By Walid And Theodore Shoebat (Shoebat Sunday Special)
My definition of liberty versus tyranny is simple:
Unity under freedom is the process of uniting individuals that disagree, while Tyranny is the process of forcing everyone to agree – in unison. (Walid Shoebat)
We are either individuals with free will or we are a herd under only the free will of one tyrant.
We, our children, our nation, everyone are being led like herds. The media, the government, and all the socially corrupt are using pressure groups and are daily arm-twisting us to be forcing us to all agree in unison to the corrupt social agendas turning us to the decaying society we see daily.
Why not simply just stand up say NO!
How did this all happen? It happened because we are led to believe that dialogue, education, reasoning, the Constitution, love, and the freedom of speech, will always protect us from the downfall. Reality at times is that our fathers gave us a Second Amendment to ensure that these things are respected, and at times by sheer force, if we must. I am not currently advocating to fight in arms, but if decay continues, arms will be raised against us, where we must defend ourselves.
To make us all collectively like lemmings, to run to and fro, in a fast pace society, we are daily brainwashed to be laden with worship of material goods, we sit behind screens, and we forget that our grandparents had a much better life than we did, where survival was much tougher, but peace and personal joy was had in abundance.
We are pressured to send our children to get an education. The social pressure is overwhelming, and it tugs on us daily, to send our children to what we think are campuses not realizing these are nothing more than spiritual death camps. The holocaust begins, when they insist our children get an associate degree, with loads of psychological and social agendas, when all they want to do is learn something technical from engineering to medicine.
The unwary knows not that there has always been a Shinarian tug with the Biblical proclamation attempting to unite the peoples under a single mindset fighting against individuality and free will. This tug manifested itself in a spiritual struggle between the two camps; individualism and collectivism.
And there are only two. In life, God ordained the two: husband and wife (not husband and husband), parents and children, government and the people, God and Devil, Good and Evil, Peace or War, Frugality or Wild Spending (which our government is also doing), Night and Day, A God Who visited us, or a god who is a pie in the sky, like all the other heathen gods ...
The young minds enter college. They are taught to respect, not the likes of Chesterton or true history but the father of Modern Liberalism Jean-Jacques Rousseau and all the historic revisionism that comes with this lousy so-called education.
At face value, they are told that Rousseau is a Genevan philosopher, writer, and composer of the 18th century. His political philosophy they tell us influenced the Enlightenment in France and across Europe ...
Enlightenment? Ya, sure. The 17th century philosopher Rousseau was a devil in disguise. Rousseau in his book The Social Contract was the major influence for the French Revolution – a revolt that led the literal beheading by guillotine, tens of thousands of French Christians, who disagreed with their version of unity.
Today we sit behind our computer screens, disgusted with ISIS, but romanticize the death of Christians while ignoring these other very educated savages teaching your children greater deaths.
The educated savage, unlike ISIS with their Sharia, these start off with great sounding dogma. Rousseau, long before Karl Marx, called for unity, communalism, socialism and collectivism. He denounced private property and individualism. He aspired to build the ‘body politic’;
“At once, in place of the individual personality of each contracting party, this act of association creates a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly contains votes, and receiving from this act its unity, its common identity, its life and its will. This public person, so formed by the union of all other persons formerly took the name of city, and now takes that of Republic or body politic; it is called by its members State when passive, Sovereign when active, and Power when compared with others like itself. Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people, and severally are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power, and subjects, as being under the laws of the State.”(01)
America is coming up for an election, the choices are obvious, to become collective or to keep our individual freedom.
This is a crossroad that will determine our destiny as a nation.
Don't kid yourself, nothing is new under the sun, and all supposedly new ideas are cellophane wrapped old ideas. They are continually sold to the lost, in the name of deism and the enlightenment.
Deism is the belief in the existence of a supreme being (it sounds good), but such 'supreme being' does not intervene in the universe. It is all guised under being 'intellectual'. The term 'deism' is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.
It is sort of like Allah, a pie in the sky, never had a son, and never came down to earth to interact with humankind. Whoever said that Allah is not worshipped in the West believes in a myth. The name of the deity is meaningless. What we believe as God is what counts.
Under Rousseau there is no individuality or private property:
“EACH member of the community gives himself to it, at the moment of its foundation, just as he is, with all the resources at his command, including the goods he possesses. This act does not make possession, in changing hands, change its nature, and become property in the hands of the Sovereign; [...] For the State, in relation to its members, is master of all their goods by the social contract, which, within the State, is the basis of all rights; but, in relation to other powers, it is so only by the right of the first occupier, which it holds from its members.”(02)
This is no different from the Quran which states "the earth belongs to Allah and his messenger" (Quran, 7:158).
How many westerners even understand Islam?
Islam is cellophane wrapped to the masses. Islam like the social contract, desires to make the world one through uniting all tribes under its banner – one world without nationalism or tribal allegiance – the Islamic Ummah (community of Muslims):
“The believers Ummah, in their love, mutual kindness, and close ties, are like one body; when any part complains, the whole body responds to it with wakefulness and fever...” “The faithful are like one man: if his eyes suffer, his whole body suffers.”(03)
Islam’s God created all of mankind as:
“tribes and peoples that they may mutually know each other.”(04)
In order to succeed, Islam aspired for a single nation, a living organism. The problem with all such unities is dissidents that can never conform. These were labeled as “monkeys” (Q 2:62) and “pigs” (Q 5:60).
Hitler also conceived of Germany as a “living organism” consisting of German people as “cells” bound together to form the Gleichschaltung, a Nazi term for the process by which the Nazi regime successively established a system of totalitarian control over the individual, and tight coordination over all aspects of society and commerce.
Historian Richard J. Evans offered the term “forcible-coordination” in his most recent work on Nazi Germany. One goal of this policy was to eradicate individualism by forcing everybody to adhere to a specific doctrine and way of thinking and to control as many aspects of life as possible using an invasive police force. Jews were a ‘bacteria’ and a ‘virus’ – source of a “disease within the body politic” whose continued presence within Germany would lead to the nation’s demise.(05)
Hitler wanted Germany to become a Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community). Hitler made it plain, that he wished Germany:
“to forget social origin, class, profession, fortune, education, capital and everything that separates men, in order to reach that which binds them together.”(06)
Reich youth leader Baldur von Schirach speaking to a huge crowd of Hitler Youth at Nuremberg said:
“...here stands a young generation, a generation which knows no classes and no castes.”
All institutions needed to work together for the Nazi cause. Those that did so willingly were given wide latitude by the state. “Islands of separateness” – be they business, churches, or people – were worn down over time.(07)
This is exactly what is happening with all the socialism-twisting. Today we accept marriage as "husband and husband," where we are led like herds to be forced to abandon God, forsake our Second Amendment rights. Free speech about God is daily attacked as 'separation of church and state' and that to object on Islam or homosexuality is 'creating a climate of hatred' and 'intolerance' where the exposers of these spiritual and physical deviancies are told they should "be locked up" or even "killed".
These are the messages we get daily in a nation that touts itself as a beacon of freedom and tolerance where even the so-called godly paints us as 'haters' and 'unchristian' as if God loves everyone except the Islamophobe and the homophobe.
All this is meant to conform us, like herds. As it is within Islam, the theme of universalism is a call of all Muslims worldwide. If one wants to know in advance the message of Antichrist, it is this:
“The principle upon which Islam is based is the universality of all intelligent kind. Unfortunately, the western concept gives precedence to nationalism over universalism. Here lies the main conflict. So long as nationalism shall remain dominant, the ills of humanity can only multiply. We have seen that nationalistic societies tend to divide and sub-divide into endless minorities. As a result, racial friction, exploitation of the weaker sections of society and manipulation by the informed continues to plague the region. Whereas, universal fraternity can wipe off all these evils at one stroke if genuinely implemented. The intelligentsia of Islam in particular and in general of the west need to join hands to give a lead to the nations of the world and warn them, if necessary, even in crude format that ‘we are all one’ just as this planet is one and the universe is one. The scholars all over the world must show solidarity in promotion of this concept so that the bloody conflict of war after war and dominance of one nation by another may end swiftly and humanity step into a new orbit of progress, prosperity and peace.”(08)
There is virtually no difference between the deistic, advocates of the social contract, the socialist and the Muslim. They are birds of a feather, all cut of the same cloth, ready to be united under a red dragon. Many accused us of saying that an arising beast will only encompass the Muslim world. No, no, no. The Muslim world is simply the eye of the storm revolving with it the whole earth.
In fact, most westerners do not even know how to define Islamic Jihad. They either say that Jihad is "spreading Islam by the sword" or that Jihad is "self-struggle" or that Jihad is "defensive wars" or even that it is "countering imperialism" so on and so forth. In a more resolute form, under Jihad in Islam by the respected Muslim scholar Sayyeed Abul A'la Al-Almaududi, he correctly defines Islam as:
“Islam is a revolutionary faith that comes to destroy any government made by man. Islam doesn’t look for a nation to be in a better condition than another nation. Islam doesn’t care about the land or who owns the land. The goal of Islam is to rule the entire world and submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam. Any nation or power that gets in the way of that goal, Islam will fight and destroy. In order to fulfill that goal, Islam can use every power available every way it can be used to bring worldwide revolution. This is Jihad.”(09)
Therefore, Jihad is to strictly 'reverse nationalism to obtain universalism under one Muslim Caliph'.
Abdullah al-Araby in his book The Islamization of America cites a very frightening letter from one Catholic Archbishop to the Pope as he describes his speech during an interfaith dialogue. An excerpt from his letter recounts that during the meeting, an authoritative Muslim figure stood up and spoke very calmly and assuredly,
“Thanks to your democratic laws, we will invade you, thanks to our religious laws, we will dominate you.”(10)
It is this sort of speech that Donald Trump should have quoted when speaking of Khizr Khan. He should have asked Khan if he has exposed and fought such Muslim tyranny before he lifted up the U.S. Constitution claiming to believe in it.
In fact, if one thinks that our connect of the tyrannies of Rousseau, socialism and Islam, here is the Godfather of Modern Liberalism, Rousseau, advocating Islam’s founder Muhammad as a great role model for shaping a society. Rousseau believed that Christianity prevented the Muslim state from becoming one and that the Islamic Ummah was a great concept attempting to undo what God did at Shinar. Rousseau condemns Christian resistance of Islam's world unity making Christ a simple troublemaker:
“It was in these circumstances that Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, made the State no longer one, and brought about the internal divisions which have never ceased to trouble Christian peoples.”(11)
“[Islam] as the new idea of a kingdom of the other world could never have occurred to pagans, they always looked on the Christians as really rebels, who, while feigning to submit, were only waiting for the chance to make themselves independent and their masters, and to usurp by guile the authority they pretended in their weakness to respect. This was the cause of the persecutions.”(12)
When one examines all non-Biblical ‘superior’ ideologies, it seems that all unite against an ‘inferior’ Christianity, while the latter stands to defend itself from ‘all’. Take Darwin’s half-cousin and anthropologist, Francis Galton, who founded an ideology of human engineering called Eugenics. After reading Darwin’s Origin of Species, Galton became familiar with Darwin’s work whereby the mechanisms of natural selection were potentially thwarted by human civilization. He reasoned that, since many human societies sought to protect the underprivileged and weak, those societies were at odds with the natural selection that was responsible for the extinction of the inferior. This, while Galton himself was mentally ill and his uncle Charles Darwin was severely mentally ill. Darwin took the theory of evolution from Alfred Russel Wallace who was a spiritist who consulted a Ouija board.
People need to inoculate themselves, impure science is always laced with spiritism and the religion of man. The Origin of Species is a spiritual concept and is not merely theoretical science.
Galton believed that only by changing these social policies, could society be saved from a “reversion towards mediocrity,” a phrase that he first coined in statistics, but later changed to the now common “regression towards the mean.”(13)
Galton
In 1904 he clarified his definition of eugenics as:
“the science, which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage.”(14)
Galton wished to create a Utopia where the entire world would be a place of people with superior perfect genes. Galton wrote in his unpublished novel Kantsaywhere about a utopia based on eugenic laws, filled with perfect breeders where “they think much more of the race than of the individual.”(15)
Darwin was not simply interested in scientific research on the origin of man. He also wished for totalitarianism. He believed that in order for society to evolve, the state needed to take action by cleansing the world of people natural selection chose as weak:
“We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.”(16)
While the liberal admits this as 'folly' and argues that we must not throw the baby out with the bath water, yet he does support it in disguise. How often do we observe the liberal elites, who advocate abortion do the practice themselves? It is extremely rare.
The evolutionary mindset has caused negative results. From experimenting with animals to abortion, the Bible commanded to “be fruitful and multiply.” What most do not understand is that the West's serious problem with having young population is agenda driven designed to increase the populations of the anti-Christians. This is why we see abortion most enforced in Christian lands while Muslims increase in population.
Indeed, abortion policy analysis and research in the world’s 47 Muslim-majority countries must consider the Islamic discourse in order to make more successful and sensitive policy recommendations. As Hassan (2001) insightfully explains, ‘compelled by facts of modern history, some social scientists in the West are now beginning to concede that Islam is one of the factors which needs to be considered—along with political, economic, ethnic, social and other factors—in planning and evaluating development projects’
Truth is, and what none of these will tell you, is that Abortion in Islam is a crime only after the first 120 days. According to Muhammed, an embryo in the first 120 days is dead. The drop of sperm remains in the womb for 40 days, then becomes a blood clot for a further 40 days, then a lump of flesh for 40 days.
The stupid Quran says: "Thereafter We made him (the offspring of Adam) as a Nutfah (mixed drops of the male and female sexual discharge and lodged it) in a safe lodging (womb of the woman). Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (Alaqa, a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh (Mudghah), then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!"
The difference from the Bible regarding creation when I first read it was:
"cloth me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews?" (Job 10:8-11).
The Bible mentions "Sinews" which means nerves and muscles. The Hebrew word "hannashesh" means tendon, or nerves. There is no word used in the Quran to mean that. This is found in the Bible only.
Having an abortion does not make you un-pregnant, it makes you the mother of a dead baby
Charles Darwin’s work was also influenced by Malthus’s work on population control. Malthus was a 19th century cleric and professor of political economy, who believed that a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race.
He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation and hunger as evidence of this “population crisis.” According to George Grant, Malthus condemned charities and other forms of benevolence, because he believed they only exacerbated the problems. His answer was to restrict the population growth of certain groups of people. His theories about population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy. Grant quotes from Malthus’ magnum opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions from 1798 to 1826:
“All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.”(17)
Malthus’ disciples believed if Western civilization was to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be suppressed and isolated – or even, perhaps, eliminated. His disciples felt the subtler and more “scientific” approaches of education, contraception, sterilization and abortion were more “practical and acceptable ways” to ease the pressures of the alleged overpopulation.(18)
Another solution for population growth-control by Malthus was for the poor and working classes to stop, or postpone, their multiplying activities by marrying late in life and abstaining from sex until then. He believed certain ‘positive checks’ would help prevent excessive population growth. These included war, famine, infanticide, diseases and homosexuality.(19)
This is the type of behavior we see encouraged today.
Darwin wrote in his autobiography how Thomas Malthus influenced the theory – or should we say philosophy of evolution:
“In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavorable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species...Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work.”(20)
The co-founder for the philosophy of evolution, was the same spiritist who influenced Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace. He too, looked to Malthus’s population control agenda as an influence:
“...the most important book I read was Malthus’ Principle Of Population...It was the first work I had yet read treating any of the problems of philosophical biology, and its main principles remained with me as a permanent possession, and twenty years later gave me the sought-after clue to the effective agent in the evolution of organic species.”(21)
This is not science. This is a mixture of philosophy, spiritism, and scientific theory. Darwin wanted a “new species” of humans to come forth and in order for this to happen, certain people needed to be destroyed by the state. Under Darwinism, all people are but mere objects for the nation.
Another system and probably one of the most predominant anti-individualist ideologies that the left is pushing today is multiculturalism. Despite what the leftists claim, multiculturalism is a collectivist idea for it expects each person to agree with the perceptions, thoughts and judgments of his group in order for his own perceptions, thoughts, and judgments to be legitimate. Multiculturalists believe that a person’s thoughts are either the collectively constructed thoughts of his racial, ethnic, or sexual group or are the thoughts foisted upon him by the dominant white male worldview.(22)
While many accuse Christianity of uniting to conspire to take over America’s government, it was Christ who commanded never to unite with Rome, but unite under Rome, then through grass roots effort work on transforming its citizens.
Reality is that both Christians and progressives believe in prophets that warn of a coming doomsday; leftists are doomsdayers who believe in coming catastrophes – except the ones foretold in the Bible. They always follow alarmists and prophets and then denounce Christians for believing in Armageddon. Their daily mantra is the usual – save the world from a pending apocalypse – population explosion and global warming; their prophecies are self-fulfilling with one caveat – the outcome is always the opposite of what they predict.
A New York Times story wails that if the world’s population isn’t curtailed soon, the globe will start to look as poor and crowded as Calcutta. Ted Turner says mankind is breeding like “a plague of locusts” and urges couples all over the world to limit themselves to one child per family. The organization Zero Population Growth laments that the population of the U.S. is about twice the size it should be in order to protect the environment.(23)
And to think that liberals just love science and medicine, William Vogt, author of a best-selling environmental diatribe called Road to Survival, who in 1948 described tropical diseases like sleeping sickness as “advantages” because they helped curb population growth and scolded the medical profession for believing it “continues to have a duty to keep alive as many people”(24)
At the World Bank, Robert McNamara discouraged financing of health care “unless it was very strictly related to population control, because usually health facilities contributed to the decline of the death rate, and thereby to the population explosion.”(25)
Paul R. Ehrlich in his doomsday book Population Explosion predicted hundreds of millions of deaths from famine in the 1980s, today these false predictions never materialized due to the Green Revolution – hybrid grains, new fertilizers – has vastly increased harvests.
According to American correspondents who have recently visited China, a nation that once knew famine as a recurring torment now boasts rich crops. To be sure, the green revolution is not totally victorious, and there are many political obstacles between the agronomist and the hungry child. Nevertheless, it is estimated that the world’s farmers can theoretically feed a population 40 times as large as today’s.(26)
The world food production grows exponentially at a rate much higher than the population growth, in both developed and developing countries, partially due to the efforts of Norman Borlaug’s “Green Revolution” of the 1960s, and the food per capita level is the highest in history. On the other hand, population growth rates significantly slowed down, especially in the developed world.(27) Famine has not been eliminated, but its root cause is political instability, not global food shortage.(28)
In The Population Bomb, Ehrlich predicted in the “1970s the world will undergo famines – hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”(29) What happened to the famines The Bomb predicted? Today no serious mind would deny that the last four decades were a period of abundant food for all. Ehrlich gave scenarios of a coming apocalypse that he later retracted – The Population Bomb was a dud, always has been and always will be and if we may predict the cry of such false prophets it will never end till Kingdom Come!
Still, the prophets of population doomsday are warning us that “We are adding another New York City every month, a Mexico every year, and almost another India every decade,” writes environmental author Bill McKibben. “New Limits to Growth Revive Malthusian Fears,” warned the Wall Street Journal. “Philippines Population Climbs; Food Problems Loom,” Reuters offered. The online magazine Slate summed it up neatly with a recent headline: Global Swarming. And in an accompanying piece on this page Paul and Anne Ehrlich return to the barricades citing the twin perils of overconsumption and overpopulation.(30) Yet, we are nowhere near running out of room on the planet. If every one of the 6 billion of us resided in Texas, there would be room enough for every family of four to have a house and an 1/8th of an acre of land – and the rest of the globe would be vacant. True, if population growth continues, soon some of these people would have to spill over the border into Oklahoma.(31)
One of the fathers of population control in the West, Thomas Malthus published six editions of his famous treatise, An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798-1826). In his Malthusian Catastrophe he warned of overpopulation leading to depleted resources and mass starvation: “there will be 7 billion people standing in line for their rations in the year 2000.”(32)
And here we are today in 2016 – nothing happened.
Which brings us to an important question: what about the famine predicted in the Bible.
Few consider, that the famines predicted in the Bible are interlinked to the tyrannies that decided to be anti-Christ. Amazingly, history even records what the Bible foretold “a quart of wheat for a denarius” and “do not harm the oil and the wine”. For example, in 1871 A.D., during the Ottoman persecutions, even the wheat was extremely rare where “food sold for ten times the normal value”:
“Food was so scarce that the little available sold for ten times the normal value. Although the rains came in 1871, there was no easing of the famine, for the farmers had no seed to sow.”
“A drought in 1872 led to massive crop failures across the Empire. Locust swarms denuded Cyprus of crops. A harsh winter led to widespread starvation. Dead bodies were seen on the streets of Istanbul and packs of wolves were observed attacking people in the suburbs.”
“Two pounds [a quart] of wheat for a denarius” (Revelation 6:6) went on to 1915, even a greater famine where locusts invaded Turkey and the entire Levant region. Locusts even invaded the Ottoman sympathizer at the time. Most are unaware, that the United States was also hit when John Adams cozied up to the Ottomans declared in the Treaty of Tripoli: “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
North America cozied up to the Ottomans and refused to fight them as we see today and the results were catastrophic:
“The widespread winged invasion of 1874, though, hit harder than a ton of flying bricks… The hot and dry conditions of the spring and summer of 1874 had provided ideal breeding conditions for the Rocky Mountain locusts. “The grasses seemed to wither, and the cattle bunched up near the creek and the well, and no air seemed to stir the leaves on the trees,” Kansas pioneer Susan Proffitt wrote. “All nature seemed still.” And then they came.”
In places the mass of insects blocked out the sun for as long as six hours. When the locusts did descend, they covered every shrub, plant and tree, sometimes breaking limbs with their combined weight. They flattened and devoured corn stalks and reaped fields of grain. They consumed only the most succulent bits of the wheat crop, letting the rest rot on the ground.
A map produced by the state of Missouri shows that the 1874 infestation spread from the eastern slope of the Rockies into western Iowa, Minnesota and Missouri and from the Canadian Prairie provinces to central Texas, just north of Austin. Generally it moved from north to south. Hit particularly hard were Kansas, Nebraska, Dakota Territory, western Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Indian Territory, eastern Colorado Territory and the southeastern corner of Wyoming Territory. The results were often magnified in remote areas, as settlers there had modest food reserves and few neighbors to help. Texas, Montana Territory and the Prairie provinces of Canada were affected but escaped the worst of the infestation. The largest locust swarm in 1874, according to an 1880 U.S. Entomological Commission report, “covered a swath equal to the combined areas of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.”
A swarm of locusts in the U.S. would be some 1,800 miles long and 110 miles wide.
“By the turn of the 20th century, the Rocky Mountain locust was fast becoming extinct. The last reported sighting of a living specimen came in southern Canada in 1902. Why this particular species became extinct remains something of a mystery.”
Let this be a lesson, this will repeat. God does not watch stock markets or blood moons or any of man’s insanity. He sends His army: locusts.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi being faithful to the population explosion dogma and to prevent a coming apocalypse says that birth control will help the economy. Pelosi ignores one major factor in the growth of any economy – economies cannot grow unless population grows.
Just altering one command in the Bible “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28) and reverse it to “population control” as leftist Pelosi suggests, and the result is a demographic winter, which threatens us with catastrophic consequences – both economic and social.
Sure, the liberal self-fulfilled prophecies do happen, but with reverse consequences. Population control does not enhance our way of life but diminishes it. Today, most major economists’ evidence shows that more people have generated more prosperity and higher standards of living. Falling fertility rates and aging populations ultimately endanger civilization.
Modern Liberalism contradicts every positive term it uses; progressiveness is hardly modern, its unity is discord, its order is disorder, its love is the hatred of prosperity, its strife for justice for the under dog is enslavement, its prosperity is poverty, its humility is the humiliation of others and it’s void of confession – it offers carrots on the tips of swords and always attempts to spread its tentacles everywhere injecting tyranny, the end result of which is the destruction of human lives. Neither is ‘Modern Liberalism’ modern, for it has nothing to do with liberty and stems from failed ancient systems founded by tyrants that plague the annals of history. Liberals apply terms that rarely mean what they say – spreading the wealth is not the process of creating opportunity for the poor but simply robbing the rich to give to the lazy. ‘Fighting sickness’ through institutionalized medicine slowly kills the sick as he waits in long lines while the disease remains. They advocate the creation of Palestine, which in reality is the destruction of the state of Israel. They love lunatics they promote as philosophers and excuse terrorism as a social cause. They advocate ‘earth’ and promote the killing of the unborn. They equate humans with animals while advocating killing the former and saving the latter. They apply destruction to everyone and everything so long it’s not them, for if they believe in what they advocate they would commit suicide through hunger – they twist everything by applying complicated terminology which never means what they try to describe – in fact it usually means quite the opposite – ‘what’s mine, is mine and what’s yours is mine’.
Collectivists focus on community and society while seeking to give priority to group goals over individual goals. Today we have Obama’s “spread the wealth” socialism focusing on the necessity for the poor and disenfranchised to unite. Where did this lead us? You decide.
Post a Comment