Connect with us

Conservatism

Pilgrims tried socialism. It failed.

Bryan Fischer

Published

on

Socialism has never worked in the past. Socialism does not work in the present. Socialism will never work in the future.

The reason is simple: socialism is predicated on a violation of two of the 10 commandments of God.

The 8th Commandment says, “Thou shalt not steal.” The 10th Commandment says, “Thou shalt not covet.” And yet socialism is driven by covetousness – the greedy, grasping hunger of some for other people’s money – and built on theft – the use of government power to coercively lift money from the wallets of some in order to give it to others. Just because a mugging is done under color of law does not make it right.

Any system that is founded and predicated on a violation of 20% of God’s moral code for humanity cannot be right and cannot work.

Most supporters of socialism argue that it can work, it just hasn’t been in the hands of the right people. And of course, they believe that they are the right people. That’s why liberals placed so much giddy hope in Barack Obama – at last someone with the shining intellect and charisma to make our theory work!

But it hasn’t. Income inequality is worse under Obama than it was under Bush, and record numbers of Americans are addicted to taxpayer handouts and food stamps.

Now if ever there was a group who could have made socialism work, it was the Pilgrims. Honest, earnest, God-fearing, and steeped in Scripture, they were the best candidates in history for the task.

But socialism under the Pilgrims was a total, abject failure and was abandoned after a few short years in the pure interest of survival.

When the Pilgrims set up their Plymouth Colony, the bylaws required that anything anybody made was to go into a “common stock.” Then at the end of seven years, everything that everybody had contributed would be split evenly, the same shares for everybody.

It was a liberal’s dream. Everybody contributes equally, everybody benefits equally. What’s not to like?

The problem, of course, is human nature, which is uncorrectable by any government program. Many Pilgrims began to resent the fact that they were working harder than others, and yet would see no reward for their labors. Those who were total slackers would reap the same rewards as they. And the slackers said to themselves, what’s the point in breaking my back when I can make just as much showing up late for work and leaving early?

Wives and mothers resented being forced to cook and do laundry for the single men in the community, and their husbands weren’t crazy about it either. In short order, everybody was miserable, nobody was happy, everybody was still poor, and Governor Bradford spent his whole time trying to pacify ticked off and bickering Pilgrims.

The Pilgrims soon realized that their fundamental problem was that they thought they were “wiser than God.” They wised up, abandoned socialism, and turned to capitalism and the free market.

Here’s how Governor Bradford described what happened (emphasis mine):

The failure of that experiment of communal service, which was tried for several years, and by good and honest men, proves the emptiness of the theory of Plato and other ancients, applauded by some of later times,- that the taking away of private property, and the possession of it in community, by a commonwealth, would make a state happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God…

For in this instance, community of property was found to breed much confusion and discontent; and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit…

For the young men who were most able and fit for service objected to being forced to spend their time and strength in working for other men’s wives and children, without any recompense…”

The strong man or the resourceful man had no more share of food, clothes, etc., than the weak man who was not able to do a quarter the other could. This was thought injustice.

The aged and graver men, who were ranked and equalized in labor, food, clothes, etc., with the humbler and younger ones, thought it some indignity and disrespect to them.

As for men’s wives who were obliged to do service for other men, such as cooking, washing their clothes, etc., they considered it a kind of slavery, and many husbands would not brook it…

If all were to share alike, and all were to do alike, then all were on an equality throughout, and one was as good as another; and so, if it did not actually abolish those very relations which God himself has set among men, it did at least greatly diminish the mutual respect that is so important should be preserved amongst them.

Let none argue that this is due to human failing, rather than to this communistic plan of life in itself…

I answer, seeing that all men have this failing in them, that God in His wisdom saw that another plan of life was fitter for them…

So they began to consider how to raise more corn, and obtain a better crop than they had done, so that they might not continue to endure the misery of want…

At length after much debate, the Governor, with the advice of the chief among them, allowed each man to plant corn for his own household…

So every family was assigned a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number…

This was very successful. It made all hands very industrious, so that much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could devise, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better satisfaction.

The women now went willing into the field, and took their little ones with them to plant corn, while before they would allege weakness and inability, and to have compelled them would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

Free enterprise encourages and rewards industry, hard work, and innovation. It creates economic opportunity and stimulates economic growth. It creates opportunities for the voluntary redistribution of wealth inspired by compassion and generosity rather than the soulless, bureaucratic and involuntary redistribution that occurs under big government welfare.

Bottom line: It’s time to send socialism to the scrap heap of failed ideas and bury it there for good. And so this thanksgiving we have another reason to be grateful for our Pilgrim forefathers: they taught us the folly of thinking that we are “wiser than God” in anything, including the economy.

Bryan Fischer is a senior columnist for Cowger Nation, and the radio host of Focal Point, where he provides expertise on a wide range of public policy topics.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. pendaftarancpns2018

    February 25, 2018 3:01 am at 3:01 am

    680610 802075You may be websites successful individuals, it comes effortlessly, therefore you also earn you see, the jealousy of all of the ones plenty of journeymen surrounding you could have challenges within this challenge. motor movers 605040

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Conservatism

U.S. conservatives cancel invitation for Milo Yiannopoulos

Reuters

Published

on

By

Image © Getty

A leading U.S. conservative conference rescinded its invitation to provocative commentator Milo Yiannopoulos and a publisher canceled his book deal on Monday after old internet videos of him recirculated in which he discusses pedophilia.

Yiannopoulos, in a Facebook video post, denied he ever condoned pedophilia and said one video of him was edited to give a misleading impression.

Yiannopoulos, a Briton who is celebrated by some arch conservatives, was banned from Twitter last year after making highly controversial statements. He has infuriated liberals with provocative comments on race, religion and sex and appears to delight in his ability to offend.

The chairman of the American Conservative Union, which sponsors the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, said on Sunday the group rescinded an invitation to this year’s Wednesday-Saturday event “due to the revelation of an offensive video in the past 24 hours condoning pedophilia.”

“We realize that Mr. Yiannopoulos has responded on Facebook, but it is insufficient,” Matt Schlapp, chairman of the union, said in the Twitter post.

CPAC is a high-profile annual gathering of conservative activists. President Donald Trump is among the scheduled speakers this year along with Vice President Mike Pence, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and senior Trump adviser Stephen Bannon. Yiannopoulos is also an editor for the right-wing Breitbart News, which Bannon once headed.

Earlier this month, the University of California canceled Yiannopoulos’ speaking engagement on the Berkeley campus when violent protests against his appearance broke out.

Trump, in response, threatened on Twitter to cut off federal funding for the university.

The latest controversy stems from a video in which Yiannopoulos seems to suggest the standard for pedophilia is whether the younger partner has gone through puberty.

At another point in the video, however, Yiannopoulos says the established age of consent, which is 16 to 18 years old in the United States, is “about right.”

In his Facebook statement on Monday, Yiannopoulos denied condoning pedophilia.

“I find those crimes to be absolutely disgusting. I find those people to be disgusting,” he said, while expressing regret he used the word “boys” instead of young men while discussing the benefits of relationships between men with large age differences.

Continue Reading

Conservatism

CPAC is now PPAC: Pedophilia-Promoting Action Conference

Bryan Fischer

Published

on

Image © Getty

CPAC, which stands for the “Conservative Political Action Conference,” used to be a venerable conclave which met annually to keep the torch of conservatism lit and burning brightly.

Now it has morphed into an event in which its keynote speaker supports and defends pedophilia (sex with prepubescent boys), pederasty (sex with post-pubescent boys), and statutory rape (adults, such as teachers, having sex with underage individuals).

Over the weekend, this year’s organizers sprung Milo Yiannopoulos, the flamboyantly gay senior editor of Breitbart, on the world as this year’s featured guest. This apparently came as a surprise to the American Conservative Union, the umbrella organization for CPAC.

Yiannopoulos will get more speaking time than either the vice-president of the United States, Mike Pence, or former presidential candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz.

In a tape that surfaced on Sunday, Yiannopoulos can be heard celebrating the wonders of man-boy love.

“We get hung up on this sort of child abuse stuff to the point where we are heavily policing consensual adults.

“In the homosexual world, particularly, some of those relationships between younger boys and older men — the sort of ‘coming of age’ relationship — those relationships in which those older men help those young boys discover who they are and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable, sort of rock, where they can’t speak to their parents.” (Emphasis mine.)

In a 2015 interview with comedian Joe Rogan, Yiannopoulos discussed his sexual relationship with a Catholic priest, one “Father Michael,” which began at age 14.  Yiannopoulos claims to be grateful to this priest for his sexual awakening, even though it is nothing less than pederasty and statutory rape.

Father Michael apparently introduced the young Milo to homosexualty at that tender young age, a reminder that many adult homosexuals were the victims of sexual predators as young boys. Initial male-on-male sexual experiences have an overwhelmingly powerful imprinting effect on the psyche and self-concept of young boys, and many think of themselves as homosexuals from that day forward even though they are not. They are not homosexuals, they are victims.

Homosexuals, as even Milo himself admits, are not born – they are made. He refers to the “born-that-way” narrative as a “myth” invented by homosexual activists in the 1980s to excuse homosexual behavior, and claims that homosexuality is a result of “nurture” rather than “nature.”

Later in the interview with Rogan, Yiannopoulos speaks approvingly of a Hollywood party he attended some time ago in which there were “very young boys” in attendance for sexual purposes.

He also has criticized the fact that we punish teachers who seduce their students, which is the crime of statutory rape. He believes that pederasty – a man having sex with a teenage boy – should not be a crime but something an enlightened society should celebrate.

Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a “conservative” value. And a proponent of “the crime against nature” has no place at a conservative conference, let alone as the main attraction.

CPAC continues its headlong slide into the abyss of sexually abnormal behavior. After finally allowing the Log Cabin Republicans (a pro-homosexual GOP group) booth space several years ago, CPAC then caved to the gay lobby by allowing the LCR to be a full-fledged sponsor in 2016. And now as the capstone to its dalliance with sexual deviancy, CPAC is giving us Milo.

Even liberals are aghast at what CPAC has done. Jake Tapper of CNN is “horrified,” and wants to know, “how on earth can CPAC defend this?” He adds, ”Preying on children is the definition of evil. Justifying it in any way is sick and disturbing. Has everyone lost their minds?”

The board of the ACU, which apparently was not consulted on the Milo decision, has some serious and immediate thinking and deciding to do, since the conference starts on Wednesday. Breitbart also has some serious thinking to do, since they have made this morally debauched man an international star and the face of their organization. For the sake of sanity, decency, and the conservative movement, here’s hoping and praying that CPAC and Breitbart choose wisely. And here’s hoping and praying that Milo himself can find the path to sexual normalcy before it’s too late.

Continue Reading

Conservatism

The myth of the gay conservative

Bryan Fischer

Published

on

A new and quite insidious trend has been launched in some conservative circles, a trend that unless it is stopped will eat away at the foundation of conservatism like a cancer until the foundation rots away and the whole thing collapses.

This trend is the notion that one can be a practicing homosexual and a conservative at the same time. It’s impossible. Now it is certainly possible for a homosexual to hold conservative views on certain issues, and even defend them on talk shows, but it is not possible for him to be a conservative.

He, for instance, might be able to articulate a conservative view on national defense, or Second Amendment rights, or school choice, or repealing and replacing ObamaCare. But he cannot be a conservative.

Why? Because at the center of conservatism is a non-negotiable view of human sexuality and the family. At the heart of a conservative view of the world lies the family. Not the individual, mind you, but the family. At the heart and soul of conservatism is the notion that marriage consists of one man and one woman and a family consists of a married father and mother and the children they conceive together through their love for each other.

The first command God gave to the very first human beings he created was to start a family: “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). God created one man and one woman at the dawn of time and designed them to be sexually complementary and productive in a way that is impossible for two men or two women.

In conservatism, the family is the cornerstone of civilized society. All the networks in a society – church, politics, business, education, law enforcement – are ultimately intended to serve the purposes and functions of the family. Churches are to nurture the spiritual lives of families, including challenging husbands and fathers to love their wives and their children as an expression of their love for God.

Lawmakers are to protect the family and parental rights and to craft policies, including tax policies, that are friendly to family formation and not hostile to it. They are to support parental choice in education, so parents can place the children they love in an optimal learning environment. Educational systems are there to serve parents, not the other way round.

Businesses are to provide meaningful work that will enable fathers to provide for their families and will give wives and mothers a range of choices as they create a nurturing environment for their families. Law enforcement and the military which protects our nation are there to keep homes, neighborhoods, and communities safe so that families can peacefully enjoy each other and their neighbors, free from the things that threaten their security and their peace of mind.

A prosperous society is founded upon the family. God created marriage before he created any other human institution. He created the family even before he created the church, and certainly before he created government. The natural family – a husband, a wife, and the children they raise – is the bedrock of civilization. No one can be a conservative whose worldview does not place the family and the interests of the family at the center of his worldview.

Thus, there is no room in conservatism for the embrace of a lifestyle in which it is impossible for children to be conceived and brought into the world. There is no room in conservatism for the acceptance of sexual behavior which deviates so radically and dangerously from God’s design for intimacy. There is no room in conservatism for the embrace of a lifestyle which as a matter of course compromises human health through sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS. To put it bluntly, sexual behavior that leads to anal cancer may represent a libertarian value but it cannot possibly represent a conservative one.

If homosexuality is allowed an affirmed place in the conservative movement, it may seem harmless at first. But eventually, tolerated rather than excised, its cancerous cells will begin to quietly and yet inexorably multiply and metastasize until it has fatally weakened its host.

Should we love homosexuals? Absolutely. We should love them enough to tell them the truth about where their lifestyle leads, both in this life and the next. Should we make homosexuality any part of the conservative movement? Absolutely not.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Most Popular