Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Scrap Socialism, Part III

Published

on

Scrap Socialism Part III

A multi-count indictment of the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Socialist ideologies as justification for their abolition.

In Parts I and Part II of this dissertation, we made the case for the abolition of the modern day slavery of the collectivism. Part I presented the proof that Limited government and the economic liberty of the free-market are far superior to the unlimited authoritarian government and economic slavery of the socialist ideologies. Part II Eviscerated the ‘That wasn’t real socialism’ lie while examining the early history of these ideas and their abject failure down through the centuries.

Part III will attempt to briefly detail the sins of socialism, because one could easily write a whole book about the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the collectivist ideologies and the case for their abolition.

“Liberty is not collective, it is personal. All liberty is individual liberty.” – President Calvin Coolidge

500 year old ideas relabeled as new and being ‘social’.

One could argue that there are really only two basic political ideologies of either the individual or the collective. Leftists are very adapt at word selection, and in this case they prefer to use ‘social’ instead of collective or communist for that matter. So, in the flowery language of the Left and with the suffix ‘ism’ added it is ‘individual’ ism versus ‘social’ ism.

Yes, this is how these decrepitly old ideas are being repackaged and sold to a new generation brought up on ‘social’ media and similar phrases. Individualism subtly implies self-interest or being selfish, or ego(t)ism [German: ‘eigennutz’]. Contrast this with the almost subliminally positive terms of being ‘Social’ or ‘Sociable’ or for the ‘common good’ [German: ‘gemeinnutz’]. Years of social indoctrination have convinced a generation that this is a positive attribute. Witness the overuse of the term ‘Social Justice Warrior’ as something allegedly noble and good.

Socialism: Subjugation by Force.

Meanwhile, the dirty little secret of the socialist ideologies is that they require the individual to be subjugated by force to the collective in order to operate. Everyone’s property and liberty are to be sacrificed for the ‘common good’ by the threat or actual use of force. This was detailed by Milton Friedman in the short video ‘Socialism is Force’. The socialist ideologies cannot operate in any other manner, but this is dressed up as “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité” [Liberty, Equality, Fraternity] or similar nonsensical boilerplate.

Consider the positive spin that Mayor Bill de Blasio placed on these ideas in an interview from last September in New York Magazine.

What’s been hardest is the way our legal system is structured to favor private property. I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be. I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs. And I would, too. Unfortunately, what stands in the way of that is hundreds of years of history that have elevated property rights and wealth to the point that that’s the reality that calls the tune on a lot of development.

Note the subtle positivity of the promise of the people collectively enjoying the fruits of someone else’s labour in having all manner of housing and other wonderful manifestations if not for those pesky property rights of the individual.

Further on in the interview he rips off the mask and revels in the wondrous benefits of authoritarianism with a “very, very powerful government”:

That’s a world I’d love to see, and I think what we have, in this city at least, are people who would love to have the New Deal back, on one level. They’d love to have a very, very powerful government, including a federal government, involved in directly addressing their day-to-day reality.

The implication is that everyone would love to have a centralised “Nanny state” that provides all kinds of freebies for the low-low price of their liberty and the property of a few individuals. All it takes is enough government force to run people’s lives, or as he put it: “directly addressing their day-to-day reality.”

The problem is that these Utopian fantasies is that there promises can never come to fruition. They are fundamentally contrary to economic logic and human nature. Worse still, the sins of socialism are a direct outgrowth of this subjugation of the individual to the collective.

The justification for the elimination of the Socialist ideologies.

The stirring words of Thomas Jefferson from the Declaration of Independence seemed to be the most appropriate in addressing the justification in the elimination of the socialist ideologies from the slate of viable governmental forms and the rightful conclusion to the age of experimentation:

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security”

Notwithstanding their flowery Utopian words and promises, the socialist ideologies for all intents and purposes begin as a colossal fraud against humanity and end with incomprehensible oppression and mass murder. Socialists must know that their pompous sales pitch of free health care, housing, college education and anything else they can think of can never be fulfilled. But this never stops them from trying to con a new generation to the siren song of free stuff. Not to mention the old saw of the state ‘withering away’ never happening in their base ideology’s checkered and dreadful past. If ever there was “a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism” it would have to be the socialist ideologies.

While it might seem strange and somewhat hypocritical for those of a conservatarian mindset to advocate what type of government a people can choose for themselves, at some point humanity should be able to determine which governmental form is superior and which should end up on the scrap heap of history. It is out of humanitarian compassion that we should want to stop some from making the same dreadful mistakes, so often repeated with horrific results.

The axiom of “One Man (or woman), One vote, ONCE” succinctly encapsulates the problem in the choice of collectivist governmental forms. Over the centuries, many a populace has fallen for the siren song of socialism and it’s unrealistic theory of a perfect “worker’s paradise”. Collectivists as a group tend to be long on promises and flimsy excuses instead of actual results.

The fact that force has to be used to implement these ideologies is never really discussed in the glossy brochures or manifestoes. By the time the promises have fallen short a bureaucratic behemoth will already be in place to intimidate, imprison or execute those who have become aware of the fraud being perpetrated. In his book on the Hungarian revolution in 1956 “The Bridge at Andau” , James A. Michener touched on this historic con game. This was also mentioned recently by Anatole Konstantin in an “Ask Me Anything” session on reddit as to why the Soviet union eventually collapsed. He stated:

”I think it was the spiritual crisis caused by discrepancy between the rosy propaganda and totalitarian reality that made the Soviet people lose faith in the system. I think there is a lesson in this for us.”

This is why these ideologies have to be banished as a form of government. There are many of forms of deception that are rightfully considered to be crimes. The socialist ideologies have a history of unmatched crimes against humanity, shouldn’t that alone be the apt justification for their abolishment?
The Sins of Socialism.

The final nail in the coffin for socialist ideologies should be their incessant crimes against humanity. These range from societal oppression, torture and imprisonment to mass murder on an industrial scale. This is on top of the fact that the age of governmental experimentation have demonstrated the overwhelming superiority of a constitutionally limited representative republic model. Not to mention the plain fact that the socialist ideologies simply do not work in the real world.

One of the Left’s most common excuses in defense of socialism is that ‘It wasn’t done correctly’ or some variation thereof. The problem with these tiresome and overly repetitive excuses is that the collectivist ideologies are all based on the same basic principles, as they yield the same horrific outcome every time they are tried. After centuries of the same failure and the same oppression ridden results, it is safe to say that these experiments will always end up the same,  no matter how the Left tries to play with the meaning of words, 75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America over and under defining their base ideology.

The final case for the abolition of the socialist ideologies will begin with it’s mildest forms of oppression and ending up with it’s most brutal. This also just happens to coincide with the usual timeline of how these con games are usually perpetrated.

Deception.

For the most part, deception is part and parcel to the socialist ideologies. This goes back to their basic principles of subjugation of the individual by force. The brutal reality of these ideologies is hardly amenable to acceptance by people, so as a matter of course socialist ideologues have elevated lying and deceit to an art form. Their deceptions begin with all manner of labeling lies – their being “Liberal” or “Progressive” to playing games with the names of their legislative program (e.g. “Affordable Care Act”) to the very colours used to describe their side of the political spectrum.

Denigration of Liberty.

Many have taken notice of a distinct feature of the Socialist-Left, that of wanting to have tight control over people. This was exemplified in the previous previously referenced piece on Mayor Bill de Blasio. In the past, it has kept a lid on it’s totalitarian tendencies, but as of late, they have really come out of the authoritarian closet.   Time was they just had their gun control hobby horse, but this has expanded to wanting to clamp down on free-speech by the expedient of “Hate Speech”  to wanting to have any form of religion [with one notable exception] banished from the public sphere.

People (Gun) Control.

As mentioned, this has always been an obsession with those of the socialist ideologies, since one cannot subjugate a population without a monopoly on the use of force. Socialists , Communists, Maoists and Fascists of the storied past of the Left have all taken the step of disarming the people, before it becomes necessary to oppress them. It never works out too well to have Chekists or Gestapo break down someone’s door at 3:00 AM and be on the receiving end of a blast of friendly gunfire. Better to have people acquiesce to registering and then having their guns confiscated before the real oppression can commence in earnest.

Censorship and tight state control of the media.

Those of the control obsessed socialist ideologies also need to keep a tight lid of information and free-speech. One cannot pull a con game on an entire population if people can start to question the veracity of all the lofty promises of free stuff. Cults often use the same indoctrination tactics, bombarding people day and night with the same simplistic and false messaging, keeping them in an echo chamber where contravening facts can’t get in the way. An essential part of this propagandization involves the denigration of alternate information sources to keep the victim suspicious of anything that contradicts what they are being repetitively taught.

Tight Societal Control.

The erasure of privacy and personal lives in favour of collectivist mentality is part and parcel of the indoctrination process. One is no longer supposed to focus on themselves, but on the ‘greater good’ of the collective. A tight surveillance state is also essential in these matters with the carrot of convenience hiding the stick of government control as in the case of Communist China as detailed in the Washington Post.

Secret Police Apparatus.

In the book “The Bridge at Andau” , James A. Michener had an extensive discussion on the AVO – the Hungarian version of the typical secret state security apparatus. These are all too commonplace amongst the collectivist regimes. While the Cheka, Stasi and Gestapo were infamous in their brutality, the history of the socialist ideologies are replete with these organisations with many still continuing the ‘traditions’ of torture and imprisonment: Asphyxia and Drills: How Political Prisoners in Venezuela Get Tortured, Venezuelan Regime Steps up Torture against Protesters, Forces Them to Eat Excrement.

It also follows that subjugation by force require a vast system of facilities to imprison, torture and murder those that disagree with it’s “Democratic” process. In the ‘Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik’ this immense network was termed by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as The Gulag Archipelago, the ‘Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei’ regime had it’s system of concentration camps and ‘Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela’ has it’s ‘La Tumba’,  amongst other prisons to give just a few examples.

Mass Murder on an Industrial Scale.

This of course was the end of the line in the range of barbaric realities of the socialism. What begins with brainwashing and absence of liberty finishes up with unmerciful torture and death. Even this portion of the collectivist oppression realm has it’s horrific ‘innovations’ unmatched in modern times. Socialists know from their cold, calculating thoughts that there will be those who refuse to be “Re-educated” and become model comrades of a glorious collectivist society. They know that some will have to be sacrificed for the ‘common good’, but they are perfectly willing to “Break a few eggs to make an omelet”. No one has an exact read on the death toll of the Socialist ideologies, but there have been attempts to make these estimates in: The Black Book of Communism

The Final Word.

This long list of crimes against humanity perpetrated by the socialist ideologies is a multi-count indictment against their continuation as viable government forms. The original inspiration for it were the absurd calls by the Left for the elimination of economic liberty. It should be clear that the case for the opposite has been made. The socialist ideologies do not work and they are woefully inferior to Limited government representative republics that protect property and the rights of the individual. Lastly, the incomprehensible crimes against humanity perpetrated by the socialist ideologies should seal their fate as to what should be done with them. Those vile, immoral, parasitic and downright evil ideologies should never have been tried in the first place and never tried again.

Differential equations teaches us that one can use the initial conditions of the present to extrapolate events in the near term balanced with the knowledge of the past. The interaction of technological advances and the march of history is fascinating. History can inform those willing to listen as to what will happen in the future because the laws of human natural are as immutable as the elegant equations of Newtonian physics.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. Pingback: Scrap Socialism, Part III

  2. Pingback: Scrap Socialism, Part III – #Logic Wins

Leave a Reply

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

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.