Happy Birthday, Karl Marx. You Were WRONG!

While the NYT sings a love song to Leftist oppression theology, the victims of Communism foundation teaches it’s true nature as a new form of slavery.

Uncannily enough, one can always spot a piece of Leftist propaganda from a kilometre away – especially if It’s featured in the New York Times. In this case it was a piece on everyone’s favourite historical figure, if they just happened to favour those who have brought about the mass murder of millions: Karl Marx.

The headline in question: “Happy Birthday, Karl Marx. You Were Right!”. Was on the upcoming birthday of a man who fostered a base, immoral, parasitic ideology has been rightly labelled as organised evil. In the tech world, those who have a particular affinity for certain products or companies are labelled by the colloquial term “Fan Boy”. These are people with an unshakeable faith in certain matters such as the belief that the immoral ideology fostered by Mr. Marx can somehow work someday.

Curiously enough, there are those who seem to have a very myopic mindset, steeped in a particular time period. Admittedly, it can happen to the best of us, for who hasn’t proffered a witticism that falls flat on its face that was better suited for another era that one may happen to be studying at the moment? In this case the author has a bit of a ‘what could have been’ mindset trying to extract a few nuggets of truth from the humanitarian disaster that is Marxism along with the rest of collectivist ideologies. Perhaps the only way one could reconcile this is to set oneself in this mindset of the past, ignoring the results of all the horrific experiments in the collectivist ideologies.

The author even tried to resurrect one of history’s greatest ‘bait and switch’ deceptions, the ‘classless and stateless society’ that was supposedly to manifest itself at some future point by some miraculous process.

The idea of the classless and stateless society would
come to define both Marx’s and Engels’s idea of communism, and of course
the subsequent and troubled history of the Communist “states”
(ironically enough!) that materialized during the 20th century. There is
still a great deal to be learned from their disasters, but their
philosophical relevance remains doubtful, to say the least.

Also note that he blithely dismisses these disasters as though they were natural, one time occurrences instead of being endemic to the basic function of these oppressive regimes.
On the occasion of Victims of Communism Day otherwise known as Mayday, the organisation published this video: Socialism Is Slavery

 

The point being that the fundamental design flaw of Socialism is that regardless of motivation or intent, it’s quest for equality has always RESULTED IN SLAVERY.

Meanwhile, Marion Smith of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in Washington, D.C. emphasised this point in an op-ed that originally appeared in the New Hampshire Union Leader Marion Smith: On May 1, remember that Socialism is slavery

Far from ushering in a more equitable society, socialist movements that subscribed to Marxist ideology engendered a new form of slavery in the modern world.

Marxist ideology is still being used to hold more than a billion people captive around the globe. China, where Xi Jinping just proclaimed the Communist Manifesto’s continued relevance, continues to use a system of Laogai, or forced labor camps, and dictates where the working class can live and work based on a “social credit” system. Venezuela’s socialist regime seized the means of production. Venezuela’s military runs the grocery stores while Nicolas Maduro denies humanitarian food aid to his political opponents. The average Venezuelan has lost more than 20 pounds in the last year.

Millennial Americans who rightly take offense at the greed and inhumanity sometimes exhibited by global corporations must remember that workers’ rights have not improved thanks to international socialism. Workers are only truly empowered in a free society because employers and employees are able to negotiate with each other equally under the law. In a socialist system where the regime owns the means of production, the owner, manager, employer party apparatchik is the law. Workers who would demand better treatment face repression, imprisonment, or worse.

One final note that emphasises that Marx was wrong – Dead Wrong.

As is typical of the Socialist-Left, duplicity is always its watch word. This ranged from Marx’s “classless and stateless society” scam to the story that Rich Venezuelan Socialists Live the High Life In Florida.  But then again, when there are masters, there are sure to be slaves. In this modern form of slavery the masters are the elite of the Socialist-Left.  While the great unwashed – those the elite supposedly care about – serve them.

Originally published on the NOQ Report

 

Advertisements

PragerU Video: Why I Left the Left

Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report used to be a big progressive. He even
had a show with The Young Turks! But now he’s not a progressive. He has
left the left. Why? Dave Rubin shares his story.

Published on Feb 6, 2017

Do you believe in free speech?

Do you believe that people should be judged by their character, not their skin color?

Do you believe in freedom of religion?

If you believe these things, you’re probably not a progressive. You
might think you’re a progressive. I used to think I was. My show, “The
Rubin Report,” was originally part of the progressive “Young Turks”
network.

Progressives struck me as liberals, but louder. Progressives were the
nice guys; they looked out for the little guy; they cared about women
and minorities; they embraced change.

In short, who wouldn’t want to be a progressive?

Progressives used to say, “I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.” Not anymore.

Banning speakers whose opinions you don’t agree with from college
campuses – that’s not progressive. Prohibiting any words not approved of
as “politically correct” – that’s not progressive. Putting “Trigger
Warnings” on books, movies, music, anything that might offend people –
that’s not progressive either.

All of this has led me to be believe that much of the left is no longer progressive, but regressive. This is one of the reasons I’ve spent so much time on my show talking about The Regressive Left.

This regressive ideology doesn’t judge people as individuals, but as a collective.

The battle of ideas has been replaced by a battle of feelings, and
outrage has replaced honesty. Diversity reigns supreme – as long as it’s
not that pesky diversity of thought. This isn’t the recipe for a free society, it’s a recipe for authoritarianism.

 

Originally published on the NOQ Report

Narrative Breakers: Liberty Control Works – United Kingdom Edition.

Who would have guessed that taking away the people’s reasonable human right of self-defence doesn’t keep them safe?

Anyone with a modicum of common sense should have seen this coming
from a mile away. Depriving the innocent of their means of
self-preservation won’t protect them. It doesn’t even ‘cut down on the carnage’ (whatever that means) since criminals – by definition – do not obey the law and will be free to victimize the innocent.

The incessant mantra is that the States are the eccentric barbarians in the world with everyone else living in ‘gun-free’
Utopias. If only we would give up our culture of Liberty for security,
all would be at peace in the world, free to sing Kumbaya while
addressing each other with non-gender specific pronouns.

Violence skyrocketing because it was never about Scary looking Inanimate Objects.

Too bad reality doesn’t fit with such farcical Leftist fantasies. According to a report a few weeks ago in the Independent: Knife and gun crime rockets across England and Wales – as police numbers hit historic lows.
Of course, the spin is that it’s because the government just doesn’t
have enough power over the people. But one cannot help but admire the
pluck of using the same tired Liberty Grabber talking points in trying to prop up a failed disarmament agenda:

Vicky Foxcroft, a Labour MP who chairs the Youth Violence
Commission, said it was time for the Government to accept its strategy
to fight knife crime was failing.

“Enough is enough,” she said. “We need an urgent, united and societal
response to address this rising epidemic and it is time that the
Government wake up to its failing knife crime strategy.”

Meanwhile, The Times reports: London murder rate beats New York as stabbings surge.
These reports should come as a surprise to anyone exclusively imbibing
on the nation’s Socialist Media as of late. For them, the US with it’s
staunch protection of fundamental human rights has become a parish. After all, how dare they insist on the maintenance of Liberty in the face of crying adolescents?

Weapons can be made of just about anything – even hard candy.

It should be troubling to the Liberty grabbers that strict control in
these areas has not solved the problem brought on by an immoral
culture. The plain fact is that no one can ever ban edged weapons
because they have been around since the stone age. These weapons are easy to make with the only requirements being a material that will hold an edge (Stone, Wood, Metal, Plastic, Candy) and a way to make it sharp. To say that these materials are quite prevalent would be an understatement of epic proportions.

The Takeaway.

So perhaps this should be an object lesson for the Liberty Grabbers.
It was never about mere inanimate objects, but a lack of societal moral
underpinnings. That if one can never be rid of weapons, solving the
problem should entail looking elsewhere than controlling Liberty.

Originally published on the NOQ Report

 

Enough is Enough what? Freedom? Liberty?

The #EnoughisEnough hashtag belies a Leftist control fixation against the cause of Liberty.

There is a certain dictatorial twang with that little ditty of a
hashtag. It’s use belies an underlying false idea of unearned authority
over others. That kind of talk is usually heard from parents or teachers in disciplining a child for bad behaviour. In this case that ‘bad behaviour
was that we have asserted the right of self-preservation by the means
we choose. Perhaps they should realise before it’s too late that we are
not the subjects of their false moral authority.

 

It takes a stunning measure of arrogance to arbitrarily decree the
limits of a fellow citizen’s common sense human Rights, but the nation’s
socialist-Left was out marching last weekend to do just that. Unlike
the enumerated rights in the founding documents that protect the
citizens from government tyranny. The Left’s new idea of freedom entails
freshly minted “Rights” that allow certain groups to autocratically restrain the Liberty of their fellow citizens. These are “Rights” based more on feelings and intent and not anything of substance.

It would seem that mere laws aren’t ‘good enough’ any more. Apparently there is a new “Right”
in town that decrees that just the act of possessing an inanimate
object that could be a danger to others is now verboten. Not to mention
that being free from being scared is also a new “Right” never
contemplated in the annals of civilization.

Well, sorry to be the bearer of bad news to those who think that feelings are “Rights”
or that Liberty is subservient to potential danger. But that isn’t how a
representative republic works. For starters, they should look at how
the Oxford English Dictionary defines the word inalienable.

Not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor.

One may have the certain inalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness endowed by their Creator, but that doesn’t mean that others don’t have them as well.
The sword of equality cuts both ways. Merely possessing an object
capable of causing death or destruction cannot be a standard by which
Liberty is parcelled out. Neither is the false standard of fear to be
the mode by which freedom is measured.
Originally published on the NOQ Report

 

Why Principles Matter – 2nd Amendment Edition.

There are times when one feels compelled to write on certain subjects
without knowing the reason. Consequently, this was begun a few days ago
in anticipation of some occurrence. Then came the infamous utterance of
President Trump to ‘Take the guns first, go through due process second’.
This was followed up by the stomach-churning video of that meeting with
Senator Dianne Feinstein giddy at the prospect of Trump betraying his core base in banning almost all firearms.

Anyone with a logical mind should be able to see what is going to
happen next. Whatever measures passed under the auspices of Trump will
not solve the problem – because this was Never the intent. Soon enough,
another massacre will take place, the rhetoric will be reset to zero
with a repetition of the same process. Demands will be repeated to “Do something”!

Once again President Loose cannon will blithely advocate parceling away our God-given rights as a sacrifice to ‘Bipartisanship’.
The precedent will have been set for another round of attacks against
our common sense human rights. The same meetings will take place, with
as yet another denigration of our rights. At some point, it will occur
to Trump that the nation’s socialist Left doesn’t have his or Liberty’s
interests at heart. But by that time the damage will already have been
done.

Let’s make this perfectly Clear: The 2nd amendment is non-negotiable.

It is not to be trifled away like Christmas hams for the sake of a pleasant photo-op. The
Bill of Rights has a two-fold purpose, it restrains the government
while protecting the liberty of world’s smallest minority – the
individual.
Each one of it’s carefully crafted amendments limit the collective power of the mob against a minority of one. The truly Liberal founding fathers knew that freedom is diminished with the expansion of the government:

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” Thomas Jefferson

This crucial point is perfectly exemplified with the 2nd amendment,
for each denigration of this common sense Human and Civil Right has a
corresponding expansion of the power of the government. It is an
understatement to declare that this Civil Right is the most important. People cannot exercise their other rights without having the means to defend themselves from oppression.

This has been proven many times down through history with the
Hungarian revolution against the oppressive USSR in 1956 to the massive
daily protests last year against the Socialist regime of Nicholas Maduro
in Venezuela. From the Prague Spring to Tiananmen Square, if
the people do not have the right and means to defend themselves, they do
not have rights of free-speech, free-press or every other right.

This is a debate over Liberty, not about inanimate objects.

The people who falsely fashion themselves as being ‘Liberal’ have been quite busy exploiting this current “Serious Crisis” to the hilt. They’ve dropped the toxic phrase ‘Gun control’ for the fascist friendly phrases ‘Gun reform’ or ‘Gun safety’.

Make no mistake, this isn’t about ‘safety’, ’Gun law reform’ or a number of other deceptive terms. This is about Liberty Control or Liberty reform. Yes, you read that correctly: Liberty instead of the word ‘gun’.
Unlike the national Socialist-Left, we are going to use the words that
precisely define the issue at stake. Guns are nothing but inanimate
objects of metal, wood or plastic. These items have no inherent Civil or
Human rights, they are only the means to secure Liberty. Rights can only be possessed by individuals – not a hunk of iron, thus the real meaning of this debate.

It’s been said that “He who defines the terms, wins the debate”. The gun grabber Left would love this to be about inanimate objects: guns, or even the undefined term “Assault Weapons”.Those who are supposedly ‘Liberal’ don’t want this debate properly framed as one over Liberty – because then they would lose the argument.

One last point: The Left has clearly shown themselves to be the enemy of Liberty.

The Left has made this perfectly clear with their moves to eviscerate
the most important right, the first freedom if you will, along with
other attacks against the 1st and other amendments. The right of
self-defence is the lynchpin for all the other rights, take that away
and the rest will be in jeopardy. Therefore, it should be patently
obvious the Left does not care for the cause of liberty
in the form of the 2nd amendment or any others. They are following in
the blood-soaked footsteps of collectivist of the past who have used the
vestiges of democracy to attain power and then ejected them when
convenient.

It should also be clear that they do not deserve the self-lauding approbation of being ‘Liberal’.
Liberty and Liberal both have the same root word origin in Latin as
meaning freedom, it should be clear that they no longer fit this overly
complimentary term. We will not win this argument playing the rules set
down by the national Socialist Left. And we will not win if we don’t stick to our founding principles.

Originally published on the NOQ Report

 

Video – SAS2017: Dennis Prager

 Liberals have been brainwashed into thinking the right is the enemy when the real enemy of Liberalism is the Left.

“We are fighting the Left, Not Liberals.” – Dennis Prager[7 minute mark]

Dennis Prager Of PragerU Speaks To Thousands Of Conservative Activists From Across The Country At Turning Point USA’s Annual Student Action Summit In West Palm Beach, FL! #BigGovSucks #TPUSA #PragerU

Courtesy of: Turning Point USA,

Dennis Prager of PragerU and other endeavours gave a superb speech at Turning Point USA’s Annual Student Action Summit. The whole 57 minute video is well worth watching because he discusses some very important topics, but here are some of the most important points he raised in the first few minutes of the speech:

  • We are fighting the Left, not Liberals.

This [point] will help you immensely in making converts or at least making people aware of what you’re fighting.

Liberals have been brainwashed into thinking the right is the enemy when the real enemy of Liberalism is the Left.

  • Every American coin has what American stands for Liberty and in God we Trust, E pluribus unum. All three repulse the Left.
  • We are in a non-violent civil war.
  • The Left wishes to undo the American Revolution.

The left has never been interested in Liberty except for abortion, they have no desire for individual freedom.

There were two revolutions at the end of the 18th Century, The American and the French.
They had very little in common. And the biggest difference between them was, one affirmed equality and one did not.

  • The American revolution was for Liberty. The French revolution was for equality.

You cannot have Liberty and equality as equal values. The moment there is Liberty, there is inequality.
We believe in two equalities, one that we are all God’s Children, we all created in God’s image and therefore we are all equal. And that we are all equal before the Law.

The points he raised were also articulated in a column of his several years ago entitled: It’s a Civil War: What We Do Now

In this unprecedented crisis of values, this is what needs to be done:

1. Know and teach America’s core values.

In a nutshell, they are what I call the American Trinity: “In God we trust,” “Liberty” and “E Pluribus Unum.” The left has successfully made war on all three — substituting secularism for God and religion in as much of American life as possible; substituting equality (of result) for liberty; and multiculturalism is the opposite of “E Pluribus Unum.”

2. Recognise that we are fighting the left, not liberals.

Conservatives and centrists are no longer fighting liberals. We are fighting the left.

Liberalism believed in American exceptionalism; the left not only does not believe in it, the left opposes it.

Liberalism believed in creating wealth; the left is interested in redistributing it.

Liberalism believed in a strong defense. The left believes in cutting defense and a strong United Nations.

7. Acknowledge that we are in a non-violent civil war.

I write the words “civil war” with an ache in my heart. But we are in one.

Thank God this civil war is non-violent. But the fact is that the left and the rest of the country share almost no values. The American value system and the leftist value system are irreconcilable. If the left wins, America’s values lose. If American values prevail, the left loses.

Scrap Socialism: Part I

The collectivist ideologies have left a trail of death and
destruction for centuries, isn’t it time to be rid of them as a viable
form of government?

“A society based on the freedom to choose is better than a society based on the principles of socialism, communism and coercion.” – Milton Friedman

Why the economic slavery of Socialism, etc. need to be eliminated

Since the Socialist-Left insists on recycling the absurd idea of
abolishing the economic liberty of the Free-Market [Or their pejorative
terminology ‘capitalism’] why not consider the reverse position of
abolishing the economic slavery of Socialism? The means scraping it’s
dizzying array of alternate labels which all can be included ‘collectively’ as: Socialism, etc.
We will make the case for the abolition of theses ideologies and the
keeping of economic liberty. This will be built upon three main parts.
The first will be an examination of the age of experimentation of
governance and why the best forms should be kept and the worst rejected.
The second will be a brief overview of the history of the collectivist
ideologies and why its variations of failure make the case for their
abolition. Finally we will examine the sins of socialism, etc., as a
basis for humanity rejecting collectivism.

The age of experimentation of governance

It could be argued that the past few centuries since the dawn of the
industrial revolution have been a crucible for the refinement of how
people can govern themselves. Agriculture had originally made it more
advantageous for people to live in groups and governments were
instituted to protect property and bring order out of chaos. The
industrial age saw the creation of new forms of governance with some
being far more successful than others. Now is the time to consider which
of these should be utilized and which should be relegated to the ash
heap of history.

The origin of collectivist ideologies could be traced back to ancient
times exemplified with the expression of the ideas in the works of
Plato. These were followed centuries later with Thomas More’s seminal
work ‘Utopia’ published more than 500 years ago in 1516.  Even the Marxists have acknowledged that this 500 year old tome was the first ‘genuinely socialist position’.
The collectivist fantasy world envisioned in the book didn’t have to
accede to the flaws and foibles of the reality of imperfect human
beings, thus it could be a perfect society. This tendency to assume that
fanciful theoretical constructs can work the real world is a common
denominator with the Socialist-Left. This is partially how they can
explain away the repeated failures of their base ideology down through
the centuries. Since there can never be a melding of the real
world and the theoretical, they always have a ready made excuse for why
it’s never worked.

These Utopian fantasies are postulated on the idea that human
beings can be made perfect and thus can be the basis of a perfect
society.
History should teach us that this is an impossible
task because people will always have flaws and imperfections.
Collectivists of the past have tried to reform people into perfect
beings through various means and have always failed. Governmental
systems that take into account that people are imperfect are far more
successful.
While the Socialist-Left would like people to think that it’s tired old concepts are ‘fresh’, ‘scientific’ and the wave of the future, the plain fact is that they are centuries old
with a consistent history of incessant failure. This contention is
rather ironic given that experimentation in the collectivist forms of
governance were some of the first new forms and prevalent within the
historic record of the past few centuries.

It is also supremely ironic that the first trial runs of the failed
collectivist ideologies took place in the Americas, given that these
ideas are now thought of as new and originating in Europe. The first
colonies in the new world of Jamestown and Plymouth
practised a disastrous form of collectivism that saw the first vestiges
of death that has plagued that ideology since it’s inception. The
fruits of everyone’s labour were placed in a common store, and since
there was no advantage to work the results were pitiful and the people
starved. It was only after the protection of private property
whereby people were able to keep their earnings that the colonies
flourished.

Of course, the rest of the story was that the colonies formed a
nation and won their independence. Thankfully, the founding fathers were
learned men and they studied what works and what does not and brought
forth the best form of government ever created. Their study of the works
of John Locke and Charles de Montesquieu taught them to restrain the
government and ‘provide new guards for their future security’.

The representative republic they created is the best form of
governance by far, and it’s track record speaks for itself. The
Socialist-left is constantly disavowing it’s string of past failures
with repetition of the lie ‘that wasn’t real socialism’ or that
‘Socialism has never really been tried’. No one has ever said that about
a representative republics, that alone should point to that form of
government being the best and that the collectivist ideologies being the
worst.

The true genius of the founding fathers was that they understood the
basic forms of government and selected the best for the new nation.
Thomas Jefferson wrote the following encapsulation of the three types of
government in a letter to James Madison, in 1787:

“Societies exist under three forms sufficiently
distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under
governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence,
as is
the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great
one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other
monarchies and in most of the other republics.

History has taught us that the second type is the best form. It
should also be clear that the collectivist forms fall into the third
category given that they depend on force to impose collective instead of
individual rights.

The collectivist ideologies depend on force to redistribute property.

Force and coercion are the only way to control people and properly
redistribute their wealth. At some point the guns have to come out to
pay for all the free-stuff promised by the Socialist-Left, that is the
ugly truth of Socialism, etc. and the collectivist ideal. It is also the
reason the Socialist-Left has to couch it’s ideology in terms of
‘freedom’ and ‘equality’. But just like it’s pretence of creating a
perfect society, those two concepts are incompatible.

“Human beings are born with different capacities. If they
are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not
free.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

The Takeaway

We need to recognize the true genius of the founding fathers in what
they created. The government they formulated has served us well for over
240 years. No government or society can ever be perfect, because they
are based on imperfect beings. The collectivist forms are based on the arrogant but impossible idea that people and societies can somehow be perfected.
History teaches us that these beliefs will lead to simple failure in
the best case scenario, and concentration camps and mass murder in the
worst. This is why these ideologies need to be eliminated as viable
forms of government.

Originially posted on the NOQ Report.