Connect with us

Culture and Religion

The Top 5 Reasons Socialism Isn’t Cool

Published

on

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.

The Takeaway

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’.

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
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Culture and Religion

Video: What is a Classical Liberal?

Published

on

By

A short video making the point that the Left is no longer Liberal, having traded individualism for collectivism.

In one of their first animated video shorts, the Rubin Report discusses the vitally important topic of just who is a Classical Liberal.

OUR FIRST ANIMATED VIDEO! What is a Classical Liberal?

Liberalism has been confused with Leftism or progressivism, which is actually has nothing to do with classical Liberalism. Sadly the Left is no longer Liberal at all for it has traded individualism for collectivism.

The Rubin Report
Published on Jul 10, 2018

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

$.02: When is it OK to quit church?

Published

on

Chris Sonsken of South Hills Church and founder Church BOOM penned a piece on Fox News that caught my attention on Twitter. It was a good column. Read the article here. The article addressed a Pew Research finding as to why people change churches. There finding as shown by Sonsken are:

  • Sermon quality
  • Welcoming environment/people
  • Style of worship
  • Location

Sonsken does a great job in arguing that there are biblically sound reasons for leaving a church and finding a new one.

1. It’s OK to leave if God calls us to leave.

2. It’s OK to leave for family and marriage.

3. It’s OK to leave a church if you have moved too far away to conveniently drive to your church.

4.  It’s OK to leave if you cannot follow the church’s leadership.

5.  It’s OK to leave if heresy is being preached.

Sonsken even mentions that unethical practices like abuse are reasons to leave, though not the norm for the majority of church swapping.

The reasons Sonsken gave are no cause for disagreement, and I’m sure his book Quit Church probably better articulates them.

Where I want to add my two sense on the matter is that I disagree with his assessment sermon quality is not a biblical reason for changing churches. The supposition that sermon quality is inherently a result of the person treating church like an object of consumption, as Sonsken suggests is not true. I believe sermon quality is an umbrella term for several reasons for not liking a Sunday message.

Too often people leave a church because of disagreement, not getting their way, or because the sermons are no longer deep enough. Often when we dig into the reason the sermons are not deep enough, it ultimately goes back to the person being offended or not having their faulty theologies endorsed from the pulpit. The same pastor who was previously deep enough becomes shallow once there is an offense. It’s incredibly difficult to hear from God in a sermon when we are offended by the person delivering the sermon.

This is true in many cases. A sin that is personal gets preached on and the offended party leaves. I don’t deny this to be the case. But I believe we should look deeper into the current trends of worship and focus on the mission of the church.

18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Matthew 28:18-21 ESV

The church is to preach the gospel, but people accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior is only part of the mission. The Church is tasked with making disciples. The church is meant to teach. Not every follower is at the same level in their spiritual maturity or theological depth. Some churches, larger churches in particular dumb down the bible. In public education, this would be seen as lowering the bar. In church this practice could hold back believers in their growth. Small groups are a way to supplement this, and every church should employ bible study as a means to grow discipleship.

Many churches now are focused on metrics. This can lead to theologically watered down sermons and worship. Why risk offending that person who may leave with a sermon? But if a church is more focused on using a Sunday message to give a motivational speech using an out of context passage, what does it matter if they are doctrinally sound (in their written beliefs)?

There are a lot of heretical churches in America. We have issues like gay marriage to separate the sheep from the goats. But what about the sheep that suck? If a church has the right doctrine but is more focused on metrics than the power of the Holy Spirit, their head is in the wrong place. So it is biblically sound to change churches so that your head to remains in the right place.

That is not treating church like a consumer product. That is treating church like one’s means to grow spiritually, better recognizing the mission of the Great Commission.

That is my $.02 on the matter. I hope I added some meaningful word to this topic.


This post was originally publishd on Startup Christ. Startup Christ is a website for business and theology articles and columns.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Video: So, You Think You’re Tolerant?

Published

on

By

Leftists like to fancy themselves as being tolerant and Liberal, but they fall way short in both qualities.

Leftists will tell you that they are the most tolerant people who have ever lived, they will also scream at you for being a racist, xenophobic troglodyte if you happen to mention that you’re a conservative. They are supposedly ‘Liberal’, being in favour of Liberty while demanding it’s polar opposite – socialism.

Yes, if there is one constant in the universe, its that Leftists cannot be honest about who they truly are. This is what we love about our wonderful opponents on the nation’s socialist Left, for they are nothing like another group that went by the same nomenclature who also screamed at people in the streets with the motto: Common Good Before Individual Good. [Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz]

But let’s not talk about the epithets they project on their enemies, let’s talk about how they get along with everyone who just happens to agree with everything they say. A new PragerU video featuring Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report looked at who is really tolerant. He is a true Liberal that discovered that it is actually the Pro-Liberty Right that is more tolerant, go figure.

Dave Rubin
Jul 9, 2018
Are you tolerant? You probably think so. But who is tolerant in America today? Is it those on the left, or those on the right? In this video, Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report analyzes this question and shares his experience.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.