Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Collectivism 101: The origins of the epic fraud of socialism

Published

on

Collectivism 101 The origins of the epic fraud of socialism

It’s time to finally reject the something for nothing scam from polite society.

There are times when you have to wonder if people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez know they’re helping perpetrate history’s biggest scam operation. Most assuredly the terms swindle, fraud or shakedown are the nicest ways of referring to a set of ideas that have seen 400 years of death and oppression. As JD Rucker pointed out, today’s socialists no longer have an excuse to favor their ideology of societal slavery over Economic Liberty.

It should be obvious to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence that the results of Economic Liberty far exceed the fraud of socialism. Nevertheless, there are those who still insist on wanting to enslave their fellow-man for their selfish needs while trying to assert a false sense of moral superiority. How people who think they are owed a living simply because they exist is hard to fathom. At its core, socialism is predicted on the fraud of getting something for nothing. While Leftists excel in dressing it up as “Social Justice’ its basic tenets are of taking from some to set up a dependent majority.

The origins of history’s biggest fraud

How did this colossal fraud get started? How did the idea of enslaving people become enshrined as their ‘Liberation’?

To do this we need to look back at how human civilisation developed and prospered. In the beginning, mankind was very much like the rest of the animal kingdom having to work in order to survive, roaming the wild hunting and gathering food.

Then came one of mankind’s greatest inventions: farming. This meant staying in one place, planting seeds, harvesting crops and domesticating animals instead of wandering around. Property rights were a natural outgrowth of this great advance, since farming only made sense if one could reap what they had sown. [Galatians 6:7] Farming and property rights further meant that one could build permanent homes and store away food for use later on, transforming the struggle to survive from that of satisfying immediate needs to delaying or forestalling them. These incredible advances changed everything.

The products of their labor could be voluntarily exchanged – traded – leading to mankind’s other great achievements. Trade meant that humans could specialize in what they did to survive, with some farming while others made tools or other necessities.

Staying in one place meant that humans could gather together. Specialisation meant that people could use voluntary exchange to trade in the fruits of their labor to their mutual benefit. This also meant that people could also exchange recollections of the past or new ideas, so one wouldn’t have to literally reinvent the wheel. The advances that began with farming and property rights placed humans far above the animal kingdom to become its master.

It all worked fine until some people decided they wanted something for nothing.

There will always be a small segment of society that would rather live off the fruits of someone else’s labour instead of producing their own.

  • Those who took other people’s property directly were the first criminals.
  • Those who took other people’s property through government were the first Leftists.

The early Leftists felt they needed to differentiate themselves from common thieves, even though they had a natural affinity because of their mutual interest of living off other people’s work. Oddly enough, those who parasitically feed off the efforts of others in society are considered to be sinister and weak.

The early Leftists had to somehow justify their outright theft of other people’s property. In order to do this they created the mythical idea of collective property ownership, partnered with the absurd concept that there is a fixed amount of ‘wealth’ and that there are some who have too much of it. Never mind that both of these concepts made no sense, since individuals around the world are constantly creating wealth.

They also justified the stealing property as being morally correct over its original production. This is how they feign magnanimity by taking other people’s money while someone keeping what they have already earned as being ‘greedy’. What better way to be absolved of outright theft [not to mention oppression and mass murder] than to self-declare one to be morally superior for the very act of outright theft? Leftists will tell you that they are morally superior since their moral superiority determines that they are morally superior.

Later on these people would be known as socialists, communists, Marxists, communards, Statists, Bolshevists, Trotskyists Fascists, Democratic Socialists, National Socialists, Progressivists, Stalinists and over 30 other synonyms. Since it’s always a hallmark of honest people to avoid aliases.

Spotting the fraud of socialism

Every living being since the beginning of time has had to exert effort in order to survive. Nevertheless, there are some in society who would rather swindle their fellow-man instead working. Those who do this under the guise of government and moral superiority all known as Leftists.

Spotting this fraud is easy if one knows what to look for. Generally it will be some sort of allusions to getting something for nothing dressed up in the fraud of moral superiority. The free stuff offered can range from free college, free healthcare, free housing to free money. This can also involve allusions to safety if other people are deprived of the right of self-defense.

There is a reason why a decent society punishes theft since is very detrimental to the public order. To hear the Left talk of it, this is somehow different if the government does it. This must be rejected for the same reason that criminal theft is penalised.

The takeaway

At this point in history, we know that the something for nothing scam of socialism will never work. Those who persist in trying to perpetuate this fraud should be easy to spot and avoid. This would be anyone offering something for nothing. They should be asked where are they to get these wonderful gifts without enslaving others. If they cannot properly answer the question they should be rejected no matter what they call themselves.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help
 


Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Dylan

    February 2, 2019 at 2:43 pm

    I have told you all that there are only 2 solutions to save the west, Europe and North America.

    1) Civil war and implemented righteous military rule based on constitution and Christian historical rule and culture,
    or

    2) secession of countries or states 50/50 into communists, anarchists, atheists and their tools the Antichrist Islamics in one group of states and constitutional conservatives and Christians in the other states. Don’t fucking come into our states/countries and we won’t come into your states/countries, understand bitches?

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

Sometimes it’s the little wrongs that stick

Published

on

Sometimes its the little wrongs that stick

I was a pretty cocky kid.

It’s something that I get to hear a lot lately, especially when connecting with old friends from high school and college. I remember thinking that I wouldn’t be that guy, the one who looks back while on the second half of a standard life and calls himself stupid, but that’s exactly what I’ve started doing. I was a cocky, stupid kid.

There are several instances that I can recall that had an effect on the way that I grew and would eventually point me to dedicate my life to Christ. One of those events was very small, so small that the person I “wronged” likely doesn’t even remember the incident.

I was managing a steak house in Oklahoma City. I was the youngest of the managers of what was supposed to be a summer job and ended up supporting my young family for three years. I was cocky (and did I mention I was stupid as well?) and took pride in my ability to diffuse situations. It wasn’t a fancy steak house. In fact, it was a two-story, 550-seat monster that served hundreds of steaks every night.

One particular evening I was helping one of the servers by taking the order. It was a special day for the patriarch of the family and they were celebrating – what exactly I don’t recall or perhaps never knew. The special day man had one important request – no Texas toast. His wife (or daughter, couldn’t tell for sure) said that he was extremely allergic to anything that had bread and I assured her that no bread would touch his plate. I plugged in the order, put the special instructions in all caps (NO BREAD NO BREAD NO BREAD) and went on to see to the hundreds of other guests as well as the staff.

I was walking by the table, just checking in, when the food came. Time went into slow-motion mode as the plate was put down in front of him with a big, buttery piece of Texas toast right smack dab on his 14 oz. ribeye. The look on the wife/daughter’s face has always stuck with me. It was pure disappointment, shock, and even a little bit of fear all flashing before me in technicolor slow motion.

Instantly, I reached down and grabbed the plate, but the man grabbed my arm. His fury was clear. I told him that I would get him a new steak, but refused to let go. He wanted to keep that steak hostage to make certain that we didn’t just take it to the back, pull of the bread, and serve him the same steak. I assured him that we wouldn’t do that but he was firm. He didn’t believe me and that made me mad.

In the same situation today, I wouldn’t have tried to take the steak back. In fact, I would have left one more instruction on the ticket – “Page ME for delivery”. I would have made certain that the bread didn’t go on his plate. Instead, I allowed myself to get angry. I took it out on the staff that couldn’t read instructions. I took it out on the table that had a special occasion ruined. I didn’t even comp the meal because of my petty, stupid, cocky anger.

For all I know, they never thought about it again. For all I know, the man was emotionally unstable and hurt someone that night due to my mistakes. His grip was very strong, the type of grip that one can’t get by working out. It only comes from working through life with your hands.

It’s the fear in the wife/daughter’s eyes that I’ve never been able to shake for two decades. Mad – understandable. Disappointed – who wouldn’t be? Fear – that’s something that was distinct. She wasn’t looking at me. She was looking at him. She was waiting for his response. I don’t recall if I truly saw it out of the corner of my eye or if it has emerged through my imagination over the years, but I think she even looked up at me with a subtle, desperate shake of her head as I tried to pry the plate from his grip as if she was warning me that this many might kill me over the mistake.

We never know the effects of our actions. We don’t know what little thing we might do that causes someone to snap, something bad to happen, or something life-changing that could have been avoided by being a little less stupid, a little less cocky, and a lot more like a believer in Jesus Christ should act.

I never had the chance to apologize properly to the family. Maybe that’s why it stuck with me for all of these years. The slow motion look of mixed, terrible emotions – I pray that my little act of defiance didn’t cause pain to anyone.

Boost This Post

Get this story in front of tens of thousands of patriots who need to see it. For every $30 you donate here, this story will be broadcast to an addition 7000 Americans or more. If you’d prefer to use PayPal, please email me at jdrucker@reagan.com and let me know which post you want boosted after you donate through PayPal.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Do not presume to know if someone is saved, even if they’re pro-abortion pastors

Published

on

Do not presume to know if someone is saved even if theyre pro-abortion pastors

This could very easily turn into a discussion about Arminianism versus Calvinism, but that’s a topic I’m still not ready to tackle on this site. One thing I will tackle is the presumptive nature that guides many people to make calls about who is a Christian and who’s a false-Christian as if they’re baseball umpires calling balls or strikes.

It’s something I’ve faced on literally hundreds if not thousands of occasions over the years. People will read my bio on the various social networks, then use my proclamation of being a Christian to call out my posts. Heck, it happened twice today on a reply I sent to Kamala Harris on Twitter that had absolutely nothing to do with faith. I’ve grown used to it, and I try my hardest to never let it get to me on a personal level. I’ve found that many who call me out for a Tweet or Facebook post are simply disagreeing with the content and trying to shame me by saying it’s not very Christian-like. This is a common tactic, folks, so be mindful of it if you face similar complaints.

But today I’d like to discuss a similar situation. Should Christians call out other’s who profess to be Christians based on actions or perspectives that are clearly non-Biblical? The answer to this question, in my humble opinion, is yes and no. Yes, I believe it behooves us as Bible-believers to call out the actions of others, particularly if they profess to be Christians. No, I do not believe we should be claiming people are not Christians because of their misguided beliefs or actions. That’s a call that’s way above our pay grade.

For example, there was a lot of controversy over a letter by 150 Christian leaders who support a pro-choice stance. As most Christians know, abortion is not a Biblical practice and is spoken against in the Bible itself. We should definitely be calling on those who are supportive of abortion and who also profess their faith, but we shouldn’t be telling them they’re going to burn in hell over their perspective, that they have no Grace, or that they’re not really Christians. I said it before and I can’t really say it enough – such things are above our pay grade.

We know from the Bible what God disapproves of, but we are not capable of known WHO God approves of, as in who He considers to be saved as a Christian. When we tell people who believe they are saved that they’re actually not saved because they believe in abortion, we’re presuming to know God’s Will on such matters. We do not.

If we want to call out the sin, that’s proper. If we’re telling a sinner they’re condemned to hell because of their sin, it’s like taking on the role of passing eternal judgment. That is not our calling. Mind your tongues, folks. God does.

Boost This Post

Get this story in front of tens of thousands of patriots who need to see it. For every $30 you donate here, this story will be broadcast to an addition 7000 Americans or more. If you’d prefer to use PayPal, please email me at jdrucker@reagan.com and let me know which post you want boosted after you donate through PayPal.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Michael J. Knowles on the reality of ‘white privilege’ and intersectionality

Published

on

Michael J Knowles on the reality of white privilege and intersectionality

There’s a strange contradiction that’s been essentially taking over the mentality of many leftists for some time now. The contradiction has to do with bigotry and is framed around the concept of “white privilege.”

If you’re white, you instantly have privilege in their eyes. If you also happen to be a straight male, you really, really have privilege. This characterization by the left does two things. It paints those who are straight male Caucasians as not being capable of experiencing the types of hardships experienced by others and it forces anyone who is not a straight male Caucasian to embrace their victimhood if they’re going to be part of the leftist tribe.

This is, of course, all ludicrous. White privilege is a myth in today’s America. There are enough safeguards to protect those who aren’t straight white males from persecuting the rest of us, and those safeguards have been working. But that’s not enough for the left. They aren’t looking for equality. They want the status they place on people of having “white privilege” to work against them.

Michael J. Knowles and Andrew Klavan from the DailyWire took to Texas A&M to discuss some of the challenges leftists force onto people, particularly at college campuses in America. The event, hosted by YAF, yielded an extremely interesting series of discussions. You can watch the whole event here.

Knowles was asked about “white privilege” and gave a thoughtful response. Here’s one important quote from his answer:

“Ironically what this ideology does is it turns privilege into victimhood and it turns victimhood into privilege, and that’s the upside down world of the left, and it’s why they go after you on immutable characteristics such as the color of your skin and your biology and your chromosomes.”

Will there ever come a time when the left is willing to look past our gender, religion, sexual preference, or the color of our skin and simply see people as who they are? The way things are going, it doesn’t seem like it.

Boost This Post

Get this story in front of tens of thousands of patriots who need to see it. For every $30 you donate here, this story will be broadcast to an addition 7000 Americans or more. If you’d prefer to use PayPal, please email me at jdrucker@reagan.com and let me know which post you want boosted after you donate through PayPal.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report