EVIDENT EVIDENCE: Keywords: Communism in America, Lenin, Stalin, October Revolution, Mao Zedong, ROC in Taiwan, The PRC Peoples Republic of China, Economic Freedom Index, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Yalta Conference, West Germany and East Germany, Ludwig Erhard, Price Controls, Keynes, Marcuse, Samuelson. TSMC and Morris Chang.

 

Modern Taipei, capital of the Republic of China in Taiwan

EVIDENT EVIDENCE

A Meditation about the New Rise of Communism in America

By Xuan Quen Santos

At the end of World War II (1945), millions of socialists around the world were confronted by events that became too numerous, too gross and too visible to hide, deny or spin. At the same time, two living laboratories became the most devastating proof that their political and economic system (Marxism-socialism-communism) would not work, even without revolution or violent opposition. One was in the center of Europe and the other in the Asian Pacific.

THE NAKED TRUTH CAME OUT

The truth about the October Revolution’s government of the former Russian Empire was exposed, even if decades late. Stalin’s Soviet Union, an ally in victory during WW II, was a worse totalitarian regime than Hitler’s. Every crime against humanity the German National Socialists had committed, the Soviets had tripled, only to be surpassed shortly after by communist China, their main ally in Asia. Germany surrendered in May, and Imperial Japan in September. Despite the victory of the Grand Alliance (made again possible with the mighty economic power and determination of the free people of the United States of America), the re-arranged map showed a lop-sided monumental victory for the Soviet Union and China, the new communist super-powers.

The Soviet state promoted itself as the leader of a future world order, and its international agenda for exporting terrorism was developed from the start. In 1916, Lenin wrote “the aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but to merge them”. After all, Marx’s Communist Manifesto (1848) begins with the phrase “Workers of the World, Unite!”. In German Ideology (1845), Marx and Engels defined “the proletariat” as the “expression of the dissolution of all classes, nationalities, etc. within the present society”. In 1922, the USSR imposed a treaty on Ukraine, Belarus and Transcaucasia (Today’s Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan) that formed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). At the end of WW II, it had enlarged the dominion controlled by the Communist Party to the Baltic countries, Polland, the remnants of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and half of Germany with half of Berlin. This de-facto annexation became known as Eastern Europe. The COMINTERN, The Communist International, then based in Moscow, had a clear vision of the future it pretended to shape. When a feeble and dying FDR and the aging and alcoholic Churchill faced Stalin in full strength in Yalta, they were too anxious to conclude the peace and gave away the victory of the west.

The 1945 Yalta (USSR) Conference that divided Europe.
FDR died a few months after. Churchill was an aged 71.

Compare the maps. What about the “other allies”? They had already been defeated when the US entered the war. If anything, the US was able to stop the war before the Soviets went all the way to Spain. The European former powers were broke, and some of them had suffered extensive destruction. Their currencies were worthless and inflation was rampant. Almost immediately, they began to shed their remaining colonies. The COMINTERN had been ready. Almost every country in Africa and Asia that obtained its independence after the war was taken over by a Marxist inspired regime, not in a totally peaceful way. France shed Indochine (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos), Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco. Belgium shed Congo, Rwanda and Burundi. Holland lost Indonesia, Surinam and six Caribbean islands. Denmark lost Iceland. Italy could not hold on to Libya, Somalia, Eritrea and Ethiopia. The UK lost India (Pakistan and Bangladesh, Burma), Cyprus, Malta and Cameroon. Eventually lost Hong Kong. But through the Commonwealth, Canada, Australia and New Zealand remained close and are quasi-independent today. The list is longer, but the conclusion is easy to grasp. The global reach (power) of the “other allies” was greatly diminished.

THE NEW ORDER TAKES SHAPE

The United States understood this process and its risks. The Cold War was hot in a different way from the start. War would continue against the former ally, the enlarged Soviet Union. Europe was not ready besides being broke. The truth is that most countries had already embraced different versions of the “middle-way” socialism to hide the truth. They still are. Two American initiatives took form and had lasting results. The Marshall Plan financed the reconstruction of the European allies in proportion to the damage suffered, and it included the new country of West Germany that was occupied by the western allies, really by the United States. The other initiative was NATO; the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was designed specifically as protection from the Soviet Union. As NATO has been tested, it was evident they had ceased to be “equal partners”.

The horrors committed by the Marxist-socialist-communist regime of the Soviet Union and Red China from 1920 to 1950 were buried by a misguided “respect, maybe even gratitude” by the western allies for their participation in the defeat of the German National Socialists. The socialist underground in the west felt vindicated, but many began to admit the truth. The public was occupied by the attention paid, rightly so, to the Holocaust and the post-WW II Nurenberg Trials, aided by the massive propaganda coverup the Soviets financed around the world, supported by the international networks of underground communist parties, local cells and the so called “liberal” media that masks their true color.

The reality of what communism inevitably becomes was evident. Socialist, communist, and labor movements around the world split into three branches. The honest intellectuals began to separate and eventually changed their convictions knowing they would be shunned and even persecuted. The faithful zealots dug in and continued to create the conditions for revolution around the world, following the directives of the COMINTERN. National Liberation Movements were a favorite name of the guerrilla movements that sprang all over the world. The third group, greatly led by tenured Marxist intellectuals, barricaded in the faculty clubs. In their minds, the professors made the distinction between what Lenin and Stalin had unleashed, and a still attainable workers’ paradise that needed different leaders and a revised theory.

The best examples of this last group were the Old England Fabians (Lords Keynes and Russell), the New England Ivy Leaguers (Schumpeter, Samuelson and Galbraith), and Herbert Marcuse’s Frankfurt School of Critical Theory that escaped Germany before the war broke. The German communists re-branded at Columbia University as the Institute for Social Research. Their first book aimed at the non-academic public was “Critical Theory”. A give away about their true color was their choice to re-establish their old institute after the war in East Germany, controlled by the Soviets, but only after having poisoned the minds of an entire generation that is now teaching. Many historians have pointed to Marcuse as the “father of the 60s socialism”.

The first group of former communists that saw the truth mostly disappeared in history, shunned and forgotten, trying to make a living. The second and third groups, the hardliners that believe in violence and the obstinate and conceited professors, have totally ignored what the two living labs exposed to the world.

WEST GERMANY VS EAST GERMANY

The European lab was the post-war divided Germany. As West Germany rebuilt and succeeded by liberating its people to create the “economic miracle”, Soviet controlled East Germany remained in ruins and depression for four more decades. Reconstruction only began after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992. Ludwig Erhard, former Chancellor and Minister of the Economy had been Director of Reconstruction during the ally occupation. He clearly points to his sound-money and free-market policies for his success. West Germany was the only recipient of Marshall Plan assistance that quickly came out of the post-war economic crisis. The others kept their war-management socialism that eventually became permanent. Success was not due to the Marshall Plan designed by the Harvard professors.

Vintage cartoon comparing West Germany with East Germany during the occupation

The National Archives describe the origin of the Marshall Plan: “On April 3, 1948, President Truman signed the Economic Recovery Act of 1948. It became known as the Marshall Plan, named for Secretary of State George Marshall, who in 1947 proposed that the United States provide economic assistance to restore the economic infrastructure of postwar Europe.”  The plan distributed assistance towards the reconstruction in the amount of $ 13.6 billion. The sixteen Marshall Plan beneficiary countries in order of the funds received were the United Kingdom (25%), France (21%), Italy (12%), Netherlands-Belgium-Luxemburg (12%), West Germany (11%), Austria (5%), and Greece (5%). The remaining 9% included Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and Denmark. The central European and Balkan countries, as well as East Germany were excluded, except for Austria, as they became occupied by the Soviet Union. Switzerland and Portugal had remained neutral, and Spain, although assisted by Axis powers before the war, had undergone a civil war that reversed a communist takeover.

It should be obvious that in 1948, the country that had suffered the most destruction was Germany. Its territory and its capital, Berlin, were cut in half, making its reconstruction more challenging. At the end of WW II, West Germany was occupied by three different bureaucratic armies, and in the early years, it had to absorb a flood of 12 million refugees from East Germany that were escaping from the communism they knew would come. In 1948, the industrial production was only half of what had been in 1936 before the war. The inflation rate in the final months of the war had reduced the value of the NAZI Reichsmark from 2.50 ℛ︁ℳ︁ = $1US to 10 ℛ︁ℳ︁ = $1US. The National Socialist regime had imposed strict price controls and rationing. This had generated scarcity and an active black market that operated by barter. Unfortunately, after the defeat of the National Socialist government, the occupying Allied forces that had defeated Hitler imposed their own form of centrally directed economy by maintaining Hitler´s price and wage controls. Money was worthless, and Hershey chocolate bars and American packs of cigarettes operated as a more efficient form of money.

Ludwig Erhard, champion of the free market

Ten years later, by 1958, an astonished Europe and a more astonished United States occupying administration, witnessed the headlines: An Economic Miracle in West Germany. Of course, the Harvard designers of the Keynesian Marshall Plan take the credit, and so does the official history of the U. S. Government. Common sense requires the answers to other questions. How come the other countries did not progress at the same pace? How come the most destroyed economy that received less money than others succeeded? Don’t ask them. That is why it has been called a miracle, so you don’t ask the questions. Enough time has passed so that the questions that were already answered can be made public. They are no secret. They are just discreetly archived.

A German resistance group that had not been eliminated by the National Socialists included Ludwig Erhard. He was part of the group of businessmen, intellectuals and other notable economists and legal scholars who shared a vision of a free market economy. He was educated at the University of Frankfurt and had been a disciple of the free market economist Wilhelm Roepke. Erhard wrote drafts of a plan that fell in the hands of the high allied command. The rest is history, but not well known. Erhard was called in to interview with General Lucius D. Clay, the Allied commander and Deputy Governor of Germany and ended up in charge as Director of Economics of the occupied zone. His first assignment was to oversee monetary reform and implement the Marshall Plan.

This is the short story as told by Erhard in private among friends in Guatemala and in London, and perhaps other places. Erhard was confronted with a dilemma. He could attempt to implement the Keynesian Marshall Plan devised in Harvard with the central controls already in place that existed from Hitler’s regime that the allies had tried to continue to drive, or to liberate the economy. He had proposed many changes to the Marshall Plan, but to no avail, until General Clay told him: “You are not authorized to make changes nor I to approve them. But you can trash it. You have the power to implement your plan.” Erhard went ahead and trashed the Marshall Plan, a decision that resulted in the German Economic Miracle. When General Clay informed Erhard that all the American and English economic experts were opposed and greatly concerned about the consequences of eliminating all wage and price controls, Erhard replied, “So are mine.” Americans today have forgotten that “the war effort” created domestically the same type of government controls over the economy that Hitler had imposed in Germany.

A complete description, of course more diplomatic and documented, can be found in his best seller “Prosperity Through Competition: The Economics of the German Miracle” (1958). Erhard went on to be appointed as Minister of the Economy during Konrad Adenauer’s government and was elected Chancellor in 1963.

The black market disappeared overnight. Free prices
and stable currency gave enough security for the economy to re-start

Erhard knew that two key free market policies needed to be implemented immediately: a new monetary system and the elimination of all wage and price controls. He did it overnight, on a Sunday in June, when the bureaucrats were not able to blink. “The black market suddenly disappeared. Shop windows were full of goods, factory chimneys were smoking, and the streets swarmed with trucks. Everywhere the noise of new buildings going up replaced the deadly silence of the ruins. If the state of recovery was a surprise, its swiftness was even more so.”

“In all sectors of economic life, it began as the clock struck on the day of the currency reform. Shops filled up with goods from one day to the next; the factories began to work. On the eve of currency reform, the Germans were aimlessly wandering about their towns in search of a few additional items of food. A day later, they thought of nothing but producing them. One day apathy was mirrored on their faces, while on the next the nation looked hopefully into the future.”

“This measure of the undisputed success of the policy demonstrates how much more sensible it is to concentrate all available energies on increasing the nation’s wealth rather that to squabble over the distribution of this wealth and thus be sidetracked from the fruitful path of increasing the national income. It is considerable easier to allow everyone a larger slice out of a bigger cake than to gain anything by discussing the division of a smaller cake.”

Erhard definitely was what, two decades later, was described as a “supply-side economist”, fully aware that the Say’s Law of The Market is a law of nature, a law that economic science recognizes as its fundamental principle. Under the guidance of free market policies and a new federal system, Germany led the growth of Europe for several decades, until the supra-national socialist policies of the newly expanded European Union began to “manage” the economy with “middle-way” socialist ideals. Germany is now trending backwards, losing population and de-industrializing. The Europeans did not see the success of their own experiment. By the end of the Soviet Union, most European countries had not dismantled the “war-effort” policies established in the 1930s. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was the leader in that effort in the 1980s but did not last long.

THE R.O.C. IN TAIWAN VS RED CHINA

In Asia, the living lab was The Republic of China in Taiwan by gradually abandoning the centralized economy brought from China by the National Socialist Kuomintang for an enterprising market economy geared to international trade while becoming a free-elections state. In three generations joined the first world by becoming an international economy on a small island that had been a colony of Portugal (Formosa), Spain, Holland, Imperial China and Japan. Today, Taiwan’s economic and technological development is at the forefront of the semi-conductor and hardware production and an integral part of the AI revolution.

The Japanese army parades in Taipei in 1895, after taking it over as a colony

Taiwan’s success put Mao Zedong’s People’s Republic of China to shame. Red China caused at the same time one of the most disguised human disasters resulting from the collectivization of farmland. Between 1959 and 1961, 30 million mainland Chinese people died of starvation. The communist regime called this period “The Three Years of Natural Disasters”. After Mao’s death, the new leadership seemed open to abandoning communism. Red China had a second thorn in what had been the colonial enclave of Hong Kong. To recover sovereignty over the territory from Grean Britain, Deng Xiaoping formulated in 1980 the policy of “One China, Two systems”. What made modern China since then has been the “other system” besides communism. By reneging of the Hong Kong accord to self-rule and the election of the current totalitarian dictator Xi Jinping, the Peoples’ Republic of China put the modernization button in “pause”. A successful “Fair free-trade” with the US could lead to a re-start, but it would not last until the present form of total control of the labor market is freed. In effect, Red China’s economy is a disguised form of slavery without chains, where most of the value produced by labor is confiscated by the communist party.

Modern Taipei, one of the most modern and beautiful cities in Asia

Once Taiwan abandoned the policies brought from China, during the period of export-oriented industrialization from the 1960s to the 1990s, it experienced rapid economic development. From a poor and backward agricultural society, it became a modern industrialized, high-income economy. It was so obvious that the phrase of success given to Erhard’s West Germany recovery soon was repeated as the Taiwan’s Economic Miracle. Taiwan has a highly developed free-market economy. Despite its small size, it is the 22nd-largest in the world by nominal GDP and 20th-largest by purchasing power parity. Its GDP per capita ranks highly at 8th in the world. Its Per Capita Income is above $ 85,000 per year. As a comparison, the PCI of the USA is just above $ 89,000.

The latest report of the Heritage Foundation’s 2026 Index of Economic Freedom ranks Taiwan as No. 5 in the world. As a reference, the USA has been dropping below 20 for three decades. Taiwan is ranked 3rd out of 39 countries in the Asia-Pacific region. The country’s economic freedom score is higher than the world and regional averages. Red China occupies the 150^th place out of 184 countries included in the Index.

TSMC - TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO.
World leader as a foundry of microchips for all other brands. Established in 1987 by Dr. Morris Chang, a graduate of MIT and Stanford. Began his career at Sylvania and Texas Instruments.

THE MIRACLE RECIPE EXPANDS ITS INFLUENCE

In Asia, other thorns began to prick China. Japan and South Korea contraposed to China’s surrogate North Korea. Not only did they rebuild, but became driven by international trade and began to move towards more open electoral political systems. Singapore followed and received all the talent and capital fleeing the takeover of Hong Kong. More recently, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and even Viet-Nam are moving towards “the other system” with a careful management of their relationship with the neighboring giant Panda. Time will tell how far they can go if Red China stalls. The Asian Pacific countries seemed to have understood the MIRACLE LESSON better that Old Europe.

The Korean Peninsula. North Korea above. Satellite photographs.
North Korea at night has no electrical power. South Korea beams nightlife and productivity 24/7

FREEDOM WORKS

As a proposed theory, Marxism failed in its fundamental predictions. Predictability is a requisite of any explanation that claims to be a theory. The industrial age did not implode. The working classes did not get impoverished; an unpredicted “middle-class” appeared. Industrial innovation increased productivity and created new jobs and occupations as the old trades and guilds vanished. Consumer products at ever lower prices began to appear. It was because women obtained independence through new employment opportunities they earned their path to their enfranchising as voters.

Revolution never happened spontaneously. It never would. It never does. Freedom works. The living experiments of the two Germanies and the two Chinas should be highlighted as the most evident evidence of the failure of socialism regardless of the mask is hiding under.

BOOKS TO EXPAND ON THIS TOPIC:

Now available at AMAZON and other online bookstores, in paperback and Kindle

A treatise on communism, its roots and its current status around the world. Provides all the answers needed to answer the current questions about the new rise of communism in the United States. Chapters on the totalitarian roots of radical Islam and the current situation in China. Marxism is dead, but not buried yet. The last holdout of Marxist devotees are the formerly respectable American colleges. Guess where the daughter of Xi is going to school: Harvard. Guess where DEI spread from: Harvard.

A treatise on Inflation. What the Bible teaches about inflation. The errors in economic theory that have turned a destructive evil into "monetary policy". The errors of Keynes and the Federal Reserve. The original proposal of Lenin to destroy capitalism quickly was kept a secret until recently. Keynes knew about it. The new Secretary of the Treasury, and the recently appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve know what needs to be done. Follow the Constitutional directive on monetary policy and abandon the absurd "dual mandate" that is a socialist fiction.

THE TRAGEDY OF THE IDIOTES: Keywords: Communism in America, double-speak, Max Eastman, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Mises, Hayek, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, The Great Purge, Soviet Revolution, John "Jack" Reed.

Vintage poster of Lenin as leader of the Soviet Revolution

THE TRAGEDY OF THE IDIOTES

A meditation about the new rise of communism

By Xuan Quen Santos

 

“Is there a greater tragedy imaginable than that in our endeavor

consciously to shape our future in accordance with high ideals

 we should in fact unwittingly produce the very opposite

 of what we have been striving for.”

 

 “The Road to Serfdom” (1944), Friedrich A. von Hayek 

 

THE YOUNG MOBS ARE OUT

Their slogan tells it all: “It is our time!”. They self-identify as DSA, Democratic Socialists of America. Has the time come to tear down the republic, and throw away our freedoms to implant communism through the front door of the electoral process?

Demonstration in New York in 2025

Critics tell me what is happening is only a trend to a better managed middle-way led by reasonable government experts who will curb the excesses of capitalism by re-directing the private economies of the people towards more social justice with the guidance of data-driven science. Compromise, reasonable, experts, social justice, driven by science… All the proper words that have been introduced by the experts in language manipulation for us to believe in the big lie that has cost the lives of more than 200 million people during the past two centuries.

More honest but naïve political agitators call this socialism. Many labels have appeared to mask what it really means. Among them Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, and Socialist Market Economy. A century before was called Progressivism and the Labor Movement.

During the last two decades, socialists have again come out from the dark corners of the college watering holes. From pretending to be community organizers they have taken their masks off and admit they are political agitators. It coincides with the biggest decline in educational standards at all levels, led by the formerly respectable Ivy League centers of academic snobbery. The useful idiots are out led by influencers on Tik Tok. To my dismay, they have been able to make a crack, not just a dent, on public opinion only because the language used for political discourse has been altered. It is a plan. I use the word “idiots” as in the classical Greek idiōtēs, meaning those who participate voting irresponsibly in total ignorance and may even exchange their votes for a pittance. The adjective “useful” was added by Lenin who used the Russian word for “simpletons” (prostaki). Other communist leaders used the word “innocent” meaning naïve or sucker in American English. The tragedy is that many of the young minds invested in this futile but dangerous experiment are the most brilliant but wasted intellectuals of their generation.

DOUBLE-SPEAK AT PLAY

Eric Arthur Blair (1903-1950), the Fabian socialist “Father of Double-speak” who himself wore a mask as George Orwell, said it clearly: “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give appearance of solidity to pure wind” (Politics and the English Language, 1946). He was the expert. He had been an ardent supporter of Soviet communism after WW I until he saw and experienced the violence and brutality of its actual operation. Young Americans were also lured into the political activism that the Soviet October Revolution of 1917 invited. You are likely familiar with the names of Jack London, Ernest Hemingway, Aldous Huxley, Upton Sinclair, John Dos Passos and John Steinbeck. Are you aware of their dedication to spread socialism through their writings?

Cover of The Masses monthly magazine of
Communist propaganda

You may not be familiar with Max Eastman, close friend of most of the ones just listed, called by many in his early days “a journalist of journalists”. He was an active participant in many public causes, such as the founding of the ACLU and a supporter of women’s rights. He was editor of the communist propaganda magazines “The Masses” and “The Liberator”. As editor, he sent his close friend John “Jack” Reed to report about the Soviet Revolution. Reed wrote about it in his book “Ten Days That Shook the World” (1919) that spread like a firestorm. He even joined the Red Guards and took arms in 1918. He had hoped for a similar communist revolution in the United States, and was one of the founders of the Communist Labor Party of America. Reed died of Typhus in Moscow two years later, like the fleas and lice that contaminated him. His short revolutionary life was fantasized in Warren Beatty's communist propaganda movie “REDS (1981); it is the “heroic” story of one American idiote as portrayed by another three generations later. Eastman also joined the revolution after Reed died, but he lived a long life of contradictions.

Cover of the book financed by THE MASSES

Near the end of the XIX century, the re-writing of American history under the Marxist lens had begun spreading in academic circles, fitting the selected facts with the new language into the mold of socialist dialectics. From one generation to the next, the Giant Captains of Industry became the Robber Barons; the American Gilded Age became the age of capitalist monopolistic exploitation. Revolution became a popular mantra, not only in the labor movement, but among faculty and students in the leading colleges and universities.

VERY FEW DARE TELL THE TRUTH

One of them was Max Eastman (1883-1969), a brilliant young American agitator before and after WW I. He was a radical writer and editor of communist propaganda magazines. An admirer of the Soviet Revolution, he traveled to Russia and participated in the political turmoil taking place after Lenin’s death from 1922 to 1924. He devoted his time travelling the countryside to learn Russian and studying in the Marxist academy. He had already become known to the Soviet elite from his American supportive publications which allowed him contact with the upper levels of the power struggle taking place between Stalin and Trotsky after Lenin’s death. As a result of the Great Purge and the militarization of the high levels of power, he witnessed the transformation of the Soviet Union into totalitarianism. Eastman became highly critical of Stalinism, but it took him another 20 years to finally recognize the fundamental errors of communism and socialism in general. It was not until 1941 that he publicly acknowledged his own errors in “The Word Socialism-Its Strange Adventures” and “Socialism and Human Nature”, two articles published in the very conservative Reader’s Digest magazine.

Original cover of Eastman's report on the Soviet crisis of succession

For the next decades, until his death, Eastman denounced the fundamental flaws of socialism in general and discovered serious authors that as trailblazers had begun to receive recognition for their foresight but had remained ignored during the war. He cites the works of the Swiss German Wilhelm Roepke and the policies of Ludwig Erhard who became recognized as responsible for the German Economic Miracle during the post-war occupation by the allies. He met economists that had moved to the United States and started teaching and publishing in English, such as Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. In 1955, Eastman published a collection of his essays that reflect his change from a radical Marxist supporter of revolution to a critic of what inevitably degenerates into the horrors, violence and poverty that socialism has spread wherever it has taken a foothold. The collection has been re-published by the Mises Institute with the title “Reflections on the Failure of Socialism”. If you have inclinations to become a revolutionary, or have already been seduced by the false promises of the self-proclaimed “scientific” Marxist economic construct, or have already committed crimes by participating in “the resistance” movement, I highly recommend Eastman’s book.

“The idea of Socialism is at once grandiose and simple. We may say, in fact, that it is one of the most ambitious creations of the human spirit; so magnificent, so daring, that it has rightly aroused the greatest admiration. But if we wish to save the world from barbarism, we must refute it.”

“Socialism” (1951), Ludwig von Mises

THE TRUTH HURTS

Eastman was a serious intellectual and took his own path searching for the truth after discovering how wrong he had been about his support of the socialist movement. From Soviet Russia he smuggled the text of “Lenin’s Testament”, an explosive accusation of how the communist regime was evolving and a repudiation of Stalin. He also translated some of Trotsky’s writings and had them published in the west. As a communist propagandist and agitator, he explained the methods of recruiting young minds. He published the following diagnostic in “Stalin’s Russia and the Crisis in Socialism” (1940): “The socialist ideal appeals to three essentially contradictory types of people. First, the rebels against oppression, in whose motivation the concept of human freedom formed the axis; second, those yearning with a mixture of religious mysticism and animal gregariousness for human solidarity -the united brotherhood pattern; third, those anxious about efficiency and intelligent organization -a cerebral anxiety capable of a blind passion for a plan in times of crisis. This versatility of the socialist ideal, so advantageous in the days of propaganda, was the principal cause of the confusion prevailing among socialists when they are confronted with the result of their ideal.” For each group, the propaganda offered what they were looking for. Reality would eventually exhibit the truth. Their visions could not be reconciled.

Years later, a former Russian soldier who fought for the Stalin regime during WW II wrote a similar description. He found the truth in a Siberian prison he was sent to after the Red Army censors read his letter with some criticisms of the regime. In “Warning to the West” (1975), Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote about the “versatility” that is used to describe socialism:

“There is not even a single precise definition of socialism that is generally recognized; all we have is a sort of hazy shimmering concept of something good, something noble, so that two socialists talking to each other about socialism might just as well be talking about completely different things…But socialism defies logic. You see, it is an emotional impulse, a kind of worldly religion, and nobody has the slightest need to study or even to read the teachings of the early prophets…Socialism is defended with a passionate lack of reason.”

Eastman was a prolific writer with an aesthetic approach to his own life. His early work is beautifully written basic communist propaganda. His poetry is a mixture of personal insights, rarely touching on politics. Once he began to tell the truth, he stopped being a welcome celebrity in the journalistic, academic, literary and intellectual circles he had frequented. He was shunned by his friends. He became a pariah and had difficulty finding work. He had trouble publishing his criticisms of communism until the truth about the Soviet regime became known during WW II.

Solzhenitsyn received as a hero, used by Putin for propaganda. A second betrayal

Once the Cold War changed the stage for world relations and the US found itself a lonely defender of Western Civilization, appreciation for Eastman’s work increased. He died in Barbados in 1969. A parallel experience with a different ending was the life of Solzhenitsyn. During the Cold War, many Russian dissidents that survived the “re-education camps” of the Siberian Gulags managed to obtain refuge in the West. One of them was Solzhenitsyn. He became a prolific writer of the dark chapters of the history of the Soviet Union. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature and toured the world. He lived in the US but returned to Russia once the Soviet Union imploded, only to die after seeing the change of mask, brand and flag. Behind them was the same totalitarian regime, this time under Putin. His family stayed in Vermont.

THE BROKEN PROMISE OF SOCIALISM

In 1876, Engels wrote to an infirm and secluded Marx what he described as “an encyclopaedic survey of our conception of the philosophical, natural-science and historical problems.”  At that moment, Marx and Engels’ works had been anti-capitalist propaganda and labor agitators’ fodder. Their work “Das Kapital” had been their first attempt to present an economic synthesis of their ideas. By then, other political movements with the socialist label had become active in the political scene in Europe. Engels was already involved in organizing what they considered the political and economic theory that corresponded to their vision. The document was expanded with Marx’s comments and appeared serialized in the press. It was also printed in book form and has become known as the “Anti- Dühring”. It was written as a defense of their ideas against the criticisms published by the University of Berlin Professor Eugen Dühring in his book “Revolution in Science”. Dühring had become a major influence among the German socialists that eventually merged into what they called the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). Three chapters were translated in 1880 into French and other languages under the name of “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific”. In it, Engel’s appropriated for them the scientific adjective and insulted the others with terms of utopian, romantic or mystic (religious). In the age of science, this strategy created the brand that separated their intellectual construct from others and legitimized its life in the academic world, even if it was in the dark basements of the libraries or the dark corners of the college watering holes. 

The fundamental promise of Marxism appeared in the “Anti-Dühring”: “As soon as there is no longer any class of society to be held in subjection…there is nothing more to be repressed which would make -the state- a special repressive force necessary. The first act in which the state comes forward as the representative of society as a whole -taking possession of the means of production in the name of society- is at the same time its last independent act. The state power becomes superfluous, and then ceases to exist of itself. The government of people is replaced by the administration of things and the directing of the processes of production. The state is not abolished, it withers away.”  It is against that promise, that “scientific prediction”, that socialism must be judged with the evidence of more than a century of practice, a century of failures and the cost of more than 200 million victims of “a scientific error”.

Max Eastman, during a debate on the radio on June 19, 1942, with Harry Laidler, then Executive Director of the League for Industrial Democracy (LID), explained the absurdity of the Marx-Engels’ fundamental promise.  LID began in 1905 as the Intercollegiate Socialist Society by communists to infiltrate the academic institutions to bring "education for the new social order". The name was changed in 1920 to broaden appeal when the socialist presidential candidate Norman Thomas became director. This was Eastman’s response to the idea that the socialist state would spontaneously “wither away” and how easy the administration of the economy would be without it: “The size and complexity of the administrative problem gives rise to an enormous bureaucracy, and the power and privilege involved in governmental status becomes so unique and so vital that this bureaucracy is impelled by the basic drives or tendencies in human nature to crystallize into a ruling class. It becomes a ruling class with a power over the lives of the masses that few, if any, ruling classes ever had before. Its power over the workers is particularly despotic, because it combines in itself the characters or all three of the chief enemies of the labor struggle. It is at once its only employer, it is the strike-breaker squad, and the persecuting police.”  

The evidence of history supports the easy-to-understand, common-sense conclusion the former communist propagandist presents to today’s young useful idiots.

Russian victims of the Great Purge that consolidated Stalin's power

BOOKS TO EXPAND ON THIS TOPIC:

Now available at AMAZON and other online bookstores, in paperback and Kindle

 

A treatise on communism, its roots and its current status around the world. Provides all the answers needed to the current questions about the new rise of communism in the United States. Chapters on the totalitarian roots of radical Islam and the current situation in China. Marxism is dead, but not buried yet. The last holdout of Marxist devotees are the formerly respectable American colleges. Guess where the daughter of Xi is going to school: Harvard. Guess where DEI spread from: Harvard.

A treatise on Inflation. What the Bible teaches about inflation. The errors in economic theory that have turned a destructive evil into "monetary policy. The errors of Keynes and the Federal Reserve. The original proposal of Lenin to destroy capitalism quickly, kept a secret until recently. Keynes knew about it. The new Secretary of the Treasury, and the recently appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve know what needs to be done. Follow the Constitutional directive on monetary policy and abandon the absurd "dual mandate" that is a socialist fiction.

 A COLOR BLIND CONSTITUTION: Keywords: Louisiana vs Callais, Supreme Court decision, redistricting, racial bias, Civil Rights, voting rights, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice John Marshall Harlan, segregation, Dixiecrats, LBJ

Demonstrators in front of the Supreme Court protesting against the Supreme Court's decision

A COLOR BLIND CONSTITUTION,

IT WAS ABOUT TIME!!!!

A meditation about the Callais Landmark Case

by Xuan Quen Santos

 

                It was about time! The Supreme Court of the United States of America, on Wednesday 29 of 2026, ended the era of compensatory discrimination that favors minority groups that have continued to play victims of the era of legal slavery that ended in 1870. It will be known as the “Louisiana vs Callais” landmark case.

                The approval of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution was a significant event in the Reconstruction era following the Civil War. They became law between 1865 and 1870. They are known as “The Reconstruction Amendments”. They abolished slavery, established birthright citizenship for the children of slaves born in the United States and prohibited racial discrimination in voting. They were followed by the Civil Rights Act of 1875. After a few years, the Democratic Party in the deep south perverted the constitutional corrections  which led to the era of Jim Crow and legal segregation. Its effects in the economy of the south from suppressing great numbers of its human capital were clear for decades. As the country moved forward, the Deep South remained poor and backward. The southern Democratic Party members began to be identified as Dixiecrats by using voter suppression to retain political control.

                For decades, the radical wing of the Republican Party promoted changes in the area that is now known as Civil Rights. The Dixiecrats who had control of the Supreme Court during the post-Civil War, opposed any corrective legislation. In fact, they allowed the institutionalization of discrimination by race with the approval of another Louisiana related decision known as the infamous case of “Plessy v. Ferguson” (1896) that legalized racial segregation.  A test case involving the seating on passenger railroad cars was used to set the policy. From then on, the Dixiecrats ruled in the south by systemic racist violations of the basic rights of nearly half of their citizens for another half a century.

                After the timid desegregation of the armed forces during WW II, under the leadership of the victorious Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, and  recently elected Republican President Eisenhower, the Supreme Court  declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional in the case of “Brown v. Board of Education” (1954).  It was followed by the Civil Rights Act of 1957.  To enforce it, the Federal government had to send armed military support to open the schools. The Democratic Party called for its first “resistance” movement by the people of the south, obviously, they meant the “white” people.  A long decade of “forced integration” of the school systems followed, accompanied by an ever increasing wave of political violence. During this period, the Republican Party continued to promote comprehensive legislation during the Kennedy years. It was always blocked by the Democratic Party, among them members of the KKK in Congress, and the Texan Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Until recently, famous filibusters of that era had the record for the longest speeches. But then, circumstances changed. After a number of prominent political assassinations, among them MLK’s, added to the anti-Vietnam war public sentiment, and very likely internal opinion polls, LBJ was convinced he would not be elected to the presidency. Instead, he took the wind out of the Republican sails and negotiated the approval of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968.

                Simultaneously, LBJ launched “the War on Poverty”. The new policy package resulted from his calculation that the elimination of segregation would increase the number of new black voters in the south that would soon vote Republican. At the same time, many white Democratic Party members  were expected to leave because of the concessions made to black communities. The War on Poverty ended up creating 226 legal dispositions aimed at black voters with new programs of assistance and entitlements. This created what some African-American scholars have labeled “the new urban plantations” of black voters. It worked. Gradually, the Democratic Party harvested majority black voters that have become their key voting bloc. The future of those voting blocs that have become dependents on government programs that keeps them in poverty is what is at stake. In more recent years, “affirmative action” and DEI policies clearly promoted racial quotas to privilege “protected classes”, mainly based on race and ethnicity.

Exaggerations and politically biased headlines will be abundant 

                The case in question of “Louisiana v. Callais” struck down a congressional map that a group of non-black voters denounced as unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. By a vote of 6-3, the justices left in place a ruling by a lower federal court that barred the state from using the map, which had created a second majority-Black district as its intent.

                Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barret joined. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. In opposition, Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson dissented.

                The opinion of the Supreme Court states:  “ Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U. S. C. section10301 et seq., was designed to enforce the Constitution— not collide with it. Unfortunately, lower courts have sometimes applied this Court’s section 2 precedents in a way that forces States to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids.”

                The concurring opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas is memorable. He is not just of African-American descent, he is only the second black jurist to integrate the court in its history. More significant than that is his personal history. From a humble Georgia family of the coast with origins in slaves brought from West Africa, he was brought up by his working mother and grandparents. As a child, he went through periods of homelessness and instability. He was raised with the values of hard work and high aspirations; he excelled in academics and professionally. He is an “originalist”, a true believer in the letter, spirit and background of our original framework. He is a conservative. His opinion is historic.

I join the Court’s opinion in full.  This Court should never have interpreted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to effectively give racial groups “an entitlement to roughly proportional representation.” By doing so, the Court led legislatures and courts to “systematically divide the country into electoral districts along racial lines”. “Blacks were drawn into ‘black districts’ and given ‘black representatives’; Hispanics were drawn into Hispanic districts and given ‘Hispanic representatives’; and so on.”  That interpretation rendered Section 2 “repugnant to any nation that strives for the ideal of a color-blind Constitution.” Today’s decision should largely put an end to this “disastrous misadventure” in voting-rights jurisprudence.

            What struck me was Justice Thomas' use of the phrase “a color-blind Constitution”. It has a long history by itself, very much a key in the discussion of this case by the Supreme Court.

Well prepared and well financed protests. Who is behind them?

            The 1896 U. S. Supreme Court case of “Plessy v. Ferguson” has been recognized as one of its darkest moments. The Court approved the principle of separate but equal that legalized color segregation in the southern states. The one courageous dissenter against the decision was Kentuckian, Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan (1833-1911), a former slave owner himself.

            The decision of the Court was in reference to the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that allowed the railroads using inter-state lines to segregate people by the color of their skin and creating separate seating sections. These are the key words of Harlan’s dissent:

            "In the eyes of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here”…“Our constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful.”…  “The arbitrary separation of citizens on the basis of race, while they are on a public highway, is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the Constitution. It cannot be justified upon any legal grounds."

                Harlan also warned that the decision would poison relations between the races and destroy the possibilities of harmony.

                "What can more certainly arouse race hate, what more certainly create and perpetuate a feeling of distrust between these races, than state enactments, which, in fact, proceed on the ground that colored citizens are so inferior and degraded that they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied by white citizens? That, as all will admit, is the real meaning of such legislation."

                His opinion has been labeled “The Great Dissent”. It proved prophetic but it also opened the way for the Civil Rights movement. After writing dissents that defended the rights of black citizens violated as Plessy did, he was attacked by many politicians and editors. Many black personalities expressed appreciation and offered encouragement, including the most visible black leader of the day, Frederick Douglass, with whom Harlan maintained warm relations for more than two decades.

                In 1908, the Court upheld Kentucky's infamous Day Law, which banned integrated education in private schools. The law was aimed at Berea College, which had been integrated since its opening in 1866. In that dissent, Harlan asked:

                "Have we become so inoculated with prejudice of race that an American Government, professedly based on the principles of freedom, and charged with the protection of all citizens alike, can make distinctions between such citizens in the matter of their voluntary meeting for innocent purposes simply because of their respective races?"

                Many have speculated about Harlan’s change of heart. In his early days as a lawyer and politician, he had defended the “odious institution”. His father was a prominent politician in Kentucky who owned slaves for his household. Then, most of the slave states seceded and the Civil War ensued. Kentucky was one of a few states that remained loyal to the union. After the war, slavery in the law became a thing of the past. The old parties that had supported it disappeared, but in the south it just changed name. Harlan became a Republican and an ardent defender of the efforts being made to eradicate the legacy of slavery.  There was a reason, a personal reason.  The power of the rules of family, an ancient Law, trumps any legislation of man. The Harlan family secret prevailed.

                Justice Harlan had a slave half-brother named Robert, who was treated discreetly as a member of the family. Their father had tried, unsuccessfully, to send Robert to school along with his other children. He ended up going to a private school for mixed-bloods. Robert lived most of his life in Ohio and did very well, but in the early 1860's with help from the family, he moved to England, to escape the increasing racial tension before the war broke. He returned after the war to recover what he could from the economic catastrophe that followed. Justice Harlan was very much aware of the obstacles racism had created for his brother and for the family to do right. Those family situations were never discussed in public back then, but we can do it now. The terrorism that the Ku Klux Klan and similar groups inflicted upon blacks and abolitionists in Kentucky immediately following the war also pushed Harlan toward the Republicans. Harlan became a good friend of the U. S. Attorney for Kentucky Benjamin Bristow, who prosecuted the white terrorists of the KKK for their campaign of terror by arson, beatings, and murders. Bristow was one of the Republican radicals and a mentor to Harlan.

                If the Constitution is color blind, so must all laws under it. How many times have you had to fill a bureaucratic form that requires you to declare your race, ethnicity or color for no related purpose? Is it for the purpose of gerrymandering? Is it to create privileges for some groups at the expense of the rest? Is it to continue red-lining? Who  is in favor of classifying people by the color of their skin? If you are in favor, black or white, aren’t you a racist, regardless of your intentions or the real color of your skin?

A HARLAN CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

                The Callais decision of the Supreme Court will be the beginning of many reversals and changes. We can get to the point and make it faster. The time has come to give real meaning to Justice Harlan’s statement about how it is that the Constitution is color blind.  It should take the form of an addition to the Bill of Rights by inserting a new item to the First Amendment. It should read as the other parts do, as a clear prohibition to the Federal government about collecting information about the citizen’s race, color or ethnicity, and the prohibition to legislate using those categories to create differences under the law.

 

A note to my frequent readers. This meditation is a response to the Louisiana vs Callais landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States. Most of the text that was motivated by Justice Harlan’s phrase about a color-blind Constitution was already published in my 2021 book THE AMERICAN WAY: HARMONY IN DIVERSITY (332 pages). I called then for the elimination of all legislation that discriminates on the basis of race or ethnicity, among many other topics of current political interest. If you would like to receive a copy, free of charge, postage included, send me a request with your postal address to XQS2021@gmail.com

THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP IS FAKE. Keywords: Special Relationship, King Charles III, official state visit of the king of England, British monarchy, gaslighting, Marxism, Keynesianism, Churchill, Mamdani.

Panicked King Charles III Flails Wildly After Getting Head Stuck Inside Coronation Crown
A parody of the royal event by THE ONION, May 6, 2023

THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP IS FAKE

A meditation about the Royal State Visit

by Xuan Quen Santos

    The United States of America, America for short in plain language, is again under assault by the British monarchy!

    But this time it is different. A dying king, representing perhaps the last chapter of the German dynasty that has ruled over England for about three centuries, was sent by his socialist government again with empty pockets and open hands.

    The visit of Charles Windsor (Battenberg-Sachse Coburg Gotha) styled in his country as King Charles III, is said to be one more manifestation of “the special relationship” that ties the past and the future of England to America. That special relationship is brought to the headlines only when the British government wants something. In this case, as in most of the XXI century, when the failed socialist or socialistic conservative governments needed support. Just notice that speaking of a “socialist monarchy” is an oxymoron.

    That special relationship did not exist during colonial times. Obviously was not there during the period of the war of independence, and not during the entirety of the XIX century. It only began when the European monarchies started another war among royal families in the early XX century that ended in the demise of most of their empires and kingdoms after WW I. It also gave rise to soviet communism in the former Russian Empire. It also marks the emergence of all the garden varieties of socialism that today control the politics of Europe. In England it was known as Fabian socialism, transformed later into the Labour Party, still in control today.

    It is true there has been an intellectual, political and emotional connection between Old England and New England. As the traditional center of the early American identity, WASPISH New England has perpetuated the errors and political inclinations of the Old World view as seen by the “ruling class” elite on both sides of the Atlantic, particularly in the academic world. It is a bias reflected in the myth of the WASPs: a white-Anglo-Saxon and protestant nation. This is clearly evidently perpetuated in the fake “special relationship” between the United States and England.

    This label is the half-truth and mask made up by Winston Churchill to obtain the support and subsidies needed by their failed socialist-monarchy during WW II when they were losing the war. He felt so at home the four occasions he slept in the White House residence, he walked around in his underwear while drunk. The Churchill family’s personal details reflect that special relationship too. Winston’s mother was a New York socialite that married with her own inheritance of dollars. His cousin Charles Spencer-Churchill, the 9th Duke of Marlborough, married Consuelo Vanderbilt-Balsan, heiress to one of the largest Vanderbilt fortunes of the Gilded Age of New York. The duke obtained a large dowry and reportedly used it to "save Blenheim Palace", his ancestral home. More than 20 such millionaire brides were reported in the social pages of New York with arrangements between the crumbling palaces and estates of English lords and American fortunes.

    These arrangements mirror the American tax-payers subsidizing the failed socialist-monarchy of England, and most of Europe since the beginning of the XX century. On September of 2025, we saw the most shameful use of this half-truth mask with the “first in history” personal invitation extended to President Donald Trump by King Charles III to visit him for a second time. Such an act was devised by socialist Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and performed by the King to disguise their need of assistance under especially favorable conditions again. The main topic then was tariffs and trade privileges. The King can’t extend such an offer for a state visit without the previous planning and direction of the Prime Minister backed by his socialist majority in Parliament. England got some of what it asked for, but not for long. A few weeks before, President Trump had convened all the heads of state of Europe to Turnberry, his golf club in Scotland. They all came to get their overdue bills for NATO. In Medieval times, this would have been a moment of expressing fealty and rendering homage. The topic is still on the table. The socialist Prime Minister was overshadowed in what the English claim to be their country, but the Scotts buck.

The royal government sent to the colonies all their “undesirables”
She wanted to be a "Disney princess"; he just wanted to be an American hippie celebrity

 The Founding Fathers of America had great misgivings about  getting the new country involved in the recurring and costly family feuds of the European royals. The Monroe doctrine was adopted to keep them out of the western hemisphere. The American connections to the English monarchy are not as strong as is implied in the “special relationship”. Before there was New England, there were Acadia, New Holland, New Amsterdam, New Sweden and New France. Most English speaking colonists were escaping from the English royal boot and/or his oppressive church. This is particularly descriptive of Scottish, Irish and Welsh immigrants, and all English Catholics. The royal government sent to the colonies all their “undesirables”. The closest links were with the Royally chartered colonies that became “The South”, starting with Virginia. Have you noticed that all the southern royal colonies have the name of an English royal? American blood won independence from King George III. English troops burned the capitol and the White House during the war of 1812. The British supported the Confederate States during the Civil War, a conflict fought to rid the new country from the inherited institution of slavery that had made England and its royals very rich. England attempted to block the development of the American merchant navy in ports around the world. The facts do not point to a “brotherly” relationship. It began with oppression, then enmity that became rivalry in world trade and economic power. It ended in the decadence of Old England.

    In his address today to the US Congress, King Charles highlighted the 800 year heritage of Englishness that became part of America. His version of the Magna Carta omitted the fact that those rights were gained as a concession for a truce in a civil war against the abuses of King John. He did not mention that the empowerment of the equivalent of the House of Representatives was gained after the beheading of King Charles I. In a passing reference to the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, he linked it to the contract between an anti-Catholic parliament that staged a coup d’état against the English king, and his Dutch relative and son-in-law who was offered the throne. Unfortunately, the name is similar. He even went as far as claiming to be a champion of interfaith unity as head of the Anglican Church, when in fact, the constitutional structure is still intolerant. There had to be some “changes” in order to allow him to marry Camila, divorced from a Catholic and barred from becoming Queen. He conveniently forgot to mention the most important historic period that led to the creation of the United States.

    Historians refer to the long colonial experience up to the 1765 imposition of new taxes and restrictions that led to the War of Independence as the period of “benign royal neglect”, meaning little government interference. Self reliance led to self-government as a community. Even the chartered royal colonies of the south had developed without any feudal heavy-handed system. They actually were more commercial ventures of the King’s cronies and not government projects at the beginning with a specific colonial policy.

    Throughout the colonies, refugees and squatters became settlers going into the wilderness and learned to survive independently. Indentured servants quickly became property owners or pioneers in the frontier. The large land grant estates intended for tenant farmers became real estate development projects. Mineral rights owned by the king were not retained by the new governments but transferred to the new land owners. The rules for self-rule created a rich experiment, still visible in the diverse state constitutions that evolved from the compacts and charters adopted during colonial times.

    It was during this period that the authentic American identity was forged, not because of the Englishness represented by the monarchy and its aristocratic flatulence, but because in the new world, they were rid of those oppressive structures that are still choking the British Isles. It was in America that the institutions that had taken form through centuries, from conflict to war and persecution of the non-English majority minorities, finally found freedom in many expressions, the possibility of owning real property, and unlimited opportunities for prosperity each person defined as his American Dream. The burden of Englishness was lifted. The American political experiment is truly a NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM; not because of its Englishness, but because of having synthesized many bad experiences into a new and better idea. The English have not learned the lessons from America.

A different point of view of what the English Heritage included

    As proof that the American character is independent of the English heritage is what happened since 1791, when the new nation was finally organized in its initial form. America became a great nation, while the British Empire began its decline. We forget that the two errors in economic theory that plague the world were developed in the heart of English intelligentsia in the middle of the Industrial Revolution. The first one is “scientific socialism”, better known by its real-world name of communism or Marxism. We associate Marxism with Germany, when in fact, the Communist Manifesto was written for the English communist league of industrial workers. Engels provided all the ugly information about the exploitation of the workers because he was involved in it. He lived in England and his family operated cotton textile mills in England and Germany. Marx spent the rest of his dark life hiding in the reading rooms of the British Library. Marxism never amounted to an economic theory, but it became the religion of anti-capitalism. Capitalism became associated with the American success.

    The young American free enterprise system was not the decaying European capitalism in 1848, but Neither Marx nor Engels saw the differences. Between 1776 and 1791, a new model of political organization in America stumbled upon the matching principles of a free market economy based on the rights of all individuals to exercise their personal choices respecting the laws applicable to all, whether it was by selecting a candidate for public office, or by selecting a type of tea or rum. The American mega-market began by erasing the economic effects of the barriers to free trade implied by the colonial (state) borders. It protected the rights of inventors and innovators to profit by benefiting others. Multiple UK expatriate entrepreneurs succeeded in America, not in the old country. America expanded and protected the ownership of property to the common European immigrant, a right denied to most of them in the old continent. As a result, America became a world power at the same time as the old countries continued to decline. Contrary to the Marxist model, an unpredicted American middle class emerged elevating the standard of living of vast numbers. Since then, American ingenuity and innovation have improved the living conditions of the world, including those in the British Isles and the rest of Europe.

    The second economic plague resulted from the conclusion that Marxism does not work because it can’t. Instead of accepting it as an error, its perpetuation was disguised by English scholars as “the middle way”. Promoted by Lord John Maynard Keynes in the United States during the incorrectly diagnosed “death of capitalism” of the 1920s-1930s, Keynesianism caused the Great Depression. It also caused the adoption of all the socialist schemes of public spending as a way to “stimulate the economy” that have become the greatest threat to the Republic. The Special Relationship resulted in the United States adopting Keynes errors into the laws that regulate the operations of the Federal Reserve and the excessive deficit spending that has exploded since, contrary to the Constitutional provisions about monetary policy and the fiscal budget.

    America needs to free itself from the English socialist ideas, whether disguised as Marxism or as the New Economics of Keynes.

     In more recent times, even the English Conservative party was in the anti-Trump cabal of European politicians, and its spies were involved in the famous “dozier” ordered by Hillary Clinton. They also voted with other important “allies” of the USA to recognize the non existent state of Palestine, in opposition to the current American policy. They fooled Biden into a “whatever it takes, however long it lasts” financial support for free to the non-NATO war in Ukraine while the Europeans gave them “loans”. They voted to condemn Israel at the United Nations but were guarded about Hamas’ atrocities. Britain refused the use of airports at US military bases located in their territories or jointly operated military facilities near Iran for staging the operation Epic Fury. In the past few weeks, the EU, led by British and French politicians refused NATO’s participation to open and guard the free passage through the choke-point of the straight of Hormuz. The British refused to send the mine-sweepers it has to help the US Navy provide a clear passage through the straight. Actions speak better than speeches and toasts.

    Promoting, and even institutionalizing the so called “special relationship” between the socialist monarchy of England and America is contrary to the interests of the people of the United States of America. It was an error from the beginning and needs to end.

    Many will object to my reference to England instead of the United Kingdom. I would like to remind them that Scotland, Wales and Ireland were independent and great once. It was one Scottish intellectual that forecasted in 1776 the future greatness of America when he sided  with the colonials. On that year, this Mr. Smith published a book that changed the world. His thoughts and policy proposals are inherent to the US Constitution as he defined the economic activities of the people as “simple extensions of their natural liberty”. With great humility, he titled his book “An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”. It is no coincidence that the new country got rid of its Englishness on the same year. Have you heard of Mr. Smith?

    Smith’s ideas about a “natural order based on human freedom” were well known in the colonies since his earlier publication in 1759 of “A Theory of Moral Sentiments”. His contributions were added to Locke’s ideas about government as an extension of the people’s natural rights and to Montesquieu’s notion of “separation of powers”. Tensions between the colonials and the English government had begun in 1765. “Benign neglect” was over. After ten years of ever increasing grabs of community power, taxes and the invasion of a German mercenary professional army sent by the King of England, a decision for separation began to be considered. The  “continentals” presented to Parliament their grievances and proposals that were ignored. The grievances are clearly listed in the 1776 “Declaration of Independence”. The rest is history.

    The English public was also alarmed with the growing tensions, and a few opinion leaders sided with the “continentals”. Among them Adam Smith, whose views he later published in “The Wealth of Nations…” They were prophetic. He concluded that the English royals and parliament would not accept the negotiations proposed by the Americans, which he thought were just and reasonable. He saw the “parting” in unfriendly terms as a great loss to England, mainly because he saw in the American Spirit the force for a great future.  This is the prophecy:

     “…it is not very probable that they will ever voluntarily submit to us…”. “The persons who now govern the resolutions of what they call their continental congress, feel in themselves at this moment a degree of importance which, perhaps, the greatest subjects in Europe scarce feel.” “From shopkeepers, tradesmen, and attornies, they are become statesmen and legislators, and are employed in contriving a new form of government for an extensive empire, which, they flatter themselves, will become, and which, indeed, seems very likely to become, one of the greatest and most formidable that ever was in the world.”

    Mr. Windsor’s address to the US Congress was mostly gaslighting about the “special relationship”, particularly when he labeled it “priceless and eternal; irreplaceable and unbreakable”. Living in wonderland in his old castle, he still calls himself head of state of five countries. We are grateful this is not one of them.

    Forget New England. They are still enamored with WASPISH aristocracy. Their patrician politicians and their minions are all Keynesian socialists or Marxists. The role model of Mamdani is the Muslim mayor of London. The role models of the Harvard Marxists at the American Cambridge are the musty intellectuals of old Cambridge in England. Perhaps the Americans in the great states of Tennessee and Kentucky can invite their still not-free distant relatives of Scotland and Wales to seek independence from their oppressors. Statehood places No. 51 and 52 are open. Ireland was finally free in 1949.

Some people are still waiting for the English Republic to follow the American example