The purpose here is not to rehash some of the great articles from Don McCullen, Irina Tsukerman and Ray Fava presented on here on the state of the Conservative cause, but to point out some the hidden positive aspects of moves to censorship by the nation’s Socialist-Left. While the country is in dire straits to the point of recent events being reminiscent of the events leading up to the civil war in the states, there are some aspects as mentioned that we should consider in a positive light.
1. Censorship by the Socialist-Left indicates we have the better ideas.
‘Leftists wants Conservatives to be quiet and Conservatives want Leftists to keep talking.’
Often times, this is the sentiment expressed by the Conservative-Right on the issue of censorship. In general terms the Conservative-Right is imbued in the precepts of individual rights and limited government, and the Socialist-Left in the precepts of collective rights and unlimited government. This means that Socialist-Left places a priority on controlling all aspects of one’s daily existence, while those on the Conservative-Right eschew this control.
This mindset carries over to the issue of the marketplace of ideas as expressed above. To be blunt about it, we on the Conservative-Right can afford to have a free discussion of ideas because ours are superior, while the Socialist-Left cannot because their ideas suck.
When you can help it, don’t say conservative. As the polls above demonstrate, conservative is no insult. The word and the concept are both quite popular. This is because, while conservative policies are awful, Americans overwhelmingly support stereotyped conservative principles—small government, low taxes, free markets, strong defense, traditional families. It is very clever framing. Who favors a bigger government than we need? Who wants to pay more taxes? Who can oppose freedom, an effective military, or families?
So when one has inferior ideas as is the Socialist-Left, there are only two choices: Change those ideas or suppress the other side. They certainly can’t change their horrid ideas to that of freedom and liberty – that would make them Conservative and truly liberal [We’ll talk about that next..] So their only choice is to censor our ideas in competition with theirs since ours will always come out on top.
2. Censorship by the Socialist-Left means they cannot possibly lay claim to being Liberal or ‘Progressive’.
Consider one aspect of the how the Oxford English dictionary defines the word Liberal:
1Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas:
1.1Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms
1.2(In a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform
That hardly sound like folks that are running around suppressing speech now does it? Keep in mind that deception is a key aspect of the Left’s Socialist national agenda, and this begins with how the label themselves. The Socialist-Left’s obsession with shutting down debate is clearly averse to that label. As is their other deceptive label ‘Progressive’ given their ancient ideas and adherence to aspects of the past such as the present topic of censorship.
Mind you, many a Conservatives blithely interchanges the words Leftist and Liberal without a contrary thought. This means we on the Conservative-Right need to enforce some discipline in our discourse to win, but that is an issue for another day.
3. Censorship by the Socialist-Left also indicates they are the true fascists.
Yes, when the Socialist-Left plays their little label games, this is one of their favourite exploits. It’s either out of ignorance that they show the same characteristics that they project on others or a deliberate deception on their part. The fact is fascism is a phenomena of the Left, but true to form they incessantly muddy the waters with such schemes. Actions speak louder than words, and nothing speaks at a higher volume than having the same tactics and characteristics of those whose main priority was to suppress competing thoughts and agendas.
4. Their censorship proclivities is a good (rhetorical) weapon to use against them.
There are certain disciplines of the martial arts that teach that it’s always a good idea to use an opponent’s advantage against them. Leftists excel in the hurling of childish insults on social media, it is one of the primary reasons it is considered to be a sewer. This is the heckler’s veto in spades, the purpose of which is to drive the Liberty minded of the Conservative-Right away from such places so the nation’s Socialist-Left ‘wins’ by default. An easy way to take this advantage away from them is to ignore such childish tactics aside from pointing out that it shows their lack of intellectual capabilities. That illustrates this while disabling one of their weapon of choice. It also gives them no place to go since one can hardly climb up from the gutter and try an intellectual argument from then on.
It should go without saying that the nation’s Socialist-Left has an immense advantage in dominating the culture, media and Government indoctrination system (Public schools). Reminding people of this fact have several effects. One, it tears at the heart of the Socialist-Left’s fairness and equality arguments. Ask them if it’s fair that they dominate in these areas and stand back for a flood of self rationalization. They preach ‘diversity’ and ‘fairness’ but only for certain groups and areas of life. The bottom line is that this exposes their rank duplicity on their part, they call for a level playing field, but for them this means an overwhelming advantage on their part.
They can perhaps mount the ‘objective’ journalist argument, but as of late, this is a laughable assertion and one only need to cite a recent example of the extreme bias in the Media. It also demolishes the Socialist-Left’s contention of incessantly being the ‘victim’ – the Cry Bully theorem. They can hardly complain of being disadvantaged when they hold all the cards.
5. And most importantly: Censorship by the Socialist-Left means they are on the losing side.
Nothing says losing more than screaming louder to stop everyone else from speaking. We on the Conservative-Right have no qualms over a fair debate on a level playing field. The comparisons of the various political philosophies will always see our emerge victorious because our ideas are superior. Consider that we have no need to make excuses for the past or present circumstances of the free-market.
Contrast this with the Socialist-Left and the steady decline of their base ideology. They were at the top of their game during the heyday of the Soviet Union, where outbreaks of liberty in Eastern Europe were crushed under the tracks of T-55’s along with many a freedom fighter. It’s all been downhill from there, supposedly there is an ‘inevitability to Socialism’, but that myth died when the Berlin wall came crashing down.
The 500-year-old ideas of collectivism are dying out to the benefit to free-people everywhere, and the weakness of this ideology is becoming clear to everyone. To quote ‘Data’ a character in the Star Trek, the Next Generation: “Do you consider your position so weak that it cannot withstand debate?”
Such is the case with today’s Socialist-Left, trying to hang on for dear life censoring competing ideas that put it to shame. It’s actions are against liberty and Liberalism for that matter put the lie to one the Socialist-Left’s favorite false labels.
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