Category: Marxism/Cultural Marxism

Examining Michigan’s Proposal 3 On Abortion — Part I

This election cycle Michigan voters will be voting on whether to be a state that allows the torture and murder of the judicially innocent or whether Michigan will end the scourge that is abortion.

The scales in this state are already tipped in the favor of the baby murderers as the proposed bill was seemingly turned over to Mephistopheles to write the language of what is being proposed. Plus, we here in Michigan have already had Michigan Supreme Court Justice Bernstein stating publicly that;

“Ultimately, it is the Michigan Supreme Court that will make the absolute final determination, it will be the Michigan Supreme Court that will have the final word, in a woman’s right to choose in the state of Michigan…”

Please understand dear reader what is being said here. Michigan voters could resoundingly turn down proposal 3 and it will make no difference because “ultimately it is the Michigan Supreme Court that will make the absolute final determination.” If the baby murderers are defeated at the ballot box they will just run to the courts to force infanticide on the whole state.

Be that as it may, I thought it would be good to give a series looking at how bad proposal 3 really is. We will break this down little by little.

Article 1, Section 28 Right to Reproductive Freedom

(1) Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom,

Bret responds,

I am just curious as to where this fundamental right to reproductive freedom comes from? Who has granted us this right? Where can I look it up to find the details? This is the “Who says so” question. I mean if this whole proposal is premised on the idea of a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” it ought not to be too much to ask where in the hell this right comes from. I’d prefer to see it in writing if it is not too much trouble. Keep in mind also, that the SCOTUS ruled in Buck vs. Bell decades ago that every individual does not have a fundamental right to reproductive freedom.

Secondly, here allow me to not how amusing it is to be talking about “reproductive freedom” when in fact what is being advocated is the erasure or reproductivity. I mean, this is an abortion proposal after all. So, are we really talking about freedom of reproductivity or are we talking about the freedom to not reproduce — to kill our offspring?

(2) which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care.

Here we find a new, unlimited constitutional right inasmuch as we are using the language “all matters relating to pregnancy.”

All matters relating to pregnancy? Now, I don’t want to get to pedantic but as newborns could be said to be a matter relating to pregnancy does this language allow Mommies to kill their babies after they are born since the birthed child remains a matter relating to pregnancy?

Now, don’t you respond with “that’s obvious.” It’s obvious to me that killing in utero children deserves the death penalty for those who practice such heinousness. As such, nothing is “obvious” to me.

We would note that by creating a right “to all matters relating to pregnancy,” abortion, sterilizations, and a myriad of other matters (like sex) can have zero restrictions. Since sex is still related to pregnancy the language of this proposal could make any number of current sexual crimes open to legality. All a defendant (rapist?) would have to say is that “Hey, all matters related to pregnancy are my rights under the amendment of reproductive freedom”

Twin Spin From Francis Nigel Lee’s “Communist Eschatology” — The Elimination of Nations is Marx 101

“Sixthly — and in precisely in order to guard against danger of dominant nation chauvinism — it is essential that especially under socialism, big nations must humble themselves to the level of small nations.”

Lee
Communist Eschatology –pg. 463

Integration downward into the void is a central pillar of all forms of Socialism-Marxism.

“The great majority of Proletarians are, thanks to their very nature, devoid of national prejudices, and their whole culture and movement are essentially humanist and anti-national. None but Proletarians can destroy Nationalism; only the awakening proletariat can establish the brotherhood of nations.”

Karl Marx
From — Communist Eschatology

F. N. Lee — pg. 456

Now if you altered this quote above by doing the below you will not have changed it one bit.

“The great majority of Modern Churches are, thanks to their very nature, devoid of national prejudices, and their whole culture and movement are essentially humanist and anti-national. None but Modern Churches can destroy Nationalism; only the awakening Modern Church can establish the brotherhood of nations.”
Modern Christianity thy founder is Marx.

An Oldie but Goodie From Joe Carter (aka — Joke Harder)

“The alt-right is anti-gospel because to embrace white identity requires rejecting the Christian identity. The Christian belongs to a “chosen race” (1 Peter 2:9), the elect from every tribe and tongue (Rev. 7:9).

Joe Carter — Affectionately known as Joke Harder

The Gospel Coalition — 2018 Article

1.) False dichotomy

As if one can’t embrace their race or ethnic identity while at the same time embracing Christianity. Would Joe also say that to embrace maleness as part of one’s identity would be to require men to reject our identity in Christ?

2.) Incipient Gnosticism

Does Joe really believe that upon conversion those creational categories (such as race and ethnicity) disappear in favor of Gnostic “spiritual” categories that deny and erase creational realities?

3.) The Problem of those Nations in the New Jerusalem

Did Joe miss that part about the elect being from every tribe and nation?

If the elect are chosen from every tribe and nation who are we to say that tribes or nations don’t exist? The book of Revelation, which Joe cites as his spoof text itself mentions the presence of distinct nations in the new Jerusalem.

4.) Scripture says Joe is all wet

Consider how Paul retained his ethnic identity. Would Joe argue that St. Paul is ‘anti-Gospel?’

Romans 9:2 I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.

Depending on which Alt-Right representative one considers the Alt-Right has its problems but to suggest that the Alt-right is anti-Gospel merely because it tells people it’s alright to embrace their God created and God-given racial and ethnic identity smells of sulfur and is the thought child of Satan’s offspring, Herbert Marcuse, and Theodor Adorno.

5.) Reductios Abound

‘To embrace [Carter] identity requires rejecting the Christian identity.’

‘To embrace [American] identity requires rejecting the Christian identity.’
‘To embrace [denominational] identity requires rejecting the Christian identity.’
We can play this game all day.

You see … the thing here is that it is not even close to being thoughtful. One would expect their ill 5 year old golden retriever to offer this up as a piece of solid reasoning. Instead we have the Church leadership going all profound on us with these “gems.” This would be profound if relayed through the sign language of Koko the Gorilla. But coming from a Homo Sapien?

Away with this Gnostic curse that has infiltrated and poisoned the church. Away with childish reasoning inspired by minds trained in Government schools and Cultural Marxist Universities and Seminaries.

The Canker Work of Political Correctness

Political Correctness is the anti-standard standard, a negative device designed to overthrow traditional (Christian) mores and Institutions. It does so by arguing that the previous standards were arbitrary, oppressive and characteristic of those who colonize. The PC crowd then masqueraded their anti-standard standard in the guise of the demand that academic freedom and tolerance must be allowed to “enlarge” beyond the previous constraining standard that limited the teaching context to the traditional mores.

All of this explains much of the reason behind the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s grandstanding on January 15, 1987,  at Stanford University’s grand main entrance, chanting with 500 Stanford Students the uber poetic,

“Hey hey, ho ho,
Western Civ has got to go.”

Jackson and company were protesting Stanford University’s introductory humanities program known as “Western Culture.” For Jackson and the protesters, the problem was its lack of “diversity.” As a consequence to this romper room protest Stanford’s faculty and administration raced to appease the protesters, and Stanford’s course of “Western Culture” was formally replaced with a new course labeled, “Cultures, Ideas, and Values.”

The new program included works on race, class, and gender and works by ethnic minority and women authors. Western culture gave way to multi-culture. The study of Western civilization succumbed to the Left’s new dogma, multiculturalism.

Notice here that the Stanford’s previous standards here were not expanded so much as they were replaced. The demand of the students most certainly did not lead to more diversity. Instead, the demand of the students eventuated in a remaining narrow curriculum except as channeled in a different direction.

Once the standards were expanded so that for example, students in the University were reading Black Rappers, Native American Hieroglyphics and Lesbian Literature  as being equivalent in value to reading Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton the West was in principle finished as Universities around the country moved to being Multi-diversities finding their “Uni” in the lack of “Uni”. By “expanding the standards,” the old Christian standards were tossed and new standards were introduced and codified since at the end of the day the idea of absolute standards is limited to the time available for what is seeking to be accomplished by the University.

By hiding their demands and this agenda behind the full throated enlightenment cry for academic freedom the Politically correct crowd tore down the previous standards implemented new PC standards and forced the Institutions that built the West to become the Institutions that would now tear down the West.

And conservatives were party to this because they did not know how to answer this demand for “free speech” rooted as they were in the classical liberal worldview.

The proper response should have been “Your expansion of standards can go bugger themselves.”