Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Do not use the word “liberal” to describe socialism. All morality issues are created by the roots of socialism, be it in fascist, communist or globalist ideology. The root problem is that socialism has converted the very idea of the common good (the best of the best) into the idea of the average bad (the average that only gets worse).

It is built into the ideology by the error of the thought that bred it. The ideology of socialism is based on Hegel’s paradox — a paradox because it was a puzzle that was not resolved at the time. The error was clarified and resolve 40 years after Hegel’s death by Cantor when he developed set theory. But Marx came along 20 years after Hegel’s death and popularized the error for the benefit of totalitarian power.

Philosophy is thinking. A wrong philosophy which is consistent, but based on an axiomatic error, can be so pervasive that it changes people’s thinking. That is far more destructive than something that is obviously wrong.

Hegel’s paradox is as follows “All art is A. Good art is +A. Garbage is -A. But since it is all A, it is all art.” Such thinking appears innocuous enough, but, because it is saying that art is garbage and garbage is art, it is wrong at the root, destroys values and confuses right and wrong.

Marx took advantage of that error to form his “scientific socialism” which was formulated as follows: Thesis, antithesis, synthesis — if one solution is “the best,” (+A) that is the thesis, if another solution is “the worst,” (-A) that is the antitheses, then the “ideal solution” is the synthesis. So for Marx, if food is the best solution and poison is the worst solution, then the synthesis is to mix food and poison in the best form for the “ideal” result.

To settle for anything less than the best of the best is a moral compromise that benefits corruption and its vested interests. For the corrupt in business who wishes to squelch competition or the corrupt in power who wishes to gain more power, the “ideal” gives him more benefit and power where he should get none.

In this situation the Marxian scientific socialism enables the “ideal” to be decided by those in power, so any compromise between good and evil, reason and contract vs force and violence, freedom vs slavery, best and worst always gives those in power more power and always reduced morality, ethics, quality and individual judgment incrementally, ratcheting it downward with every decision given to power.

So, by its very theory, socialism’s “ideal” solution, over the long run, inevitably leads to genocide. Those who seek liberty and freedom must therefore reject all traces of Marxism’s “scientific socialism” and accept only the best of the best as the common good of the population. Any compromise between good and evil must, by definition, lead to a worsening of ethics and morals, and this ratcheting is administered by those in power.

Cantor debunked Hegel’s paradox by proving that it is not +A and -A at all, but instead A and B in a larger universal set. That is the fix for the the error of “scientific socialism” — the practice of Marxism must be stopped at the theory — at its very origins of thought.

“Scientific socialism” is the wrong thinking that has muddied peoples ability to separate good from evil. Hegel’s paradox and Marx’s formalization confounds the very essence of morality in all aspects of society — politics, economics, religion, our business dealings and now, it is infecting our technology.

In social reality people are guided by words meant to deceive for political ends. When dealing with physical reality, people used to be harder to fool because it was easy to tell whether it works better or worse. Now, even physical reality is becoming a shade of gray.

With simpler technology, anyone could see that the thing works, or it doesn’t, or that it works better or it works worse. But with the new technology it is now harder for people to even see that. Technology can make a car, cellphone or portable computer act faster and smoother while making other parts intrusive, controlling and damaging to the user’s well being. And, in conjunction with intrusive government, intrusive technology is sold as “for your own good.” So now they don’t even try to make the improvements that clear.

Good and evil, right and wrong, are becoming shades of gray instead of black and white. And good and evil must stay white and black so that people can judge right from wrong, so if we want to keep human progress we must improve our judgment, and knowledge, both of society and technology, because we are now being told what to think, what to decide, what to believe. We must break the chains now being forged in our mind and think for ourselves, by ourselves, decide for ourselves by ourselves. We can no longer afford to believe first.

It is not enough to allege that we believe. Unless we are willing to give up our life, liberty and property to the totalitarian systems that would take all of these away from us. We must be able to define and defend our beliefs with proof, information, example, evidence and a solid argument. We can no longer afford the moral and intellectual sloth of “believing in” experts, in religion, politics or money, without proving it for ourselves. We can no longer afford to make our belief primary. We can no longer afford to have primacy of belief.

We can no longer accept what others tell us what we should believe, be it in society, religion, economy and now, even in technology. We must develop own own ability to prove that what we believe is true, and learn to rely on that ability and not the word of experts.

If “experts” say something that makes no sense and we keep seeing and hearing the same nonsense repeated over and over, we soon realize that the agenda they are pushing is not to our individual best interests.

Congratulations, Mr. President, for rejecting the “experts” of the Paris Climate Agreement.

iPatriot Contributers


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?