'There's only one side of the ball to be on'

“Replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism!” says my new socialist mayor. Sounds so nice … No more greedy capitalists hoarding wealth. People share. It’s the socialist dream. What will replace capitalism and individualism? One model is the commune—that socialist system where people share, rather than greedily chasing money. In my new video, TikTokers claim capitalism is “ending.” They sing about the beauty of communes. One asks, desperately, “Where is my commune?!” Good question. They’re hard to find because they keep failing. One of the most famous was founded in 1825 In New Harmony, Indiana. Private property was banned and residents shared everything. The result? After just two years, most residents left. Today, New Harmony is a tourist attraction, meant to “inspire progressive thought,” says the assistant director of the expensively renovated site. “It just has some magic here.” But New Harmony’s magic only exists today because a nepo baby poured her rich father’s money into it. Robert Blaffer started Humble Oil, which became ExxonMobil. After his death, his daughter spent millions of her father’s dollars turning the failed commune into an expensive museum. The “magic” tourists experience in New Harmony comes from capitalism, the only system that creates lasting wealth. The “warmth of collectivism” fails again and again. It’s failing now in Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua and Venezuela. It was tried and abandoned in the Soviet Union, Mongolia, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique, Benin, the Congo, Somalia, Grenada and Cambodia. Even China and Vietnam’s leaders, to allow their countries to prosper, felt they had to give up pure socialism and allow private property and capitalism. But my new mayor still wants to give “the warm of collectivism” a shot. If he were my age, he would have been a hippie. Hippie communes were popular then. One in Tennessee called The Farm forbade members to have their own money or property. Everyone shared everything. “Mothers would nurse each other’s babies—other parents would take care of you … ” said a former member. “If you want to become a member of the community,” warned The Farm’s lawyer, “you got to put everything you have in the pot. We’re doing this for a lifetime!” But they couldn’t do it for a lifetime. They couldn’t even keep it for a dozen years. There just wasn’t enough money, says the commune’s bookkeeper: “Everybody was saying … there’s not enough food, not enough vegetables, not enough diapers, shoes. All things the children needed.” Only when the commune allowed members to own things, and keep profit from their labor, was The Farm able to survive. Residents now say, “We’re not socialists anymore. We have our own money.” New York’s Oneida Community was founded as a free-love, socialist commune, where “every man in the community was essentially married to every woman and all the property was shared.” But Oneida survives today only because they dropped socialism and became capitalists, selling expensive Oneida silverware. Likewise, an Iowa commune, Amana Colonies, survives because they abandoned socialism to sell appliances. Some Americans (falsely) think Israeli communes, Kibbutzim, succeeded. But they mostly failed, despite getting heavy taxpayer subsidies. Why? Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute explains, “People envied one another … and treated one another really, really bad. It’s obvious why. Some people worked hard. Others didn’t. Yet they had exactly the same.” The surviving few Kibbutzim are capitalist. Members own property and earn their own money. The “warmth of collectivism” doesn’t last. But socialists never admit that their communes fail. “Because to them it’s a moral ideal!” says Brook. “Moral striving for the good, even though it’s a complete disaster and a complete failure everywhere and anywhere it is tried.” No matter what my new mayor and other “progressives” say, the only thing that works—the only thing that really makes life better for people—is private ownership and capitalism. COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.  The post The Warmth of Collectivism appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Do We Know Him? Sunday Reflection

Remember during Covid when liberals kept insisting that they were the ones who believed in "THE Science?" Well now that "THE Science" has proved to become politically inconvenient for them we see the hilarious spectacle of those same liberals denying basic science such as during a recent Senate hearing when a leftist doctor refused to answer the simple question of  "Can men get pregnant?" We can now also see that same pathetic denial of obvious scientific reality taking effect in the current arguments surrounding the Supreme Court case about upholding state bans of biological males aka trans-women participating in women's sports.  One periodical that has leaped full scale into the denial of reality abyss on this topic is Atlantic magazine. On Friday at The Atlantic, new hire (and former longtime Washington Post sports columnist) Sally Jenkins went through the silly motions of pretending that there is at present no scientific conclusion as to whether "trans women" (men) have a natural athletic advantage over women as you can see in "The Question That the Lawyers Representing Trans Athletes Didn’t Answer." The subhead said the common-sense biology argument was "meandering and unsatisfying." Many will find those words an apt description of this piece.  When she took a buyout at the Post, colleagues gushed over her "moral compass." Now watch Jenkins inadvertently entertain the readers with her absurd ideological kvetching over how we just don't have enough scientific information as yet to make a determination of the athletic advantage of biological males over women: At the core of the matter is whether trans-women athletes have a lingering testosterone advantage — a question that remains scientifically disputed. Until that point is settled, a resolution to this painful issue is hard to envision. Would that also be the excuse for the leftist doctor not answering if men could get pregnant? Because the science is still disputed, so no resolution on the matter can now be attained? The dockets for Hecox and B.P.J. were loaded with amicus briefs that showed contradictory medical opinions. For the state petitioners, half a dozen sports doctors submitted 90 academic papers asserting that “even before puberty,” males have denser, stronger, and longer bones, and can “throw faster and kick harder than women.” They wrote, “No amount of testosterone suppression” would “eliminate these male athletic advantages.” According to one of those reports, boys had more speed, limb strength, and power as early as age 3. The briefs in support of Becky Pepper-Jackson, the 15-year-old shot-putter and discus-thrower at the center of the West Virginia case, were equally adamant. Pepper-Jackson began transitioning from male to female when she was in third grade, and from sixth grade onward has taken medication to block male puberty, as well as estrogen treatment. The incredibly bizarre thing here is that Jenkins completely overlooks the sheer barbarity of commencing sex changes in children including interference in the natural growing process via puberty blockers. Where the respondents’ lawyers faltered the most was in addressing the potential harm to cisgender athletes. Whenever someone uses the term "cisgender" -- meaning normal women or men -- they are sure to be leftists with a highly unscientific agenda to spin. ...when it comes to whether there is a legacy testosterone advantage, we don’t know. Separating people by sex, unlawful in most areas of civic life, is potentially vital to fairness in sports, just as we accept other classifications, such as weight and age, in the quest for an even starting line. A person can support trans civil rights with their whole heart and favor open competition for children yet also wonder whether athletes should compete in their birth category at the higher levels, for fear that a meaningful number of women may be harmed by transgender inclusion. Americans as a whole have yet to tease out a consensus philosophy on this, much less the biology of it. Until that happens, the justices would be wise to say that the issue lacks certainty, and to ask for more clarity and science before making a broad ruling. Aw gee! We just don't know! Do larger bones, bigger muscles, and more testosterone really make a difference in sports? We, or at least Sally Jenkins, need to somehow tease out a consensus philosophy on this because this issue lacks certainty. Let us just wait and wait and wait for more clarity and science. The same uncertain science that prohibits obvious agenda folks like Jenkins from providing answers including if men can get pregnant.

Karoline Leavitt Goes Straight FIRE Warning CBS Not to FAFO With Trump Interview and Lefties Can't DEEEAL

Sorry, WHAT? Scott Jennings Takes Holier-Than-Thou Lefty Claiming Repubs Have No Moral Compass APART -Vid

Trump and Walz Both Make Moves on Chaos in Minneapolis, As MN National Guard Post Raises Eyebrows

Historic Border Success: Apprehensions at Record Low in First Quarter