Connect with us

Culture and Religion

This is EXACTLY what socialism is: Part 1 of 2

Published

on

That is not real socialism!

Part 1: The Proletarian Revolution

“We have trampled underfoot the principles of democracy for the sake of the loftier principles of a social revolution.” ~ Leon Trotsky

Socialism requires a dictator. Clearly, this has been achieved in Venezuela.

In the midst of the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, a rallying cry can be heard: But! That is not real socialism! Presently, those belonging to the Directorate of Delusion and Denial, the legions of socialist apologists, are at full attention. We are told that the tragedy which is presently occurring in Venezuela is not real socialism. This claim is nothing more than a “Hey! Look over there and not at me!” tactic; a method of diverting attention away from one’s own guilt, enabling the retention of one’s own foolish pride and sanctimonious sense of moral high ground.

As such, I wish to offer a thorough repudiation of the not real socialism denials regarding Venezuela’s present economic destruction, political corruption, social upheaval, and widespread human misery. Although Karl Marx did not himself conceive of communism, he is idolized and revered as communism’s supreme theorist and the father of the communist movement. His writings inspired revolutionary movements around the globe, beginning in 1917, with the Bolshevik revolution in the Soviet Union which was led by Vladimir Lenin. The collectivist dream then spread to Latin America via the Soviet Union during the cold war as a tactical way to weaken the United States of America’s foreign relations and to weaken US influence in South America.

Practically speaking, there are three phases of socialism:

  1. the Proletarian Revolution
  2. the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and
  3. complete communism (a classless society which has fully abolished the State).

This article will focus on the first phase in socialism: the Proletarian Revolution.

Socialism is a macro-philosophy (lacking specifics, inadequate in guidelines). Since socialism lacks details, socialists have been able to swim around in perpetual fluidity, skirting any and all responsibility for peddling a mortiferous ideology. Thus, it is important to measure how “socialist” a country is against the philosophy of Karl Marx, the communists’ god.

The following is a point by point comparison of Marx’s theory of socialism, as shown through his writings, with both Lenin’s Soviet regime and the Chavez-Maduro Venezuelan regime.

A   Seizure of Power: the overthrow of the “Have’s” by the “Have-nots” (group struggle) to end capitalism
Socialist Theory via the Writings of Karl Marx
The Proletarian Revolution: In The Communist Manifesto, Marx (and Engles) theorized a revolution in which the working class (proletariat) from across the globe would rise up and destroy the capitalist (Bourgeoisie) society, ushering in a new age of transition from capitalism to communism. Thus, the immediate goal for communists is “formation of the proletariat into a class, [the] overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, [and the] conquest of political power by the proletariat.” In Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx re-emphasized his belief that “It is altogether self-evident that, to be able to fight at all, the working class must organize itself at home as a class and that its own country is the immediate arena of its struggle.”
B   Disregard for Democracy: democracy viewed as a tool to achieve power; a general disregard for democracy as being a systemic feature of the bourgeoisie social structure
Socialist Theory via the Writings of Karl Marx
Democracy is Bourgeoisie: In Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Marx stated that “In a really rational state one could answer, ‘Not every single person should share in deliberating and deciding on political matters of general concern’…” In his Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx laments “…vulgar democracy, which sees the millennium in the democratic republic, and has no suspicion that it is precisely in this last form of state of bourgeois society that the class struggle has to be fought out to a conclusion…” Marx continued, criticizing the Socialist German Workers Party’s emphasis on human rights as containing “nothing beyond the old democratic litany familiar to all: universal suffrage, direct legislation, popular rights, a people’s militia, etc. They are a mere echo of the bourgeois…” Marx continued, “They are all demands which, insofar as they are not exaggerated in fantastic presentation, have already been realized. Only the state to which they belong does not lie within the borders of the German Empire, but in Switzerland, the United States, etc.” Marx believed that true democracy wouldn’t not be born until the communist age had arrived in completed form. As such, he stated that democracy was, in actuality, the absence of all opposition to socialism.
Soviet Russia – Lenin (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
A provisional government was formed in March 1917, after a brief Russian Revolution. Lenin and his socialist Bolshevik party then urged the Provisional government to hold election for a new Constituent Assembly (legislature). Many groups spread the idea of democracy and of representative government of the people of Russia through fliers in anticipation of the upcoming election. The Bolsheviks, however, only received just under one-quarter of the votes in the November 1917, elections. The Socialist Revolutionary Party won a majority of assembly seats. On January 6, 1918, assembly members arrived to find the radical Kronstadt sailors, Lenin loyalists, had locked all doors, claiming the assembly had been dissolved by the Council of the Soviets. Lenin announced in a speech he and the soviets had “taken all of the power and rights into their own hands. The Constituent Assembly is the highest expression of the political ideals of bourgeois society, which are no longer necessary in a socialist state.” Hugo Chavez was elected President of Venezuela in 1998. In April of 2002, nineteen anti-Chavez protestors were killed and hundreds more wounded. That year, a referendum vote, which ultimately failed, was held to remove Chavez from office. 2004 marks a major turning point for democracy in Venezuela: from 2004 onward there has been evidence of election rigging by the Chavez-Maduro regimes. In addition to ending limits on the number of terms he could serve as President, Chavez sent one Presidential challenger into exile. “For nearly 14 years, Hugo Chavez labored with tireless energy, undeniable charisma, and ruthless design to destroy the opposition, silence critics, and intimidate skeptics, all while leaving the Potemkin façade of a “democracy,'” stated a 2013 article in The Atlantic. Nicolas Maduro is no better. Since being “elected” after Chavez’s 2013 death. In 2016, the loyal high court pressures several opposition members of Venezuela’s National Assembly to resign, ensuring Maduro’s socialist party remains in power. The high court also declares legislation passed by opposition members to be unconstitutional and, thus, invalid. In March of 2017, the high courts stripped all power from the National Assembly, effectively dissolving the legislature. After international condemnation, the courts reverse their decision just three days later. Changing strategies, Maduro held a national “election” at the end of July to establish a Constituent Assembly tasked with creating a new constitution. The assembly has been packed with Maduro cronies.
C   Revolutionary Dictatorship: establish a revolutionary dictatorship for society’s transitional period from capitalism to communism
Socialist Theory via the Writings of Karl Marx
Dictatorship of the Proletariat: Marx new that Capitalism wouldn’t transform into Communism overnight. He wrote of the need for a strong, central power to keep the forward momentum of the revolution. “What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges,” explained Marx in Critique of the Gotha Programme. “Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat,” wrote Marx. Clearly, he understood that many would resist the revolution and cling to their capitalist ideals. Karl Marx elaborated on this matter in the Communist Manifesto, stating that the Communists are “the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others… they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.” Thus, the Communists must (with the governmental club) force society into submission. Only after society is subdued and the residue of capitalism washed away can the true socialist utopia emerge; the final stage of communism in its completed form.
Soviet Russia – Lenin (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
With Lenin’s Bolshevik seizure of power in January of 1918, so ended the Russian people’s brief chance at the representative democratic form of government of which they had dreamed, and the age of the Bolshevik dictatorship began. A civil war ensued. Rival socialist parties were subsequently banned, and their members were threatened into submission, imprisoned, or killed.   Lenin instituted a special police force know the Cheka to crush uprising and enforce citizen compliance, always on the lookout for those who wish to undermine the Proletarian Revolution. This marked the beginning of the Red Terror. Any individual or even and entire group or entire families. During the civil war, in July of 1918, the Bolsheviks convene, creating a new Soviet constitution. In August of 1918, Lenin is shot in the face, but ultimately recovers from an assassination attempt. During the war, Lenin ordered the confiscation of the peasant’s grain supply, leading to mass starvation. The civil war end in victory for the Bolsheviks in November of 1920. Lenin and the Bolsheviks have secured their Dictatorship of the Proletariat. A later uprising in 1921, of the once-loyal, radical Kronstadt sailors, in response to letters from their starving families back home, was quickly quashed. Chavez began his mission to secure a Dictatorship of the Proletariat not long after taking office. His aggressiveness in this arena only increased over time. Chavez shut down radio and TV stations which didn’t coo in adulation for the Chavismo, stripped land and businesses from political opponents, and imprisoned political opponent and any judges who issued rulings against him. In March of 2005, laws are passed instituting large fines and prison terms for anyone who slanders (criticizes) public officials. In 2009, term limits of elected officials are abolished. In 2012, stricter gun control laws are put into place, with Chavez stating that the ultimate goal in the future the elimination of firearm ownership from all citizens. Shortly thereafter, private gun ownership was banned. In 2013, Maduro’s regime begins using the military to control citizen crime. Maduro continues Chavez’s pattern of imprisoning political opponents. In 2016, Maduro forces confiscate firearms and crush them in a public square in Caracas. Then, in April of 2017, Maduro began issuing some 400,000 weapons to Chavismo loyalists. With the July 30 creation of the Constituent Assembly, Nicolas Maduro is one step closer to establishing the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in Venezuela. The world will continue to watch in angst.

Based on the information above, alongside Karl Marx’s own words, is there any evidence to suggest that the first stage of socialism has not been completed in Venezuela? The Proletarian Revolution has since passed into time, ushering in the next stage of Venezuelan history: the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Socialism requires a dictator. Clearly, this has been achieved in Venezuela.

Next, I will examine Venezuela’s diktatura. I will present the ten planks of communism and the regime’s adherence to each therein.

Part 2 will publish tomorrow.

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

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

Culture and Religion

Gay Americans speak out in support of Christian Baker, against the gay lobby

Published

on

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.

-Patrick Henry

As the saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Now, however, after years of radical LGBT activist domination over the nation’s dialogue surrounding civil rights, liberty-loving gay Americans are pushing back.

All wheels have begun to squeak.

Masterpiece Cakeshop V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled (7-2) in favor of Jack Phillips, a devout Christian and confectionary artist. In 2012, after declining to lend his artistry skills toward the custom adornment of a cake intended for the celebration of a same-sex wedding, Phillips was sued for discrimination and was later found guilty by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Although the Commission had deemed Phillips’s art – confectionary art is a subset of sugar art – as expression under the First Amendment, his religious views were publicly attacked by commissioners. It was this blatant governmental bias which persuaded the Supreme Court to reverse all previous rulings against Mr. Phillips.

Despite of the Supreme Court ruling’s narrow scope, by mid-day on Monday, freedom-loving gay Americans had begun to speak out in support of Jack Phillips’s Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech, and celebrate the Supreme Court ruling in Mr. Phillips’s favor.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must… undergo the fatigue of supporting it.

-Thomas Paine

Pushing Back: Live on the Radio

Speaking with Rush Limbaugh on Monday, a Seattle woman who identified herself, saying, “I’m gay, I’m Hispanic, I’m female, I’m middle-aged, and I’m conservative,” stated:

I wanted to comment on the cake thing, on the Supreme Court judgment ruling on the cake matter. I wanted to say that I am so pleased to hear that, because I just don’t understand how people in this country can keep fighting against having their negative rights, against having what makes this country great, and against that which are the people that came to this country and come to this country, come here for. I just don’t get it… we are the country on this planet that stands for everyone to come and have liberty.

…[P]eople want to have freedom. But what they don’t understand is that freedom never needs to be defended. It’s liberty that needs to be defended. God gives us our freedom. God gives us the right to be free. We have to defend our liberty.

Another Limbaugh caller who identified himself as a wedded gay man, expressed disdain for the radical LGBT activists, describing them as “militant,” asserting:

…[I]t does not make our situation any easier when these militants are on the news because they do not represent me.

His {the husband’s] family didn’t show up at our wedding because they believe a marriage is between one man and one woman. And I don’t want to brand them a bigot or a homophobe for the rest of their lives when I could have an opportunity to have a relationship with them. I’d rather understand where they’re coming from and try to build off of what we have in common than brand them over a decision like a cake and then not have a relationship with the man I love’s family.

The caller continued his frank criticism, stating:

I think these militants make it worse, not better, and they don’t have me — in mind when they’re out there doing it… I just think they’re really loud and obnoxious, and so they get on the news.

They went on TV, and they said what their case was. They said it was never about the cake; it was about making them do what they wanted them to do. 

And I would rather go get a cake from somewhere else and not be on the news and have a chance at understanding where other people are coming from than force my will on them any more than I want them to force their will on me. I know a lot of people don’t accept gay marriage. However, it’s a lifestyle choice I made. They choose not to bake me a cake. I’ll get one somewhere else.

My sexuality makes up so small of who I am as a person; it really shouldn’t matter.

Pushing Back: Speaking Out on Twitter

Other non-totalitarian, liberty-loving gay Americans chose to push back by making their voices heard via social media.

Pushing Back: The New Squeaky Wheels

The phenomenon of gay Americans, fellow freedom-fighters, pushing back against the radical LGBT lobby isn’t unique to the Masterpiece Cakeshop court case. Since 2013, Chad Felix Greene- a wedded gay man – has “been writing in favor of religious freedom for those asked to participate in gay weddings.”

After Monday’s Supreme Court ruling, Mr. Greene stated:

LGBT’s hysterical denunciations and hair-on-fire rhetoric has not changed. Fortunately the argument has. We must continue fighting the rhetoric.

This case is not over.

Back in December of 2017, a gay duo – T.J. and Matt – made headlines for their open support of Jack Phillips and all who wish to exercise religious liberty and freedom of speech.  In a video for the Alliance Defending Freedom, the pair, standing outside the front entrance of the Masterpiece Cakeshop, explained:

We’re here to buy stuff from him and support him, because we don’t think any artist should be forced to create for something that violates their beliefs.

On Monday, echoing the same sentiment, Mr. Greene explained to his followers on Twitter:

The LGBT movement needs to understand that tolerance goes both ways. They have been behaving as though they are entitled to special treatment from everyone under the guise of ‘equality.’

We have equality. But we don’t have the right to demand others violate their beliefs for us.

The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages is what every part is entitled to and ought to enjoy.

-Benjamin Franklin

Reason to Hope

The trappings of authoritarian identify politics are being rejected and the walls are beginning to crumble. Liberty-loving Americans representing a plurality of circumstance and lifestyle, often hidden from the limelight of the media, are joining together in good will.

As a Christian and an artist, I count the mounting acts of ideological divergence – examples of bravery – from those in the gay community, as true blessings!

Alas! The Lord works in mysterious ways.

 

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.