Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Loathings: Liars and Leftists
Let us rid ourselves of liars and dissemblers!
One thing I must admit to myself and to any others that are interested is that I have a number of deep personal loathings. These loathings may well get in the way of seeing the good in some of the people I loathe, so I must be aware of that problem and compensate for it.
So what are these loathings?
First and foremost, I loathe liars of all forms, and those who shade the truth or disguise the truth for personal advantage. I am thinking here of the likes of Obama, Bill Clinton and his wife for three examples. They practice the "tell you one thing (usually what you want to hear) and do the opposite" quite consistently. It seems to be a trait of many in the political field, especially on the left, to distort or hide the truth for leftist purposes. A further trait is making promises that they know they cannot keep, simply to convince the unwary that they are on their side. Total up how many Obama promises have been broken up to now.
The second group I loathe are those who, in their misguided mindset, wish to change our form of government towards collectivism in one or more of its guises: progressivism, secular humanism, socialism, or communism. Again, it seems that Obama and his cohorts are of this persuasion. These guises have three common characteristics, they lead to totalitarianism, they lead to a planned economy, and they lead to a Godless society, none of which I can possibly accept. The hallmark of such guises is the phrase "redistribution of (other people's) wealth."
The third group of people I loathe are the hypocrites that attack the religion of Christianity, while supporting Islam and its goals of world domination in the name of Allah, or at least allowing it the freedom to succeed and grow in our nation. On the one hand, they tear down our major national religious thrust, Christianity, and on the other hand they lend support to a most deadly enemy of Christianity, that of Islam, in the name of religious freedom. In my view, our religious freedom law is not meant to be a suicide pact. I believe it is true that most people in America do not know what Islam really stands for, or how extensive the threat to our way of life it represents.
When you have all of these sins working against you, as we do now under Obama, it is high time to change every one of the people in power.
One thing I must admit to myself and to any others that are interested is that I have a number of deep personal loathings. These loathings may well get in the way of seeing the good in some of the people I loathe, so I must be aware of that problem and compensate for it.
So what are these loathings?
First and foremost, I loathe liars of all forms, and those who shade the truth or disguise the truth for personal advantage. I am thinking here of the likes of Obama, Bill Clinton and his wife for three examples. They practice the "tell you one thing (usually what you want to hear) and do the opposite" quite consistently. It seems to be a trait of many in the political field, especially on the left, to distort or hide the truth for leftist purposes. A further trait is making promises that they know they cannot keep, simply to convince the unwary that they are on their side. Total up how many Obama promises have been broken up to now.
The second group I loathe are those who, in their misguided mindset, wish to change our form of government towards collectivism in one or more of its guises: progressivism, secular humanism, socialism, or communism. Again, it seems that Obama and his cohorts are of this persuasion. These guises have three common characteristics, they lead to totalitarianism, they lead to a planned economy, and they lead to a Godless society, none of which I can possibly accept. The hallmark of such guises is the phrase "redistribution of (other people's) wealth."
The third group of people I loathe are the hypocrites that attack the religion of Christianity, while supporting Islam and its goals of world domination in the name of Allah, or at least allowing it the freedom to succeed and grow in our nation. On the one hand, they tear down our major national religious thrust, Christianity, and on the other hand they lend support to a most deadly enemy of Christianity, that of Islam, in the name of religious freedom. In my view, our religious freedom law is not meant to be a suicide pact. I believe it is true that most people in America do not know what Islam really stands for, or how extensive the threat to our way of life it represents.
When you have all of these sins working against you, as we do now under Obama, it is high time to change every one of the people in power.
Labels: Atheism, Christianity, Collectivism, Islam, Secular Humanism, Socialists
Thursday, February 09, 2012
On Collectivism
Collectivism versus Communism and Socialism
The first terms that come to mind about Collectivism are the older and simpler Communist and Fellow Traveler, rather than the myriad shades of Radical Liberalism, Progressivism, Collectivism, Socialism, Marxism and (still) Communism that are in use today to describe both theoretical and actual government organizations, and in particular, some political group orientations that are operating in and around our government today.
The primary evidence I have come across to date of a substantial group flying the flag of Socialism in America is the 56 to 70 or so members( as of about 2000) of the Democratic Socialists of America or DSA that are also members of the House of Representatives of the USA. They are identified here by name:
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/dsa_members.htm
Of course, it is not very smart for such men to parade their allegiance to Socialism in today’s Individualistic America, nor is it very practical for those who believe in Communism to wear their badges either, in the public eye if they want to serve in government, so they hide under various guises: Progressivism, Collectivism, “Democratic Socialism (of America!), Liberalism, Far-Leftists, but not the poison word Communism, not yet anyway!
From the same source:
“Q: What are seven principles behind what the DSA's calls it's "Progressive Challenge?"
Dignified Work
Environmental Justice
Economic Redistribution
Democratic Participation
Community Empowerment
Global Non-Violence
Social Justice
To implement these mainly Collectivist/Socialist principles, there must be significant change in the US. Private Property must be dissolved in favor of the State; Economic Redistribution really means to take over the productive industries and all of the land of the private sector by way of eminent domain, and for the government to become the owner of record, as Socialist nations must. Then it will be the government that is supposed to solve all of the problems of inequality in our current society, render social justice to the downtrodden, lead the effort to create environmental justice for the World, provide “dignified work” to all, and stand down our military in an act to further non-violence in the World, or else empower the UN to have its own military capable of co-opting all or nearly all national militaries to their ends.
I would personally argue that there are both short-range goals (a few decades), and long-range goals (perhaps three, four, or more decades) for the DSA and its allied organizations. In the short range it is the further Socialization of America. It is not clear, however, which of the many brands and subbrands of Socialism they have in mind. In the long range, however, it is for the Socialist State to evolve into a Communist State, an outcome that Marx thought to be inevitable. Here again, the exact type of Communism is not specified, but one thing is certain: it would have to be a revolution to a totalitarian regime in order to seize full control in America.
Marx wrote that in order to implement the Utopian Communist State it would be necessary to destroy the existing Capitalist state completely, and then to rebuild it along Socialist/Communist lines, together with the careful fostering and education of the New Socialist Man (see Theodore His-en Chen, http://www.jstor.org/pss/1186949, and others.), who would fit to populate this Utopia.
A radical idea in this regard is to separate parents from their children so that the children can be educated very early on to the New Socialist Man philosophy, which was an early staple concept in both Communism and Secular Humanism as first defined. Religion in this Utopia is to be destroyed in favor of elevating the State to a God-like status. While this concept is very much still in the minds of Collectivists, they could not stand up to the furor that was raised by the people about giving up their children, so they left it out of later tomes.
This path to Utopia has never been and never will be completed for the very simple reason that those in power can not give their power up, they cannot manage a modern economy effectively, and those oppressed by this false dream will in the end rise up against it, and they will not morph themselves into or foster the New Socialist Man. In my estimation, Utopianism is a chimera, and hence undue emphasis in government to Socialist or Communist principles is doomed to failure.
Collectivism versus Communism and Socialism
The first terms that come to mind about Collectivism are the older and simpler Communist and Fellow Traveler, rather than the myriad shades of Radical Liberalism, Progressivism, Collectivism, Socialism, Marxism and (still) Communism that are in use today to describe both theoretical and actual government organizations, and in particular, some political group orientations that are operating in and around our government today.
The primary evidence I have come across to date of a substantial group flying the flag of Socialism in America is the 56 to 70 or so members( as of about 2000) of the Democratic Socialists of America or DSA that are also members of the House of Representatives of the USA. They are identified here by name:
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/dsa_members.htm
Of course, it is not very smart for such men to parade their allegiance to Socialism in today’s Individualistic America, nor is it very practical for those who believe in Communism to wear their badges either, in the public eye if they want to serve in government, so they hide under various guises: Progressivism, Collectivism, “Democratic Socialism (of America!), Liberalism, Far-Leftists, but not the poison word Communism, not yet anyway!
From the same source:
“Q: What are seven principles behind what the DSA's calls it's "Progressive Challenge?"
Dignified Work
Environmental Justice
Economic Redistribution
Democratic Participation
Community Empowerment
Global Non-Violence
Social Justice
To implement these mainly Collectivist/Socialist principles, there must be significant change in the US. Private Property must be dissolved in favor of the State; Economic Redistribution really means to take over the productive industries and all of the land of the private sector by way of eminent domain, and for the government to become the owner of record, as Socialist nations must. Then it will be the government that is supposed to solve all of the problems of inequality in our current society, render social justice to the downtrodden, lead the effort to create environmental justice for the World, provide “dignified work” to all, and stand down our military in an act to further non-violence in the World, or else empower the UN to have its own military capable of co-opting all or nearly all national militaries to their ends.
I would personally argue that there are both short-range goals (a few decades), and long-range goals (perhaps three, four, or more decades) for the DSA and its allied organizations. In the short range it is the further Socialization of America. It is not clear, however, which of the many brands and subbrands of Socialism they have in mind. In the long range, however, it is for the Socialist State to evolve into a Communist State, an outcome that Marx thought to be inevitable. Here again, the exact type of Communism is not specified, but one thing is certain: it would have to be a revolution to a totalitarian regime in order to seize full control in America.
Marx wrote that in order to implement the Utopian Communist State it would be necessary to destroy the existing Capitalist state completely, and then to rebuild it along Socialist/Communist lines, together with the careful fostering and education of the New Socialist Man (see Theodore His-en Chen, http://www.jstor.org/pss/1186949, and others.), who would fit to populate this Utopia.
A radical idea in this regard is to separate parents from their children so that the children can be educated very early on to the New Socialist Man philosophy, which was an early staple concept in both Communism and Secular Humanism as first defined. Religion in this Utopia is to be destroyed in favor of elevating the State to a God-like status. While this concept is very much still in the minds of Collectivists, they could not stand up to the furor that was raised by the people about giving up their children, so they left it out of later tomes.
This path to Utopia has never been and never will be completed for the very simple reason that those in power can not give their power up, they cannot manage a modern economy effectively, and those oppressed by this false dream will in the end rise up against it, and they will not morph themselves into or foster the New Socialist Man. In my estimation, Utopianism is a chimera, and hence undue emphasis in government to Socialist or Communist principles is doomed to failure.
Labels: Collectivism, Communists, Progressivism, Socialism
