Category: Apologetics

Connecting the Dots Between Malthus, Sanger, R2K, and Agenda 21

“All children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons…. Therefore … we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use.

Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlement in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and restrain those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they are doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders.”

Thomas Malthus
An Essay on the Principle of Population

1.) Keep in mind that R2K teaches that it would be morally wrong for a Minister to speak against this kind of agenda from the Pulpit because a Malthusian worldview is a matter for the common realm and not the Church realm.

2.) If you go to youtube and look for “Agenda 21” you will see that this kind of ideology is being pursued by the United Nations in terms of their official policy. They have written position papers that echo this Malthusian approach.

3.) Clearly the whole Planned Parenthood enterprise, beginning with Margaret Sanger, and right up until today has more than a whiff of this Malthusian worldview. It is a not much discussed fact that Sanger began her campaign with the goal of keeping Blacks and Jews from breeding successfully.

In the April 1933 issue of the Birth Control Review, Sanger said that “[Slavs, Latin, and Hebrew immigrants are] human weeds … a deadweight of human waste … [Blacks, soldiers, and Jews are a] menace to the race. … Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”

Sanger advocated a program that would;

“… hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

When liberal clergy support Abortion they are supporting the same racial population control that Margaret Sanger supported.

4.) Of course this is part of the anti-Christ worldview where evil is called good, and good is called evil. For Malthus, charity and philanthropy would be to help reduce the surplus population of the earth by doing the good works of insuring that people die. The solution for the “problem” of too high of birth rates would be to abort the babies and sterilize (and maybe even kill) the Mothers.

Answering Bernard Lewis

“For the modern Westerner, religious freedom is defined by the phrase “freedom of worship” and means just that. But the practice of Islam means more than worship, important as that may be. It means a whole way of life, prescribed in detail by holy texts and treatises based on them. . . . It is not enough to do good and refrain from evil as a personal choice. It is incumbent upon Muslims also to command and forbid — that is, to exercise authority. The same principle applied in general to the holy law, which must be not only obeyed but also enforced. Thus, in the view of many jurists, a Muslim not only must abstain from drinking and dissipation, but also must destroy strong drink and other appurtenances of dissipation. For this reason, in any encounter between Islam and unbelief, Islam must dominate. . . .

There are some who followed this argument to its logical conclusion and maintain that an authentic Muslim life is possible only under a Muslim government. There are other who reject this extremist view and admit the possibility of living a Muslim life under a non-Muslim government, provided that that government meets certain specific requirements.”

Bernard Lewis,
Islam and the West, 52-53

1.) Here we see an error in Lewis’ thinking because it simply is not the case that “freedom of worship is just that.” For example, Justice Antonin Scalia, in a Supreme Court case about Native Americans who were fired for smoking peyote as part of their religious practice, wrote the majority opinion upholding the firing, saying that if religious beliefs were superior to the “law of the land,” it would make “every citizen a law unto himself.” So, Lewis is just wrong that “freedom of worship” is just that.

2.) So, the R2K Enlightenment “Secular” State does the same thing that the Muslim State does in as much as it restricts “freedom of worship.” The question between Islamist states and Religiously Secular Enlightenment State is not one of “freedom of worship” vs. “lack of freedom of worship,” but rather it is a question by what standard will worship be restricted? For the Islamist the standard is the Koran. For the Enlightenment R2K fan-boys the standard for restricting worship will be humanist positive law that marches under the banner of “Natural law.”

3.) The texts that give guidance are present for both the Islamist and the Enlightenment liberal. If one were to examine the Humanist Manifestos one would see the text that the Enlightenment liberal has been guided by. Now you won’t find the Enlightenment liberal waving the humanist manifesto around like a Islamist waves around the Koran as their authority, but an examination of the humanist manifesto indicates that the principles there are just as guiding for the Enlightenment liberal as the Koran is guiding for the Muslim.

4.) If Lewis thinks that the Enlightenment Liberal Theocratic State, in terms of commanding and forbidding, is any different then the Islamist state he must be smoking peyote. NYC forbids drinking sodas larger than 16 ounces. The Liberal Enlightenment state is working on forbidding private gun ownership. The Liberal Enlightenment State will be commanding and forbidding all over the place once Obamacare is in place. Again, the difference between the commanding and forbidding is not in terms of kind but only in terms of standard.

5.) This brings us to understanding that just as in any contest between Islam and unbelief finds the Islamic State dominating, so in any contest between the Liberal Enlightenment State and unbelief in the Liberal Enlightenment religion, the Liberal Enlightenment State must likewise dominate. Just try finding a soda for sale in NYC that is over 16 ounces. The Liberal Enlightenment Theocratic State that R2K supports requires a way of life just as much as the Muslim theocratic State.

Only in a Christian State does this kind of dominating suffocating Government find itself held in check. It is held in check because in a Christian civilization there is a understanding that the Government has a limited jurisdiction and beyond that jurisdiction it may not tread. In a Christian civilization, civil Government is diffused and Government as a whole is located in different jurisdictions (Guild, Family, Church, etc). This prevents what Lewis notes about the Muslim State and prevents what he misses being true in the Enlightenment Liberal state.

Because the above paragraph is true no Biblical Christian sounds like a Muslim; accusations from Radical Two Kingdom fan-boys notwithstanding. What R2K advocates want when they fulminate against Biblical government is in point of fact Theocratic Enlightenment Liberal government where, because freedom of religion is absolutized, they can advocate for the tolerance of abortion, sodomite marriage, and any number of other social deviance. In short they desire to set up a Liberal Enlightenment Theocratic Caliph where they as the Priests for the Caliph can bring dissenters before their denominations and have them banned for speaking out against their Caliph. R2K, as the Caliph’s muscle do such a great impersonation of the Turks.

Wherein The Pro-Death Crowd Takes The Mask Off

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/

Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

1.) Don’t you just love Cultural Marxists? You bang and bang on them to try to get them to see that all life is not equal, in the sense that all life is the same, (boys are different than girls, ballerinas are different then Weight-lifters, Japanese are different then Nigerians) and then when they bring themselves to admit that all life is not equal they say “all life is not equal” in the sense that all life isn’t worthy of life, and then they apply the idea of life that is not worthy of life to those who are judicially innocent.

2.) In point of fact, the person who admits that “All life is not equal,” in the sense of “All judicially innocent life is not worthy of life,” is indeed someone who can legitimately submit, with high hopes for acceptance, their resume to the “death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm trooper” society.

3.) Yes … Yes, I acknowledge that Storm Troopers can be inconsistent. One day they are being consistent with their maxim that “All judicially innocent life is not worthy of life,” and the next day they are playing “cootchie cootchie coo” with their neighbors newborn they are babysitting. Thank God many Storm Troopers are characterized by felicitous inconsistency.

4.) Notice how the “entity” mentioned (the entity that is a judicially innocent life that is not worthy of life) is referred to with the abstract term “entity” and not the concrete term “life.”

5.) According to our Storm Trooper journalist, the rights of the more powerful (“The Boss”) trump the rights of the less powerful. Friedrich Nietzsche you have a phone message from Ms. Ubermensch.

6.) By the way … I’m sure Stalin viewed the Christian Ukrainians as “non autonomous entities,” and I’d bet that Hitler viewed the Gypsies and the Jews as “non autonomous entities.” When you’re “the boss” autonomy becomes a very convenient matter to define.

Obama … Lincoln Redux

Years ago, H. L. Mencken exposed the fact that Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address, used poetry as opposed to logic to reinvent these united States of America into a National Union from a Confederated Union. Lincoln, by the poetry as expressed in the Gettysburg hijacked these united States vision of itself and largely reinvented the country with that speech. As stated earlier, H.L. Mencken pointed this out in his own illimitable way,

“The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history…the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.”

The reason I bring this up is I believe that Barack Obama was trying to do much the same thing in his 2013 Inauguration speech.

First, Obama has always tried to channel Lincoln. In point of fact Obama used Lincoln’s Bible (along with MLK’s) to take his oath of office. Could this be a indicator that Obama understands what Lincoln accomplished in changing America via his Gettysburg Address, and so aspired to do the same with his Inaugural address?

Second in his Inauguration Obama made more then one reference to the ability of America to reinvent itself. Early on in the Inaugural address Obama said,

“America’s possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: …. an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention.”

Even earlier in his address Obama even refers how the Nation re-made itself in the context of the Lincoln Regime,

“Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.”

Elsewhere we find,

“But we have always understood that when times change, so must we;”

When you combine these quotes it is clear that Obama’s intent is to remake America and my premise is that this Inauguration Address was to Obama what the Gettysberg was to Lincoln in the sense that both speeches, by way of poetry, glommed on to some honored American idea, only to twist it by poetry in a direction that contradicted the original intent of the Founders. For Lincoln, his appeal was to the the American time honored notion of self-determination in order to justify denying the South the opportunity of self-determination. Lincoln, by poetry, was able to justify his crushing of the South in the name of self-determination. Lincoln’s poetry, coloring his brutal use of the sword and the canon, remade the Nation and set it on a different trajectory from which it would never recover.

What Obama is appealing to, by way of poetry, is a twisted idea of equality in order to overturn liberty. In his Inaugural speech Obama returned to the theme of equality over and over again.

… ” what makes us American – is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,

“We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.”

“We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher …”

“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well….”

Obama’s constant appeal to the traditional American virtue of equality is being used to set the nation on a new trajectory that will overturn the original understanding of equality. It is obvious that the Founders did not believe in the kind of Jacobin equality for which Obama champions. Just the fact that the Founders allowed the individual states to determine who would have the franchise proves that they were not interested in the kind of Marxist equality for which Obama is advocating. The fact that the Founders crafted a document of negative rights where the Federal Government was restricted to very specific enumerated and delegated powers — powers that did not include forcing equality on the population and did allow the people to maintain their cherished liberty — suggest that the Founders “equality” is not the “equality” to which Obama constantly returned.

In Obama’s America, the phrase in the Declaration of Independence that mentions that “all men are created equal, is being used as a talisman in order to reinterpret America. The problem is that the US War for American Independence was not posited on the same premises of the French Revolution where equality as Egalitarianism was the leitmotif. America did not have the watch word of “Equality, Liberty, and Fraternity.” America did not mention “Equality” in her primary document (Constitution), or her Bill of Rights. America was not hung up about addressing everyone as “Citoyen,” (Citizen) in order to reveal a mad allegiance to equality as we find in the French Revolution was. America did not come up with a “Declaration of the Rights of Men,” and enshrine “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights” in its first point. America’s concern was Liberty not equality.

In the twentieth century, scholars like Hayek and Friedman maintain that equality is in conflict with and incompatible with liberty. They maintained that speaking of social justice in a society where individuals are free, any attempt to establish social justice or equality will deprive the people of their freedom because such an attempt requires government intervention to the end of denying liberty in pursuit of equality. A true notion of liberty understands that it includes the liberty to be different, and so unequal, due to the pursuit of individual interests. Obama’s version of “Equality” stands in contradiction to any vision of “Liberty” that isn’t Jacobin at its core. Obama’s equality is a demand for equality of outcome that always achieves a dull, ugly, drab sameness and the only way that can be achieved is by Obama taking away the liberty of American People.

Obama, in his Inauguration Speech is trying to deceptively change America much like Lincoln did at Gettysburg. If Obama is able to foist his vision of equality on America, by sentimentally appealing to the historic American notion of equality, he will succeed in changing the USA into the USSA.