“Denouncing the Horrors of Socialism”
INKBLOT DECODE: H. Con. Res. 58
This resolution, H. Con. Res. 58 isn’t about history.
It’s about narrative control.
On the surface, it reads like a civics lesson: a roll call of dictators, famines, revolutions, and death counts. But underneath, it’s not a statement of fact—it’s a weaponized definition.
Here’s what it’s actually doing beneath the text:
1. It collapses every left-leaning idea into “tyranny.”
The resolution takes every authoritarian state of the 20th century, slaps the word “socialist” on them, and then uses that to define all socialist policy in the present day.
In Inkblot terms:
They take the worst of history, assign it to anything that redistributes wealth, and call the equation truth.
This isn’t about Lenin or Mao.
It’s about pre-poisoning public opinion against:
universal healthcare
expanded labor rights
food security programs
wealth taxes
public housing
affordable childcare
Shadowboxing against a ghost to strike a real target.
2. It reframes social programs as existential threats.
Instead of debating policy, they shift the ground:
“If you support X, you support dictatorship.”
It bypasses economics entirely and moves into identity politics:
You’re either for freedom
Or for Venezuela, gulags, mass death
Inkblot translation:
They’re turning budgets into moral purity tests.
3. It uses Founding Father quotes as holy scripture — selectively.
Jefferson and Madison get pulled into sanctifying the argument.
Not the parts where they advocated public education, public works, taxation, or collective responsibility.
Only the parts that fit the frame.
This is narrative laundering:
Take an ideological position → wrap it in antique parchment → pretend it’s original meaning.
Inkblot calls this:
Founders-as-shield.
If the history is shaky, hide behind the wigs.
4. It’s laying ideological groundwork for austerity.
This resolution is pre-justification.
Before you cut:
SNAP
Medicaid
rental assistance
public benefits
worker protections
student relief
federal housing dollars
…you create a moral argument that says:
Anything that redistributes wealth is inherently dangerous.
This isn’t a bill.
It’s the primer coat on the wall before the real paint goes on.
Inkblot translation:
They’re trying to make cruelty look like safety.
5. It’s political performance — but performance with purpose.
Concurrent resolutions don’t carry legal force.
But they do carry narrative force.
They set the frame.
They define the good guys and the bad guys.
They tell base voters what counts as patriotism.
And once you’ve built that frame, cutting social programs becomes “protecting America.”
Inkblot read:
They’re doing the quiet part out loud, just dressed in historical cosplay.
6. What manifests in the static
This resolution tells you exactly where they intend to go:
Delegitimize public spending
Equate redistribution with treason
Moralize austerity
Attack labor and welfare programs
Define progressivism as a national security threat
Rewrite American identity around private wealth as virtue
This is not a debate about socialism.
It’s a precision strike against any policy that reduces inequality.
The Undertow
H. Con. Res. 58 is not about condemning past horrors—it’s about pre-branding future social spending as dangerous, un-American, and morally illegitimate.
A scaffolding for cuts.
A fear framed for privatization.
A narrative weapon dressed up as remembrance.