Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Malthusian humanism and death education, Part II

Published

on

  “I fancied myself as some kind of god.”

 – George Soros

[This is the second part in a two-part piece. The first part, which discusses cultural-transformative “death education” in public schools can be read here. The second part focuses on programs, people, and influences behind the death education movement in higher education, and the societal ramifications of such.]

“Death education, also called education about death, dying, and bereavement, is based on the belief that death-denying, death-defying, and death-avoiding attitudes and practices in American culture can be transformed…” states an article in the Encyclopedia of Death (emphasis mine). “Death education is critical for preparing professionals to advance the field and accomplish its purposes.” For school-aged children, one of those purposes is to mold America’s children “to be less afraid of death.” Ahh! What about higher education? Are our young professionals-to-be spared? The answer is no.

 Further reading in the Encyclopedia of Death reveals one of the main conductors of the death-ed movement, specifically in higher education, and exposes the movement’s nefarious underbelly; a taboo-breaking, culture-changing, social-engineering experiment on American society in order to create Utopia. “One of the stated goals,” the article reads, “of the Project on Death in America of the Open Society Institute is to ‘understand and transform the culture and experience of dying and bereavement in America” (emphasis mine). The Open Society Institute (now called Open Society Foundations) is the brain-child of George Soros, an uber-wealthy megalomaniac with Malthusian tendencies and a god-complex. It was created to advance the development of a world-wide, “open” society. In other words, the foundation serves as the means through which Soros has been meddling in (transforming) America’s culture and policies since the 1970’s.

“Choices arise which would not even have been imagined in an earlier age. Euthanasia, genetic engineering, brainwashing become problems of practical importance. The most complex human functions, such as thinking, may be broken down into their elements and artificially reproduced.” 

 -George Soros, “Opening the Soviet System” (describing his ideal open society)

The Project on Death in America – a time-limited social engineering project designed to get the ball (of death) rolling  in America – focused on “palliative care,” which the pro-suicide lobby has now transformed from meaning pain management to meaning euthanasia. During PDIA’s public unveiling at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in New York (1994), Soros expressed his admiration for his mother’s choice to commit suicide, and he lamented America’s medical “culture so intent on curing disease and prolonging life…” Having identified a need for professionals willing to advocate for “end of life care,” the Project on Death in America (PDIA) funded numerous efforts through their “Faculty Scholars Program,” successfully integrating death-ed into the curriculum of numerous schools in the fields of “medical ethics, medical education, economics, geriatrics, psychiatry, critical care, neurology, paediatrics, paediatric oncology, general medicine and nursing,” in addition to the arts and humanities. These “faculty scholars” are now mentoring (indoctrinating) new generations of professionals. Transforming a culture into a “death-accepting” culture – a culture with broken morals where, for example, “withholding/withdrawing nutrition & hydration” can be seen as a perfectly acceptable form of murder – requires indoctrinating the masses.

Now, consider this for a moment… What this essentially means is that at least two generations of indoctrinaires (since the late 90’s) are now practicing professionals: they are our doctors and they are our nurses… all across our country.

In collaboration with various other foundations and grant-funding organizations, such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), PDIA succeeded in lobbying for palliative care to be accepted as a subspecialty of medicine. In 2006, the Council of Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Medical Specialties recognized this new specialty, and in 2008, accreditation of training programs and certification of physicians began. Soros’s PDIA “scholars were principal investigators for many of the RWJF-funded projects” (hospicepatients.org). A single glance at the array of transformative projects that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has been funding is all that one needs in order to gain an understanding of the Malthusian future in store for American Society (check out this diagram).

 “In fact, they view traditional American society as ‘the enemy,’ something to be manipulated and defeated so that their goals can be achieved.”

  Ron Panzer, Hospice Patients Alliance

Soros has gone on to fund numerous other suicide lobbying groups, all having disarming names. “Compassion and Choices,” for example, has been especially active in the pro-death movement. Ever-aware of societal challenges, the 2008 Compassion and Choices annual report bragged about having “successfully changed more than 200 headlines from ‘Assisted-Suicide’ to ‘Aid in Dying’ or ‘Death with Dignity’” (Capital Research Center).

 The deceptive, euphemistic language, however, isn’t restricted to titles of pro-death organizations. The entire language of our discussions of such subjects has been steered by empty pleasantries of truth-concealing, linguistic propaganda.  Words and phrases such as death with dignity, employed in the stead of truthful words – suicide, euthanasia, or even murder – are nothing more than lies “dressed in the language of euthanasia advocates,” as Michael Brendan Dougherty from National Review puts it (as in the case of 10 month old Charlie Gard). “The tongue is a small thing, but what enormous damage it can do. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark,” (James 3:5).

 “Gray hair is a crown of glory; it is gained in a righteous life.”

– Proverbs 16:31

What exactly does euthanasia have to do with an open society? In 1984, the then Colorado Gov. said, in reference to the elderly, “You’ve got a duty to die and get out of the way… Let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life.” Quite simply put, in the kind of open society that the many utopian central-planners envision, a right to die becomes a duty to die (more specifically, a duty to die cheaply). As the very wise Dr. Miguel A. Faria, Jr. explained in Slouching Towards a Duty to Die, “death is the ultimate and most efficient form of rationing.” “Article after article, in the medical literature have subtly and not-so-subtly extolled the virtues of utilitarian (collectivist) ethics in its various incarnations, e.g.. population-based medicine, shared ethics, futility of care, distributive ethics, and the like,” he continued. “All of these proposals seek to submerge the heretofore supremacy of the individual-based ethics of Hippocrates for a collectivist (authoritarian) ethic in which the physician is no longer beholden to his individual patients, but to the greater, collectivist good of society,” just as the physicians in Nazi Germany became active participants in the “science of killing” (Ktenology) for the good of society, for the health of the German nation, Dr. Faria explains. This is precisely the direction that George Soros and other utopian central-planners are steering us; toward repetition of the Nuremburg war crimes, but on a global scale.

 Think this is just hyperbole? Let’s examine a few examples:

  1. The Netherlands [Jane Doe (info kept private)]: This year, a Dutch court cleared a doctor of wrongdoing in the case of an elderly woman living in a nursing home who “fought desperately in an attempt not to be killed.” Facing resistance from the victim, the doctor drugged her coffee. Still, when the doctor attempted to administer the lethal injection, the victim resisted. The doctor then solicited the help of family members in holding the victim down. You can’t make this stuff up! The Netherlands is a good example of the slippery slope from euthanasia to legalized state-sanctioned murder. For example, in 1990, 4,941 people were euthanized without their consent!
  2. United Kingdom [Charlie Guard, Age 10 months]: A terminally ill infant was, essentially, sentenced to death by the Europe’s Human Rights Court. Charlie’s parents sought to transfer Charlie to a hospital here in America for an experimental treatment that has helped some patients with Charlie’s type of condition, though not as severe. Instead, the court ordered Charlie’s life support (ventilator) be disconnected. The utilitarian outlook that has taken over in Britain, with its National Health Services, is evident in a piece published by The Independent in which the author briefly acknowledges the secular, Utilitarian argument for terminating life-sustaining care, stating “Other very sick children with a better chance of life, it might have been argued, had a greater claim to a finite and expensive resource.” Charlie’s parents, through private citizen donations, have raised all of the necessary funds in order to pay for Charlie’s transfer and experimental treatment, without needing public funds. Nevertheless, the courts have declared that Charlie must die.
  3. United Kingdom [Patrick Pullicino]: Dr. Pullicino has cited a lack of clear guidelines for placing patients on the “Liverpool Care Pathway” (LCP) – the creepy name for a program for terminally ill patients – as leading to the premature placement of thousands of elderly people onto the LCP… in what amounts to a death sentence. Pulllicino cited pressure on the number of beds as one reason for the thousands of premature LCP placements. Sadly, the elderly aren’t the only victims of NHS rationing.
  4.  Reno, Nevada [Brian Callister]: Callously taking the lead from Britain’s NHS, several American insurance companies have stopped paying for some life-saving, curative procedures. While they won’t pay for you to be cured, they will pay for you to kill yourself, as Dr. Brian Callister was shocked to find out. He had attempted to transfer two of his patients to other states to undergo life-saving medical procedure. However, since those states (California & Oregon) allow doctor-assisted suicide, the insurance companies decided death was easier on the companies’ pocket books. Let this serve as a reminder that there is a very big difference between health insurance and health care.
  5. Oregon [Nora Harris]: Nora was diagnosed in 2009, with early onset Alzheimer’s at age 56. Mentally incompetent, but fully conscious, Nora needed to be spoon-fed. While Mrs. Harris has filed paperwork indicating she did not wish to receive a feeding tube, but she did not ask to be starved and deprived water while still capable of eating and drinking. A failed lawsuit by her husband Bill – which attempted to force Nora’s care facility to deprive her of food and water – prompted the creation of a legislative bill that just recently passed in Oregon’s Senate. The bill essentially removes the legal safeguard’s that prohibit medical representatives from ending the life of mentally-incompetent, non-dying, conscious adults.
  6. California [Stephanie Packer, Age 33]: Diagnosed with scleroderma, a chronic autoimmune disease that causes scar tissue to form in her lungs, at the age of 29, the married mother has already outlived the 3 years her doctor expected her to. Stephanie is, unfortunately, finding little to no support for her hard fight to stay alive and with four children (aged 7-13). “In June [2016], her home state of California enacted a law permitting doctor-assisted suicide. And something terrible happened. Premature passing away with medical help is now widely seen as preferable to painful, prolonged living, Packer says. But she’ll fight to live with every last labored gasp drawn from her oxygen tube before ultimately accepting a natural end.”

 “I have to concentrate on what goes on in America. The fight for an open society now has to be fought there.” 

– George Soros, 2003

To turn our eyes away, to ignore crimes against our nation’s morality would be a travesty. James Madison said, “Conscience is the most sacred of all property.” What is happening to American society is nothing less than theft – the theft of our conscience through so-called death education. Thieves come only to steal, and to kill, and to destroy (John 10:10). To steal the God-given, blood-earned conscience of America is to steal freedom’s last safe place in this world. With the efforts of those who seek to continue the acidic erosion of America’s conscience steadily increasing, we must be vigilant to guard our hearts. Hold your conscience close, guarding it from those who seek to destroy our culture. Talk with your children about what they are learning in school. And, most importantly, never allow yourself to forget the value of each and every human life. America, and her cultural conscience must never be stolen. Guard her and keep her safe. As Samuel Adams said…

Driven from every other corner of the earth, freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum” (Samuel Adams, Speech on August 1, 1776).

 


Resources for further of this topic are listed below.

Stealth Euthenasia: Health Care Tyranny in America, Hospice Patients Alliance: http://www.hospicepatients.org/this-thing-called-hospice.html

Hospice Patients Alliance: http://www.hospicepatients.org/index.html

Panel clears Dutch doctor who asked family to hold patient down as she carried out euthanasia procedure, The Telegraph: https://www.google.com/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/28/panel-clears-dutch-doctor-asked-family-hold-patient-carried/amp/

Right to Die Can Become Duty to Die, the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4736927/Right-to-die-can-become-a-duty-to-die.html

Doctor: Insurance Wouldn’t Pay for Patients’ Treatments, but Offered Assisted Suicide, Daily Signal: http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/28/doctor-says-health-insurance-wouldnt-pay-for-patients-treatments-but-offered-assisted-suicide-instead/

Encyclopedia of Death: http://www.deathreference.com/Da-Em/Death-Education.html#ixzz4j3p6FPUU 

NHS rationing ‘is denying patients care’ as cash crisis deepens, The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/08/nhs-rationing-denying-patients-care-cash-crisis-survery-doctors

Oregon Senate votes to allow dementia patients to be starved to death, Lifesitenews.com: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/oregon-senate-passes-bill-allowing-dementia-mentally-ill-patients-to-be-sta

Top doctor’s chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year, Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html

The Instincts of Charlie Gard’s Parents Should Echo in the Courts, the Independent:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/voices/charlie-gard-life-support-concerns-should-be-listened-to-a7812911.html%3Famp

The Vatican’s Statement on the Charlie Gard Case Is a Disgrace, National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449159/vatican-charlie-gard-statement-catholic-church-family-life-euthanasia

Terminally ill mom denied treatment coverage — but gets suicide drug approved, New York Post: http://nypost.com/2016/10/24/terminally-ill-mom-denied-treatment-coverage-but-gets-suicide-drugs-approved/

Thousands in Netherlands Die Without Consent Since Euthanasia OK, LifeNews.com: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/04/thousands-in-netherlands-die-without-consent-since-euthanasia-ok/

Gov. Lamm Asserts Elderly, If Very Ill, Have ‘Duty To Die’, New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/29/us/gov-lamm-asserts-elderly-if-very-ill-have-duty-to-die.html

Slouching Towards a Duty to Die: http://www.drmiguelfaria.com/medicalsentinel/slouching-towards-duty-die

The Duty to Die Cheaply: http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-duty-to-die-cheaply/article/441526

Anne McTavish Neatherlands’ Euthenasia Stats are Appauling: http://theprovince.com/opinion/anne-mctavish-netherlands-euthanasia-stats-are-appalling

Oregon Bill Would Allow Starvation of Alzheimer’s Patients, Could Set Up Death Panels https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/02/08/oregon-bill-would-allow-starvation-of-alzheimers-patients-could-set-up-death-panels/\

George Soros, Godfather of the Left Gives $550 Million to Liberal Causes: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/14/george-soros-godfather-left-gives-550-million-to-liberal-causes.html

Op-Ed: Selling suicide with George Soros’ money: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op-ed-selling-suicide-with-george-soros-money/article/2526283

Against a duty to die, AMA Journal of Ethics: http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2014/05/oped1-1405.html

The Project on Death In America: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1282198/

Is there a duty to die?: http://web.utk.edu/~jhardwig/dutydie.htm

Approaching Death: https://www.nap.edu/read/5801/chapter/1#xiii

AUTHOR Bennett^ Roger V,
TITLE Death and the Curriculum,
PDB DATE Apr 74
NOTE 18p,; Paper presented at the American Educational
Eesearch Association Meeting (Chicago^ April 15-19 1974)

https://archive.org/stream/ERIC_ED093782/ERIC_ED093782_djvu.txt

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.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

The Context of Life

Published

on

Man #1 shoots Man #2. As a result, Man #2 dies. Is Man #1 a murderer?

Obviously, it depends. Context matters. Did Man #1 fire in self-defense? Did he shoot Man #2 by accident? Was Man #1 part of a legally appointed firing squad or under a hypnotic trance? Was the weapon a prop gun that mistakenly contained live ammunition? There are many points to consider before we can definitively say that an instance of killing constitutes murder.

Let’s try another thought exercise: protesters are gunned down by a neighboring country’s military forces. Is this murder? Is it a breach of international law? Is it a gross violation of human rights?

Again, it depends. Context matters. Are these protesters peaceful, or are they, say, planting landmines, tossing grenades, hurling molotov cocktails, and threatening to invade the country that is firing back at them? Have these protesters sworn to murder and pillage their neighbors until they are eradicated from the earth, all in the name of radical religious zeal? Are upwards of 50 out of the 62 protesters killed members of a terrorist organization?

Here’s another one: are illegal immigrants animals?

That depends; are the immigrants in question members of a ruthless gang that rips the beating hearts out of its victims? Do these immigrants peddle drugs, commit brutal assaults, and routinely rape women? Given the context and Oxford’s alternative definition of “animal” — “a person whose behavior is regarded as devoid of human attributes or civilizing influences, especially someone who is very cruel, violent, or repulsive. Synonyms: brute, beast, monster, devil, demon, fiend” — I think we can deem that perhaps too kind a descriptor.

Some people, however, seem to reject the value of context when it goes against their narrative. For instance, on the issue of calling MS-13 members “animals,” singer John Legend tweeted on Thursday, “Even human beings who commit heinous acts are the same species as us, not ‘animals’. I’m in the hospital with our new son. Any of these babies here could end up committing terrible crimes in the future. It’s easy, once they’ve done so, to distance ourselves from their humanity. … Dehumanizing large groups of people is the demagogue’s precursor to visiting violence and pain upon them.”

While MS-13 undoubtedly deserves any visitation of violence and pain upon them, the most glaring hole in Legend’s argument is that mere hours ago, he wouldn’t have considered “any of these babies” to be the same species as him (except when it’s his own baby). And as an outspoken donor and supporter of Planned Parenthood, he wouldn’t hesitate to defend the visitation of violence and pain upon them. But because of arbitrary abortion arguments, Legend and countless other Leftists ascribe more humanity to murderous villains than preborn babies.

Ironically, the one issue where Leftists insist on considering context is the one topic for which nuance is largely counterproductive — the sanctity of life.

As mentioned earlier, not all killing is murder, nor is it always unjustified. The right to life is unalienable, meaning it is intrinsic and therefore cannot be given nor taken away by man. It can, however, be surrendered through certain violations of another person’s unalienable rights. This is why many conservatives support capital punishment for perpetrators of homicide and rape. But it’s critical to recognize that this position is taken in order to emphasize the dignity of life and the severity of seriously harming and/or violating it. Similar reasoning is what justifies depriving someone of their unalienable right to liberty after they’ve committed a crime — they’ve automatically surrendered that right based on their actions.

That single caveat aside, any attempt to contextualize the debate for life pushes the dialogue further down a nonsensical rabbit hole designed to cheapen the worth of the weakest among us, or, to borrow Legend’s term, “dehumanize” them. At every turn, the argument gets slipperier and slipperier.

The Left will say that all human life is precious, even murderers, but they don’t extend this philosophy to unborn babies.

“Context!” they scream. “Fetuses aren’t fully human, and they aren’t really alive.”

Even if we gave the Left that argument, we have to ask whether fetal life, though not fully developed, is still worth protecting.

But the Left can’t give a straight answer here either, because while they celebrate a woman’s choice to terminate her unborn child, they cry for the conservation of fetuses that aren’t even human, proclaiming their inherent dignity well before birth. Eagle and sea turtle eggs come to mind, among other examples.

Next, the Left tries to establish what differentiates a human before birth and a human after birth, or rather what about birth makes someone human, but their attempts at context again fall short:

On one hand, they say it’s about viability outside of the womb, but standards of what constitutes viability are fully arbitrary. A baby born at 37 weeks is no more viable than one at 41 weeks that refuses to pop out — but because it’s still in the womb, it’s still not a living human, apparently. A baby born at 25 weeks in a big city is more viable than a baby born at 35 weeks in the boonies. My one-year-old daughter couldn’t survive without constant care from someone else, and neither could many elderly folks.

Other pro-aborts claim that if there’s no heartbeat, there’s no life, yet I don’t see many of them rushing to pull the plug on grandpa because he’s hooked up to a pacemaker.

I’ve heard some say that a baby’s first breath is what makes it human — so what about those who require artificial sources of oxygen? And if air confers humanity, then why aren’t all air-breathing animals human? If it determines life, then what happens when I hold my breath? I have the potential to breathe again, just as a fetus, left alone, has the potential to be born through natural processes.

The same goes for the sentience test. People in comas still enjoy an unalienable right to life.

Under the law, a woman can abort her baby, but if a pregnant woman is murdered, the assailant is charged with double homicide. No context can sensibly explain this double standard.

Some on the Right are guilty of it too. When asked whether abortion is murder, many engage in a similar exercise to the example I presented earlier about whether a shooting death necessarily constitutes murder: “it depends, what are the circumstances?”

There is no nuance to this question. Either the intentional taking of innocent life is murder or it is not. What difference does it make whether the baby was the result of rape or incest? I’ve stated in this very article that rape sometimes requires taking a life — but the baby is not the guilty party. Either life is sacred or it is not, regardless of how it got there.

Others cite the safety of the mother as context, but this argument is likewise flawed. Pursuing a vital cure for a woman’s ailment that indirectly harms the baby isn’t the intentional taking of innocent life but an unfortunate externality, so it’s not murder. And the case for actively terminating a pregnancy to save a mother is virtually identical to a self-defense argument, but again, there’s a problem: a baby is not an aggressor. It does not violate a woman’s rights, and a woman cannot violate the rights of her baby.

And a baby either has rights or it doesn’t. “Unalienable” means a baby doesn’t magically receive rights the moment it exits the birth canal, nor are a human’s rights any less inherent because he or she is dependent on someone or something else to sustain them. From the moment of existence, all human life has worth.

Life is the only consistent position, and it is so straightforward that it requires no nuance. Life either has intrinsic value or it does not. Context matters in almost every discussion of politics. But on the question of life, what people think is context is just an excuse to kill.


Richie Angel is the Editor at Large of thenewguards.net. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Let’s Just say it: The Left Hates the Culture of Liberty. Part I

Published

on

By

While it hides behind the false label of Liberal, the nation’s Socialist Left continues to expand it’s assault on Liberty Culture.

Those of the Authoritarian Socialist Left seem to always have the same excuse when it comes to private entities denigrating freedom. These are private companies so they are unencumbered by the Constitutional restraints on the government. But this isn’t about those restraints, critically important as they may be. This is about the culture than undergirds those limitations of government and how the Left cannot abide by it, despite having labels that imply otherwise.

Freedom is based upon a culture of Liberty.

We are calling this Liberty Culture because for all intents and purposes, this is the foundational aspect that supports limitations on the government. Basic logic tells us that Liberty must contract as governmental power expands. One cannot have Liberty in the midst of an all-powerful government, history is replete with examples that show that these two concepts are entirely incompatible.

But the Authoritarian Socialist Left would rather that the people forget about this inconvenient truth. They would have everyone live under the delusion that a society can be safe and secure under total government control with full freedom for all. They would prefer that everyone forget that our Liberties are also Limitations on government power. That the removal of these Limitations signifies a dangerous expansion in this power, that proceeds horrific results.

The removal of the Liberty of free-speech means one cannot criticise the government. Denigration of freedom of the press negates the media acting as a watchdog over the government. Most importantly, making self-defense illegal changes the value of one’s life to that of usefulness to the government.

Definitionally speaking, for the nation’s Socialist Left there is nothing more important than governmental power. It gives them ever-expanding control over the people, whether it’s the words they use or if they are dependent on them for protection.

The Left’s creeping authoritarianism is becoming more and more obvious.

One only needs to take a short perusal of the news to come across stark examples of the Left’s creeping authoritarianism. In recent days they were in high dungeon over the style of a teenager’s prom dress, or that some have dared to openly display their assertion of the right of self-preservation.

These aren’t merely issues of the bill of rights, it goes far deeper than that. This goes to a collectivist mindset that one has the right to control what someone can say, do or defend themselves. This is while these people laughably think they are still Liberal.

The fact that people don’t roundly condemn these attempts at control by the Authoritarian Socialist Left should be a ‘Red Flag’ [To coin a term] to everyone that we as a society have let this continue for far too long. There was a time in the not too distant past when the phrase “None of your business” [expletive embellishment optional] was often used for far less intrusive situations. It should be readily apparent that this should be the response to many of these issues raised by the Left.

How the Parkland Kids became the ‘Me Too’ moment in the revelation of the Left’s assault on Liberty Culture.

In a circumstance similar to the #Metoo movement, for years it’s been an open secret that the nation’s Socialist-Left has been working against the cause of Liberty. In the case of the former, there have been several instances where prominent Leftists have been abusive towards women, but no one came forward to call them out until there came a breaking point. In a number of these cases, the deprivations of these supposed “Liberals” were known, but brushed aside for the greater good of Leftist “Progress”. In essence, the Leftists knew that there were those of their number who were reprobates, but kept this hidden because it’s purveyors were valuable to the Left’s collective cause.

In recent years, it has become stunningly clear that those who claim the false moniker of Liberal are in fact working to the detriment of the true meaning of the word. The Left side of the political spectrum tends to normally operate with small, incremental steps in most of it’s endeavours. It is only through the lens of time that the overall picture of the direction being taken becomes clear.

Thus is the case of the Left’s assault on that which it supposedly champions has become manifest. Whether by design or happenstance, the result has been a slow but inexorable strangulation of freedom. The analogy has always been of the frog in a pot of water being slowly heated until it cannot get out.

Enter the Parkland Kids movement with a major sea change in how the nation’s Socialist-Left has gone after the basic human right of self-preservation. The tactics by which these children have approached the problem has really been to the detriment of the Left. They have, in essence, ‘turned up the heat’ on the issue of the Left’s assault on the culture of Liberty to the point where it’s Socialist national agenda has become obvious to anyone willing to take notice.

We should acknowledge that there was a time when the Left actually supported Liberty.

There was a time when the Democratic party actually supported Liberty, championing certain aspects such as the 2nd amendment’s restraints on government:

Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.

Senator Hubert H. Humphrey,
Comm.: Foreign Relations Minnesota
http://www.gunsmagazine.com/1960issues/G0260.pdf

For reference, Senator Hubert H. Humphrey ‘was one of the nation’s most prominent liberal politicians in the mid-20th century’  and went on to become Vice President and run for the top spot 1968 as the Democratic presidential nominee.

By the same token, the Left used to support other Liberties exemplified by a the Free-speech movement at UC Berkeley. The nation’s Left used to champion the cause of Liberty, and perhaps they could rightfully assume the moniker of ‘Liberal’ since that is essentially the root idea of that word as well as many others that sound the same that convey the same concepts.

But something happened in the past few decades, to the chagrin of many who used to count themselves as part of that side of the political spectrum. Recent years have seen many ‘Leaving the Left’ these are what could truly be described as Liberal in the definitional meaning of the word.

The emergence of the Left’s authoritarian tendencies has been accelerated as of late with a new generation indoctrinated in the control of others gaining prominence after the Parkland mass murder. The nation’s Left has always been selective in who should be able to defend themselves: Gun Control’s Racist History but the last decade has seen a marked increase in their zeal to deprive the people of this basic human Liberty. They’ve also changed over from that of defending free-speech to wanting tighter controls over it.

The gradual transition from Liberal to Leftist.

This change from being ‘Liberal’, championing the culture of Liberty to one of being desirous of power over the people has been gradual. But it was accelerated by the Parkland Kinds movement. It’s axiomatic that one does not listen to children for advice simply because they lack any kind of life experience. This is not a slight to them, but merely a statement of fact. They are unaware of why things are a certain way or why things are done in a certain way.

Nevertheless, the opportunity presented by their emergence on the public scene was far too enticing for the Leftists to pass up. Here they had an unassailable group with supposed morally superiority because of their emotional victim status. The problem became one of out of sequence messaging. The marches they conducted were replete with signs calling for Gun Confiscation as well as attendees unaware of the correct talking points that avoid mentioning this subject. So while many still parroted the “We’re not talking about taking everyone’s’ guns” Lie, there were plenty who were actually honest about the Left’s final solution to the gun problem.

Still worse, this movement which was ostensibly of these children branched out to attack the culture of Liberty because it undergirds this fundamental human right. Unaware as they were that they are supposed to champion Liberty with the self-laudatory label of ‘Liberal’, they began going after free-speech as well as the free-market. These actions clearly outed the Left as being authoritarian. We on the Pro-Liberty, Conservatarian-Right had known this to be the case for years now. But with these moves others took notice of the change.

[Part II will address some of the major aspects of the Left’s assault on Liberty Culture]

 

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Liberal Alan Dershowitz: The Hard Left is a Bigger Threat to America

Published

on

By

It’s always amusing to see which traditional liberals have been pushed too far by leftists. Not that this is the first time Alan Dershowitz has strayed. It is, however, the most blunt he’s been about it.

Alan Dershowitz and Dennis Prager in No Safe Spaces:

I’m not worried about a few dozen people with swastikas who want to replace the Jews, because they’re our past. They have no resonance on university campuses today.

But the hard, hard left? Anti-Semitism, anti-Christianity, intolerance for speech. It’s the future. These are our leaders.

In 50 years of teaching at Harvard, Stanford, NYU, Hebrew University, you name it, I have never met a group of less courageous people in my whole life than tenured Harvard and tenured other professors. They are so terrified of their own shadow. They don’t want to do anything that upsets a student.

From Louder with Crowder

[Thursday February 15 2018]

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.