Politics, Right v Left by Michael Shermer

 

From Michael Shermer’s 2011 book The Believing Brain, from the chapter on political beliefs

In his book A Conflict of Visions, the economist Thomas Sowell argues that these two clusters of moral values are intimately linked to the vision one holds about human nature, either as constrained (conservative) or unconstrained (liberal), and so he calls these the Constrained Vision and the Unconstrained Vision. Sowell shows that controversies over a number of seemingly unrelated social issues such as taxes, welfare, social security, health care, criminal justice, and war repeatedly reveal a consistent ideological dividing line along these two conflicting visions. “If human options are not inherently constrained, then the presence of such repugnant and disastrous phenomena virtually cries out for explanation—and for solutions. But if the limitations and passions of man himself are at the heart of these painful phenomena, then what requires explanation are the ways in which they have been avoided or minimized.”

Which of these natures you believe is true will largely shape which solutions to social ills will be most effective. “In the unconstrained vision, there are no intractable reasons for social evils and therefore no reason why they cannot be solved, with sufficient moral commitment. But in the constrained vision, whatever artifices or strategies restrain or ameliorate inherent human evils will themselves have costs, some in the form of other social ills created by these civilizing institutions, so that all that is possible is a prudent trade-off.” It’s not that conservatives think that we’re evil and liberals believe we’re good. “Implicit in the unconstrained vision is the notion that the potential is very different from the actual, and that means exist to improve human nature toward its potential, or that such means can be evolved or discovered, so that man will do the right thing for the right reason, rather than for ulterior psychic or economic rewards,” Sowell elaborates. “Man is, in short, ‘perfectible’—meaning continually improvable rather than capable of actually reaching absolute perfection.”¹

In his masterpiece analysis of human nature, The Blank Slate, the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker re-labels these two visions the Tragic Vision and the Utopian Vision, and reconfigures them slightly: “The Utopian Vision seeks to articulate social goals and devise policies that target them directly: economic inequality is attacked in a war on poverty, pollution by environmental regulations, racial imbalances by preferences, carcinogens by bans on food additives. The Tragic Vision points to the self-interested motives of the people who would implement these policies—namely, the expansion of their bureaucratic fiefdoms—and to their ineptitude at anticipating the myriad consequences, especially when the social goals are pitted against millions of people pursuing their own interests.” The distinct Left-Right divide consistently cleaves the (respectively) Utopian Vision and Tragic Vision along numerous specific contests, such as the size of the government (big versus small), the amount of taxation (high versus low), trade (fair versus free), healthcare (universal versus individual), environment (protect it versus leave it alone), crime (caused by social injustice versus caused by criminal minds), the constitution (judicial activism for social justice versus strict constructionism for original intent), and many others.²

Personally I agree with Sowell and Pinker that the unconstrained vision is utopian, which in its original Greek means “no place.” An unconstrained utopian vision of human nature largely accepts the blank slate model and believes that custom, law, and traditional institutions are sources of inequality and injustice and should therefore be heavily regulated and constantly modified from the top down; it holds that society can be engineered through government programs to release the natural unselfishness and altruism within people; it deems physical and intellectual differences largely to be the result of unjust and unfair social systems that can be re-engineered through social planning, and therefore people can be shuffled across socioeconomic classes that were artificially created through unfair and unjust political, economic, and social systems inherited from history. I believe that this vision of human nature exists in literally No Place.

Although some liberals embrace just such a vision of human nature, I strongly suspect that when pushed on specific issues most liberals realize that human behavior is constrained to a certain degree—especially those educated in the biological and evolutionary sciences who are aware of the research in behavior genetics—so the debate turns on degrees of constraint. Rather than there being two distinct and unambiguous categories of constrained and unconstrained (or tragic and utopian) visions of human nature, I think there is just one vision with a sliding scale. Let’s call this the Realistic Vision. If you believe that human nature is partly constrained in all respects—morally, physically, and intellectually—then you hold a Realistic Vision of human nature. In keeping with the research from behavioral genetics and evolutionary psychology, let’s put a number on that constraint at 40 to 50 percent. In the Realistic Vision, human nature is relatively constrained by our biology and evolutionary history, and therefore social and political systems must be structured around these realities, accentuating the positive and attenuating the negative aspects of our natures.

A Realistic Vision rejects the blank slate model that people are so malleable and responsive to social programs that governments can engineer their lives into a great society of its design, and instead believes that family, custom, law, and traditional institutions are the best sources for social harmony. The Realistic Vision recognizes the need for strict moral education through parents, family, friends, and community because people have a dual nature of being selfish and selfless, competitive and cooperative, greedy and generous, and so we need rules and guidelines and encouragement to do the right thing. The Realistic Vision acknowledges that people vary widely both physically and intellectually—in large part because of natural inherited differences—and therefore will rise (or fall) to their natural levels. Therefore governmental redistribution programs are not only unfair to those from whom the wealth is confiscated and redistributed, but the allocation of the wealth to those who did not earn it cannot and will not work to equalize these natural inequalities.

I think most moderates on both the left and the right embrace a Realistic Vision of human nature. They should, as should the extremists on both ends, because the evidence from psychology, anthropology, economics, and especially evolutionary theory and its application to all three of these sciences supports the Realistic Vision of human nature. There are at least a dozen lines of evidence that converge to this conclusion:³

1. The clear and quantitative physical differences among people in size, strength, speed, agility, coordination, and other physical attributes that translates into some being more successful than others, and that at least half of these differences are inherited.
2. The clear and quantitative intellectual differences among people in memory, problem solving ability, cognitive speed, mathematical talent, spatial reasoning, verbal skills, emotional intelligence, and other mental attributes that translates into some being more successful than others, and that at least half of these differences are inherited.
3. The evidence from behavior genetics and twin studies indicating that 40 to 50 percent of the variance among people in temperament, personality, and many political, economic, and social preferences are accounted for by genetics.
4. The failed communist and socialist experiments around the world throughout the 20^th century revealed that top-down draconian controls over economic and political systems do not work.
5. The failed communes and utopian community experiments tried at various places throughout the world over the past 150 years demonstrated that people by nature do not adhere to the Marxian principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
6. The power of family ties and the depth of connectedness between blood relatives. Communities who have tried to break up the family and have children raised by others provides counter evidence to the claim that “it takes a village” to raise a child. As well, the continued practice of nepotism further reinforces the practice that “blood is thicker than water.”
7. The principle of reciprocal altruism—I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine”—is universal; people do not by nature give generously unless they receive something in return, even if what they receive is social status.
8. The principle of moralistic punishment—I’ll punish you if you do not scratch my back after I have scratched yours—is universal; people do not long tolerate free riders who continually take but almost never give.
9. The almost universal nature of hierarchical social structures—egalitarianism only works (barely) among tiny bands of hunter-gatherers in resource-poor environments where there is next to no private property, and when a precious game animal is hunted extensive rituals and religious ceremonies are required to insure equal sharing of the food.
10. The almost universal nature of aggression, violence, and dominance, particularly on the part of young males seeking resources, women, and especially status, and how status-seeking in particular explains so many heretofore unexplained phenomena, such as high risk taking, costly gifts, excessive generosity beyond one’s means, and especially attention seeking.
11. The almost universal nature of within-group amity and between-group enmity, wherein the rule-of-thumb heuristic is to trust in-group members until they prove otherwise to be distrustful, and to distrust out-group members until they prove otherwise to be trustful.
12. The almost universal desire of people to trade with one another, not for the selfless benefit of others or the society, but for the selfish benefit of one’s own kin and kind; it is an unintended consequence that trade establishes trust between strangers and lowers between-group enmity, as well as produces greater wealth for both trading partners and groups.

The founders of our Republic established our system of government as they did based on this Realistic Vision of human nature, knowing full well that the tension between individual liberty and social cohesiveness could never be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, and so the moral pendulum swings Left and Right and politics is played mostly between the two 40-yard lines of the political playing field. This tension between freedom and security, in fact, would explain why third parties have such a difficult time finding a toe-hold on the political rock face of America, and typically crater after an election, or cower in the shadows of two behemoths that have come to define the Left-Right system. Even in Europe, where third, fourth, and even fifth parties receive substantial support at the polls, they are, in fact, barely distinguishable from the parties on either side of them, and political scientists find that they can easily classify them as largely emphasizing either liberal or conservative values. Haidt’s data on the differing foundational values of American liberals and conservatives, in fact, generalizes to all countries that have been tested, and the chart lines from country to country are virtually indistinguishable from one another.

I believe that the Realistic Vision of human nature is what James Madison was thinking of when he penned (literally) his famous dictum in the Federalist Paper Number 51: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.⁴ If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Abraham Lincoln also had something like the Realistic Vision in mind when he wrote in his first inaugural address in March of 1861, on the eve of the bloodiest conflict in our nation’s history that he knew would unleash the demons within: “Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”⁵

References

1. Sowell, Thomas. 1987. A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles. New York: Basic Books, 24-25.
2. Pinker, Steven. 2002. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York: Viking, 290-291.
3. I present this data in much greater detail in two of my books: Shermer, Michael. 2003. The Science of Good and Evil. New York: Henry Holt/Times Books. And: Shermer, Michael. 2008. The Mind of the Market. New York: Henry Holt/Times Books.
4. Madison, James. 1788. “The Federalist No. 51: The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments.” Independent Journal, Wednesday, February 6.
5. Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O.: for sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O., 1989; Bartleby.com, 2001. https://www.bartleby.com/124/.

VISIT WEBSITE

The Jewish Question

 Why anti-semitism? The reasons most frequently given are not reasons but elicit further questions. According to Microsoft Bing's Copilot, "One reason is that Jews have served as scapegoats for over two thousand years, meaning they are irrationally blamed for societal problems." And that scapegoating generates conspiracy theories. That is not a reason but more a partial definition of anti-semitism. And finally, theological differences between Judaism and Christianity. 

Would is strange to me is that the Jewish historical story in the Old Testament is studied and believed by most Christians as though it were their story and not solely that of the Jews. Talk about cultural appropriation. .

From ChatGPT 12/23/2023. Supersessionism, also known as replacement theology or fulfillment theology, is a Christian theological doctrine that holds the Christian Church has succeeded the nation of Israel as God’s chosen people. This belief asserts that the New Covenant through Jesus Christ has superseded the Mosaic covenant, which was exclusive to the Jews. Historically, many Christian theologians, including early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr and Augustine of Hippo, were supersessionist. The doctrine has been a core tenet of various Christian denominations, although some modern Christian communities and churches have moved away from it in the interest of Christian–Jewish reconciliation12.

Learn more

1en.wikipedia.org2theopedia.com3simple.wikipedia.org

6of30

.

The Philosophy of a Fool

 Morphic Resonance (sheldrake.org)- Memory fields involving behaviors, habits, and other non-genetic forms are passed through evolution as memories. We are connected "across time."

Panpsychicism - experiments show that most humans are aware that someone or some people is staring at them. Also, about 50 percent of dogs and cats are aware that their owners are returning to the home in advance of any possibility of seeing, hearing, or smelling them.
Why are we here? If our universe continues to behave as it has in the observable past, our sun will explode in about 5 billion years and, obviously, our earth will cease to exist as we know it. All life will have been extinguished.

David Hand: dark data, AI. 

Rupert Sheldrake - Author and Biologist

What If there was no universal origin, like no Big Bang?
I just began reading Why? The Purpose of the Universe by Philip Goff, Oxford University Press, 2023. While I'm only halfway through the first chapter, he has repeatedly said that he intends to show why he believes that the universe has a purpose. So, at this point, I'm asking myself, does not "purpose" imply intent? As far as I know, the universe, disregarding panpsychism (a different discussion), is material. Objects of matter do not possess the mental acuity or consciousness that would produce an intention. Consider a decorated Christmas tree. It certainly serves a purpose but within itself, it does not have a purpose. The thinking, conscious individual who erected and decorated the tree had a purpose. Likewise, the universe cannot have a purpose, but does appear there is the possibility that if the universe is not infinite, its creator is purposeful. Scientists, for the most part, believe the universe to be infinite. Consequently, given such an unfathomable size, who the hell are we to question the universal purpose or expect our minuscule lives to be of value.
In Chapter 2, Phillip goes on to develop his Value-Selection Hypothesis by describing the complexity necessary for a universe that created and sustains life as we know it. Thus, cosmic purpose. Why so complex? Why not create a very simple universe and then create life forms that thrive in such a universe? In any case, The question seems to be why is there life? If life has a value, to whom or to what? Of course, from our perspective, life is valuable, yet as a whole, without purpose. The perceived purpose and value exist only at the individual level.

Philip refers to our universe as having value. That value is fundamental. And that value is the purpose. If he means value to humans, why would we be singled out about all other previous, current, and future life forms?  And regarding panpsychism, how do we know that humans possess the most advanced form of consciousness? Hubris?
 
Regarding the fine-tuning of the universe, it seems that during creation the creating entity would have made it more perfect, compressible, and simpler given the purpose that humans experience value. Since there were no life forms in our universe before there were life forms, why create them anyway? Something, by nature, just has to exist? Self-creating?

Philip Goof rejects the multiverse theory in part because the other universes would not be fine-tuned to life as we know it. Why could not others contain the exact same elements in the exact same balance? Or, why could they (who or what is “they”?), with different elemental constants, create and sustain a quite different life form dependent on different constants. Say, a water world.

Evolution of brain = survival not accuracy. Once you are afraid the brain will do anything to protect you to include memory loss and tunnel vision.

Memories are fragile and inaccurate. Each time we remember an event it is modified by our current selves and restored as changed. Our brains create anew.
Does consciousness exist outside of the brain? Is the brain only a tool that permits us to experience consciousness?
 
Free will: biology determines what choices we make. Early life experiences in great part affect the adult frontal cortex and predetermine decisions/actions. Character is predetermined by levels in hormones (genetic). The development of the frontal cortex can override, to some degree, the effect of genes. Experience and environment do not change your genes. It changes the on/off switches of the gees. Regulatory controls.
If there is no free will how can we be accountable for our actions?
 
Anti-matter is the exact opposite of matter.
 
Atoms only appear to exist when a conscious observer looks at it.
Physics-biology-chemistry isn’t enough to explain why I know I am.
 
Why do we exist? Why does the universe exist or at least appear to exist?
 

 The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. 

Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy

ReplyForward Add reaction

Teacher Tools

 I asked ChatGPt what tools teachers needed in order to produce effective instruction and here is the response:

There are numerous tools and devices that teachers should be familiar with in order to enhance their teaching and facilitate effective learning experiences for students. Here is a list of some essential tools and devices:

1. Computers and Laptops: Teachers should know how to operate computers and laptops, including basic operations like file management, internet browsing, and software usage.

2. Education Software: Familiarity with educational software such as learning management systems (e.g., Google Classroom, Moodle, Schoology) and productivity tools (Microsoft Office Suite, Google Docs, Canva) is crucial.

3. Interactive Whiteboards: Teachers should be comfortable using interactive whiteboards, including features like creating and displaying multimedia content, web browsing, and using various interactive tools.

4. Projectors and Screens: Knowing how to set up and use projectors, screens, and other audiovisual equipment is necessary for delivering engaging presentations and displaying educational content.

5. Document Cameras: Proficiency in operating document cameras to magnify and display hardcopy materials or objects to the entire class is advantageous.

6. Smart Devices: Knowing how to operate tablets (e.g., iPads, Android tablets) and smartphones can allow teachers to utilize educational apps, access online resources, and facilitate collaborative learning.

7. Classroom Response Systems: Familiarity with classroom response systems (clickers or mobile apps) enables teachers to facilitate interactive quizzes, polls, and formative assessments.

8. Audio and Video Recording Equipment: Proficiency in using audio and video recording devices allows teachers to create instructional videos, podcasts, or capture student presentations.

9. Virtual Meeting Platforms: In today's remote learning environments, teachers should be comfortable using virtual meeting platforms like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, or Google Meet to facilitate synchronous online classes and meetings.

10. Learning Management Systems: Familiarity with learning management systems, including functionalities such as content creation, grading, discussion forums, and assignments, is essential for managing and organizing online or blended learning environments.

11. Online Collaboration Tools: Teachers should be knowledgeable about online collaboration tools such as Google Drive, OneDrive, or Dropbox to facilitate file sharing, collaborative document editing, and group projects.

12. Educational Apps and Websites: Awareness of educational apps and websites suitable for various subjects and grade levels can enhance instructional strategies and engage students in interactive learning.

13. Digital Assessment Tools: Knowledge of digital assessment tools (e.g., Kahoot, Quizizz, Formative) allows teachers to create and administer online quizzes, surveys, and formative assessments.

14. Social Media Platforms: Familiarity with social media platforms (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, Instagram) can provide opportunities for professional development, networking, and communication with students and parents.

15. Online Safety and Digital Citizenship: Teachers should have an understanding of online safety measures and strategies to guide students in responsible internet usage and promote digital citizenship.

This is not an exhaustive list, but it covers some key tools and devices that teachers should know how to use for effective teaching and learning.

Obtaining and maintaining mastery of all these "tools" is a full-time job itself. How the hell are they expected to squeeze in teaching. 

I blinked and...

 I was 81 years old. The last I remember I was in my 40's, confident, strong still, and eager. Where did the past 40 years go? Hell, I feel that I know less now than I did then. And, does aging make all feel more guilty that there is time to rectify?

When asked, "Do scientists and philosophers agree that consciousness is a product of the brain?" Microsoft Bing responded in part, "There is no consensus about how it is generated or how best to approach the question, but all investigations start with the incontrovertible premise that consciousness comes about from the action of the brain." Not so sure about that incontrovertible premise. Such would mean that if there is no detectible brain activity there is no consciousness. How can they tell? How do they know? As far as I can tell there is no agreed-upon definition of consciousness so how is it determined when it ceases to exist? 

The hard problem of consciousness is usually described by asking, how is it that we realize we are. and that material objects and possibly other life forms do not? 

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” —Attributed to Mark Twain

8 Disturbing Similarities between the Democrat and Nazi Parties

 

By D. Parker

Steve McCann's "Eight Startling and Uncomfortable Ways the Democrat Party Emulates the Nazi Party" was just the tip of the National Socialist iceberg.

The fascist far left have always had to lie to survive.  They've always been on the wrong side of history, and the only way they can remain viable is by gaslighting people on a full-time basis.  For decades, their biggest lie has been that the supposedly pro-freedom side of the political spectrum, imbued in the precepts of individual liberty and limited government, is somehow connected to totalitarian collectivist regimes that displayed the exact opposite of those values.

Anyone who has debated leftists for the past few decades has been subjected to the same bluff abuse in their trying to maintain that nonsensical lie.  But the close similarities between fascism and communism have been obvious for at least 75 years:

"In certain basic respects — a totalitarian state structure, a single party, a leader, a secret police, a hatred of political, cultural and intellectual freedom — fascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in between". 

—Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Associate Professor of History at Harvard, New York Times Magazine, Sunday, April 4, 1948 

Even if you set aside the preposterous argument that totalitarians would also be proponents of liberty and limited government, there are still a myriad of parallel characteristics between the Democrat party and the National Socialist German Workers' (Nazi) Party.  That's what was so startling about the first eight ways.  

Our follow-up along those lines will make the case even more. 

1. Democrats and the Nazis were/are obsessed with gun confiscation.   

We'll start with the one issue the fascist far left never bring up when they try to make their absurd claims: that the Democrats and the Nazis were obsessed with gun confiscation.  You will never hear them try to make this accusation of the pro-freedom right because even they know that their lies can only carry them so far.  This obvious common collectivist trait also destroys the far leftist mythology of the "party switch," which supposedly took place sometime in the late '60s.  This was one glaring item that didn't switch, so they avoid mentioning it.

Anyone who has been paying attention for the past few years knows that saying that the Democrats are obsessed with gun confiscation is an understatement of massive proportions.  Every day, it seems they've come out with a new scheme on the national, state, and local levels to deprive the people of their commonsense civil rights.

2. Democrats and Nazis are collectivists.

There are essentially two political philosophies: individualism and collectivism.  The fact is that all academic disciplines are based on foundational principles, and this is an ironclad rule that separates the two sides of the political spectrum and also eviscerates the fascist far left's biggest lie.  According to F.A. Hayek, students today are often taught that on the imaginary "political spectrum," socialism and communism are "left of center," and capitalism and fascism are "right of center."  This is frightfully misleading.  Socialism, communism and fascism are all peas in the same collectivist pod.  Hayek held that they all despised both competition and the individual, and he was precisely right.

3. The overarching philosophy of both Democrats and Nazis is centralized control.

The individualists on the pro-freedom side of the political spectrum favor liberty and limited government.  The collectivists of the anti-liberty side of the political spectrum favor control and unlimited government.  This can easily be seen in the Democrat's obsession with controlling not only basic liberties, but also gas stoves, dishwashers, and air-conditioners.

In the case of the German National Socialist Labor Party, this was set out as point 25 in their 25-point program:

25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

4. The centralized collectivist control philosophy of the Democrat and Nazi parties is epitomized in the phrase "the Common Good" (Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz in the original German).

How many times have you heard the fascists of the far left parrot the phrase "the Common Good" when trying to shove a draconian, authoritarian rule down our throats?  The COVID crisis was particularly egregious in this regard, exemplified by this piece in USA Today: "The COVID culture war: At what point should personal freedom yield to the common good?"

5. Far-left fascists of the Democrat and Nazi parties see force as means to their political power.

While the German national socialist party exploited force, Democrats started the practice with the KKK and perfected it with the Burning, Looting, and Murder riots during the summer of 2020, making it clear to everyone that if they didn't get their way, the BLM violence would continue.

The tradition continues with Mr. Liberty Control himself, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), threatening a "popular revolt" if they don't get their way in ramming the pre-stages of gun confiscation down our throats.

6. Democrats and Nazis are proponents of single-party systems.

It should also be obvious that the authoritarians of the far left would love to keep everything nice and simple with a single party — theirs.  This is why the Nazis attacked the rival collectivists of the communist party.  Just like the rival factions of Islam, they had the same ideology; it's just that they wanted to be the people in control.

This was exemplified in a piece from the New Republic, "The Constitution Is the Crisis," with this lovely quotation: "We've seen multiple periods of one-party dominance in our history; we've also seen defeated political parties wither and die. Why shouldn't the Republican Party join them?"

7. Democrats and Nazis are fascistic.

You can always tell when a leftist defines fascism, because aside from the inevitable circular logic that supposedly prevents them from being fascist, such as oh, so cleverly labeling themselves as "anti-fascist," they will define the term based on an arbitrary set of subjective (and thus meaningless) criteria.

The fact is that fascism is based on several references.  When it's primarily defined as an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer.  

In present-day parlance, it's a "Public/Private" partnership, combining the worst aspects of unlimited governmental rule and corporate oligarchy, with the latter answering to the government instead of the customer.  The Bud Light debacle is a prime example.

When the Italian far left originally developed this reprehensible ideology 96 years ago, it was based on La Carta del Lavoro, translated as the Charter of Labor.  The New York Times enthused:

FASCISTI PROCLAIM 'CHARTER OF LABOR'; Mussolini Is Hailed as Prophet of Cooperative Industrial Peace Under the State. LABOR AND CAPITAL JOINED Document Declaring Rights and Duties Is Presented at Climax of Rome's 2,681st Birthday. 

ROME, April 21. — The Fascist "Charter of Labor," embodying the fundamental principles of the Fascist-Syndicalist State, which is based primarily upon the theory of replacing the class struggle by a fruitful cooperation between capital and labor under direct State control, was promulgated tonight by Premier Mussolini at a special meeting of the Fascist Grand Council.

Strangely enough, Democrats never refer to this founding document of their base ideology.  If you study any of their "academic" work on the subject, they tend to ignore these facts.

8. Democrats are striving for a totalitarian state structure and a single party like the Nazis.

Put all of this together, and you'll come to the inescapable conclusion that all of these parallels make the ironclad case that both parties are all too similar.

With with modern surveillance technology and tyrannical "innovations" like Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), the Democrats could make the Nazis look like amateurs.  This is why they have to be opposed with cultural guerrilla warfare every step of the way.

D Parker is an engineer, inventor, wordsmith, and student of history, the director of communications for a civil rights organization, and a long-time contributor to conservative websites.  Find him on Substack.