Socialism Further Simplified

Socialism Further Simplified: A system wherein those few people who control "the government" assert by force and violence their ownership of your labor, and thus the fruit of your labor. The older and more honest name for such a system is 'slavery'. The distinction between old-fashioned slavery and socialism is that the socialists pretend to be enslaving you "for the common good", rather than for their own narrow self-interest.

Aside from being a more modernist iteration of the human sin-impulse to live by the sweat of another mans brow (i.e. to enslave him), socialism is a means by which the less successful and/or incompetent persons who consider themselves "elite" attempt to use "the masses" as a tool or weapon with which to supplant the successful/top-tier "elites".

Always remember and never forget: To the socialists, you are not a person, made in the Image of God; you are a tool ... or an inconvenience to be disposed of. 

 ZeroHedge: Socialism Simplified: A System Where Government Uses Your Money To Solve Everyone Else's Problems 

The Food Stamp [Recipients] Are Officially Out Of Control

The title of Matt Walsh's linked video is "The Food Stamp Influencers On TikTok Are Officially Out Of Control", but I like my version of it better.

At the start of my 10th grade year, so more than 50 years ago, my father was laid up for months due to a broken hip(*). Then, less than a year and a half later (**), he was laid up again with the *other* hip broken.  

SO, for a while, my family relied on Food Stamps -- and it was damned embarrassing, it was shame-inducing.  Once I was old enough to have a part-time job, when I had the money to do so, I'd buy the family groceries with my own money and return the food stamps unspent to my mother, just to avoid the embarrassment of pulling the damned things out in public.  I also planted a garden in the back yard to grow some of our food.

But, as I said, that was 50+ years ago; and my, how times have changed.  These days, people *boast* about being government dependents (***), living as wards of Big Momma Government, rather than as functioning adults; people *boast* about using their vote to install politicians and bureaucrats who loot you and me to subsidize themselves (meaning, both the voters and the voted-for).

(*) As he was crossing the street -- legally, in the cross-walk, with the crossing-light -- a young woman stopped at the intersection, distracted by arguing with her boyfriend, must have slipped her foot off the brake.  Anyway, she rolled forward, struck my father, and his hip broke.

(**) He was heading downtown on foot one winter day, As he passed the spot where a building had been demolished the previous summer, he stepped on a piece of ice-covered busted-up sidewalk that hadn't been fixed after the demolition, and down he went.

(***) I recently saw a video clip of a couple of fat lesbians (one of whom pretends to be a man), boasting about free-loading off you and me.  The one literally called herself "professionally disabled" -- that is, she's on welfare because she "can't" work to support herself -- and added that "he" (i.e. the other lesbian) is "paid to take care of me" -- that is, she is enrolled in another type of government-run welfare-scam to fleece you and me for the benefit primarily of the bureaucrats and secondarily of their clientele. 

I recently saw another clip of a woman bitching because she could no longer use the EBT card to pay to have her nails done. Horror of horrors, she had to use "her own money" to pay for the utterly useless and pointless nails.  Or, as she lamented, "Now, how am I going to pay the rent?"

=====
In America, "poor people" aren't "poor" primarily because they have no money, but because of their own choices: either to not work and earn money in the first place, or to frivolously waste what money they do acquire. In America, being "poor" is a choice.  In America, most "poor people" are "poor" because they are damned lazy.

Matt Walsh: The Food Stamp Influencers On TikTok Are Officially Out Of Control

Even Infinite Buckeroos Will Not Feed Us

In the linked video, Dan Tubb of LotusEaters.com discusses "Modern Monetary Theory", the insane socialistic hyper-Keynesian "economic theory" by which our rulers are destroying us.

My comment/response --

The *point* of an economy is not to "add value", but rather to generate/create wealth. Certainly, "adding value" ... well, adds value. But, if there is not an underlying and robust generation of wealth to which to "add value", then everyone dies, no matter how much "value" is being added as we all die. In the "buckeroo" pseudo-economy, no wealth at all is being generated; that "economy" is nothing more than an accounting trick. Moreover, in its interface with the real economy, it almost certainly destroys wealth, rather than creating it. For, of a certainly, whatever tasks the students do at the hospital to earn the buckeroos will be either pointless waste-of-time make-work, or something that regular employees are already being paid to do. While the "work" the students perform to earn those buckeroos may potentially be "useful" (or not), that work's relationship to the real economy of wealth-creation is no different than if they were made to dig holes one day, and fill them in the next. Now, hospitals are certainly nice things to have, and a well-run hospital "adds value" to its community. BUT, hospitals do not generate wealth; rather, they consume wealth. In that regard, hospitals are luxuries: we cannot have hospitals unless and until we have an underlying economy producing enough excess wealth to support siphoning off enough wealth to fund the hospitals.

Dan Tubb, LotusEaters: The Nonsensical Economic Theory That Affects Your Life

Q: When Are Your Children Not Your Children?

A: When a passel of God-damned government bureaucrats decide that they have a greater vested interest in the welfare of your own children than you do.

It *appears* that the "neglect" of which government bureaucrats accuse these parents is the rational decision to forego the battery of so-called vaccinations that the "health professionals" -- remember them? the very people who lied to us in various ways, and are still lying to us to this day, about Covid-1984? -- insist infants be subjected to.

And so, since the *parents* of these children made the decision -- as is their right -- to remove their children from the potential clutches of the damned government bureaucrats, the bureaucrats are accusing the PARENTS OF KIDNAPPING THEIR OWN CHILDREN.

Massachusetts Couple Accused of Kidnapping Their Own Five Children from State Custody

Is This Really the "Win" It's Portrayed As Being?

According to the CDC (see link below), before the US chickenpox vaccination program started in 1995, there were:

4,000,000 cases annually;

50 to 150 deaths annually, with half being children;

So, if we use the high number (as they want us to fixate on), that is 1 death per @ 26,666 cases (i.e. 4M / 150)

In contrast, since widespread use of the chickenpox vaccine, there have been:

"fewer than 150,000" cases annually;

"fewer than 30" deaths annually;

That is, that is 1 death per @ 5,000 cases (i.e. 150K / 30)

Now, for persons who might have been among the 20-120 "extra" deaths per year without the vaccine, that's certainly good news. However, as a *percentage* of cases, the death-toll is far worse since the vaccine roll-out.

And that's not counting whatever damage that the vaccine may do to the developing bodies and brains of very small children ... and which damage they most certainly hide from us.

This is ONE MORE EXAMPLE of why vaccine mandates are EVIL and sinful/immoral: leave the decision to vaxx or not in the hands of the parents, and give them *real* information so they can make informed decisions.

CDC: Chickenpox Vaccine Saves Lives Infographic

Communism Defined in One Sentence

Paul Kegnor (quoting Marx and Engels): "The entire communist theory or programme may be summed up in the single sentence (four words): 'Abolition of private property.'"

Here is my one-sentence summary of socialism, in general, and communism, in particular: "I deserve to live by the sweat of your brow."

===

Now, if one has a basic understanding of human nature, if one has a basic understanding of human history, then one sees at once that there is nothing new about socialism/communism: living by the sweat of someone else's brow is the second oldest game in the book; the oldest being murderous envy, in the manner of Cain.

When the thief burgles your home (and in the process frequently destroying more wealth than he steals), the motivation is: "I deserve to live by the sweat of your brow."

When a tribe/clan raids the neighboring tribe/clan, the motivation is: "I deserve to live by the sweat of your brow."

When the slave-raider enslaves the village (and in the process frequently killing more human beings than he delivers to the slave-market), the motivation is: "I deserve to live by the sweat of your brow."

When the strong-man sets himself up as the petty-king over his neighbors, the motivation is: "I deserve to live by the sweat of your brow."

When a feudal lordling invades the holdings of a neighboring lordling, the motivation is: "I deserve to live by the sweat of your brow."

When the alliance of 'capital' and 'labor' organize to demand government force and violence be used to "motivate" the subjects of that government to buy their more expensive domestic product rather that a less expensive foreign product, the motivation is: "I deserve to live by the sweat of your brow."

When the politician promises to subsidize his supporters' lives by confiscating the fruit of the labor of their fellows, the motivation of both the politician and his supporter is: "I deserve to live by the sweat of your brow."

When the leftist demands the overthrow of capitalism and the abolition of private property, the motivation is: "I deserve to live by the sweat of your brow."

=====

In striking contrast to most of human history and social organization, under capitalism -- and 'capitalism' is merely the inevitable consequence of morality and freedom-under-law -- the motivation is: "I deserve to earn my living by serving you."  

Under capitalism, honest-and-moral people earn their livings by mutually serving one another -- capitalism performs a moral jujitsu move on innate human greed and selfishness, turning the serving of others into one's own self-interest, and thereby fostering a moral and humane society in which greed and selfishness are shortsighted and counter-productive.  And this is why leftists hate capitalism so fervently: it's not merely that they are lazy, and don't want to productively work in the first place; and it's not merely that they want to live off the labor of other people; it's that they don't want to serve other people. 

The Problem of Too Many "Elites"

One major reason that we have so many "Champaign socialists" in our society has to do with the present-day overproduction of elite wannabes due to the manner of the restructuring of "higher education" following WWII.

Not everyone born into the "elite class", as the discussed Hasan Piker was, is competent enough on his own merits to maintain the status to which he was born, nor as is even more difficult, to rise in status.  This also applies to the vast majority of "educated" persons presently churned out by "higher education".

In a capitalistic society, such as ours, the best way to rise in status, much less to achieve or maintain "elite" status, is to serve one's fellow man: supply a good or service that other persons are willing freely to purchase from you, and you have it made.

But, the most common moral flaw in human beings is the desire to be served by others, rather than to serve others.  This immoral and perverted desire to live off the sweat of another man's brow is the root of slavery ... and of slavery's current manifestation: socialism.

Socialists are *always* either the more incompetent children of the existing elites or the more incompetent of the uplifted wannabe elites. Since such persons are not competent enough to achieve or maintain truly elite status by their own efforts, they embrace socialism as a means to attempt to cynically use the "proles", whom they despise, as a tool to supplant the competent elites, against whom they cannot directly compete.

The Quartering: "Hasan Piker BUSTED & Has MELTDOWN! Fake Twitch Socialist Grew Up SUPER RICH & His Fans BLAST HIM"

When is a Constitution "unconstitutional?"

The ongoing left-right political battle in the US is at root a battle between two conflicting and contradictory moral systems, as mediated by a battle between two conflicting and contradictory constitutions: the written US Constitution of 1787, on the one hand, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (*) and its penumbras and emanations, on the other hand.

When the Republicans enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they weren't content simply to overturn the Democrats' various "Jim Crow" violations of the Constitution, which unconstitutionally differentiated citizens by race before the bureaucrats of various of the States and which violated citizens' rights of association by compelling them to differentiate one another by race in private association. Oh, no! The Republicans were too clever by half, imagining that there were going to "pwn" the Democrats, and so they were played by the leftists: they drafted a law which violates citizens' rights of association by compelling them to differentiate one another by race in private association (but in the opposite direction to what the Democrats had been doing theretofore) and laid the groundwork for future legislative acts and court rulings which unconstitutionally differentiate citizens by race, and eventually by "identification", before the bureaucrats of the totalizing administrative state.

"Woke culture" is the natural and inevitable out-working of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the subsequent additions to it.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- much of which is actually unconstitutional -- is being used by the leftists as the means to destroy the legitimacy of our Constitution and thus to destroy our Republic.

For example -- In 2008, the citizens of California passed Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to overrule a state-court imposition of "gay marriage" on the citizens of that State. A federal court later ruled that this legally-enacted provision of California's Constitution was "unconstitutional".

One might ask, "On what grounds was this amendment to the California Constitution decreed to be unconstitutional?" Why, on the grounds of the judge's interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Mind you, this was years before the US supreme court imposed "gay marriage" on the citizens of the entire nation, in contravention of the written US Constitution.

For example -- You may be aware of a Turkish-born rabid leftist by the name of Cenk Uygur, who claims (or claimed) to be running for the Democratic nomination to the US Presidency.

Now, Cenk Uygur is a naturalized US citizen; which is to say, the US Constitution expressly forbids him to occupy the office of the US Presidency. And what do you think is Mr Uygur's strategy to get around this encumbrance? Why, and of course, it is to try to get a federal judge to rule that the US Constitution itself is "unconstitutional" ... on the grounds that by the Civil Rights Act it is "unfair" for the US Constitution and US law to distinguish between a naturalized citizen and a natural born citizen, wedded to the false assertion that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution erases the distinctions between classes of citizenship.

(*) A deep dive examination of these conflicting constitutions will take us from the false constitution's rancid fruiting in Current Year's "Woke culture", to its flowering in Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society", to its growth in Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal", to its cultivation in Woodrow Wilson's and Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Movement, and will ultimately find the seed of the false constitution in Abraham Lincoln's violations of the written Constitution ... in the name of "preserving" that Constitution and the Union therewith established.

Auron MacIntyre: "Civil Rights Law Is a Problem"

Auron MacIntyre: "Why We're No Longer Governed by the Constitution"

Socialized Medicine, Again

Headline: "Canadian Woman Dies After Waiting 10 Weeks for Cancer Treatment"

 Well, it's not quite that she simply died, it's that she was murdered by the Canadian state.

https://www.lifenews.com/2023/12/18/canadian-woman-euthanized-after-waiting-10-weeks-for-cancer-treatment-appointment/

Again. This Is Socialized Medicine

Listen carefully to this report -- they have done / are doing just the *opposite* counting these medical murders than they did counting "deaths 'with' Covid-19[84]"

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

This, Too, is Socialized Medicine

 Do listen to Neil Oliver discussing what few facts are publicly known about the British NHS "doctors" forcing a British girl to "accept" death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goQD0HE9UfY

EDIT --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x6-VC-WJA0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuX6cXJg3p8

How can people see this sort of casual and contemptuous evil and then accuse God of being an immoral monster for "sending people to Hell" (as people incorrectly phrase it)?

EDIT (2023/11/10) --

Michael Knowles discussing a current case of the British NHS and courts refusing to allow a sick child to leave Britain for live-saving medical treatment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z98SKhS6kso

This is Socialized Medicine

 Headline: Ontario woman asked to donate husband’s organs after he was denied transplant for being unvaccinated 

35-year-old Garnet Harper died after hospitals refused to perform a life-saving kidney transplant on him because he did not take the experimental COVID-19 shots.

====

Monday, July 31, 2023 --

SUDBURY, Ontario (LifeSiteNews) — Canadian health officials asked an Ontario woman to donate organs of her husband who died after being denied an organ transplant because he did not receive the COVID-19 shots.

In May, Trillium Gift of Life Network (TGLN), the Ontario organ donation agency, called Meghan Harper to harvest her husband Garnet’s organs as he lay dying because the hospital refused to provide organ transplants to unvaccinated Canadians.  

“They call you while you’re sitting next to your dying loved one and they ask you if they can have his organs,” Megan told independent journalist Monique Leal. 

Healthcare professionals contact TGLN if they believe a dying patient would be a suitable donation candidate. As Garnet spent his last moments on earth, Meghan was advised by nurses to expect a call from TGLN.   

====

So, the very "healthcare professionals" who would not provide this man the vital organ transplant (*) necessary to keep him alive *also* volunteered his name as a potential "donor" to the ghouls who run the chop-shops which strip-mine sometimes-still-living "corpses" of their vital organs.

(*) My views on the morality of vital organ transplants are given in older posts.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ontario-woman-asked-to-donate-husbands-organs-after-he-was-denied-transplant-for-being-unvaccinated/

This is socialized medicine

Dutch Woman With Dementia Euthanized Against Her Will. The Doctor Was Just Cleared Of Wrongdoing.

Three years ago, a 74-year-old Dutch woman with dementia was euthanized by a doctor who drugged the patient's coffee without her knowledge and then had family members physically restrain her for the final lethal injection.

The doctor, who has not been publicly named, was cleared of all wrongdoing by a court in the Netherlands on Wednesday, "clarifying" the country's euthanasia law enacted in 2002 in relation to patients with "severe dementia," according to MedicalXPress.

Patients with dementia can now be killed by their doctors even if they strongly object to euthanasia at the time, so long as they have previously given consent for the fatal procedure. In other words, if a patient were to change their mind about the assisted suicide, a doctor could still legally kill them against their will. "The court ruled that in rare cases of euthanasia that were being performed on patients with severe dementia — and who had earlier made a written request for euthanasia — the doctor 'did not have to verify the current desire to die,'" MedicalXPress reported.

And in the case of this specific Dutch woman with dementia, she never once gave an express request to be euthanized. In her will, which was renewed about a year before her death, the woman said she would like to be euthanized "whenever I think the time is right." And when she was asked if she wanted to be euthanized, she reiterated multiple times that her suffering was not bad enough to where she wanted to be killed:

“The 74-year-old woman had renewed her living will about a year before she died, writing that she wanted to be euthanized ‘whenever I think the time is right.’ Later, the patient said several times in response to being asked if she wanted to die: ‘But not just now, it's not so bad yet!’ according to a report from the Dutch regional euthanasia review committee.”

She was killed, anyway

Part of the rationale for clearing the doctor of drugging the patient's coffee without her knowledge and killing her while she was being physically restrained against her will was in part, according to the court verdict, because "the patient no longer recognized her own reflection in the mirror," the MedicalXPress report said.


As noted by The Daily Wire last August, "A panel had previously cleared the doctor of ethical violations by saying she 'acted in good faith,'" but that decision was overturned by the Regional Euthanasia Review Committees. On Wednesday, the doctor was again cleared of wrongdoing.

The Netherlands has become a hotbed for euthanasia particularly among the most vulnerable. In 2017, 83 people with mental illness were killed in the country, as noted by National Review.

"The Dutch plunge into the euthanasia moral abyss continues to accelerate, with the number of patients killed by doctors exceeding 6,000 in 2017. That's more than 500 a month, 100 a week, and 15 a day," the outlet reported in March 2018. "Demonstrating the consequences of accepting the premise that eliminating suffering justifies eliminating the sufferer, Dutch psychiatrists killed 83 of their mentally ill patients in 2017 — up from twelve in 2012 and 43 in 2014."

Keep in mind that these are people who pretend to be morally outraged that some US States still dare to commit justice by executing the most egregious murderers.

This is socialized medicine

UK: He said something was stuck in his throat after surgery. The doctors didn’t believe him.

UK: Hospital Staff Caught Euthanizing Hundreds of Patients: “If a Nurse Didn’t Like You, You Were a Goner”

Canada: Canadian Health Care Refused to Pay for Disabled Father's Care, but Happily Paid for His Assisted Suicide

The "alt-right" is "alternative" to conservatism because it's just more leftism

K T Cat: Ta-Nehisi's Inverse -- "In a substantive way, the Left screaming about racism is just the Left screaming at itself."

K T Cat links to a tweet by one Sissy Willis, saying --

"Vox Day says the alt-right is conservative. It’s actually an identity movement on par with Black Lives Matter, La Raza, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, & other products of @CulturalMarxism." … "

My comment -

Actually, VD emphatically denies that "alt-right" is conservative -- he *despises* conservatism [and conservatives] -- so, that's one of the few times he's honest.

And, yes indeed, "alt-right" *is* "actually an identity movement on par with Black Lives Matter, La Raza, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, & other products of @CulturalMarxism." Or, to put it another way, it's just another variant of collectivism ... which is left, not right.

The "alt-right" is just as inimical to individual liberty as any other variant of leftism is.


K T Cat: Jordan Peterson Destroys The Myth Of The Alt-Right

To paraphrase Kathy Shaidle, "It you see "alt-right" and "antifa" battling in the street, the correct response is not to pick sides, but to pray for a meteor strike."

ps: Peterson is also not a conservative, much less a Christian.

============
Donald Sensing: Mass shootings - a few relevant links

That Guy, Over There!

When you think about it, the Democrats have *always* been the party of "If you vote to give me control of the government, I'll use governmental force-and-violence to take the wealth of that guy over there and give it to you", on the one hand, and "If you promise to use governmental force-and-violence to take the wealth of that guy over there and give it to me, I'll vote to give you control of the government", on the other.

The mordantly amusing thing about Democrat voters is that they *never* figure out that *they* are some other Democrat voter's "that guy over there".

The Senate ... and The Constitution!

O.M.G. ... the US Constitution *forbids* an Amendment to create "proportional representation" in the Senate.

One may recall that the one of the drums the leftists are pounding is about how "unfair" and "undemocratic" it is that North Dakota has equal weight in the Senate with California and New York; and that they seem to imagine that they can "fix" this "problem" by decree. To which many on the right have responded to the effect that, "No, you can't do it by decree ... but you're welcome to try to amend the Constitution to get the result you desire."

Well, it turns out that the US Constitution forbids such an amendment --

ARTICLE V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Again: "The Congress ... [may] propose Amendments to this Constitution, ... Provided ...that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate"

So, it wouldn't be enough that California and New York might agree to deprive North Dakota of its equal vote in the Senate; North Dakota would have to explicitly agree to deprive itself of this fundamental equality as a Sovereign State of the Union.

h/t Francis W. Porretto at Liberty's Torch

The presence of that clause in Article V, the Amendment Article, excludes the equal representation of the [S]tates in the Senate from the possibility of amendment. This is beyond dispute. The Senate, in other words, was created to guarantee that each [S]tate would have a voice in the Senate equal to any other [S]tate. The electoral system for choosing a president reinforces this oft-neglected aspect of the Constitution: it was intended to protect the small [S]tates from abuses perpetrated by the large ones.

The phrase “checks and balances” should come to mind at this point. My Gentle Readers have no doubt been muttering that phrase for some time already. Lesser intellects might consider suing their civics teachers.

The Framers knew full well what they were doing. The very last passage of the Constitution emphasizes the importance of the [S]tates as elements in the Constitutional design:

ARTICLE VII: The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

The Constitution was conceived and ratified as a compact among the [S]tates. The [S]tates retained nearly complete internal sovereignty. Their equal representation in the Senate was intended, in part, to preserve that sovereignty, the exclusions in Article I, Section 10 being the sole exceptions. This aspect of the Constitution’s design is sometimes cited as an argument for a [S]tate’s power to nullify federal laws on the grounds of federal overreach.

The federal government has done many unConstitutional and extra-Constitutional things since the Wilson Administration. Some of them have been undeniable encroachments on [S]tate sovereignty. (Where, for example, is Congress given the power to legislate a federal penal code? But that’s a subject for another day.) This latest talk - of amending a part of the Constitution explicitly protected against amendment! - merely indicates how far Americans’ knowledge of the deliberately designed-in features of our Union has slipped.

ps: Repeal the 17th Amendment!

Two Options Only

Hilary White (What Is Up With The Synod?): The smiling executioner: when death becomes an obligation

And here we are, 20 years later, and a court has ruled that although his parents have permission to take Alfie Evans home, he is still being effectively held prisoner, refused medical care for his still-undiagnosed condition, specifically in order to assure that he doesn’t live. The British medical system and courts have determined that Alfie has to die because of the working assumption that death is preferable to life for disabled people.

When my friends email me to tell me how they feel about it and say things like, “I can’t fathom this,” all I can think or say is, “I can.” For those who are horrified and perplexed and baffled by what is happening to Alfie Evans (and to Charlie Gard before him) I can certainly empathise. But I can say that I’m not perplexed or baffled. This is the only possible destination of the path we’ve been on for a long time. This is where we had to go.

Exactly.

Such things are only the beginning of the horrors to come in the nations formerly known as 'Christendom', because they have collectively turned their backs on Christ.

There is always a "god of the system"; there is *always* an organizing metaphysical basis to a society -- i.e. a "religion" which determines what may and may not be done. And since the nations formerly known as 'Christendom' have collectively turned their backs on Christ, and have rejected the foundation on which they were built, the only alternative "god of the system" is necessarily demonic.

There is no going back to the "innocent paganism" (as CS Lewis once called it) of the ancients. Christ has come, and he has ended that that particular ignorance (and 'ignorance' is, after all, what 'innocence' means): the only options left to our nations are:
1) Christ, and life;
2) the Pit, and death.

That's why we have to brick-up the window

Douglas Wilson: Don’t Waste Your White Privilege

To change the metaphor, it does not matter how you rearrange the classroom, whenever you are done, somebody’s desk will be closest to the window.

This is *why* -- when it's not merely camouflage for leftists' own attempted power-grab -- Cultural Marxism (i.e. "social justice") is all about destroying what is, whatever it is that is.

This is your socialized medicine

I'm looking at *you* B.Prokop and Victor Reppert.

Wesley Smith at LifeNews.com: Netherlands and Belgium are Euthanizing Mentally Ill Patients and Harvesting Their Organs

There is *always* a "god of the system" ... and that god will be served. If the "god of the system" isn't the Living God, the God who created men, the God who sustains the lives of men, it will be a god created by men, a god which devours the lives of men.