Tag Archive: Socialism


When I attended school, in the days when classical works were still considered to be a vital part of good education, Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” was required reading, as was Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty Four“. Looking back, I’m not so sure now that the intention of everyone involved in writing the school syllabi was to warn us of the evils of totalitarianism, as we thought at the time…

Written in 1931, Brave New World is still remarkably relevant today, though not often read. It imagines a future in which a world state governs all the affairs of humanity, to the extent that it produces humans without any need for a womb or a family. From “conception” the state places people within prescribed and fixed classes, rather like castes, each with its own level of intelligence and ability. The state then conditions the minds of its offspring to accept their positions in life happily, and to conform without complaint to everything the world state has instituted.

The reason the book is still relevant in many ways is that it expresses some of the goals and dreams of many socialist-minded people over the last couple of centuries, up to the present time. In fact, you could probably find most of its suggestions within Marx’s “Manifesto”. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that all socialists want everyone to be equal and on the same level: those in the forefront of the movement want to be more equal than the rest of us.

Huxley, the brother of a famous evolutionist, was opposed to religion and the nuclear family (Marx’s Christian “bourgeoisie family”) and rather partial to the concept of eugenics. In Brave New World he was not warning us all of future evils, as most people, including myself, were led to believe. His imagined society was not intended to be dystopian: he was surreptitiously encouraging our consideration of its benefits. He was pushing it into our faces, much as Hollywood does today.

Growing numbers of people today, particularly in the feminist movement and among extremist liberals, have similar dreams and desires for the transformation of our world. Those desires include eugenics; total government power over a compliant and suitably re-educated populace; amorality; the end of the traditional family; the complete preoccupation with entertainment; a news media entirely in the pocket of the politically-correct establishment; totally revised or forgotten history; the end of the Church; radically controlled reproduction; the despising and vilification of anyone who does not comply; the homogenization and simplification of thought; the use of euphemisms and ambiguity for all institutions and agencies (like the current DOJ); total control over all education from birth; the moral corruption of children; a world government, and the loss of all national identity and culture.

Perhaps the only big difference between Huxley’s future utopian society and the real movement towards such a world today is that Huxley’s society worked.

Advertisements

DOES OBAMACARE?

Obamacare? Who did Obama care about…or for that matter the rest of the Democrats or half the Republicans?

I have a bill for $2085 for not buying Mr. Obama’s insurance last year. I’m not well off, and I’m certainly less well-off now. Thanks. Mr President, but I don’t need or want your kind of care.

Can you call yourself a Christian only if you vote “left”, or only if you vote “right”?

Since the nineteenth century some socialists in the West have claimed that they are the real Christians in society, and that anyone who doesn’t agree with them politically is self-seeking and doesn’t deserve to be called a “Christian”. If you vote on the “right”, they insist, you’re obviously greedy and don’t care about the poor-you only care about yourself. USCurrency_Federal_Reserve

My dad was the most godly man I’ve ever known, and the most generous. He lived in humility and holiness as much as any man does, and he considered himself a socialist. He felt that way because when he was a child the people who did all the hard physical graft-including his own dad-were paid little and worked long hours, receiving little respect from their employers, and socialism promised to fix that problem. I don’t think he realized that all self-respecting socialist societies, particularly at the time he was raised, were based on atheism, naturalism and secularism.

But given his life as an example, I don’t doubt that a socialist who may be wrong about a few Biblical doctrines as he was can also be a real Christian in the original, true sense-and a good one.

The difference between socialism and Christianity is clearly seen in the book of Acts-sometimes used erroneously as a selling point for socialism. In chapter two we read that:

“…all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as anyone had need” (Acts 2:44-45).

There are three important things to see in this passage. First, there’s no doubt that the first Church-age believers really were generous. Secondly, however, they were generous towards each other, not to the state’s coffers. Thirdly and most importantly, the giving and distribution was voluntary.

The obvious difference between a socialistic redistribution of wealth and real, original Christianity is that socialism demands and takes money from you in the form of high taxes, whether you want to give it or not, and uses and distributes it as the ruling elite decides. Sometimes it’s allocated to anything but Christian causes, such as abortion or sex-changes. Socialism takes your money by “law” with the threat of punishment, whether you want to part with it or not, and whether you can afford it or not: Christian giving is willing, voluntary, joyful, generous giving from the heart, and from wealth that you have earned from your own hard work and enterprise.

The term “Christian” (“Christ-one”) was originally a title for those who were believers in the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is not primarily about politics at all, but repentance from sin and faith in Christ’s sacrificial life, death and resurrection.

No, God doesn’t “vote” left or right: obviously he doesn’t vote at all. Instead he has his own standards which are fixed and eternal, independent of human reasoning. Those standards may or may not be followed by individuals on the left or the right of the political spectrum. However, socialism-solidly and often extremely “left” of center (if there is such a thing as “center”) is predominantly atheistic or at least simply secular. We can see this in the present-day use of the US Constitution’s “establishment” clause, being used by the “left” as a weapon against expressions of faith, and almost always Christian faith. The clause was originally and clearly intended to protect the free exercise of religion-all religion-without the ability of the government to establish and impose one on its people.

Socialism is often, as prescribed by Marx himself in his communist “Manifesto”, established or promoted by violent rebellion or the threat of it. In contrast the gospel is about love and mercy for all men-rich or poor-and obedience to established authority. See my post on the birth and aims of socialism:

https://nickyfisher.com/2012/06/09/war-religion-and-atheism-part-2-marx-and-engels/

220px-Stalin's_Mug_Shot

Socialism is intrinsically opposed to the Church and to the traditional, Biblical family. Many on the “right” of the political spectrum are on the right not because they’re greedy, but because they see the extreme “left” to be at war against Christian social values and principles. And don’t forget that greed is not confined to the “right”-there are billionaire and millionaire socialists. You can’t get rich by giving it away now, can you?

Socialism is fundamentally opposed to freedom of enterprise, conscience and thought, and attempts to shape all minds into its mold, most particularly now through indoctrination in education, and in the guise of entertainment.

 

YOU WERE WRONG, ORWELL!

George_Orwell_press_photo

 ORWELL: ONE BIG FACECRIME!

(A warning to my readers…this is irony!)

George Orwell had some really insane ideas about a future dystopia didn’t he!

Waxing prophetical, he envisaged a world in which government intruded into every aspect of public and private life, and which was distant and incurably deceptive and untrustworthy. In this nonsensical world the working masses served government, but as we all know it’s really the other way around, isn’t it! Government perpetuated a state of war with an unseen enemy, so that there was always someone “over there” to collectively hate and distrust rather than the government, and in order to legitimize the strict control of its own citizens. People had cameras pointing at them everywhere they went, and every conversation was recorded and stored. How stupidly far-fetched!

Political correctness ran amok. Euphemisms, known as “doublespeak”, abounded. History was revised or forgotten. The masses were conditioned to believe all that the state-controlled media and educational establishment told them, and Orwell through his ridiculous novel, had his government stating, “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past”. Now be honest, would any government or public servant in the free world stoop so low as to think that way? Orwell even imagined that his media and his educational establishment fostered a practice called “doublethink”: the art of knowing one thing to be true, yet choosing to believe another.

Talking about God was illegal and the people of “The Book” were hated. Now can you really imagine, in a free society, that that would actually happen? Come on Orwell, get real! Anyone can talk about God anywhere, such as children in the classroom (NOTE-maybe I should edit this part out).

Kids were the property of the state and taught to reject the beliefs and ethics of their parents. Parents had no right to discipline their kids for fear of being turned in to the authorities and their children taken away. Women did the same work as men, acting like men. In fact the line between genders was completely wiped away, so that both acted and dressed the same way. Traditional family relationships and ties were all but destroyed. Everyone distrusted each other and dared not expose any true feelings which might conflict with political correctness: independent thought was considered a sign of madness and required counseling, or “re-educating”. People became obsessed with violent movies which encouraged them to hate the enemies of the Party.  Musaac, a ubiquitous music-by-the-yard background noise helped empty minds and condition thoughts and behavior. Are these not the ideas of a fool and an insurrectionist?

The working masses – the “Proles” – those who might have had the power to change things didn’t: they were too busy with their day-to-day lives to even think about what should be done. The government knew it, and only had to feed them with disinformation and rumors to keep them blind to what was really happening. Orwell really went too far when he wrote of the government convincing people that “the heresy of heresies was common sense”.

In Orwell’s pathetic novel, the metric system of weights and measures replaced the Imperial system. What nonsense!

Orwell’s book was packed with thoughtcrime and propaganda: it was nothing but heresy. Why, you only have to glance at a picture of him to see “facecrime’ all over it.  Thank goodness his time has passed, as long ago as 1984, and history, being systematically corrected by those who know far better than he did, has proved him wrong!

BEAUTIFUL CITY: WHERE IS IT?

thCAAR5EIU

I once was involved as a musician in a professional tour of a popular rock musical. It was based on gospel parables, complete with performers representing Jesus and his disciples. The Jesus of the musical was a hippy-like guru with a band of admirers. He wasn’t the Son of God, and he didn’t die for our sins.

One of the songs was called “Beautiful City”. It had a terrific melody, and it was one of those easy-to-sing-along-with songs which makes you feel warm and fuzzy all over.  What I didn’t notice or realize at the time, being a non-believer-and I suspect most of the audience was unaware of it- was that rather than being a Christian song it was really a strong dose of humanistic ideology, being surreptitiously poured into our sub-conscious without any threat of question or analysis, since most people are totally unaware of Biblical theology on such subjects.

In the early 5th century AD Augustine, a famous Church “Father” wrote a book of Christian philosophy which when translated from Latin is titled, “The City of God Against the Pagans”, or simply “The City of God”. The book played no small part in shaping Western civilization.  The Church, argued Augustine, should be concerned with the Heavenly city promised in Bible scriptures, and not with earthly politics or earthly pleasures. He saw all of history as a conflict between what he called the City of Man and the City of God, a conflict destined to end in victory for the latter.

250px-City_of_God_Manuscript

What “Jesus” was singing so lustily about in that 20th century musical was an earthly city. It was most likely intended to be a direct contradiction of Augustine’s philosophy:

“We can build

 A beautiful city

 Yes we can

 Oh yes we can

 We can build

 A beautiful city

 Call it out

 And call it the city of man

Of course, the writers of the musical must have read the gospel accounts in order to use the parables of Jesus to make their fortune. But they must also have intentionally ignored numerous passages of scripture, such as this one, where Jesus said:

“My kingdom is not of this world…” (John 18:36).

My purpose here is not to offer an incredibly late critique of the musical or of the song, but to express amazement that people even now – especially now – are thinking that they can build a beautiful city, a wonderful humanistic society, without God. They are working very hard on it. Some of them will send me angry, critical comments upon reading this post. There are millions of people who desperately want to rid the world of God and of gods, and they think that by so doing they will create a happy society of citizens, free of mental illnesses (caused by religion, they say) and prejudices. Everyone will be jumping for joy, hugging each other, and rolling in prosperity. This was the claim of Marx and all who fell for his lies. They thought that by eliminating God, and if necessary, all those who wanted to believe in God, everyone who survived the purge would be too happy and prosperous for words.  History shows abundant evidence of the fallacy of that notion. See my series “War, Religion and Atheism” for some documentation.

Since prayer was outlawed in schools in the US, and since atheism has become the state-sanctioned religion (along with Islam), and since abortion has become the new contraception, we find that more people now die of suicide than by car accidents, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1). To my mind, just the road deaths alone prevent our society from being any kind of Utopia (over 32,000 in the US alone in 2011- note 2). Ask any of the family members or survivors how they feel about it.

Currently, 2.2 million people are locked up in the US alone (3).

If you begin to consider the multitude of societal, medical and personal problems we have you can find yourself becoming fearful and depressed. There is no real answer without the intervention of our Creator: why would we want there to be no Savior? Why do we not seek God but instead welcome the insistence of the “experts” that there is nothing but death to look forward to? Why should we want to be without hope?

Read what the Bible has to say about the City of Man and its determination to live without God:

“Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain?

The Kings of the earth take their stand

And the rulers gather together against the Lord and his Anointed One.

‘Let us break their chains, they say, and throw off their fetters’.

The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them…” (Psalm 2: 1-4).

Whereas humanism believes human nature to be basically good, and only needs the right conditions to bring out its goodness and produce a perfect world, the Bible’s view is totally opposite:

“There is no one righteous, no not even one…” (Romans 3:10).

In the sight of God, human nature is far from good, and that applies to  all of us. We need His nature within us to be what we should be: we need to be “born again”. Not only that, but left to ourselves, there can be nothing but trouble for humanity:

“But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God-having a form of godliness but denying its power” (2 Timothy 3:1-5).

Ultimately, only the return of our Creator to the earth is going to stop mankind from totally destroying itself:

“…then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now-and never to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect, those days will be shortened” (Matthew 24:21-22).

It’s right (and godly) for all of us to make the world we live in as pleasant as we can for each other. But the only “beautiful city” will be the one built by God, for his creation (Revelation chapter 21) in which God himself will be the only ruler. So don’t expect your politicians, philosophers or scientists to make one.

1 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/health/suicide-rate-rises-sharply-in-us.html?_r=0

2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

3 http://www.sentencingproject.org/template/page.cfm?id=107

%d bloggers like this: