Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘socialism’

It’s tragic that a bedroom community of San Antonio experienced today a death toll almost half of that which occurred in the city of Chicago just last month. The 53 deaths in Chicago, while less than the mass shooting in Vegas, go largely unaddressed by the left leaning national media. Chicago’s worst monthly death toll this year, June, exceeded the Vegas shooting toll by 27 souls lost. Again, this is almost never addressed by the left because I’m convinced the thinkers in media care more about symbolism and socialism – and the disarming of the citizenry necessary to impose socialism – than they care about the actual lives involved. Of course this is rationalized to the point of convincing one’s self it’s for other, nobler reasons. But when push comes to shove I believe it boils down to cold, hard logic for them. What they believe is the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Socialism in the former Soviet Union took tens of millions of it’s own citizen’s lives in “peace” time. It’s ironic that almost 20% of millennials today view the Soviet Union favorably, and many more view Communism in general favorably. They’ve come to this under the socialist teachings of leftist educators such as former Communist terrorist Bill Ayers who was a primary contributor to common core, and Howard Zinn who started the Marxist apocryphal anti-American history movement which dictates most of the contents of school history texts today, etc.

This really is a values issue. Many of those in leadership on the left who want gun control don’t truly believe in morality apart from class warfare. They believe God is unknowable, or even that belief is God is some kind of tragic psychosis. In the end they cannot condemn murder apart from some form of arbitrary rationalization. Who is to say that will to power isn’t noble, even if the one wielding power has to “crack a few eggs” to “make an omelette”. Isn’t that survival of the fittest?

Well, I have a solution to the problem of mass shootings in America these days.

1. Bring back voluntary recitation of the Regent’s Prayer in public schools every day

2. Bring back the pledge of allegiance in public schools every day

3. Bring back voluntary posting of the Ten Commandments in public school rooms

4. Immediately stop all welfare programs which reward or encourage fatherlessness in poor communities until such time as the programs are amended to encourage two parent homes with a father and a mother. Having a father and a mother in the home is the number one indicator of future mental and financial success for children, and a number one indicator of future adherence to the law

5. Immediately do away with the Howard Zinn “history from below” (i.e., anti-American socialist propaganda) model of history in public schools, and re-implement true American history and civics. Teach the founding principles.

6. Teach money management in schools. Every child should come out of their education with a strong dislike of debt and a strong affinity towards hard work and saving

7. Do away with draconian gun laws and encourage hunting and knowledge of self-defense. This goes hand in hand with encouraging having a father in the home

In short, we need to go back and do the things we’ve done in previous generations before leftists did away with Judeo Christian morality, the same leftists who today act shocked that people are getting used to hearing of mass murders in our communities.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

The downfall of the city of Detroit over the last 50 years has been the subject of much discussion.  For example there was the time Stephen Crowder did a drive through of Detroit to document that much of the city is in a shockingly run down condition –

Here is my response to someone online who was recently trying to imply that the destruction in some inner-cities such as Detroit has been the result of racial inferiority.

All sorts of folks with all sorts of features are involved with all sorts of cultures. Drawing a line around skin color is an unscientific way to define a “race” because:

1) For ever variation of human feature you will find some individual, some family, who is exactly in-between so that you may never draw a line and say, “here is where the ‘x’ race begins”, or, “here is where the ‘y’ race ends, etc.

2) Every person is the result of endless migrations by endless families across the earth. For example, the average person from Latin America has ancestors from American first nations, from Africa, from Spain, and through Spain from Italy (Romans), Arabia (Moors) and even Northern Europe (Goths). How could anyone begin to classify such a person as being a separate “race”? Every group of people on earth has a similarly intertwined history. My family is from middle England so I have Irish, Scottish, Britain, Scandinavian, Norman and French. And that’s just on my Father’s side (which also includes, more recently, Montana Niitsitapi “Blackfoot” Indian, which flows through my very European looking veins).

3) Genetic science has recently proven the existence of a progenitor “Mitochondrial Eve” from whom all people are descended. Even science backs up the idea that we are all simply human beings.

4) Drawing a line around skin color would be like drawing a line around height. Imagine saying that, “from now on everyone who is 5’7″ to 5’8″ is a separate race – the Mid-Heighters!” Ridiculous. It is no less ridiculous to insist that someone is a separate race because of iris color, shoe size, double-jointedness or whatever their melanin happens to be.

I believe this is a solid response to racism.

Read Full Post »

Stephen Hawking has recently suggested that the danger to the world of a rogue, all-power Artificial Intelligence (AI) could be mitigated if nations would go in for one-world government.  His comments appear in a recent article in the U.K. Independent:

[Hawking] suggests that “some form of world government” could be ideal for the job [of controlling malice and aggression and the danger of an AI’s response to them], but would itself create more problems.

“But that might become a tyranny,” he added. “All this may sound a bit doom-laden but I am an optimist. I think the human race will rise to meet these challenges.”

Hawking is a brilliant theoretical physicist and a lousy philosopher.  As a modern Humanist / Atheist he refuses to admit to the selfish nature of mankind and believes in the altruism of social planners.  But every attempt at Humanist utopias in the past 220 years has proven such projects not simply unworkable, but downright hellish and lethal.  The push among those on the Left for a one-world government is just another such attempt.

A better plan for mitigating mankind’s darker proclivities comes from James Madison in Federalist Paper #51:

….Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself….

Madison had formerly explained the reasons a one-world government could never work – it is impossible to give all people the same opinions, passions and interests.  Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #10:

….There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests….

Hawking doesn’t understand mankind’s selfish nature because he has been indoctrinated into the flawed utopic philosophy of the Left.  He doesn’t realize that any attempt at a one-world government could, even if only partially successful, be what winds up paving the way for something like an all-powerful AI. One which could – in the mold of the Marxist government it serves – unwittingly destroy humans in an attempt to make it’s own little utopia.

Read Full Post »

Chris Wallace interviewing the chief architect of the ACA, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who is an avowed socialist and proponent of relative morality. Wallace tries to get a straight answer out of Emanuel – didn’t the President promise that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor? Listen to Emanuel laugh out loud at the question, and then try to change it by saying, “The President never said you were going to have unlimited choice of any doctor in the country…” Wanting to keep my doctor, who I have had for the past 10 years, is not asking for an unlimited choice of any doctor. I simply want to keep mine, who the President promised I could keep. But that’s how truth works with these people – it’s entirely relative and subject to the concerns of arbitrarily defined class interests. When pressed further Emanuel abandons the line and says, “Yes, but look, if you want to pay more for an insurance company that covers your doctor you can do that.” Translation: If you want to pick and choose what service the government allows you to have, you are part of an arbitrarily conceived and defined class of “haves” who must be plundered and have their wealth redistributed to an arbitrarily conceived and defined class of “have nots”. Folks, this is pure Marxism. At the end Wallace says, “The President guaranteed me I can keep my doctor.” Emanuel responds, “And if you want to, you can pay for it.” Watch Emanuel’s facial expressions and body language.  He knows his answers before Wallace even asks the questions, and clearly considers it demeaning to have to explain things to those he considers to be the ignorant and unenlightened masses. In his mind, it doesn’t matter that the President lied to everyone. All that matters is furthering the cause of Marxist wealth redistribution.  In his mind, you are too ignorant to choose your own doctor.

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 »