The Importance of the Historic House Resolution Denouncing Socialism

If you ask socialists, it means traffic lights and sidewalks will be a thing of the future. If you ask history, the Legislative Branch of United States just rebuffed the Globalist Neocommunist agenda.

In a beautifully American move, the right-majority House recently passed a resolution denouncing socialism.

The Hill covered the resolution as “splitting Democrats”, but, in reality, the vote served to isolate and marginalize, and hopefully permanently trivialize would-be autocratic socialists.

Our founding Fathers, aided by sage counsel and input from their wives, saw fit to give the People a House. This was important to keep the voices of those without wealth to power; Senators were relatively well-off Americans who tended to be landowners. Had the US Government only had the Senate, the interests of the wealthy would have advanced ahead of the interests and needs of everyday families.

Such wisdom, for if the US legislative branch of government only had a Senate, it is highly likely that the US would have developed a much more centralized government. The Senate would have had much more power and influence over the entire country, with fewer checks and balances on its power. This could have led to a more authoritarian government with fewer individual rights and freedoms for citizens. Since the Senate would likely have been dominated by wealthy elites, the last 247 years would have seen an even greater disparity between the rich and poor.

Without the House of Representatives to represent the interests of different states, states would likely have had less autonomy and power in decision-making, and the 50 semi-autonomous United States far less successful independent replications in experiments in democracy.

Our Differences Are the Source of Our Resilience

The value of bringing representatives of the people forward is that bottom-up learning allows a complex process - a distillation, a theatre of competing ideas - allowing the representatives to act as a distributed intelligence network. I don’t mean intelligence as in the CIA: I mean intelligence as being the eyes and ears of local realities and local political climates. Having an earnest interest in others’ viewpoints without fearing loss of one’s own is a sign of emotional and intellectual maturity, and of late, the left-leaning US government has regressed quite a bit into autocratic, top-down influence vs. organic, bottom-up learning, pruning, and growth.

The working arrangements of the moving pieces of the US government allow massively parallelized learning on what works, and what does not work - as long as dogma does not evolve and dictate overwrites on undesired realities.

The House Resolution has made the would-be autocratic socialists a fringe group of loud malcontents, and while Resolutions are non-binding and do not carry significant legal weight, they set the tone and direction of the Legislative Branch of the US Government.

Neocommunism On Our Doorsteps… and In Our Institutions

I have in the past warned against the encroachment of Neocommunism on our society. My warning focused specifically on the caricature-like wishful thinking of a “socialist” (communist) US professor who, on the eve of the pandemic, visited the University of Toronto.

Here’s the brief for the talk as advertised, proof that the neo-communists see neocommunism as the only viable solution to, well, everything that they think is wrong with America:

“‘COMMUNISM OR NEOFEUDALISM?’ TALK BRIEF:
On a rapidly warming planet, we see the super-rich seizing and hoarding ever more common resources and products of common labor. Is this capitalism on steroids or might this be something worse than capitalism? This talk presents “neofeudalism” as a name for tendencies in the present. It also draws out counter-tendencies that, when politically activated, could direct us to a better, communist, future. The talk will be conducted by Jodi Dean, Professor of Political Science at Hobart and William Smith Colleges. She is an influential political theorist and feminist media scholar whose monographs include Blog Theory (Polity, 2010), The Communist Horizon (Verso, 2012), and Comrade: An Essay on Political Belonging (Verso, 2019).”

Here’s my initial reaction to the fact that the inaugural Franklin lecture showcased an avowed communist (if you missed this in 2019, you really should read it, maw agape like mine):

Neo-Leninism is on Your Doorstep, and You “Know” It, But You Don’t Even Know It

The YouTube channel that shared the lecture has been terminated, but the digital footprint of Jodi Dean’s attempts to convince all of North America to adopt communism - including the lost brothers and sisters in the “hinterland” of the suburbs and rural area of the US and Canada… see

https://www.google.com/search?q=neocommunism+or+neofeudalism+jodi&oq=neocommunism+or+neofeudalism+jodi

and

https://www.google.com/search?q=jodi+dean+university+of+toronto+franklin+lecture&oq=jodi+dean+university+of+toronto+franklin+lecture

I want you to act like a right-leaning centrist speech writer who lives in the United States and finish this call to action: Now look, I’m no McCarthyist. I support Dean’s right to speak her words and to think her thoughts. In my ideal United States of America, even she has the right to promote her warped ideas. Why? It’s simple, really: the US Constitution requires these tolerances of us, to secure and protect all of our freedom of speech.

What McCarthy got wrong was to make being a communist a litmus test for one’s “being American”, but the reality is, the only way we can have America is to tolerate the rights of other people to be wrong. This time around, those who were entrusted to safeguard our well-being, and who, in the conduct of their appointed or elected positions chose to act to better the position of the Chinese Communist Party via their policies and actions must be held accountable for acting as agents of a foreign government. Ironically, which foreign government’s interests they advanced are largely irrelevant.

When the time comes, the US State Department should ask some tough questions of those who have usurped that part of the United States government they were supposed to serve, such as “Why did you not register with the State Department when you decided to promote the interests of a foreign state?”. We must demand that those who have acted in a manner that is not in the best interests of the United States be held accountable for their actions.

When the time comes, we must act to make sure that those who have betrayed our trust are held accountable for their actions. We must make sure that people in our government are working for us, and not for foreign interests.

Let’s make sure that our government is working for the American people, and not for any other nation or ideology.

Please do not confuse this with my position on Nationalism. We, the people of the United States, have a long way to go to help the United States reach its full potential. The autonomy of nations is essential, at a minimum, for clarity of positions and interests. These are positions we must hold firm. Our mess is ours to sort out. Meddlers beware.

The CCP’s message to the US that it is “dissatisfied” with the action taken to shoot down the balloon that was carrying bus-sized apparatus is presumptuous, arrogant, paternalistic overreach. There is nothing that the CCP does that violates our autonomy that then requires that we satisfy them in any way.

How Will the US Respond?

Game theory demands that some response be delivered.

If I were Biden, I would send the CCP Leadership harmless, unbugged electronic weather stations, precision-delivered to their home addresses, without fanfare, by balloon.