Connect with us

Culture and Religion

This is EXACTLY what socialism is: Part 1 of 2

Published

on

That is not real socialism!

Part 1: The Proletarian Revolution

“We have trampled underfoot the principles of democracy for the sake of the loftier principles of a social revolution.” ~ Leon Trotsky

Socialism requires a dictator. Clearly, this has been achieved in Venezuela.

In the midst of the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, a rallying cry can be heard: But! That is not real socialism! Presently, those belonging to the Directorate of Delusion and Denial, the legions of socialist apologists, are at full attention. We are told that the tragedy which is presently occurring in Venezuela is not real socialism. This claim is nothing more than a “Hey! Look over there and not at me!” tactic; a method of diverting attention away from one’s own guilt, enabling the retention of one’s own foolish pride and sanctimonious sense of moral high ground.

As such, I wish to offer a thorough repudiation of the not real socialism denials regarding Venezuela’s present economic destruction, political corruption, social upheaval, and widespread human misery. Although Karl Marx did not himself conceive of communism, he is idolized and revered as communism’s supreme theorist and the father of the communist movement. His writings inspired revolutionary movements around the globe, beginning in 1917, with the Bolshevik revolution in the Soviet Union which was led by Vladimir Lenin. The collectivist dream then spread to Latin America via the Soviet Union during the cold war as a tactical way to weaken the United States of America’s foreign relations and to weaken US influence in South America.

Practically speaking, there are three phases of socialism:

  1. the Proletarian Revolution
  2. the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and
  3. complete communism (a classless society which has fully abolished the State).

This article will focus on the first phase in socialism: the Proletarian Revolution.

Socialism is a macro-philosophy (lacking specifics, inadequate in guidelines). Since socialism lacks details, socialists have been able to swim around in perpetual fluidity, skirting any and all responsibility for peddling a mortiferous ideology. Thus, it is important to measure how “socialist” a country is against the philosophy of Karl Marx, the communists’ god.

The following is a point by point comparison of Marx’s theory of socialism, as shown through his writings, with both Lenin’s Soviet regime and the Chavez-Maduro Venezuelan regime.

A   Seizure of Power: the overthrow of the “Have’s” by the “Have-nots” (group struggle) to end capitalism
Socialist Theory via the Writings of Karl Marx
The Proletarian Revolution: In The Communist Manifesto, Marx (and Engles) theorized a revolution in which the working class (proletariat) from across the globe would rise up and destroy the capitalist (Bourgeoisie) society, ushering in a new age of transition from capitalism to communism. Thus, the immediate goal for communists is “formation of the proletariat into a class, [the] overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, [and the] conquest of political power by the proletariat.” In Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx re-emphasized his belief that “It is altogether self-evident that, to be able to fight at all, the working class must organize itself at home as a class and that its own country is the immediate arena of its struggle.”
B   Disregard for Democracy: democracy viewed as a tool to achieve power; a general disregard for democracy as being a systemic feature of the bourgeoisie social structure
Socialist Theory via the Writings of Karl Marx
Democracy is Bourgeoisie: In Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Marx stated that “In a really rational state one could answer, ‘Not every single person should share in deliberating and deciding on political matters of general concern’…” In his Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx laments “…vulgar democracy, which sees the millennium in the democratic republic, and has no suspicion that it is precisely in this last form of state of bourgeois society that the class struggle has to be fought out to a conclusion…” Marx continued, criticizing the Socialist German Workers Party’s emphasis on human rights as containing “nothing beyond the old democratic litany familiar to all: universal suffrage, direct legislation, popular rights, a people’s militia, etc. They are a mere echo of the bourgeois…” Marx continued, “They are all demands which, insofar as they are not exaggerated in fantastic presentation, have already been realized. Only the state to which they belong does not lie within the borders of the German Empire, but in Switzerland, the United States, etc.” Marx believed that true democracy wouldn’t not be born until the communist age had arrived in completed form. As such, he stated that democracy was, in actuality, the absence of all opposition to socialism.
Soviet Russia – Lenin (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
A provisional government was formed in March 1917, after a brief Russian Revolution. Lenin and his socialist Bolshevik party then urged the Provisional government to hold election for a new Constituent Assembly (legislature). Many groups spread the idea of democracy and of representative government of the people of Russia through fliers in anticipation of the upcoming election. The Bolsheviks, however, only received just under one-quarter of the votes in the November 1917, elections. The Socialist Revolutionary Party won a majority of assembly seats. On January 6, 1918, assembly members arrived to find the radical Kronstadt sailors, Lenin loyalists, had locked all doors, claiming the assembly had been dissolved by the Council of the Soviets. Lenin announced in a speech he and the soviets had “taken all of the power and rights into their own hands. The Constituent Assembly is the highest expression of the political ideals of bourgeois society, which are no longer necessary in a socialist state.” Hugo Chavez was elected President of Venezuela in 1998. In April of 2002, nineteen anti-Chavez protestors were killed and hundreds more wounded. That year, a referendum vote, which ultimately failed, was held to remove Chavez from office. 2004 marks a major turning point for democracy in Venezuela: from 2004 onward there has been evidence of election rigging by the Chavez-Maduro regimes. In addition to ending limits on the number of terms he could serve as President, Chavez sent one Presidential challenger into exile. “For nearly 14 years, Hugo Chavez labored with tireless energy, undeniable charisma, and ruthless design to destroy the opposition, silence critics, and intimidate skeptics, all while leaving the Potemkin façade of a “democracy,'” stated a 2013 article in The Atlantic. Nicolas Maduro is no better. Since being “elected” after Chavez’s 2013 death. In 2016, the loyal high court pressures several opposition members of Venezuela’s National Assembly to resign, ensuring Maduro’s socialist party remains in power. The high court also declares legislation passed by opposition members to be unconstitutional and, thus, invalid. In March of 2017, the high courts stripped all power from the National Assembly, effectively dissolving the legislature. After international condemnation, the courts reverse their decision just three days later. Changing strategies, Maduro held a national “election” at the end of July to establish a Constituent Assembly tasked with creating a new constitution. The assembly has been packed with Maduro cronies.
C   Revolutionary Dictatorship: establish a revolutionary dictatorship for society’s transitional period from capitalism to communism
Socialist Theory via the Writings of Karl Marx
Dictatorship of the Proletariat: Marx new that Capitalism wouldn’t transform into Communism overnight. He wrote of the need for a strong, central power to keep the forward momentum of the revolution. “What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges,” explained Marx in Critique of the Gotha Programme. “Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat,” wrote Marx. Clearly, he understood that many would resist the revolution and cling to their capitalist ideals. Karl Marx elaborated on this matter in the Communist Manifesto, stating that the Communists are “the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others… they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.” Thus, the Communists must (with the governmental club) force society into submission. Only after society is subdued and the residue of capitalism washed away can the true socialist utopia emerge; the final stage of communism in its completed form.
Soviet Russia – Lenin (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
With Lenin’s Bolshevik seizure of power in January of 1918, so ended the Russian people’s brief chance at the representative democratic form of government of which they had dreamed, and the age of the Bolshevik dictatorship began. A civil war ensued. Rival socialist parties were subsequently banned, and their members were threatened into submission, imprisoned, or killed.   Lenin instituted a special police force know the Cheka to crush uprising and enforce citizen compliance, always on the lookout for those who wish to undermine the Proletarian Revolution. This marked the beginning of the Red Terror. Any individual or even and entire group or entire families. During the civil war, in July of 1918, the Bolsheviks convene, creating a new Soviet constitution. In August of 1918, Lenin is shot in the face, but ultimately recovers from an assassination attempt. During the war, Lenin ordered the confiscation of the peasant’s grain supply, leading to mass starvation. The civil war end in victory for the Bolsheviks in November of 1920. Lenin and the Bolsheviks have secured their Dictatorship of the Proletariat. A later uprising in 1921, of the once-loyal, radical Kronstadt sailors, in response to letters from their starving families back home, was quickly quashed. Chavez began his mission to secure a Dictatorship of the Proletariat not long after taking office. His aggressiveness in this arena only increased over time. Chavez shut down radio and TV stations which didn’t coo in adulation for the Chavismo, stripped land and businesses from political opponents, and imprisoned political opponent and any judges who issued rulings against him. In March of 2005, laws are passed instituting large fines and prison terms for anyone who slanders (criticizes) public officials. In 2009, term limits of elected officials are abolished. In 2012, stricter gun control laws are put into place, with Chavez stating that the ultimate goal in the future the elimination of firearm ownership from all citizens. Shortly thereafter, private gun ownership was banned. In 2013, Maduro’s regime begins using the military to control citizen crime. Maduro continues Chavez’s pattern of imprisoning political opponents. In 2016, Maduro forces confiscate firearms and crush them in a public square in Caracas. Then, in April of 2017, Maduro began issuing some 400,000 weapons to Chavismo loyalists. With the July 30 creation of the Constituent Assembly, Nicolas Maduro is one step closer to establishing the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in Venezuela. The world will continue to watch in angst.

Based on the information above, alongside Karl Marx’s own words, is there any evidence to suggest that the first stage of socialism has not been completed in Venezuela? The Proletarian Revolution has since passed into time, ushering in the next stage of Venezuelan history: the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Socialism requires a dictator. Clearly, this has been achieved in Venezuela.

Next, I will examine Venezuela’s diktatura. I will present the ten planks of communism and the regime’s adherence to each therein.

Part 2 will publish tomorrow.

Paige Rogers is a Christian artist and author, and a former professional practitioner in the field of Early Childhood Development. She is the creator of ThePaintingPastor.org, a blog offering Christian reflection, exhortation and discernment alongside various artistic techniques visually documented through Paige's unique artistic endeavors. A lover of learning, Paige is an avid enthusiast of history, civics, political geography and human nature, physical geography and the sciences. She is an incurably inquisitive and chronically creative “egghead.” Paige is a strong supporter of America's service members and veterans.

Culture and Religion

Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory: ‘Writing out’ Most Guns with the Bump-Stock ban.

Published

on

By

Bump Stock

The latest Liberty grabber wave has crested, but Trump is about to give them a tremendous victory over the 2nd amendment.

Now that the Sturm und Drang of the March for gun confiscation has ‘died down’ it has become evident that, much like previous movements of the past, it came to nought aside from some localised suppressions of Liberty. The problem is there a vestige of this assault of freedom that is still rearing it’s ugly head, that of the infamous ban on so-called “Bump-Stocks”.

Those who are rightly concerned about this assault on Liberty can still inscribe their opposition with the Moonshine, Cigarettes and Fire-sticks bureaucracy [Better known as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms – BATF]  pushing through a new ‘law’ that all by himself, Trump has taken to “Writing Out”.  The deadline is June 27, 2018 11:59 PM ET for everyone to post their opposition to this ‘Law’.

First they came for the Bump-Stocks.

For those who may not care about someone else’s concerns over freedom, just be mindful of a reprise of Martin Niemöller Poem starting with the line: “First they came for the Bump-Stocks, and I didn’t object – For I didn’t care about Bump-Stocks…. Soon enough, they get around to coming after the firearms everyone else cares about, and eventually that will be hunting rifles or shotguns. If you chose to remain silent those guns will be “written out” as well.

But don’t just take our word for it, listen to what the Liberty grabbers have stated in bragging about the subject:

Delaney Tarr [March for Our Lives]

When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.):

Upon being asked if the bill was a slippery slope toward further gun restrictions, she said, “So what? … I certainly hope so.”

Apparently we’re not supposed to notice when the Liberty grabber Left broadcasts their intentions to the world. We’re supposed to let them get a foot in the door of a pretext for further bans before objecting.

Giving up the question.

David Deming over on the American thinker, Made the very important point that sacrificing one more time to the Liberty grabbers of what seems to be nothing is in essence:

If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all “private individual ownership of firearms” recently argued that “even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands.” He’s right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.

Automatic redefinition.

In point of fact, the ATF previously ruled that Bump-Stocks [and presumably other ways of ‘bump-firing a gun – Fast fingers, Rubber bands and Belt-loops] don’t actually convert ordinary semi-automatic firearms to a “Machine gun” because the trigger has to be pulled for every shot. Now with the President’s authorising this linguistic legerdemain, this definition codified in the law has been blurred to the point that any gun that can be ‘Bump-fired’ could also be banned. However, they can’t very well ban fingers, belt-loops or rubber bands, so they will just ban each and every gun that can fire too fast.

Just ‘Write-out’ this legal requirement and Voila! Any gun that can be fired too fast for the sensibilities of the Liberty grabbers can be thought of as a “Machine Gun” and banned instantly – converting most of the 120 Million gun owners into instant felons. With a bit of training,  most guns can be fired faster, so in essence, letting them change this legal definition could have them ban just about every gun in existence.

The Takeaway.

One might not care about the fate of thousands of inert pieces of plastic or what happens to those who have them. One might not care if someone won’t be able to bump-fire a weapon in this particular way. But we on the Pro-Liberty Right will rue the day that we let this go through in exchange for nothing.

If we let the powers that be arbitrarily proclaim that some guns with these pieces of inert plastic are “Machine Guns’, the day will soon dawn when ALL guns are dishonestly ‘written out’ as the same. It will then just be a slippery slope to everyone having to undergo a background check, registration and of course – TAXES – on guns that we already own. Followed by the inevitable confiscation of those guns.

Those who remain silent now will only have themselves to blame when this happens – so now is the time to stop this dead in it’s tracks. The comment window is only open for a few more days [Jun 27, 2018 11:59 PM ET], make the best of it.

 

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Is Mike Pence too political for church?

Published

on

There have been a lot of talk lately about Mike Pence speaking at the SBC. Many complained claiming it was divisive and political. Jonathan Leeman wrote an article for The Gospel Coalition criticizing the very idea of Mike Pence speaking. I will address this article in greater detail on the points that I agree and disagree with. But first, let me answer the very question I posed: Pence isn’t too political to address a congregation, but his speech was.

In short, Mike Pence’s address offered zero substantive theological content. It was merely about his privilege as serving as Vice President. While acknowledging this privilege merited a short section in the beginning, it needed no more continuation. Instead, Mike Pence droned on and on about his experiences and the administration’s accomplishments.

I think there’s only one way you can sum up this administration: It’s been 500 days of action, 500 days of accomplishment. It’s been 500 days of promises made and promises kept. 

Pence’s address followed a pattern of praising Trump with loosely intertwined references to God and praising his hosts as guest speakers often do. The intertwined religious language while praising the accomplishments, not of God, but of the President is the briefest summation of Pence’s speech to the SBC that can be offered. The only biblical passage cited was Psalm 126 in reference to a story that served as praise to the Trump administration. God wasn’t working though Trump in Pence’s speech. Instead, Trump was working. At the end of his speech, Pence did offer a superficial message about praying for America with a quoting scripture.

Mike Pence had an opportunity to address the leaders of many churches. He blew it. But would all politicians do the same?

Politicians Should Be in the Pew, Not the Pulpit?

Jonathan Leeman’s article for The Gospel Coalition draws this conclusion. He has five reasons for not allowing politicians to address a church event.

  1. No reason to give attention to a politician’s words over a plumber’s or an accountant’s, at least not in our assemblies or associations.
  2. Having a political leader address our churches or associations of churches tempts us to misconstrue our mission.
  3. Undermines our evangelistic and prophetic witness.
  4. Hurts the unity of Christ’s body

Reason one is most certainly true. However, I believe we ought to separate the person from the profession. On the basis of spiritual maturity and calling should a politician or any notable guest address an assembly. This first reason is the one I believe to have the most merit in regards to the situation at hand. Inviting a politician to address a Congregation is wrong if the only reason is that they are a politician. However, if the politician is a member of the church, what is wrong with having a fellow member speak?

Reasons two and three are certainly tied together in there logic. I believe these reasons hold merit for Pence’s sacrelidgious speech but are not inherently true of all politicians who accept such similar offers. Reasons two and three open a multitude of separate issues both independent and dependent on the circumstances. Meaning, yes this could happen, but the degree in which we can mitigate the temptation are limited for Satan is the tempter. In the case of Pence, reason three was definitely true. Many would see that the SBC tied itself to Trump. But that is not the fault of the SBC per se. But that is Pence’s fault for giving a campaign rally speech instead of a message. If Pence gave a theologically sound speech there should be little temptation to misconstrue the mission. The third reason is inevitable. Since the beginning, Christians witness has been undermined by the lies of Satan. The original Christians were thought to be cannibal and even atheists. We can’t always prevent these lies, but it would be good not to validate them which Pence did.

Now hurting the unity of the body of Christ is a weak point. Leeman’s fourth point is basically saying that Pence is too polarizing, because Trump is… Trump, on a National level to address a church. Pence is polarizing, but he was polarizing before Trump. The polarizing premise is true but, assuming Pence is indeed a follower off Christ, this would be the result of living a Christian life. Here’s another polarizing figure: Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop. Would polarity disqualify him from speaking? If we are to apply national likability to our church speakers, we’re going to end up with a lot of TV personalities who don’t comprehend dyophysitism.

Like Jack Philips, Pence has taken a lot of flak for being a devout Christian. Isn’t this the kind of person who may have a good message to the assembly? Seemingly so. Again Pence under-delivered. To be fair, Leeman clearly states he doesn’t blanket outlaw politicians from speaking.

I can envision a few circumstances where there is some measure of mission overlap that could justify it. Maybe a group of Christian college presidents asks the secretary of education to address them. Or a Christian conference on work asks a Christian congressman to talk about working as a Christian on the Hill, so that attendees can apply the principles to their own settings.

But while it’s not an outlaw, such an unwritten policy places constraints on the church that are not inherently necessary. Leeman supposes some similar justification was used when The Gospel Coalition had Ben Sasse speak. In 2017, Ben Sasse addressed The Gospel Coalition and gave a theological speech. He was noted for sounding more like a pastor than a politician.

To me only two things matter:

  1. Theological substance
  2. Correct theological substance

On these two requirements I think the body of Christ would remain unified with a clear picture of its mission.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Video Double play: Busting the gun grabber’s musket myth.

Published

on

By

Gun confiscation bingo

Two videos that eviscerate the Liberty Grabbers ‘One shot’ musket myth.

It is a bedrock principle (if they have any) of the Liberty grabber Left that back during the ratification of the US Constitution the only weapons in existence were flintlock musket that took 5 minute to reload. Thus there wasn’t any school violence because it would have taken too long for the perpetrator to kill anyone.

As it typical of the lore of the national socialist Left, this is a lie of the first order. A previous video celebrated the “Assault Weapon” tricentennial, which was bit of the tongue in cheek variety since there were other repeating “Military Style” weapons in existence before this time period. These will be detailed in future articles. Meanwhile we present two videos that also bust the ‘Musket Myth’, one a short presentation from the Royal Armouries on the Jover and Belton “Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket”

Royal Armouries
Published on Aug 30, 2017
Curator of Firearms, Jonathan Ferguson, gives us a peek at the Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket, by Jover and Belton (1786)

This is a very relevant piece since the inventor Joseph Belton corresponded with the Continental Congress in 1777:

May it Please your Honours,
I would just informe this Honourable Assembly, that I have discover’d an improvement, in the use of Small Armes, wherein a common small arm, may be maid to discharge eight balls one after another, in eight, five or three seconds of time, & each one to do execution five & twenty, or thirty yards, and after so discharg’d, to be loaded and fire’d with cartridge as usual.

“It was demonstrated before noted scientists and military officers (including well known scientist David Rittenhouse and General Horatio Gates)”

This destroys the mythology that the founders had no knowledge of this type of repeating firearm technology that existed already.

The second is a humours dissertation on the subject from video raconteur Steven Crowder https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/

from a few years ago that also eviscerates this bit of Leftist mythology.

Published on Feb 10, 2015
People have been telling us for years that the 2nd amendment was written in a time of Muskets, and that it doesn’t apply to the evolved weapons of today. Is it true?

So why is this important?

Two primary reasons. One that these factual examples demonstrate that the founding fathers knew of these technological advances. Therefore, they destroy any Leftist pretences that the 2nd amendment be confined to muskets. Second that, school violence is something other than an issue of guns.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.