AI Overview[1]

A black swan event is an extreme outlier occurrence defined by three core traits: absolute unpredictability, massive and severe impact, and retrospective rationalization.

Key Characteristics

·        Extreme Rarity: The event lies far beyond normal expectations, making it impossible for standard models or historical data to forecast.

·        Massive Impact: It triggers widespread, severe consequences or disruptions across economies, markets, or societies.

·        Hindsight Bias: After it happens, people invent explanations and narratives that make the event look obvious and predictable in retrospect.

Origin of the Term

·        The phrase comes from an old European assumption that all swans were white because black ones had never been seen.

·        That belief was shattered in 1697 when Dutch explorers discovered black swans in Australia, proving that a deeply-held universal truth could be completely false.

·        Author Nassim Nicholas Taleb popularized the concept in his 2007 book, The Black Swan.

Ipsism has opined that the 2020 election will be seen in historical perspective as the beginning of the communist revolution in the United States.  While Donald Trump's election as president, at least temporarily, forestalled this revolution, this could change following the 2026 midterms or 2028 elections. Whether this occurs is dependent upon the will of the electorate.

For more than 400 years the United States has depended upon a meritocracy for its operation. The earliest settlements dabbled with what is now communism. Jamestown (1607) and Plymouth (1620) colonies were originally formed as communal communities[2] – ‘from each according to his ability to each according to his needs’.  This turned out to be a dismal failure. -- The result was the same in both colonies but the diaries of Plymouth colony leader, Governor Bradford give an actual description of Plymouth Colony. -- The hard workers saw that they were not getting any more of the amount produced than those who were basically slackers and showed up late and worked poorly. As a result, the hard workers stopped working hard and worked like the slackers. After a while, nothing was produced and the colony was at the point of starvation. The colony leader decided to divide up the colony into sections and gave each man a section so that he could produce on his own. Once this happened the colony flourished. With hard workers able to sell part of their production to the slackers and the slackers working harder but accepting less because they didn't work as hard.

Finally, the Colony leaders recognized the inherent nature of man – that he is unwilling to work for people who are unwilling to work for themselves and share in the labor equally. In business this is often expressed as ‘eat what you kill’. The phrase "eat what you kill" is an idiom that originates from hunting, where it literally means consuming the animals you have hunted and killed. In modern contexts, it’s often used metaphorically to describe a system or mindset where individuals are rewarded directly based on their personal efforts, contributions, or results, without relying on others or external support.[3] Others point to the problems with this method.[4]

This is the basis of the free market system. and it works remarkably well. It also explains why no communal community, whether city, county or state has been successful in the long term. From Plato's Republic to Jamestown and Plymouth colonies to the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries communal governance has never worked long-term. And acceptance of this inherent nature of man is what distinguishes the lifestyle of the indigenous people in the continent of Africa and other third world countries compared to the United States or even Europe. Men found that they could develop a skill better than their neighbors and produce a product that their neighbors were willing to buy. That is the basis of capitalism. If there is a problem with capitalism it is that it has worked too well. It has allowed people with market advantage to develop huge corporations employing thousands of people. Some have tried to become monopolies, and this is why we have to have government regulations to protect the individual or small group from the huge corporations which would monopolize a market. But government ownership control and regulation of industry has never been as successful as the free market system. 

From colonial times wealth was recognized as being a good thing and people were lauded for being wealthy. This began to change in the mid-20th century and has extended into the 21st century and the current date where people are envious and almost vindictive towards people who have wealth. Polls have shown that people are willing to act against self-interest if it brings down someone who is wealthier. Thus, while envy is not an inherent nature of man, it has become pervasive in the current culture. It appears to be more prevalent on the left side of the political spectrum. Additionally, we have young people who went to college expecting their degrees to provide a measure of success but instead they're left with mountains of debt – their degree major not being marketable in the free market.

This brings us to the current time where snake oil salesmen with glib attitudes and ever-present smiles promise people that they will hurt the rich and reward the poor. These promises appeal to people who consider that they have limited ability to rise above their current situations. And part of this is the fault of the mega corporations which employ thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people in mundane jobs where there is never a chance to rise above their current status. And they're right, no one working strictly for a salary is going to become a millionaire or billionaire ( obvious exceptions are corporations that allow stock ownership ).

We must confront the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Most of the front people for the DSA, the candidates, are attractive, smiling, rather glib, high net worth individuals who promise handouts for the poor, free services and reduced costs for needed services or goods. It is reported that the DSA receives significant funding from billionaires affiliated with the CCP (Chinese Communist Party). An example given is Neville Roy Singham (also known as Roy Singham, a U.S. citizen living in Shanghai, China)  who has reportedly given more than $500 million to various leftist organizations. Of course, they never explain how they're going to pay for these promises other than to say that they're going to tax the rich. For those who are criminals or have other fears of government action against them, the DSA promises to protect them by abolishing ICE, granting amnesty for all, abolishing prisons and other actions to hamstring the government from proceeding against the people who have violated American laws. Their plan for this is to dismantle the Constitution by removing articles 1 2 and 3 of The Constitution and essentially forming a politburo of the Congress, replacing the Presidency, the Senate and taking control of the Supreme Court. By inference, they will have the power to overturn Supreme Court decisions to align with their ideology, regardless of statutes. Again, they do not explain how they're going to perform these feats but some of the DSA membership has intimated that Revolution may be necessary to remove the Constitution. This is not part of the official DSA platform, and the government cannot undertake prosecution for anarchy as there is insufficient evidence, at this time.

Yet, rebellion and open anarchy is the only way that they're going to be able to achieve their goals as it is highly unlikely that they would be able to have a majority of states vote to carry out their plans. The DSA will rely upon the disaffected youth of our country to carry out these radical actions. While the DSA has been growing rapidly in numbers, it is still a small organization with only about 100,000 actual members. The DSA does not appear to have the necessary mass of individuals to carry out a rebellion. However, history has proven that only a relatively small group is needed to affect a radical change within a country. In Russia the Communist movement started with less than 100 people and was able to take over the country. The same was true in Cuba and several other small countries that were taken over by communists.

We must consider the possibility of a Black Swan event, where the DSA will take control of the country, and take precautions, now, to limit the ability of the DSA to gain the reigns of power or be seated as members of the government. Some have questioned whether the DSA candidates can truthfully take the oath of office.[5] Comments following the opinion were largely derisive and misinterpreted the opinion.