Democrat Socialism Based On A Lie

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Oct 6, 2008
127,367
63,129
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1. Those who subscribe to socialism, any variety from Bolsheviks, to Nazis, to Democrats, the fundamental lie is that the plan is so good that it will actually change mankind's nature. So good that everyone will agree to go along in lock step....and anyone who doesn't agree with, as Rousseau called it, the general will......should be killed.



2. Nazis and Bolsheviks both advanced that lie.
"In both systems we have the ideology of creating a new man. Both systems don't agree with human nature as it is...they are at war with human nature. Both are based on false biology, and false sociology."
Françoise Thom, professor of Soviet history, Sorbonne, Paris




3. Here is the former Democrat presidential nominee, saying the same thing:

Hillary supported the Communist claim of being able to reconstitute human character, the New Soviet Man
. In 1969, Hillary Rodham gave the student commencement address at Wellesley in which she said that “ for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible….We’re not interested in social reconstruction; it’s human reconstruction.”
-http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Commencement/1969/053169hillary.html




4. A trip down memory lane, an earlier iteration of Democrats doing the same sort of thing: Ramsey Clark, LbJ's AG:

The basic idea that liberal judges and politicians were pushing was that society should be nice to criminals, so they would re-pay us with law-abiding behavior. (Chanage their criminal nature) Ramsey Clark: “" The theory of rehabilitation is based on the belief that healthy, rational people will not injure others, that they will understand that the individual and his society are best served by conduct that does not inflict injury, that a just society has the ability to provide health and purpose and opportunity for all its citizens. Rehabilitated, an individual will not have the capacity - cannot bring himself - to injure another or take or destroy property. " (the basis for NY's no-bail law.)
  1. Of course, if that were true, he wouldn’t have committed crimes in the first place.
  2. Despite being insane, the reformers won out. The test of public policy vs. human nature began!
  3. Need empirical evidence? Crime rates skyrocketed. By 1974, the murder rate was over twice that of 1961. Between 1960 and 1976, a citizen’s chances of becoming a victim of a major violent crime tripled. Thomas Sowell, “The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy,”., p.27.




5. The smart set turned American cities into petri dishes for crime and degenerate behavior sans punishment. Thousands died, were raped, disfigured in criminal acts made possible by the Warren Court, the ACLU, liberal professors and activists, and lawyers.
It happens every time the Left/Democrats gain power.
Here in my city, New York...
"Although crime rates overall are still low compared to the bad old days, many indicators are flashing red. Since 2019, there has been a 31% increase in major crimes. The murder rate is almost 20% higher than it was five years ago; robbery is up by a quarter; and felony assault by nearly half. As former Queens district attorney Jim Quinn summed it up recently, “there were almost 29,000 more crime victims in 2024 than there were in 2019.

....real lives permanently scarred or snuffed out altogether by crime. Some of these cases — such as the woman burned to death on a Brooklyn train, or the man shoved onto subway tracks at Manhattan’s 18th Street — receive national and even international media attention. But many other victims and their families suffer and mourn in silence."




For the Left, the claim they can change human nature......but every time, innocent lives are sacrificed to the fantasy.


Another version is the environmentalism scam.....save a smelt and watch thousands of humans lose everything.
 
Last edited:
1. Those who subscribe to socialism, any variety from Bolsheviks, to Nazis, to Democrats, the fundamental lie is that the plan is so good that it will actually change mankind's nature. So good that everyone will agree to go along in lock step....and anyone who doesn't agree with, as Rousseau called it, the general will......should be killed.


2. Nazis and Bolsheviks both advanced that lie.
"In both systems we have the ideology of creating a new man. Both systems don't agree with human nature as it is...they are at war with human nature. Both are based on false biology, and false sociology."
Françoise Thom, professor of Soviet history, Sorbonne, Paris


3. Here is the former Democrat presidential nominee, saying the same thing:

Hillary supported the Communist claim of being able to reconstitute human character, the New Soviet Man
. In 1969, Hillary Rodham gave the student commencement address at Wellesley in which she said that “ for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible….We’re not interested in social reconstruction; it’s human reconstruction.”
-http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Commencement/1969/053169hillary.html


4. A trip down memory lane, an earlier iteration of Democrats doing the same sort of thing: Ramsey Clark, LbJ's AG:

The basic idea that liberal judges and politicians were pushing was that society should be nice to criminals, so they would re-pay us with law-abiding behavior. Ramsey Clark: “" The theory of rehabilitation is based on the belief that healthy, rational people will not injure others, that they will understand that the individual and his society are best served by conduct that does not inflict injury, that a just society has the ability to provide health and purpose and opportunity for all its citizens. Rehabilitated, an individual will not have the capacity - cannot bring himself - to injure another or take or destroy property. "
  1. Of course, if that were true, he wouldn’t have committed crimes in the first place.
  2. Despite being insane, the reformers won out. The test of public policy vs. human nature began!
  3. Need empirical evidence? Crime rates skyrocketed. By 1974, the murder rate was over twice that of 1961. Between 1960 and 1976, a citizen’s chances of becoming a victim of a major violent crime tripled. Thomas Sowell, “The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy,”., p.27.


5. The smart set turned American cities into petri dishes for crime and degenerate behavior sans punishment. Thousands died, were raped, disfigured in criminal acts made possible by the Warren Court, the ACLU, liberal professors and activists, and lawyers.
It happens every time the Left/Democrats gain power.
Here in my city, New York...
"Although crime rates overall are still low compared to the bad old days, many indicators are flashing red. Since 2019, there has been a 31% increase in major crimes. The murder rate is almost 20% higher than it was five years ago; robbery is up by a quarter; and felony assault by nearly half. As former Queens district attorney Jim Quinn summed it up recently, “there were almost 29,000 more crime victims in 2024 than there were in 2019.

....real lives permanently scarred or snuffed out altogether by crime. Some of these cases — such as the woman burned to death on a Brooklyn train, or the man shoved onto subway tracks at Manhattan’s 18th Street — receive national and even international media attention. But many other victims and their families suffer and mourn in silence."




For the Left, the claim they can change human nature......but every time, innocent lives are sacrificed to the fantasy.


Another version is the environmentalism scam.....save a smelt and watch thousands of humans lose everything.
I disagree

Leftism is human nature, because it is all around us. It is an ideology based on lies, don't get me wrong, but lying is human nature as is greed and corruption and despotism. That is what Leftism is all about.

It is an ideology based on the premise that Marxists will suck away all the wealth of the greedy people and give it to those in need. But all that happens is, those in need are only given crumbs to live on while the greedy rich people become a much smaller but more powerful within the said Marxist government. The top 1% then become the top 0.001% Yay.

As for letting criminals go free, it may seem perplexing to some, but as for myself, it all makes sense as it would have Ben Franklin.

Here is what Ben said about the Constitution.

“In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government, but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and believe further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government.”

In other words, if you want a despotic government, the first order of business is to destroy the morality of society. That way people will be begging for despotism to restore law and order for a society with the morality of a jail. You then just build a wall around society and hire a warden at that point.

The Founders knew that only a moral people could be a free people. Otherwise, you need to force people to be good, which means a tendency towards despotism and lots and lots of jails.
 
Last edited:
I disagree

Leftism is human nature, because it is all around us. It is an ideology based on lies, don't get me wrong, but lying is human nature as is greed and corruption and despotism. That is what Leftism is all about.

It is an ideology based on the premise that Marxists will suck away all the wealth of the greedy people and give it to those in need. But all that happens is, those in need are only given crumbs to live on while the greedy rich people become a much smaller but more powerful within the said Marxist government. The top 1% then become the top 0.001% Yay.

As for letting criminals go free, it may seem perplexing to some, but as for myself, it all makes sense as it would have Ben Franklin.

Here is what Ben said about the Constitution.

“In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government, but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and believe further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government.”

In other words, if you want a despotic government, the first order of business is to destroy the morality of society. That way people will be begging for despotism to restore law and order for a society with the morality of a jail. You then just build a wall around society and hire a warden at that point.

The Founders knew that only a moral people could be a free people. Otherwise, you need to force people to be good, which means a tendency towards despotism and lots and lots of jails.
First, Communism, in it's purest form is simply, "Take what you need, give what you can". There are a lot of problems. Communism is called a "command economy", the government commands what is to be produced and what prices are to be charged. That is not effective. A free market is much more efficient, problem is, no one knows what a free market is supposed to be free of, and no, it is not government interference.

Socialism is different. Socialism is when the government owns the means of production. We have plenty of examples of Socialism in the United States. North Dakota comes to mind. North Dakota mills and the North Dakota state bank. Law enforcement, fire protection.



There, that is what is like to have "free enterprise" responsible for fire protection, law enforcement is no different.
 
First, Communism, in it's purest form is simply, "Take what you need, give what you can". There are a lot of problems. Communism is called a "command economy", the government commands what is to be produced and what prices are to be charged. That is not effective. A free market is much more efficient, problem is, no one knows what a free market is supposed to be free of, and no, it is not government interference.

Socialism is different. Socialism is when the government owns the means of production. We have plenty of examples of Socialism in the United States. North Dakota comes to mind. North Dakota mills and the North Dakota state bank. Law enforcement, fire protection.



There, that is what is like to have "free enterprise" responsible for fire protection, law enforcement is no different.

Collectivism is what I'm referring to. Socialism is but one flavor.

The issue is that power corrupts, while collectivism centralizes and increases power that increasingly becomes corrupt.

To point to the "good" they do, reminds me of the mobster Al Capone running soup kitchens in Chicago back in the day.

Yea, it gave him legitimacy, but at the same time, Al cared nothing about the poor.

That is not what made him do what he did.

The Founders attempted to divide corrupting power in order to diminish it, but at the end of the day Progressives took over and subverted the divided power and now the President of the United Staes, one man, decides everything from what your First grader will learn in class to what doctor you will see.
 
I disagree

Leftism is human nature, because it is all around us. It is an ideology based on lies, don't get me wrong, but lying is human nature as is greed and corruption and despotism. That is what Leftism is all about.

It is an ideology based on the premise that Marxists will suck away all the wealth of the greedy people and give it to those in need. But all that happens is, those in need are only given crumbs to live on while the greedy rich people become a much smaller but more powerful within the said Marxist government. The top 1% then become the top 0.001% Yay.

As for letting criminals go free, it may seem perplexing to some, but as for myself, it all makes sense as it would have Ben Franklin.

Here is what Ben said about the Constitution.

“In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government, but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and believe further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government.”

In other words, if you want a despotic government, the first order of business is to destroy the morality of society. That way people will be begging for despotism to restore law and order for a society with the morality of a jail. You then just build a wall around society and hire a warden at that point.

The Founders knew that only a moral people could be a free people. Otherwise, you need to force people to be good, which means a tendency towards despotism and lots and lots of jails.
The purpose of the OP is the show the result of Leftist ideology.





It is dressed as offering benefits, but is really about oppression and power.




1736800928195.png
 
If you aren't worth anything to a socialist....


George Bernard Shaw: There are an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill​


 
1. Those who subscribe to socialism, any variety from Bolsheviks, to Nazis, to Democrats, the fundamental lie is that the plan is so good that it will actually change mankind's nature. So good that everyone will agree to go along in lock step....and anyone who doesn't agree with, as Rousseau called it, the general will......should be killed.



2. Nazis and Bolsheviks both advanced that lie.
"In both systems we have the ideology of creating a new man. Both systems don't agree with human nature as it is...they are at war with human nature. Both are based on false biology, and false sociology."
Françoise Thom, professor of Soviet history, Sorbonne, Paris




3. Here is the former Democrat presidential nominee, saying the same thing:

Hillary supported the Communist claim of being able to reconstitute human character, the New Soviet Man
. In 1969, Hillary Rodham gave the student commencement address at Wellesley in which she said that “ for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible….We’re not interested in social reconstruction; it’s human reconstruction.”
-http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Commencement/1969/053169hillary.html




4. A trip down memory lane, an earlier iteration of Democrats doing the same sort of thing: Ramsey Clark, LbJ's AG:

The basic idea that liberal judges and politicians were pushing was that society should be nice to criminals, so they would re-pay us with law-abiding behavior. (Chanage their criminal nature) Ramsey Clark: “" The theory of rehabilitation is based on the belief that healthy, rational people will not injure others, that they will understand that the individual and his society are best served by conduct that does not inflict injury, that a just society has the ability to provide health and purpose and opportunity for all its citizens. Rehabilitated, an individual will not have the capacity - cannot bring himself - to injure another or take or destroy property. " (the basis for NY's no-bail law.)
  1. Of course, if that were true, he wouldn’t have committed crimes in the first place.
  2. Despite being insane, the reformers won out. The test of public policy vs. human nature began!
  3. Need empirical evidence? Crime rates skyrocketed. By 1974, the murder rate was over twice that of 1961. Between 1960 and 1976, a citizen’s chances of becoming a victim of a major violent crime tripled. Thomas Sowell, “The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy,”., p.27.




5. The smart set turned American cities into petri dishes for crime and degenerate behavior sans punishment. Thousands died, were raped, disfigured in criminal acts made possible by the Warren Court, the ACLU, liberal professors and activists, and lawyers.
It happens every time the Left/Democrats gain power.
Here in my city, New York...
"Although crime rates overall are still low compared to the bad old days, many indicators are flashing red. Since 2019, there has been a 31% increase in major crimes. The murder rate is almost 20% higher than it was five years ago; robbery is up by a quarter; and felony assault by nearly half. As former Queens district attorney Jim Quinn summed it up recently, “there were almost 29,000 more crime victims in 2024 than there were in 2019.

....real lives permanently scarred or snuffed out altogether by crime. Some of these cases — such as the woman burned to death on a Brooklyn train, or the man shoved onto subway tracks at Manhattan’s 18th Street — receive national and even international media attention. But many other victims and their families suffer and mourn in silence."




For the Left, the claim they can change human nature......but every time, innocent lives are sacrificed to the fantasy.


Another version is the environmentalism scam.....save a smelt and watch thousands of humans lose everything.
That is one of the fundamental differences between woke progressives and constitutionalists currently best represented by the MAGA vision.

The MAGA vision is one of maximum reasonable liberty, choice, options, opportunities and ability to become prosperous or more prosperous regardless of your current circumstances. Government does what it is constitutionally authorized to do to facilitate that and then leaves the people alone to do whatever they choose to do including holding beliefs those in government disagree with and making mistakes and getting things wrong along with achieving the MAGA goals.

Woke progressives put ideology, partisanship, and their idea of morality/what is important ahead of the national good, the national sense of value, what is important to most Americans. The ideology is supreme and whatever affects or consequences can be ignored to further it. The people are supposed to suck it up and march in lockstep to the national will as that is dictated by woke progressives who hold the power. Any who refuse must be cancelled/silenced/neutralized by whatever means is necessary to do that.

The woke progressives lose a lot of their power in seven days. And as Rush Limbaugh often expressed, they get far crazier when they are out of power evenmoreso than when they are in power. That is already beginning to show up.
 
Last edited:
First, Communism, in it's purest form is simply, "Take what you need, give what you can". There are a lot of problems. Communism is called a "command economy", the government commands what is to be produced and what prices are to be charged. That is not effective. A free market is much more efficient, problem is, no one knows what a free market is supposed to be free of, and no, it is not government interference.

Socialism is different. Socialism is when the government owns the means of production. We have plenty of examples of Socialism in the United States. North Dakota comes to mind. North Dakota mills and the North Dakota state bank. Law enforcement, fire protection.



There, that is what is like to have "free enterprise" responsible for fire protection, law enforcement is no different.


That is one of the fundamental differences between woke progressives and constitutionalists currently best represented by the MAGA vision.

Woke progressives put ideology, partisanship, and their idea of morality/what is important ahead of the national good, the national sense of value, what is important to most Americans. The ideology is supreme and whatever affects or consequences can be ignored to further it. The people are supposed to suck it up and march in lockstep to the national will as that is dictated by woke progressives who hold the power. Any who refuse must be cancelled/silenced/neutralized by whatever means is necessary to do that.

The woke progressives lose a lot of their power in seven days. And as Rush Limbaugh often expressed, they get far crazier when they are out of power evenmoreso than when they are in power. That is already beginning to show up.
It depends on your definition of "good".

For example, Hitler thought that a Jew free world would be a better world.

And today you have the climate cult telling farmers they can't grow as much food because fertilzer emits carbon

Meanwhile, the UN says about a billion people will die of starvation this year.

But what is good for humankind may not be good for those billion starving to death.

This is how they think, and this is what is scary as hell.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”​

― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
 
I hope you are including all of the environmentalism racket.
You need to watch this!



The environmental depopulation crowd has been around for a verrrrrry long time. The climate cult is but one flavor.

And like Huxley said, if we don't depopulate ourselves, government will be forced to do it for us. This is the belief of mainstream academia and those within government. And that is why abortion and gender changes and watching 300 people a day die from drug overdoses from drugs flowing across an insecure border are being pushed by the government.

Also, despotic communist regimes are the best apt to handle the job.
 
Last edited:
First, Communism, in it's purest form is simply, "Take what you need, give what you can". There are a lot of problems. Communism is called a "command economy", the government commands what is to be produced and what prices are to be charged. That is not effective. A free market is much more efficient, problem is, no one knows what a free market is supposed to be free of, and no, it is not government interference.

Socialism is different. Socialism is when the government owns the means of production. We have plenty of examples of Socialism in the United States. North Dakota comes to mind. North Dakota mills and the North Dakota state bank. Law enforcement, fire protection.



There, that is what is like to have "free enterprise" responsible for fire protection, law enforcement is no different.

What drivel.
 
It depends on your definition of "good".

For example, Hitler thought that a Jew free world would be a better world.

And today you have the climate cult telling farmers they can't grow as much food because fertilzer emits carbon

Meanwhile, the UN says about a billion people will die of starvation this year.

But what is good for humankind may not be good for those billion starving to death.

This is how they think, and this is what is scary as hell.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”​

― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
That is true. Sometimes it is a matter of semantics.

Patriots say that progressives suppressing free speech is fascist tyranny.

Conversely progressives say that Musk or Trump or a Republican controlled house mandating free speech is fascist tyranny promoting disinformation.

But ultimately both sides are capable of seeing how the consequences of their policies/edicts/mandates hurt/harm people and what is actually good, i.e. beneficial for most people.

MAGA Patriots do their best to avoid harm and promote that good even if it means giving up on a goal or objective.

Woke Progressives are far more likely to turn a blind eye to bad results/consequences/failure in favor of promoting their ideology.
 
You need to watch this!



The environmental depopulation crowd has been around for a verrrrrry long time. The climate cult is but one flavor.

And like Huxley said, if we don't depopulate ourselves, government will be forced to do it for us. This is the belief of mainstream academia and those within government. And that is why abortion and gender changes and watching 300 people a day die from drug overdoses from drugs flowing across an insecure border are being pushed by the government.

Also, despotic communist regimes are the best apt to handle the job.

. "John P. Holdren’s advocacy for a global planetary regime to enforce forced abortion, government `seizure of children born out of wedlock, and mandatory bodily implants designed to prevent pregnancy, Obama’s top advisor also called for,”Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods.”
Holdren added that the sterilant must meet stiff requirements in that it must only affect humans and not livestock.

“It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock,” wrote Holdren with co-authors Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich.

Holdren notes that the proposal to forcibly mass sterilize the public against their will “seems to horrify people” and yet it doesn’t seem to bother him too much, amidst the myriad of other totalitarian Dr. Strangelove style ideas that are put forward in the book as a way to carry out an aggressive agenda of population reduction.
» Obama Science Czar’s Plan To Sterilize Population Through Water Supply Already Happening Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!




Yup....they hate people....see humans as a disease that must be eradicated.
Environmentalists view mankind as a virus, a disease that must be eradicated. In 2011, Ehrlich’s wife wrote a piece in the LATimes, comparing humanity to cancer: “Perpetual growth is the creed of a cancer cell, not a sustainable human society.”
The world's biggest problem? Too many people

And......have you seen the loonies announcing that they will have no children in order to save Gaia, Mother Earth????
 
1. Those who subscribe to socialism, any variety from Bolsheviks, to Nazis, to Democrats, the fundamental lie is that the plan is so good that it will actually change mankind's nature. So good that everyone will agree to go along in lock step....and anyone who doesn't agree with, as Rousseau called it, the general will......should be killed.



2. Nazis and Bolsheviks both advanced that lie.
"In both systems we have the ideology of creating a new man. Both systems don't agree with human nature as it is...they are at war with human nature. Both are based on false biology, and false sociology."
Françoise Thom, professor of Soviet history, Sorbonne, Paris




3. Here is the former Democrat presidential nominee, saying the same thing:

Hillary supported the Communist claim of being able to reconstitute human character, the New Soviet Man
. In 1969, Hillary Rodham gave the student commencement address at Wellesley in which she said that “ for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible….We’re not interested in social reconstruction; it’s human reconstruction.”
-http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Commencement/1969/053169hillary.html




4. A trip down memory lane, an earlier iteration of Democrats doing the same sort of thing: Ramsey Clark, LbJ's AG:

The basic idea that liberal judges and politicians were pushing was that society should be nice to criminals, so they would re-pay us with law-abiding behavior. (Chanage their criminal nature) Ramsey Clark: “" The theory of rehabilitation is based on the belief that healthy, rational people will not injure others, that they will understand that the individual and his society are best served by conduct that does not inflict injury, that a just society has the ability to provide health and purpose and opportunity for all its citizens. Rehabilitated, an individual will not have the capacity - cannot bring himself - to injure another or take or destroy property. " (the basis for NY's no-bail law.)
  1. Of course, if that were true, he wouldn’t have committed crimes in the first place.
  2. Despite being insane, the reformers won out. The test of public policy vs. human nature began!
  3. Need empirical evidence? Crime rates skyrocketed. By 1974, the murder rate was over twice that of 1961. Between 1960 and 1976, a citizen’s chances of becoming a victim of a major violent crime tripled. Thomas Sowell, “The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy,”., p.27.




5. The smart set turned American cities into petri dishes for crime and degenerate behavior sans punishment. Thousands died, were raped, disfigured in criminal acts made possible by the Warren Court, the ACLU, liberal professors and activists, and lawyers.
It happens every time the Left/Democrats gain power.
Here in my city, New York...
"Although crime rates overall are still low compared to the bad old days, many indicators are flashing red. Since 2019, there has been a 31% increase in major crimes. The murder rate is almost 20% higher than it was five years ago; robbery is up by a quarter; and felony assault by nearly half. As former Queens district attorney Jim Quinn summed it up recently, “there were almost 29,000 more crime victims in 2024 than there were in 2019.

....real lives permanently scarred or snuffed out altogether by crime. Some of these cases — such as the woman burned to death on a Brooklyn train, or the man shoved onto subway tracks at Manhattan’s 18th Street — receive national and even international media attention. But many other victims and their families suffer and mourn in silence."




For the Left, the claim they can change human nature......but every time, innocent lives are sacrificed to the fantasy.


Another version is the environmentalism scam.....save a smelt and watch thousands of humans lose everything.
I will just be opining on the title of the OP. Democratic Socialism, while sounding all nice and fluffy, is actually a lie. While true that it might get the majority to fall for adopting Socialism, once in power, a Socialist government ends Democracy by stifling all political opposition, even to the point of imprisonment and even worse, death squads. Once any and all voices of opposition are removed, you've ended actual Democracy.
For those that like to point so the Scandinavian nations, they are in fact, per their own foreign ministers, "free-market Capitalist countries with "some" social programs. To pay for those social programs, they tax the middle-class more than the wealthy. They claim that the reason for not taking the wealthy as heavily is because it is felt that it would stifle innovation. They just looked at Communist and hardcore Socialist nations and see that they end up "stealing" technology from the west and changing it to their needs, rather than their own innovation. The Scandinavian nations also allow political opposition to exist and a problem has cropped up in their social program nirvana, all of the massive numbers of Islamic migrants pouring into their regions, are devastating their social programs for the people already there. Eventually, they will run out of everybody's money.
 
I have always thought that the basic lie of socialism is that if we have equal outcomes then we'll all be happy as hell and there will be no consequences. To each according to their needs and from each according to their abilities. Except of course that human nature does not work that way, some people believe that for whatever reason they deserve more than another person, and some people believe for whatever reason they shouldn't have to work at all. And the idea that equal outcomes will change that is pure fiction. Greed and corruption will not disappear at all. I think there will be less of it because there will be less economic growth/wealth created.
 

Forum List

Back
Top