The True Political Spectrum: Washing Away The Deceptive Left-Wing, Right-Wing Terminology In Favour Of The Reality That Either You Are Free From Government Or You Are Oppressed By Government

In this age, society will always be imperfect at best.

Jesus has not yet assumed his position as King of the nations and consequently there will never be a perfect political and economic system

But let’s remember that we do have a choice about just how bad things can get.

After all, would you prefer the Third Reich and Communism or something a little more freeing?

People literally chose both of those and look how it ended.

Because this is a fallen world, the natural tendency is always towards corruption and the misuse of power. If something good is established in the political and economic realms, it wasn’t achieved without the hard work of people fighting against authoritarian and totalitarian ideologies. 

In essence, someone realised that humanity were made to be free and they fought against those who sought to subdue that freedom in the name of whatever oppressive ideology was popular at the time.

And guess what: nothing has changed!

The contemporary West is in many regards the most successful society ever and most of that can be attributed to the esteemed value of the individual.

Sadly, we are in a significant upheaval where much of what has been gained is currently been stripped away by the corrupt leaders elected by ignorant “useful idiots” who don’t understand their history and consequently cannot see the oppressive future they are ushering in of their own free volition.

As always these days, an understanding of the true political spectrum (ie not the left-right lie where of your two party options, one is always left and one is always right) is absolutely necessary to avoid falling trap to the deceptive language employed by politicians who seek ever more power over society.

The below article from Mr E at Rocking Philosophy is asimple yet astute breakdown of the political into an accurate and useable form: namely the relationship between the size and power of government versus the freedom of the individual.

I find his ending statements the most fascinating as Mr E, an atheist, expresses his desire for a world “where individuals have total autonomy and collectives can only ever be voluntary”. 

If you know anything about the God of the bible, this is exactly what is promised therein.

Don’t get sidetracked with supposed Christian empire in history that committed evil acts or scandals involving the church and paedophilia. I’m not talking about Christians who fail to be like Christ, or in plenty of cases, people who only claimed the name of “Christian” – I’m referring to what God says the church is and will be perfectly when Jesus rules over the nations as King.

Humanity will be perfectly free, from sin and even death, (with “free” meaning free to love, not free to act selfishly and dangerously) and the church is by default a collective that you can only become part of by your free will, otherwise known as voluntary.

Indeed, this is why we choose freely to become Christians – because our sin is killing us and we want to be made like Jesus, so wing God freely promises to all those who say yes to him.

The True Political Spectrum

Having made a video about the left-right paradigm I feel the yearning to further expound on a more accurate representation of what the left and right truly are. I’ve been researching the concept of the political spectrum for quite some time, and the political compass appears to be the most widely used:

I can no longer accept the accuracy of this chart, since collectivists are always authoritarian to some degree. They restrict individual liberty, and define rights via collective approval. This is the epitome of totalitarianism, brushing aside individuals for collective goals. This is not only oppressive to the individual, but also leads to problems like regulatory capture. Where would the ‘too big to fail’ bankers be today without state funded bailouts, bad debts passed onto the people via money printing and inflation?

Some might argue that if the banks failed then there would have been chaos. This is the fault of policies allowing a small number to dictate economic activity, and tilt this in their favour. The ‘too big to fail’ bankers didn’t care

about losses because they knew that central banks were there to insure them in the event of failure. There is no way to prevent this sort of monopoly under collectivism, since power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore it’s better to have a system where mistakes cannot be accommodated for with bailouts and ponzi schemes.

Before a more accurate diagram of the present political spectrum can be given it’s important to be aware of what democracy truly is. Democracy is a collectivist ideology that defines rights via the ballot box. This is the same throughout the democratic world. True, there is a far stronger Lockean inspired culture of individualism in the United States, but still democracy has the same problems wherever one goes, and it’s worked wonders for the expansion of socialism. It saddens me that two world wars were fought in the 20th century, and still socialism could not be kept at bay. While fascism, which is simply National Socialism, has been denigrated as the true face of evil, the same cannot be said for international socialism, otherwise known as communism.

If by now you need to be told that Hitler, fascism, and Nazism, are all socialist ideologies driven by state protectionism and nationalism, then the chances are you’re a communist, or an admirer of Marx. There’s always the strong possibility you swallowed the blue pill of government education that teaches people that the Nazis were far-right, even though they controlled the means of production via state regulated corporations, and restricted property rights. If you need any of this confirmed then I have already made videos called “National & International Socialism” and “Nazis Vs Marxists”.

Nothing seems to make a Marxist and a communist angrier than the unrevised fact that fascism and communism are two sides of the same coin. Fascism obsesses over race, while communism endlessly deals with class, but both demand adherence to authority. Hence they are both totalitarian. These two great evils have fought for dominance throughout the 20th century, and today we have a society where democracy is a perpetual battle for control of production and property rights via either the fascist or communist models.

Corporatism itself is a fascist ideology, where the means of production is manipulated by regulation defined by the state. The differences between this and communist control of production is something communists will contest ad nauseum. But they are semantical issues that ignore the fact that corporations could never exist without state policies of corporate personhood. Under laissez-faire, corporations would just be businesses, like any other. The state however benefits from corporations collecting taxes and controlling society on the behalf of bureaucrats, like feudal lords herding peasants on farmlands under feudalism.

With all this in mind we can now begin to see that we only live in one half of a paradigm made up of collectivism and individualism. Presently we live entirely within the collectivist half, where international socialism and National Socialism reside. Here is what this looks like:

It may seem very unfair to label conservatives as fascists, but this only occurs because the right-wing political choice under democracy is merely a corporatist and nationalistic alternative. Conservatism as an ideology is predominantly based around questioning change, since change may not necessarily lead to good things. Therefore I am not inclined to believe by any stretch of the imagination that conservatives are fascists per se. Admittedly they are more authoritarian than many libertarians. But they are always looking to create a society of personal accountability and minimal statism, which is far more than can be said for any socialist, obsessed with absolute control of society.

Conservatives are often associated with organised religion. Organised religion can be very problematic when it merges with the state. This is called theocracy, and is just another form of collectivism. It is not however compulsory to be religious if you are a conservative, and many conservatives are atheists. Having cleared this up it’s much easier to understand why modern right-wing parties have been lumbered in with fascists, due to their big government military spending and corporate welfare policies. Saying that, the term “far-right” is a smokescreen, since fascists are only far-right collectivists, not far right on a broader political spectrum, which looks like this:

Here the totalitarian ideologies, be it national or international socialism, are on the far left. As we progress to the right we pass all ideologies that demand adherence to the state, like democratic political parties. The middle is obviously the centrist position, though I would call this sitting on the fence. The first position to the right is libertarianism. Modern ‘purist’ libertarians believe in a state that only comprises of military, courts, and police, protecting natural rights instead of defining them (note: left-libertarians are merely communists, using dialectic to reframe terminology). This shows why libertarians are on the right, since they actively work towards a limited state, and democracy would not be a legitimate method to infringe upon the natural rights of the individual. These ideas are defined by such philosophers as John Locke, Ayn Rand, and of course the Austrian economists.

The far-right position is stateless anarchy. In a world of anarchy the individual is sovereign. Appeals to consequences galore are usually the opposition to a stateless world, but at the very least it’s possible to grasp that the interpretation of the political spectrum in this case is totalitarianism on one end, where individuals have no rights without collective approval, and anarchy on the other, where individuals have total autonomy and collectives can only ever be voluntary. Perhaps some day we can live in this world, but for now even libertarianism would be a positive result for individualists, and a perfect transitory step for the evolution of human society to voluntaryism. It seems to me that the history of mankind is the battle for individual autonomy over the collective, and I for one aim to help this cause.

http://www.rockingphilosophy.com/2012/08/the-true-political-spectrum.html

Daniel Greenfield: Without Virtues, All Politics Are Reduced tTo Tribal Emotion And Personal Greed

This is an exceptional essay that speaks volumes to our current political climate and clearly points to the necessity of Jesus Christ to the human condition that we all share.

The paradox of the individualistic society is that it can only exist if individuals embrace virtues that are greater than their own needs and whims. A society where each individual acts as a little tyrant, pursuing his desires with total selfishness at the expense of everyone else becomes collectivist as the little tyrants turn to a series of big tyrants to get what they want no matter who gets hurt by it.

Social compacts are the alternative to big government. Communities built around unwritten laws in which people do the right thing keep government at bay better than a million laws ever could. No Constitution can protect a people that does not know or care about what it says. Laws embody ideas about what a society can be. But only the people can actually live out those ideas in their lives.

As individual virtues and social compacts break down, selfish squabbles escalate. Tribalism turns into legal civil war. Laws become the means by which one group imposes its will on the other and by which one man seizes the property of another. The people come to view the system with contempt. All virtues and principles are abandoned as neighbor turns on neighbor in resentment and hatred.

Our society has cultivated narcissism as its highest virtue. Even liberalism has become condensed to an identity politics of narcissism in which each victim gets to talk about their feelings for fifteen minutes before crybullying for someone’s head. Political discourse has become an exchange of feelings. And unlike contradictory ideas, clashing feelings of entitlement cannot be resolved. 

Ideas can exist objectively. Feelings only exist subjectively. Identity politics resolves this problem by treating the objective response to feelings as privilege. But even subjective empathy can never truly approach the subjective experience of the crybully. Even a member of that same identity group will differ in some way from the multiple intersectional identities of the crybully. And that difference is its own privilege. This isn’t really politics. It’s self-help narcissism crossbred with stale Marxism.

Marxism pretended to be a science. Its idiot inheritors use the same highly specialized vocabulary to describe their imaginary science of feelings to decide whose feelings get hurt microscopically worse.

But that’s the only kind of politics that narcissists can be expected to embrace. The left has personalized the political as much as it has politicized the personal. Its politics is purely personal. Its ideas can be condensed to “X upsets Y”. With the corollary that in the future X will not be allowed to upset Y because Y will be in charge of everything and stupid people like X will all die off so that history is on the side of Y and not X. This is a seven year old’s politics with better vocabulary.

But narcissism of the kind that our society has cultivated is a formula for perpetual childishness. Adulthood means doing things you don’t want to do and discovering that they can make you the person you want to be. That’s how virtue is born. Perpetual childhood prevents virtue from ever forming. Instead public life is cluttered with oversized children who have the language skills, resources and political power of adults, but none of the virtues that come with maturity.

They blame everyone else for their failures. Nothing is ever their fault. Everything is unfair. They can never admit they were wrong. Every failure adds more grievances and enemies to be blamed. They are incapable of acknowledging simple facts. Instead they lash out when they are shown why they cannot have what they want. The immature mind treats reality as a personal attack. It does not care what the truth is. It only wants its feelings validated by blaming someone, anyone else.

A childish society is an “I Want” society in which everyone wants everything and no one wants to do the hard work of getting it. The clamor of demands is negotiated through the childish hierarchies of bullying, shame, braggadocio, tears, outbursts, violence and deceit. Any social compacts or laws that interfere with “I Want” are always unfair. Anyone who doesn’t agree is the enemy.

Denying a narcissist anything hurts their feelings. And so they lash out in retribution. They are immune to facts or explanations. They know what they want and they know that society isn’t fair because it isn’t oriented around their feelings, but they think it will be once they get their way.

Democracy can’t exist under these conditions. No civil society can. Without common virtues, there can be no enduring common ground. One side makes concessions while the other celebrates its successful bullying until the first side finds its own bully. Without a consensus, winning becomes everything and the winners are those who break the most rules while complaining the hardest.

And refusing to live by any rules while playing the victim is what narcissists are so good at.

Ideas, virtues and principles are the enemies of narcissism because they imply that there are greater and more important things than its feelings. To the perpetually immature, everything is personal. The attempt to move from the subjective to the objective is treated as devaluing the importance of its feelings. The narcissistic refrain of crybullies in campus debates is, “Stop talking and listen to me.”

The safe space represents the total rejection of all dialogue. It is also the ideal metaphor for the politics of an immature mind. It extends the entitlement of the crybully from its mind into the physical space with the ultimate goal of expanding that physical embodiment of its entitlement to the entire world.

All rights become condensed to self-esteem. Individual virtue is reduced to a lack of shame. Narcissists are always fighting battles of personal self-expression against “haters” who make them feel bad about themselves. Freedom of speech, and any other freedom, can’t exist in this space of emotional tribalism where negotiating the validation of your identity is the only thing that matters.

And yet it’s ideas that resolve personal conflicts. They allow us to set limits of mutual respect. These principles make it possible for us to exist as individuals without big government to watch over us. Principles check our entitlement. They tell us that there are things which matter more than what we want or the anger we feel. They tell us that we are not entitled to steal from someone just because we really want to. They remind us of the price we end up paying for winning at any cost.

These are the things that set apart society from savagery and human beings from animals.

A narcissistic society only empowers individuals to destroy their individual freedoms and the society that made it possible. The self-centered logic of narcissism can justify anything as long as it feels right. Principles are abandoned, virtues are mocked and morality is meaningless. The longer this goes on, the worse society becomes since the very worst way of finding happiness is perpetual immaturity.

Narcissists who can’t win their own battles turn to bigger narcissists. Little tyrants become big tyrants. Anything is justified and the very idea of a truth apart from feelings dies away. All that’s left is a brutish scramble to find the power proportionate to the feelings of everyone in Youmerica.

And these days we all live in a Youmerica where feelings matter more than facts, where narcissism is the only politics, where the only way to win is to hate and cry harder and where the future is a government as big as the ego of its rulers. Youmerica is our culture, our government and our creed.

Youmerica is the nightmare of the Founding Fathers come to live. “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion,” John Adams warned. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The same is true of all the rest of it.

We have no government capable of contending with human passions unbound by any code. The only government that will serve is tyranny. We can have a virtuous society of free men and women. Or we can have what we have now, and that is only a taste of what is still to come in the dying days of an empire whose people are busy trading their virtues for pottage without counting the cost.

Without virtues, all politics are reduced to their basic roots of tribal emotion and personal greed.

Without personal responsibility and truth, the cycle of decline will never be broken. Instead it will intensify. There will be scapegoats and circuses, massacres in the forum and fires in the night. There will be a new tyrant on the balcony every week and a new mob in the streets calling for blood.

And the country we once had will never return. There will be no America. Only Youmerica.

The country that we once had was not merely documents or buildings or territory. It was people. They were not a perfect people. Far from it. Like all of us, they were deeply flawed. But they believed in things. And as flawed as these things were, many were willing to live and die by them. They were willing to seek truth even if where it led did not please them. They made mistakes, but they grew up and became the men and women who tamed a land, build a nation and saved the world.

If we are to deserve the inheritance they left us, we must become better than we are. All of us.

We have been betrayed, undermined, misused, lied to and exploited. But in the end only we are capable of that final betrayal of our dreams and our heritage. We can choose to rebuild a social compact, a moral society that can undo the damage that has been done. Or we can let it all go.

http://freedomoutpost.com/without-virtues-all-politics-are-reduced-to-tribal-emotion-and-personal-greed/

The Annual Academy Awards Ceremony: A Great Platform For Proclaiming The Confused (ie Hypocritical) Thinking Of The Leftist “Progressives”

Most people don’t understand that Progressives are Leftists are Marxists, which in simple terms means that every individual exists only to serve the collectivist community (by dying if need be), which is always run by wealthy and powerful Progressives (think Obama, Hillary, Stalin, Mao, and frankly Hitler too). 

To keep said community under control, it must be divided into groups (ideologically or superficially – it’s all good), which are in turn encouraged to fight each other (not the greatest challenge given sinful human nature). 

This constant warring keeps the enemy (usually the morally upright or at least people you would probably want in power) and the useful idiots (who actually think they are helping make the world better) all busy while the “informed Progressives” turn cultural footholds into strongholds and amass even more power to create their idea of utopia (picture Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s USSR or Mao’s China – it’s where atheistic humanism always takes society).

All this to emphasise that Progressivism is all about fracturing society.

That’s why you will always hear about victims groups from the Left – blacks, women, homosexuals, trangenders, aboriginals, the poor.

Yes, there’s always a bit of truth mixed in and some of these groups have legitimate victim stories to tell.

However, Progressives redefine these groups so all they can identify as is perpetually insatiable victims of a few actual but mostly fabricated crimes. Also, they are never to blame for any of their circumstances. Only when they get super-special treatment can they be “equal” with all the rest of us.

For example, homosexuals are perpetual victims of everybody – especially Christians, fertility, and the natural biological order – but they are also portrayed as “victims” of HIV, a disease they get from their dangerous sexual practises (yes, anal “sex” transfers HIV and a whole host of diseases to at least 10% of all homosexuals so we’re talking a very serious but entirely preventable epidemic) and even though they do it to themselves, we are told by progressives that somehow none of it is their fault- victims duh! Homosexuals, therefore,  should receive special treatment from everyone, whether by redefining marriage for their tiny percentage or receiving state subsidy to help safeguard their quite literally disease-ridden sexual practises.

Like homosexuals, all of these groups are forever “unequal” and they will always be “unequal” until the next Communism or Reich is fully established and no one can raise a free hand to stop it.

That said, please remember these two important points:

  1. Informed Progressives (like Obama) are using these groups as pawns to gain social, cultural, and political power and importantly, they could give a rat’s about the wellbeing of these groups. Their mission is to be God of their own communist utopia, no matter how many suffer to make it happen.
  2. Useful idiots often do actually care about these groups but they are idiots because they think that the informed Progressives are fighting for a better society (yes, they really do – think all of these Academy Awards speakers, especially Leonardo DiCaprio and his obsession with saving the world from climate change) when it’s really just a long series of power plays. Useful idiots make up the numbers and vote your Obamas and Hitlers into power willingly.

It’s a necessary contextual backdrop for this:

Last week, British singer/songwriter Sam Smith won an Oscar for the theme song of the latest James Bond film Spectre. From what I understand of the ratings, not many (including me) saw it, so let me recap his acceptance speech, which I found on YouTube.

He said he read an article written by some other British guy that no openly gay man had ever won an Oscar. Smith (no relation – I hope) said whether this was true or not, he’d still like to dedicate his award to the LGBT community all around the world. He continued by saying: “I stand here as a proud gay man and I hope we can all stand together as equals one day.”

After the merriment subsided, people took to Twitter and such to correct Smith that he wasn’t the first. Of course, he said he may not be, but that didn’t matter to the low information crowd who watched these displays of self-aggrandizement.

Smith responded to the criticism by saying: “Second openly gay man to win an Oscar or third or fourth or 100th, it wasn’t my point. My point was to shine some light on the LGBT community who I love so dearly.”

The best director Oscar went to Alejandro somebody or other for The Revenant. His name is not as important as what he said during his acceptance. He exclaimed: “What a great opportunity for our generation to really liberate ourselves from all prejudice and – you know – this – tribal thinking and make sure once and forever that the color of skin become as irrelevant as the length of our hair.”

Okay – so we have some liberal movie-maker up there preaching equality, color-blindness, and an end to “tribal thinking.” That is terrific. But what is tribal thinking? What is a tribe? Is it not a community of people who come from a common ancestry, have common values, and share common interests? Tribes willingly segregate due to these interests, do they not?

So I suppose then this director wishes for people to be more integrated – recognized as individuals, rather than a tribe. I guess this is what he meant by an end to “tribal thinking.”

Yet, he began his acceptance by thanking the Native Americans and the English Americans who were in the film. So is he not guilty of tribal thinking – lumping all the Injuns into one “tribe” and all the limeys into another.

And what of Sam Smith? He too is guilty of “tribal thinking” by setting the LGBT “tribe” above all others.

But this is what the hypocrites of the left do – they insist on having it both ways. They say we should be striving for a colorblind and all-inclusive society, which I agree is a laudable but wholly unachievable goal. They then blame the right for not giving just recognition to the black tribe, or the Latino tribe, or the gender-bending tribe, etc.

Yet, they are frankly the only ones to willfully, happily separate people into one group or another when it is to their benefit. How many thousands of times have we been lectured that the right must venture into the “black community” to win their monolithic “tribal” vote. The entire Black Lives Matter movement could be considered “tribal.” And they insist on it.

When a white insists that all lives matter, they are shouted down – not because all lives don’t matter, but because the left must maintain the “tribal” aspect to advance whatever is their cause that day.

These pampered Hollywood weenies, as do all liberals, love to stand up and preach equality and inclusiveness, yet it is the left and only they who advance tribal thinking. The only conclusion any reasonable person could come to is that the left must be advocating for the return of the 1896 Supreme Court decision, Plessy v. Ferguson, Separate but Equal doctrine.

https://kirby.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/hiv/resources/HIVASRsuppl2014_online.pdf
http://freedomoutpost.com/and-the-oscar-went-to-tribal-thinking/

The Truth About Accusing White People Of Being Racist

Collectivism.

The convenience of grouping people together without any of the responsibility of treating them as individuals.

Tyrants love collectivism.

Germans are the Master Race. Jews are rats and pigs. White people are racist.

Grouping people according to common traits irrespective of personal difference just rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it?!

Let’s hone in on white people being racists.

I don’t know about other white people (not being much of a collectivist and all) but I sure get sick and tired of the people who say “white people are racist.”

Now, some of these accusers are more clever than others. Rather than just calling all white people racists, they say the same thing but in more subtle ways.

For example, the recent furore over the constant booing of AFL star Adam Goodes has opened the floodgates for white people being called racist but with an edge of finesse:

The furore over booing Adam Goodes reveals white society still hasn’t learnt to embrace the Indigenous one, even in football. We’ll give on our terms, appreciate on our terms, but when it’s not on our terms, we turn on it, writes Jeremy Stanford.

Whoops – no finesse in this one. So apparently it’s okay to just come out and collectivise all white people together as racists.

Now imagine if the same was written about black people! Or Jews! or Christians (though apparently this one is also acceptable these days).

Back to Stanford’s article though, calling someone a racist based upon their skin colour is…well, it’s racist. Even if it were mere rhetorical hyperbole to make a point, I’m guessing making hyperbolic racist comments about Africans or Asians probably wouldn’t fly given that racist jokes don’t seem to.

That’s a good thing too but with Stanford here, the glaring, shovel-to-the-face double standards of the left are on ominous display and it’s comments like this that expose their mischievous hand.

Let’s see what else Stanford has to say:

I’d be happy to see every Indigenous player from now on perform the war dance every time they kick a goal. That would rub it in all our white faces until we truly got the message that you are part of this culture on your own terms and not on the terms that white society deems to be acceptable.

Racist. Tick.

Self loathing. Tick.

It can only be the ideology of the “progressive” left motivating Stanford here and it seems he’s taken a strong dose of what he is trying to force upon us.

The leftists, working on the basis of cultural Marxism, are out to erase any trace of Christianity from the West and so it should come as no surprise that they are eager to make “white people”, who they see as the primary representatives of Christianity, feel so guilty about some legitimate past evils that they allow them to take total control of our culture.

Yes, some white people have done very evil things. The revealing problem is that some white people haven’t.

So when people point to American slavery of Africans and say look at the evils white people did, they conveniently forget to point to the abolition movement that, hey hey, prominently featured white people. Cross the ocean and you would run headlong into white Wilberforce, who fought against white people and eventually won to end slavery in Britain.

Did you notice that – the aforementioned white people actually did not act like a hive mind but rather as individuals, with some choose good and others evil.

So when you actually think about it, skin colour is irrelevant. What does matter is our beliefs and our actions.

You could almost say that we should judge people based upon their individual actions rather than based upon whatever collective we can slot them into.
It’s funny then that when leftists insist that we look back on Western history (yes, they dose with white guilt) with shameful disgust, simultaneously insist that we revere people like Charles Darwin, a man who was by every definition was a racist, and Margaret Sanger, a woman who was so super-crazy racist that she set in motion plans that make Adolf Hitler look like a reasonable guy. It’s worth remembering that Sanger was hoping to wipe out black people using abortion, something she and her contemporary ilk have made a pretty good go of.

Referring back to the Adam Goodes issue, some AFL supporters would be genuine racists who don’t like him because of skin colour. The important question though is are there any other reasons to dislike Goodes?

Well, I’ve seen good players (and he has been one of the greats without a doubt) get booed continually simply because supporters of the opposing team don’t like them and want to put them off their game. It’s not a good quality but it sure isn’t “racism”. I’m pretty sure this kind of thing happens in other countries too where, believe it or not, the spectators are not white.

Furthermore, Goodes is getting in the media a lot because of racist attacks on him and journalists are rushing to accuse all white people ever of being racist because some kid or Eddie McGuire said something stupid. I’m sick of being lumped in by the simple fact of being white so perhaps other people are too.

Maybe they boo Goodes because they are tired of hearing about him, sort of like how many people are also sick of Eddie McGuire. It may even appear, in some people’s eyes, that Goodes and McGuire are like a duo of clowns hogging Australian television airtime and people are just sick of it.

Having been to sporting events and concerts, I’m also aware of the influence of the crowd. Perhaps some people start booing just because the crowd is booing – I’ve seen that kind of thing happen. People boo or cheer even as they are trying to figure out why they are doing it. It’s kind of funny and some people do it just for kicks.

And there one more important point that perhaps the racist media should consider – white people aren’t the only ones who go to the football and boo players. Yet, people like Stanford above make it clear that they aren’t referring to the many different cultures that make up Australian society – a fact that they love to promote as part of their attack on the West.

So which is it – is Australia multicultural and therefore it’s not just white racists booing Goodes? Or is our whole nation white and therefore only whites are to blame for the booing?

The ideology of the so-called progressive left plays out like a bad movie with plot hole after plot hole revealing that there is no substance behind the façade.

All these ad hominem attacks on white people, simply because they are white, is as racist as it gets and they have no problem breaking their own rules and living in double standard land in order to get what they want.

So if you are white and a racist, stop being a racist because God made us all equally human and equally valuable. If you are black and racist, do the same. Asian, Jew, Arab, whoever – we all have the same instructions in Christ.

And to all those white people who are constantly slandered with false accusations of “racism”, you have no need to feel guilty for something that you do not do. Don’t be played by these political and cultural strategists – they are always looking for power and they love to start fights and create social upheaval by pitting collectives against one another, be it men and women or blacks and whites.

They divide people and rise to power as we all fight it out – to the death if necessary. That’s how Marxism always applied itself and it’s tactics really aren’t that different today.

Jesus Christ, on the other hand, brings peace between people of all nations, no matter their skin colour, sex, ethnicity, or whatever it is that makes us different. God has created one new humanity is Jesus Christ and his house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.

So let’s abandon the so-called social justice and the bullying of the left and just treat everyone how God says we should treat them. Naturally, that does. Or mean we fall for the tricks of the left even as we treat them like human beings precious in the eyes of God. We must also have wisdom and discernment.

“for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” ‭Galatians‬ ‭3:26-29‬ ‭ESV‬‬

“Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all. Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” ‭‭Colossians‬ ‭3:11-17‬ ‭ESV‬‬
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-28/standford-booing-adam-goodes-are-we-even-aware-were-racists/6653108

“Same-Sex Marriage” Is About Abolishing Marriage Altogether

If only people actually thought for themselves, we would not be where we are in the West today. Far too many people have been served up lie after lie about how people living in homosexuality are no different and their love is the “same love”. 

An entire generation of young people has been indoctrinated far better than Hitler’s Youth through their own free wills, consuming music, movies, television and literature that firstly normalised promiscuity, fornication, and adultery before moving onto more perverse and unnatural forms of social destruction.
Ask most kids today about “gay marriage” and they will say “why not?!”
I have literally had conversations with teenagers and young people where, through basic deduction and logic, I forced them to acknowledge that because they accept that homosexuality is normal, so must they accept that paedophilia and beastiality can’t be denied. And you know what, once it was out of their mouths, they were happy to claim it just so they could continue to justify homosexuality.

That’s insanity right there, folks.

And relativism is insanity when you actually think about it but as I have said, that’s the problem right there: people don’t think at all!

Stella Morabito, in contrast with these blind and thoughtless types, knows her stuff seriously well. Her article Bait And Switch: How Same Sex Marriage Ends Family Autonomy is about the real goals and dangers of so-called “homosexual marriage”.

It’s an eye opener with terrifying implications and it should be compulsory reading for all humanity.

Abolishing all civil marriage is the primary goal of the elites who have been pushing same sex marriage. The scheme called “marriage equality” is not an end in itself, and never really has been. The LGBT agenda has spawned too many other disparate agendas hostile to the existence of marriage, making marriage “unsustainable,” if you will. By now we should be able to hear the growing drumbeat to abolish civil marriage, as well as to legalize polygamy and all manner of reproductive technologies.

Consider also the breakneck speed at which the push for same sex marriage has been happening recently. The agenda’s advocates have been very methodical in their organization, disciplined in their timing, flush with money, in control of all information outlets, including media, Hollywood, and academia. And perhaps most telling is the smearing of any dissenter in the public square, a stigma made de rigueur by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in his animus-soaked opinion that repealed the Defense of Marriage Act.

We’ve seen also how the Obama Administration’s push for same sex marriage has occurred in lockstep with policies that are hostile to marriage, such as the severe marriage penalty written into Obamacare.

Activist judges have taken their cues from Attorney General Eric Holder who used the DOMA repeal to proclaim open season on any state that recognizes marriage as an organic (i.e., heterosexual) union of one man and one woman. In their crosshairs are state constitutions, businesses, students, communities, churches, and all of those bogus “conscience clauses” that were written into same sex marriage legislation in order to sway wavering state legislators to vote “aye.”

The tipping point came soon after certain big name conservatives and pundits swallowed the bait on same sex marriage. Folks like Michael Barone, John Bolton, George Will, S. E. Cupp, and David Blankenhorn have played a huge role in building momentum for this movement, which, as we will see, is blazing a trail to the abolition of state recognized marriage. And whether they know it or not, advocacy for same sex marriage is putting a lot of statist machinery into motion. Because once the state no longer has to recognize your marriage and family, the state no longer has to respect the existence of your marriage and family.

Without civil marriage, the family can no longer exist autonomously and serve as a wall of separation between the individual and the state. This has huge implications for the survival of freedom of association.

The notion of marriage equality was never about marriage or about equality. It’s all about the wrapping paper. It’s been packaged as an end in itself, but it is principally just a means to a deeper end. It is the means by which marriage extinction – the true target — can be achieved. If marriage and family are permitted to exist autonomously, power can be de-centralized in society. So the family has always been a thorn in the side of central planners and totalitarians. The connection between its abolition and the limitless growth of the state should be crystal clear. So anyone who has bought into this movement, or is tempted to do so, would want to step back and take a harder look.

Six Indicators We’re Headed Directly for Abolishing Civil Marriage

We can sort out six developments that indicate we’re on the fast track to abolishing civil marriage. They include: 1) The blueprint for abolishing family, developed by the founder of feminist legal theory, Martha Fineman; 2) support and advocacy of Fineman’s model by facilitators and regulators in the Obama Administration; 3) the statements of prominent LGBT activists themselves, including their 2006 manifesto which in effect established the abolition of marriage as the goal of the same sex marriage movement; 4) the demographic shift to single rather than married households; 5) the growing shift in social climate from marriage equality to marriage hostility; and 6) the recent push to export the LGBT agenda globally, particularly targeting poor and developing nations of Africa.

1) The Gender Theorist Model: Replace civil marriage with government-regulated contractual relationships

Collectivist style parenting may still seem like the stuff of science fiction to a lot of folks, but the ground for it has softened a lot since Hillary Clinton’s 1996 treatise It Takes a Village and American Federation of Teachers president Sandra Feldman’s 1998 op-ed “The Childswap Society.” We now have MSNBC anchor Melissa Harris-Perry declaring open war on traditional families by announcing “We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”

She envisages that the State will fill the vacuum left by the abolition of family

The abolition of marriage and family has been a longtime project of gender theorists. Among them is internationally renown feminist law theorist Martha Albertson Fineman whose 2004 book The Autonomy Myth argues strenuously for “the abolition of marriage as a legal category.” Her treatise is breathtaking in its brazen approach to ending family autonomy and privacy.

Fineman advocates for a system that would unavoidably result in the regulation of personal relationships through legal contracts. “Contract,” she writes “is an appealing metaphor with which to consider social and political arrangements. It imagines autonomous adults” hashing out the terms, etc. Yet she envisages that the State will fill the vacuum left by the abolition of family [emphasis added]:

“. . . in addition to contract rules, I anticipate that ameliorating doctrines would fill the void left by the abolition of this aspect of family law. In fact, it seems apparent to me that a lot more regulation (protection) would occur once interactions between individuals within families were removed from behind the veil of privacy that now shields them.”

Fineman operates on the apparent assumption that family privacy serves no purpose other than to afford institutional protection for men behaving badly. Her prescription is sweeping: “Once the institutional protection [is] removed, behavior would be judged by standards established to regulate interactions among all members of society.” [emphasis added]

There you have it. All of your social interactions judged by certain standards. Standards established by whom? The state. And lest our eyes glaze over at mention of it, we ought to think of the State for what it really is: a hierarchy of cliques, with one dominant clique at the top. (Think mean girls in charge of everything and everyone.)

Fineman replaces the word “spouse” with the term “sexual affiliate,” because, she professes, what we think of as “family” should be defined by its function, not its form. In other words, only “caretaker-dependent relationships” would be recognized in the sense that “family” is recognized today.

So the abolition of marriage, according to Fineman:

“would mean that sexual affiliates (formerly labeled husband and wife) would be regulated by the terms of their individualized agreements, with no special rules governing fairness and no unique review or monitoring of the negotiation process.”

Feel better? Fineman also states approvingly that:

“if the family is defined functionally, focused on the caretaker-dependent relationship, the traditionally problematic interactions of sexual affiliates (formerly designated “spouses”) are not protected by notions of family privacy.”

Indeed, no interaction could be protected by “notions of family privacy” in Fineman’s model. She elaborated further and more recently on all of this in an October 2013 article in the Chicago-Kent Law Review.

2) Friends in High Places promote Fineman’s Model of State-Regulated Contracts

Cass Sunstein, who served as President Obama’s regulatory czar from 2009 to 2012, has advocated strongly for the abolition of civil marriage and its replacement with contracts that would negotiate the terms of personal relationships.

In 2008 Sunstein published an article in the Cardozo Law Review arguing that there is no constitutional right to marry and suggesting that “states may abolish marriage without offending the Constitution.” And an entire chapter of a popular book Sunstein co-authored with Richard Thaler in 2008 is devoted to arguing for the abolition of civil marriage. This is from Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness.

“Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government. . . . Under our approach, the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people.*(*Footnote: We duck the question of whether civil unions can involve more than two people.)”

Sunstein and Thaler dub their approach “libertarian paternalism,” an odd jargon which seems contrived to win over readers by evoking a strange juxtaposition of moderation and a heavy touch of the archaic.

Clearly, Sunstein has been laying the groundwork for the abolition of civil marriage. He purports that this would get the government out of a “licensing scheme,” but his specious phrasing is a fig leaf covering up the predictable effects of his approach: greater government regulation of personal relationships. His popular writing on the subject comes in the guise of “privatization” of relationships – even as gender theorists like Fineman argue against America’s “obsession” with privacy and individualism. But this is not a difficult circle to square. Thaler and Sunstein argue, pretty much in line with Fineman, that people ought to make use of contracts to define the terms of their relationships. And contracts invite – indeed, for Fineman, they demand – that the government function as an intimate partner in this legal ménage a trois.

3) LGBT Activists Say So Themselves: The Goal is to Abolish Marriage

“Gay marriage is a lie,” announced gay activist Masha Gessen in a panel discussion last year at the Sydney Writers’ Festival. “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.” [Applause.] “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”

Gessen was merely echoing a message from an LGBT manifesto of 2006 called Beyond Same Sex Marriage. The manifesto is a blatant rallying cry to bring about a post-marriage society, one in which there is no room for state-recognized marriage.

“It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”

Ethics and Public Policy Institute scholar Stanley Kurtz wrote extensively about this document in two National Review articles, entitled The Confession and The Confession II. Kurtz noted that the intent of the sponsors of the manifesto – which as of 2006 had hundreds of prominent signatories, including Cornel West, Barbara Ehrenreich, Martha Fineman, and Gloria Steinem – was “to dissolve marriage by extending the definition to every conceivable family type.”

Sunstein needn’t have “ducked the issue” of more than two parties in a domestic contract because legalizing polygamy is central to the manifesto. And there can be no doubt that the legalization of polygamy would result in the abolition of all state-recognized marriage. Polygamy — repackaged in the now trendy term “polyamory” – comes with an array of configurations too dizzying and with too many moving parts to be sustained as state-recognized marriage.

Despite the existence of the manifesto, the official line of the LGBT community still seems to be that gay marriage is only about equal rights for couples who love one another. Their spokespersons have been disciplined – with a friendly media running cover for them – in maintaining the official line so as not to provoke a debate about the real agenda to abolish marriage.

Supposedly conservative gay activists like Jonathan Rauch have also run cover and protected the timing of the agenda by claiming that the manifesto was merely a “fringe” of the LGBT movement. It’s irrelevant whether or not Rauch really believes his own propaganda that gay marriage will somehow strengthen a marriage culture by bringing loving gay couples into it. The main effect of the Rauch meme is to accelerate the abolition of civil marriage by hastening a legal framework for genderless marriage that will pave the way for total abolition of civil marriage, and with it private family life.

It’s clear the gloves are coming off and timing has entered a new phase. The push for polyamory has gone mainstream, right on schedule. Supportive puff pieces on it are popping up in places like Atlantic Monthly and the erstwhile women’s magazine Redbook. In the end, polyamory serves only as a transitory way station between the legalization of same sex marriage and the abolition of civil marriage.

4) Growing Dominance of Singles

Recent decades have seen a sharp upsurge of unmarried households. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2012 there were 103 million unmarried people 18 and older. That’s 44 percent of all US residents over 18. And 62 percent of those 103 million had never been married. Unmarried individuals represented 56 million households in 2012. The rise in singles has had an undeniably huge impact on the electorate. In the 2012 election 39 percent of the voters were unmarried, compared to 24 percent of the voters in the 1972 election.

The “Communication League for Unmarried Equality,” is a coalition of singles’ rights organizations which argues that government benefits for marriage – including tax breaks and survivor benefits in social security — amount to marital status discrimination. Its advocates argue that civil marriage unjustly awards financial, social, and cultural benefits to married individuals at the expense of unmarried individuals who end up subsidizing marriage and children, without compensation. In addition, proponents of “unmarried equality” insist that the existence of these privileges serve to perpetuate prejudices and stereotypes about singles that inflict harm on them. (Sounds like a Supreme Court case brewing.)

Bella DePaulo spearheaded the movement as a blogger and author of Singled Out and Singlism: What it is, Why it Matters and How to Stop It.” According to DePaulo, the discrimination she calls “singlism” may seem more subtle than racism or sexism, but is just as damaging. She has tip-toed to the edge of advocating for the abolition of marriage, with a professor of feminist philosophy Elizabeth Blake, by saying that marriage should be “minimized” (for now) so that singles have the same benefits as married individuals. Which, naturally, means abolishing marriage.

“Singlism” itself is not yet considered a form of illegal discrimination. But DePaulo believes it should be:

“Because singlism is built right into American laws, it is not possible to be single and not be a target of discrimination. If you have followed the marriage equality debate, then you probably know that there are more than 1,000 federal laws that benefit or protect only those people who are legally married. Even if same-sex marriage becomes legal throughout the land, all those people who are single — whether gay or straight or any other status — will still remain second class citizens.”

5) Morphing of the Memes – from Marriage Equality to Marriage Ambivalence to Marriage Hostility

“Why would anyone get married?” That’s a quote from Nancy Pelosi in a Valentine’s Day interview last month, downplaying the importance of marriage. While some might say she’s simply courting the singles demographic, she’s mostly reinforcing and echoing a narrative that marriage is irrelevant or perhaps even harmful. She is contributing to the drumbeat to abolish civil marriage.

Let’s not forget Julia, the mascot of Obama’s reelection campaign who serves as a Stepford wife to the State.

Major cultural forces – the media, academia, and Hollywood – have already adopted an increasingly hostile view of marriage. We can see it in the use of the term “greedy marrieds” from a recent New York Times feature “The Changing American Family“: “Single people live alone and proudly consider themselves families of one — more generous and civic-minded than ‘greedy marrieds.’”

And look at NBC Sports in its coverage Olympic gold medalist skier David Wise. It described him as living an “alternative lifestyle” because he happened to be young and married with children. The clear inference was that he was abnormal.

The promotion and glorification of single parenting which got its start with the Murphy Brown TV series of the 1990s has gone into hyperdrive now. Check out online services such as Modamily, that matches people with “parenting partners,” with whom they can draw up a contract, arrange for artificial reproductive technologies, and forgo marriage.

And let’s not forget Julia, the mascot of Obama’s reelection campaign who serves, with more than a bit of irony, as a Stepford wife to the State. The narrative was clearly hostile to the idea of marriage and supportive of policies to abolish it.

6) LGBT Push for Same Sex Marriage in Developing Countries

The rush by LGBT activists and the Obama administration to lift bans on gay marriage in all 50 states is peculiarly fast and furious. Oddly so for a movement that seems to be gaining steam and social compliance. A reasonable question would be: What’s the rush if things are going so swimmingly your way? The only answer seems to be one of fragile timing.

The sudden LGBT push globally, especially in Africa, should give us pause as well. Why the abrupt shove into poor countries, threatening to cut off aid unless they comply with such a massive cultural shift and adopt the Western LGBT agenda? Why the laser focus on Uganda and Malawi instead of places like Iran where abuses of homosexuals are likely just as common?

We are witnessing a major strategy to export gay marriage – and all it entails for the abolition of marriage — worldwide. President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry have made an example of Uganda by threatening to cut off its aid over the existence of its anti-sodomy laws. Other developing nations are expected to take note and fall into line, creating a cascade effect until any other nation who resists will feel the noose tightening.

We might reasonably ask why this particular agenda is getting so much attention while the world goes to hell in a hand basket. Syria is overrun with vicious terrorist gangs at least as bad as its president. Russia is flexing its muscles, having just invaded the Ukraine and Crimea. Christians are being exterminated in record numbers throughout the Middle East. We’re looking at nuclear weapons in Iran. There’s a nuclear threat from North Korea, which not only starves its own people but is run by a guy who, it was said, feeds his political enemies to starving dogs. And yet President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry have been spending special quality time focusing on the LGBT agenda in in the poor countries of Africa?

Clearly the Western LGBT agenda represents a new brand of cultural imperialism that is not content to shape life at home, but intends to propagate itself – and all it entails – worldwide.

Ending Marriage Leads To A Centralized All Powerful State

The hard push for marriage equality was never about marriage. Neither was it about equality. It’s a convenient vehicle to abolish civil marriage, whether to rid the world of paternalism, evade responsibility for children, “privatize” relationships, or whatever. Abolishing marriage strips the family of its autonomy by placing it much more directly under the regulating control of the state.

Once the state no longer has to recognize the marriage relationship and its presumption of privilege and privacy, we all become atomized individuals in the eyes of the state, officially strangers to one another. We lose the space – the buffer zone – that the institution of the natural, organic family previously gave us and that forced the state to keep its distance.

Isn’t it ironic that feminists would replace the “paternalism” of marriage (what happened to strong women?) with the new paternalism of state regulation of personal relationships? Isn’t it ironic that singles in this scheme of things simply end up marrying the state?

At some point, we must conclude that freedom of association has its source in state acceptance of the core family as the primary buffer zone between the individual and the state. There is no escaping this fact, no matter a particular generation’s attitude or public opinion polling, or advances in medical technology, or whatever else comes our way.

Marriage Is The Template For Freedom Of Association

Without state recognition of – and respect for – marriage, can freedom of association survive? How so? On what basis?

Civil marriage provides the entire basis for presuming the rights and responsibilities of biological parents to raise their own children. It also assumes the right of spouses to refuse to testify against one another in court. It presumes survivorship – in guardianship of children as well as inheritance of property. If we abolish civil marriage, these will no longer be rights by default, but rights to be distributed at the pleasure of a bureaucratic state.

When a couple enters into a civil marriage, they are not inviting the government into their relationship, but rather putting the government on notice that they are a family unit. It’s the couple – not the state – that’s in the driver’s seat.Otherwise, they needn’t marry. Otherwise, central planners wouldn’t be so intent on abolishing marriage as a private and autonomous association from which the state must keep its distance, unless one partner wishes to exit by divorce.

Children – i.e., all of us born into a family – inherit that presumption of autonomy and broadcast it into society. We do so whether or not we ever get married ourselves. The presumption of family autonomy and privacy informs our right to freely associate with others – through romances, friendships, business contracts, and so on. It would be catastrophic to freedom if we threw it away.

State recognition of this autonomy cannot exist without state recognition of marriage. In fact, traditional marriage — just like traditional oxygen if you will – helps all of society breathe more freely.

If civil marriage is abolished, you can say hello to the government at your bedroom door because that comfortable little meme about “getting the state out of the marriage business” will have flown out your bedroom window while you were sleeping.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/09/bait-and-switch-how-same-sex-marriage-ends-marriage-and-family-autonomy/