An Objection to Our Anti-Socialism Mini-series Results in a Psych Eval by xPraetorius

As many of you know, I’ve been doing a series of essays exploring the horrors of Socialism in history and currently. I’ve encountered several people who’ve tried to launch objections to my conclusion that Socialism is a Really Bad Thing, and I’ve done a bit of a psychological assessment of the state of mind that allows someone, despite overwhelming evidence, to support the deadliest, bloodiest ideology ever to blight the planet.

It should be noted that I do not have the credentials to do a professional assessment, but when has that ever stopped those on the Left before? Hence, I guess it’s fair game for us too.

I thought I might show some of those disagreements to you, and the resulting “psych eval” that I did. Please feel free to comment, agree, disagree, dissent, concur… whatever. Of course, do try to keep it polite.

To set the stage, I was arguing with several people, but with one — an Aussie dude — in particular, and it’s remarkable how his stated intent is all “democracy-this” and “good governance-that,” but his preferred policy proposals are all “forced compliance-the other thing.”

In this way, he mirrors nearly perfectly the rhetoric and policy proposals of American Socialists. Hence, I’ve labeled him “AOC” in this exchange, both to protect his identity, and to put a context to the psych eval.

Below is “AOC’s” post, and my reply, along with the “psych eval.”

“AOC’s” post:

xPraetorius (not my real name):  any economist will tell you that a free market only produces the best result when certain conditions are present. When those conditions are absent, the free market drives prices higher.

So Yemen is the ultimate free market. [Editor’s Note: In this post, “AOC” was trying to prove that a free market always drives prices higher, and that Yemen, a country in the throes of a bloody civil war, represents a “free market,” because there’s no established government there, hence no government regulation of the so-called “free market.” As part of the “psych eval,” I debunk this notion below.]

My Reply:

AOC : You said: “xPraetorius: any economist will tell you that a free market only produces the best result when certain conditions are present. When those conditions are absent, the free market drives prices higher.

So Yemen is the ultimate free market.” 

MY REPLY: First: all people should tell you that all things produce best results only under certain conditions. Duh! For a free market, those conditions can be expressed simply: Free, voluntary interactions between buyers and sellers.

Yemen is, obviously, the best example of an unfree Market; a market in which the best way to describe any interactions is: Might makes right. Sorry, there are no voluntary or free exchanges going on there. Kind of a great description of yet another ugly aspect of Socialism.

If Yemen is a free market, explain to me how voluntary exchanges happen there. Explain to me how the values of goods and services are set by the free offering of those goods and services and the voluntary purchase, or not, of those same goods and services.

Anarchy is, obviously, not Capitalism, but far closer to Socialism. Under anarchy, it is not at all the case that there are no rules; it is that the rules are set by the most powerful.

In Capitalism, the concept of “might makes right” is precisely the opposite of “free market.” This is so blindingly obvious that only a leftist could miss it, as they usually do.

[Editor’s Note: At this point, someone else — I’ll call him John — had asked me why I continue to argue with AOC, since I’d already maneuvered her into admitting that Socialism, as she describes it, is merely Capitalism with rules to ensure that people behave properly. Of course, she didn’t see it that way, and continued to call what she was talking about “Socialism.” Again, this is where the Socialists’ rhetoric diverges drastically from their policy prescriptions, which have nothing to do with rules to avoid abuse of the people.]

John: In answer to your question: AOC is helpful to me in providing scenarios that I might encounter in terms of objections to the premises in my upcoming book. I had arrived at the “Slavery=Socialism” conclusion before encountering her, but hadn’t yet explored “What is anarchy?” The fact that anarchy obviously represents just another strain of the Socialism disease was a welcome edition to the notion of examining a complex topic from numerous different angles. That question needed to be addressed, and I’m grateful to AOC and her superficial thinking for bringing it to my attention. [Editor’s Note: In these and other pages, I’ve explained my thesis that slavery is Socialism in its purest form. In the next paragraph, I explain further to AOC why Yemen is not pure capitalism, but much closer to Socialism.]

It’s worth repeating: At first glance, of course, anarchy appears to be like Capitalism; there are, it seems, no rules, no regulation… so it has to be Capitalism, right? Wrong. As mentioned above, there are rules in anarchy. Rules a-plenty! They’re simply established by the most crudely powerful actors in the area. Well, Socialism is beautifully described, among other ways, by this: “Rules established by the most crudely powerful actors in the area.”

[Editor’s Note: And this is where I begin the psychological description of the Socialist state of mind.]

(Still addressing “John”) AOC is a “First Glancer.” (my coinage) A First Glancer is a person whose thinking is heavily or entirely composed of “at first glance” thinking.

You and I know many such people. They have the additional characteristics of being #1: overwhelmingly on the Left, where society’s White Noise leads them, and #2: remarkably resistant to evidence and logic that buck their indoctrination.

Hence, for AOC, Capitalism with laws to prevent “might makes right” is really “Socialism,” because she desperately wants it to be Socialism, and she desperately wants to believe in Socialism, and she desperately wants Socialism to be… good.

However, she also knows that #1: as it’s been implemented countless times around the world, it has always resulted in a hellhole. And #2: her desired Socialism is just nonsense; a cheap label for a naked power grab. But: #3: Like so many on the Left, her religion is Socialism, and her entire conception of herself — educated, erudite, yet still edgy, sophisticated and cool — is tightly wrapped up in her support for this old, moldy, decrepit, grotesque belief system; a belief system that’s constantly in need of being wrapped in a fog of pretty words to try to make the old pig cool and pretty again.

If Science were entirely peopled by AOC-like people, the earth would be flat, and the sun and stars would complete a circuit around the earth every 24 hours.

You have to understand, the Left is peopled by such as AOC, the ultimate political and economic flat-earthers. It’s instructive, therefore, to keep an interaction going with them to see what inanities they come up with to support their conclusions.

Remember: with the Left, it’s always: conclusion first; then bludgeon the evidence and the people into supporting the conclusion.

Hence, for the First Glancers, Yemen appears to be a Capitalist country. That, and many other things, are probably taught in American high schools and universities, by other First Glancers.

— xPraetorius

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s