Archive for the ‘Elections’ Category

DHS preparing to hack the vote, Russians only a cover?

October 9, 2016

In the upcoming second debate, Hildabeast will point to the claim by her friends in the F.B.I. that the Russians are trying to hack the vote this November and Jeh Johnson’s power grab in telling states to get help from the governing  ruling class to “protect” the vote.

This is an obvious attempt to set us up for their plans of last resort to nullify a Trump victory. Maybe they’ll “find” fraudulent counts that they themselves hacked into the country.

This from the same crowd that does not like requiring identification to vote.

Worst case is a quick Supreme Court ruling that the vote in swing states is null and void. This would extend the Obama runaway presidency, a bonus to them. That would enrage Trump supporters. Next who knows? Maybe states seceding finally, calling out their state national guard to defend the state. Obama requesting the U. N. to send help.

Meantime, Assad eliminates ISIS  with  Russian help. And Bible prophecies begin to  coalesce.

More likely is that they would simply hack the vote for Hildabeast. I think Trumpers would protest vigorously, but how that ends is hard to control. They like to rig the results, they’re not used to unpredictability.

But the ruling class also have their gullible followers and mercenary trolls and paid demonstrators, jerked around by planted agents provocateurs.

Why is Trump bad, Why is Clinton bad?

October 9, 2016

Trump is bad for the dozens of people he has insulted and macho things he has said that the Crony pretends they are so pure on, although here we have deNiro mouthing worse.

Whereas Hillary has said worse about her husband’s rape and harassment victims, and Crony Media has joined in ganging up on Billary’s female victims.

Trump bad for insults, Hillary bad for the millions she has ordered slaughtered, including the 10,000 of Towargah in Libya , a genocide that targeted blacks.

United Nations poll: Example of Orwellian Newspeak

August 16, 2015

The New American website wrote about the United Nations poll of some 7 million people where they chose the issues they most cared about:

Here is the list, with their top concerns listed first. Note that “action on climate change” is dead last.

A good education
Better healthcare
Better job opportunities
An honest and responsive government
Affordable and nutritious food
Protection against crime and violence
Access to clean water and sanitation
Support for people who can’t work
Better transport and roads
Reliable energy at home
Equality between men and women
Political freedoms
Freedom from discrimination and persecution
Protecting forests, rivers, and oceans
Phone and Internet Access
Action taken on climate change (Emphasis added.)

There is almost no doubt that the surveyed were given a list to pick from, and “Less government” and “more individual freedom” and “economic freedom” and “respect for private property” and “terminating the United Nations” were NOT on the list.

One of the comments below by a “Frank M. Petelson”, notes that high on the list, and most of the list, are socialist and collectivist concerns:

Of the people polled, most gave socialistic concerns. I wonder how few polled people wanted: Less Government, More Responsibility, and, with God’s help, a better world?

That’s a good question but from my view it’s like this, I said:

There is almost no doubt that the surveyed were given a list to pick from, and “Less government” and “more individual freedom” and “economic freedom” and “respect for private property” and “terminating the United Nations” were NOT on the list.

These opinion and cultural engineers, commissioned by the autocrats’ cabal, would never offer individual freedom, or more free markets, as an option. Political freedom is on the list but by that they have their meanings implicitly buried in the devil’s details, including the political freedom to force a non-conformist to conform. Like the political freedom to force a Christian couple bakery to serve up a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. That’s their definition.

Or like the “freedom” to tell the world that Honduras pushing back against a socialist “coup by fraud” in 2009 is somehow a “coup” itself.

“Political freedom” is on the list, but “economic freedom” is not.


Left-fascists riot in Honduras Congress, democracy, and individual freedom

February 1, 2014

Herein read my reaction to comments in La Gringa’s “blogicito”, found at the following link:

This episode of changing rules in Honduras just shows the general peril of ANY government. Democracy is NOT any “better” than any other form of government. Power corrupts. Taxation is extortion by definition, no matter how many of the majority vote for it. Follow the law or go to jail. By the way, though, I read various articles on the proceedings, and they are not the end of the democracy as depicted, so much as a lot of noise and riot by a party founded by people who in power did much worse, of course.

The United States’ long history is the best attempt maybe along those lines, and look where it is now. The “strong media” of the 19th century is now a sycophantic mouthpiece for more control over every piece of your life by government. The best example of this is their treatment of the champion of individual freedom in the United States in his presidential campaign, Ron Paul.

But college kids loved him. He was different, and showed character by shutting down lobbyists, like Larry Abrammoff said in a Q&A on CSpan once, he was one that you could not get anything from him with offers of money. Otherwise, he said they’re more or less all for sale.

Centralization of power in the United States began with the Constitution, had a false start with Alexander Hamilton’s central bank baby, which Andrew Jackson killed off, got a second wind with Abraham Lincoln, and then accelerated after the Federal Reserve Bank was created and populated with the bankers they were supposedly going to regulate for the people’s interest, and it was created after a campaign that pretended it was to stop their abuses. The Income Tax was another abuse enacted the same year. It’s an abuse because I don’t have the right to tell you how much you get to keep of the fruits of your labor and how much you have to pay me for “protection”. Even if you vote for me. Theft is theft. Or call it extortion if you must, because it depends also on how “stable” such thieves are in office.

At least by a vote they have to got through pretense.

Allende was voted a plurality in Chile, and when he began ruling as an economic and political tyrant, the Congress had no constitutional remedy, so they passed a resolution DEMANDING that the military stop him. Allende did not yield to diplomatic pressure, either, and a lot of that saw the (again) sycophantic controlled “strong” media cheering Allende for cutting down Anaconda copper.

The media (outside Honduras) did not report the abused Allende perpetrated any more than they did Zelaya’s. But in 2009 we already had the Internet. So the only mainstream reporting during both abusive regimes was condemnatory of the moves against leftist-fascism.

Think not; more centralized control is their game plan. At least that’s what they do. Some as zombies, true, but nonetheless.

That’s why hope for Honduras, in my opinion, has two grounds for optimism.

ONE, the fact that one of the poorest country in Latin America, and that was already saturated by violent gangs and the same demagaguery as Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, and even Argentina and Brazil, nonetheless pushed back against the tyranny.

TWO, they worked quickly to find a way to bring Honduras out of the vicious poverty swamp. They scoured the world and brought people from Chile to share how they became the first Latin American developed country. They investigated the examples of South Korea (contrast with North Korea) and Hong Kong and China’s special economic zones (that copy the HK model), Singapore, that became prosperous while their neighbors sank in the mire.

The politics is noisy in Honduras right now, and the dirty laundry is now public, but it was always thus. It’s just that after 2009, they have to stay clean, at least until the sons of the Chavez-Zelaya-Castro marriage grab a majority or plurality.

It was always much WORSE in fact. I have certain knowledge that many of the Congress years past were into the kinds of business that would make Al Capone blush. And that includes some of those now demanding “democracy” from the controlling coalition.

Fighting over the spoils of conquest is what this is, and people must push back against any government having any power at all to loot anybody.

Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the  blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised…

Matthew 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.



Maryland moves back in the right direction, but true paper ballots are better

November 29, 2013
English: Fractional Cumulative Voting ballot s...

English: Fractional Cumulative Voting ballot sample Created for Wikipedia, by Tom Ruen, May 2004 with MSPaint (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Maryland Will Return To Paper Ballots In 2016 – found at Liberty Crier


Paper receipts for a vote are not enough. Make the ballot to be THE OFFICIAL ballot, and then the electronic count is just a count that is verifiable by going back to the hard copy.


Going back and re-reading an electronic store of a vote tally and calling that a “recount” is an outrageous scam. Whenever the elections officials talk about these changes, they say that they have increase the “confidence” of the voters in the elections “results”, which just means they have to fool enough people with the announced figures to get away with it.


But people are learning..


Check out the work done by Black Box Voting, and read founder Bev Harris‘ book “Black Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century: Bev Harris”:




Related articles




Ron Paul’s endorsement of Ken Cuccinelli for Virginia governor

October 13, 2013
Ken Cuccinelli (R)

Ken Cuccinelli (R) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


In a moment of “wow”, Ron Paul has endorsed Republican Party candidate Ken Cuccinelli for Virginia governor, according to Politico.


to the surprise of some people, because there is a candidate from the Libertarian Party (Robert Starvis) who has been creeping up in the polls.


Politico plays up the surprise element in the article, but does allow through the reasons Ron Paul made this announcement:


“Ken Cuccinelli has always stood for smaller government and limited government,” writes Paul. “He has consistently and unapologetically worked with the Liberty movement in Virginia. His stand against ObamaCare shows he is willing to stand up to Washington’s continued abuses on our individual liberties.”

He quotes his friend Donna Holt, a libertarian activist, calling Cuccinelli “the most pro-liberty legislator and Attorney General we have ever had in Virginia.”

Read more:


In another paragraph find the reason Politico and some third-party boosters may have thought Sarvis would be the better liberty-supporting candidate, and some self-identified libertarians might get confused as to why. Note the transparent spin in the choice by Politico’s writers in deciding to use the expression “should be” and “concerned”:


Libertarian Robert Sarvis could be a spoiler in next month’s off-year election, attracting what should be Republican voters concerned about the nominee’s strong opposition to gay marriage and abortion.


For one thing, that statement shows the Politico, like almost all of statist media, is clueless about who libertarians are in general, and how libertarians think on many specifics.


The two issues they mention are telling.




On the first one, apparently a growing percentage of libertarians are strongly opposed to killing a baby in the womb as much as outside the womb, on libertarian grounds. The reasoning is the same for every pro-lifer and pro-life organization mission statement that I know of, and that is that a new human life begins at conception. There are atheists that despise this brutal practice as well. The pro-abortion organizations and the groups that make lots of money in the abortion industry (including the profitable government-supported “non-profits”), they use the false claim that it is a religious idea.


But the truth is that opposition to killing babies inside the womb is the same thing as killing babies outside the womb. This is the motivator. And libertarians claim the idea that all aggression against individuals is wrong, that all uses of force is illegitimate except for defense against aggression. Apply this to babies inside a mother’s womb and you can only be pro-life.




Here is another one that confuses some of the younger libertarians, who think supporting a candidate who favors “gay marriage” is the same as supporting freedom.


But it’s not like they are supporting freedom. For one thing, the libertarian view is that nobody and no government has any right to force you to associate with any other person or group, and that liberty is defined in terms of individual rights to be free from aggression and force by others.


That means discrimination for any reason is a universal right. It is an illegitimate use of force to apply it in favor of one group (as the current U.S. federal government does for homosexuals) while denying it to another (like they have done against Christians often, for example). Government discrimination is always and forever wrong; individual discrimination is a right. Banning individual discrimination is impossible anyway, without telepathy, but they do it anyway.


That said, seeking government marriage privileges, or forcing you to do it, is wrong. I had to marry legally to arrange my wife’s visa. Before anybody says hypocrite, say first whether you use federal reserve notes to pay for things in the store, or whether some of your tax-and-inflation-taxes go to things you despise.


Seeking to get the government to approve same-sex marriage, though, is not not not a stance consistent with libertarian philosophy. It is creating additional government benefits for a boiler-plate contract and the subjection to obligations on the part of the “engaged” couple, answerable to government control.


In other words, the proper stance would be to seek ways to get government out of controlling marriage and its supposed definition, even though “same-sex marriage” has always been an oxymoron in the English language.


There are other extra-governmental reasons not to “oppose gay marriage”, but to bring open discussion to the merits of same-sex pairings, free of coercion. That is a different topic. Government has no business deciding who should have what, do what, or do without what….



Earth-worship madness

October 13, 2013
Cover of "State of Fear"

Cover of State of Fear

Quoting from a recent Natural Awakenings News Brief “brief”, “To make polysilicon, the basic building block of most solar photovoltaic (PV) panels, silica rock must be melted at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, using electricity from mostly coal-fired power plants“. Now this was news to me, though part of my reading includes what’s available from the reality-based side of this political issue.

Because it is a political issue, not a “science” one. It’s political because it has been political powers that have pushed this “meme” into (some) academic journals, into popular-consumption magazines, and into legislation, and not least of all, into United Nation dictates around the world.

That above news probably would not have made it into this magazine if not for an announcement from Stanford University researchers, mentioned in the same brief, that they believe that they may be able to get more “clean energy” from the panels that the “energy going into the industry’s continued growth”, as they put it, using the energy from “coal-fired power plants”.

That means that just like with ethanol fuels, it takes more energy input into the process that produces the fuel than there is energy output from it. Do the tree-huggers understand what this means? It means that with present technology, every time anybody uses a solar panel, they are making the situation actually much worse using solar panels than they would do by just using the coal-fired energy straight! Hello?

I’ll say it again for better clarity.

Under your own rules, under your own pseudo-science, using “clean green” solar panels to power your home, your office, your plant, is burning more coal than the home, office, or plant was using before you put them in. But the “green label” industry still gives you high marks for it.

This says that there is no wonder the coal industry, the traditional energy producers, like “clean energy” initiatives. Yep, they’re all “green” industries now.



The same edition brags about how one power elite front (they don’t call it that, of course) is pushing climate change propaganda into our children’s brains. They call themselves “Next Generation Science Standards”, that their news brief says “have been adopted by 26 states and are under consideration by 15 more, teach how and why fossil fuel emissions are a causal factor in overheating the world.”

Remember the propaganda that George Orwell painted within a dystopian socialist/fascist future, the propaganda that said “truth is lies”, “war is peace”, all those oxymorons that people were supposed to believe, proclaim, acclaim, simply because they were told to (or else)? This is what we’ve come to.

The late Michael Crichton, in his novel “A State of Fear“, and in an appendix, showed the charts that showed how the man-caused global warming memes were based on easily debunked falsehoods. Climate scientists had already tried to alert the public. But not too loudly, because careers hang in the balance, and if you dissent from the official government-issued dogma, the thought police will work to make you an un-person, just as the tyrants did in the Orwellian world.



Remember, the sun overwhelms anything we could do here on the earth. Every day, the temperature makes a drastic up and down swing, most notably in the higher latitudes. Sunspots affect everything here, warm things up, cool them down when they dissipate. World temperatures for the last decade-plus have put the kibosh on all those climate models that we can now all see were totally wrong. Of course many climate scientists had already disproved them, and showed the flaws in the props used to force economy-killing policies upon us.

Here’s a good source for getting the real-world science on the subject:




You would think that the “green movement” would cry bloody murder when Mikhail Gorbachev founded Green Cross in 1993, since he was one of the executive circle in the old Soviet Union that ruled over the biggest polluter on the planet, killer of big fresh water lakes! But it shows that at the very cusp, the apex of the environmentalist front groups is a group from the ruling elites that absolutely knows it’s a farce, and they’re using this propaganda prop as another vehicle to prepare the people for a global dictatorship.

They’ll convince people that it’s the “democratic” thing to do. Not that elections will change anything for real, but they will tell the subjects that it’s just better for them, better for the common man, better to stop the “excesses” of capitalism. What they won’t tell them is that their list of “excesses” were cause by their own government measures interfering with the free market’s ability to provide the solutions they say they want but don’t really want.

Because their end game is thought control, crowd control, a world dictatorship.

Anarcho-capitalism vs. Government

August 11, 2013
English: This image is of economist Walter Blo...

English: This image is of economist Walter Block teaching economics in a Loyola University New Orleans classroom. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Let me help with understanding what I’m going to say here. First off, I had once gone from Marxist/Communist to syndicalist-anarchist (something like the “anarcho-communist” idea) precisely because I couldn’t trust people to govern themselves. My reasoning back then articulated like this: if you can’t trust people to govern themselves, you can’t trust them to govern other people. About that time I became a missionary, more concerned for the poor than ever, and all people that needed the truth.

So let’s see:

Q (Question or Comment): With no government than anyone (or group) who has more than others can buy more armed security to enforce their will on those who have less resources. There is nothing to stop bad guys from forming coalitions to gang up on smaller communities and take them over by force since there is no governmental power to stop them.

A: The Second Amendment debate should bring to clarity the principle that self-defense is much more effective than giving up your freedom –even some of it– in exchange for security. Give ’em an inch, they take a mile. Like Ron Paul said, the only legitimate purpose of any government is to protect its jurisdiction from violation of individual rights.

The problem is that you are trusting a band of strangers with protecting you from other bands of strangers. If it’s a “government”, however, you get protection the same way you get protection from a “Mafia”. If you pay, you get some protection –often not very good because who else can you call, so it is with monopolies– and you get to keep both your legs. Unless one of the rulers needs one.

Q If one does not want to use the term “mercenary” they can invent whatever euphemism they wish and call it a third party mechanism…

A-Euphemisms like “government”, except that’s involuntarily imposed force. And just like with the Army “volunteers”, many “mercenaries” are driven by other than monetary considerations. In self-defense, many of the “volunteers” will be just like the revolutionary militia, and today’s independent militias, people defending their lives, their families, their own children, like the independent militias that Mexicans are now forming to defend themselves against the gangs. Like some citizens of Detroit who have armed themselves for protection, because the police force are now useless. Precisely because under the “democratic-republican” Detroit government not everybody played fair. Especially the elected legislators and executives, and now even the judges are ordering the city to stiff the creditors that trusted them and pay the taxation without representation that previous city officials and unions colluded to burden them with. 

Q The fact is they fight for money and not principle and can be paid off by your enemies.

A [Ed-Like moles, or governments of corrupt sellouts like in Congress. The fact is, all of us have wrong reasons we do many right things. This
thought also ignores the fact that giving you good service for
your money is a principle worth more than money. Protecting
people is a good career. It is the first early motivation of
may policemen, in fact, who make a career of it, paid for
their services. Yet the very police is who we are talking
about. If they were more directly beholden to the people they
ahem, “serve”, we would have much less abuse and corruption in
their number.

A In a democratic republic you are free to hire your own self
defense so there is no denial of freedom.

A [Ed-Unless you have to defend
yourself against that government. Try buying raw milk in a
co-op and get arrested in the “Republic” of California.

Q One is free to dream that they can provide their own security on
either a personal or community basis against any threat but they
are assuming everyone else will play fair and continue to ignore
the myriad of scenarios that can develop in a world without

A-No assumptions at all except that all central planning scenarios come with all those flaws built in.

Who really believes they can defend against a foreign invasion
with an army of locally hired of rent a cops thrown together by
few communities who decide they will participate?

A- The farmboy revolutionaries that defended the USA against British attacks are an excellent example. A rag-tag band of “backward” mountain men are
defeating the most powerful Army in the whole world as we speak. Bill Maher said once that the Second Amendment is moot because the government has tanks. Tell that to the Taliban. The militias in Iraq say Phooey too.

Otherwise, why would our own “democratic republic” government
of the USA have such a fanatical fixation on disarming the
entire civilian population?

Government can become oppressive. True. People with no government can also form groups and become oppressive. Also true. The fact that anyone can be corrupted is hardly a case for ” no more rules”. It seems better time would be spent working on small government within a republican ( small “r”) model following constitutional principles.

A – Who said “No more rules”. That’s a straw man argument. The rule that counts more than any other should be the “non-aggression principle“. See:

Walter Block explains it well:

Someone who does not believe in government of any kind has no reason to quote the Bill of Rights since without a government to enforce it, it is just a piece of paper.

A – I quote the Bill of Rights because they actually support the position, because if you read them properly, they are not grants of privilege by government, but they are declarations of what are universally held rights in the sense articulated in the Declaration of Independence as “unalienable”. It was a compromise demanded by patriots that did not want a strong federal government.But as we can see from events and history in the real world, if you disqualify my arguments on that basis, yours are disqualified by the proof in the real world that your very government is ruled by that Constitution as “the Supreme Law of the Land“, but that very same government has broken almost every one and in the most massive scale possible:

The First: “Free-speech zones

Second: Gun control laws. Supreme Court legalized “reasonable” infringement legislation. In New Orleans the police went door-to-door confiscating arms without warrants or due process at all. The first gun control laws in the U.S. were Jim Crow-motivated laws meant to prevent even free blacks from owning them.

Third: To my knowledge, the military has not commandeered quarters in any house, even as “prescribed by law”.

Fourth: Recent revelations by Edward Snowden and the brave reporters of The Guardian have exposed the blatant and still now unrepentant violation of the right of the people “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects” in the unconstitutional seizure of the “effects” of EVERY ONE of the regime’s subjects in the United States. Having been exposed, they say “So what? It’s to keep you safe from bad guys”. The Fourth also says must have a warrant –from a genuine independent court, not a kangaroo court, and not a self-written– naming the person and things to be seized. And there’s nothing about allowing the right to a censorship on the target of such a warrant, as we now face with the Patriot Act. A librarian was charged with a felony for just showing one of these warrants to an assistant.

Fifth: They had this guy in Boston how many hours? As soon as he knew his rights he shut up. But the same Justice Department that was so worried the FBI might find out something from this violation of rights is the one that violates every American’s “Fourth Amendment” right all day every day.

Sixth: Speedy trail, confrontation of witnesses: Not just the rubber-stamp FISA courts (NSA director: You can’t lie to us anymore, we all know they’re kangaroo, else they would not approve the unconstitutional requests for blanket coverage, seizure of all those records). There is the case of the U Florida professor arrested (and convicted? deported?) based on what the government called secret evidence that they could not even show the judge in the case.

Seventh: The president, we now know, issues regular kill orders against anybody he wants to. Rand Paul forced the Attorney General to admit the government has no legal authority at least to kill Americans on American soil if there is no imminent danger, but the history of lies and conviction for Contempt of Congress shows we cannot trust their word. Not to mention executing acts of war (like drone attacks overseas) without the constitutionally required declaration of war by Congress.

Eighth (Cruel and Unusual Punishment): Now the president who as candidate opposed the interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo, now defends them as necessary. Nothing like a political campaign to bring out the liar in the worst characters. (Not to mention that the nests of rape, murder, assaults on prisoners convicted for non-violent offenses themselves, in my opinion, themselves constitute cruel and unusual punishment.)

Ninth: Ha, the Congress over the last twenty years, with the happy cooperation of the worst of the bankers, has violated every other natural right that got in their corrupt way, including that of property, with the Fed, the New Deal, The Great Society, the right to free trade and free exchange of goods and services.

Tenth: Of course the Congress has used the carrot-stick approach and a blatantly unconstitutional perversion of the interstate commerce clause to entice and coerce the states to doing things that were not in the jurisdiction of the federal Congress to influence. Holder tried a pathetic attempt to stop the flood of states declaring it illegal for anyone to cooperate with federal officials in violations of the Second Amendment. Holder used the “supreme law of the land” argument, by which he meant that the federal government has a “right” under the “supreme law” clause to become a dictatorship whenever it feels like it.

So yes, in the real world, I believe using the Constitution is a good way to educate the people, and by golly, if we can agree to push at least for respect and obedience to the US Constitution, that would be better than the present condition by astronomical scales.

Ron Paul, Military Spending and Wars, the Fed, and Israel

July 9, 2013
Ron Paul, member of the United States House of...

Ron Paul, member of the United States House of Representatives from Texas. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

How often do lies and deceitful spin from Old Media get repeated before the Truth overcomes it?

Ron Paul voted consistently NO whenever he thought a bill was unconstitutional. The problem was that Congress almost NEVER offers a constitutional bill anymore. 30 years of no compromise with Crony Capitalism, no payoffs, straight up. Incorruptible. The ONLY one for 30 years. What more do we want?

Anything less IS compromise. And with the self-enforcing culture of corruption in Congress, forget persuading them! And he convinced the people that matter. For his efforts, the ideological yoke of socialist lies over the youth of America has been broken and they have joined on to the new Liberty Revolution, it’s a Love Revolution, steps toward a consciousness of Golden Rule society, freedom.


The military interventions overseas have yielded ZERO benefits for the USA and ZERO benefits for the victims of those interventions. Contrary to the Lying Sniveling Hissing Old Media, Ron Paul did NOT want to completely dismantle the military, and he even wanted to keep some nuclear submarines going I believe.

Isolationist? Snort! Another lie! Commerce with all nations, entanglements with none. It worked the first 150 of our years, and drove the Industrial Revolution here and with a domestic free market allowed the USA to become the biggest economy of the world.

ISRAEL? The US gives FOUR TIMES as much foreign aid to Israel’s enemies than it does to Israel. Ending ALL of it would be a favor to Israel. The USA has only been a ball and chain holding Israel back. Set them free! (Google Settlers of Samaria and Israel)

And we need more people yelling about the root of the problems, like the Federal Reserve money changers, fiat currency, endless unconstitutional war making, the new declaration by the Obama administration that they now only get war-making orders and permission from the UN not the American people, and the outrageous NSA spying, the criminal presidential kill orders! Compromise for 100 years has NOT worked! Never worked! Time to put backbone to conviction and yell the truth from the treetops!


Socialism hurts a lot More than it helps

July 2, 2013
Ron Paul, member of the United States House of...

Ron Paul, member of the United States House of Representatives from Texas. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

SFF Madman wrote a long comment on my blog post “Socialism Cannot Save Anything”, found here:

It is so long it deserves another blog post. Whence this one.

But NOTE: “SFF Madman”‘s comments (that’s his handle) are prefaced by SFF. Mine are prefaced by “ttt”.

Trutherator: “Community owned mortgage banks, and credit unions, are helpless and hopeless against the power of the Federal Reserve Bank.”

SFF: Are they? I’m willing to bet they are helpless and hopeless against all the big banks, too (Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etc.). Or do you think it was right to bail them out instead of breaking them up?

ttt Of course I opposed bailing them out, I am against ALL forms of welfare that robs Smith to give to Jones. I definitely prefer community banks over the big ones, and credit unions even more, and I support them over the big ones. But then you still have the problem of the Federal Reserve Bank, which is the main bad guy here, because all their policies favor the biggest ones over the smaller ones.We all saw that when Ron Paul finally got the Congress to force the Fed to tell us who they secretly gave the money to in that bailout, in fact. It was the big banks.

The government and the Federal Reserve, with TARP and the secret looting, robbed you and your neighbors to give to Wall Street heavyweights favored by government, both executive and legislature. You cannot trust the politicians to make it “fair”. Government is based on force.

ttt: “By the way, the Fed is one of a couple hundred central banks around the world, and establishing such central banks was part of the COMMUNIST platform. Why did Karl Marx want to help the most devious of the bankers?”

sff Personally, I don’t care. Not all socialists are Marxists. As I have said before, there are different kinds of socialism, revised forms of previous ideas, which were obviously needed (“democratic socialism,” “social democracy,” and many more). We need to rethink our “representative democratic republic,” too. Not because it’s a bad idea, but because we have allowed big money to subvert the democratic process.

ttt You’re missing the point about why Karl Marx supported Central Banks at all, and why socialism keeps popping up everywhere in memes pushed by oligarchs in their organs, like corporate media. Socialism refers to state ownership of the means of production, and then there are self-dubbed socialists who push lesser forms of state ownership of production. The Fabian Socialist Society for example pushes for “gradual” implementation of socialism. This came up in the “progressives” of the earliest 20th century, a word used today for the same idea: take by force of government from those who have, and give to those who have less.But the fact that the Fed is the institution that controls the money in your pocket, it is Wall Street-on-the-Potomac, and that a foremost socialist, advocated it, should raise alarm bells.

Look at America’s favorite Fabian socialist in the White House and their attitude toward the uprisings in the Middle East. Not even a whisper of support to the Iranian outrage against the tyranny of their rulers, as opposed to telling Mubarak to get out and a full-scale war in Libya. Something is not right here, ey?

Don’t like Wall Street? Look at the very first thing that the new Libyan government did, it created a central bank with the “help” of Europeans. Go figure.

sff  I would prefer that we scrap the monetary system altogether and try something new. But we know no one will go for that. Most of us peasants in the U.S. really believe we have a chance to become billionaires, not even considering the imbalance in political equality having all that money creates. Not even considering that very imbalance makes the probability of becoming a billionaire very low indeed.

Any bank is a bad idea, at least the way they are set up now. The entire banking system needs a serious overhaul.

ttt If you don’t understand how money works, and the effects of one monetary policy and another, you can do worse than even the mess we have now. Ron Paul’s “End the Fed” is good laymans’ terms explanation of money and how it works. He’s written another about gold.

The monetary system is the one thing that is impoverishing us. Even the “progressive” Dennis Kucinich wanted the Federal Reserve audited. Monetary policy is important. Keynesian monetary policy is disastrous. Stimulus only goes to favored cronies and patrons. It’s the law of politics, the law of political power: It corrupts.

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are better than the central fiat money of the Fed, but one should understand it before deciding what to do.

ttt “County or City Owned Power Companies — Oh yeah, that’ll help, There are already a bunch of them, known for cronyism and corruption, because now the political bosses are in charge. They’re not magically made more pure just because they get to boss the lighting utility, but now they don’t have to worry about saving the owners money, because they’re government!”

sff I’m a bit confused about what you mean here. If you’re saying Verizon is corrupt, I agree. If you’re saying politicians eat from their hands, I agree with that, too. But that still shows who the real boss is in this picture: Verizon. Politicians are their cronies, and the cronies of any big corporation or bank willing to wave around huge wads of “corporate free speech.”

ttt You’re right of course in the general in what you say here. You just need to consider that political deciders only eat out of Verizon’s hands because they sell “rent-seeking” policies to them that smaller companies do not have. They have political power to sell. Don’t let them have it!

If you dissolve Verizon and give the telephone utility to that same politician or anybody else, the cronyism doesn’t go away. His family, or the politically appointed boss, gets the best phone service, his family gets the best jobs, his cousin runs it into the ground.I saw this every time in Latin America when I was a full-time missionary. Phone service by governments is beyond awful, and the poor are the worst off. Power companies are the worst. There are now blackouts again in Tegucigalpa the capital, because the company bosses rake it off the top, at each layer of boss. When I was in Santo Domingo is was every day. Take your bath quick when the water came, it didn’t last past noon.

Allende in Chile nationalized the copper mines. Goodbye Anaconda. In one year, production had plummeted, workplace accidents doubled, and Allende’s government had to subsidize the mines instead of getting taxes from it. Today, under economic policies adapted from Milton Friedman‘s “Chicago School” of economics, it’s thriving, but it could do even better if the free market principles of Austrian economics were implemented over the long run.

ttt “The Millionaires Tax — Oh yeah, that’ll help jobs. The guy doesn’t even try to pretend taxing 50% over a million has anything to do with helping the poor, except the proposal for a referendum. Never mind the ethics involved in all socialist and fascist proposals, of stealing money from somebody. Like the bloody Bonnie and Clyde, they “go where the money is”, except it’s less noble than Bonnie and Clyde because at least the robbers want it for themselves, whereas socialists just want to pull them down here to poverty with the rest of us!”

sff I see. Helping the poor does constitute a social program. However, what I really want is for the people building the cars, the skyscrapers, standing on the assembly lines, sacrificing sweat, blood, and time with their families to earn a fair living wage, and decent health and education benefits for their efforts. They shouldn’t have to fight for it. It should already be theirs. This is why I contend that corporations are stealing the most, because they are stealing it from their employees.

ttt Nobody should “have to fight for” anything, but they should indeed reap the benefits of the “fruit of their labor”. It’s a temptation to legislate righteousness, to emit decrees, and it’s easy to see the benefit that one supposes benefits the lowest-paid workers in particular.

What is not so easy to see are the “unseen” effects. Sometimes they can be measured. Allende took the corporation out of the picture when he nationalized the mines, took out the profit motive from the equation. But were they angels from heaven that took control? Nah, political cronies. Corruption goes up because now neither the crony appointee and the “appointer” have to account for either profits or taxes or workers’ safety to anybody.

The “fair living wage” sounds all nice and pretty, but if you put on your infrared X-ray eyeglasses, you’ll were just looking at the lipstick, but the ugly pig it’s on is all the teenagers that find it harder to get a job because the pay is not worth their work. The mentally slow ones have a hard time finding anything at all or don’t last because the productivity is not there.

I just read about a blind technologist working on handicapped-friendly interfaces. He said 80% of the blind in America are unemployed. The “minimum wage” is a barrier to employment for them. They can be productive at lower pay, even as family, friends, and charity works help them. (One such private charity work trained an uncle of mine in darkroom work)

But I don’t “owe you” a job. You don’t owe me a job with a “living wage” either. Forcing you to pay me more than I’m worth to you, kills your productivity as a manager, it robs you of the fruits of your labor, and robs the economy at large of that productivity too. That’s lost production that could have gone to raising the standard for others.

ttt “How about let them use that money to give a raise to their workers, hire more workers, invest in more productive activity?”

sff Great idea! It makes good sense and I would like to see it happen. So all these corporations with record profits lately, why aren’t they doing it? See:

ttt That’s a question I think you should really ask yourself. I could just give you a list. But then it would get bogged down in the details.Instead, ask yourself these questions instead:

#1. Corporations just want to make more money right? So it’s not a matter of greed. If you’re saying they’re doing it just because they’re evil or just to punish us and “rob” potential workers of the new jobs that “belong” to them, they could do this better by just shutting the whole thing down.

In fact, that was the big socialist complaint against companies in the 1970s and 1980s that moved their factories to Japan and to China. Nobody bothered to point to their own neighbors for buying stuff made in Japan and China.

#2. If corporations want to “make more money”, and they could expand by investing in more jobs, and they’re not doing it, you have to ask why. If you had money to invest, why wouldn’t you?

#3. Maybe instead of moving the money by the force of the gun of the law from one grubby-fingered greedy corporate hack to the grubby-fingered greedy government hack, how about let’s look at what is causing companies to think there’s no safe investment? Why do they think there is risk in the future.

–One thing in the big long list of disincentives to investment is Obamacare. My son got his hours cut drastically from 40 hours plus lots of overtime (they love him there) to 35 max, because of Obamacare, a pet socialist program that isn’t going to work as promised and has already broken a lot of its promise.. It’s happening by the thousands in small companies across the nation. The big ones are waiting for some of the small ones to fold under the burden, to pick up the slack, I’m sure.

#3. Are there corporations or venture capitalists that indeed are investing and putting their money to use? Yes, there are, and plenty of them.
Is it enough? No, because the USA does not have a free market.

ttt “So what if they sit on it? If it’s in savings, it’s getting loaned out to others doing much more productive activity than for warfare or for agents to spy on us.”

sff I say it’s being used for exactly what you say it isn’t.

ttt Why? Does the CEO have all those millions stuffed into mattresses?

Even the dumbest executive keeps his cash reserve in the bank. (Note: Of course Warren Buffet has quietly put about a third of his assets into metallic gold, I hear)

If a bank doesn’t lend out the savings, it dies. Mortgages on industrial property, credit cards, even treasury bills for the “safe” investment. Property of any kind.

ttt “25% solution — Finally, a good idea, cut down military spending. Better yet, Obama or the president could just order them home immediately, like Ron Paul said he would.”

sff Yay! I like this, because it appears there are some points on which you and I are in perfect harmony. But Obomber will only do what his corporate masters pay him to do, and I wouldn’t trust Ron Paul, either. I don’t trust any of them.”

ttt The only one who has proved himself in 30 years is Ron Paul. You should have noticed how they treated him in Iowa. Ron Paul 2nd, but “We now have three new front-runners: Romney, Perry, Bachman”. Abramoff said none of the lobbyists bothered to do anything with Ron Paul.

In the libertarian philosophy, nobody gets a government-guaranteed advantage and the fruits of your labor are respected as yours. No big corporation has any advantage over another. The Internet has proven that given a free market area, upstarts can make hay. If you take government’s regulations out, for example, anybody could sell anything from their home itself. Walmart would have ten million neighborhood competitors. I could sell you my beer. My wife could sell you her fine cooking, without having government snoops all over the place.

The corporations write the laws that regulate them. If you don’t let government make the regulations, the corporations don’t get to write them.

ttt “Public funding of all elections — The worst idea yet. Let government determine who gets a chance at forming part of the government. The most radical election year was 1968 when McCarthy got five millionaire backers to challenge the warfare machine. Those donations would be against the law today, because we already have too much campaign finance reform.”

sff No, we don’t. We now have the ridiculous “corporate free speech” reform:,8599,2001844,00.html

ttt The McCarthy example disproves that. The Vietnam War would have had no serious candidate to champion opposition with McCain-Feingold. Incumbents went from using their built-in advantage to get some 80% re-election, to about 90 or 95% of them re-elected. That’s why it’s the same faces.

And now there is an irony of saying the CItizens United decision was wrong is based on the big monetary firepower of big corporations, and Obama even warning about foreign corporations. This by the one whose campaign is documented as having received foreign contributions.

The irony is that it is corporate entities like Citizens United that give a voice to citizens who by themselves cannot afford to produce a slick ad like the Demican or Republicrat Party candidates, who cannot individually express themselves with a broadcast ad, now they have a way to put a mouth to their message, by contributing to such a like-minded advocacy group. They don’t own megacorporate media empires like General Electric and Microsoft do.

So why let the big mean mega-corporations that own lots of media reach be the only ones that can contribute billions of free air time to candidates.

ttt “But the real headline of the term was the court’s decision earlier this year *giving corporations and unions sweeping new rights to spend money to elect candidates to office*. It is not an overstatement to say that the 5 to 4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which was handed down in January, could permanently change American democracy.” (The Supreme Court and Corporate Free Speech,

sff Corporate free speech actually makes bribes legal, and it drowns out all other voices–those that do not have wads of money to throw at politicians. It definitely has “changed American democracy”: it has practically crushed it.

Besides, the government has always decided who would be in the government. There’s this little old thing in fine print in the Constitution called the “Electoral College.” Now, however, it isn’t the government deciding. It’s corporate money.

ttt First, corporate free speech only provides a way for individuals to pool resources in something they believe in. Not talking about incumbency protection schemes like McCain-Feingold, which big corporations also like, because it provides long-term return on investment into incumbent campaigns.

LBJ’s wife gets the broadcast spectrum and CBS affiliation he set up for her with his legislation, and with incumbency protection laws, now LBJ would not have to worry so much about a well-financed opposition campaign. He did, though, that was McCarthy.

The electoral college is not “the government”. It only elects the president anyway.

Presidents in Latin America and everywhere, America too, have always used their power to try to limit opposition candidates. It’s like gravity. Incumbents have lots of built-in advantages in campaigns. Letting opposition candidate get financing wherever they can get it helps balance the equation.

Plus the big profitable corporations have a built-in PR disadvantage, but they are able to hide it in the Old Media. For example, Wall Street gave millions more to Obama’s campaign in 2008 than to McCain’s. But Corporate Media did not report this at the time, not a whisper. Goldman-Sachs contributions were so lopsided it would have capsized and sunk an ocean liner.

ttt “Medicare and dental care for all — except for the ones denied by the one gatekeeper with no recourse and no competition. Better to get government spending out of it altogether and nix the corporate deductions for it –they still today don’t let individuals get the deduction– so the prices will drop to affordable. Instead we got hikes in premiums with the Unaffordable Act, companies are dropping coverage, and dictates all around and the people get less choice than ever. Doctors dropping out too, the best ones that have enough are retiring.. Now functionally illiterate “graduates” of government schools who can’t read cursive are going to take care of us. Thanks a lot, socialism.”

sff I can’t make sense of this. As for Medicare, some people need help. How are they going to get it? Denying them help is what fascists do. Some extreme fascists would even advocate “lining up all the cripples and shooting them” because they are an “unnecessary strain on the economy.”

ttt The biggest faction advocating any kind of euthanasia today are the more “socialistic” minded states like Oregon. And you can check on who was more likely to see Terry Schiavo as a vegetable, and who wanted to err on the side of letting her live.

And you can check on which side all the handicapped advocacy groups came down on. Planned Parenthood was born as a eugenics program, and Hitler’s eugenics chief was even invited to give talks in America at their meetings! And the Ku Klux Klan loved her, and she documented her visit once to a Klan meeting to speak.

Fascism and socialism are two sides of the same coin. National socialism = international socialism. The “political spectrum” that should concern us is “how much government?”

The spectrum goes from total government (tyranny) to no government (anarchy, or anarcho-capitalism, not the same).

I vote for more freedom. What’s your vote?

sff For the rest of it, I need more information. I can’t be sure I know what you mean about “functionally illiterate ‘graduates,’” but I know my own situation. I haven’t graduated yet, but I’m almost there. I’m using financial aid to go to school and I am far from illiterate.

ttt Obviously I’m not talking about you. You’re obviously very articulate, and express yourself. And I was using hyperbole, I thought it was obvious.

But as long ago as the 1980s I met a New York high school graduate that could not write a gospel tract I handed her. My two oldest sons begged me to let them drop out of high school because they were so bored out of their minds (they’re successful now, one is a music producer).

Get an elementary school McDuffy reader from 1905 or 1913 and look at it. There are high school entrance exams from those years that would stump the best Harvard grads.

sff I can also say with confidence that quite a few of the young students in my classes were skilled with the English language. Not all of them, of course, but several in every class. Their grammar and diction were often better than many politicians, that’s certain.

ttt The best hope is the education that kids can get from sources independent of government schools and government influence, and the ones who are self-motivated from their upbringing. Like the home schoolers acing the academic competition.Politicians are not selected for office for their academic credentials. Their masters like them more pliant. Obama knows economics as much as he knows how to do heart surgery.

At least Ron Paul knows what he’s talking about with economics. In one debate they told the candidates to ask any of the others any question at all. Ron Paul stumped McCain with a simple economics question.

If you read up on Austrian economics you understand more than any of the politicians about how an economy can thrive.

ttt “Nationalized weapons industries. — Oh great. Make them as efficient as the post office. By cutting corporations out of the loop for the dictator, it’ll get better? The “profit” in war will be the political cronies. That’ll work as good as it did for education, and that’s going gangbusters, right?”

sff No one should be profiting from war, corporations least of all.

ttt No one should be profiting from the looting of another, period.But understand. Today’s Godzilla corporations are government pumped. Small corporations are the Moms and Pops and partnerships, more like. We NEED them to profit from productive economic activity.

Without war, weapons industries will atrophy, but we need to push on them. Allowing the people themselves individually to provide for their own self-protection would be more effective for most of it. A government monopoly would be worse because of human nature, and for self-defense too, by the way.

Maybe at least nobody can show up if they give a war.

ttt “==> I’m not a “talking head” or politician or Old Media. I’m a Ron Paul fan, anathema to Shadow Government. We cannot be accused of shilling for the richest. But socialism is a downhill slippery path to tyranny. There are over 100 million humans sacrificed in the 20th century to the god of government.”

sff And I’m willing to bet that twice as many, at least, were sacrificed to Mammon. Corporatism is just as tyrannical, perhaps more so, as any “socialist regime.”

ttt Socialism is Mammon. Socialism defines society in terms of how many each person gets of it.

A completely and truly free market (not the false one socialists accuse the US of having now) is based on the free and voluntary exchange of goods and services. In anarcho-capitalism, for example, the economic application of the non-aggression principle is based on the principles of “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods”.

Socialist regimes slaughtered directly and deliberately over 100 million of their own subjects during the 20th century, and that’s not counting the millions of citizens who gave their lives in battle against them.

ttt “But. Socialist talking heads are indeed shills for the richest and most powerful clique of plutocrats on the planet. George Soros is no starving peasant, and he and his peers at the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, and a lot more, they fund armies of writers and journalists to write articles that praise socialism on 100s of web sites all over the Internet.”

sff Wow. Real socialists would not be anything of the sort. They are pretenders, just like Obomber.

ttt Would not do what? Take money from them? Write the same things a “real” socialist would?

See Soros’ political influence (speaking about money influence!)
He has contributed mega-money for the Public Broadcasting Corporation to fund local journalists everywhere in the States. Nobody’s talking about what unwritten agreements were made but you can get an idea of what they’ll probably write about.

He funds “anti-corporate” interests everywhere, including big bucks for Media Matters, a very “progressive” tax-exempt non-profit. You’ll see their “education” on their web site. It’s a “watchdog”, it says but it only dogs the so-called “right”. See for yourself:

Here you can see how far big money goes to support fascism/socialism/control. It’s a false front racket, all about control:

I’ve been paying close attention. Remember I used to be a Communist. Leader of the Black Liberation Army came to speak at my college once. He said a “group of businessmen” offered him a million dollars. To cool it, one supposes, or “stand down”. He refused and the BLA is no more.

Former SDS members report that at one convention, the Rockefellers actually had a table there and they were offering support. In answer to the obvious question, the representative told one questioner that it was to make them look conservative in comparison.

ttt“I found that out when I battled the lies in 2009 when Honduras asserted its freedom and sovereignty against the socialist-orchestrated attack on it, when the Obama administration joined Chavez in trying to force that country to put the dictator Zelaya back in, who was running his own auto-coup against his own government and against his republic, using fraud for cover. And 80% of Hondurans backed Micheletti against that Chavez-puppet demagogue.”

sff  U.S. backing the oppressive dictator is nothing new. And the usual reason for it is money. The usual reason for just about any war after Korea was money (U.S.-owned opium fields in Cambodia, oil in the Middle East). In the past, the profits trickled down to average workers, stimulating the economy (which is why I say the average American should also accept responsibility for reaping the benefits of blood money). Now they don’t. Corporations are making out like bandits on the War on Terror, and the average American’s wages still are not going up.

ttt Like I say, you’ve GOT to understand even the basics of Austrian economics to know why. Like you said above, there’s not much that makes sense here.

Remember the Fed’s money-“printing” power makes it easier for the politicians to fund the war machine and the welfare state. The latter provides a cushion to absorb the deleterious effects of minimum wage laws and state-ordered union memberships, and the former creates its own circular effect.

And it also fuels inflation, devaluation of the dollar, which is a direct theft from the low wages they do allow, so it’s theft from the middle class and from their welfare subsidies to the poor, for a subsidy to the beneficiaries of money creation (Wall Street, big corporations, politicians)

sff It grieves me to see this. Everything you say is a problem in the U.S. (much of which I agree is accurate) still goes back to corporations and banks. Our “representatives” no longer represent the majority, they represent corporate money. This is “corporatism,” not “socialism.”

ttt And this corporatism only happens because people think the government can solve problems by just ordering it like some kind of divine king: “Make it so.” Government is not God, and a scheme based on robbing wealth and productivity from individuals is going to backfire on itself.

Keynesian economists gave their blessing to this racket, and the big bankers were glad to go along. The biggest banking interests in fact hatched the Fed at Jekyll Island in great secrecy, about to pull a fast one on the American public. And they did a double whammy on us in 1913 with the Fed and the Income Tax.

sff The U.S. has many social programs as you noted. I say we need social programs, but I will at least agree that the programs here are mismanaged and incompetently applied. The same goes for taxation. There’s no reason why we can’t come up with fair taxation rates for everyone. For me, I’d be willing to give up 60-70% of my income in taxes if I knew those taxes would guarantee me and my family a home, healthcare, and opportunities for education. People in the higher income brackets would not necessarily need that and should be able to opt out of taxes spent for that reason.

The sooner we learn that no government is so omniscient or even so benevolent as to be capable of guaranteeing anything for you in the long run, especially based on a monetary policy of fiat currency monopoly, enforced with laws that give you jail time if you mint a gold coin for example, the better.

The boom-bust cycle got worse after the Fed took over the money and the banking. It totally screwed up housing for the 21st century so far. Healthcare is a mess because of government pouring billions into it and propping up corporate insurance deductions. (Why didn’t they do that for individuals?)

The income tax does NOTHING to even “spread the wealth around”. Government actors write the laws and make themselves rich at our expense, and join the Old Boys Club where fashionable Harvard grad socialists sneer at the ignorance of the masses with their religion and their guns.

sff But at the very least, the workers in this country deserve better compensation and more respect from corporations. And corporations are much too large; they wield too much political power because of their billions, now even more so with “corporate free speech.”

It is very important to understand this. The problems here in the U.S. are not caused by socialism, they are caused by corporatism. A real social democracy would balance the power between corporations and workers, just as a real representative democratic republic would represent the interests of the majority (rather than a super wealthy minority).

ttt It’s frustrating I know and it looks that way on first glance and that’s why I was once a socialist myself.I was a missionary because I wanted to change the world, help the poor, and I did. Took food donations to distribute in poor barrios in Sto. Domingo. I saw distended bellies. Fellow missionaries told us about Haiti where the poor carry pans to the market to catch the blood flowing down the gutters at the meat market so they can get protein.

You’d be amazed at what people can do if you don’t make them learn to walk with figurative crutches.

There is no need to “balance power between corporations and workers” if you just quit meddling into people’s lives and let them work out their individual contracts as best they see fit.

Let me recommend Frederic Bastiat’s book “The Law”. It is a booklet written in the 19th century that clarifies the why and wherefore of socialism and government in general. It’s a good starter book to explain things, I think.

Others are Human Action and Socialism by von Mises, and Socialism the Road to Tyranny by Hayek.