Mediaboss Marketing

From David Goldman (Spengler):

Now for the bad news: There wont be a Poland in 100 years. At a total fertility rate of 1.29, Poland will have one retiree per working-age citizen by 2075. Poland in fact has one of the worlds very lowest fertility rates, which means (in Mary Eberstadts way of looking at the problem) that it is losing its religion. President Trumps speech was magnificent, but it brings to mind Schillers dictum that history brought forth a great moment, but the moment encountered a mediocre people. Trump is doing the right thing, but we should remember that Europe is a case not for cure but for palliative care.

Spengler points out that its not just Poland. Look:

Africa doesnt have this problem. From The Economist:

By the end of this century, Africa will be home to 39% of the worlds population, almost as much as Asia, and four times the share of North America and Europe put together. At present only one of the worlds ten most populous countries is in Africa: Nigeria. In 2100, the UN believes, five will be: Nigeria, Congo, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Niger.

Although much could change in the next 85 years, none of those countries is a byword for stability or prosperity. A quadrupling of their population is unlikely to improve matters. If nothing else, the number of Africans seeking a better life in Europe and other richer places is likely to increase several times over.

Will Europe have enough people left to police its borders? Will it have the will to do so?

Follow this link:
Poland Survived Nazism & Communism - The American Conservative

CARACAS, VENEZUELA: Hillside slums are shown. The countrys oil industry, which makes up half of government revenues, fell 46.7 percent. (Photo by Kimberly White/Getty Images)

Most of us have heard the word socialism but might be hard pressed to define what it really means.

Merriam-Webster to the rescue. Their definition is as follows:

Definition of socialism

In other words put your faith in Uncle Sams hands because he knows better than anyone else whats good for you.

Im from the government and Im here to help you as the old saying goes. That would be nice if it worked in all cases.

In European countries workers are taking to the streets to protest the possibility of losing their 30-hour workweek and two months of paid vacation.

In Venezuela people are eating out of dumpsters and rioting in the streets as their socialist led government tries in vain to keep a disastrous economy afloat.

In the Philippines the bulk of their society works for the government that as we all know produces nothing.

When you produce nothing you also produce no income. Nothing good happens in this world until someone sells something.

Money has to be generated by someone.

The more dependent a society is on its governing body the more control that governing body has over society.

The VA is a good example of socialized medicine. How many veterans are dying because they cant get a timely appointment for healthcare?

Is that the group you want paying your hospital bills and determining your level of healthcare?

If single payer health insurance is such a good deal why dont we have single payer life insurance, car insurance, or home insurance?

Seems like a no brainer to me.

In fact why not a one size fits all policy? Anything you think should be covered by insurance is covered. Just submit your claim and the feds will sort it out for you and reimburse you accordingly.

Hail storm or heart attack its covered.

Youre no longer in good hands with Allstate. From now on youll be in good hands with Congress.

As you can see socialism is not a simple subject. What made America great is right from the very beginning they knew that one size fits all wouldnt work.

The Pilgrims tried it and nearly starved their first winter in the new world. Not everyone gets a trophy, not everyone is equal.

Were all born equal but after that all bets are off.

Margaret Thatcher is credited with three amazing quotes that sum up this entire train of thought.

She said, The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money.

There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families.

Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you arent.

I think shes right on all three. What do you think?

Comments below

See the article here:
What Part Of Socialism Do You Not Understand? - kmmsam

I am often amazed at how, more than two decades after the Cold War ended, people can still talk about capitalism and socialism as if they are legitimate competitors in the battle of ideas.

While this is evident in the West, it is especially nonsensical here in the Third World. Extreme poverty abounds, clearly, as a direct result of excessive government intervention in the economy, yet the excitement and colorfulness of socialism still captures the imagination of the masses. The idea that prosperity can be academized into existence is alluring!

The fact of the matter is, however, that there is no debate between these two fundamentally different concepts.

Whereas free market capitalism is an economic state of affairs, socialism is apolitical ideology. While capitalism does have many theories and ideas within the philosophy that developed around it, without any conscious intervention or development, it would still exist. Children, without knowing any of the ideas of capitalism, share and exchange for mutual benefit.

Socialism, on the other hand, is so foreign to human nature that it required philosophers and intellectuals to create it out of thin air. And hundreds of millions have had todie in the pursuit of this ideology. The Khmer Rouge of Cambodia is perhaps one of the most striking examples of this.

In just four years between1975and 1979 the Communist Party in Cambodia slaughtered up to two million people in an attempt to create a fundamentally new society. The regime even formulated the notion of Year Zero, where practically all Cambodian history, tradition, and culture had to be destroyed and the society effectively restarted in the socialist image. Anyone who the regime believed was potentially incompatible with their socialistic vision for Cambodia was summarily killed intellectuals, people who wore glasses, and generally anyone who was urbanized. Those whoescaped slaughterbecame New People (and the regime despised the new; it sought a return to Cambodias mystical agrarian past), who were effectively slaves. The regime said of these new people, To keep you is no benefit. To destroy you is no loss.

Now, try to think of a regime in history which implemented capitalism in the same way.

Augusto Pinochets regime in Chile is definitely not an instance of this. Suppression of socialism does not equal implementation of capitalism. The United States slaughter of Native Americans was not an instance of this, as that could more more easilybe ascribed to the socialistic mentality of control-based growth. In fact, I doubt either of these two oft-cited examples were done in the pursuit of capitalism. The South African Apartheid regime is also often cited, yet Apartheid leaders condemned the free market throughout the period of their rule.

Capitalism becomes implemented when government steps back, in the same way that lightis implemented onto a surface when an obstruction clears out of the way. Free market capitalism is the result of the mostly unconscious conduct of ordinary people which occurs without them being libertariansorconscious capitalists.

Socialism, on the other hand, needs to be implemented. Mind you, it can never work socialism has never achieved its purpose of equality and prosperity for all, whereas capitalism, which has no purpose, has consistently led to relative prosperity.

These two ways of thinking about the world are not legitimate, bona fidecompetitors in the battle of ideas. Capitalism won the battle of ideas when the first blood was spilled in the name of socialism.Just like there is no debate between rape and consensual sex, or a debate between drinking water or cyanide for your health, there is no debate between socialism and capitalism. And we shouldnt treat it like a debate.

This post was written by Martin van Staden.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Martin van Staden is the Editor in Chief of Being Libertarian, the Legal Researcher at the Free Market Foundation, a co-founder of the RationalStandard.com, and the Southern African Academic Programs Director at Students For Liberty. The views expressed in his articles are his own and do not represent any of the aforementioned organizations.

Like Loading...

More:
There is No 'Debate' Between Socialism and Capitalism The Chief's Thoughts - Being Libertarian

I have followed a debate in your paper with interest. A. Abbott really needs to Google a few words, as his arguments seem to be based on incorrect interpretations of socialism and other forms of regime.

This letter relies heavily on excerpts from theories found in Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia, Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political theories, and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or co-operative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.

In the various countries A. Abbott mentioned in your paper of July 4, not one of them is a true socialist regime as there was no social ownership. There was also no democracy within those countries as they were ruled by evil dictators. I think the word he is seeking is totalitarianism, in which the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

Evil dictators and fascists chose to seize control the means of production and to control everyone in their countries. Any dissenters were quickly disposed of, in not very nice ways.

There are examples of good social democrat countries in Scandinavia and Europe where ideology successfully supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, as well as a policy regime involving a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.

Perhaps the egalitarian states would better demonstrate socialism than the ones erroneously touted as the models.

Mary-Ann de Kort

I have followed a debate in your paper with interest. A. Abbott really needs to Google a few words, as his arguments seem to be based on incorrect interpretations of socialism and other forms of regime.

This letter relies heavily on excerpts from theories found in Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia, Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political theories, and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or co-operative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.

In the various countries A. Abbott mentioned in your paper of July 4, not one of them is a true socialist regime as there was no social ownership. There was also no democracy within those countries as they were ruled by evil dictators. I think the word he is seeking is totalitarianism, in which the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

Evil dictators and fascists chose to seize control the means of production and to control everyone in their countries. Any dissenters were quickly disposed of, in not very nice ways.

There are examples of good social democrat countries in Scandinavia and Europe where ideology successfully supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, as well as a policy regime involving a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.

Perhaps the egalitarian states would better demonstrate socialism than the ones erroneously touted as the models.

Mary-Ann de Kort

Read more:
Totalitarian, not socialist - Gisborne Herald

We hosta lot of events at The Spectatorbutweve just heldour favourite: thereaders tea party. About 200 subscribers come to the back garden for tea and cakesto meet our writers, our editors and each other. T-Sticks supplied the tea, H. Forman & Son the food and Taki brought along a bottle ofLagavulin for those whofelt the need forsomething stronger.

The thrill, for us in 22 Old Queen St, is meeting the people that we spend our working lives thinking about.Its difficult to imagine a typical Spectator reader because they dont really exist: this afternoon, for example, we hada policeman, a mathematician, a specialist in Chinese antiquities, a joiner and and a taxi driver. I met one man who had brought his son fromPoland for a cuppa, and others who had braved Southern Rail. Some who had been subscribing for just a year, introduced to the magazine throughour podcasts. And I met someone else who says shestarted subscribing when we were the only publication being rude about The Beatles at at time wheneveryone else loved them. We had Remainers and Kippers, young Corbynites and old Powellites. In other words: theusual mix.

I was doing my market research, asking whythey subscribed and what thelike about the magazine; what we could do more of, or less of. They all had different likes and lovesbut seemed toagree on one thing: that they buy The Spectator because they like reading well-argued articles with which they disagree. If that sounds like your thing, then do try us out: we have an introductory offer of just 12 for 12 weeks. Click here.

Anyway, here are some photos.

Read the original:
The Spectator readers' tea party, in pictures - Spectator.co.uk (blog)