Back on Martin Luther King day the ever so ‘Objective’ CNN put out a piece of propaganda that is sadly typical of the Socialist-left these days containing the spurious assertion that MLK “was a socialist before it was cool” http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/12/us/mlk-relevance-today/index.html?
The first part of that assertion is quite dubious considering these quotations from his writings:
“In communism the individual ends up in subjection to the state.” Martin Luther King, Jr.
“This deprecation of individual freedom was objectionable to me. I am convinced now, as I was then, that man is an end because he is a child of God. Man is not made for the state; the state is made for man. To deprive man of freedom is to relegate him to the status of a thing, rather than elevate him to the status of a person. Man must never be treated as a means to the end of the state, but always as an end within himself.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
However, we shall address the second part of that assertion, similarly to the “5 Reasons Why Che’s Not Cool” posted on the Dissident.
First of all, we see the typical self serving arrogance of the national Socialist Left in presuming that their base ideology is somehow ‘cool’. Being that it was established on ancient ideas and the ‘first socialist position’ of the book Utopia published in 1516, these tired old collectivist ideas could hardly be considered ‘cool’ by any stretch of the imagination. Except perhaps by those attempting to sell it to a new generation who neglect to mention its back story of oppression and mass murder.
1. The collectivist ideology’s are generally fostered by a system of lies and falsehoods.
Socialists tend to unfairly equate it’s lofty (and never realised) theoretical ideals with the practical reality of the free-market. However, that deception only scratches the surface in how they try to sell their base ideology. The free-market system of economic liberty is founded upon voluntary interactions, while the collectivist ideologies are set on strict control of the economy and the compulsory property redistribution. This collectivist reality hides behind flowery language of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ and has to be concealed whenever possible along with the darker aspects of Leftist ideology.
2. 500 year old ideas are hardly considered to be ‘cool’
As previously mentioned, the collectivist ideology’s are based upon ideas that harken back over 500 years. While the Socialist-Left loves to perpetrate the falsehood that it’s ideas are fresh and new and therefore ‘cool’, this is hardly the case. While many historians postulate that these ideas can be sourced in ancient times, they were most certainly expressed over 500 years ago in the book ‘Utopia’ [a word coined for the title of the book that literally means ‘no place’] This was a time centuries before the modern era when slavery was still in acceptance, would CNN also consider that to be ‘cool’ as well?
3. Collectivist ideologies are immoral.
Ben Shapiro has made this point many times over in his trenchant evisceration’s of these ideologies. In essence, the socialist’s ‘moral’ position is that ‘I exist, therefore you owe me a living’. In the addled mindset of the collectivist this type of ‘logic’ falls right in line with their absurd notions of ‘fairness’ and ‘equality’. The fact is that living beings since the dawn of time have had to provide for themselves. Every living thing from bacteria to brontosaurs have had to ‘work’ to survive and yet the collectivists want to turn this basic fact of life on it’s head and absurdly blame it on the free-market.
They try to use this to justify the morally bankrupt practice of stealing from those who provide for themselves and buy votes from those who do not. As is typical of the moral inversions of the Socialist-Left, wealth redistribution is considered to be acceptable while keeping one’s hard earned property is somehow ‘theft’. Witness the hyperbolic statements used by the Socialist-Left to describe tax-cuts
4. The parasitic nature of the Collectivist ideologies eviscerates any pretence of their being ‘state of the art’ or new.
Socialism is far from being ‘cool’ in that it parasitically takes from the free-market. Those parts of popular culture that are ‘cool’ are taken to be cutting edge, state of the art and new. Being over 500 years old destroys part of this contention. Socialism’s inherently parasitic nature is also at odds with those qualities in that it has to use that which was produced by the free-market. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.
Most, if not all technologies developed by these collectivist systems are copies of that which was created under the auspices of the economic liberty of the free-market. During the ‘Great Patriotic war’ [WWII] The ‘Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik’ couldn’t manage to build a decent 4 engine bomber, so they copied the genius of many a Boeing engineer in the B-29 Superfortress down to minuscule repairs.
5. Mass murder and oppression on an Industrial scale.
It should go without saying that the force that has to be utilised in the implementation of the collectivist ideologies could hardly be consider to be ‘cool’. Have these approbation’s ever been applied to the ‘final solution’ or the Gulag Archipelago?
Collectivist ideologies are based upon a theoretical world of perfect beings. The ‘first socialist position’ had a Utopia where everyone worked as they were supposed to do while they only took that which they needed from the storehouses. The real world doesn’t work that way, but the Socialist-Left has the misguided idea that their theoretical model of a perfect collectivist society is possible – and just around the next corner. The problem with an ideology based on perfect human behaviour is that one has to quickly penalise those who don’t get with the program to the point of getting rid of them permanently, to the tune of over 100 Million dead. But that doesn’t quite fit into the glossy brochures handed out to potential supporters, and once again we harken back to reason number one and the ‘that wasn’t real socialism’ excuse.
It’s not surprising that those of the nation’s Socialist-Left tend to self-servingly label their base ideology as ‘cool’ since it’s reality is much darker. It can only survive by deception and distraction from it’s true nature, that should be the first criteria for it’s rejection. If one has to incessantly lie about the true nature of their ideology, they are doing it wrong – this includes the tiresome ‘that wasn’t really collectivism excuse’ so often heard. Any ideology that is based on mass murder on an industrial scale should be roundly rejected as a viable governmental model, no matter how many times it’s proponents label it as ‘cool’.
In UK, Ancient Heathenism Reigns Supreme
Several minutes had passed since the medical examination of the newborn had begun. They stood inspective over the infant, occasionally murmuring to one another in a hushed tone. The babe’s father stood nearby, pacing: his eyes intractably fixed on the small group of elders in a desperate attempt to interpret each subtle lift of an eyebrow or pinch of the lips.
Then came that dreaded nod…
The tormented father wept as the judge read the decision aloud: “as thinking it neither good for the child itself…” the child must die.
The above description is not a reference to the United Kingdom’s government-ordered killing of little Alfie Evans, nor the United Kingdom’s government-ordered killing of little Charlie Gard.
The infant’s death-order, described above, was merely the price of societal perfection for his father, living in the Statist abyss of Ancient Sparta.
In Lives: Lycurgus 16, Greek historian Plutarch (48-122 A.D.) wrote of the medical inspections of infants by “elders,” and of the state-ordered murder of infants in Ancient Sparta under the rule Lycurgus, a tyrannical central-planner:
“Nor was it in the power of the father to dispose of the child as he saw fit (as was his right in most heathen societies). He was obliged to carry (the newborn) child before certain men at a place called Lesche; these men were some of the elders of the tribe to which the child belonged; their business was to carefully view the infant, and, if they found it stout and well made, they gave order for its rearing and allotted to it one of the nine thousand shares of land above mentioned for its maintenance, but, if they found it puny and ill-shaped, ordered it to be taken to what was called the Apothetae (“depository”), a (large cave) under Mt. Taygetus (in the Peloponnese); as thinking it neither for the good of the child itself, nor for the public interest, that it should be brought up, if it did not, from the very outset, appear to be healthy and vigorous.” (emphasis mine)
Undesirable Infants – those either deemed unfit in some way, were conceived through rape, were unwanted, or were female – were often exposed, meaning that these infants were tossed into pits or over cliffs, or were abandoned in the wilderness and then left to starve or to be eaten by wild animals.
Such was life in the pagan purgatories of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome.
Such has life begun to be again, today, in the United Kingdom.
As I type, a toddler lies in the hospital, a prisoner, detained by the pagan pride of evil monsters, by his own Statist government.
The “elders” in the UK have sentenced little Alfie Evans to die, “as thinking it neither for the good of the child itself.” Alfie may not be alone in the wilderness, but he is being exposed by the sword of starvation.
Right now, a tormented father weeps for his child.
The cruel winds of an evil-ridden history are circling ’round again.
Once Christianity came upon the scene, Christians began to regularly rescue exposed infants.
As Tertullian stated, “Christians sought out the tiny bodies of newborn babies from the refuse and dung heaps and raised them as their own or tended to them before they died or gave them a decent burial” (Early Church History).
“The Christian idea that each individual person has worth because they were created by God was foreign to the lies of pagan society where the State, the tribe, the collective was the only value they knew” (Early Church History).
One can even visit these once abandoned babes at the Catacomb of Praetextatus. “The catacombs are filled with very tiny graves with the epitaph ‘adopted daughter of…’ or ‘adopted son of…’ inscribed on them. These inscriptions refer to the many babies and young children Christians rescued from the trash over the centuries” (Early Church History).
Unlike during the times of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece, however, today’s United Kingdom prevents Christians from aiding Britain’s exposed children.
Christians from across the globe have offered aid and open arms to little Alfie Evans. Pope Francis has faithfully attempted to save the ailing child, arranging medical transportation for Alfie so that he might fly via air ambulance to the Vatican’s hospital.
Still, the prideful “elders” cling mercilessly to their pagan heathenism, determined to deny any and all Christian charity for little Alfie.
Alas! One thing is now crystal clear: in the United Kingdom, ancient heathenism reigns supreme.
For a glimpse of the future, listen to these famous voices from the past:
In On the Laws 3.8, Cicero (106-43 BC) states:
“Deformed infants shall be killed.”
Posidippus, a Greek poet, wrote:
“Everybody raises a son even if he is poor, but exposes a daughter even if he is rich.”
In On Anger 1.15, Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) wrote:
“…mad dogs we knock on the head…unnatural progeny we destroy; we drown even children at birth who are weakly and abnormal.”
In Politics 7.1335b, Aristotle (364 BC-322 BC) wrote:
“As to exposing or rearing the children born, let there be a law that no deformed child shall be reared; but on the ground of number of children, if the regular customs hinder any of those born being exposed, there must be a limit fixed to the procreation of offspring, and if any people have a child as a result of intercourse in contravention of these regulations, abortion must be practiced on it (the child).”
In Theaetetus, the Greek philosopher Plato (quoting Socrates) wrote of the important societal task of killing infirm infants:
“For we must take care that we don’t overlook some defect in this thing that is entering into life; it may be something not worth bringing up, a wind-egg, a falsehood. What do you say? Is it your opinion that your child ought in any case to be brought up and not exposed to die? Can you bear to see it found fault with and not get into a rage if your first-born is stolen away from you?”
In Ad Nationes, Tertullian (155-220 A.D.) recorded the frequency of pagan infanticide in the Roman Empire during the late 100’s and early 200’s A.D.:
“…because, although you are forbidden by the laws to slay new-born infants, it so happens that no laws are evaded with more impunity or greater safety, with the deliberate knowledge of the public, and the suffrages of this entire age…But then you make away with them in a more cruel manner, because you expose them to the cold and hunger, and to wild beasts, or else you get rid of them by the slower death of drowning.”
In Book 3 of Instructor, Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.) wrote of Roman women caring more for animals than for children:
“And though maintaining parrots and curlews, they do not receive the orphan child; but they expose children that are born at home, and take up the young of birds, and prefer irrational to rational creatures.”
New California law voids religious freedom to advance LGBT agenda
In the war on American culture waged by the Marxist Rainbow Jihad and LGBT terrorists, there has been perhaps no greater battlefield than the state of California. And as the front where many of the battles are fought, it is also where we find the greatest number of casualties, usually children.
Government authorities working as a type of Gay Mafia have turned public schools into LGBT indoctrination centers where acceptance of deviant lifestyles is mandated by the state in the name of so-called tolerance. In these indoctrination centers, parents are denied the right to teach their kids the values they believe in, and children as young as five-years-old are disciplined as “bullies” for “misgendering” their gender-confused classmates.
Not content with brainwashing young minds, however, LGBT radicals in the CA legislature want to make it a crime for parents, pastors, and professional councilors to engage in “sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.”
“Any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behavior or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”
The bill furthers the LGBT agenda in one more way; it codifies LGBT lifestyles as normal and scientific:
“Contemporary science recognizes that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender is part of the natural spectrum of human identity and is not a disease, disorder, or illness.”
With this language added to the bill, freedom of speech and freedom of religion concerning LGBT issues will be essentially eliminated . . . by law!
I once wrote an article about how the LGBT culture war was one more reason for parents to take their kids out of public schools, but now that won’t be enough. This war has grown into a full-fledged assault on religion and traditional moral values.
We can no longer accept the “live and let live” ideology of the left under the mistaken belief that equality is their only goal. It’s time to fight for the souls of our children and the future of America while we still can.
Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.
David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.
PragerU Video: What’s a Greater Leap of Faith: God or the Multiverse?
Image Credit: PictureQuotes.me
What’s a greater leap of faith: God or the Multiverse? What’s the multiverse? Brian Keating, Professor of Physics at the University of California, San Diego, explains in this video.
Published: Apr 23, 2018