Vision Viewpoint Blog

Words are Words, Promises are Promises, but Performance is Reality,

April 22, 2010

Prominent atheists credit the Gospel

April 22nd 2010 Posted to Vision Viewpoint Newsletter

Two high-profile atheists recognize the practical help to the poor provided by Christians while agreeing it is the Christian worldview itself that makes such help feasible

What would you say if I told you that two prominent atheists – well known in their respective fields – shook up their colleagues (and a whole bunch of the rest of us) with an unabashed, pointedly sympathetic, portrait of the impact of the Gospel? The two atheists in question are both veteran British politicians, and best-selling authors.

You never hear of “Atheists Aid to the poor”. That is the sentiment of atheist and UK Labor politician, Roy Hattersley, in statements made public in January 2010. The actual statement was longer, though just as direct,

 

“I never hear of atheist organizations taking food to the poor. You don’t hear of ‘Atheist Aid.’”

Roy Hattersley is a well-known British politician, author, and journalist. He is the historian responsible for the best-selling biography of William and Catherine Booth and the origins of the Salvation Army.

That, of course, gives us the backdrop to the surprising statements of Mr. Hattersley on a recent BBC program. Peter Day, the narrator of the program, in statements which might be seen as a norm for accommodating atheistic posturing, put it to Hattersley:

 

“This sort of thing, a sort of social entrepreneurial drive which starts off out of a particular place and circumstances—those sorts of things often run out of steam after a generation or two. Is the Salvation Army in danger of running out of steam?”

Roy Hattersley’s reply was instant:

 

“I don’t think the Salvation Army is remotely in danger of running out of steam. And I think it remains a vibrant organization because of its convictions. I’m an atheist. But I can only look with amazement at the devotion of the Salvation Army workers. I’ve been out with them on the streets and the way they work amongst the people, the most deprived and disadvantaged and sometimes pretty repugnant characters. I don’t believe they would do that were it not for the religious impulse. And I often say I never hear of atheist organizations taking food to the poor. You don’t hear of ‘Atheist Aid’ rather like Christian aid, and, I think, despite my inability to believe myself, I’m deeply impressed by what belief does for people like the Salvation Army.”

Wow. Let me see. It’s one thing to quote people like the Booths in matters historical. It’s quite another to contrast worldviews – atheistic v. Christian – praising the Christian worldview as far superior to one’s own. More impressively, these aren’t the rantings of some fanatic. This is the position of a seasoned Labor professional.

Roy Hattersley is not the only high-profile atheist to point to the work and worldview of Gospel. Matthew Parris is yet another atheist who has come out with open and objective praise for the charity and virtues of the Christian faith. Parris is also a renowned UK politician and best-selling author.

Matthew Parris wrote in The Times a most remarkable piece entitled …

 

“As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God”

The article was subtitled,

“Missionaries, not aid money, are the solution to Africa’s biggest problem—the crushing passivity of the people’s mindset.”

The Parris article was written from a personal perspective. His childhood was spent in various countries in Africa and he has done extensive traveling throughout Africa as an adult, including a recent tour.

 

“It inspired me, renewing my flagging faith in development charities. But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I’ve been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I’ve been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.

“Now a confirmed atheist, I’ve become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people’s hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

“The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them…

“It’s a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package,” Parris wrote, “but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.”

On the other hand, Parris acknowledged,

“this doesn’t fit the facts”. He explained how Christian faith benefits the poor. It is not merely its “supportive effect” on the missionary. It is also important to understand that such faith “…is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.”

Matthew Parris grew up in southern Africa, and often stayed with Christian missionaries (friends of the family). When he revisited Africa in his twenties, he concluded, after years of observation, that Christians, whether black or white, were ‘different’ from other people. It didn’t matter if he observed them in Algiers, Niger, Nigeria, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, the Congo, Rwanda, Tanzania or Nairobi, Kenya. It was the same everywhere. His recent trip to Malawi confirmed it once more—a truth he has been trying to ‘banish’ all his life.

Parris notes:

 

“The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them.”

Matthew Parris also notes that Christians had a confident “liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world—a directness in their dealings with others”, lacking in non-believers. As he puts it, “They stood tall”.

Parris observed that the difference between Christians and non-Christians was particularly striking in “lawless” parts of the sub-Sahara.

 

“Whenever we entered a territory worked by missionaries, we had to acknowledge that something changed in the faces of the people we passed and spoke to: something in their eyes, the way they approached you direct, man-to-man, without looking down or away. They had not become more deferential towards strangers—in some ways less so—but more open.”

Parris admits he would prefer to believe  the virtues of the Christians - their “honesty, diligence and optimism in their work” - had no connection with their unmistakable personal faith. But, he concedes they are “influenced by a conception of man’s place in the Universe that Christianity had taught.” In other words, their ethic is ROOTED in their conception of God, the Bible and their faith in Christ.

 

“Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ…”- II Corinthians 10:5

In Christ,

Wayne C. Sedlak,

ICHR (Institute for Christian Heritage Research)

Director, Leveraging Influence Institute for Online Training

Ps. SolomonsToolbox for information about history, economics, logic and other biblical subjects and information.

Pps. If you are interested in being alerted for issues NOT usually reported in the media, yet important to Christian people, go to ParentInformationNetwork and sign up (there is no obligation, and your privacy is protected). We do not sell, rent, lease or otherwise give out your information to others.

Ppps. For information on how you can increase your ability to reach more people interested in your message, blog, website, services, or products, call us at our 1866. 735. 5871. Class is now opening. It is brought to you in the comfort of your home or office, and you can begin to use the training online immediately. You can access all lessons 24- 7 – 365. No previous experience is needed. But, classes are filling up. So, there is some urgency to a call now.

* Comments(1)

April 5, 2010

Deceit in High Places Part I

April 05th 2010 Posted to Other

"THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR" SECRET WEAPON OF THE DARKNESS

FOREWARNING:

The subject of this post, “AGENT PROVOCATEUR", is one which call society and church to upright and responsible resistance to the spiritual and social subversion which is consuming western society and culture. One result is the historic Christian consensus which laid the basis for western civilization hangs imperiled at the very edge of the precipice of global, socialistic tyranny. What this generation does to combat the rise of such barbarism will determine the freedoms our posterity will inherit as well as the course of civilization for, perhaps, many generations to come.

AGENT PROVOCATEUR DEFINED

Agent provocateur [Fr, lit., provoking agent): one employed to associate himself with members of a group or with suspected persons, and, by pretended sympathy with their aims or attitudes to Incite them to some action that will make them liable to apprehension and punishment (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1981)

It has often been said, those who win the wars, write the history books. That being the case, one would expect to find the winning side defining its key leaders as the heroes of the saga and the losers becoming history’s villains. But, what if one of the key leaders for the losing side was secretly an inside "plant" for the victors? Chances are pretty good he will look like a failure to future generations. In actuality, he may have done his assigned task very well indeed. He, more than anyone, would have guaranteed that, what was to prove to be the losing side, would be just that . . . the, losing side. Think of it. He was strategically effective because he successfully implemented losing strategies for “his side", willfully mismanaging the movement he was "leading". Indeed, where history knows of such inside agents, they prove to be the determinate of victory.

Of course, the problem lies in knowing who they are. They rarely are ever identified for one of three obvious reasons: (1) their work is perceived as disgraceful, even to their own people; (2) it becomes dangerous to reveal their identity after their work is accomplished; (3) it becomes advantageous to keep the agent in his position of betrayal permanently. However, they do exist. Additionally, every war uses them, including "culture wars". Why? Well . . . who wouldn’t want to CONTROL both sides of a conflict? Especially when the stakes are often so high?

History is replete with such examples. For instance, the Persian Emperor Xerxes, successfully invaded Greece in the year 480 B.C. His massive armies, upwards of a quarter of a million men, ravaged the Greek mainland wherever they traveled. The Greeks didn’t have such massive armies on their side nor the financial ability to stop Xerxes. But, their civilization was being systematically destroyed. What could they do?

Heroism had not been sufficient. The Spartans had taken their heroic stand at Thermopylae and were annihilated. Bribery was out of the question. Xerxes simply could not be bought. He was one of the wealthiest men in the world. In addition, his invasion was designed to avenge the humiliation his father, King Darius, had suffered ten years earlier at the hands of the Greeks at Marathon. As a result, Xerxes burned Athens, already a center of classical culture.

At this point, the leadership of the Greeks hit upon a ruse. You see, the Greeks knew the Persians depended heavily upon the massive Persian fleet. Further; they knew Xerxes wanted the knockout punch, the destruction of the mobile Greek fleet. Most importantly, however, the Greek command knew that, in his vanity, Xerxes believed all Greeks were "barbarians"– men easily bought, having no loyalties nor values.

The Greek command authorized a highly placed Greek agent provocateur who secured Xerxes’ trust. He convinced Xerxes that his information would secure the defeat of the Greeks. Xerxes trusted this Greek "traitor" because the man was a gold mine of Greek information concerning Greek positions, tactics, and plans.

By such counsel, Xerxes was convinced of the necessity of dividing the Persian fleet. The result was the Greek victory of Salamis which saved the Greek civilization from annihilation.

The provocateur’s activity depends heavily upon one point: He must be an astute character analyst. In this case, he had to thoroughly discern the character and motives of Xerxes. As a result he must be able to tell a lie more convincingly than a righteous man the truth. That mean he is usually one who must always be the actor par excellence– outwardly involved and convincing but inwardly detached and conscienceless. His methods are varied and often complex. But, they all revolve around one focused objective: He must secure trust sufficient to manipulate the resources and leadership so as to discredit the character of the latter and erode the organizational efficiency of the former.

Comments(0)

November 24, 2009

How to “Read” Media Persuasion Tactics

November 24th 2009 Posted to Other

 

Part I: Three Machiavellian Media Tactics: Learn These Today

The Great Senate Healthcare “Vote”: Machiavellian Media-Think 

Are you “wowed” yet? What an “exciting” week the media had covering the Senate Healthcare vote. We even had a day by day (and on Saturday, hour by hour) “countdown” to the moment the Senate was to vote. It hasn’t been this exciting since Inaugural week when the media kept us on pins and needles breathlessly anticipating each new tax-supported, publicly flaunted, multi-thousand dollar gown Michelle would wear to the next Inaugural event. 

Let’s face it, there was nothing about this Senate vote worth talking about. BUT… there was MUCH to learn about. Specifically, we saw the media’s methodology and how they attempt to deceive the American people. In fact, they have been using the same chicanery for years. Unfortunately, much of the hoopla worked. Countless Americans are convinced that, in essence, the Healthcare bill which they have clearly opposed, is a “done deal”, “That’s all folks”, “There’s nothing more you can do about it”. 

And that, dear reader, is the point: “There’s nothing more you can do about it.” Especially, since the Congress has learned a “fear of American public reaction” over the past 5 months.
 
The “vote”, so anticipated all through last week, was nothing more than a “throw-together” package of previous suggestions and failed attempts (10 years of wannabe healthcare “packages” to be specific). All that last week’s “historic vote” accomplished was to bring the issue to … debate. (!) 

Did you get that? All the hoopla was about getting a bill so that it could be “debated.” Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar reported Senatorial reactions “…in the wake of a key Senate vote Saturday night that advanced a 10-year, $959 billion health bill to full debate.”
 
"Three Machiavellian Media Truth Tactics 

Don’t get me wrong. I expect nothing honorable from Capitol Hill. So, I’m not at all enamored with the “goings-on”. Just about everything they do is illegal were they abiding by the provisions of the Constitution of the United States which they swear by oath to uphold. But, they’ve contracted that away. 

No. It’s the mesmerizing deceits used by the American media that’s just a “wonder” to behold. First of all, it’s “Machiavellian” in character. Machiavellian media tactics is nothing more than deceit on steroids. Instead of merely lying about an event or personage, Machiavellian media attempts the Herculean task of CREATING public sentiment… or reaction. Therefore, “deceit”, a la the media, is not, in their minds, so much a willful misreporting of events. Not at all. “Truth” is more like viewing the public as errant urchin miscreants who just don’t seem to “get it” – we poor sheeplings just don’t understand what’s “best”. “We” are the deceived. The media is our instructor (priesthood). So… the media will report what’s “best” as truth, moving us to feel as if the “illusion of popular support” for what they are creating really exists, and therefore, that becomes the “news”.
You see it’s all about “what should be” viewed as truth… not “what is”. It’s all about “creating a usable past.” Machiavellianism is socio-political engineering, with society as “We…the engineered”. 

Second… and more important: The media must come to the aid of the beleaguered Dems in Congress. The latter have been overwhelmed by the wrath of average Americans who are decidedly opposed to the Healthcare bill as a whole. Therefore, the media was enlisted to back off the average American’s resistance by making this “vote” the landmark, “never-say-nay”, historic event. The media went on the do just that by creating a false “hurdle” to “overcome”. Once the vote was taken on a pitifully impoverished, thoroughly unsuitable, insanely inept Healthcare bill, the American people were doused with victory hoopla.
 
NOW… we are being told there is no turning back. The message is clear: “America, this is a “done deal” and it has all the support it needs.” As Sen. Charles Schumer, (D-N.Y.) said, "But we’re not going to not pass a bill."
The media created a false obstacle (passing a bill to debate, not a Healthcare bill to implement). No one among the “moderate” Dems would risk his/her political future to oppose so inane a bill.
 
Third: By structuring all the victory hoopla, they use a tactic which gives us the impression that their agenda is “inevitable”. It cannot be stopped. That was the media objective of the week’s rant. The goal is “the inevitability doctrine”.

Media Machiavellians: The Healthcare Bill that Doesn’t Solve Healthcare Problems 

So, they got many Americans thinking, “It’s all over”… when in fact it has hardly just begun. The debate as whether this thing can even continue to exist as a viable bill – given its real unsolved hurdles – or how it would function if once passed. None of that has been addressed. 

Be Honest with yourself: Did you find yourself believing that the historic vote was the major step to overcome so as to pass the Healthcare legislation? In actuality, according to the afore-mentioned reporter, this “bill” did NOT address any of these problems: 

- Multiple mandates and increased taxes which would cripple already marginal businesses

- Abortion provisions and who pays for abortions

- Allowing government to sell insurance, competing with the healthcare industry to do so. This is a huge economic and legal hurdle, no one has solved.

- Record deficits on top of already record deficits.

- Who will pay for the healthcare? The “rich”? No. If you think that, then you’ve succumbed to more Machiavellian media-think. They want people to believe they will tax the wealthy. It’s the middle class, written into the legislation, who will pay. The income range specified includes precisely that segment of our society who provide the vast majority of jobs – the small business owners.

- Mandated healthcare premiums for individuals that are not affordable (Do these Congressional scoundrels even know there is an economic implosion going on?).

 

Economic Implosion Rule Number 1: Do not inflict greater expenses upon individual families and businesses if you are trying to heal the economy. Economic Implosion Rule Number 2: If you do impose greater costs upon individuals and businesses, you do not understand economics, being ignorant of what makes business successful OR you are the enemy of the businesses and families in this country. In either case, you should not hold office.

 

- Democratically sponsored measures still leave 12 million eligible Americans uninsured.

- Most middle-class families who would be required to buy coverage would still be unable to afford the premiums even with government aid.

- A new federal fund designed to provide temporary coverage for people with health problems would quickly run out of cash. 

- Here’s an explanation that oozes special interest: “For now, these bread-and-butter concerns take a back seat to more pressing issues for Democratic lawmakers trying to deliver on President Barack Obama’s signature issue.” In other words, the political success of the Obama administration and its Democratic host, far outweighs their concern for the well-being of the average American.

 

These three Machiavellian Media tactics: 1) Create the public sentiment as truth, i.e., Create the illusion of popular support. 2) Create a false, more-easily-attained “obstacle” to overcome. In overcoming it, then announce the momentum as heralding victory. 3) Put in place the inevitability doctrine. Put it in the minds of your opposition. Drain their energies and resolve. 

The media – not the Healthcare bill – deserved all the attention last week… and in the future.
-submitted, Wayne C. Sedlak, ICHR 

Ps. Look for more articles on “How the media tactically and strategically deceives Americans”

 


Bookmark and Share

* Comments(1)

October 11, 2009

A View of the Problem Most Don’t Understand

October 11th 2009 Posted to Vision Viewpoint Newsletter

Comments(0)

September 19, 2009

What’s All the “Fuss” about “Socialism”? A Christian Critique

September 19th 2009 Posted to Vision Viewpoint Newsletter

Socialism: The Hate Thy Neighbor Theology Exposed by Frederic Bastiat

Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, that frameth mischief with a law ?– Psalm 94:20

Frederic Bastiat was a 19th century French journalist, who became famous for his public commentary on political economy.  From the time of the French Revolution of 1789 right on through a century of socialistic turmoil leading to the rise of the Third Republic of France, the French nation experienced one economic recession after another. Frederick Bastiat understood  the underlying problem was not primarily economics. To be sure, it was manifested in political economy. But all ethics have their origin in worldview and Bastiat was wise enough to understand that the new political plaything now taking the rather innocuous sounding name of  "socialism" was really an attack upon the Christian faith.

Bastiat became the leading defender of free market thinking and the outspoken advocate of Christian principle in the strife-torn revolutionary — socialistic France of the 19th century. He was not ashamed to reference the Lord’s oversight in the affairs of men and society, using the term "Providence" repeatedly despite the mockery and scorn heaped upon him by the atheistic-socialistic scholars of the day.  His observations, listed below, deserve special scrutiny as they identify, in a concise manner, part of the problem we call "Socialism". Here are a few of his observations (with my Notes attached):

1. It is evident that the socialists set out in quest of an artificial social order only because they deemed the natural order to be either bad or inadequate; they deemed it bad or inadequate only because they felt  man’s interests are fundamentally antagonistic, for all the otherwise they would not have had recourse to coercion. It  is not necessary to force into harmony things that are inherently harmonious.

Note: When Bastiat states that the Socialist believe man’s interests are fundamentally antagonistic, what he’s referring to is the fact that they believe — along with most government-school taught Americans, and even many so-called Christians  — that the natural order ( the physical world around us) and societal order ( mankind’s propensity to organize in communities) are ALWAYS given to strife, and therefore, "someone" ( usually the State) must, of necessity, restrict human freedom in order to bring about progress and peace. In other words, all socialists of all types believe that the social order — whatever it might be and however constituted — MUST BE REGULATED by the State or else "chaos" will reign throughout society.

Socialism is ALWAYS guided by the presumptuous attitude that all societies, all men everywhere, must be CONTROLLED, especially in matters pertaining to economics. (See Plato’s view, listed under Bastiat’s point 3, below.)

2. The Socialists conjure up a society out of their imagination and then conceive of a human heart to fit this society.  - Frederic Bastiat, Economic Harmonies, p. xxv

Note: Bastiat has hit the nail right on the head. Socialists, of all types, dream up a society as they believe it should be constituted but because they have no sound view of human nature ( fallen, sinful and made in God’s image) nor of the Lord, His Will, or His Kingdom, they must dream up a new kind of human being and sort of retrofit this "new creation" of social engineering to their utopian plan. This is the reason our society is overwhelmed by the presence of expensive, uncaring, and even brutal bureaucracies. It is also the reason our land swarms with social agencies of all sorts. It also explains why modern psychological, psychiatric, and sociological theories (of all sorts and approaches) inundates the land because it is precisely these "disciplines" which are needed to reshape human thinking and behavior. Additionally, they become the "thought police" as well as the "behavioral police" determining the nature of Good and Evil. In other words, they become the Standard; you dare not oppose them or you are considered unfit, and a "hater-of-mankind", as early church Christians were called in the Roman Empire.

3. Although they [the socialists] have a kind of sentimental love for humanity in their hearts,  hate flows from their lips. Each of them reserves all his love for the society that is dreamed up; but the natural society, that in which it is our lot to live cannot be destroyed soon enough to suit them, so that from its ruins may rise [their version of] the New Jerusalem.

Note: Bastiat has again hit the nail on the head. Socialism derives its greatest strength from "the best" and "the worst"of society. The worst kinds of individuals are those insidious individuals who understand the real agenda of radicalism and forward it is a function of their own personal advantage. However, socialism always gains its "public image" from its humanitarian appeals. It’s humanitarian appeals become the foundation for its political strengths and successes. Issues such as "feeding the poor", "defending the helpless against injustices", "providing health care for all people", "ending exploitation", "doing away with "special privilege" that would include an endless litany of privileges needing correction such as,

- private ownership of property,

- profitability and the profit system,

- inheritance,

- sexual fidelity with one’s spouse,

- child rearing under parental authority and guidance,

- business ownership,

- vocational choice/calling

- the right to contract

- true liberty

… the list is almost endless.

Socialism professes a love for humanity. However, the "love" they profess is only a love for that which they "imagine".in other words, they’re in love with their own preferences and self-professed ideals. it’s simply another version of what God warned Adam and Eve to avoid: to be as gods knowing good and evil.

Socialism ALWAYS professes love for mankind but ALWAYS nourishes HATE,stirring strife throughout society by creating factions among different groups who are taught by the Socialist propaganda HOW TO HATE EFFECTIVLEY.

Witness the following opinions of socialistic thinkers:

"The Revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no personal interests, no business affairs, no emotions, no attachments, no property and no name. Everything in him is wholly absorbed in the single thought and the single passion for revolution." - Sergei Nechayev, Forerunner of the Bolshevik ( communist) Revolution of 1917. It was his influence upon Vladimir Lenin which was to determine the revolutionary approach of the Bolsheviks.

Note: We should note here, as Bastiat noted concerning all socialists, the disdain with which this man viewed a society in which he lived. He always taught his followers they were building a new society. Of course, the old one had to be completely destroyed. He penned this instruction to his followers -  his description of such hatred:

"The Revolutionary knows that in the very depths of his being, not only in words but also in deeds, he has broken all the bonds which tie him to the social order and the civilized world with all of its laws, moralities and customs and  with all its generally accepted conventions. He is their implacable enemy, and if he continues to live with them it is only in order to destroy them more speedily." - Sergei Nechayev

"Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov had the courage to come out and say openly that famine would have numerous positive results, particularly in the appearance of a new industrial proletariat, which would take over from the bourgeoisie. Famine, he explained, in destroying the outdated peasant economy, would bring about the next age more rapidly, and usher in Socialism, the stage that necessarily followed capitalism. Famine would also destroy faith not only in the Czar, but in God also."  -Fellow revolutionary and friend of Vladimir Lenin describing Lenin’s "courage" in opposing any or all aid to victims of the 1891 Russian famine.

Note: Lenin believed the famine to be a necessary precursor to the rise of socialism. Lenin also believe that the destruction of faith in God was absolutely necessary for the attainment of socialistic goals.

Note: Socialistic planners of the  future ruin in America follow Lenin’s model. They believe in the necessity of mass genocide, upwards of 150 million Americans (or more) must be genocidally removed they say!  They posit the position that, if multitudes of Ameicans "rise up" against them, they will allow the consequent destruction of the economic system to usher in famine, and kill off the oppostion throught starvation, plague and strife.

"The greatest principle of all is that nobody, whether male or female, should be without a leader. Nor should the mind of anybody being habituated  to letting him do anything at all on his own initiative; neither out of zeal, or even playfully. But in war and in the midst of peace — to his leader he should direct his eyes and follow faithfully. And even in the smallest matter he should stand under leadership. For example, he should get up, or move, or wash, or take his meals… only if he has been told to do so. In a word, he should teach his soul, by long habit, never to dream of acting independently, and become utterly incapable of it."   - Plato, Greek philosopher, c. 380 BC

Note: Notice how the appeal for socialism by Plato in his  Republic subordinates ALL FREEDOM and ALL PERSONAL INITIATIVE. in all respects, the state REMAKES the individual in its own image and punishes the whole concept of individual maturity and responsibility, even as Bastiat stated.  Note too, the "long habit", "teaching his soul", "subordinating all freedom" behavioral conditioning of the individual.

4. Therefore, they [Socialists] have found fundamental antagonisms everywhere:

- Between the property owner and the worker

- Between capital and labor

- Between the common people and bourgeoisie

- Between the farmer and the city dweller

- Between the native born and the foreigner

- Between the producer and the consumer

- Between civilization and the social order

Note: Socialism of all types, in all eras, has exploited the weaknesses, flaws and especially, the points of envy in society. By pointing to private ownership, accumulation of wealth, business ownership, material blessings, inheritance and other advantages, the Socialist can arouse envy in others. By recasting these things in the mind as injustice and privilege, the Socialist conjures up factions. Factions create rivalries in society. Rivalries bring discord and the approach of chaos within society. Since people cannot live for long safely in a society dominated by chaos and discord, society at large cries for Big Brother to step in. Since Socialism thrives upon alleged or actual injustices, the Socialist always uses revolutionary fervor to bring about the All Powerful State.

Reaction to discord by the general population brings overbearing action by the State, in the hands of the socialists. Or as radical revolutionaries like to put it, “All the action is in the reaction.”

5.  If humanity is inevitably impelled toward injustice by the laws of value, toward inequality by the laws of rent, toward poverty by the laws of population, and toward sterilization by the laws of heredity, we cannot say that God’s handiwork is harmonious in the social order; as it is in the physical universe.  We must instead admit, with heads bowed in grief, that He has seen fit to establish His social order upon revolting and irremediable discord.  – Frederic Bastiat, Economic Harmonies, p. xxviii

Note: Here we find the heart of the matter with socialism, of all kinds. The socialist, as Bastiat points out, believes that any God who would be at the head of this created order (the world around us) must be imbecilic because He has built the creation upon revolting principles which must be “corrected”, a  thing the socialist is only too happy to perform. Of course, since any concept of “God”, by definition, could not include “imbecile” in His nature, there must NOT be a “God” in any sense of the term. Hence, the vast majority of socialists (except, for example, the so-called “Christian socialists”)  are atheists or agnostics.

The real point to see in #5 is this: when Adam and Eve were warned concerning the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the warning saw them as attempting to become “as god” to “know good and evil.” Socialism is one major expression of that issue. Socialists, according to what Bastiat has written here, are always motivated to critique the social order as fundamentally “evil”. Therefore, they feel they know better than God. They feel they know what kind of social order they should bring about. Obviously, they conclude, somebody must do it. They then step up to the plate with their theories… and engineer strife among us and from positions of rule." To be as god, to know good and evil" meant  God charged mankind as those who charge Him with folly - and say they can "do better."

6. I raise my voice to make men hear these words which, if true, may silence all protesting voices: It is NOT true that the great laws of Providence are hastening society along the road to disaster.    – Frederic Bastiat, Economic Harmonies, p. xxix

Note: Amen.

-submitted, Wayne C. Sedlak, ICHR

Comments(0)

February 1, 2009

Welcome To The Vision Viewpoint Newsletter

February 01st 2009 Posted to Vision Viewpoint Newsletter

Welcome.

If you have any problems, or have any questions, please contact us right away.

Vsvion Viewpoint Staff

Comments(0)

October 9, 2007

Please leave your Comments on One World Government Here

October 09th 2007 Posted to One World Government

The all too soon “Amero”

* Comments(6)

September 18, 2007

Hitler’s Broadcast

September 18th 2007 Posted to Rise of Atheism

In a radio broadcast Hitler made a mistake…never before had the party aligned themselves with a particular group of Christians…but now, under what he called positive Christianity…(not negative which included sin and a need for repentance)….but he now…grouped himself with the “German Christians”, which was heavily laced with Nazis. Hitler was using this “Christianity” as a cloak to disguise their real intentions.

 
icon for podpress  Hitler's Broadcast [5:09m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Comments(0)

September 9, 2007

Altona Confession

September 09th 2007 Posted to Rise of Atheism

Altona Confession where the Christians took their stand against the radicalism of the Nazi party’s effect on the Christian Church.

 
icon for podpress  Altona Confession [7:46m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Comments(0)

All Germany Knew Hitler’s Claim to being a Christian

September 09th 2007 Posted to Rise of Atheism

Ever since 1920 Hitler and his Nazi thugs claimed to be Christian according to the infamous Article 24 of the Nazi Platform. Hitler knew very few German’s knew of his occultic background and that his Nazi henchmen (Goebbels, Hess, Himmler, etc. ) all had occultic and criminal backgrounds. However Article 24 insisted that the Nazis were to be understood as embracing a “positive Christianity” and not a negative Christianity. The “positive Christian” emphasis of the Nazis meant they were not going to be restricted by things they believed were negative in tone such as, man’s sinful and fallen nature, the need for a Substitutionary Atonement, the historic Gospel of a Justifying Faith in Jesus Christ and the need for a new birth from our fallen nature. These and other doctrines were negative to the Nazis and the Nazis especially abhorred the “negativity” of the Laws of God as found in the Pentateuch, the Prophets and throughout the New Testament. ( they rejected for example the 10 commandments). Hitler very often had himself photographed in the news holding Luther’s actual Bible, and often spoke of the Nazi movement as completing the German Reformation and morality. His choice of words here were exposed by several individuals early. (Read the article)

* Comments(3)

Next Page »