Imagine taking a day off from work in a future without capitalism.
It might not feel as badly needed as it does now. You enjoy your work; itās interesting to you, and youāre well trained for it. You work as much as you are able and no more than needed, and you would control your own labor and see it going to good use. Itās not just a job to pay the bills.
Speaking of bills: you donāt really have them anymore.
You have no debt. You donāt need health insurance. You donāt pay a mortgage or have a landlord, because comfortable housing is a human right. Your retirement is publicly funded. Food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation arenāt for-profit businesses; they are common goods and utilities.
OK, enough about bills. What do you do on your day off? Maybe in the morning, you walk your kids to school, run errands, or go to a doctorās appointment. In the afternoon, you might play a sport, practice a new skill, read, plan a trip. In the evening, you could meet up with friends or family and eat together, maybe go to the movies or down to the park.
Among the items on the DSA platform she is happy to defend: “Abolish the Senate,” “Replace the presidency and Supreme Court,” “Abolish ICE,” “Abolish borders and give amnesty to anyone currently in the U.S. illegally,” “Defund the Pentagon,” “Abolish prisons,” “Government or public ownership of most large corporations.”
Watch this video to hear her say it with enthusiasm:
Fox: "Abolish the Senate?"
DSA Chair: "True"
Fox: "Abolish ICE?"
DSA Chair: "Absolutely"
Fox: "Abolish borders and give amnesty to anyone in the US illegally?"
This is mind bogglingly delusional and/or a deliberate set of lies.
While I can see this set of visions could be appealing to some people, I don’t think enough people will believe these same lies that have been told for 100+ years is going to gain traction in the age of the Internet. People know what happened in Venezuela. People know what happened in Cuba and East Europe. Just spend a day in the U.S., Germany, Denmark, Singapore, Hong Kong, or even France or England. Compare that to a day in Vietnam, Poland or Czechia. I have visited all those countries. And even though Poland and Czechia have been released from the bonds of heavy socialism for 30 years, you can easily still see the price they paid before rejecting socialism and accepting something approximating a free market. Vietnam is far worse off than any of those countries. Did they find their workers’ paradise by going full socialist fifty years ago? No. Not even close.
The socialist never stop lying, but maybe this surge in popularity will see their lies rejected before 100s of millions more people have to pay the price.
From the Greg Price thread on X:
THIS SHOULD BE IN AN AD FOR EVERY R running for Congress in Nov.
This is the new Democrat Party platform and Rs need to shout it from the fucking rooftops.
These people are insane. Show the world how insane they really are.
The gun is a civilizational technology in the deepest sense: it requires responsibility, judgment, and the willingness to accept the consequences of your decisions. You cannot outsource it. You cannot have a committee fire it. It is the most anti-bureaucratic object ever invented ā a direct, personal, consequential instrument that puts the full weight of the decision on the individual holding it. Which is precisely why the administrative state finds it intolerable. Not because it is dangerous. Because it is sovereign.
It is my opinion that once people own a gun and go shooting once a month or so it changes them. They become more independent in many other aspects of their life. They see their relationship with the government in a different light.
Take a new shooter to the range. Get them started down a healtiher path.
We used to believe ā still see this in comments ā that the left (and their distant patron the USSR) were ultimately good at one thing: propaganda. And for a long time, they seemed to be so. They could convince people of the most ridiculous things and more importantly, theyād made leftism into a positional good. If you wanted to show you were high class youād be as leftist as possible in public, all the way to communist.
Turns out though that this wasnāt in any way shape or form a natural system, any more than the public schools are. It turns out they could act superior, sell leftism as a positional good, and act like we were the baddies because they controlled critical positions in the information/art/entertainment industrial complex. They could therefore keep out anyone who disagreed with them, and act like all smart people agreed with the most outrageous idiocies of the communist mind.
ā¦ but this is not the case anymore. And itās becoming glaringly obvious it was all fake.
In fact, the more distributed the information system gets the more the left is becoming like the mean girls once they leave high school: bitter, vociferous, and attracting only the mentally ill.
…
The reign of the mean girls is coming to an end. First slowly (these last 20 years) then suddenly, youāll see communists and leftists in general being derided as the sapskulls with nothing but evil and vain gloating on their side.
On July 1, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear challenges to so-called āassault weaponā bans out of Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois. That means the justices will now confront one of the most important Second Amendment questions in the country: whether states and localities may outlaw some of the most popular rifles in America by attaching to them a political label designed to frighten the public. However, the gun-control lobby chooses to market these bans, the underlying reality is simple. The government is attempting to prohibit arms that millions of peaceable Americans own for lawful purposes.
In my mind this should have been resolved within a few years after California passed the RobertiāRoos “Assault Weapons” Control Act in 1989. But the reality is that we didn’t have the SCOTUS votes for a win. There were a lot of people who even doubted we had the votes to agree the 2nd Amendment was an individual right in the 2008 Heller decision. Now, we know we have the votes and the pro-freedom organizations are pushing as many cases as they can through the courts while the chances of a win are good.
This could be dismissed as an incredible fantasy dream that could never true:
“The US Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, has agreed to hear en banc the question of whether Congress has the constitutional authority to enact federal gun control laws.”
The only hook in the enumerated powers granted to the Federal government to regulate guns is the commerce clause. Had you been concerned the feds restricting gun ownership in the early 1800’s you would have thought you were doubly protected by the lack of an enumerated power as well as the 2nd Amendment. As of Wickard v. Filburn (1942) the government bypassed the enumerated powers restriction, and they burst through the loophole like one of the Missoula floods. Now we have an essentially unlimited Federal government.
The case before the Fifth Circuit is a gun case by a convicted felon in possession of a firearm challenging the government’s authority granted in Wickard v. Filburn. If successful at both the appeals court (plausible) it would be immediately appealed to SCOTUS. Justice Thomas has said he thinks this approach to invalidating gun regulation has merit.
If SCOTUS overturns Wickard v. Filburn we would suddenly be living in an unknown universe. Probably 95% (or more) of what the Feds currently do would be beyond their authority.
This would be a way to get out from under the $40 Trillion dollar debt. It would relive all the congress critters from being blamed for the collapse of, well, just about everything the government does.
I would like to believe this has the potential to restore the limited government the founders envisioned. But, to put it mildly, I am skeptical. But it is fun to think about. Imagine the liberal tears, shrieks, and wailing!
But just that this is being considered is incredible. We truly live in interesting times.
Singlehandedly is a big exaggerating. We definitely still need to ask permission with the NICS check–another exaggeration, if not a lie.
But it is true that he is the probably the most pro-Second Amendment U.S. president ever. He has done a lot. The SCOTUS appointments. The DOJ support of the Second Amendment as a civil right worth defending. All great stuff. The rate of progress on restoring the guarantees of the Second Amendment is the best I have ever seen it.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court has granted cert in two huge Second Amendment cases, agreeing to hear
@2AFdn‘s challenges to the “assault weapons” bans in Illinois and Connecticut. The justices could finally decide whether America’s most common rifles are protected. Huge. #2A#SCOTUSViramontes v. Cook CountyGrant v. Higgins
SUPREME COURT AGREES TO HEAR TWO SAF “ASSAULT WEAPONS” CASES!
History was made today.
After years of litigation, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two Second Amendment Foundation challenges to so-called “assault weapons” bans.
Today, the Court agreed to hear two of our cases at once, Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins: our challenges to the so-called āassault weaponsā bans in Illinois and Connecticut. Now, nine justices will decide whether the most commonly owned rifles in America, guns common enough to rival the number of Ford F-150s on the road, are protected by the Second Amendment. Whatever they rule becomes the law in every state in the country.
The fight gun owners have waited decades for has officially begun. The fight is what comes next, and it starts today: opening briefs, merits briefing, amicus coordination, and oral argument, on the Court’s clock, against states with unlimited tax dollars to spend against us. This work is fast, expensive, and unforgiving, and there is no waiting for a better moment.
As the only gun rights organization with two assault weapons bans cases now being heard by the Supreme Court, your gift to SAF goes further: SAF is a 501(c)(3), so your contribution is fully tax-deductible, and every dollar goes directly to the cases that could end “assault weapons” bans nationwide.
This has taken so long. It is long past time to make this part of history.
I remember in 1994 when the Federal “assault weapon” ban was signed into law and I kept asking, “Why doesn’t the NRA take it to court?” There was more than one correct answer to that question. And some of them are even pretty good answers. But I was impatient and didn’t really believe the answers.
I remember after the 2008 Heller decision, at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous, Alan Gura told a bunch of gun bloggers something to the effect of, “Donāt expect this to change anything overnight. This is just the start of something that people will still be working on 20 years from now.” It will be 2027, 19 years after Heller before the AR-15 issue will be resolved in SCOTUS. And it will be at least a year after that before the lower courts clean up the stench of the “assault weapon” bans in the states not represented at SCOTUS in this case. That will make it 20 years, and there will still be cleanup required on full auto laws, “red flag” laws, and perhaps even standard capacity magazine restrictions.
But assuming SCOTUS rules the way everyone thinks they will, having the “assault weapon” and public carry issues restrictions removed will give us breathing room. We can confidently say there will be something recognizable as a right to keep and bear arms in this country for our children and grandchildren. That will be our true historic landmark.
Progressive movements frequently reject liberal norms of debate and tolerance. Once politics is understood as an endless series of contradictions that must be resolved through struggle, the goal is no longer peaceful coexistence or mutual accommodation, but the permanent transformation of society through continuous agitation. The dialectic has proven remarkably effective precisely because it offers both a method of analysis and a justification for never-ending conflict.
There probably is some truth to this. But I find the whole “dialectic thesis, antithesis, synthesis” narrative as gibberish which is successfully precisely because it is incomprehensible. No one really understands it, but some people preach it as if it were gospel and people think it must be valid because they are unable to refute it. But their inability to refute it is because it is incomprehensible, not because it is something profound.
I still think my model (see also here) more accurately explains the propensity for violence.
Communism through (my) ages: 1) When I was 15, a teacher told me “It isn’t as bad as they say, and makes a lot of sense.” 2) At about 19, college friends, “Socialism isn’t communism.” 3) At 20, on meeting my grandfather-in-law, “They are evil. We escaped in 1949.” 4) At 30, “China is a wonderful developing Democracy” 5) At 35, I was sent to communist China on business. It was a crowded, smelly, dirty, factory of despair and hopelessness. This I saw with my own eyes. 6) At 36, “China doesn’t count. Successful socialism is in northern Europe.” 7) I moved to northern Europe when I was 40. It was much nicer than China, but also felt like I was living in the past. I had to wait 6 months for a hernia operation. 8) When I was about 45, the migrant crisis began. The socialist/globalist/pacifist allowed them entry into every country, regardless how many crimes they committed along the way. Just 20 minutes from my house, in Calais, I was shocked to see migrants jumping onto trucks, breaking open the doors, scattering the contents across the highway, then climbing in. They went through the Chunnel and got out in England. 9) At 52, the soft socialism around me had transformed into globalism. I was told I had to call people by their preferred pronouns, though it was a lie, and even if I didn’t know what the preferences were. I quit. 10) I returned to the US, and am now 60. “Socialism” is no longer a dirty word here. People openly espouse the virtues of it. Politicians run as socialists and win.
Socialism has taken many forms, from the Bolshevism of Russia, to the CCP in China, the Nazis in Germany, Fascists in Italy, and the many forms of it found in Latin America. It is one of the two most destructive ideologies on earth. It is designed to deprive, despirit, and murder everything that comes in contact with it.
Socialism is a great lie at every level. It helps no one, not even those who benefit the most. This is because the cost is the imposition of one’s will on everyone else, and that destroys the soul of the usurper and the life of the oppressed.
Socialism always fails on its own, but only after destroying almost everything in its train. It can also be conquered. Those are the options.
Elon created $4tr in wealth for himself, his investors and employees. Politicians have created $39tr in debt for you, your children, and all the whiners complaining about Elon. Which is preferable?
Socialism kills, fast or slow. But on the way there, it makes people into dumb animals posturing and killing for no good reason.
The enemy is collectivism. The enemy is welfare. The enemy is turning humans into dependent zoo animals.
None of which will be solved by doing the same, but harder, and with different colors of skin as the all precious must be coddled.
All it will do is destroy the little that is still functioning. And make it harder to come back.
I beg you with tears in my eyes to believe civilization is worth saving. It is socialism that must be torn down. Please start working towards civilization.
As I read it, the main point of her post is that there is a bunch of crap going on all over the world and that includes the U.S.A. A lot of people, of most any political persuasion, try to distill the problem down to skin color. That isn’t the real problem. To use an example of hers:
Itās not the skin color, you see. If it were Abigail Spanberger would be a firebrand for freedom and Clarence Thomas would be communist. Or if you prefer, replace those with Bernie Sanders and Thomas Sowell. The parallel stands. And it remains crazy.
I’ve said this before, judge people as individuals, not as a group. If you judge people as an immutable group you, in some sense of the word, are a collectivist. This will not yield optimal results. You will lose the ideas and influence of people like Colion Noir, Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, and Thomas Sowell.
Embrace the ideas and accept the contributions of the people that make meaningful advances in our fight against socialism in all its forms.
In order to make people equal, you have to treat them differently. If you treat people alike, the result is necessarily inequality.
More quotable and easier to understand, but not quite accurate.
Useful ammo when dealing with people demanding reparations, affirmative action, DEI, etc. The point being is that if they insist upon equality, they are demanding discrimination.
The Democrat governor of Colorado signed into law one of the most restrictive gun bans ever adopted in the United States. The law bans the manufacturing and selling of semiautomatic firearms. This is on top of the liberal stateās existing ban on high-capacity magazines. Thatās just crazy.
…
So, to all gun manufacturers in Colorado, my question to you is simple. Do you want to move back to America?
To all gun manufacturers in Colorado, my question for you is simple: do you want to move back to America? pic.twitter.com/JTiQdbmCGJ
— Governor Greg Gianforte (@GovGianforte) April 23, 2025
Good question. It is not just the gun industries either. Look at the “wealth taxes” and “millionaire taxes” and high regulations being implemented in the Democrat socialist run states. Business and people are leaving because the further you can distance yourself from such toxins the better your life, community, and future.
At 10:01 a.m. on June 12, 2026, Graham Platner, the freshly minted Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Maine, posted the following on X:
āElon Musk just became the worldās first trillionaire.
Letās make sure heās also the last.ā
No policy proposal. No discussion of tax brackets, carried-interest loopholes, or regulatory reform. Just a flat, public declaration that the existence of a single individual who has accumulated more wealth than any human in history is an intolerable moral emergency that must be prevented from ever happening again.
The sentence is not a critique of monopoly power, regulatory capture, or government favoritism. It is a death sentence pronounced on the category of human being who creates at scale.
It is the purest distillation of socialist psychology yet uttered by a major-party Senate candidate in the United States: Excellence has occurred. Make sure it never occurs again.
This is not an aberration. It is the logical endpoint of everything Platner has signaled since he entered the race.
…
The correct response to āLetās make sure heās also the lastā is not a technocratic defense of marginal tax rates.
It is a full-throated defense of the right of human beings to achieve without limit and without apology. It is the recognition that the alternative to Musk-scale creation is not a more equitable distribution of existing goods.
It is a slower, poorer, grayer world in which the best anyone can hope for is to be slightly less mediocre than their neighbors.
Maine does not need another politician who resents the existence of greatness.
It needs a political culture that treats the creation of a trillion dollars of value as evidence of national vitality rather than moral emergency.
The man who can make reusable rockets routine, who can force the automotive industry to electrify faster than it wanted to, who can put global communications infrastructure in orbit while governments ditherā¦this man is not the problem. He is the proof that the problem is elsewhere.
Graham Platnerās tweet is a window into the soul of a politics that has given up on creation and now contents itself with the management of decline.
The only question left is whether the voters of Maineā¦and eventually the countryā¦will ratify that surrender or reject it with the same ferocity that built the civilization now under attack.
The first trillionaire exists.
The question is not whether we can prevent another. The question is whether we still have the will to produce one.
Plaintiffs request the following relief from this Honorable Court:
a. Enter a declaratory judgment stating that the Nonresident Handgun Purchase Ban set forth in 18 U.S.C. Ā§Ā§ 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5), 922(b)(3), and 27 C.F.R. Ā§ 478.99(a), and all other related laws, regulations, policies, and procedures, violate the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution;
b. Enter a permanent injunction enjoining Defendantsā enforcement or application of the Nonresident Handgun Purchase Ban set forth in 18 U.S.C. Ā§Ā§ 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5), 922(b)(3), and 27 C.F.R. Ā§ 478.99(a), and all other related laws, regulations, policies, and procedures, because it violates the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution;
c. Award Plaintiffs the costs of this action and reasonable attorneysā fees; and
d. Award Plaintiffs such other legal and equitable relief as is just and appropriate and as necessary to effectuate the Courtās judgment.
I am so pleased this area of 2nd Amendment law is being pursued. It seems like it should be a real slam dunk. If someone can travel to another state and buy weed, get an abortion, or go to church, then why shouldn’t buying a self-defense tool be a no-brainer, “Hell yes, of course!” That’s just from the philosophical viewpoint.
The legal viewpoint is even stronger. The ban on purchasing handguns depending on which side of a line your feet are resting on is obviously an infringement on the plain text of the 2nd Amendment. And, as pointed in this filing:
Bruen reiterated that, āwhen the Second Amendmentās plain text covers an individualās conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.ā Bruen, 597 U.S. at 17. And a court may ā[o]nlyā conclude that the conduct falls outside the Second Amendmentās protection if the government can ājustify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nationās historical tradition of firearm regulation.ā Id. at 24.
This Court already conducted the type of historical analysis that Bruen requires in Mance. The Court observed that āthe earliest known state residency restrictions on the purchase or possession of firearmsā occurred in 1909. 74 F. Supp. 3d at 805 (āDefendants have not presented, and the Court cannot find, any earlier evidence of longstanding interstate, geography based, or residency-based firearms restrictions.ā). Given this history, the Nonresident Handgun Purchase Ban must be enjoined again.
My view is that it is low hanging fruit that should gathered first. It creates a slippery slope that will create momentum, make it easier to win difficult cases like AR and even machine gun bans, and, figuratively, result in the anti-gun movement making a high velocity splat in the history dumpster where they belong.
In the impersonal offices of North American education in the 1970s, a Canadian educator named Laurence J. Peter observed with clinical irony how hierarchies devoured talent. He saw systematic promotions: the excellent teacher became a mediocre principal, the competent principal a clumsy bureaucrat, the bureaucrat a disastrous civil servant. From that observation emerged the Peter Principle, published in 1969: “in a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence.” Promotion is based on prior success, not on aptitude for the new role. The result is that organizations end up filled with people who no longer master what they do, but who can no longer be demoted without breaking the system.
…
The left’s social engineers, eternal dreamers of planned paradises, respond to the disaster they themselves generate by demanding more hierarchy, more State, more positions for their faithful. When the machine clogs with incompetents, the solution is never to shrink the monster’s size; it is to inject it with more militants and more budget. The cycle is inexorable. Loyalty over competence, failure over correction, excuses over reality. And in the end, as always, the bill is paid by those at the bottom, while the red Peters keep rising, with beatific smiles, toward their next level of catastrophe.
šššÆš® š°š¼š» š š±š² š¢šæšš¼š“šæš®š³š¶Ģš® @CubaOrtografia Posted on X May 14, 2026
The original post was in Spanish, the English translation was by X.
While I’m sure the above is an important component of socialism disasters and government in general, there are other issues as well. As I have brought them up many times before (and here are but two examples) I will not dilute the current observation.
SCOTUS decision in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. NJ is huge. Despite the iconic SCOTUS decision in NAACP v. Alabama, and the more recent decision in Americans for Prosperity Fdn v. Bonta, many lower courts have continued to insist that compelled disclosure of one’s affiliations is not a harm that can even support a challenge to the government’s actions.
Yesterday the Supreme Court firmly rejected that approach: “Demands for private donor information ā¦ ‘chill’ protected 1st Amendment associational rights even when those demands contemplate disclosure only to government officials and not āthe general public. ā¦
“An injury in fact does not arise only when a defendant causes a tangible harm to a plaintiff, like a physical injury or monetary loss. It can also arise when a defendant burdens a plaintiff ās constitutional rights. And our cases have long recognized that demands for a charityās private member or donor information have just that effect.”
This is a huge win for privacy and freedom, a huge blow to those who seek to “cancel” individuals or intimidate them from participating in public debate with threats of government retaliation, direct or indirect.
This is great news. For years the anti-gun people wanted the NRA membership list. This should at least slow them down. Of course, pro-gun people cannot get the anti-gun organization lists either. But then, that is only a few thousand people compared to the millions of people who belong to the CCRKBA, FPC, GOA, NRA, SAF, etc. And the anti-gun people are becoming less and less relevant.
This video is worth the watch. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
This is what single issue voters finally find out. Your vote should be about policy, not the person. Identity politics only goes so far before it all unravels.
This video is worth the watch. Once you see it, you can't unsee it.
This is what single issue voters finally find out. Your vote should be about policy, not the person. Identity politics only goes so far before it all unravels.
Democrats do not have a monopoly on tribal loyalty over policy. Republicans talk a good talk about economic freedom and gun owner rights, but don’t really do much about it, they opposed gay marriage and grudgingly tolerate it now. And they are downright hostile to social freedoms such as freedom from religion, recreational drug use, social nudity, and sex work.
But freedom loving people cannot fight on all fronts at the same time. If we have the backing of Republicans and a chance to fix the wrongs of Democrat policies, then help them out. And when there is a chance to undo wrongheaded Republican policies, take advantage of that momentum too.
Wake up and align yourself against government overreach. The policy is important. The party and the people are not.
