Connect with us

Culture and Religion

In UK, Ancient Heathenism Reigns Supreme

Published

on

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.”

 

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.

Culture and Religion

Love is not exclusive: An open letter to Matt Walsh

Published

on

Dear Mr. Walsh,

I am a longtime follower of yours, but over the last few months it seems you are spending a lot of time calling out leaders of various faiths for not being Christian enough. Why would you want to alienate others who are also trying to do God’s work of spreading love the way they have interpreted it? The Bible leaves lots of room for interpretation. Was that unintentional? Perhaps there was a purpose for the parables instead of absolute answers.

No two people are going to believe the exact same thing nor hold the exact same approach of what is best to reach people to live an inspired life, even if those two people are reading from the exact same Bible. The important thing is getting others into the boat of doing good, loving all unconditionally, and bringing people together. What good does it do to divide us this way? Most of the time I applaud what you stand for, but I think this is wrong.

There are many different types of Christians with many different messages. But why focus on the differences? Jesus would surely want us to focus on the similarities… to love each other as brothers and sisters as we are, not push those who are slightly different outside of some line you have decided absolutely cannot be crossed.

I admit I know very little about all the different types of Christians that exist and the idiosyncrasies you insist on calling out. But I don’t need to because that’s not important. That line of thinking misses the greater message – that love is more important than our individual sects. We are all in this together. Christians from all walks are spreading their way of understanding the best they know how. They aren’t spreading evil. Anything outside the limits of your defined box doesn’t necessarily make it evil. As long as you are acting as a conduit of unconditional love, you have nothing to fear, ever.

The greatest of these is love. Not faith. That means your faith should never be more important than love

You have lost the purpose of following Christ in the first place. There are moments as a father when my daughter will give an extra piece of candy to her little sister just because she knows it will make her smile. But there are also moments when my daughter knows I’m watching and gives that candy to her sister only because she wants to be recognized as kind. See the difference?

Being a good Christian isn’t the end goal. Being Christian is supposed to be a means to a life of good, love, and worth. Don’t do good just because it keeps you within the Christian box and therefore gets you to Heaven. That is a selfish motivation. Do good for a better reason: Because you have love in your heart. Do good because you love unconditionally, and you truly want to help others be happy. It is the only thing that matters in our time here, and it’s how we grow in spirit. By learning in every action how we can perform that action in a loving way, we challenge ourselves spiritually in every choice we make.

When you are on your deathbed you won’t be thinking of how much money you made or how many people you excluded for being inadequately holy. You will be thinking of the way you treated others, and the litmus test for that judgment is unconditional love. If you are acting in accordance with love for your neighbor, you will be proud of your actions as you lay there reflecting on your life. But if instead you are acting out of fear, those will be the actions that haunt you in your last days.

Love

Love is the means and it is also the ends. It is the lesson and the reward. It is the guide and the destination. We are meant to spread that love where ever and whenever we can, without restrictions. Only then are we truly walking in the light of God.

First Corinthians 13:13 is certainly very cliché, especially at weddings, but it holds an insight that many of us often overlook.

“And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”

The greatest of these is love. Not faith. That means your faith should never be more important than love… Unconditional love, not just love for your family and friends. Love for all. And not with conditions like, only if he is a Christian, or only if she acts the way I think she should. Unconditionally means as they are. Love him because he is. For if we only love those who love us back, what kind of love is that?

Dan Alexander

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Today’s Red Pill: There never was a “Palestine”

Published

on

Woooo-dawgie! Ever since the commemoration of the move of the United States’ embassy to Jerusalem, which coincided with Israel’s 70th anniversary as an independent state, and the corresponding Palestinian violence on the ground, there has been a fierce, vitriolic uproar of competing narratives.

Observing the spectacle, I’ve reached an unpleasant conclusion: there is an inexcusably large number of people operating under false information, an indefensibly great number of people inflicted by historical illiteracy.

The most obvious manifestation of the historical ignorance of our body politic is the belief that Palestine was once a sovereign country, the land having been wrongfully stolen by the evil Israeli stormtroopers…. or something.

Is there any truth to this?

Well, if you answered this question with, “Yes,” you need to grab a glass of water and prepare to swallow today’s Red Pill.


First, it is important to know that there has never – not ever – been any autonomous country of Palestine.

Second, it is important to know that, since the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WWI, the Arab Palestinians have obstinately, doggedly, repeatedly refused a multitude of generous offers of compromise, including the establishment of their own independent, Arabic country.

As Allen H. Luxenberg of George Washington University explains the above two points [1]:

Historic Palestine as we know it today is derived from a map drawn up by the British at the end of World War I—in particular by British Christians whose understanding of the geography of Palestine was largely based on the Bible, which, as we all know, is derived from the Jews. 

So, it is the height of irony when we hear the militant Islamists of Hamas insisting that any compromise about the land that constitutes “historic Palestine” is impossible, for, as they argue, the entire land is a waqf, or Islamic trust, bestowed by God.  Think about it: a border drawn by British Christians based on their reading of the Jewish Bible is now interpreted by Muslim fundamentalists as God-given and unchangeable!

…In fact, historically, there was never an independent country named Palestine.  There was for a time a Roman province named Palestine, when the Romans bestowed that name in the second century A.D. on an area that was previously called Judea, and which had been sovereign for a time.  Having defeated the Jews in what the ancient historian Josephus labeled “the Jewish Wars,” the Romans then expelled the Jews from Jerusalem and renamed the province after the Jews’ historic archenemy, the Philistines.

I’ve compiled a timeline of events, complete with maps, to elucidate the pertinent history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (1880-1946). (For the sake of brevity, a follow-up piece will cover the 1947 United Nations passage of the Two-State Solution and the Establishment of Israel.)


SEGMENT 1: OTTOMAN RULE

THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE
16th Century The Middle East, part of North Africa, and parts of Europe belong to the Turkish Ottoman Empire.
1880 Jewish population one again becomes the majority in Jerusalem.
1891 By 1891, the number of Jewish immigrants into the area known as Palestine (referred to by the local Arab population as Lower Syria) equaled the number of Jews moving out of the area.
1891 Disturbed by the rising number of Jewish citizens, local Arab notables called upon their Ottoman administrators, demanding Jewish immigration to the area be banned and that the sale of land to Jews be prohibited. “In response, the Turks briefly suspended Jewish immigration, a ban lifted only when Jews agreed to pay a per capita bribe.” [2]
29 Oct. 1914 The “Ottoman Surprise Attack” – The Ottoman Empire enters WWI with an attack on Russia’s Black Sea coast. This attack and the series of events that followed would ultimate lead to the defeat and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
1 Nov. 1914 Russia declares war on the Ottomans.
5 Nov. 1914 Britain and France, Russia’s allies, declare war on the Ottomans. Swaths of Ottoman land were quickly captured. [3]
(See the map below.)
1917 British capture Jerusalem, ending Ottoman rule. [4]

SEGMENT 2: BRITISH MANDATE

BRITISH-CONTROLLED MANDATE OF PALESTINE

1917

The Balfour Declaration: The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Arthur Balfour, issued instructions for what was to be done with the former Ottoman Empire territory known as Palestine, now controlled by Great Britain.
(See the map below.)
1919 Versailles Peace Conference decides that the Ottoman Empire’s land which had been conquered during the war would not be returned to Ottoman rule.

 

1919 The League of Nations was established as to prevent further war.

1921

Arab Executive Committee demands the British halt all Jewish immigration to the territory which the British now label “Palestine.” The committee also demands the British rescind the Balfour Declaration and, then, appoint a national Palestinian legislative parliament controlled by the Arab population. [5] Arabs riot in Jaffa and other cities.
1921 The British temporarily halted Jewish immigration in response to the Arab Executive Committee’s demands. I addition, the British convened the 1921 Haycraft Commission of Inquiry to examine Arab violence which had broken out across the area. The Haycraft Commission rules that the Arabs had been responsible for the intense outbreak of Arab-on-Jew violence.

1921

In the fall of 1921, Winston Churchill invited Arab and Jewish Palestinians to come together in hope that a peaceful coexistence would be negotiated between the parties. For months upon months, the Arab Palestinians doggedly refused to join any discussion involving Jews. [6]

Feb. 1922

Winston Churchill offered to establish a legislative body as the Arab Palestinians had requested. However, the Arabs refused, because the legislative body included provisions for Jewish representations. [7]

July 1922

The League of Nations officially entrusts Britain with as the administrator of the Palestinian Mandate. [8] Britain was called upon to facilitate the creation of a Jewish National Homeland as was ordered by the Balfour Declaration. [9]
(See the map below.)

Sept. 1922

The very first plan for the partition of Palestine is proposed, often referred to as The Churchill White Paper: Great Britain, along with the League of Nations, attempts to strike a compromise in Palestine by dividing the single state into two territories: one Jewish Palestinian Home Land and one Arab Palestinian Home Land. [10]
In an effort to forge a compromise, the British chose to divide the “Palestine” Mandate into two halves (east and west) along the line of the Jordan River.

The terms of the partition were as follows:

The Jewish Palestinians agreed to the terms of the Churchill White Paper. The Arab Palestinians, however, vehemently rejected it

The terms of the partition were as follows:

“Jews were prohibited from settling in 77 percent of Mandate Palestine—all the territory east of the Jordan River . They were allowed to settle anywhere in western Palestine (including today’s Israel proper, the West Bank and Gaza .) Thus, Eastern Palestine, renamed Transjordan , was removed from the area that was set aside for the Jewish National Home in the historic Balfour Declaration and handed over to the Emir Abdullah. This split was viewed as the “definitive Palestinian Settlement,” with Transjordan as ‘the Arab National Home,’ parallel to the Jewish National Home on the West Bank of the Jordan River all the way to the Mediterranean Sea (from the river to the sea).” [11]

(See the map below.)

1923

The British administration suspends the Palestinian constitution due to the Arab Palestinians’ refusal to cooperate.

 

1930

British authorities organize and invite Arab and Jewish Palestinians to a “roundtable discussion,” hoping to reach and agreement regarding Palestinian-Mandate constitutional issues. The Arabs boycotted the efforts and the plans were shelved. [12]
 Jan. 1935 A fatwa (religious declaration) is issued by 500 Muslim religious notables prohibiting Muslims from selling land to Jews. Muslims caught selling land to Jews could face death.

1936

The Arab Higher Committee (AHC) is created after six Arab political factions joined forces.
The AHC’s first resolution called for a general strike until 3 demands were met [14]:
1) All Jewish immigration into Palestine must be banned.
2) Land sale and land transfers to Jews must be banned.
3) An Arab national government must be established with no representation – none – for Jews.  This would ensure Jewish disenfranchisement.

 

1936-1939 The Peel Commission is formed to investigate the Arab riots. The Commission was also tasked with making recommendations for a peaceful coexistence of Arab and Jewish Palestinians in Western Palestine.

1937

The Mufti presents Arabs’ demands to the Peel Commission. The demands were as follows [15]:
1) the abandonment of all plans for a Jewish Home;
2) a cessation of and prohibition on all Jewish immigration to the entire territory, as well as a ban on all land purchases to Jews;
3) and the immediate end to the British Mandate, to be replaced by a pro-British, Arab regime.
4)*There was a fourth condition desired by the Mufti: a decrease in the number of Jews already living in the Palestine Mandate.
After a Peel Commission member questioned the Mufti about decreasing the number of Jews, the Mufti frankly responded to the commissioners that some Jews would simply have to leave, either “kindly or painfully.” [16]

July 1937

The Peel Commission “issued its recommendations: to abolish the Mandate and partition the country between the two peoples. Only a zone between Jaffa and Jerusalem would remain under the British mandate and international supervision.” [17]
“The Jewish state would include the coastal strip stretching from Mount Carmel to south of Be’er Tuvia, as well as the Jezreel Valley and the Galilee. The Arab state was to include the hill regions, Judea and Samaria, and the Negev. Until the establishment of the two states, the commission recommended, Jews should be prohibited from purchasing land in the area allocated to the Arab state.” [18]
(See the map below.)
The British authorities accepted the recommendations of the Peel Commission, the Zionists, displeased, requested the opportunity to negotiate further, and the Arabs immediately rejected the committee’s report in its entirety. [19]

Sept. 1937

Meeting in Syria, 450 delegates of the Arab National Congress officially reject the Peel Commission’s plan.
The Arab Revolt was resumed. Those targeted with violence included Jews, as well as moderate Arabs who were open to compromise.
Approximately 25% of the Arabs who lost their lives during the 1936 to 1936 revolts were killed by their fellow Palestinian Arabs. [20] The plan was then shelved.

 

17 May 1939

Hoping to gain backing from the Arabs amidst the dawning of WWII, the British issued the 1939 White Paper, in which, “The Peel Commission’s partition plan on the grounds that it was not feasible. The document stated that Palestine would be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab one, but an independent state to be established within ten years. Jewish immigration to Palestine was limited to 75,000 for the first five years, subject to the country’s “economic absorptive capacity”, and would later be contingent on Arab consent. Stringent restrictions were imposed on land acquisition by Jews.” [21]
A scathing report was issued by the Jewish Agency for Palestine regarding the 1930 White Paper, exclaiming, “It is in the darkest hour of Jewish history that the British Government proposes to deprive the Jews of their last hope…” [22]
Delegates from all Arab states, following a September meeting in Syria, proclaimed all of Palestine to be “an integral part of the Arabian homeland and no part would be alienated with Arab consent.” [23]

 

Oct. 1945 The United Nations is founded.
23 Oct. 1946 The first ever United Nations meeting is help in New York.
1946 Two more plans are proposed for the establishment of peace and stability and British Mandated Palestine. Both plans rested as single-state solution, and both called for increased Jewish immigration to alleviate the plight of displaced Jews, a result of the Holocaust. Both plans are explained below:

Apr. 1946

1) The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry Plan (April):
This plan called for equal representation and equal powers for Jews and Arabs. It called for the issuance of “100,000 certificates for immigration to Palestine be issued immediately and that the U.S. and British governments try to find new places for the Displaced Persons, in addition to Palestine. Future immigration to Palestine should be regulated by the Mandatory administration, and the land transfer regulations of 1940, which forbade the sale of land in certain parts of the country to Jews, should be annulled.” [24]
(See the map below.)
“The White Paper of 1939, and the drastic limitation of Jewish immigration and of land sales to Jews which followed, met the Arab view only in part. The Arabs would have gone much further. The demands voiced by their leaders are for immediate independence, for the final cessation of Jewish immigration and for the prohibition of all land sales by Arabs to Jews,” the report explained. [25]
Failure:

The Jewish Agency for Palestine accepted the plan; the Arab rejected it. The report notes that, since the very beginning of the British Mandate, the Arabs had vocally and firmly held a stance in opposition to all possibilities of allowing a Jewish Homeland. [25] Furthermore, the British continued the White Paper’s strict immigration limitations. [26]

July 1946

2) The Morrison-Grady Plan (July):
The scheme called “for the division of Palestine into four provinces: an Arab province, consisting of about 40% of the area; a Jewish province, with 17%, and two British provinces – the Jerusalem district and the Negev – covering 43% of the area. A British high commissioner, assisted by a nominated executive council, would head the central government. The Arab and Jewish provinces would have elected legislatures, with executives appointed by the high commissioner from among their members. The powers of these executives would be very limited…” [27]
(See the map below.)
Failure:

The plan was rejected by both Arabs and Jews.

It was after the failure of these talks that the British then handed the “Palestine Problem” over to the United Nation for final resolution.

From there, this story really gets interesting… but that’s for next time.

(To be continued…)


Citations (in order of usage):

[1] “The Ironic History of Palestine,” Alan H. Luxenberg, George Washington University, retrieved at: https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/139168

[2] Avraham Yaari, The Goodly Heritage: Memoirs Describing the Life of the Jewish Community of Eretz Yisrael from the 17th to 20th Century , Jerusalem, ZOA 1958, pp. 215-16.

[3] “History of the Ottoman Empire”  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Ottoman_Empire_during_World_War_I

[4] Unrest & Realignment in the Middle East (1914-1918 CE) : http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/timeline-for-the-history-of-judaism

[5] Christopher Sykes, Cross Roads to Israel – Palestine from Balfour to Bevin, Collins London 1965, p. 59

[6] Ibid. pp. 71-72

[7] Christopher Sykes, Cross Roads to Israel – Palestine from Balfour to Bevin, Collins London 1965, p. 81.

[8] “League of Nation,” retrieved at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/league-of-nations

[9]  “British-Palestine Mandate,” retrieved at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/history-and-overview-of-the-british-palestine-mandate

[10] “The Churchill White Paper,” retrieved at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/churchill-white-paper-1922

[11] “Rejectionism,” retrieved at: http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/6/rejectionism.htm

[12] Christopher Sykes, p. 128.

[13] “The Arab Revolt,” retrieved at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-1936-arab-riots

[14] See [11]

[15] Christopher Sykes, p. 174.

[16] Ibid. p. 174.

[17] “British Palestine Mandate: The Peel Commission”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-peel-commission

[18] Ibid.

[19] Christopher Sykes, p. 185

[20] Christopher Sykes, p. 188.

[21] “British Palestine Mandate: The British White Papers”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-british-white-papers

[22] “British White Papers: Zionist Reaction to the White Paper (1939)”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/zionist-reaction-to-the-white-paper-of-1939

[23] See [20].

[24] “Pre-state Israel: The Anglo-American Committee (1946)”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-anglo-american-committee

[25] “Report of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/psychological-analysis-of-hitler-s-life-and-legend

[26] See [24].

[27] “Palestine, Partition and Partition Plans”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/palestine-partition-and-partition-plans

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

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

Published

on

By

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

In Part I we began this discussion on how the Left is coming out of the authoritarian closet displaying their abject revulsion to the Culture of Liberty. In Part II we will detail the major aspects of their assaults on freedom. While it may sound shocking to many, deep down everyone should realise that the Left is becoming increasingly adverse to Liberty. Aside from wanting the freedom to wage the violence of abortion, they have little use for the concept in any other form.

Down through history Leftists have used and then disposed of democratic institutions to obtain power. The Bolsheviks and Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei being good examples from the storied past. At present, their favourite tactic involves the use of negatively termed alternative phrases to attack basic Liberties. They use these phrases to suppress these freedoms while maintaining the fiction of being ‘Liberal’.

“Hate Speech” used to attack Free-speech.

Here we see the first of many negatively charged phrases the Left uses to attack freedom of speech. As in most cases the term is undefined, allowing them to expand it to encompass whatever they wish to suppress. As in the other cases, this let’s them pretend to advocate free-speech while working against the concept.

Their recent expansion of assaults against the basic human Liberty of self-preservation has seen them us this convenient expedient to arbitrarily censor speech with regard to this fundamental natural right. Of course, they like to use the excuse that they are private entities unencumbered by 1st amendment issues. But this is a discussion on the Culture of Liberty and as Matt Christiansen pointed out, quite often the cultural value that is changed first, followed by restrictions from the government.

“Fake News” used to attack Freedom of the Press.

This is a new term in the pantheon of Leftist phrases, but once again it’s an undefined term used to go after those they deem to be unworthy of the vaunted title of ‘Journalist’. The national Socialist Media has always been disdainful of those who are not part of their elite cadres. At one point they labelled those outside the industrial media complex as being pajama clad, now they just brand them as being “Fake News”. Certain ‘social media’ sites have begun using this excuse to censor what can be stated on them. To be clear, the issue isn’t the veracity of the content, but it’s political point of view.

“Military Style” used to attack the Commonsense human Right of Self-Defence.

This was one of the first instances where the national Socialist Left developed the idea of assaulting a basic human Liberty an alternative phrase while still pretending to support it. This began with the undefined phrase “Assault Weapon” transitioning into even more nebulous terms such as “Military Style”. As with the other terms these have a twofold purpose – convey a negative feeling over a fundamental right while feigning it’s support.

Having once set the precedent that certain means of self-defence are verboten, it then becomes a simple matter of expanding the reach of these terms to include all firearms. This while Leftists parrot the fiction that they “believe in the 2nd amendment”.

“Background Checks” [ Intergalactic, Enhanced, Universal ] used to also attack Private Property Rights.

First of all, background checks have been in existence for almost 25 years, but one would not know it by the oft repeated talking points of the Left. Their well seasoned unfamiliarity with the facts will see them demand that which already exists. As is the case in other realms, they use their inability to base arguments on facts to their advantage. So when they repeat this demand, people get the impression that background checks are desperately needed.

Or they will use the ever popular tactic of moving the goal posts, demanding that these be even more intrusive in our private lives seizing control of our private property.

The basic premise for these “Intergalactic Background Checks” is that the government somehow has the ‘right’ to control certain items of one’s private property because they are dangerous. Well, there are three glaring issues with this false premise.

  • One is that private property is a foundational element of Liberty, one does not ‘own’ something if they cannot control it, such as in the purchasing or selling of said property. Leftists would love to negate this fundamental freedom with some sort of societal ownership regime as part of their collectivist ideology. “Intergalactic Background Checks” would impose a government edict over everyone’s property that would be greater than one’s ownership of those possessions.
  • Two, since restraint over the government is the fundamental purpose of the 2nd amendment and the Constitution in general, IBC’s would place control of these restraints in the hands of the government. In essence removing any limitations on the government. History is replete with examples of why this is a very bad idea.
  • Third, “Intergalactic Background Checks” would be the first and very critical step towards registration and the inevitable confiscation of guns. For once the government has purview over one’s private possessions, it can easily transition to tracking them in this control regime. History is also replete with the tale of the registration leading to confiscation. Meanwhile the national Socialist Left has made it quite clear this is their ultimate goal.

The Takeaway.

In many ways the Parkland Kids have done everyone a great service in exposing once and for all the Left’s disdain for freedom. Instead the slow creep of the collectivist mindset overtaking the country until it’s too late for anything that can be done, we have been forewarned of the danger. The Parkland Kids and the rest of the Authoritarian Socialist Left will have to be honest for once about their true intentions.

Were they to do so, they would drop the mask and stop hiding behind the Liberal label. They could then try to sell everyone their true socialist national agenda of égalité minus the Liberté or even fraternité.

At least then the people would know what they are getting instead of the farcical Utopian fantasies that have been part and parcel of the Leftist propaganda for centuries now. Were they to win on the basis of said honesty, they would have a mandate to rule over Liberty as they have promised, freedom be damned.

But the past has shown that people never willingly vote for this type of draconian rule. Instead they have to be enticed into enslaving themselves with the false promises of “Free Healthcare”, “Free college” as well as marginal safety from harm for the low-low price of sacrificing their Liberty.

Which is why the Left’s deceit and deception will continue, no matter how it’s been exposed in the past. They will still try to keep up the false pretence of being ‘Liberal’ or in favour of ‘Progress’ and if everyone is informed enough, they will end up on the ash heap of history as is rightfully the fate of all tyrants.

 

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.