Posts Tagged ‘Communist Manifesto’

A libertarian answers Reason Magazine’s “conservative” case for gay marriage

October 8, 2013

A. Barton Hinkle has written an article found at Reason Magazine contributing reasons he believes conservatives have for supporting same-sex marriage, other than the old boiler-plate equality argument:
http://reason.com/archives/2013/10/07/a-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage

Being of libertarian persuasion myself, I think the government should not only get out of the business of telling people who to marry or not to marry, but get out of the business of “licensing” anybody at all to marry. There should be no benefit to marrying or not marrying, at all. Or any government-with-guns favored behavior at all.

But some of these things deserve answering in the context outside of that, because too many libertarians mistakenly think that supporting such a thing in general is a libertarian cause. I say that because their arguments show it.

(1) Gay marriage is good for “the institution of marriage.

Just because you’re under the illusion that “gay marriage” means more marriages does not make it so. I say illusion not because it necessarily means the opposite but because this assertion is a facile kind of argument, along the lines of the superficial supposition that anything government does for a group is good for them. That’s not an analogy to the argument, it’s just to say that this “reason”, at least the reasoning, does not take into account the unintended consequences, which is something libertarians are supposed to specialize in.

In fact the author recognizes some of this anyway when he admits that marriage between cats and mice would not strengthen the institution of marriage.

And one more thing, simply saying that “gay marriage” gets gay people to buy into a “(conservative)” value set (parentheses his), presupposes that a “conservative” value set including marriage with commitment would include the idea of same-sex marriage, something that a great many conservatives of course sharply disagree with.

In fact, gay marriage is another big blow to the institution of marriage and of the natural family. Not to mention intellectual honesty and common sense. The first one was easy divorce, which I view as a symptom rather than cause. Gay marriage is the second. Some groups advocating “gay marriage” already –quietly of course– include polygamy in their list of demands. After that will be group marriages.

But what this movement is really about is not about equality. It is driven more by powers and shadowy groups that seek to end the institution of marriage altogether, and absolutely fits what I used to support as a college-age Communist, full-blown. It’s part of the platform of the Communist Party, as listed by Karl Marx himself in the Communist Manifesto, right alongside central banks and dictatorships.

(2) Gay marriage fosters virtue.

Social conservatives believe sexual promiscuity is bad for the body and corrosive to the soul – that the sexual revolution’s encouragement of licentiousness has degraded social norms and debased our common virtue. If they are right about that, then allowing homosexuals to enter lifetime monogamy ought to be altogether desirable – just as it is desirable for heterosexuals, and for the same reasons.

Muy bonito, as they would say in Latin America. “Allowing homosexuals to enter lifetime monogamy” is desirable. Listen, A. Barton, not one person is America is preventing any “gay couple” in America or anywhere else from “entering lifetime monogamy”. Any gay couple can do that without pretending to be wed in what you called “holy” matrimony.

In fact, it would do the opposite in a number of ways.

One Christian speaker tells about a time when during Q&A, a “gay couple” arose to tell him they were engaged in a monogamous relationships. He asked this “gay man” for “how much” they were monogamous. Say, 100%, 90%, 60%? And the young man answered, “about 80%”. This young man did so apparently without even thinking.

The speaker of course highlighted the difference between “gay marriage” monogamy and heterosexual monogamy in the answer. He said his wife would never tolerate such a “monogamous “marriage”. In fact, almost all Hollywood movies recognize that one “infidelity” breaks the monogamy.

(3) Gay marriage benefits children.

Oh really?! Wow. Almost every social study on the subject has shown that by almost any objective criteria, in general, children raised in a home with both a father and a mother do better later on than those raised in any other family configuration.

In fact, the ACLU argument quoted here, mitigates against their own position, saying that denying same-sex “marriage” is to deny those children “the protection and stability of having parents who are married.” One of the most repeated points made by advocates is that heterosexual marriage is already broken, and they are right.

That’s because there’s so much selfishness, self-centeredness in the culture, and so many more people today than before who have grown up to think they have to claim all their “rights” and so cannot see another’s perspective. (Right here some are thinking I should consider another’s perspectives, but I have and it is irrelevant to the point. So read it again).

The point is, the reasons homosexual marriages are breaking down are part of the same phenomenon that drives the reasons argued for “gay marriage”.

The statement quoted there that “There is no evidence that gay parents are any less effective or loving than heterosexual ones” is actually and factually incorrect. Every relevant study shows a father and a mother in the home is best for the child. The words “less effective” cover a lot of ambiguity. “No evidence” probably means the speaker has avoided seeing it, and when pointed to it, just issues the mantra chant of “bigotry” as if using the word without addressing the issues raised would counter every argument.

(4) Banning gay marriage injects government where it doesn’t belong.

I agree with this, but it’s because marriage itself is something where the government does not belong.

As a matter of fact, demanding the government issue licenses for “gay marriage” is to recognize that government in fact must determine what is the optimal role for a family. Traditionally the entire culture, in fact almost all cultures for millenia, have considered gay coupling as something way outside of marriage, because marriage has always been seen as a natural institution that was best for raising children.

Even demanding “gay marriage” is in a way a demand for the “right” to simulate heterosexual marriage.

Now this really intellectually dishonest argument:

Conservatives content they want to protect the institution of marriage and foster procreation by straight couples. First question: Show me where the Constitution says that is any part of government’s job. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Yeah, wait all you want, because this belies the obvious, and the use of phrasing “protect the institution of marriage and foster procreation by straight couples” is a misdirection that avoids another strong argument against the “constitutionality” of forcing “gay marriage” on the body politic.

First, I don’t know of even one conservative who points to the Constitution when they say that, so that’s disingenuous. To knock down the argument, you need to address it, not misdirect it like an illusionist.

Second, libertarians do not generally point to the Constitution for the basis for their arguments. Ron Paul has indeed used the constitutionality argument against many things, but he wraps it with the real reasons for his constitutional positions.

Third, SHOW ME ONE OF THE SIGNERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, EVEN ONE, WHO SAID ANYTHING THAT WOULD SUGGEST that they considered a marriage to be anything other than between a man and a woman, and the natural institution for raising children.

I dare anybody to show me evidence for any founding father of the nation or anyone who voted to ratify the Constitution, that might suggest they would think of marriage as anything else. In fact we all know that even marriages without children, after many years, would be considered a marriage that is missing something.

We all know this. We also know that this is why it is not explicit. It would have laughed out of the first draft, along with calls for repealing the laws of gravity, or motion, or biology.

Fourth, procreation has always been understood implicitly as part of the package in marriage. That’s why many states (most?) have required blood tests before issuing a marriage license, because incompatible blood types made a dangerous Russian roulette game for the babies.

So there is a great cost to society in same-sex marriage, and Dennis Prager has shown in detail how this works. They are a minority among “gays”, also, but there is a significant minority among currently practicing “gays” that strongly argue against “gay marriage”, I have heard them.

In fact, if government had not gotten involved in the first place with “licensing” and now we have pastors marrying people by the power vested in them by the state of so-and-so, then there would have been so such clamor, and the idea would have been seen in general with some humor.

Some Encouraging Contrasts by Butler Shaffer

May 3, 2013
Gallery ~ The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet

Gallery ~ The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet (Photo credit: erjkprunczýk)

http://lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer270.html

Hurray. Good article… Society misses the children..

In my opinion the forced march toward feminism covered the separation of women from the nuclear family. The nuclear family —husband and wife and children– is in my opinion, the best bulwark against state control and long-lasting tyranny.

It was a basic point in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto platform, a platform I once rallied for in college days.

Now we get women “liberated” from pregnancy worries by both the pill and abortion. We get women shipped off in the military from their babies. We already got the divorce of children from marriage a long time ago with all the Hollywood romantic movies, family caricatures like “Married With Children“, and now ridicule of the very idea of an Ozzie and Harriet family.

The whole idea is to separate children from their parents and dissolve the natural, nuclear family, so the state can control the next generation, that is, the ruling class state, greedy for power.

Michelle Shocked – Yes God is Real – michelleshocked.com – YouTube

April 28, 2013
Cover of the Communist Manifesto’s initial pub...

Cover of the Communist Manifesto’s initial publication in February 1848 in London. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJq11taAJgY

 

..just sharing…

 

But in an interview later, she backed off earlier comments because she was inundated by accusations of hate when she shared that members of her church were afraid for the country because of the lifting up of homosexual marriage in the nation. She was subjected to so much hate speech that she sort of recanted.

 

But take note. I heard the video (or audio) of the first comment that caused the firestorm. They were mild and did not carry the weight of conviction or authority.

 

The flood of hate that awaits anyone who has anything positive about the natural nuclear family as even an ideal, means that anyone who is going to make such a statement should know what he is talking about, know his subject, and have the firm conviction of being right.

 

Christians need to remember we are sinners and it’s not even just the soul of our nation that concerns us, but the harm that homosexual behaviors invite by the behavior, a vector for unwelcome effects. And the children of the next generation. Every child has a father and a mother who have a responsibility and obligation to the child. And every relevant study shows that by almost any measure, a child is best protected and cultivated if he has the benefit of a father and a mother who raise him together.

 

The attack on the institution of marriage got full steam ahead with Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto. The promotion of homosexual practices, with the demands for official same-sex marriage, abortion, these things were politicized in the 19th and 20th century by secularist leaders who of a truth are fighting marriage itself. This is something they are starting to feel safe now in saying out loud for an audience.

 

Karl Marx’ intent was to dissolve it. He called it a “bourgeouis” thing, although in fact it is a universal thing. Karl Marx had his own (neglected) wife and his children came to sorry ends, in fact. The real purpose is to make future generations safe for tyranny. They do this by having the state claim ownership of the children.

(By the way, the Kremlin has a bunch of writings by Karl Marx that are still kept hidden away in secret. What kind of dark stuff is it, you ask? We do too.)

 

Jesus loves the little children. God is love, and Jesus is his love manifest to us. If anybody “owns” the children, it’s God, regardless who has the blessings of raising them.

 

 

 

 

 

The Natural Family and “77 Non-Religious Reasons”

April 6, 2013

Do Cochran’s blog inspired a reaction:
http://gregoryccochran.com/2013/01/04/77-non-religious-reasons-to-support-traditional-marriage/

His blog was a reaction to the Ruth Institute’s list of “77 Non-religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage”:

One of the loudest advocates of same-sex marriage claims discrimination based on, so he says, 10,000 specific benefits that man-woman marriages get. Usually unspoken is the fact that those are *government-granted* “benefits. Why should *any* of us think government should give us permission to get married or to warp the land of marriage culture with it?

Marriage was always considered, including in pagan societies throughout history, as part of a natural family.

Same-sex marriage advocates always come back with this bogus “what is a family” anymore, and point at “non-traditional” families like mixed marriages (step-children all around, all that) as if the Ozzie and Harriet “ideal” is dead. That was even a Hillary Clinton reference circa 1992! But it’s not dead, she and other opponents of the NATURAL FAMILY, they just want to kill it.

Remind them that the supposedly new “non-traditional” families that *seem* successful are the ones that best emulate the *natural* family. Their own studies even show that the best adjusted kids are those that grew up in natural families, with a father and a mother. The worst thing that happened to especially the poor in America (not just black families) was the breakup of so many families.

It was in the Karl MarxCommunist Manifesto” after all. The main purpose behind this same-sex marriage noise is to push the idea that the children of any natural marriage belong to the state. The Powers That Be that have pushed almost the entire platform of the Communist Manifesto down our throats little by little and largely unnoticed, they HATE the natural family because it interferes with their indoctrination of the little ones.

Hillary Clinton once wrote a paper in college that denounced marriage as slavery. Some sharp reporter ought to ask her if she still believes that. (She’ll have to “kind of” renounce it, wink wink). I was a Communist youth myself, but facts, logic, truth have dragged me to where I am now. Marxists might call it slavery on a bad day, but they see no slavery in the fact that we are *forced* to labor for whoever commands the government du jour, for more than a third of our year, for them to decide who gets to have what.

So they are using the fact that Christians and others accepted the state taking over control of marriage as quite the Trojan Horse to try a Newspeak Dictionary tactic of making people forget the purpose of natural marriage, which has always been rearing children with the natural protection of the natural nuclear family of man, woman, and offspring.

Getting government back out of the business of controlling our lives by controlling marriage, and other collectivist ideas, is not an easy path, since state recognition has become in our minds apparently the definition of “legitimacy”.

Where Christian leaders have erred greatly was in using, or accepting, government license (control) over our lives in the first place. Mandating alcohol abstinence did not work at all, and other enforcement by the force of the gun of the law of religious doctrines will not work, other than for the protection of natural rights, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and yes, property (Thou shalt not steal).

Looting, pillaging, and raping by the already rich IS Communism

March 17, 2012

>> Are you assuming the only alternative to looting, pillaging, and raping by the already rich is Communism?

Pay close attention here. Listen very closely, because most people read this or hear it or even see it in front of their very own eyes in real life and miss it. Do not miss this truism:

Looting, pillaging, and raping by the already rich IS Communism.

Who runs the Marxist Central Banks of the world? Establishing central banks was one of the demands in the platforms of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, an item that Communists and socialists almost never ever talk about?

Note that the biggest theft of history, speaking of “looting, pillaging, and raping”, is the dollar devaluation by the Federal Reserve currency monopoly by “the already rich”. They are richer than rich, they own the currency and the now figurative currency printing presses, all of your money is theirs, it says so right at the top: “Federal Reserve Note“.

Pay close attention. Who gave Karl Marx $20,000 to write Das Kapital? (Back when it was real money”). The starving masses? The industrial proletariat? The dirt peasants?

Who had the time on their hands and the brainpower not crimped by malnutrion to even read Das Kapital without worrying about the next meal? The “upper crust” or the bottom dwellers?

Who gave Vladimir Lenin a train load of gold to take to Russia to finance the Bolshevik Revolution against the Kerensky republic? The union of privates and restaurant waiters?

Who provided the Bolsheviks tens of millions of dollars to save them from collapse when they were on the brink? The poor? Who bragged about saving them from losing power? Detroit factory workers, or International banker Warburg?

Who took a “vacation” to Moscow in the middle of February after the Cuba missile crisis, just about two months before Krushchev “retired” to a dachma in the Crimea?

When the “Zapatistas” had their “uprising” and took over Chiapas state in southern Mexico, the Miami Herald published a photo of one of their “soldiers”. He indeed looked like a peasant soldier, but the armament he held in his hand was a thousand-dollar piece. What kind of “poverty” purchases that kind of weaponry for an army of thousands? And that was their first public act!

+

Contraception issue: dirty trick to distract from dictatorship fetish

March 8, 2012

I knew there was a filthy dirty pro-Obama campaign trick in there when former Clinton staffer Stephanopolous popped the stupid contraception question at one of the Republican debates. So I was not suprised to find out that this mandate was a campaign strategy to fool the American people into electing him again, besides just being another landmark in keeping Americans used to giving up ever more of their religious freedom along with their economic freedom. So with the facts that keep dribbling out, it looks like this Sandra Fluke flap is another of the same series of outrages:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/is-this-why-sandra-fluke-testified/

Yep, there is a gang that was spawned by the radical 1960s SDS and Weathermen. I was there, I was one, and I  can tell one. It doesn’t always “take one to know one”, but I know what a Trotskyite Communist or Fabian socialist would do to sneak into the White House “under cover” if he had some zillionaire backers.

It wouldn’t be the first time. Lenin and Trotsky had their zillionaire backers for taking over Russia in the Bolshevik revolution. The Communist American John Reed in the book “10 Days That Shook the World” did not mention the super-capitalist sponsors of the Bolsheviks, because that would have exposed both the hypocrisy and the corruption at the very “highest” levels of socialist leadership, and destroyed the totally fabricated myth of spontaneous workers’ uprisings.

Books like John Reed’s, just like Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto, were mythical intellectual packaging with false labels meant to fool the “smart” people, the “intelligentsia”, into thinking Marxism was “scientific” and for bonus points, “inevitable”.

My disillusions came early on because my “leftist” thinking evolved into political anarchist philosophies. At the time I figured if you can’t trust people to govern themselves, how can you trust them to govern others?

And the truth is, human nature being what it is, you cannot trust government because you cannot trust people with power, most especially in government, because the enforcers are made of the same human flesh as everybody else, meaning the rest of us.

The truth is, what starving industrial-plant worker of Karl Marx’s day was able to even have the time to read Das Kapital, much less, understand it?

It’s the rich who foment and organize political revolutions, with a possible historically recent exception of places where there is a substantial middle class that understands principles of freedom and the importance of property rights alongside the natural human rights of free speech, free press, the free exercise of religion (not the more limited “right of worship”), freedom from arbitrary searches and seizure, etc.

 

 

 

 

Whose property is it? Yours or the states’?

December 17, 2011

Ron Paul says it pretty good:
https://www.google.com/search?q=ron+paul+income+tax+youtube&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Obama channeling Teddy Roosevelt‘s outrageous socialist pronouncement said it all. Everything you have belongs to the government, and you only deserve what they decide to let you keep.

That’s why Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto advocated the “progressive” income tax. It plants a subtle seed of thought in the public’s mind that it all belongs to the state.

They say “community”, the “people”, but it always turns out to be demagogue deciding who gets what. Dissidents get the wrong end of the stick.

You don’t even have to believe in God to understand this, although it should help, despite the unbelievers who use the name of God in vain to claim that we are supposed to steal from John Doe to give it to his neighbor.

So they suck blood from the arteries of the economy, and their plan is to buy off the poor with a few crumbs they give back to them, buy off the middle class with a few deductions and blathering about “millionaires” while they squeeze them dry, and buy off enough of the rich and corporate class with subsidies and regulations that make it harder for start-ups.

And since that makes it harder for the poor and pushes the middle class into poverty, they figure they have a bigger more receptive audience for their demagoguery.