Connect with us

Culture and Religion

If the Republic wins…

Published

on

If the Republic wins

If the ‘Democratic’ socialists win, Liberty and our representative republic loses.

Let’s bring this down to first principles. The Midterms are once again a battle between Individualism and Collectivism. Between those who value Liberty versus those who value control. To phrase it bluntly, a contest for those who want people to be controlled – their control – and those who want to be left alone.

The Individualist majority.

It is our contention that most people fall into the ‘want to be left alone’ mindset. They want to live their lives with minimal interference from the government. They will deal with a certain amount of control for the purpose of earning a living or societal constructs such driving a motorised vehicle on the public streets. They understand that taxation is a necessary evil for the purpose of providing those public goods or supporting the downtrodden. They also understand the basic principle that people are born with varying abilities or talents. That it is impossible to equalise outcomes because these individual variations.

Most people are of the Individualist category, even though they may not be fully aware of it. This includes those who are truly Liberal as well as others on the Right such as Conservatives or Libertarians. While there may be minor quibbles over some policy matters, most will agree with the basic rationality of Liberty.

The Collectivist minority.

Then there is a small segment of the population who live to control others. These are people who see everything through the lens of politics. They aren’t satisfied with running their own lives, they want to run everyone else’s as well. They have various justifications for needing this power – the ‘threat’ from the climate changing to the danger of ‘gun’ violence – but it’s the control over others that they crave. As Bill Whittle discussed a couple of days ago in a video on the ‘Anger Gap’, politics is the primary motivator for the Left, it’s their way of getting the world they want – a world where they get to tell people what to do.

Recent studies have shown that it’s only a small segment of our society that wants to control everyone else. This was exemplified by the polling that showed that 80% of the country is fed up with the ‘political correctness’ craze that seeks tyrannical control over speech and behaviour.

The Collectivist’s inherent advantages make them seem more powerful than they are.

So why does it seem that the 20% Collectivist minority is bigger than it appears? Unfortunately for those on the side of Liberty, the Left has a built-in structural advantage in that Collectivism lends itself perfectly to control and group action. Collectivists are predisposed to come together to ‘stop gun violence’ or whatever. Individualists generally eschew this kind of action.

That recent study showed that only 8% of the country had an affinity for the Liberty control of ‘political correctness’, but that small segment of the population includes the megaphone of the socialist media. Thus they seem bigger and more influential than they deserve.

The contest is between individualist and collectivist or Liberty and Tyranny.

This is what everyone needs to keep in mind. The contrast is clear in comparing the pro-liberty right with the socialist-Left. While the latter makes all manner of promises to buy votes on credit, it should be plain that it is impossible for them to fulfil these promises, just as it always has been the case with the Collectivists.

Others have detailed the differences between the two sides, with reasons to vote here, here, here and here, please check them out. It should be clear that the Left cannot offer anything but empty promises to the Individualist majority and control to the Collectivist minority.

They have laid out their socialist national agenda, so we know what they are promising:

  • Open borders to bring in a permanent underclass who will vote for a living.
  • Higher Taxes to these buy votes
  • The precursor to gun confiscation – Intergalactic Background Checks
  • Endless investigations and impeachment of any who displeases them

The last word – a warning from Benjamin Franklin.

These are just some of the negative repercussions if the Left wins. It will harken back to the warning issued by Benjamin Franklin at the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 when he responded to the question: ‘What have we got a republic or a monarchy?’ To which he responded: ‘A republic, if you can keep it.’

The Left would like to tear that republic apart through any means. Everyone needs to vote accordingly. Vote as though your Liberty were at stake – because it is.

Advertisement

0

Conservatism

We won’t survive the suppression of Liberty by the Socialist-Left

Published

on

By

We wont survive the suppression of Liberty by the Socialist-Left

The Left has a new workaround for Liberty: Dominate and shut down the marketplace of Ideas.

Let’s be blunt about it: socialism is based on lies. These begin with the lie that socialism is about freedom and Liberty. When in actuality it is about central planning of the economy and the radical redistribution of wealth requiring coercion or the threat of force, the antithesis of freedom and Liberty.

This is why the Left cannot abide free speech or the free exchange of ideas. This is why the Left has to dominate the conversation and shut down the marketplace of ideas. Glenn Beck recently highlighted an article from website spinquark: Welcome to Social Government making the point that the leadership of the dominant social media organs comes from the Left.

Social media companies aren’t held to constitutional standards because they’re private companies. But they’re also protected by the government because they’re considered “platforms,” not “publishers.” Well, the government has figured this out and has seen the power of using social media to circumvent the First Amendment and silence conservative voices.

Have you noticed how the DNC doesn’t seem at all concerned about the 2020 election, even though the Democratic candidates are pushing policies that are even too radical for the left? Why would they do that if they’re trying to win the hearts and minds of Americans? A website called Spinquark just released a chilling article that reveals exactly how many people who are directly connected to the progressive political machine are now working for big tech to control our conversations online — and they’re unquestionably interfering with the 2020 election.

[Emphasis added]

The Left’s ‘workarounds’ for Liberty.

It was in the self-defense realm that the Authoritarian Socialist Left really tuned up for their full-scale assault on Liberty. They are busily assaulting this basic human right on multiple fronts at the Federal, state and local levels. They have imposed new restrictions on Liberty as well as ever-increasing taxes on ammunition and firearms in addition to attacks against the financial underpinnings of the industry.

They also developed a new way of going after free speech, a new way of hacking Liberty. The workaround of setting up dominate media systems that pretend to be platforms while acting as publishers. Offer a ‘Free’ service [how is that for subliminal irony?] that squeezes out the competition and then squeeze out the voices of freedom. They have the best of both worlds, pretending to support Liberty while working against it.

The Takeaway.

Leftists love to play the game of pretense, exploiting labels and terms that poll positively while being of the nothing of the kind. They work against Liberty whilst casting themselves as ‘Liberal’. They dredge up ideas of ancient Greece whilst claiming to be ‘progressive’. Worse yet, they exploit the word democratic while wanting a small cadre of collectivists running the show. Their social media manipulation is one of the most egregious examples.

The suppression of Liberty by dominant social media organs means they are acting publishers while enjoying the governmental protections of being platforms. The government is already interfering in the space, providing them protection they clearly do not deserve. Removing that protection would take away that unwarranted interference while conserving Liberty. That is what we need to demand, before it is too late.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Beto O’Rourke went full Swalwell. Never go full Swalwell.

Published

on

Beto ORourke went full Swalwell Never go full Swalwell

If you’re on the internet, you are probably familiar with the “Nobody said anything” meme. The meme begins with a “nobody: …” and then out of nowhere comes a non sequitur. Nobody said anything and so Beto O’Rourke came out apologizing for his ancestors having owned slaves. In his defense, this could be like how Michael Scott wanted to control the media narrative before the narrative controlled him. But the narrative that perhaps Democrats have latched on to is that Beto O’Rourke comes from a wealthy family, married into an even wealthier family who also happens to be descended from slaveowners, and is Bobby Newport from Parks and Rec. So with his campaign struggling, but perhaps still organizationally viable, Beto O’Rourke confessed to his ancestors’ crimes, but in doing so, went full Swalwell.

Beto O’Rourke writes:

In the aggregate, slavery, its legacy and the ensuing forms of institutionalized racism have produced an America with stark differences in opportunities and outcomes, depending on race.

For example, there is 10 times the wealth in white America than there is in black America. Black men are six times more likely to be incarcerated than white men. The disparity in infant mortality between black families and white families is greater today than it was in 1850. Whether it’s the economy, healthcare, education, criminal justice or even in the inherent biases revealed by technology, there really are two Americas.

I benefit from a system that my ancestors built to favor themselves at the expense of others. That only increases the urgency I feel to help change this country so that it works for those who have been locked-out of — or locked-up in — this system.

As a person, as a candidate for the office of the Presidency, I will do everything I can to deliver on this responsibility.

In addition to making significant changes to education policy (immediately address $23 billion in underfunding for minority-majority public schools), economic policy (ensuring equal pay, deploying capital to minority- and women-owned businesses, $25 billion in government procurement to these same businesses), healthcare (universal healthcare and home health visits to women of color to reverse trend in maternal and infant mortality) and criminal justice (police accountability, ending the drug war, and expunging arrest records for nonviolent drug crimes), I will continue to support reparations, beginning with an important national conversation on slavery and racial injustice.

We all need to know our own story as it relates to the national story, much as I am learning mine. It is only then, I believe, that we can take the necessary steps to repair the damage done and stop visiting this injustice on the generations that follow ours.

There’s a lot to break down here. The first I want to tackle is the statement about the two America. The two Americas he is talking about is not urban vs rural or red vs blue. It’s the Oppressors and the Victims. This dichotomy is foundational in social Marxism or what we more commonly refer to as Leftism. So I wanted to point out the Freudian slip before diving into the self-emasculation.

The closing paragraph is where Beto O’Rourke takes responsibility for the offenses of his ancestors. He acknowledges that he is on the side of the Oppressors by virtue of being born. This is exactly what Eric Swalwell did. If you recall such winning campaign messages, “being bold, without the bold” and “pass the mic.”

Democrat Primary

Eric Swalwell is not supposed to be a special case. He is the outcome of social-Marxism for regular straight white males. Intersectionality paired with social-Marxism places a low value on being a straight white male. A straight white male is supposed to embrace his low standing. Eric Swalwell is the epitome of this, and Beto O’Rourke is following suit. Joe Biden self-emasculated himself to not upset the victimology of Kamala Harris. It’s worth noting that Beto O’Rourke may just be attempting to scarf up the (nonexistent) Swalwell base in the primary race. The Democrat Presidential Primary Bracket has Beto O’Rourke, if we are to judge that he won his first matchup, facing off against Beto O’Rourke, so perhaps, in my bracketology, I anticipated this:

It’s A Cult

As Andrew Klaven perfectly explains, the goal of feminism is to make women second rate men and to make men second rate men. Eric Swalwell is the end game of intersectionality for straight white males. It’s a cult, and Swalwell is a low ranking member trying really hard to reach level three of fifteen. In this cult, everyone will be stripped of individuality for the sake of the collective. Collectivism. Conformity. Communism. It’s all social-Marxism fighting on multiple fronts of victimhood in the Culture War. Look at his policy proposals, all of them are his attempts to atone, not better our society. To Beto O’Rourke, this isn’t about justice, this is soteriology. This new rebirth of Marxism is a cult and the only way for straight white men to be saved is self-emasculation, going full Swalwell.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Let’s have that ‘conversation’ about guns and why we’re never giving them up

Published

on

By

Lets have that conversation about guns and why were never giving them up

#GunPrideMonth is the perfect time for a calm, rational discussion about the true causes of violence.

Our friends on the national socialist Left love to bring up the issue of guns in the context of a ‘serious crisis’. Tying to make it seem as Corey Booker falsely claims that there is a mass shooting every day. Well, its been several days since one of those occurrences, so that is clearly a lie. Even the Washington Post has made it clear that gun homicides have dropped substantially over the past 25 years in this article: Most Americans incorrectly think gun-murder rates have become worse, not better.

However, for the Left they have convince themselves of the righteousness of their causes, so making something up here or lying there is perfectly acceptable to them, never mind that reality shows them to be complete frauds, ‘in the aggregate’.

At least it used to be that way. Now the Liberty Grabber Left has come out of the authoritarian closet with a full court press for socialism and gun confiscation [funny how those two things go hand in hand?]. At this point in time, it’s a case where they haven’t stopped complaining about guns, despite the violence rationale dropping out of the news.

It’s time for a calm and rational conversation about the basic human right of self-defense.

The Liberty grabbers are at a decided disadvantage in having these discussions in a relatively calm environment. It always seems to work best for them when emotions run high and they can run around with the hair on fire screaming ‘we have to do something –anything – about guns, now before we rationally think about it too much’. Well, they usually don’t add that last part, thinking is the last thing they want anyone to do.

The fact is a research study from Northeastern University demonstrated that: Schools are safer than they were in the 90s, and school shootings are not more common than they used to be.  Facts like that don’t help the Liberty Grabber Left in their gun confiscation quest, so such things are ignored. It’s better for them to engage in their usual routine of making things up and repeating them ad nauseam until they are believed as the truth, thanks to the admonitions of socialist luminaries Hitler a Lenin.

A discussion on the underlying causes of violence instead of inanimate objects.

We’ll begin with a video from a year ago from the Warrior Poet Society on Why Gun Control is NOT about GUNS:

[Note that even he mistakenly states that shootings are getting worse.]

He points out that the worse thing we could do is establish so-called ‘Gun-Free’ zones where mass murderers can have free reign. Most mass shootings since 1950 have taken place in ‘Gun-Free’ zones.

This leads to the larger point that even if the Liberty Grabbers got their wish and confiscated every gun from the innocent, the criminals and the government would still have them to prey on people.

Still further, making the point, even if those of evil intent didn’t have guns, they could use other means: explosives, poisons, edged weapons, vehicles..

He makes the last point that this is a recent phenomenon, unheard of 50 or so years ago. This is partly due to the glamorization of these killers in the media.

One change has been in the culture and in our society and the fact that many of these killers have grown up in fatherless homes. An article from last February pointed out that Of the 27 Deadliest Mass Shooters, 26 of Them Had One Thing in Common: fatherlessness.

The Takeaway.

The Liberty Grabber Left would like to have a ‘Conversation’ about gun confiscation. We of the Pro-Liberty Right want to Keep our freedom. Despite the lies of the Left, guns aren’t a growing epidemic. But they do stand in the way of the Socialist-Left attaining their desired authoritarian power. Thus they keep on bleating about the ‘problem’ even though its diminishing in intensity.

The intent here is to have that ‘conversation’ and prove that it’s NOT a question of guns, but of the breakdown in our culture induced by the Left. They would prefer it to be about guns, and how fast and how soon they will be confiscated.

[But only from certain people ]

Additional reference links

Poll: More Americans Have a Gun in Home Than Ever Before
Nearly 120 million Americans have a firearm in the home

Any Study Of ‘Gun Violence’ Should Include How Guns Save Lives

That Time The CDC Asked About Defensive Gun Uses

UPDATED: Mass Public Shootings keep occurring in Gun-Free Zones: 94% of attacks since 1950

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending