Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Socialism’ Category

In a recent headline scientists are now hopeful that a new experiment happening at a large collider may give them a glimpse into a parallel universe. The story is at: http://secondnexus.com/technology-and-innovation/large-hadron-collider-scientists-hope-make-contact-parallel-universe

Multidimensional theories of self-generating universes (and theories of self-generating life) are at this point not science but philosophy attached to science.  For example, the theoretical work of Hawking is entirely philosophical, not scientific, in so far as it proposes things beyond science and beyond detection or proof.  Hawking’s work is also philosophical in that it arbitrarily projects a single religious world view – blind-faith Metaphysical Naturalism – onto evidence and facts which could equally (and arguably better) be considered support for Design.  It is also philosophical because it deals with singularities – events which only occur once and can therefore only be directly (scientifically) understood in terms of evidential proof and historical proof. We have only ever observed a single universe, appearing to be governed by principles of relativity and finely tuned to support the existence of stars, galaxies and life.

What scientists are doing in making a prediction of observing parallel universes would be directly analogous to proposing in 1977 that if Pluto had a moon it would be proof of the existence of green unicorns, and then when Charon was proven to exist in 1978 saying, “Hah, we were right! Green unicorns do exist!”

There’s definitely more we need to understand about the quantum world of physics but I tend to reject the basic Copenhagen “spooky” view of matter because that view still has it’s roots in belief about measuring equipment and not about matter itself. Obviously particles interact at a distance but the mechanism is entirely unknown at this point.  And string theory up to this point has really just amounted to a bunch of conflicting hearsay, as any honest quantum physicist will tell you.

The bottom line is that part of the reason many modern quantum physicists want to have blind faith in alternate universes is because they desperately want the findings in their field to match their Socialist, Metaphysical Naturalist intellectual ideology.

And the findings simply don’t.

Read Full Post »

Recently progressive comedian Bill Maher expressed the view that progressives have won the culture war, and took the same opportunity to refer to the Bible as a “dumb book”:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/23/bill-maher-tells-twitter-liberals-to-calm-down-the-culture-war-is-over-and-we-won/

Here’s the reality:  Judeo Christian values have been winning the culture wars for 2,000 years and show no sign of stopping.

The Christian church is, “an anvil that has worn out many hammers,” and Judeo Christian values (the Ten Commandments) are the basis of the modern Western understanding of ethics and law.  If you don’t believe that, try going out and killing someone in the U.S. for any reason other than self defense.

The Roman Empire tried to redefine marriage.  It didn’t last.  I mean the Roman Empire.

Every generation rejects the values of previous generations and thinks, “Ah, this time, we’ve finally gotten it right!”  But the only consistent value systems that have lasted over centuries are systems directly tied to major world religions or religious philosophies.  And only one of those value systems gave birth to the highest level of individual liberty and prosperity in the history of the world.  It eliminated slavery.  It gave women power to vote and represent themselves legally.  It wound up saving Europe and the world from expansionist tyrannies on three separate occasions.

I’m not talking about enlightenment Humanism – on the contrary, Humanism originally sought to eliminate some “races” through eugenics and to this day tries to divide people into arbitrary groups, plundering one for the profit of another, but really taking the money to enrich it’s own leaders.

No, what led directly to a 5,000 year leap was the idea of constitutional republic grounded in Judeo Christian values.  It was Christians who believed that God is separate from creation and that nature could be looked at and studied objectively apart from myth.  It was Christians who popularized the radical idea that secular governments should not impose a state religion.  It was Christians who led the effort to abolish slavery.  It was Christians who won women the right to vote (the fight was led by the Women’s Christian Temperance Union).  And it was Christians who led the civil rights struggle of the 50’s and 60’s.

Everywhere Humanism and subsequent collectivism has been tried, it has led to servitude and poverty.  Individualism and Judeo Christian values have led to freedom and prosperity.  Most people who grow up in the U.S. simply cannot appreciate how special and rare this is in the history of the world.

Sadly, progressives like Maher want to muzzle free speech and attack people who don’t agree with them.  They have declared war on America and American values.  They want to enforce collectivism and uniformity of thought under the threat of law.  They want to put their fellow citizens in tyranny under social planners that wield the atheist equivalent of “Divine Right of Kings”.

They are the ones trying to drag this country backwards.

Read Full Post »

A friend of mine posted a quote by Peter Singer on Facebook recently and I composed a response.  I thought it would be a good idea to share both here.

The quote from Peter Singer was:
“The capitalist economic system, regarded by the classical economists as natural and inevitable, is an alienated form of human life. Under capitalism workers are forced to sell their labour . . . to the capitalists, who use this labour to accumulate more capital, which further increases the power of the capitalists over the workers. Capitalists become rich, while wages are driven down to the bare minimum needed to keep the workers alive.”

My response was:
“Ever wonder why the same people who believe Capitalism will sell them the rope to hang itself (Vladimir Lenin) also believe that religion is the opiate of the masses (Karl Marx)?  Ever wonder why everywhere you have communism and collectivism take root you also have persecution of the church?  Herb Titus, famed lawyer, graduate of Harvard Law, and head of a couple of law schools himself, addresses the logic behind Peter Singer’s quote about Capitalism in his book ‘Biblical Principles of Law’.  In the section on Fault, he talks about Lincoln Steffens, a man [a century ago] who would go around to major cities in the late teens and early 20’s lecturing to civic leaders about corruption.  Steffens would teach that church leaders are wrong, because in the Bible Adam blamed the woman, the woman blamed the serpent and church leaders stop there.  ‘The devil made me do it.’  But the real problem, Steffens would share, was the apple of temptation.  Remove the temptation and you would remove the problem.  Capitalism with it’s economic incentives, he believed, was the problem.  Lincoln had visited the young Soviet Union and praised it because he believed it would produce the most general prosperity and be the least corrupt system of any on the earth.  He famously wrote, “I have seen the future, and it works!”  Of course we know the Soviet Union became one of the least prosperous, most corrupt systems on earth.  The problem wasn’t the apple of temptation, and good church leaders don’t blame the serpent.  The problem is mankind and sin nature.  In the same way, the problem with economics is not the incentives of Capitalism, it’s the corruption of mankind.  The idea that mankind is flawed and needs checks and balances is classically called the concept of Natural Law, or to put it differently, the law of mankind’s nature.  Natural Law and the English Common Law both looked to Biblical Law as the rule for controlling mankind.  The final six Ten Commandments were considered the rule for keeping mankind in check.  Inherent in this was also the idea of just rewards – each man is individually responsible for their actions, and reaps blessings or curses as they exercise individual liberty.  The Enlightenment – Marx, Freud, Darwin and Kant – turned this idea on it’s head.  They believed man was simply and only a product of genetics and his environment.  Mankind doesn’t really have freewill because everything we do is pre-determined by chemicals and stimulus.  As such, individuals are not responsible for their actions, society is.  All of society must pay for the wrongdoing of each individual.  And so Enlightenment thinking embraces the concepts of societal insurance, central [social] planning and the idea that good of the collective takes precedence over individual life, liberty and property.  At the heart of this is the belief that if we can just change mankind’s environment, we can change mankind.  If we can just remove the apple of temptation, we can experience Eden once again.  It’s the age old lie, ‘ye shall be as God’.  But the problem is not the environment, the problem is sin.  The problem is us.  And to the degree that secularists stop holding individuals accountable for individual actions and instead try to deal with society as a collective, a nation experiences increasing uncertainty and injustice both in the economy and in the courtroom.  Herb Titus’ treatment of this subject is brilliant, and is online at:  http://www.lonang.com/curriculum/5/s51.htm

The exchange reminded me of President Regan’s Address before the Assembly of the Republic of Portugal in Lisbon on May 9, 1985

President Regan said:
“…Yes, democratic Portugal has faced political problems and social problems and economic problems, and, no, democracy, particularly in its earlier years, does not always go smoothly.  But this is true of any nation and especially any democracy. In my country, we’ve learned over and over again that democracy can only work when it is judged not in the short run but over the long term, when we keep in mind the principles upon which it is based and remember how right Winston Churchill was to remind us that democracy truly is the worst form of government, except for all the others.  The essential truth at the heart of Portuguese and American democracy is our belief that governments exist for the sake of the people and not the other way around. And this belief is based on an essential insight of our civilization—the dignity of man, the value of the individual. My own nation’s forefathers justified our revolution with these words in the Declaration of Independence: ‘… all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’  Well, it is this trust in the individual—the right to speak, to assemble, to publish, and to vote, even to walk out—that is the meaning of democracy. Our democratic governments are not built on the proposition that the people are always right; indeed, within the structure of our governments there are safeguards against the whims or passions of the majority. But democratic government is built on the proposition that there resides in the common people an uncommon wisdom, that over the long run the people and their right to political self-expression are the best protection against freedom’s oldest and most powerful enemy—the unchecked growth and abuse of the power of the state…”

Read Full Post »

Recently the NAACP of Missouri condemned the actions of a Rodeo Clown who wore a “President mask” of President Obama and then asked the crowd if they would like to see the President run over by a bull.  The NAACP didn’t just condemn this as a tasteless act against President Obama, they declared it, “a hate crime”.

“I think a hate crime occurs when you use a person’s race to depict who they are and to make degrading comments, gestures, et cetera, against them,” said the Missouri NAACP President Mary Ratliff.

In fact the Missouri State Fair Commission has now mandated sensitivity training for the Missouri Rodeo Cowboy Association if they want to participate in the State Fair.

The clown didn’t say anything racist, he only wore a President mask.  Haven’t these guys ever seen Point Break?  The NAACP themselves are the ones being the racist here.  And mandatory sensitivity training?  You might as well come right out and say, “Thought Police”.

It’s one thing to condemn blatant racism.  But assuming racism simply because a mask correctly portrays the visage of the President?  If the clown had worn a George W. Bush mask, or a Reagan mask, would the NAACP be condemning anti-white racism on the part of the clown for simply wearing the mask?  I don’t think so.

I don’t like to use the term race because for every trait of human variation – from the amount of melanin in skin to the amount of curl in hair or the color of a retina – you can find some family, some individual somewhere on earth with features that are on average right in-between, so that you can’t draw a line and say, “This is the white race,” or, “This is the black race”, etc.  Ultimately there are no races, there is simply the human race.

Many of us on the Right tend to think in such terms automatically, despite the Progressive media effort to portray conservatives as being racists.  I do not know the content of the Missouri mandated sensitivity training, however most sensitivity training addressing racism is usually itself based in racist terms that define a true absence of racism as actually being racism itself.  For example, there are the racial definitions found on the University of Colorado’s Student Affairs website.  (Note: since the time of writing UC has removed the definitions.  You can still find some of them at Oberlin College’s Multicultural Resource Center.)  The wording is extremely common at many education and government sites providing official definitions for racism (just google or bing a few of the phrases).

Some of the definitions are:

Passive racism: Beliefs, attitudes, and actions that contribute to the maintenance of racism, without openly advocating violence or oppression. The conscious and unconscious maintenance of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that supports the system of racism, racial prejudice, and racial dominance.

Cultural racism (racism at the cultural level): Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label People of Color as “other,” different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as the great writers or composers.

White privilege: A right, advantage, or immunity granted to or enjoyed by white persons beyond the common advantage of all others; an exemption in many particular cases from certain burdens or liabilities; A privileged position; the possession of an advantage white persons enjoy over non–white persons.

Horizontal racism: The result of people of targeted racial groups believing, acting on, or enforcing the dominant (White) system of racial discrimination and oppression. Horizontal racism can occur between members of the same racial group (an Asian person telling another Asian wearing a sari to “dress like an American”; a Latino believing that the most competent administrators or leaders are white, Native Americans feeling that they cannot be as intelligent as Whites, Asians believing that racism is the result of People of Color not being to raise themselves “by their own bootstraps.”

Did you catch that?  These common definitions say that simply happening to have very little melanin in one’s skin unconsciously contributes towards maintaining a system of white racial dominance.  In other words – according to these definitions – to be “white” is to be “racist”.

Furthermore, planning for the future, being opposed to socialism and even just speaking proper English are defined as acts of “racism”.  So to have traditional American values – individual liberty, classical education and economic freedom – is to be racist.

This is an attack, by way of slander, on the very principles that our nation was founded on.  Shortly after our colonies experienced the American Revolution, the French were having their own socialist revolution based on collectivism.  The fruit of our American Revolution was ultimately the most personal liberty and the highest standard of living for the most people – regardless of individual gender, creed or color – of any nation in the history of the world.  The fruit of the French Revolution was rivers of blood emanating from Madam Guillotine in Paris, and the leaders of the Revolution themselves eventually lost their heads.  France has gone through multiple governments and Constitutions since that time.

Indisputably, the American Revolution was based on Judeo Christian values.  You can read them in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed…

In contrast, the French Revolution was based on schools of thought that ultimately coalesced into Humanism and Marxism.  Contrast the text from the American Declaration of Independence above to it’s counterpart in the French Constitution of 1793.

The aim of society is the general welfare. Government is instituted to guarantee man the enjoyment of his natural and inalienable rights. These rights are equality, liberty, security, and property.

Here is how De Tocqueville characterized the difference between the two philosophies:

Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

So the American Founding Fathers defined “equality” as equal opportunity and equal treatment under law.  The French and later Russian revolutions defined equality as equal social and economic outcomes which cannot be obtained aside from government control of individual’s lives and confiscation of personal property.

The equality of restraint in Socialism expresses itself in some of the arbitrary divisions which are taught in most sensitivity training.  “Classes” of people are arbitrarily defined and then pitted agasint one another with the goal of equalizing outcomes.  Members of some “classes”, regardless of individual economic income or condition, are declared as a group to be “opressors” or “haves” simply because of some trait like a lack of melanin.   Members of other “classes” are likewise declared as a group to be “opressed” or “have nots”.  If someone is a member of an “oppressed class” they receive differential treatment, even though differetial treatment is exactly what the Left claims to be trying to remedy.

It’s bad when arbitrary “classes” are defined based on a known trait such as skin color or biological gender.  It’s even worse when the “classes” are defined based on things that are matters of personal choice.  A person’s gender can be clearly determined by a simple DNA test, even if they are intersexed.  And a person’s general family can be determined genetically as well.  These qualities are what a person “is”.  But most sensitivity training would extend differential treatment to mattters of personal choice and positions of conscience.  For example, the State of California just passed a law allowing children as young as kindergarten (K-12)  to declare a “gender identity” different from what they actually are.  Should a 14 year old girl be made to shower after a volleyball game with a boy that has male genitals but “identifies” with being a girl?  In another example, in Washington State a florist is being sued because her Christian beliefs preclude her from knowingly selling flowers in support of a homosexual marriage.

The same University of Colorado website mentioned earlier also contains the following definitions, related to gender.

Sexism: A set of preconceived assumptions about the ‘proper’ roles, attitudes, and characteristics (especially physical) that men and women should have, typically working to the advantage of men over women; for example, the assumption that ‘a woman’s place is in the home’, or that men are ‘naturally aggressive’. Sexism can be identified by behaviour, speech, and the written word, and is criticized most strongly by feminists

Gender Expression: How one chooses to express one’s gender identity to others through behavior, clothing, hairstyle, voice, body characteristics, etc

Gender Identity: The gender with which a person identifies (i.e, whether one perceives oneself to be a man, a woman, or describes oneself in some less conventional way)…

Personally, I identify people based on thier biological gender even if they say they’ve adopted a different gender.  I refer to Chastity Bono as a “she” rather than a “he”.  According to the definitions above, I am sexist for doing so even though my convictions regarding gender come from my Judeo Christian heritage and the Bible (Genesis 1:27 NASB, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”)

What the Left is doing in mandating personal thinking – not simply condemning racism when it actually occurs, but assuming it and mandating Progressive re-education – is in principle the exact same thing that the Anglican Church did when it was by law the only church in England and the Catholic church did when it was the legal church of Spain.  It’s a shift backwards from Constitutional Republic to the Divine right of kings where the State assumes the role of declaring what personal thoughts are acceptable.

Indeed the State must assume all powers if social and economic outcomes are to be made equal.  Sadly, just as monarchical governments generally lead to a marjority of citizens being low income earners under a small ultra-rich set of lords, so socialist governments invariably lead to a majority of citizens being low income earners under a small ultra-rich set of social planners (usually with town-houses in Paris or personal “dachas” outside Moscow).  The only exception to this is socialist governments which have an unusual source of wealth (Norway’s oil) or governments which are squandering the still remaining fruits of past economic freedom and fiscal restraint (the first few years of the European Union).

Getting back to the rodeo clown and the Obama mask, in the U.S. the current trend towards government at all levels incorrectly adopting socialist language around racism and mandating sensitivity training is nothing less than a Progressive attempt to enforce a world-view which is clearly a respect towards religion.  You can’t control people economically and socially without trying to control their thoughts, which means favoring one world view over another.  With actions like these on the part of Progressives it has reached the point of being a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

What we’re seeing amounts to legislating an official religious national church of Secular Humanism, based on blind faith in Metaphysical Naturalism.

Read Full Post »