Culture Of Death Is Spreading

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Sep 23, 2010
7,628
748
An interesting piece by Fisher Adams opens with this:

Fisher Ames was a great man. He also had a great name (I couldn't resist). But this original, almost completely forgotten Conservative philosopher said something hundreds of years ago that is as relevant in the world today as wigs and horses were back when he said it.

Ames said, "Society is the substratum of government."

By that he meant that culture, in many ways, steers the ship of state. As the values of the culture change, voters will elect people who embody and represent those changing values. It doesn't matter if those changes in morals were brought on by the media, the church, a partisan and biased educational system, or all of the above; the people eventually get what they want. If their wants shift in a certain direction, regardless of the cause, in a representative republic the government will eventually change with it.

A conflict naturally arises when a purely political view of the government’s role in society is contradicted by a false economic interpretation:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng&feature=player_embedded]Obama: If You've Got A Business, You Didn't Build That - YouTube[/ame]​

According to the people running the government economic lies, lots of economic lies, must be told in order to GIVE the people what they want.

Fischer Ames (1758 - 1808) is basically correct although he does not account for detours like Socialism, nor could he possibly have incorporated rigged elections in a representative republic cum democracy into his thinking, or the overwhelming influence of television. In short, the people will eventually take back what they once had, but it will be a long time coming. Look at how many centuries it took for the people to get what they wanted; i.e., limited government, individual liberties, and the Right to work for themselves. And only one country got it!

Determining what the people want is the tricky part in a world constantly bombarded with propaganda and outright lies told by government officials growing the government, abolishing individual liberties, and forcing Americans to work for strangers.

Adams goes on to say:


. . . the left's continuing effort to push religion out of the public space and get biblical teachings branded as hate speech.

XXXXX

In short, the Church was forced to retreat from the public sphere.

XXXXX

. . . religious teachings are criminalized and driven from the public square, literally.

November 1, 2013
The Alinsky Republicans
By Fisher Adams

Articles: The Alinsky Republicans

There is no doubt that organized religion is being driven out of the culture far beyond the intent of the separation of church and state. Indeed, the doctrine of the Separation and State has become the Left’s favorite weapon against organized religion’s positive influence on the culture. The sad truth is that driving religion out is not enough for Socialists; they must replace religion’s place in society with a culture of death.

Approaching the norm

A worldwide culture of death is well on its way to becoming the norm. American and Canadian Socialists/Communists partnered with European Socialism and China’s infanticide policies a long time ago. Roe v. Wade gave us more than 50,000,000 dead infants and Kermit Gosnell. The Affordable Care Act is giving us euthanasia by bureaucratic death panels. Question: How long will it be before American Socialists move to implement Belgium’s latest addition to the culture of death:


Should children have the right to ask for their own deaths?

In Belgium, where euthanasia is now legal for people over the age of 18, the government is considering extending it to children — something that no other country has done. The same bill would offer the right to die to adults with early dementia.

Belgium considering unprecedented law to grant euthanasia for children, dementia patients
By Associated Press,
Belgium considering unprecedented law to grant euthanasia for children, dementia patients - The Washington Post

In order to change the values of any culture’s views on the sanctity of life an overwhelming majority must truly believe in legalized killing —— not have it rammed down their throats. Totalitarian butchers have been trying to establish a culture of death since the turn of the 19th century. The fake science of eugenics was the weapon of choice for progressives —— the political ancestors of today’s liberals.

Contemporary American Socialists had 40 years of its greatest killing machine, Roe v. Wade, to succeed where the eugenicists failed. After forty years of killing babies nowhere near a simple majority of Americans favor death over life regardless of the lies about taxes funding slaughterhouses like Planned Parenthood, and “Abortion is about a woman’s Right to choose.” The ACA is the latest lie. This excerpt is from another thread:


As the Obamacare exchanges have gone “live” this month, it has become evident that it is nearly impossible for individuals seeking exchange plans to identify which, if any, plans on their state exchange exclude abortion.

The new law requires premium payers to be assessed an abortion surcharge every month to pay for abortions. But many pro-life Americans may unwittingly purchase pro-abortion plans because of a marketing secrecy clause embedded in Obamacare which stipulates that the surcharge be minimally disclosed only at the time of enrollment. In other words, bury it in the fine print.

XXXXX

If we fail to ask, the new law will compel us to directly subsidize the killing of unborn children by our surcharge payments to an abortion-only fund. Purchasing a pro-abortion health insurance plans makes us complicit in the culture of death.


Incidentally, feminazis always smirk that no man ever had a baby. It’s time they are reminded that no woman ever had a baby without a man’s sperm. That fact alone should give every man an equal say in the legality of infanticide.

Finally, a tyrant can only impose his will on the people after he kills everyone who stands up to him. Tyrants must do the killing before it comes to an armed revolt. Barack Taqiyya is no different than every other tyrant. His problem is that does not yet have enough Americans willing to do the killing for him; hence, his creation of a well-armed, well-funded, well-trained Ready Reserve Corps loyal to him rather than loyal to the country, and purging those high-ranking military officers he fears.

See #2 & #10 permalinks in this thread for a few interesting details about purging military officers who are loyal to the Constitution:


 
Why wouldn’t the leading proponent of the political ideology that gave the country a culture of death be good at killing? There is no revelation here:

President Barack Obama bragged to his aides that he's 'really good at killing people,' according to explosive claims in a new book about the 2012 presidential campaign.

The revelation comes at a time when Obama, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, has faced increasing criticism for his use of drones to target insurgents and terrorist suspects, particularly in Pakistan and Yemen.

'I'm really good at killing people': New book claims President Obama bragged to aides about using drone strikes
By Michael Zennie
PUBLISHED: 16:51 EST, 3 November 2013 | UPDATED: 17:20 EST, 3 November 2013

Double Down: Game Change 2012: Obama bragged 'I'm really good at killing people' | Mail Online

It’s no wonder liberals love him. Not only is Barack Taqiyya the right man to head the Democrat party’s culture of death, he is the right man to lead the party of liars. Jackie Mason says something I’ve known since 2008:

“He’s saying things that nobody believes. He was always lying every day of his life. Every time he talks it was a lie. The only time he tells the truth is when you didn’t hear from him.”

Famous comic flays Obama as lying 'maniac'
'If he wasn't the president, he'd be in jail or in a sanitarium'
Published: 3 hours ago
JOE KOVAC

Famous comic flays Obama as lying ?maniac?

Click on the link to hear the audio of Mason nailing Taqiyya and Hillary Clinton.
 
Agreed with some of your information, would have liked you to leave out the slydigs: ie feminazi's anytime a discussion begins to use words with intent to make others defensive it shuts down a conversation that could have been good.

That said, the part I agree with is media influence, shutting down of religion and the culture of death attitude.
 
Agreed with some of your information, would have liked you to leave out the slydigs: ie feminazi's anytime a discussion begins to use words with intent to make others defensive it shuts down a conversation that could have been good.

That said, the part I agree with is media influence, shutting down of religion and the culture of death attitude.

To drifter: Attacking the messenger rather than the message is standard fare for liberals. No matter what my messages said 95% of responses from liberals over a 13 year period were personal attacks, attacks on my sources, or meaningless nonsense like Moonglow’s reply.

My messages are my version of the Fairness Doctrine. For decades every attack liberals launched in their media-education-entertainment complex was designed to put conservatives on the defensive by portraying them as fools or fascists. Were it not so effective liberals would have discarded the technique decades ago. Giving liberals a little of what they dished out for so many years is proving to be just as effective even though it is pretty much limited to the Internet and a few conservative authors wielding a witty knife. Ann Coulter is one:


Coulter Strikes Again
By Jeffrey Lord on 11.1.13 @ 6:09AM

Scorching liberals with the conservative torch.

The American Spectator : Coulter Strikes Again
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng&feature=player_embedded]Obama: If You've Got A Business, You Didn't Build That - YouTube[/ame]​

If you got to this political rally successfully, you didn't get here on your own. You used roads and bridges to get here. You didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.

So pay up, mutherfuggers!
 
Last edited:
Agreed with some of your information, would have liked you to leave out the slydigs: ie feminazi's anytime a discussion begins to use words with intent to make others defensive it shuts down a conversation that could have been good.

That said, the part I agree with is media influence, shutting down of religion and the culture of death attitude.

To drifter: Attacking the messenger rather than the message is standard fare for liberals. No matter what my messages said 95% of responses from liberals over a 13 year period were personal attacks, attacks on my sources, or meaningless nonsense like Moonglow’s reply.

My messages are my version of the Fairness Doctrine. For decades every attack liberals launched in their media-education-entertainment complex was designed to put conservatives on the defensive by portraying them as fools or fascists. Were it not so effective liberals would have discarded the technique decades ago. Giving liberals a little of what they dished out for so many years is proving to be just as effective even though it is pretty much limited to the Internet and a few conservative authors wielding a witty knife. Ann Coulter is one:


Coulter Strikes Again
By Jeffrey Lord on 11.1.13 @ 6:09AM

Scorching liberals with the conservative torch.

The American Spectator : Coulter Strikes Again

All I am saying is be better then that. But I understand.

I try to treat everyone with respect even if I disagree with their opinion, sometimes I opt -out of the thread if I find it's too sensitive or emotional for me.

But recently after ducking out of a euthanasia thread, someone posted in a thread unrelated to it and made a statement implying the parents should have let a disabled boy die because his quality of life was shitty.

To me it almost felt instigative and I replied it's off topic left the thread.

People should allow others to disagree without trying to force them to agree. :dunno:
 
People should allow others to disagree without trying to force them to agree. :dunno:

To Drifter: How does one NOT allow opposites to agree or disagree?

Bottom line: I do not care if they agree or disagree. I do NOT post messages for liberals. I say what I have to say. Liberals can do the same in threads of their own. If I had my druthers they would not read my messages. Since a few libs, very few, do read what I have to say, I would rather they did not respond.

Over the years I’ve told hundreds of libs to stop reading, and to stop cluttering up my threads with mindless replies. If their replies are not personal attacks they are usually factually absurd, or they consist of senseless bumper sticker "wisdom" or worn-out talking points.
 
People should allow others to disagree without trying to force them to agree. :dunno:

To Drifter: How does one NOT allow opposites to agree or disagree?

Bottom line: I do not care if they agree or disagree. I do NOT post messages for liberals. I say what I have to say. Liberals can do the same in threads of their own. If I had my druthers they would not read my messages. Since a few libs, very few, do read what I have to say, I would rather they did not respond.

Over the years I’ve told hundreds of libs to stop reading, and to stop cluttering up my threads with mindless replies. If their replies are not personal attacks they are usually factually absurd, or they consist of senseless bumper sticker "wisdom" or worn-out talking points.
I understand how these forums work, and it is nothing about debate.

However, I am kind of curious why you would even make such a statement. If you don't want replies from those whose ideology differs from your own, why not just post your thoughts and information on a blog that has had the comments feature turned off, or set to allow only those people to whom you'd like to hear from?
 
If you don't want replies from those whose ideology differs from your own, why not just post your thoughts and information on a blog that has had the comments feature turned off,

To Darkwind: I prefer message boards for many reasons. One is that I can read what other conservatives have to say in their threads. I’ll keep the remaining reasons to myself.

or set to allow only those people to whom you'd like to hear from?

To Darkwind: I can put obnoxious liberals on my ignore list (filter) although I seldom do. Eventually they go away.
 
If you don't want replies from those whose ideology differs from your own, why not just post your thoughts and information on a blog that has had the comments feature turned off,

To Darkwind: I prefer message boards for many reasons. One is that I can read what other conservatives have to say in their threads. I’ll keep the remaining reasons to myself.

or set to allow only those people to whom you'd like to hear from?

To Darkwind: I can put obnoxious liberals on my ignore list (filter) although I seldom do. Eventually they go away.
Suit yourself. You really didn't answer the question, which is okay. You're not required to.
 
Jeffrey T. Brown’s piece made me see the insidious nature of the culture of death that I had not considered. I can see now that many of the items in his article belong in every definition of the culture of death. This one item stands out like Mount Everest:

. . . he is very good at killing the chances of our troops to protect themselves. He sends them in harm's way to carry out his objectives but makes sure that the enemy always gets the first kill shot. Whoever is left unhit can then return fire.

While making it easier for the enemy to kill our troops, he is also killing the military structure in which they serve. What used to be a system dedicated to the unyielding defense of our nation has become the president's sandbox for social experimentation and liberalism. He is purging the ranks of loyal officers, replacing them with those who are prepared to adopt his view of the United States Armed Forces as a liberal playground. Preparedness has taken a back seat to punishing the military for their successes with disproportionate budget cuts, making their missions much more difficult, or impossible. Recognizing our enemies has evolved from perceiving external threats and preparing to counter them to searching for internal threats, and actively smearing them. True threats to the country are ignored, or lied about. In other words, the military is becoming a reflection of the liberal politics and paranoia of its commander in chief.

A recent manifestation of this administration's hostility toward its own military is the order banning the wearing of a patch by Navy SEALs of the "Don't Tread On Me" jack. This flag, or "jack", is both an historical and currently-used Navy jack. It originated during the Revolution, and it has been the primary Navy jack used during the global war on terrorism. The jack has special significance to those who see the United States as a nation that won its freedom from forces of tyranny and oppression, and still fights those evils in the present. It is revered by the SEALs as a symbol of patriotism, but is seen as a threat by the president. Banning the wearing of a patch as a singular action may be a small thing, but it is one of a thousand cuts in his efforts to kill the morale of our fighting men and women.

November 8, 2013
'Pretty Good at Killing'
By Jeffrey T. Brown

Articles: 'Pretty Good at Killing'

images

I believe that the Don't Tread On Me patch was seen as contradicting UN patches and the UN’s blue berets. In a military whose first loyalty is to the United Nations there can be no confusion as to who US Navy SEALs are fighting for; hence the Don't Tread On Me patch had to go.

Interestingly, Navy SEALS risk courts-martial for wearing a patch signifying their first loyalty, while refusing to wear UN apparel is also punished.


Michael New: A Patriot Court Martialed for Obeying His Oath of Duty

U.S. Soldier Court Martialed
for Refusing to Abandon His Oath!​

Feb. 6, 1996 note: Michael New has been dishonorably discharged in a trial that lasted about 15 minutes. An appeal is planned.

"I am not a UN Soldier" says Army Specialist Michael New

The following was written by Jeff Lindsay on Nov. 7, 1995 (then updated Nov. 19, Dec. 29, and Feb. 7, 1996, then again Oct. 11, 2012), relying largely on the cover story of The New American, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 5, as well as on personal communication from a well informed friend close to the action.

XXXXX

A patriotic American soldier is being court martialed for refusing to wear a United Nations uniform and to serve under a foreign commander. When U.S. Army Specialist Michael New took the oath to defend the United States from its enemies and to uphold the U.S. Constitution, he meant exactly that. He had no idea that he would be asked to ignore that oath in order to serve the United Nations, wearing UN insignia and following orders from a foreign UN commander. But that is exactly what happened in August. Michael New was serving in Germany when he was told that his unit was to be sent to Macedonia for UN "peacekeeping" operations. In Macedonia, he would be expected to take directions from a foreign officer and wear UN garb. His mission heading stated that his unit would act to "make the UN presence known."

His response, as reported in the cover story of The New American, Oct. 2, 1995, p. 5:

"I have a problem with that, because I am not UN. I explained this to my lieutenant, and told him, 'Sir, I don't think I should have to wear a UN arm band or a UN beret. I'm enlisted in the U.S. Army; I am not a U.N. soldier. I have taken no vow to the UN; I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America from enemies foreign and domestic. I regard the UN as a separate power.... Where does my oath say that I have to wear UN insignia?'"​

 

Forum List

Back
Top