Wednesday, September 20, 2023

Slavery Under Socialism

Socialists/communists have pulled down, and in the case of New York City’s government, are contemplating pulling down, the statues of such great historical figures as Washington, Jefferson, and Columbus, on the grounds that during their lifetimes these men owned one or more slaves. The outrageousness of this is all the greater when one realizes that socialism/communism is both a system of universal enslavement and leads to mass murder.

A socialist/communist state is a universal monopoly employer, the only employer in the economic system. As such, it can pay its workers as little as minimum subsistence, because they have nowhere else to go. Indeed, in today’s environment, it can pay them nothing at all, and let them starve to death. That’s one way to reduce a nation’s “carbon footprint.” Slavery under socialism/communism is far worse than the conditions that exist when the slaves are privately owned. As I wrote in my book Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (p. 290 ): "There is a further consequence of forced labor under socialism that must be considered, namely, its potential for developing into mass murder. To understand how this can happen, we must contrast forced labor under socialism with forced labor under different conditions. "Slavery existed in ancient Greece and Rome and in the Southern United States before the Civil War, and was, of course, a moral abomination. Nevertheless, abominable as slavery was, there was an important factor in these cases which restrained the slave owners and the overseers in their treatment of the slaves. That was the fact that the slaves were private property. A private slave owner was restrained in his treatment of his slaves by his own material self-interest. If he injured or killed his slave, he destroyed his own property. Of course, out of ignorance or irrationality, this sometimes happened; but it was the exception rather than the rule. Private slave owners were motivated to treat their slaves with at least the same consideration they gave to their livestock, and to see to it that their overseers acted with the same consideration. "But under socialism, the slaves are 'public property'—the property of the state. Those who have charge of the slaves, therefore, have no personal economic interest in their lives or well-being. Since they are not owners of the slaves, they will not derive any personal material benefit if the slaves are alive to work in the future, nor suffer any personal material loss if the slaves are not alive to work in the future. In such conditions, slave labor results in mass murder. The officials in charge of the slaves are given orders to complete certain projects as of a certain time. Quite possibly, they are threatened with being reduced to the status of slaves themselves, if they fail. In these circumstances, the slaves are treated as valueless natural resources. Brutal punishments are inflicted on them for trifling reasons, and they are worked to the point of exhaustion and death. The slaves of socialism are slaves, but they are no one’s property and therefore no one’s loss. "In this way, slave labor under socialism results in mass murder. In just this way, tens of millions of people have been murdered. "Of course, the economics of slavery under socialism is not a sufficient explanation of mass murder. Those who participate in the system must be utterly depraved. But observe how socialism creates the conditions in which depravity flourishes—the conditions in which depravity can express itself, is freed of the restraints of better motives, and is positively nurtured and encouraged. For it is socialism that delivers men into slavery. It is socialism that removes the restraint of self-interest from those in charge of the use of any form of property. And it is socialism that creates an environment of hatred and sadism. In such conditions, the most depraved and vicious element of the population finds a place for its depravity and viciousness and steps forward to run the labor camps and the whole socialist society." Reisman on Amazon and YouTube:

Sunday, September 17, 2023

Why It’s Vital to Keep the Traditional Pronouns

 Men and women fill each other’s lives.

Each is the source of the greatest and most intense pleasure that can be experienced by the other. And because of this, the human race is perpetuated.

But there is much more:

Every man has a mother.

Every woman has a father.

Many men have one or more sisters.

Many women have one or more brothers.

Most men have a wife.

Most women have a husband.

Many men have one or more daughters.

Many women have one or more sons.

And then, of course, there are also grandfathers and grandmothers, grandsons and granddaughters, and uncles, aunts, nephews, and nieces.

These relationships add up to an enormous part of the lives of most people, requiring an amount of time and providing a level of satisfaction comparable to and often surpassing that connected with work.

If anyone with a strongly held fantasy of belonging to the opposite sex is to be regarded as an actual member of the opposite sex, then the very concept of the opposite sex is destroyed. Opposite to what? Opposite to a feeling that one belongs to the opposite sex, a feeling that allegedly then determines the reality of one’s sex?

On this basis, the opposite sex to a man who “identifies” as a woman, i.e., feels, that he is a woman, and is thereby regarded as an actual woman, is, violà, another man. So a man becomes the opposite sex of a man. Thus, the very concept of opposite sex is destroyed.

If feelings and fantasies are to replace biological reality as the standard for determining membership in a sex, then all of the above relationships between the sexes are rendered null and void. There is then no difference between men and women, between mother and father, between sister and brother, between husband and wife, between daughter and son. For on the basis of mere fantasy, any of the instances of any of these concepts can be transformed into its opposite.

If one’s father can be one’s mother and one’s mother can be one’s father, then the concepts “father” and “mother” have no basis for existing. And, likewise, none of the other concepts of familial relationships can have any basis for existing.

In seeking to abolish recognition of the biological basis of the distinction between the sexes, the pronoun movement reveals hatred of sex and a desire to obliterate it. It seeks to remove sex from our vocabulary not only with respect to pronouns, but also all other distinctions between the sexes. Thus, for example, we are no longer to speak of waiters and waitresses and of policemen and policewomen, but of “servers” and “policepersons”—anything to get sex out of the picture, anything to find a substitute for any reference to the distinction between men and women.

Acceptance of fantasies concerning membership in the opposite sex as a standard, and their imposition on those who do not share them but who are nevertheless to be compelled to participate in them, by having to use special pronouns to refer to those who are consumed by them, is certainly one of the leading mass insanities of our time, or any other time. It is proof of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the greater part of today’s academia and media, of our so-called “intelligentsia.” As Ayn Rand saw decades ago, the world needs “New Intellectuals”—a new intelligentsia—to replace today’s clutch of amoral ignoramuses that have misappropriated such once dignified names as “professor,” “teacher,” and “journalist.”



There Is No Room for a Self-Made Imbecile on the US Supreme Court

In her confirmation hearing, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji-Brown Jackson was asked to define a woman. She said she could not because she wasn’t a biologist. (See and hear her at

Justice Jackson’s principle seems to be that before you can know the most elementary fundamentals of a subject, you need to be an expert in it. By that standard, since she is not a mathematician, she does not know that one plus one equals two.

Justice Jackson has chosen a philosophical idea that makes her an imbecile. She should never have been confirmed and now that she has been, she should be removed. She has made herself absolutely unfit to render judgements of any kind about anyone. Her presence on the Supreme Court of the United States is a major threat to the lives and liberties of the American people.