithstanding, even neo-heterosexual and second-class traditional heterosexuals must be fully absorbed into the overarching Malthusian Master Cult (MMC)! Planned Parenthood (PP) stands ready with the DNC BEEP-BEEP its free blue death van to fulfill the needs of every denomination within the MMC. Perhaps PP needs to be renamed Planned People Reduction (PPR). That is good for nature and will make the DNC and MMC partnership (fascism) very happy indeed. Uncle (can we say that?) Sam (can we say that?) has a lot of thin air money to do all this. Keep in mind this alt-money process is the direct cause of inflation. We all pay, one way or the other, for the common-ist good. More equity, so much fun! And you have no say in the matter whatsoever in this dip-stick demented dopey democracy.

Yes, Virginia, there is more, a lot more to this insanity, behold! Queering nuclear weapons: How LGBTQ+ inclusion strengthens security and reshapes disarmament. And get your eye drop bottle ready for this puppy: DNC features ‘gender-neutral prayer room,’ repurposed ‘all-gender’ women's rooms. That prayer room also has Islamic prayer rugs to make it a safe space.

LGBTQ and Transhumanism

In recent years, the LGBTQ community has made significant strides in advocating for recognition (PRIDE) and equity, as well as concocted “rights” beyond what we, the cogent-thinking, have. The rainbow is everywhere, overtaking our flag. The unintended (or intended) consequence may contribute to a larger and more controversial agenda: the push for transhumanism. While LGBTQ rights and transhumanism may seem distinct, underlying connections merit examination.

Transhumanism is a movement that seeks to enhance human capabilities and transcend biological limitations through advanced technology. Proponents envision a future where humans merge with machines, achieving a form of existence beyond our current physical and cognitive constraints. At first glance, this might appear to be a progressive step towards overcoming human limitations. Yet, it is essential to scrutinize the philosophical and practical implications of such a future.

The LGBTQ advocacy movement has, at its core, challenged traditional and, more importantly, the biological reality of gender and sexuality, promoting a more “fluid” understanding. That alone gives us pause with the constant use of the “Trust the Science.” With politics polluting science, we must return to the age-old axiom to question “the science.” But, this same sloppy pre-teen mutilation-promoting “science” tells us that those of us who dare to question body smoothies should face the trash heap for the good of the (de)population pogrom.

With that background, in just the past few years, this unnatural advocacy platform has fully embraced and celebrated the new normal of non-binary. This cult gets euphoric, promoting inane expressions of identity. Meanwhile, this same degenerate mental virus that infected every element of society has effectively lit a match to the engine that brought itself into existence, the reality of heterosexual procreation. Any mention of the truth and beauty of a man and woman in a union gets relegated to a white racist construct or one of many phobias. In this context, LGBTQ activism aligns with the “ideals” of transhumanism, which similarly seeks to redefine and extend human existence. This dystopian worldview, intentionally or unintentionally, also aligns with the undignified Population Control of the Peoples.

Reflection

If society continues on its current path of Dogmatic Secular-Sexual Humanism, we face a bleak future. In a nightmare image, society has embraced artificial reproduction. Procreation is no longer a natural function between man and woman. Humans are no longer born. They get engineered in sterile, high-tech labs. Scientists select and manipulate genetic traits to create “perfect” individuals. Sound slightly familiar? That has stripped away the natural diversity that once defined humanity.

In this world, the concept of family has disintegrated. State-run breeding programs have favor over traditional relationships. They rank efficiency over emotional ties. The government controls all reproduction. It chooses the genetic material and raises the children. The state, not the parents, raises them. A homogenized, controlled population serves an authoritarian regime. It sacrifices personal identity and human experience.

This dystopia shows a loss of connection, autonomy, and life. It erases the organic, emotional aspects of procreation. Now, a cold, mechanized society lacks true intimacy and individuality.

Conclusion

The lousy-loony left’s strategy of using accusations of racism to silence dissent is demented, dishonest, disgusting, and dangerous. This approach harms free expression and cogent thinking. It reduces complex issues to simplistic narratives and stifles open dialogue. Their wobbly worldview has countless contradictions. They advocate for a return to nature and a dehumanizing transhumanist future. These flaws reveal their inane and idiotic ideology. As society faces these challenges, we must expose the contradictions. We must preserve the natural order and our humanity. We must work to build a humane future through honest and open discourse.

Parting Shot

And for the lousy leftists, BEEP-BEEP to you, too. Maybe you can throw some of your newly found Kamalaisim “joy” my way. But no thanks; it seems to be right out of the Nazi playbook.

Anti-Woke Closing

Play it often; play it loud. Irriate the Willfully Overlooking Known Evil (WOKE) ecosystem. 📕

Back to top

I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Tips are appreciated, too. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!

Share

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid

Leave a comment

Share Frederick R. Smith Speaks

Email the Author: Frederick R. Smith

Share

Madness Made to Order is a six-part essay by Frederick R. Smith. Published in July 2021, it delved into a range of subjects and controversial issues. Collectively, as a treatise, it serves as both a historical and contemporary account. Its main goal is to explain the reasons for humanity’s swift decline.

The crux of the matter lies in a pervasive “Satan Bug” mental infestation affecting people globally. We hope readers will experience a mental awakening through historical analysis. We also aim to recount significant events. These words draw inspiration from the late, great optimist Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948). It’s called the Gandhi Antidote. It advocates for imperceptible and peaceful means in a communal setting. The goal is to harness strength in numbers. Ultimately, it puts an end to the pervasive “Satan Bug.”

Given the unfolding events following July 2021 and the humbling influx of many new subscribers, your author is motivated to repost Madness Made to Order in a book-like format. Furthermore, this post now doubles as the Table of Contents via a virtual tour of a rail transit map.

Welcome aboard the Socialized Holistic Intracity Transit Commission (SHIT-C™) where we navigate the complex landscape of human thought and societal dynamics through six distinct greased rail lines.1 Each line explores a unique facet of the journey, offering passengers an enlightening experience. To go for a joy ride, click on a rainbow line color of choice below. Remember, though, this is a 100% government-funded rail transit operation, and track conditions are deplorable (like MAGA fans). Rolling stock is made by a Chinese Company in the USA with CCP parts assembled by some American workers supervised by the Communists. Derailments and collisions are inevitable. Ride at your own risk.

Table of Contents

Embark on the Mental Blindness Line as we delve into the cognitive disorientation imposed upon ordinary people. Witness the intricate patterns of mental exploitation and made-to-order conflicts, moving beyond the basic explanations of “money and power.”

Travel through time on the Philosophical Lineage Line, a historical review of the “Age of Enlightenment.” Explore the positive outcomes spawned by this intellectual movement, while also uncovering the negatives that converged into the collective nexus of the modern age.

Hop on the March Past Marx and Beyond Line to gain a clear view of Marxism and witness how this collectivist mindset continues its march despite the clamor for “democracy.” Understand the evolution of ideologies that shape the world we live in today.

Join the Dumbocracy Line to discover that democracy, contrary to its initial goals, evolved not to liberate “the people” from slavery or oppression but to fortify the control of free people over the unfree. Uncover the intricate web of power and influence within democratic systems.

Brace yourself for the eye-opening journey on the Rampant Infection Line. Explore the treatise on the menacing presence lurking throughout the organs of society, revealing the unseen threats that permeate the world.

Embark on the final leg of the journey with the Military Madness and Conclusion Line. Despite the anticipated gaslighting treatment, this line exposes the Satan Bug's effects on our troops and the general population—a form of mental torture that demands attention and reflection.

1. For rainbow-only folk, there is no charge to ride SHIT-C™ thanks to money taken from you in the form of taxes and the added value of inflation. It is all about Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DIE) with accessibility. We invite you to explore each line, engage in thoughtful contemplation, and emerge with a broader understanding of the intricate tapestry of the human experience. Safe travels!2 📕

I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!

Share

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid

Leave a comment

Share Frederick R. Smith Speaks

Email the Author: Frederick R. Smith

We cannot continue to rely only on our Military to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
Barack Obama

Share

The Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, give us a stunning set of words to counter the vile things occurring in our Nation. It is necessary to show the entire Convention Article to avoid the “out of context” redirection. Your author pleads with all to study the boldface text.

Part III Captivity, Section I Beginning of Captivity, Article 17 Questioning of prisoners

Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information.

If he willfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.

Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner’s surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the finger-prints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand but may in no case be taken away from him.

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means, subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.

The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand.

The mad machine approves the pogrom to have all white folk confess guilt, bend the knee, and “admit” they are racist even if they think they are not. It gets worse. White people (supposedly) have an unconscious bias; according to some, they are not born human (see Part 3, Ashleigh Shackleford). While the indoctrination of our children has occurred for many decades, it has reached a level of treason. As one example, children are told that all police are killers when some of the students have a parent who is an officer. Please see the video “Mom in Carmel, NY fights back.”

Those subjected to this abuse are not prisoners in a declared war (or police action). Therefore, the Neo-Marxist warriors will invoke the canard that their infiltration is not a war and, therefore, not applicable (or ignore it). The undisputed fact is that we are at war, and the enemy is the Satan Bug. It is a violent mental conflict to program the sovereign people of our beloved Nation. This physical and psychological abuse is tantamount to violating the spirit of the Geneva Convention. And in the humble opinion of this author, this should also apply to any white supremacist (or others) that do the same vile things.

The above is a perfect segue to the final part of this multi-part essay, the Military. First, your author would like to pay tribute to his father and father-in-law’s service. Your author’s father served in World War II, and his father-in-law served twice (World War II and Korean War). For a riveting story about your author’s father, please see Frederick R. Smith’s essay, USS Belleau Wood I CV24, March 22, 2021.

The fowling information makes both heroes spin in their graves with profound sorrow. They are lucky not to be here today to see what we have become, but all is not in vain. Your author believes that out of evil comes good.

It would take many scholarly books to detail all the elements coalescing to form our Nation’s current path of destruction. These words are not of pride, callousness, or hate; they are words of passion and love for what our Nation stands for despite her flawed past. Without a doubt, we are beyond the first stages of a Marxist transformation. Please listen to North Korean defector Yeonmi Park, who asks, “Is America Becoming North Korea?”

One item that stands out the most with the culmination of this multi-part essay is the Art of War by Sun Tzu.

As one of the world’s most influential books about military maneuvers, it details the most excellent strategy that delivers victory without fighting by military troops. It is studied in military academies worldwide. Written over two thousand years ago in China, the process contained in this work coincides with the events unfolding today. We are like the ripe fruit of a tree falling to the ground. From The Art of War:

If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put a division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared; appear where you are not expected.

Because of the eroding nature of this strategically implanted civil division in the USA, we are at a point where it is like a self-perpetuating nuclear reaction. Deception of the highest degree. It is with a broken heart that your author reports this Satan Bug corrosion infiltrated our Military. The mainstream programming mad machine tells you that such discussion shall be considered nothing more than McCarthyism. More bubbles-soap.

As detailed in Matthew Lohmeier’s stunning book, Irresistible Revolution (2021), many high-level officers in the Military push the Critical Race (conspiracy) Theory fantasy.

By actively pushing this divisive psychological programming into the minds of the rank-and-file, military leaders unwittingly (or wittingly?) use a tactic in line with the Art of War. By engendering division among the troops, such an act is akin to treason. If African American service members hear that the Nation is nothing but a racist construct, why fight for the Nation? Likewise, why would the other demoralized members want to defend the Constitution? Worse, it baffles your author’s mind how our military leaders think pushing such stuff would foster cohesion within the ranks, especially in battle situations.

Under a typical collectivist social justice mantra, the Military produces a litany of “Diversity and Inclusion” training sessions. It does nothing more than undermine order, discipline, and the desire to defend the Constitution. Under the warped and evil collectivist minds of our Stalinist luminaries, a “bunch of white misogynic men” wrote the Constitution.

In the fall of 2020, whistleblowers came forward to show that the “Diversity and Inclusion” sessions spawning through the Executive Branch of the government are nothing more than a Neo-Marxist Critical Race (conspiracy) Theory slop drop. On September 4, 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) documented stunning facts from the whistleblowers. Specifically, the trainers tell the participants that “virtually all White people contribute to racism,” or where required, they must say they “benefit from racism.” OMB Director Russ Vought directed all agencies to cease using taxpayer money to fund this mind-numbing propaganda. But wait, there is more. In some sessions, with just non-minority in attendance, the participants are “asked” to acknowledge their “privilege” to each other. So, it is just McCarthyism to report these facts? It’s just more of the same old putrid projection. With the now Harris-Biden Administration, readers already know the answer to what happened to that directive (keep on reading).

Like government employees, military members shall stay clear of partisan politics while on duty. Even off duty, there are restrictions. Trump’s behavior aside, the clique of high-level military leaders who openly disrespected President Trump shows our weakness to the world. In a sad display of hypocrisy, there is a case of a conservative service member who rightly faced discipline for going too far with aggressive writing in his social media posts. Meanwhile, many more woke service members openly posted their partisan (and worse) slop drop with little or no repercussions.

For a stunning display of hubris by an Admiral in Congress defending his recommended woke reading list, please view this juicy June 15, 2021 video: Gilday/Kendi HASC Hearing.

If the featured “good” Admiral Gilday’s recommended reading included the Federalist Papers, as well as the Neo-Marxist writer Ibarm X. Kendi’s book” How to be an Anti-Racist, he might have a modicum of respect from your author.

Among other things, Kendi’s book trashes capitalism (and we know what the replacement would be). Kendi stated, “The only remedy to racial discrimination is antiracist discrimination… The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” Think about it: the top military brass recommends that troops read Kendi to address the “complicated” race issue. For an added sweetener, below is a posting by a woke person concerning the video:

Its [sic] just a damn book and the Congressman up there berating the CNO is asinine. See this is how book burning starts. America is headed the way of the Third Reich of WW2. This Congressman is a good example of how America is going to get there. I think this is like McCarthy 2.0 a goddamned shame.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military chief rebukes Republican lawmakers’ concerns on ‘critical race theory’ (June 23, 2021). Feast your eyes:

The top US military official, General Mark Milley, on Wednesday defended the necessity of studying even controversial parts of history, saying accusations by Republican lawmakers that the armed forces are teaching recruits a controversial theory about racism were offensive.

There you have it; our military brass (less) is offended! Get some cookies and milk to make it all better, admiral and general. The CCP and Russians are laughing up a storm. Once again, military brass (less) leaders, how about readings of other “controversial” topics like the Federalist Papers, Democracy in America, or The Wealth of Nations? We get it; these fine positive works are way above the reading ability of your programmed collectivist troops to understand. For sure, the brass-less have not seen this video: Russian Army vs. U.S. Army vs. U.S. Air Force -- Side by Side -- Full Woke. What an embarrassment and humiliation.

The current Secretary of Defense, Lloyd James Austin III, works directly for President Biden. In the aftermath of January 6, Austin hired Bishop Garrison to push diversity in our armed forces.

Mr. Garrison’s overarching duty is to eliminate “extremism” in the ranks. I wonder how a civilian Department of Defense employee pulls that off? As an educated guess, we can undoubtedly predict only one type of “extremism.” According to an official Defense Department memo signed on April 9, 2021, by the Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin himself, Bishop Garrison is now in charge of countering “extremism working groups.” What is that?! In other words, those service members who are not Democrats. No politics in the Military?

The many military ranks openly display contempt for the country they are to defend a breathtaking spectacle. The scant attention (or discipline) these creeps face is even more incredible. The situation that garnered some attention was the shenanigans of 2016 West Point graduate Spence Rapone. On his Twitter account, Rapone posted pro-communist photos. One photo shows him with his left fist up while holding the wheel cap with the words “COMMUNISM WILL WIN.” Rapone posted another photo showing him opening his service uniform to proudly display his bold-red image of Che Guevara to throw salt in the wound. This pro-commie service member says he posted those photos in solidarity with Colin Kaepernick. It turns out that Rapone was discharged from the Army with an “other than honorable” designation. Think about it, unwoke folk; the military brass-less leaders are going full bore to purge members with a view opposite Rapone.

Your author internally debated about sharing or not sharing two recent real-life experiences. Since these two personal observations drive home the dreaded reality about the condition of our Military, the decision is yes.

While often at a place of business that happens to be close to a military recruitment center, your author gets to “see things.” While he does not care how people dress in public, one would expect youngsters attending a recruiting center to present themselves modestly and professionally. Not so. Many recruits are dressed and groomed in a shabby manner. In one striking case, a recruit went into the center and back into the military shuttle with his pants halfway down the rear end. Most readers know about the “look at me” virtue signal (undergarment on display with pants down at the lower part of the buttocks). Your author will not reveal the race or gender(s) of the individual to avoid stereotypes. If you are laughing at Fred, remember this is a twisted form of karma, as the media often does with breathtaking hubris. Nevertheless, your author has seen African Americans, Caucasians, and others projecting this slop-drop virtue signal.

As an interesting historical factoid, the above pants-downs virtue signal is indeed a “signal.” It began as a way for prison inmates to signal that they are “open for business.” Think about it; this wardrobe fits into the prevailing culture.

In a setting away from the recruiting center, there is this encounter with a fellow about to enter a branch of the service. Immediately, his cogent demeanor jumped out, and we had a wonderful hour-long positive and fruitful conversation. Among other things, this fine person said that he watches little T.V. and limits his computer time. The fact that he had a weighty and intelligent book gave me a clue. During our conversation, this recruit openly said that he is “different” and must hide his cogent thoughts while in the Military. I hope he does not sign up for any of those (phantom) “extremism groups.” If so, look out; here comes the Mr. Bishop Garrison hate-patriot purge pogrom.

In just a few weeks after the above encounter, on June 24, 2021, Newsweek reported that the U.S. Military Defends Drag Show at Largest Training Center as ‘Essential to Morale.’ And, of course, there is the announcement that V.A. to offer gender surgery to transgender vets for the first time. Meanwhile, the new Air Force fitness test will feature walking instead of running and modified push-ups to neuter the military further.

Breaking update: there is more. Trans Lt. Colonel suggests inclusion is a matter of national security.

Shocking, but not surprising, the Pentagon engaged a U.K. (got that) company called Moonshot CVE to watch and analyze web searches made from military computers. It is looking for soldier extremism (white supremacy) in the Military based on web searches that query information about BLM. A benign search such as “the truth about black lives matter” is a red flag. Specifically, Moonshot says, “This search suggests that the BLM movement has nefarious motives and is a disinformation narrative perpetrated by White supremacist groups to weaponize anti-BLM sentiment.” So, Fred Smith’s earlier reporting about the factual Marxist underpinnings of BLM is a false premise simply because they want it to be. It was gaslighting to the stars. Of note, Moonshot has ties to the Obama Foundation and George Soros.

Meanwhile, the Biden Administration recently bragged it is in partnership with big tech to flag “misinformation.” While the Bill of Rights prevents the government from thwarting free speech, from using business to do its dirty work crosses the line. Most people (brainwashed, programmed, woke robots) think this is awesome. The mad machine does this to stop “misinformation” about Covid. Remember, when the mad machine projects something, usually, it is nothing more than a cover for something else.

Even with the extensive writing and analysis in the six parts above, your author has an eerie sense of existence, just like the allegory of Plato’s Cave. In the parable, Plato envisions a cave with prisoners chained to look only toward a wall. Behind the prisoners, people hold candles and objects, casting shadows of a programmed fake reality—the original narrative.

Likewise, living in a mixed neighborhood in a broader area of similar makeup, you would think this whole nonsense of Critical Race (conspiracy) Theory, and even the BLM mad machine (yes, Black and other Lives Matter) is a motion picture fantasy presentation. In this subject area, we get along just dandy in professional, casual, and retail settings. My next-door neighbor is African American, and we are happy. But the mad machine says otherwise, and obviously, locations like Minneapolis are indeed a sad reality. Often, it is a weird sense of déjà vu whereby going to bed and sleep seems to place the mind into reality mode while out of bed is a nightmare dream (if looking at the mad machine).

I hope you enjoyed July 4 in the past. In time, Juneteenth will overtake the 4th. In time, signing the Declaration celebrations shall be the equivalent of the Christians practicing their faith in the Catacombs. The mad machine will only tolerate celebrations in backyard picnics. Hopefully, your author is wrong about this.

This six-part essay’s anti-collectivism theme primarily shows how the left wing embraces this nasty system. However, it is just as important to be vigilant for harmful opposing types of cults.

The narrative of this six-part essay shows a common anti-human condition. The progressive-collectivist-leftist nexus lacks one important positive human characteristic — forgiveness. The space created by this void is a repository of hatred, tribalism, victimhood, violence, revenge, propaganda, nihilism, intimidation, lust, paranoia, deceit, dissent, conspiracy theories, moral relativism, spite, suspicion, grudge-holding, and rudeness. In addition, this despotic cauldron includes phobias of tradition, heterosexuality, patriotism, capitalism, and national sovereignty. Some added indisputable facts to consider:

• A for-profit Leviathan health care system replaced personalized care. From the dependency on many questionable modern “medicines” and medical malpractice, the mad machine is on the slippery, goofy road to Soylent Green.

• Abortion. Terms like “women’s health” are code for eliminating babies. During the week of July 25, 2021, the Democrat-led House passed a large spending bill without pro-life protections in a 219-208 vote. The legislation excludes the Hyde Amendment, which bars funding most elective abortions in Medicaid. The Hyde Amendment was a “bipartisan compact” in Congress. As a Senator, Biden supported the Hyde Amendment.

• Assistant Secretary of Health and sex change therapies. During the confirmation hearing, Dr. Rachel Levine, now Assistant Secretary of Health, refused to answer any questions about the government’s role in the gender reassignment of young children.

• Biomedical research agency. President Biden is calling for a “new biomedical research agency” that would operate under the guise of treatments for chronic diseases but which, if implemented, would merge national security with health security. The plan would suck up masses of private data from “Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo, and Google Home” and other consumer electronic devices, as well as information from health care providers to determine if an individual might be likely to commit a crime. The plan also would work toward merging “biology, engineering and computer science to harness the power of natural systems for national security” along with “advancements in biotechnology, supercomputing, big data, and artificial intelligence” to accomplish its goals. In the interests of national safety, the Department of Defense wants everyone to have biometric wearables that could monitor 165 different biomarkers using an algorithm that could “recognize an infection or virus around 48 hours before the onset of symptoms.” Ultimately, promoters of the technology want to “develop tools to record, mark and manipulate precisely defined neurons in the living brain” that are determined to be linked to an “abnormal” function or a neurological disease—quoted from Mercola.com.

• Concocted cases. Before the age of Covid, a person became a “case” only if they needed medical intervention. Today, anybody with a positive Coronavirus “test” result will be tagged a “case,” even with no symptoms. Such a determination never occurred in medical history. Furthermore, the PCR test magnifies the fragments through many cycles, thus creating false positives. Moreover, the PCR test cannot distinguish between active and dead fragments. Let us not forget that the Overlords held Event 201 on October 18, 2019, a trial run for the Plandemic. Next up, look out for worldwide cyber-attacks that will overshadow COVID-19 (See Cyber Polygon). 

• Covid vaccine not. As detailed below, we know why crummy masks are suddenly magically necessary for the vaccinated. It is easy to see that our overlords are in panic mode, trying to hide the fact that the vaccinated are getting sick because of the virus (likely) formed in a lab (gain of function) in the name of science to make a “vaccine” to “proactively” fight SARS. And they have the marbles to say the unvaccinated are making the vaccinated sick. Yep, follow the science to your molecular-manipulated new body. The “vaccine” is anything but. A computer-generated “messenger” sequence creates a Frankenstein spike protein. “A ribonucleic acid (RNA) vaccine or messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine is a type of vaccine that uses a copy of a molecule called messenger RNA (mRNA) to produce an immune response.” It is easy to see that the mad machine can only project Ad hominem attacks against those who question it (avoid the real issue)—shame on the medical and pharmaceutical industries and the promoters of this worldwide genocide. To them, money is more important than life. All the perpetrators should face charges for crimes against humanity, but that will never happen as the same people control the levers. Flip-flop Fauci, the fraud et al. can go pound sand. As for Pavlov’s Dog responses, the “science changes with the data of the time” also can go pound sand. Remember, these same “experts” said the “science is settled.” We all know about the suppressed but time-tested and effective medicines. I do not want to say what it is here to avoid the Caustic Cancel Culture Pogrom.

• Heterophobia. To discuss heterosexual matters brings on heterosexual-phobic bullying. People who dare to say that gender reassignment people are still biologically the gender of their birth are bullied, doxed, and silenced. For example, a heterosexual who declares they will only date a heterosexual now has to deal with the new derogative term “super straight.” This text, the reporting of factual matter, is now hate speech.

• Malthusian madness. It is excellent and necessary to conserve resources and be good stewards of the planet. However, we have undisputed evidence the mad machine takes the environmental movement to the extreme to usher in its Great Reset.

• Many Democratic leaders have no children. Examples include Vice President Kamala Harris, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, Sen. Cory Booker, D-NJ, and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

• Most of the citizenry has lost self-sufficiency. The surrogate parents for the “It Takes a Village family” are the Neo-March married pair consisting of crony-woke big business and woke big government. They supply virtually all products and services, thus neutering local and personal preparedness.

• One-party system. We are well underway to a one-party system (Communism), and they have no shame in letting you know this is their goal.

• Population reduction. Many influential people want to reduce the population. For example, Jacques-Yves Cousteau said: “It’s terrible to have to say this. The world population must be stabilized; we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it, but the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable.” And for stunning rock-hard evidence, there is the Georgia Guidestonesmonument with the etching: “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”

• Processed foods and GMO plants cause health problems such as cancer. As a spotlight on this plight, the citizenry was ill-prepared to face the Covid plandemic. During Covid doom, the mad machine withheld information about lifesaving protocols such as exercising (closing parks!), eating healthy, and immunity-boosting procedures such as vitamin D intake.

• The court systems force small businesses to make gay wedding cakes. Recently, a federal court in the Tenth Circuit ruled that Colorado’s so-called Anti-Discrimination Act “permissibly compels” a website design company to offer wedding websites that “celebrate same-sex marriage” if it provides wedding websites for anyone else.

• The public education system has become surrogate parents. Because of “free” school meals, Marxist indoctrination, perverted sexual education, and intentionally dumbed-down curriculum, the monster mad machine has stolen the cognitive thinking skills from the people.

• The traditional family of one man and one woman has been attacked for generations. Children face an uncertain future due to no-fault divorce, unfaithful partners, the “necessity” for both parents to work, relentless attacks from the feminists/Marxists, and the epidemic of single-parent (mother) homes.

• There are 64 gender identities. Even though we have male or female chromosomes at birth, that indisputable fact no longer holds, according to the mad machine.

• Universal pre-K care. The mad machine says child-care is “too expensive.” During Biden’s formal address to Congress on April 28, 2021, he said: “The great universities in this country have conducted studies over the last ten years. It shows that adding two years of universal, high-quality preschool for every 3-year-old and 4-year-old, no matter what background they come from, puts them in the position of being able to complete all the way through 12 years and increases exponentially their prospect of graduating and going on beyond graduation.” What can go wrong with that? A lot. Any person or group that accepts money from the government becomes a puppet. Who will pay for it? We all will with the hidden tax called inflation.

• Young children, while attending schools [!], are encouraged to “choose” their gender. The medical industry, replete with Frankenstein doctors, makes money performing surgeries and implementing chemical procedures to change genders (a fake reality) of pre-teens through to adults. The American Psychiatric Association opposes attempts to engage in any practice that helps a person who wishes to revert to their biological (real) gender. Meanwhile, it is fantastic to console and encourage patients with opposing tendencies.

The above real-time indicators or trial balloons keenly point to a goal of an exclusively homosexual or trans-sexual population. While highly speculative, this pogrom would be the quintessential population control mechanism. It is easy to visualize an unfolding plan with the overarching heterosexual phobia and Malthusian enthusiasm of elitists such as Bill Gates. Under the coming Gaian state-sponsored “religion,” the mad machine will manufacture babies by artificial insemination of lesbians from the sperm of gay men and transvestites. This is done today on a volunteer basis, just like a “theybie” where parents who want their children to grow up gender-free these toddlers will go to government institutions for indoctrination. Heterosexual super straight “citizens” will face re-education camps and gulags. Furthermore, for recalcitrant young people, hormonal manipulation and genital mutilation shall occur—real inclusion and empathy from the compassion mobocracy.  

Here are a few tips to fend off the Satan Bug in the New Debased Woke World. And the most important thing is to get with your religion (not the debased woke type). Pray, and for Catholic people, “get sacrament-ed up.” Be ready. It is natural to be discouraged if you have been praying without results. Remember, He will never forget our prayers. We receive graces in ways we do not know. He is still in control and allows our nation’s fall for many reasons. Love your neighbors regardless of race, creed, nationality, or orientation. He tests the world population to see who is still faithful to the Word.

Finally, we are close to the end of this treatise Madness Made to Order, and here are some final thoughts:

• We must deplore violence from any wing.

• In jest, invoke your right to become a trans-citizen. Declare your status as an undocumented visitor (invader). That way, no more need to pay taxes, work, or worry about the COVID police making you take PCR tests, get gene therapy (vaccinated), or don a mask.

• For those who would prefer to watch or listen to a top-shelf exposé that mirrors much of the content of this book-length series of essays, check out Victor Davis Hanson on the Assault on Meritocracy, Politicization of the Virus, and the Platonic Noble Lie. Another gem is Dear Black People: Jason Whitlock Explains the Marxist Agenda Behind Race Controversies. 📕

I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!

Share

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid

Leave a comment

Share Frederick R. Smith Speaks

Email the Author: Frederick R. Smith

Bibliography and Inspiration

Books from the Frederick R. Smith Library

American Marxism: Mark R. Levin, 320 pages, Threshold Editions, July 2021

America’s Thirty Years War - Who Is Winning?: Balint Vazsonyi, 285 pages, Regnery Publishers, July 1998

Black Book of Communism (The) - Crimes, Terror, Repression: Stephane Courtois, Mark Kramer (Translator), Jonathan Murphy (Translator), Karel Bartosek, Andrzej Paczkowski, Jean-Louis Panne, Jean-Louis Margolin, 858 pages, Harvard University Press, October 1999

China Threat (The) – How the People’s Republic Targets America: Bill Gertz, 280 pages, Regnery Publishing, January 2000

Cloning of the American Mind - Eradicating Morality through Education: B. K. Easkan, 600 pages, Huntingdon House Publishers August 1998

Creature from Jekyll Island (The) - A Second Look at the Federal Reserve: G. Edward Griffin, 608 pages, Amer Media, May 1998.

Death of Money (The) - The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System: James Rickards, 368 pages, Portfolio, April 2014

Debate on the Constitution (The) Part One - Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification September 1787-February 1788: 1214 pages, The Library of America, 1993

Debate on the Constitution (The) Part Two - Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification January-August 1788: 1175 pages: The Library of America, 1993

Defrauding America - Encyclopedia of Secret Operations by the CIA, DEA, and Other Covert Agencies: Rodney Stitch, 753 pages, Diablo Western Press, April 2001

deliberate dumbing down of america (the): Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, 458 pages (plus 110+ pages appendix, Conscience Press, January 1999

Freedom in Chains - The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen: James Bovard, 326 pages, St. Martin Press, May 1999

Heaven on Earth - The Rise and Fall of Socialism: Joseph Muravchik, 391 pages, Encounter Books, April 2002

Hope of the Wicked - The Master Plan to Rule the World: Ted Flynn, 550 pages, Maxkol Communications, May 2000

Irresistible Revolution - Marxism’s Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military: Matthew Lohmeier, 230 pages, independently published, May 2021

John Adams - David McCullough, 752 pages, Simon & Schuster, September 2002

Madness of Crowds - Gender, Race and Identity: Douglas Murray, 288 pages, Bloomsbury Continuum, September 2019

Marketing of Evil (The) - How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised As Freedom: David Kupelian, 256 pages, WND Books, August 2005

Leap in the Dark (A) - The Struggle to Create the American Republic: John Ferling, 558 pages, Oxford University Press, 2003

Operation Dragon - Inside the Kremlin’s Secret War on America: R. James Woolsey and Ion Mihai Pacepa; 216 pages, Encounter Books, February 2021

Perestroika Deception (The) - Memoranda to the Central Intelligence Agency: Anatoliy Golitsyn, 247 pages, Edward Harle Limited, January 1998

Proofs of a Conspiracy 1798 - John Robison: 304 pages, Western Islands, 1967 (reprint)

Reflections on the Revolution in France - Edmund Burke - (Edited with an Introduction by Thomas H. D. Mahoney, With an Analysis of the Reflections by Oskar Piest): 307 pages, The Liberal Arts Press, 1955

School of Darkness - Bella V. Dodd, 274 pages, Angelico Press, September 2017 (reprint of 1954 original)

Shadow World - Resurgent Russia, The Global New Left, and Radical Islam: Robert Chandler, 622 pages, Regnery Publishing, August 2008

Speechless - Controlling Words, Controlling Minds: Michael Knowles, 256 pages, Regnery Publishing, June 2021

Tragedy and Hope - A History of the World in Our Time: Carroll Quigley, 1348 pages, The Macmillan Company, 1966

Trouble With Democracy (The) - A Citizen Speaks Out: William D. Gairdner, 534 pages, Stoddart, 2001

Truth About COVID-19 (The) - Exposing The Great Reset, Lockdowns, Vaccine Passports, and the New Normal: Doctor Joseph Mercola, 224 pages, Chelsea Publishing, April 2021

Unmasked - Inside Antifa’s Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy: Andy Ngo, 320 pages, Center Street, February 2021

Weapons of Mass Instruction - A Schoolteacher’s Journey Through the Dark World of Compulsory Schooling: John Taylor Gatto, 240 pages, New Society Publishers, April 2010

When Nations Die - America on the Brink and Ten Warning Signs of a Culture in Crisis: Jim Nelson Black, 280 pages, Tyndale House Publishers, October 1994

When Politicians Panicked - The New Coronavirus, Expert Opinion, and a Tragic Lapse of Reason: John Tammy, 304 pages, Post Hill Press, March 2021

Who Was Karl Marx? - The Men, the Motives and the Menace Behind Today’s Rampaging American Left: James Simpson, 174 pages, independently published, June 2021

Special Web Pages

Epoch Times: Defending the Constitution

Share

Cogent Author and publisher, Frederick R. Smith
Cogent Editor, Sean Tinney

Share Frederick R. Smith Speaks

Innocence is like a dumb leper who has lost his bell, wandering the world, meaning no harm
Graham Greene

Share

Before President Trump left office, to counteract the vile 1619 Project ideology, he signed an executive order to create the President’s Advisory 1776 Commission. A group of highly respected scholars developed a 40-page document. The Commission members published their report two days before Joe Biden terminated this project. In his inaugural address, he said, “…we need true history, not lies told for power and profit.” Copious Neo-Marxist Pavlov’s Dogs influencers vomit projected this canard. And behold, here is a transracial example: African Americans Ben Carson and Carol Swain were members of the Commission. Nevertheless, because Trump started the Commission, it was automatically dialed up as a white racist parchment (in the pea brains of the intellectual giants). No, avoiding it; even a large comet striking Earth would be Trump’s fault (wink, wink).

In an opinion piece published by NBC News titled “Trump’s '1776 Commission’ tried to rewrite U.S. history,” the author writes:

“President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris made history… They … took remarkably swift steps to reject a dangerous alternative history. The ‘1776 Report’ — a hastily developed account of the nation's founding…”

The above statement is like the kettle calling the pot black. What a laugh, alternative history! More projection. Regardless, the 1776 Commission report is an effort that supplies a framework on how to detail our past honestly. As your author has written in Part Three, the Commission report also does not ignore our blemishes from his perspective. It uses them to learn lessons while fostering the core elements that made the USA the greatest nation ever. It is easy to find faults in any endeavor; we are imperfect beings. It is easy to tear down as the collectivist gleefully goes about their destruction of civilized society. Building it is much more challenging, which seems to elude our collectivist friends. In a word, lazy.

The revulsion concerning the 1776 Commission is a microcosm of the hate America psychosis. Going back at least a few generations, it has intensified recently. Especially today, thanks to the vomit-spewing mainstream media and mind-grinding (mis)educational system. Showing praise to America can get you tagged as xenophobic, racist, killer capitalist, etc. Especially today, thanks to the puke-throwing mainstream media. And oh, lest we forget, Nationalist, as in National Socialism (Nazi). The hyper-increase of these Marxist ploy narratives effectively divides the country.

The “reframing of history,” such as Zinn’s and Hannah-Jones’ writings, must get our attention. If not, we will continue down our current fall off the cliff edge, with the final impact soon to occur at the bottom of the pit. Our reaction can only be peaceful, as this is how Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi practices. Even for extraordinarily few instances of disobedience, the monster mad machine has the upper hand since every element of society has the Marxist nexus infection. As we shall soon see, even the military is full of debased woke folk of all stripes.

With some clear logic and thinking, it is easy to visualize the “breaking news” clips of our age as tools the overlords use to kill our beloved nation intentionally. Climate change (green outside/red inside), inflation (fiat money), undocumented visitors/migrants/asylum seekers (invasion), neutering of families (heterophobia), gender confusion (population reduction), defunding the police (anarchy), energy (no longer) independence, white supremacy overarching threat (bubbles soap), virus threats (more population reduction), and identity politics (vile virtue signaling) — to name a few — do an outstanding job to take your eyes off the ball.

Fred Blog readers already know about your author’s unrelenting harping about fiat money. The number one threat is issuing unfettered fiat money by the government and financial institutions through “fractional banking.” Inflation results from creating this money out of thin air (fiat currency). Excessive government intervention in the economy by executive orders, excessive regulations, crummy laws, high taxes, mandates, and fake news propping up government make it worse. Crony capitalism is a driver, too. Anything else amounts to pure bubbles soap (B.S.). See Frederick R. Smith, Creature from Jekyll Island - A Second Look

The above paragraph will set off alarms in the psyche of the programmed robot minds. Therefore, the mad machine will treat this Frederick R. Smith Speaks blog as a nasty “manifesto” of a deranged antigovernmental right-wing wacko. And oh, in the mind of pea-brain intellectual giants, he must have written this from a Waco-like “compound” (another collectivist dog-whistle word). Breaking news — Fred is not an anti-government anarchist; he (uh-oh, a hate word) is a limited government proponent under the original intent of the Constitution (oh no, another hate word). Furthermore, he is not a cult member, but the overlords and programmed useful robots have a problem with this essay. Why? They are members of a collectivist cult. With the robot masses under a programming loop to regurgitate nonstop Marxist vomit, the Constitution is racist in their central processing unit (CPU). As such, they have the supreme weapon to “get Fred.” The ultimate “trick bag.”

From our beginnings, we know the statement, “All men are created equal.” We know “men” includes men and women (a factoid for the post-modern others). Yes, Fred wrote that and welcomed “the others,” too! Let us say no to all the pandering. And let us say no to the nasty New Normal. Let us apply the brakes to this alphabet nonsense, such as the latest fad of doxing heterosexuals for saying they will only date a heterosexual (i.e., the derogative term super straight). How about adding “H” to the mix (i.e., HLGBTQ) to stop this insanity? The mad machine projects this sexual dystopia in a never-ending projection that subjects “the others” to authoritarian treatment. Could we “super straight” join the group since we are all American? If not, we will continue down the path of a Balkanized society.

Your author does not ruminate over a person’s gender or sex matters. He has several friends and associates with other preferences, and they are great people and do not subscribe to the “pride” thing. The monster mad machine’s pandering and constant shoving sodomy down society’s throat is the new doublethink of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Also, as an early teen, your author faced a young adult homosexual predator who tried to “get Fred.” Instinct kicked in with self-defense, making the deranged person scurry away. Does that make Fred think all people of this persuasion are abusers? Of course not. Just like not all men are rapists.

Meanwhile, as reported on July 8, 2021, the “The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus,” consisting of 72 men, projected the music video “A Message from the Gay Community.” In the video, the group sings:

We’ll convert your children — happens bit by bit, quietly and subtly and you will barely notice it… We’ll convert your children: we’ll make them tolerant and fair.

We’ll convert your children — Yes we will! — reaching one and all, there’s really no escaping it, cause even grandma likes RuPaul. We’ll convert your children: someone’s gotta teach them not to hate!

We’re coming for them, we’re coming for your children! We’re coming for them, we’re coming for them, WE’RE COMING FOR YOUR CHILDREN!!!

Your children will care about fairness and justice for others! Your children will work to convert all their sisters and brothers! Then soon we’re almost certain, your kids will start converting you! The gay agenda is coming home

What a twisted display of projection and cover: “… someone’s gotta teach them not to hate — not to hate!” Pristine projection! These people are heterosexual-phobic. Meanwhile, a concerned citizen reports that some participants are registered sex offenders. Due to the outrage (they call it hate), the gay club pulled the video, but a brave Twitter user saved a copy - see it for yourself. Will Fred face homophobic allegations for writing about these facts? Of course, he will.

It is quite the thing to hear the gender-fluid and pseudo-heterosexual cohorts say to Fred, “How dare you push your morals.” As we know, the monster mad machine says it is dandy to shove their alternate lifestyle (im)morals down my throat—more projection. Regardless, everyone should be treated as humans and have the right to association. Specifically, a person may decide not to associate with Fred for whatever reason. If a person of a particular proclivity wishes to only associate with a group such as The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus, go for it. Likewise, Fred should be free to join a fictional Fraternal Order of Straight Men. Many gay people believe this leftist/Marxist march has gone too far. Self-proclaimed gay author Douglas Murray would agree, as detailed in his excellent book Madness of Crowds (Gender, Race, and Identity). It is an insightful book and a highly recommended read. But, of course, the mad monster mad machine ignores Douglas Murray. So far, he has immunity from the Satan Bug.

The right of association should also apply to businesses within reason. For example, the mad monster machine will have no problem with a company that declines to make a KKK flag. On the other hand, a baker who declines to make a gay wedding cake faces the Caustic Cancel Culture Pogrom. Would a gay baker who only makes gay wedding cakes face canceling if they refused to make a heterosexual wedding cake? Of course not. How about some equity from the equity mobocracy?

In the spirit of compromise, your author can live with civil unions (or face canceling if not — some freedom). How about recognizing my church’s right to perform a traditional marriage as part of this bargain? Would it be acceptable for Fred to proclaim the efficacy of a union between a man and a woman concerning offspring? Of course not; that is an offense to the god of political correctness. No free speech for Fred. No soup for you.

For another compromise item, how about abortion? Since many instinctively know that life begins at conception, they force-fed the line about women’s health (née reproductive rights, née abortion). Should it be about the majority (democracy) that believes abortion is wrong? What a laugh. The “women’s reproductive rights” fanatics would have a modicum of respect for opposing views. So, in line with the compromise, how about 1) no public money for abortions, 2) allowing a pharmacist the right not to dispense abortifacients or contraceptives, and 3) not forcing religious or other organizations to take part in abortion through insurance premiums? As usual, it is all about the money. Does the fact that the medical community offers abortion and unfettered sex change incline Fred to hate all medical professionals? Of course not.

Many people perish each year due to medical mistakes and malpractice. Furthermore, pharmaceutical companies have made bad mistakes and even covered up nasty things. Do such things make Fred hate all doctors and pharmacists? Of course not.

Everyone is equal under God and should get the same treatment before the law. Equal is an essential term that we hear about under the euphemism equity. Regardless of creed, race, gender, or religion, the ideal is that we are equally human. Of course, we must realize the earlier plight of enslaved people, Native Americans, and women. Such a failure does not make our positive ideals a false notion. Unfortunately, the collectivist mantra is government-bestowed rights. That is why collectivists loathe our founding. The sin of slavery is just one of many arrows in the quiver of the collectivist march to the serfdom/technocracy/Marxism cauldron.

Of course, in America, there were enslaved people (primarily in the South). Nevertheless, in the genuine good sense, the founding equality creed was and is an ideal worth promoting. It grew, then blossomed with the freeing of enslaved people, equal suffrage, and the Civil Rights Act. But now, more of these “Acts” serve as mammary glands for the lousy among the lawyers to suck up the never-ending pile of fiat cash.

A key point missed in the twisted collectivist form of equity is the indisputable fact that each person has unique talents and endowments. From more sane times, we also know that women outperformed men in doing specific tasks and vice versa. Those with keen visual intellect tend to be the best portrait painters. People with analytical minds typically have superb math skills to give us wonders, such as airliners. Thus, once again, it is time to invoke the inspiring words of the late great Dr. Martin Luther King. He described the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as “… promissory notes to which every American was to fall heir.”

Your author’s doctor makes much more money than this paltry writer (income inequality). Our lives have outcome inequalities due to an imbalance of effort—our choice. The doctor attended medical college and devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency lasting up to ten years. His choice. Fred chose another avenue (his will). Our selections (a positive) supplied different outcomes (a positive). Does this mean the doctor cheated the system and should pay more “taxes” to the god of “fair share?” In stark contrast to the collective view, we are both free people in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes (positive). “Leveling the playing field,” a euphemism for lowering the standards, ends the incentive to excellence (a negative). Should we lower the standards for airline pilots?

Meanwhile, the god of equality has no problem with the majority cultural makeup of basketball players. Nor does your author. The folks in question within this sports field have a particular talent. Specifically, a tall stature for genetic reasons (positive) and significant cultural affinity for a specific sport (positive).

Given the collectivist penchant for group identity, this promise of a fiat “equity” results in a nasty debasement of individual drive and rights as sovereign individuals. In its place, we have a grotesque display whereby objective truth becomes a relic of the past. To declare your right to self-defense gets the hate speech treatment, while a book titled In Defense of Looting (Vicky Osterweil August 2020) receives the kid-glove treatment.

In 2020, scores of BLM followers and Antifa collectivist creeps spawned riots and looting, with few charges filed against the perpetrators and (most) charges dropped. Meanwhile, the government hunts for and prosecutes the dopes who entered the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Even people who did not enter the Capitol face gaslighting and doxing into “white supremacist right-wing domestic terrorists.” Your author knows an individual who was there, and to be clear, he was not in the building, meaning he remained outside the confines of the structure on the grounds. Later, a friend of my buddy threatened to call the FBI to snitch on him for simply being at a rally. Whew! Also, see Frederick R. Smith Speaks; Ghastly Gaslighting, September 27, 2020.

The above snitching fits the narrative. Leftist congresspersons such as AOC want to build a list of pro-Trumpies. Her defenders say, “AOC’s Critics Are Pretending Not to Know How Language Works.” Michael Beller, principal counsel for the tax-supported Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), said in a video that the children of supporters of President Donald Trump should be seized and placed in “re-education camps. . . We should go for all the Republican voters, and Homeland Security will take their children away, and we’ll put [Trump-supporters’ children] into re-education camps.” He resigned after Project Veritas exposed the video.

With the above backdrop, let us review some 2020 “summer of love” facts. During the “fiery but mostly peaceful protests” spanning 120 days, as a direct result, two dozen or more people perished. The rioting, arson, and looting resulted in $2 billion (approximately) in property damage. About 14,000 arrests occurred, with most of the charges dropped. As seen on T.V., BLM and Antifa carried revolutionary and anarchist flags (free speech!). They called for violence against the police and set up an “autonomous zone” with impunity in several cities. Using social media, thousands merged into the worst rioting in the nation’s history. In many cities, the “leaders” told the police to stand down. The excuse—it was all about equity and “letting off steam” because of the Covid-1984 lockdowns—the perfect magician’s redirection to avoid the reality of an insurrection.

In contrast, let us review January 6, 2021. About 500 buffoon Trump supporters broke into the Capitol. In Pavlov’s Dog fashion, the media mad machine and government barked “armed insurrection.” No arrests occurred due to firearms violations. There is a media report about the suspect who planted a pipe bomb. The mad media machine, with laser focus, let us know five died because of the “riot.” That riot proclamation is from the same mad machine that in 2020 used the term “mostly peaceful protest” to describe the BLM and Antifa destruction. The January 6, 2021 “five” included four who died of natural causes, and three of those deaths were among Trump supporters. The only violent death was also of a Trump supporter, a female and military veteran. She was lethally shot by a Capitol police officer while entering through a window. The shooter is still unidentified. With the mad machine clamoring for safety in the aftermath, the government militarized Washington, D.C. Over 20,000 troops, massive fencing, and omnipresent barbed wire supplied security against “white supremacy.”

Today, because of January 6, 2021, there are political prisoners in the United States. Nothing new, though; check out the stunning book Defrauding America. The latest political prisoners are those arrested for participation in the January 6 breach incident. We all know the other Pavlov’s Dogs’ words that the monster mad machine uses to describe the incident: their right to free speech. Nevertheless, on July 5, 2021, the Epoch Times reported that on January 6, Detainees Confined 23 Hours a Day:

Dozens detained in federal prison awaiting trial following the January 6 breach of the U.S. Capitol building are subject to solitary confinement, lack of required medical care, and restricted access to defense counsel, according to two attorneys and the father of a defendant.

Of the close to 500 arrests made so far in connection with the January 6 incident, lawyers John Pierce and Steven Metcalf II, who represent several of the defendants, told EpochTV’s “The Nation Speaks” that some detainees who are being held pre-trial face solitary conferment for 23 hours a day in conditions that are “unconstitutional” and violate “every single basic human right.”

Pierce explained that federal judges are detaining these individuals under the 1984 Bail Reform Act, which, under certain circumstances, authorizes pretrial detention if it is believed the individuals are a threat to the community or a flight risk.

“There are about 50 plus or minus that are being detained, that have been in prison for months and will likely remain in prison for many more months until their day in court,” said Pierce.

In a stunning case of inequitable justice, the 1983 Senate reception room bombers faced more lenient treatment. One of the bombers, Elisabeth Duke, an admitted communist, was released on bail. The communist group that Duke was a member of committed 20 terrorist acts during the earlier decade (the 1970s). How about equal treatment under the law? That is the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four on steroids. Fast forward to the Biden Administration, as detailed in this February 19, 2021, article:

The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) called upon the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask Attorney General nominee Judge Merrick Garland [now U.S. Attorney General] at his confirmation hearing this Monday about his role in dismissing a misconduct complaint against a magistrate judge who improperly dismissed an indictment against a co-conspirator and fugitive Elizabeth Ann Duke for the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Capitol and other federal buildings.

With the above BLM backdrop, keep in mind the China connection. BLM is a Liberation Road (L.R.) project. As an offshoot of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO), the L.R. bragged about instigating the George Floyd riots. The L.R. community organizer Jess Sundin bragged about torching the Minneapolis Third District police headquarters. She said, “I can’t tell you the joy it brought all of us to see the Third Precinct destroyed.” Both the L.R. and FRSO are Maoist, communist organizations. They openly support the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). In other words, the CCP has been directing some of the BLM/Antifa riots. In 2020, the Chinese consulate in Houston was closed as it was discovered it housed Red Chinese Army agents recruiting rioters. Every year, 76,000 Chinese legally come to the USA. Chinese espionage expert Bil Gertz estimates up to 25,000 Chinese spies could be in the country.

Written works like The Black Book of Communism detail the history of this collectivist monstrosity in excruciating detail. The book describes the behaviors of this materialistic philosophy. Many tactics have relevance today and, thankfully (for now?), in a less brutal manner from a macro perspective. From a micro perspective (in many big cities), there is looting, burning, statue toppling, and even killings. As detailed in the Black Book, the collectivist tactics used in the USSR, Eastern Europe, China, etc., are legendary. However, today, there are striking similarities to the Maoist revolution in China during the mid-1960s.

As documented by Fan Shen in his 2006 book Gang of One: Memoirs of a Red Guard, it details an incident from 1966 he attended as a 12-year-old while at a soccer field in China. The students burned books that did not have the required red covering. There were banners with the slogans of Mao Zedong:

The new society will be built on the ashes of the old!

Burn the feudal relics!

Burn the sentimental bourgeois culture!

Shen details his participation in the terrible time and finds himself caught up in the mob frenzy. According to him, it was about equality.

With schools shuttered (2020 closed schools), the “Party” (media) let the revolutionaries carry big signs in gatherings (protesting). During this and other rallies, the mob forced the perceived enemies (unwoke folk) to bow and kneel before the crowd (2020 taking to the knee). The mobs also forced the targeted people to mutter “confessions” (2020 admitting white guilt). The enemy found itself demonized and demoralized victims, thus making illegal acts “acceptable” (2020 book In Defense of Looting). The Maoist revolutionaries also looted and damaged private and public property (2020 fiery but mostly peaceful protests). Welcome to the Maoist revolution in the USA [a.k.a. Critical Race (conspiracy) Theory].

As shown above, the vile collectivist view inculcates a victim mentality, and the programmed woke robots point their fingers at others for their failings. Let us not forget about the person from Seattle who said the damage from Antifa is not their fault. Unlike true American classical liberal ideals that foster individualism and creativity, collectivism destroys free will and breeds contempt and division. If she continues the current path, as other nations have, America will see that freedom shall perish. Despite what the luminaries tell us, it already has in many ways for the cogent non-woke folk. And yes, there are some wacko “conservative” types for balanced writing, just like in all other “wings.” However, the narrative programming Monster Mad Machine paints racism as a broad brush against all conservatives, regardless of race, with impunity. The much less prevalent right-wing incidents face magnification and embellishment. The significant incidents (left-wing) are, well, like crickets on the tube. And to be clear, your author deplores violence regardless of the “wing.”

Nevertheless, the new (manufactured) significant threat to the nation is “white supremacy terrorism.” The violence the collectivists perpetrate gets the fiery but mostly peaceful protest treatment. The monopoly programming mad machine also bestows the collectivist perpetrators with a get-out-of-jail card.

Concerning the creeps who get out of jail, there are reports about how George Soros helped with district attorney elections. The mad machine scoffs at conservative reports highlighting the commie district attorneys in place across the nation. Do you not believe Fred? Well, then, how about this glowing 2018 article from none other than the Los Angeles Times - Here’s why George Soros, liberal groups are spending big to help decide who’s your next D.A.

The United States Bill of Rights, in addition to the freedoms discussed in this essay, prescribes the right of the people to bear arms. While it is not the scope of this essay to cover this topic, it is illustrative to see the mad machine’s projection of guns related to the collectivist war. In a stunning display of hubris in June 2021, a Fox News contributor said that the current increase in violence is “not an increase in crime” but an increase in “gun deaths.” Along these same lines, the most famous and progressive Congresswoman of the day (hint AOC) said the growth is just “hysteria.” Oh, MS Word suggests the word Congressperson — go pound sand.

While we are at it, let us pretend that the Second Amendment does not exist. In an experiment to see how to stem “gun violence,” sound principles would be in order. To see if the experiment works, choose an area with high crime rates (big city). Take (impossible) all guns from all people (including the police). Let us see how that works. If not, why not? Also, the mad machine tells us police officers “murder” people, but the gun makes the killing of others.

While this essay focuses on the Satan Bug (manufactured divisiveness trifecta of race, sexuality, and ideologies), the following “pogroms” add to the kill America arsenal.

• Environment. The collectivists call for large-scale public investment in the green economy, a breathtaking spectacle. It is just another arrow in the quiver to cancel the beauty of the free market. Demands for carbon zero, nationalism of private interests, and the trashing of our energy independence are no longer a hidden secret. Specifically, the common collectivists (e.g., woke folk) urgently call for anti-capitalist protests. Meanwhile, the same programmed folk will look the other way as certain wealthy luminaries make a grotesque amount of money on green deals. Like the race card, the filthy wealthy leftists blow the dog whistle “environment” to hide their bennies of cash and power garnered by the fake cleaning of the environment. Inevitably, damage will occur in the future because of this environmental madness. The (truly) free market has a success rate compared to the dismal failure of government programs and interventions. Such things as truly clean coal (converting the emissions to products such as gypsum) go to the wayside. Renewable energy is a fantasy; there is no such thing as a free lunch. It is all green on the outside and red on the inside.

• Immigration. The mad machine believed Trump was a xenophobic monster for trying to stem the flow of Covid at the beginning of the plandemc by implementing a travel ban between China and the USA. In 2021, the new Administration employed the Caustic Cancel Culture Pogrom (C.P.) by dropping border protections. Customs and Border Protection agents report that the tsunami of illegal aliens exceeds more than 3,500/day. Canceling the border wall construction endangers citizens and disses American workers. 2006 Republicans and Democrats (including then Senators Obama, Clinton, Schumer, and Joe Biden) voted for a physical border barrier. Inconvenient facts, like the lack of concern for COVID among the “immigrants” (former refugees, undocumented visitors, and illegal aliens). This seamless “logic” by the narrative is a continuum. Let us face it; we are under siege of newly minted Democratic voters (no voter I.D.). Now we know why the sensible thing, voter I.D., is a dead letter. The mad machine calls it “voter suppression.” So, where do some of these “immigrants” end up? Check out the news about Endeavors: Texas nonprofit got massive border contract after hiring Biden official.

Environmental extremism is so intense that it can overlook human needs. For example, Nigeria, a U.S. ally, is fighting 11 years of terrorism in the first stages of civil war. Astonishingly, our State Department places climate change above these concerns. See Epoch Times July 4, 2021 — Former State Department Official: As Violence Pulls Nigeria Apart, U.S. Focuses on Climate Change. Look to the future, where we will suffer due to the inability of the commie New Green Deal to keep up with energy demands. Be prepared to deal with cold and hot temperatures and intermittent electric power.

The July 2021 space flights of Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson show us the height of hypocrisy. All the fuel burned to kick these luminaries and their riders up to the edge of space should set off the climate change alarms, but crickets. We must remember that these rich folks give the climate change machine a lot of money. We do not want to gum up those works—more putrid projection.

It is fitting to close this Part with an overview of Cloward-Piven. Columbia University sociology professors Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were married. As radical socialists, they had a profound impact on American society. Cloward passed in 2001, and 88-year-old Piven still teaches at the City University of New York. The June 2020 issue of Jacobin Magazine featured an article about Piven. She encouraged the violent protesters to “defend their ability to exercise disruptive power.” Your author often wonders: do Piven and her fellow travelers say these things from the heart, or are they doing it to protect from the mobocracy’s attacks? Also, see Frederick R. Smith’s The Jolly Jacobin, January 24, 2021.

Cloward-Piven were critical founders of extreme left-wing organizations such as the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWR) and the Democratic Socialists of America (an arm of the commie Socialist International). The NWR spawned the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).

For the last data burst for this part, your author recommends reading about the following characters who helped usher in today’s post-modern mess (Frederick R. Smith post exclusives).

• Alfred Kinsey: Kinky Kinsey, August 2, 2020

• John Dewey: Dastardly John Dewey, October 10, 2020

• George Brock Chisholm: Crazy Chisholm, November 7, 2020

• Wilhelm Reich: Weird Wilhelm Reich, November 8, 2020

• Pierre Teilhard De Chardin: Dubious Pierre Teilhard De Chardin, November 25, 2020 📕

I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!

Share

Share

Upgrade to Paid

Leave a comment

Share Frederick R. Smith Speaks

Email the Author: Frederick R. Smith

A healthy democracy requires a decent society; it requires that we are honorable, generous, tolerant and respectful
Charles W. Pickering

Share

As the 2020-21 whirlwind marches on, we hear the drumbeat about the virtues of democracy. In another vital history lesson, let us go back to ancient times as a repudiation of the overarching and inane assertion of the 1619 Project and its desire for “democracy.” In stark contrast to the foolish notion that America alone magnified slavery, this is an inconvenient way back to the truth about the ancient Greek and Roman democracies. Their very existence depended on slavery. In the bastion of democracy, Athens, at its pinnacle, one in three adults was enslaved. Willian D. Gairdner, in “The Trouble With Democracy” (pg. 15), eloquently states:

“… democracy evolved as a kind of concessional pact between wealthy elites and the freedom masses of farmers and poor, both of which were defending themselves against the growing slave population they needed to keep in place. For their political loyalty. The freeborn masses were granted a qualified participation in government. It was a deal that made good political and economic sense, and vastly reduced the supervisory costs of the system of slavery. In this theory, democracy evolved not to free ‘the people’ from slavery or oppression, but rather to strengthen the control of free people over unfree people. In other words, in its very first hour, Greek democracy was a deal, a political instrument for control, and by such a measure, this was an insidious patrimony that has haunted democracy ever since.”

Dear reader, remember the above whenever you hear about a “democratic socialist” organization. Even the Communist Party of the USA and their Jacobin cousins use the term “democracy.” The shining example was the Students for a Democratic Society. That was the national student activist organization in the United States during the 1960s. It was the principal element of the radical (communist) left. That occurred during the same decade of the Maoist revolution in China (stay tuned). Also, keep in mind the derivation of the word democracy. Pure democracy expressed people experiencing poverty (demos meant the poor or common folk). So why do the luminaries use the word democracy so much? Do they mean it? Of course not; it is a cover word. Remember, Marxists of all stripes are experts at word manipulation. So, think about it: we have a Democratic Party!

With the above backdrop, today, “democracy” is a code word for something else. The following about Communism from Bella V. Dodd strikes a chord (boldface added):

This is the peculiar paradox of modern totalitarianism. This is the key to the mental enslavement of mankind: that the individual is made into nothing, that he operates as the physical part of what is considered a higher group intelligence and acts at the will of that higher intelligence, that he has no awareness of the plans the higher intelligence has for utilizing him. When a person conditioned by a totalitarian group talks about the right not to incriminate himself, he really means the right not to incriminate the communist [Dumbocracy!] group of which he is only a nerve end. When he talks of freedom of speech, he means freedom for the communist [Dumbocracy!] group to speak as a group through the mouth of the individual who has been selected by the higher intelligence. [School of Darkness, pg. 158]

Bella V. Dodd (1904-1969), born in Italy as Maria Asunta Isabella Visono, was the youngest of ten children. Her Foster parents cared for Bella for her first five years. Then, she immigrated to unite with her family in New York City. Bella was a teacher, lawyer, and labor union activist. As a member of the Communist Party of America and the New York City Teachers Union in the 1930s and 1940s, she was an enthusiastic voice for the Communist Party. After expulsion from the party in 1949 and returning to her Catholic faith, she became a vocal anti-communist. Bella’s autobiography “School of Darkness” is beautiful and moving. In a stunning rebuke of her Communist past, she wrote:

The Bill of Rights of the American Constitution was written to protect individuals against centralized power. The Communists pervert this safeguard by first enslaving the individual so that he becomes the marionette of the centralized power. [School of Darkness, pg. 159]

As a segue back and an appropriate (suitable) inversion of the above, enter one of the tremendous positive figures from history, Frederick Douglas (1818-1895). Our collectivist friends like Douglas, too, but from a selective perspective. The Critical Race (conspiracy) Theory proponents love to invoke the first part of Douglas’s July 1852 speech, where he denounced the evil of slavery in the USA. They ignore the second part, whereby he said: “While drawing encouragement from the Declaration of Independence, the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age.” Douglas regarded the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as part of a tradition enabling the break from slavery for thousands of years. For more about this topic, please see: “Frederick Douglas Versus the 1619 Project” by Dinesh D’Souza, July 14, 2021, Epoch Times.

Most people automatically think about the injustice past African Americans suffered from slavery. That is certainly a historical fact. Historically, slavery included people of every race and color until modern times. Let us not forget the thousands that died in the Civil War, with slavery a key element in this fight. Your author has a bitter taste in his mouth for scant mention of this fact in the mainstream’s coverage of Juneteenth celebrations. A note goes out about the other injustices; Irish, Polish, Catholic, and Italians (etc.) shall not apply. Anti-Semitism is a legend and continues to this day. In 1863, enslaved people were freed. The Immigration Act of 1864 permitted indentured servitude for white ethnicities from southern and central Europe. Was this racist?

To be open and honest, such things as Jim Crow Laws, lynching, etc., are indeed a terrible stain from the past. Let us learn from these awful injustices, move on, and prevent the same from occurring again. Two wrongs do not make a right (e.g., scapegoating innocent people today who had nothing to do with those injustices despite the Neo-Marxists’ words). Specifically, the hatred projected toward those who had nothing to do with such injustices. Some forgiveness and compassion from the Neo-Marxists would be in order, but these hyper-cult worshippers do not know of such things. It is perplexing how the inclusion and compassion cult crew members do not practice what they preach. The German people of today do not take to a knee because of the injustices of the Nazi Holocaust. For the Neo-Marxists, it is all about revenge. The positive late significant African American figures such as Frederick Douglas, George Washington Carver, Booker T. Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King take a back seat. Indeed, mixed-race families have a terrible time coping with their anguish because of this social and mental madness.

Of course, the injustices that do occur today should be handled according to the laws regardless of who does such things. Unfortunately, the system is far from equal—hate crime laws, like thought crimes, supply a two-tiered system. The new privileged types get extra protection under the law. Also, see Frederick R. Smith Speaks; Hate Crime Horrors, October 26, 2020.

We can invoke ignorance or think it cannot be accurate, but the history unfolding now is worse than a nightmare. For decades, the Marxist and, lately, Neo-Marxist teachers and professors among our ranks pushed the hate America agenda. Even those who love our nation are forced to push this foul-smelling vomit from the pit of Hell or lose their jobs. Even tenured people face the Caustic Cancel Culture Pogrom. The 1619 Project has intensified Howard Zinn’s communist writings to tell school children that their history is evil and, by extension, if they are not of color, they are considered evil due to the pigment of their skin. This pogrom is known as the Critical Race (conspiracy) Theory.

It is not only about slavery. More to the point is the leftist American mobocracy’s hatred of our nation. It is a projectile vomit, a lie-vision of America that casts all elements of our society (culture, traditions, and founding documents) as evil constructs. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. must be spinning in his grave. Let us not forget his famous words, “I look to a day when the color of their skin will not judge people but by the content of their character.”

In more sane times, telling children they are evil because of their skin color would be psychological abuse. It is the same with the perverted sex education (pornography) and indoctrination into same-gender copulation. For example, in 2020, the New Jersey state assembly mandated that the public school syllabus includes a discussion about anal sex. These indoctrination schemes are immoral for the sane among us, but it is national suicide. We are in a technical equivalent of the Roman Coliseum at its worst when it displayed open debauchery. Today, anyone of any age can view orgies unrestricted on the same medium censors talk that does not fit the official narrative. According to YouTube, this censorship is necessary for people’s safety. If this does not make your head spin, then nothing will. The machine mandates we must accept all this slop drop in the name of equity or face the consequences—Giant go-pound sand to that.

Meanwhile, check out the rants of this “model” teacher lamenting that she can’t teach Critical Race (conspiracy) Theory but is required to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Your author would love to ask this “objective” teacher if displaying a pro-heterosexual flag in her classroom would be acceptable.

Sometimes, we think this might be just a nightmare or that it can be true. Unfortunately, it is indeed true once you get a taste of reality. Your author has the following applicable story to share, proving it is not a nightmare.

Recently, in a particular county in a particular state, the library for a specific municipality advertised a free “Social Justice” program for children to attend voluntarily by a virtual medium. This “learning experience,” as it turns out, expectedly was a cover for another Critical Race (conspiracy) Theory pogrom presented by “an activist.” A close friend in this municipality saw an advertisement for this “training.” As a tax-paying contributor to this library, my friend requested a copy of the agenda. He met with repeated stonewalling by the library officials because the content was the “intellectual” (cough, cough) property of the Social Justice activist. In the end, after much prodding, my friend was told there was no way he could get a copy of the vomit but was begrudgingly allowed to attend this virtual seminar. This seminar was the same Neo-Marxist pit of Hell slop drop.

Please remember that the terms Social Justice, Environmental Justice, and Racial Justice are nothing more than code for collectivism. This codeword tactic is the Satan Bug’s delta and delta plus variant, and it kills. The evildoers and their puppets are experts at this linguistic gymnastic exercise to hide the truth behind this slop drop—Communism. Seeing many people waking up to the evils of Critical Race (conspiracy) Theory gives some hope. On the other hand, it is no surprise to see the metamorphosis into a new mantra called “diversity and inclusion.” How can they go wrong with that? If that goes sour, produce another new term. Look out for “ethics training.”

Another tactic the education czars use is claiming their schools do not have a Critical Race (conspiracy) Theory or class. They quietly interweave this vomit bile into all course content (see below Specialized High-Intensity Training). And, oh, math is racist. Hey evildoers, we read your book!

The evildoers are, well, evildoers. Most inclusion troops are puppets, those who think they are doing good. These do-good proponents are useful idiots. That is the term Stalin used when talking about the “peoples” who converted to Communism. For the do-good puppets, they get a drug-like fix pushing this slop drop: the reward—euphoric secular ecstasy. No joke, check out the facial expressions of the do-good puppets working the front lines. Most do not know we are at war, as we shall see later in the discussion about the “Art of War” (Part Six).

And, oh, programmed ones. Now hear this: your collectivist leaders of today and yesteryear, by and large, are privileged, wealthy demagogues. Your icons of Marx, Engels, Stalin, and Mao were children of the wealthy elitist class. Castro and his brothers had it all from his father’s sugar business. By taking over Cuba, Fidel, the humble worker, accumulated over 900 million at his death in 2016. Bill Ayers, admitted terrorist and friend of Barack Obama, was the spoiled son of Thomas Ayers, CEO of Consolidated Edison. Obama is now enjoying his retirement in his DC mansion and 11.5 million dollars humble abode on Martha’s Vineyard. BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors is the poster child of this fake woe-is-me icon collection. Proud as a peacock, she touts her claim to be “a trained Marxist.” Indeed, just like all the other collectivist “leaders,” she had a lot of money and power. Like in Animal Farm, all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

As fanatics, these do-good folk and openly uber-violent cousins like Antifa members have acute mental blindness. That blocks information, true history, statistics, and ethics. Their “cause” overrides these facts and truths. The fanatics engage in a cult ritual as a part of the collective. Furthermore, the vile Antifa actions and the mob mentality of the riots (mostly peaceful protests) serve the collective with the mad machine supplying impunity. These people are the real haters. The mad machine downplays the riots to the hilt and hyper-magnifies anything that goes sideways from the opposing side. These collectivist revolutionaries enjoy living in our nation with needs supplied by society but use its products and services to tear it all down. So, dopy programmed robots, what will you do after tearing it all down? Your Marxist-trained leaders will be in hiding with their wealth. Will we ever see an apology from the mobocracy for tearing down a small business in the name of equity?

It should be easy to realize there is a common theme, and it is a Machiavellian monstrosity. Russian nihilist Sergey Nechayev followed the Machiavellian model. “The end justifies the means” is a phrase of Necheyev. In 1869, he wrote “The Revolutionary Catechism.” That is a must-read for today’s revolutionaries. Eldridge Cleaver (1935-1998), a one-time Black Panther leader who later converted to Christianity and conservatism, noted how “The Catechism” guided him on the dark side. Most importantly, how to “go after the cops” when the police respond, distort the image, and say the police officers “came after us.” This strategy should sound familiar.

But wait, there is much more, just as seen on TV. Our schools are all about social (justice) engineering and no longer emphasize reading, writing, and math. Civics (national identity and citizenship) be dammed. We can see that “justice” concerns the environment, race, and gender as cogent folk. The four legs of the new Social Justice Specialized High-Intensity Training (SJ-SHIT) syllabus intertwined into all course content include the Caustic Cancel Culture Pogrom (CCCP), Critical Race conspiracy Theory (CRcT), Incredibly Intense Equity (IIE), and Goofy Gender-Bending (GGB).

• CCCP - Teachers (brainwashers) shall erase all positive history. Only the bad shall be taught under the lens of collectivism. Genuinely learning from past mistakes and moving on is a sin against the social justice (Communism) creed.

• CRcT - White people of any age are simply racists. They cannot help it because the 1619 Project says it is in our DNA. White woke folk and gender-bender folk get a pass. Update—no longer call it CRcT and use sweet-sounding words such as diversion, inclusion, ethics, etc. This “proves” those who know the truth behind this madness are the enemy of humanity.

• IIE - To maximize each student’s learning is a grave sin. In its place: equal outcomes among students. All tests shall be multiple-choice, and all answers are correct—higher education: canceled. Drop positive goals, and so goes the incentive for work. Insert note: with few to work and make goods, buy from other communist countries that use slave-like labor (e.g., China).

• GGB - This pogrom wipes out the male/female truth of humanity. We shall reject biology and replace it with the new and improved sexual whatever it is thingy. Feelings of transgenderism or same-gender copulation override DNA, mental acuity, and physical attributes. Teachers shall let the darlings know they can choose from one or more of the growing number of genders or non-genders they desire. Trash the concept of a heterosexual couple with offspring (family unit). Pro-family promotion of a family with one man (father) and one woman (mother) is “hate speech” of the highest degree. To mention this is akin to “White Privilege.”

These four legs, or “courses,” burrowed like a tic in many schools, incinerate our positive belief systems. Too busy to keep up with what is going on, the average American citizen sees no evil. Like the Jones-flavored Kool-Aid™ drinkers, some people pushing these programs believe it is for a better (communist) country. Worse, drunk with power, the overlords seek absolute control, which will corrupt and destroy our way of life. No wonder people say things like they are “fearful of a pickup displaying an American flag.” No joke, rest assured such a flag “sign” will be a dog whistle to have the programmed masses report a potential right-wing terrorist. On the other hand, an Isis flag is just incredible.

This play on words and shifting language is a Communist Party tactic. The following quote is from historical records inserted into a 1985 article by Charley Reese. “An Interview With Lenin Through the Magic of Historical Record” included this quote by Lenin:

Why should freedom of speech and freedom of the press be allowed? Why should a government which is doing what it believes is right allow itself to be criticized? It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal things than guns.

For academia, as mentioned in Part 2, 18 percent of social science professors openly claim to be Marxists. Mark R. Levin, in his July 2021 book “American Marxism” on page 41, has this to say about academia:

America’s college and university faculties have turned their classrooms into breeding grounds for resistance, rebellion, and revolution against American society, as well as receptors for Marxist or Marxist-like indoctrination and propaganda. Academic freedom exists first and foremost for the militant professors, and the competition of ideas is mostly a quaint concept of what higher education used to be and should be. But Marxism is not about free speech and debate, it is about domination, repression, indoctrination, conformity, and compliance. The existing society and culture and those who prosper within it (intellectually, spiritually, and economically), as well as those who defend it, must be denounced and defamed. Disillusion with the status quo is key. Marxism presents a “new faith,” if you will, which promises a new and better society, for which a passion if not obsession is inculcated in future generations--despite its trail of mass death, enslavement, and impoverishment.

Meanwhile, another good friend, a non-woke individual, expressed his right to free speech, resulting in a police visit. His sin against the Neo-Marxist cult was placing signs on his lawn proclaiming such things as the evil of abortion and flying the American flag upside down. As it turns out, debased woke Neo-Marxist neighbors filed a complaint saying they were “threatened” by these displays. The police showed up at my friend’s house to discuss the signs. He politely asked them to have an arrest warrant for future visits. Does this incident make your author or author’s friend hate all police? Of course not.

Near your author’s residence is a house with rainbow and BLM flags on a flagpole along these lines. No problem there, as much as Fred may not be an enthusiastic supporter. Unlike the debased woke folk, your author will not cower because of those flags. It is their right. Your author would defend their right to fly their crummy flags. But would the opposite be true if your author raised a pro-heterosexual flag? That would be a hate speech offense in the programmed minds of the cowardly woke folk. They are heterophobic, including otherwise heterosexual folk who engage in mental masturbation fighting for the cause of sodomy. As a prediction, using the “S” (sodomy) word will soon be added to the hate speech list. Once again, go pound sand evil ones.

Speaking of flags, Macy Gray defends call for new US flag: ‘I love my country,’ This singer has the free collective speech police, including the White House, on her side. Good for her. A message for the media brainwashing mad machine: pound sand.

And one more real-life story. Another friend has a relative who lives in Seattle, WA. Inquiring about the destruction in the wake of Antifa’s havoc in that area, Fred’s pal got an astonishing reply: “It is not their fault.” At least there is an admission (Antifa is not an idea).

In addition to non-woke Caucasians, many non-woke African Americans and other ethnicities find Critical Race (conspiracy) Theory repulsive as a pile of vomit out of the pit of Hell. The African Americans and other non-white people who complain about it are suddenly projected into the same basket of “deplorables.” In other words, they are transracial. Think about it; this fits the narrative of the nifty theory that the mad machine projects and promotes: we can change our gender at will. So why not apply the transgender cult process to race? If so, we all could become some new homogenous race. Do we see how repulsive it is to be all “the same?” Our strength could be true diversity, where our unique abilities and talents contribute to a compelling and profoundly reasonable society.

As we now see, Critical Race (conspiracy) Theory nicely fits into the Marxist philosophy of criticism. In a splendid display of how the vomit programming works, here is a prototypical “projection” headline (The Daily Beast June 24, 2020):

Parents Rail Against ‘Critical Race Theory’ by Hurling Racist Abuse at Black School Bosses

Now for the sub-heading (emphasis added):

Culture war crusaders in a North Carolina county have escalated their battle against an imagined enemy—“critical race theory”—with a disturbing campaign of racist and misogynistic threats against Black public school administrators.

For a whopper to end this part, how about New York City begging people to return with a television commercial currently showing on broadcast programming system? That is a sight to behold. The Big Rotten Apple has a big/ugly drag queen featured at the end of the clip, waving you in to come on back now. Noticeably missing is the view of a traditional family holding hands. You cannot have that; it is tantamount to hate speech. Please stop shoving this down our throats and halt the hypersonic pandering—another giant go-pound sand.📕

I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!

Share

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid

Leave a comment

Share Frederick R. Smith Speaks

Email the Author: Frederick R. Smith

Religion is the sign of the oppressed ... it is the opium of the people
Karl Marx

Share

Regardless of your political or religious affiliations, it is easy to see the link between Weishaupt’s five points and the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto. Marx’s Ten Planks also mirror today’s social discourse—some like it, such as Antifa members.

Despite Biden’s and Nadler’s claims, Antifa is an uber-cult, not an idea. It started in the 1930s in Germany as the “Antifaschistische Aktion.” There, Antifa clashed with the Nazi Brown Shirts. Today, it is a highly organized association with trained members. It is a confederation of anarchists, communists, and other radicals. It connects to the terrorist organization Weather Underground, Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (FALN), and the May 19th Communist Organization (MCO). As an interesting tidbit, May 19th is the birthday of Malcolm X and Ho Chi Minh. The suggested reading is “The Real History of Antifa for more about this evil and destructive group.” But of course, we are gaslighted to believe the most significant threat likely comes from white supremacists.

The woke folk like the tenets of the hideous collectivist vomit. Once freed from the mental blindness, the now cogent unwoke folk can discern that much of what we see and hear comport with the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto. Now, with a genuinely open mind, we can see these collectivist beliefs blooming in Europe simultaneously with the founding of the USA. As a reminder and poke in the eye to the woke folk, this founding was in 1776, not 1619.

While this section of Fred’s blog (Part Three) focuses on the United States, it is a universal truth that all people worldwide have or should have, depending on the country, the right to freedom and property. Collectivism spells the end of these most basic human needs and truths. A shout-out goes to our friends in Canada. See Frederick R. Smith Speaks, Nightmare in the North, April 23rd, 2021.

The open struggles of today in the United States are an old endeavor. We should learn from our past, reconcile, and move on. Yes, there are inequities, and because of the imperfection of humankind, we will face this blemish until the end of time. However, a renewed polarization is fueled by a radical reframing of our past with attacks on our present. This hyper-revision is a proliferation of false narratives or exaggerations that murder our national identity.

Like in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, we now have the thought police with its shock troopers from big business and media to attack those who hold traditional values. Views contrary to the “narrative” become heretical to the New Woke World religion cult. If society accepts this narrative, lies become the truth, like in Nineteen Eighty-Four. Emblematic is the notion that all Caucasian people are racist because they have a specific pigment. Even if you claim no racism, the system informs you of your unconscious bias. Furthermore, your silence is proof of your bias, as “silence equals violence.” The ultimate example of “projection” is that the accuser is doing the same thing they accuse the accused of doing. As an example of this mind-numbing programming, on July 4th, 2010, Judd Garrett posted this gem:

On July 1st, the Chinese Communist Party celebrated its 100th year ruling China, and many in America’s left-leaning media celebrated this milestone. CNN tweeted, “The Chinese Communist Party is about to turn 100 but Xi will be the real star.” CNN’s Ben Westcott wrote that this “is an opportunity for the party to reaffirm its credentials while ensuring loyalty.” And that the “party has much to celebrate, particularly China’s growth from one of the poorest nations in the world into an economy on the brink of overtaking the US.”

Yesterday, a New York Times columnist wrote this about our nation’s birthday:

“Today, flying the flag from the back of a pickup truck or over a lawn is increasingly seen as a clue… to a person’s political affiliation in a deeply divided nation… What was once a unifying symbol is now alienating to some, its stripes now fault lines between people who kneel while “The Star-Spangled Banner” plays and those for whom not pledging allegiance is an affront.”

Also see Frederick R. Smith, Goofy Gray Lady, January 2nd, 2021.

There is a stark contrast between the way left-wing media views America and its history and [that of] communist countries. The same people continually remind America of its past sins to gloss over the more brutal, recent atrocities of the Chinese Communists. On July 1st, there was barely a mention of Mao’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, which killed over 45 million citizens, or the present-day Chinese concentration camps where over one million Uyghurs get tortured, raped, and murdered. [Also, shall we not forget the plight of the Falun Gong in China.]

For more of the Neo-Marxists vomit projection, how about Ashleigh Shackleford presenting a syllabus (cough, cough) about Critical Race (conspiracy) Theory. In a video of an indoctrination vile venom session, she says, “.. I believe that white people are born into not being human.” Behold the spectacle:

It is a wonderment (not) that the bastion of free speech, YouTube, has not scrubbed this putrid presentation holding nonsense about not being human. And the adult robots in the meeting room looking on like sheep is an even higher form of wonderment.

As a counter to the above, there is this real-life story. During 2020, when politicians panicked (e.g., lockdowns) with the “firefly but mostly peaceful protests” occurring in the closest big city, your author and his wife tried to visit an upscale restaurant with predominantly African-American workers and patrons. With no waiting line, the host said we would have a 2.5-hour wait without a reservation. We declined, but it sure seemed suspicious. Later in the year, while your author was pumping gas into his automobile, two African Americans walking by said to your author, “You look like Hitler.” By just ignoring this black racist duo, nothing happened (thankfully). They had their day with “free speech,” but think of the consequences if Fred responded in any way. At best, it would have been magnified into a “white racist rant” or spawned violence (called protest by the mad machine) against Fred. Did these chance encounters make Fred hate African Americans? Of course not.

In another example of “look the other way,” a psychiatrist lecturing at Yale’s Child Study Center spoke about “unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way.” We know the programming mad machine would launch into hyper-projection if a similar speech emanated from a “right-winger.” Today, the Neo-Marxist mad machine will shut down any countering dialog with the inane ploy to call the respondent “racist.” More Pavlov’s Dogs projection. This collectivist-like behavior is hazardous and the prime example of why we must protect free speech (for any wing). That way, people can speak out against lousy speech.

History shows that the Soviet Communists rewrote history to slam the citizens’ national identity. Relics destroyed and streets given new names should ring a bell in your mind (i.e., fiery but mostly peaceful protests). In line with this programming, the Boston Globe newspaper has a “Fresh Start” program that allows individuals to request revisions to past news articles. That is to avoid “embarrassment” if specific texts are kept in the record. Now we know why so many statues were toppled and vandalized in 2020 with the tacit approval of the vile news media programming mad machine. Confident municipal leaders (cough, cough) cheered for this menagerie spectacle. The National Guard troops and law enforcement personnel who bent their knee were particularly disturbing. Was it about following orders, sympathizing with the rioters, or saving their own lives? Hopefully, that was the left knee, as the right is for God.

As a vital insert concerning the march to serfdom, an essential link is Howard Zinn’s 1980 tome called “A People’s History of the United States.” The title alone is suspect. Since it was published during the birth of the millennials, that nexus explains why so many of that generation have an affinity for collectivism. Higher education (cough, cough) and public schools continue to vomit this crapola by intertwining it into regular course content. People also continue to buy this bile for reading pleasure (wink, wink). Zinn’s work magnifies the wrong side of history and downplays the good. A personal reflection about your author, Fred, is in order as an aspect of this dichotomy. As a youngster, and to this day, the wisdom of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan in 1945 haunts him. One could argue for hours about this topic. Still, unlike the Neo-Marxist Pavlov’s Dogs, questioning the nuclear bomb drops that immediately incinerated up to 200,000 people does not incline Fred to hate America.

For full disclosure, your author has not read Zinn’s work (or Hanna-Jones, below) but has read reviews from both sides of the aisle to conclude. The common defense of Zinn and similar works is the claim that “America has not lived up to its ideals.” What other country has these ideals (or equivalent) and lived up to them?

Drinking the Jones-flavored Kool-Aid™ from Zinn, in 2019, the New York Times (a.k.a. Goofy Gray Lady) published a 100-page magazine called the “1619 Project.” It was released on the 400th anniversary of English pirates landing on the North American continent with 20 enslaved people. The Times even promotes that they attempted to redefine our history. The principal author, Nikole Hannah-Jones, openly avers that she and the co-authors want to “decenter whiteness.” She brazenly writes that our nation’s founding occurred not in 1776 but 157 years prior. Entirely out of any objective reality, she wants all to swallow the notion that the reason for the American Revolution was only to preserve slavery. And it goes on and on with inane assertions such as the Constitution is an undemocratic document, and anti-black racism runs in the DNA of this country. As we shall see, but not as any accolades to Hannah-Jones, the Founders were suspicious of democracy.

One notable notion from Hannah-Jones concerns the assertion that white people have an addiction to sugar because of slavery. The sugar industry indeed used slavery to produce its products. Likewise, many other farming interests did the same vicious thing. This argument about sugar is myopic as it ignores people of different races who have the same craving for sugar. Likewise, many other foods and goods were made by enslaved people at one time. Let us learn and move on from the past rather than ruminate about it. This obsession with Critical Race (conspiracy) Theory makes paranoia seem normal.

Of note, Ms. Hannah-Jones, some years before her 1619 Projectfame, wrote a letter to Notre Dame’s Observer. There she wrote that “the white race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world… whites have always been an unjust, jealous, unmerciful avaricious, and bloodthirsty set of beings.” She also avers that Christopher Columbus is “no different than [sic] Hitler.” These vile statements are not even worth any more energy to refute. With the rise of this hate, Hannah-Jones received accolades for her 1619 Project with a reward from the now-putrid Pulitzer Prize on May 4th, 2020. In line with the narrative, the woke Pavlov’s Dogs will automatically parrot the racism card—a nifty redirection tactic. Meanwhile, we have a clear direction with great expediency from the compassionate crowd, never to paint a broad brush against a group of “religious” people. Hint is the second-largest religion in the world. This expediency does not apply to people of a particular skin color, to whom Ms. Hanna-Jones refers.

The above aside, one wretched item worth rebutting is a notion from the other 1619 Project contributors. They wrote about the good old Marxist capitalism/working-class struggle. This classic Marxist thought process is interwoven through this vile and wretched document, but the “class struggle” morphed into a race struggle (Neo-Marxism). Marxism is indeed pliable or malleable enough to fit a particular pogrom.

The National Education Association partnered with the New York Times (Goofy Gray Lady) to distribute copies of the 1619 Project throughout the educational system. The booklet is a publication of none other than the Zinn Education Project. Also, see Frederick R. Smith Speaks; Nauseating NEA, August 1st, 2020. It gets worse. On July 4th, 2021, The Epoch Times reported this Critical Race (conspiracy) Theory (CRT) tidbit about the NEA, clearly a communist organ:

The National Education Association (NEA), which represents more than 3 million employees in public education, on June 30th kicked off its 100th Representative Assembly. During the four-day online convention, the union adopted a measure to commit at least $127,600.00 to advance its pro-CRT agenda.

According to the plan, the NEA will share and publicize information about “what CRT is and what it is not,” dedicate a “team of staffers” to assist union members who “want to learn more and fight back against anti-CRT rhetoric,” and provide a study that critiques “power and oppression” in American society, including “white supremacy,” “cisheteropatriarchy,” and capitalism. Learn more about it here and here:

The union also declared that it opposes attempts to ban CRT and the New York Times’ highly controversial “1619 Project,” which recasts American history, claiming that the United States was founded and remains a racist nation.

In addition, the measure calls for an “accurate and honest” teaching of “unpleasant aspects of American history.” It affirms that CRT is an appropriate framework for educators to address those topics.

NEA, you show your true colors! Your hidden collectivist leanings return to your beginning, as detailed in Frederick R. Smith Speaks, Nauseating NEA, August 1st, 2020. Old habits die hard. No longer hidden: the crummy NEA union leadership is a commie front. Some of the members are boot-licking comrades. As other concerned cogent folks proclaim: bring it on, NEA slime balls. The same goes for the slimy slop-drop school boards that allow this crapola. Keep on talking and barking; the more, the better. It does an excellent job of exposing the evil agenda (Satan Bug).

The pushing of things other than the critical elements of reading, writing, and math exposes the real purpose of the NEA and its accomplices. It is all about the dumbing down of America. The trashing of real substantive positive subjects opens a cavern. Filling in this void is an acidic liquid mix that includes (but is not limited to) the following ingredients: lust (teachers—primarily female—fornicating with students), America-phobia, the global citizenry (honor the United Nations), hate of the police rhetoric, illicit drugs, social justice (communism), Christophobia, and heterophobia. Does all that make Fred hate all schools and teachers? Of course not! It is a matter of detesting the sin and not the person. The few good schools, even private, face attacks from this evil empire (Satan Bug).   

Meanwhile, on July 6th, 2021, a Twitter user reported that the nauseating NEA has quietly removed references to promoting Critical Race (conspiracy) Theory. Why are they covering up their support for CRT? We know—commies!

Of note, the rewriting of history started way back in the 1920s, as detailed in the book “Hope of the Wicked” on page 135:

Early in this (past) century, the Guggenheim Foundation agreed to award fellowships to historians recommended by the Carnegie Endowment. Gradually, through the 1920s, they assembled a group of twenty promising young academics and took them to London. There they briefed them on what was expected of them when they became professors of American history. Those twenty were the nucleus of what was eventually to become the American Historical Association. In 1928, the American Historical Association was granted $400,000 by the Carnegie Endowment to write a seven-volume study on the direction the nation was to take. The thrust of these books, according to Senator Norman Dodd, was that “the future of this country belongs to collectivism and humanism.” Senator Dodd concluded from his study that these tax-exempt foundations, by virtue of the fact that they pay for these studies, lay at the heart of a group determined to destroy the United States. These educational changes were applied very gradually, so as not to alarm the general American populace, but they have been documented. This, in concert with state and federal court decisions in the later half of the twentieth century, has proven very effective at achieving this goal.

Here is a real-life story right in line with the 1619 Project. A close friend, who will go unnamed, is an executive in charge of all security for a major corporation. Like other urban areas, headquarters in a significant city face a hyperincrease in 2021 crime. In an extraordinary email to my friend, the mayor announced a summit to tackle the crime. The focus: what can be done to stop white racism from making blacks kill blacks? Right out of the Nineteen Eighty-Four/Zinn/Jones commie playbook.

As briefly discussed in Part One and more to follow concerning professional (cough, cough) sports players, the switch from class to race is necessary. That ensures that the overlords and other decadent, debased, woke folk influencers can stay clear of the insurrectionist mob and keep their booty. More “projection.” This redirection is prophylactic to avoid the side effects of a possible new French Revolution-style pandemic. It is nothing more than Neo-Marxism.

As an important historical note, the first collectivist switch from class struggle occurred during the Nazi regime. The Nazi theory attacked ethnicity and religion. For Critical Race (conspiracy) Theory, the “white” folk are the presumed guilty enemy, a vague and confusing moniker. It can include groups of people such as Russians, Norwegians, Greeks, Chechens, etc. Likewise, the presumed overarching oppressed “people of color” is an equally confusing target—for example, African, Latin American, Asian, Arab ancestry, etc.

While we are on the topic of the nasty Nazi nexus, and to be clear, your author is not making any aspersions against the progressives to be in the same category. However, with hope and prayer, we will not see such a terrible thing. Meanwhile, we have heard progressives use the Nazi word with impunity in a broad-brush manner. But of course, the collectivists often make aspersions against their opponents using the Nazi and genocide allegations. They can go pound sand.

The glittering example of all this Neo-Marxism is professional (really?) sports players. Those who have the mental fortitude and have read this essay can see why. It is about preserving their grotesque overcompensation for doing their part of the Bread and Circuses spectacle. Meanwhile, scores of players openly disrespect the nation, making it possible to collect their mentally disordered compensation. During the playing of the national anthem, these jackals engage in a quixotic display of hubris. Their hiding in locker rooms, taking to the knee, and turning their back to the flag is a demented virtue signal. This condemnation applies to nonprofessional players who do the same thing. The Olympian-woke folk who partake in this biting behavior are of particular concern. Real heroes (gag me with a spoon)!

Note the fake “do not generalize” mobocracy: your author does not apply the above concern to all sports players. Specifically, those who realize by engaging in this vile virtue-signaling attack the very system that gives them their wealth!

Despite these crumb bums, free speech is a necessary right. Expression, even for things we do not like, is vital to avoid the rise of totalitarianism. Of course, it is also about some decorum. We know, we know—the Trump card!

The Satan Bug infestation seems to coincide with Covid-1984 and the hyper-coarsening of society. Symptoms of the Satan Bug manifest as hyper-increase in vulgarity, aggressive driving, running traffic lights, loud mufflers, loud music (noise) blaring from open windows of automobiles, and sloth. An increase in graffiti or tagging is outward disrespect for property. Look at freight trains today to behold a bevy of satanic slop-drops painted on the freight cars. This is nothing new, but it has exploded in recent years.

We know that if projecting classic Marxism, these sports creeps would be the target. It is redirection (Neo-Marxism) of the most menacing kind. Another example is the Black Lives Matter (BLM) leader who brought a mansion to a ritzy LA neighborhood. Little about that morsel exists in the psychological warfare mad machine known as the mainstream media. Nor will we see the same slop-drop media cover the BLM leader who quit because of the realization this is all a Neo-Marxist plot that protects the overlords and does nothing to truly help African Americans or other poor people in a true sense. A case in point is the BLM co-founder, who gladly touts her Marxist training. Those influencers who realize the bad see that BLM’s goals align with the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto. They are the unsung heroes!

This Frederick R. Smith blog is in no way an apology but a repudiation of the terrible injustice of slavery. This injustice has existed throughout the world since the beginning of recorded history. Slavery still exists in many African countries. An estimated 9.2 million Blacks live in servitude today, and the atrocities Africans have endured overshadow anything experienced by Blacks beyond that continent.

But we rarely hear about this modern slavery because of the god of political correctness. Nevertheless, the American Revolution was the turning point against slavery, and the Founding Fathers contributed to that transformation. Many Founders complained that Great Britain had forcefully imposed slavery upon the Colonies. The United States led the world in liberty and the fight against slavery. In 1790, Massachusetts ended slavery. In 1840, all northern states passed laws for the immediate or gradual abolition of slavery. Also, see Frederick R. Smith Speaks; The Sin of Slavery, September 25th, 2020.

And, of course, the death of any person of any race at the hands of the police is a serious matter. However, like all other issues, the mad machine uses this terrible thing to magnify certain types of incidents and downplay others. That fits nicely into the Neo-Marxist game. How about a “do not respond list” for those who want to Defund the Police? But of course, we know such individuals call the police when distressed.

Even your author has some issues with the police. For example, they enforced the unconstitutional Covid “emergency orders” during the Covid plandemic. It drives your author into orbit whenever he sees police at construction or other roadside works. They make easy money during overtime shifts doing something easily performed by flaggers. Rather than the vile Neo-Marxist plot to “Defund the Police,” how about doing some practical things like establishing a new safety credential for highway flaggers? Meanwhile, leftist politicians in progressive localities make the job of the police miserable. They direct them to stand down for certain things while targeting the cogent, non-woke folk. Does that make Fred hate all police? Of course not.

Make no mistake; the “Defund the Police” bowel movement is a Marxist-inspired ploy. The goal is a federal police force, a nifty collectivist enforcement organ.

As a typical youngster of ten years of age in the mid-1960s, your author spent a lot of time outdoors, including exploring the local creek and wooded areas. One day, the local police visited the house to threaten your author. Neighbors saw Freddy walking home from the general area, where a brush fire erupted. Just that observation alone prompted the good police to lecture your author about the dangers of setting fires. After the encounter, Mom and Dad said they believed your author and that somebody else set the fire.

Once, your author left an expensive object on the front seat of his parked auto while visiting a local park. There, a park officer aggressively confronted Fred, making him out to be a criminal for “making the car a target.” Did these encounters make Fred hate all police? Of course not.

And there is the case of police harassment that a close friend (John Doe) endured. A neighbor behind John kept their mean and constantly barking dog outdoors tied to a chain 24-7 basis. John’s wife visited the neighbor and rang the doorbell to inquire about the constant barking. Rather than the neighborly thing to discuss the issue, the vile dog’s owner called the police to report a “trespassing incident.” After a year of the officer harassing my friend and his wife by insinuating they were “bad neighbors,” the police arrested the backyard neighbor. It turned out that the dog was the security for an illicit drug dealer. To add insult to injury, the police offered no apology. And just like the media mad machine’s gambit, the ethnicity of the drug kingpin shall remain undisclosed to avoid stereotypes. Did that encounter make John hate all police? Of course not.

We know conservatives are the imaginary overarching threat. We hear it daily as “extremism” or the “domestic terrorist threat.” The media projection experts are in control, but the gambit is easy to see. They up-play and magnify the perpetrators that fit the bill of their right-wing boogeyman. The opposite is true with Antifa as the extreme example, but you get the drift. Also, please check out the shocking truth of the Ferguson Effect as narrated by Heather MacDonald from a policing perspective.

For the final tidbit of this part, remember “white privilege” does not necessarily mean “White.” It is just another Marxist ploy. It means anybody of any race, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, or creed who embraces the American way (capitalism, free markets, limited government, culture, and values). 📕

I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!

Share

Share

Upgrade to Paid

Leave a comment

Share Frederick R. Smith Speaks

Email the Author: Frederick R. Smith

There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers
William James

Share

It is vital to grasp and understand the whole bouquet of history to see the present and help pave the way to a better future. While history teaches us that the quest for Utopia returns to the beginning of organized society, there is more to the story. As a part of our fallen nature, collectivism manifested as a modern root as far back as the early 1700s and bloomed in 1776. In 1776, Bavaria (not the USA) saw the coalescence of the idea. Later, this idea formed various collective “isims” (e.g., communism, Marxism, Nazism, and Fascism).

Libertarian readers may have their hackles up because your author did not include nationalism in the above “isims.” Indeed, the vile Nazi regime was a negative form of nationalism. Since Nazi means National Socialism, the mad machine hides the “S” word. Still, many significant historical figures loved their country. They include Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, and Anwar al-Sadat. As such, one could argue they were “nationalists.” But, the mad machine is blurring the line between patriotism and nationalism. This is another collectivist trick.

Meanwhile, a cursory history study shows that the demented collectivist idea began with Karl Marx. There is a lot more to the story. This is a compendium of philosophers in chronological order. Their “enlightenment” ideas, which started long before Marx, continue to sway today’s influencers. The first thoughts about collectivism go back to the ancient writings of Plato.

Before Marx, the “Age of Enlightenment” was an intellectual and philosophical movement. It dominated the world of ideas in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries. Page 139 of the book When Nations Die warns about the Enlightenment.

….one of the problems of the Enlightenment is that the “religion of humanity” brought forth a culture that was self-seeking, antisocial, and detached from the traditional sources of meaning. The creators of the Enlightenment fashioned a society without standards of justice, without standards of merit and authority, and without a higher moral purpose or even a willingness to admit that there may ever have been a moral purpose. Their allegiance was to the merely utilitarian, the materialistic, and the immediately gratifying. And they left to posterity a new view of humanity based on flimsy evidence, superficial illusions, unnatural passions, and an immense ideological gullibility.

The philosophers cast off the noble and heroic in favor of the ordinary and prosaic. They drove people of culture and virtue away, even from their class, who might have helped restore reason and order. The cry for liberty, equality, and brotherhood only imprisoned the children and grandchildren. A dismal bond of fatalism and failure trapped them. But lest we forget, we are their heirs. We are their progeny. The modern liberal democratic society in Europe and America must now realize the legacy left to us. And we must decide what we will make of our inheritance.

The short essays only provide a glimpse of significant collectivist personalities. We encourage readers to research and read more about the ideas of the Enlightenment. These ideas continue to rage on within today’s political and social realms. Many more figures from history play a role in our demented discourse. Research shows that the following personalities, listed chronologically, link to collectivism.

The Philosophers

Francois Marie Arouet, pen name Voltaire (1694-1778). Voltaire was one of France’s most celebrated and acclaimed writers and philosophers born in France. As a follower of the “Enlightenment,” he was also known as a “philosophe,” French for the word philosopher. In the spring of 1778, a decade before the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, Voltaire’s final play “Irene” opened in Paris. Once banished from France while living his last days, Voltaire attended a play’s performance. The crowds greeted him with feverish excitement. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (see below) was a contemporary of Voltaire. He commented that Voltaire’s Philosophical Letters on the English influenced his intellectual development. Also see Frederick R. Smith; Voltaire, Robespierre, and Religion of Reason, September 16, 2020.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). Rousseau was a Genevan philosopher, writer, and composer. His political philosophy influenced the progress of the Enlightenment throughout Europe. It also affected aspects of the French Revolution. Additionally, it influenced the development of modern political, economic, and educational thought. Rousseau was a fascinating person. His life reads like a novel and is worthy of added study. According to some scholars, Rousseau’s ideas were like those of the United States’ Founding Fathers. Yet, he had little influence on them. Some took Rousseau’s philosophy to the extreme or out of context. For example, during the Reign of Terror, Robespierre and Jacobin member Saint-Just (a.k.a. Angel of Death) regarded themselves as “egalitarian republicans.” Inspired by Rousseau, they fought to end indulgences.

Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850) criticized Rousseau, and in his best-known work, “The Law,” he said:

And what part do persons play in all this? They are merely the [mad] machine that is set in motion. In fact, are they not merely considered to be the raw material of which the [mad] machine is made? Thus the same relationship exists between the legislator and the prince as exists between the agricultural expert and the farmer; and the relationship between the prince and his subjects is the same as that between the farmer and his land. How high above mankind, then, has this writer on public affairs been placed?

“The Law” is a seminal work outlining the essential principles of a free society. Like our Founding Fathers, Bastiat shows us that too much government threatens true liberty. More salient historical facts show why the Marxists despise our founding – limited government. They have a continuum of connected minds thinking about the government taking care of them (a form of sloth). Meanwhile, these same debased woke folk toil hard at paving the road to serfdom. If only they used this energy to build. Also see Frederick R. Smith, The Law and Socialism, December 16, 2020.

Rousseau is the grandfather of educational indoctrination. He birthed the idea that students should be self-motivated. At the same time, teachers should manipulate what stimulates the pupils.

Johann Adam Weishaupt (1748-1830). Born in the German State of Bavaria, Weishaupt was Jesuit-trained and appointed professor at the University of Ingolstadt in Bavaria around 1772; he rose to the post of professor of Canon Law. He was the first layperson to hold that position, as clergy previously had it. In 1775, Weishaupt began planning a clandestine group to challenge the Church. On May 1, 1776, this group merged as the “Ancient and Illuminated Seers of Bavaria.” It is no coincidence that May 1 is the event collectivists annually celebrate as “May Day.” This group evolved into the “Illuminati,” which aligned with Enlightenment rationalist ideas. Between 1784 and 1787, the Illuminati faced suppression. In 1785, Bavaria banished Weishaupt. Some writings suggest that the Illuminati used the drug hashish to produce an “illuminated” state.

The word Illuminati typically ignites a Pavlov’s Dog response that Freddy is a conspiracy theory psycho. However, the intent is not to claim this group exists today but to show how many radical enlightenment ideas from this historically verifiable cabal continue interwoven into society’s fabric. The Illuminati wanted the abolition of:

1. Monarchy and ordered government

2. Private property and inheritance

3. Patriotism

4. Family (e.g., marriage and morality with an institutional education) and

5. Religion

Look familiar (hint: Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto)? This vile and evil vomit out of the pit of hell has a sweet-smelling veneer enrobed over it to encapsulate the stench. Enrobed examples include John Lennon’s “Imagine” and the magician’s redirection with the “fiery but mostly peaceful protests” throughout 2020. Also see Frederick R. Smith; Jacobins, Illuminati, and George Washington, October 29, 2020.

Alternate sources claim the Illuminated were in line with or behind the Jacobins. Established in France in 1789, the Jacobins were known as the “Society of the Friends of the Constitution.” Later, the Jacobin Club met in a former convent of the Dominicans (known in Paris as Jacobins). Deputies of the National Assembly formed the Jacobins to protect against a possible aristocratic reaction to the French Revolution. Though it did not have a direct role in overthrowing the monarchy in 1792, the club later changed its name to “Society of the Jacobins, Friends of Liberty and Equality.” Inculcated with the same vile philosophy as the Illuminati, the Jacobins fueled the French Revolution. Also see Frederick R. Smith; The Jolly Jacobin, January 24, 2021.

Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre (1758-1794). Robespierre was a French lawyer and political leader. He became one of the most influential figures of the French Revolution and the principal exponent of the Reign of Terror. Born in Arras and educated in Paris at the College of Louis-le-Grand and the College of Law, Robespierre became a passionate devotee of Rousseau’s’ social theories. As the deputy of the Estates-General, Robespierre oversaw that assembly in May 1789, on the eve of the French Revolution. He later served in the National Constituent Assembly, and his earnest and skillful oratory soon commanded attention. In April 1790, he was elected president of the Jacobin Club and became increasingly popular as an enemy of the monarchy and an advocate of democratic reforms. He opposed the more moderate Girondists, the dominant faction in the newly formed Legislative Assembly. Also see Frederick R. Smith; Voltaire, Robespierre, and Religion of Reason, September 16, 2020.

Filippo Michele Buonarroti (1761-1837). Born in Italy, Buonarroti was a promoter of collectivist ideals. He claimed his master to be Rousseau. The same year that Rousseau died, Buonarroti entered the University of Pisa to study law at seventeen and discovered Rousseau’s work. That ignited a lifelong passion for Rousseau’sphilosophy. While some researchers question Buonarroti’s membership in the Illuminati cult, he became friends with a high-ranking Illuminati member, Baron de Bassu, at the onset of the French Revolution. In 1793, Buonarroti moved to France and befriended Maximilien Robespierre. In 1794, while in Italy, he set up institutions to enlighten citizens with Rousseau’s’ Collectivist dogma and confiscated land belonging to the noble class. While serving time for the confiscation, he met François Noël (Gracchus) Babeuf (1760-1797), a radical French collectivist.

Upon release from prison on October 9, 1795, Buonarroti promoted the abolition of all private property to ensure “quality” for all of France. That should sound familiar, too. He joined the remnants of the Jacobin Club (Pantheon Society). None other than Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels read Buonarroti’s works.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). Born in Stuttgart (Germany), Hegel spent 1788-1793 as a student in nearby Tübingen, studying philosophy and theology. During these studies, Hegel formed friendships with fellow students, the future romantic poet Friedrich Hölderlin (1770-1843) and Friedrich von Schelling (1775-1854). All three became significant figures in the German philosophical scene, and these friendships significantly influenced Hegel’s intellectual development. Around the turn of the century, however, under the influence of Hölderlin and Schelling, his interests turned more to issues arising from the critical philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and later by J.G. Fichte (1762-1814).

As a supporter of progressive but non-revolutionary politics, Hegel’s followers were divided into factions (left, right, and center). Karl Marx morphed Hegelian ideas into a materialistic outlook with his “Scientific approach” to society and history. Hegel was friends with and mentored by the Illuminati and read their writings.

The Hegelian Dialect of collective thought is based on a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. The consensus process practically applies differing or opposing views (thesis and antithesis). Opposing views are changed toward an intended thought process (synthesis). The group members accept “ownership” of the new idea, changing their opinions by manipulating them to align with the new vision.

Thomas Robert Malthus (1776-1834). Malthus entered Jesus College, Cambridge 1784, excelled in English, Latin, and Greek, and graduated with honors. In 1791, he was graded with an MA and 1793 became a Fellow of Jesus College. In 1789, he took orders in the Church of England.

Malthus influenced political economy and demography as an English cleric, scholar, and influential economist. The Malthusian thought process included grim predictions about population growth: we will stand shoulder to shoulder in time. Malthus wrote about periodic wars, famine, and plagues to reduce population. He promoted hygienically unsound practices among the impoverished and believed in the natural reduction of the human herd. Malthusian philosophy influenced Marx’s ideas about “Capital.” That is the genesis of the eugenics movement (contraception, abortion, and population reduction/control).

Karl Heinrich Marx (1818 -1883). Born in Trier, Germany, Marx studied law and philosophy as a university student. Due to his political publications, Marx became stateless and lived in exile with his wife and children in London for decades, where he neglected them. He continued to develop his thought in collaboration with German thinker Friedrich Engels. His most known works are the 1848 pamphlet The Communist Manifesto and the three-volume Das Kapital (1867-1883). Marx’s critical (remember this word) theories about human discourse (a.k.a. Marxism) hold that human societies develop through class conflict. With Hegel in mind, in the capitalist mode of production, this theory manifests itself in the conflict between the ruling classes (known as the bourgeoisie or today as the oppressors). They control the means of production and the working classes (known as the proletariat or today as the oppressed). The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto include:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all land rents to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit is in the hands of the State, utilizing a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands; and the improvement of the soil generally by a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Marx’s works influenced the political and social landscape, even today. Marx was a poetry writer, and it is important to note his prose abandoned God and was inclined to an association with Satan. He inspired the collectivist monsters of modern times such as but not limited to, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung. A profound study of the horror of collectivism, using scholarly works like the Black Book of Communism, gets the Marxist professors’ scorn. Of note, 18 percent of professors openly claim to be Marxists. To trash the Black Book, these professors magnify the “bad” of capitalism. As intellectual sophistry, they use, among others, the USA’s meddling in the Central American conflicts in the 1980s to make their point. Not to defend those terrible things, but excuse me, which ideology caused the most significant death by the government? Communism to the tune of 100 million. It is a wonderment that we see today’s hippies donning T-shirts with Che Guevara’s image. As a refresher, Guevara was a communist thug who fought with Castro, murdering anti-communists. Also see Frederick R. Smith; The Black Book of Communism, September 28, 2020.

The most important item to remember about Marx is this salient tidbit: he advanced the notion that the way to transition humankind into Utopia was through the people’s will via criticism. Enter critical theory, the progenitor to Critical Race (conspiracy) Theory. And indeed, it is a (conspiracy) theory to imagine all white people are racists.

Analysis

Today, change agents unwittingly or knowingly practice and follow the Hegelian process. These human robots are programmed to use the hideous Hegel Dialectic hidden under the name of consensus-building. The net effects of these psychological manipulations include polarized sub-groups. Either people do not know what is going on or understand that their role is merely obligatory. Those not duped see that it is a preset outcome and that they are not a part of the “go team.” When opposition occurs, reform change agents can say there was actual “community participation.” What a laugh. Forget compromise as we did as youngsters to agree on some things. Today, it is a crummy “consensus.” if you do not conform to the narrative, you face the wrath of the Caustic Cancel Culture Pogrom or the new CCCP. Also see Frederick R. Smith; Caustic Cancel Culture Pogrom, February 23, 2021.

Headway occurs for the elite progressives and neocons through a manufactured conflict (the clash of opposites makes for progress). Indeed, this should sound so familiar within the woven fabric of the narratives within our present time. As we shall see, Marx’s writings reflect Hegel’s hideous ideas.

The government is their god for the programmed Hegelian robots and wholly “enlightened ones” who know what they are doing. But they only want a particular type of government, not the one we should have. The quintessential example is the hatred of Trump. It is not about Trump but loathing America First. They hid their hatred of America under the guise of Trump the Terrible; his frankly ridiculous personality is just the thing for the magician’s diversion, the Hegelian Dialectic. Friends often say, “Do not care about Trump’s behavior; it is the good he does.” That is the point; his behavior is the perfect ruse for the Hegelian Dialectic—time to move on.

Trump’s behavior aside, the 2020 election was stolen. Copious evidence abounds detailing the fraud and shenanigans. The mad machine’s only retort is to claim any such information as Republican fantasy. Meanwhile, Stacy Abrams claims voter fraud thwarted her run for the Georgia governorship. Hilary Clinton also claimed fraud prevented her bid for the presidency. The projected “truth” is that only Republicans commit voter fraud. Furthermore, fraud evidence pressed by that party is considered “fake news.” Nevertheless, Remembering What Was Done to the Trump Administration by Roger Kimball can be an eye-opener to the open-minded.

Hillary is devoted to Saul Alinsky, who wrote the 1971 book “Rules for Radicals.” Clinton first met Alinsky at Wellesley while working on her 1969 thesis about his controversial theories on community organizing, as outlined in his 1946 handbook, “Reveille for Radicals.” Alinsky is the consummate practitioner of Hegelian Dialectics. Like Marx, he pays tribute to Satan in Rules for Radicals.

The postmodern world embraces radical relativism, challenging the objective view or understanding of our human condition. Critical Race (conspiracy) Theory is the modern outgrowth of the 1937 Frankfort School’s Critical Theory. No universal truths are based on Moscow’s Marx-Engels Institute and the University of Frankfurt Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany. People infected with this thought(less) process lose touch with reality, whereby their entire being falls to the relative (radical relativism). Willie Münzenberg, one of the founders of the Frankfort School, had this to say:

We must organize the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilization stink. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Famous for the “death of God” quote, the nihilist philosophy of Frederick Nietzsche (1844-1900) influenced Frankfort School’s elders, Max Horkheimer (1895-1973) and Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979). In 1935, they fled Germany to escape the Third Reich and landed in the United States. That same year, Horkheimer and Marcuse set up shop in Columbia University’s Teacher’s College. Upon the defeat of the Nazi regime, Horkheimer and others returned to Germany. Marcuse stayed behind to become the father of the New Left in America. 

Witnessing the turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s, Marcuse realized that classical Marxism (class struggle) did not fit the bill to overthrow America. He realized that minorities proved to be the best ammo but needed to be ideologically programmed. There is nothing new there, as this strategy is the “Theory of Cultural Hegemony” promoted by Antoni Gramsci (1891-1937). As the founder of the Italian Communist Party, Gramsci developed a covert collective strategy. Marcuse, like Gramsci, realized that a thriving civil society is a bulwark against collectivism. Culture (race/gender-bender) is the perfect Trojan Horse to destroy humanity to usher in the collective Utopia. Even before the Frankfort team arrived in 1930, the American Communist Party pulled the strings of collectivist preachers that denounced our country. Also, see the story about the brave African American Manning Johnson (1908-1959). A great quote from Manning’s work:

Social equality for the Negro is a prominent slogan of the Communists. They use it on the one hand to mislead the Negro Americans, and on the other hand, to create anxieties and fears among white Americans to exploit both racial groups better.

As a former communist, Mr. Johnson is an unsung hero in the same cast of significant positive historical figures, such as Whitaker Chambers (1901-1961) and Bella Dodd (1904-1969). Rest in peace, Manning, Whitaker, and Bella.

While on Gramsci, Joseph Buttigieg (1947-2019) was a leftist Notre Dame professor who researched and glowingly wrote about this elusive Italian Communist. His son Pete, who ran for the presidency and is now Secretary of Transportation, claimed that the interstate highway system is a racist construct.

With the above background, a brief mention of Critical Legal (conspiracy) Theory is in order. As a natural offshoot of Critical (conspiracy) Theory, this academic discipline (cough, cough) bloomed at the University of Wisconsin (UW). In 1977, UW at Madison held its first conference on Critical Legal Studies. The luminaries of this (conspiracy) theory know that manipulating words is the perfect weapon to replace the “nasty” old with the new. For example, out with abortion and in with reproductive health. Fair elections requiring voter ID is “voter suppression.” Now, do we see the magician’s trick? 📕

I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!

Share

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid

Leave a comment

Share Frederick R. Smith Speaks

Email the Author: Frederick R. Smith