|
The Kerry Campaign Knows PhotoShop! |
|
|
|
Get the true picture! Support Free Republic Or mail checks to: Or you can use: |
|
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-- |
|
Posted on 04/09/2004 11:32:17 AM PDT by William Martel
When I began writing this article, I was tempted not to post it. As a rule, I generally do not enjoy thoughts of imminent threat and danger. Still, at any rate, I wanted to put forward some thought which I have been running through my mind for a while now, in order to tie them together and to get feedback. I apologize if it is off the wall, as I generally try to be as reasonable as possible in this forum.
The Democratic Party of the United States of America is hell bent on asking to get the United Nations involved in the Iraqi conflict. The DNC wants to turn over the effort into UN hands. Democrats have always viewed the War on Terror to be a matter of law enforcement, and they act as though war efforts violate international law, as if such a thing existed. International law does not exist without the existence of an international lawmaking body. Furthermore, Democrats support international treaties that border on international regulations, and they support American participation in the International Court, by which American sovereignty would effectively be turned over to a non-American organization.
International Courts imply international law, which in turn implies the notion of an international lawmaking body. An international lawmaking body would have sovereignty over the United States. The UN is not yet an international lawmaking body, but can one deny that it wishes to be?
The UN is a socialist organization. It supports socialist aims and methods. It is an elitist bureaucracy made up of unelected representatives that would presume to dictate its goals to the world. When Republicans and other conservative, non-socialist groups, with the sole exception of one type which will be mentioned later, attempt to work with it, we are opposed. When Democrats and other socialist groups attempt to work with it, they succeed.
It is not a matter of words or ways of approaching the UN. It is a matter of ideologies and organizational unity. I propose that the Democratic Party, along with other socialist parties throughout the world, is simply a wing of the larger UN organization. They all share the exact same ideology that believes government has an overall role in society to regulate the way people live. The unity that exists between them may or may not be formal. That is irrelevant. It is a unity in ideas, in goals, and in desires.
Socialism promotes world unity as a means to peace. Socialism sees regulations as necessary to the survival of man. Socialism claims to believe in improving the lot of the poor and weak in society. It supposedly rejects racism and environmental destruction. It promotes tolerance, and the advancement of secularism as a means of compromise between the various religions throughout the world, so as to stop conflict. On its face, Socialism seems benign. It is a very easy ideology to accept. Socialism is an ideology handcrafted for the acceptance of the masses, which are easily manipulated by fine sounding words and ideas. Its proponents claim to desire to create an order based on the common good.
There are two types of socialists. There is the type of socialist who actually buys into the ideology outlined above, and then there is the type of socialist who sees the socialist ideology for what it is, a means to an end. The former tends to be the common-man socialist, while the latter tends to be the type whom actually wields power. Socialism, at its higher levels, is about power. It creates a rationalization for the existence of government, along with a rationalization for its active involvement in people’s lives. It is the type of ideology that every dictator, king, and emperor in times past would have dreamt of having within their lands! It turns government from a necessary evil that is only slightly tolerated into a supposedly benign entity that, although it may make occasional “mistakes”, works towards improving the lot of the people! Results are not necessary, as long as the government is “working” towards its goals. Socialism is a tyrant’s dream!
Socialists understand that they must work together if they are to promote socialism. Coexistence is the foundation upon which the rest of the structure is to be built. Peace is the key. Regardless of whether there is an active conspiracy between socialists in the United States and socialists in the United Nations is irrelevant. Socialists, both the honest and dishonest type, understand implicitly that they must work together, especially with organizations that promote their overall aims! Socialists in America, Socialists in Europe, and Socialists in Asia all understand this. Modern socialism is internationalist in scope.
Since the time of its existence, the United Nations has had a hand in education throughout the world. After two world wars, and throughout the Cold War, peace and understanding were seen as instrumental to the survival of man. School kids were indoctrinated with a sort of “awe” regarding the United Nations. They grew up viewing it as having a sense of legitimacy. It certainly did not hurt the socialist cause that people with socialist aims entered the education system to indoctrinate students into their cause. Throughout their youth, most people are quite malleable. Their views are easily shaped by emotion, and the views they gain in childhood are not easily changed when they become adults.
Professions that require large amounts of education tend to be filled with socialists, whether they are admitted or whether they do not even recognize themselves as socialists. The media in particular is filled with socialists. This is why they place such a large degree of emphasis on the UN and the Democratic Party. It is not merely because they are shills for the DNC – it is because they share the socialist ideology that values cooperation between socialists for the sake of the advancement of socialism! They most likely do this in good conscience, and do not really believe that they are doing it. Socialists in America do not realize that they are socialists, firstly, and secondly those infected with the belief of socialism tend to believe that socialism is the greater good. From the modernist worldview they embrace, perhaps it logically follows. However, it reasonably follows that they are going to work for the advancement of socialist aims. Democrats represent that, so they support them, although perhaps it is not the organizational loyalty in which we are inclined to believe. Their loyalty is to international socialism, and they merely support its proponents. This is true in the media throughout the world. In nations without the presence of talk radio and other non-socialist outlets, what the media says is truth. This is why the rest of the world seems to be socialist. They have no real alternative.
The rest of the world will never do anything other than oppose American efforts as long as our agenda is not socialist. The more we act in a manner contrary to the international socialism that they accept, the more likely it is that they will oppose us. It is a sad fact that they most likely will accept us, in fact, will only accept us, if we give the Democrats control of the country. This is not an option.
I mentioned earlier that there is one conservative group that socialists are not likely to oppose: the Islamist fanatics. I do not believe that this is because they truly fear the Islamists, for if they did they would certainly be working against them. I believe that the socialists see Islamic fanaticism as a means to an end, and thus they tolerate it and protect Islamists for this reason and this reason alone. Terrorism, by its very nature, breeds fear. Islamist terrorism is a cause that everyone wishes to crush, even those who do not support our War on Terror. Is it possible that socialists see in terrorism the purpose for the United Nations as it enters the 21st Century? Terrorism is certainly internationalist in scope, and it definitely requires an international response. If terrorism is to be handled, as socialists believe, as a matter of law enforcement, then it reasonably follows that there is a need for an international organization with lawmaking and law enforcement capabilities, as well as with judicial abilities to interpret those laws. Terrorism has all the potential to give the United Nations the world government status which it has always desired.
The United States threatens that plan. We have shown that individual nations, working together outside of the UN framework, are perfectly capable of dealing with such threats without kowtowing to notions of international law. We do not need to kneel at the altar of the United Nations to protect our country and its citizens. We, apart from much of the rest of the world, do not, as a rule, wish to embrace socialism. Despite the complaints one may have against the Bush Administration, it has actively worked to set back the socialist agenda in this country, and it is for that reason that they seek to destroy the president at every opportunity. It is the reason much of the rest of the world vilifies us as fascists. Socialists are convinced that any who oppose the advancement of socialism are fascists, despite the fact that fascists were oftentimes socialist in their views and goals.
To pave the way for a Democrat win is to pave the way to UN dominance over this country, along with the rest of the world. It is to set the stage for even greater promotion of the materialistic secularist view upon which socialism is based. We must prevail in the War on Terror not only to protect ourselves from fanatic Islamists, but also to prove to the world that the United Nations is not necessary to deal with such threats. In the process, we must continue to remember that our greater battle is with socialism itself, and that to allow it to prevail is to allow for the eventual demise of our freedom.
|
The Kerry Campaign Knows PhotoShop! |
|
|
|
Get the true picture! Support Free Republic Or mail checks to: Or you can use: |
|
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-- |
|
However, that may be because I agree with your arguments...
I will have to do a little surfing...
I now wish to find a questionaire, ( or at least, a set of questions ) that would define a person's opinions and views as "Socialist"..
What are a socialist's moral views? views of government? individual rights? Law and Justice? Military powers? War? Peace? Wages? Economy? Ecology? Business? Taxes? etc., etc., etc...
I would like to have these questions at hand, and register the responses of people, and by their answers determine whether they lean far to the left, or are just "liberal" ..
(There's probably a "grey" area there...)
Anyway, congrats on a nicely done article..
Broadly speaking — and I suppose originally only as a means of distinction — the statist movement came to be designated as the political "Left," while those who opposed statism came to be designated as the political "Right."
Right up through WWII, the Left made huge gains around the world, including here in the United States, a nation whose founding principles are the very antithesis of statism. That's because its initial struggles were on behalf of the common man against the then-unchecked power and excesses of corporate titans of the Guilded Age.
Early in the 20th Century, the Left did try to move the world toward its ultimate goal of creating a "worker's paradise," that is, a global superstate. But the League of Nations failed largely because it was ahead of its time.
However, the very impulse to tyranny by the superstate — which is the subject of your article — eventually led to tens upon tens upon tens of millions slaughtered in the name of communism and its equally virulent cousins, nazism and facism. One would have thought humanity had learned its lesson, and that the fire of WWII cleansed the world of the statist political cancer.
Unfortunately, statism did not die at the end of WWII. Instead, the communist form withdrew behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtins, while all of Western Europe regrouped into the tamer version of statism known as "Democratic Socialism." Our modern Democratic Party in the U.S. is a European-style Democratic-Socialist party. And the United Nations is the League of Nations revised into a Democratic-Socialist body whose ultimate goal is to eventually serve as the one world superstate's executive governing council. (The one-world superstate's judicial and legislative branches are metastisizing in Europe.)
BTW, in a deliberate trick to shift blame away from the Left, Democratic-Socialist historians and academics here and abroad have succeeded in tagging National Socialism — that is, nazism — as being on the Right due to its nationalistic (as opposed to internationalistic) component. It's crap, of course, because a statist, is a statist, is a statist, no matter whether their ambitions are nationalist or internationalist in scope.
Despite the brutal lessons of history, the Left still has not given up on its dream of creating a one-world superstate in which individual rights are subjugated to "human" rights (i.e., the rights of the state). There will be no ownership of private property, and every person will get a designated share of all resources (of course, the people at the top always will get the most). The sweetener (and enabler) in all of this, aside from a promise to be taken care of cradle to grave, is the removal of all social mores related in any way to sex. "If it feels good, do it."
So you are absolutely correct in your observation that the Democrats here and the Leftists in Europe and the UN are all working toward the same overarching goal, even if there is no overt conspiracy. Those of us who love individual liberty, and who cherise the unique, enormous gift bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers, must oppose the Left with all the vigor, intelligence and perseverance we can muster.
ahh, you repeat yourself, LOL
I'll reread the article one more time but for now have just one comment:
Professions that require large amounts of education tend to be filled with socialists,
If this were true, we would observe the same thing in XIX century, before WWII, and after. This is not the case: this phenomenon is recent.
I can offer a different explanation. It is my firm belief that socialism has stepped into the vacuum created by the retreat of religion, particularly Christianity, during and after Enlightenment. To develop this point would take more than this post. But the presently relevant part is this: people that at this day and age pursue more education are on the "Enlightenment" side, so to speak, and less religious. They too are examples, each individually, of the vacuum being filled: all of us long for the meaning of life and would like to believe that there is reason and purpose in our existence. If one does not fing that purpose in G-d, one replaces it with man-god, to use Dostoyevky's terminology -- socialism, in other words. That is where connection lies, I believe.
COnversely, as long as religion was firmly in place, education did not correlate with socialist beliefs. Universities where created under the umbrella of the church, after all!.
I personally believe that could also be a very viable source of the problem. I believe that the socialist worldview flows quite naturally from the materialistic/secularistic worldview that has become predominant throughout society. It seems to follow (for many people, anyway) that if this life is all there is, it reasonably follows that this life ought to be the best it can be in the material sense. People need food, shelter, and clothing. Ideologies that offer easy solutions promising such things become very attractive, both to the impoverished, who have not and are driven by envy and desire, and to the honest upper classes, who are driven by emotion. It is also attractive to the more power-hungry individuals, as it offers a means to gain the support of the masses.
I am glad you enjoyed my article!
Law is an attribute of sovereignty.
In the fifty states, the People are sovereign, and they have delegated the power to make law to Congress and the President.
For so-called international "law", who or what is the sovereign?
My point EXACTLY.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
