August 25, 2019

All Attempts at Central Control are Phony and Threaten America’s Exceptionalism from Communism

Central control of private property, whether it is for the common good, earth liberation, animal liberation, the lesser prairie chicken (pinnated grouse), a feigned groundwater shortage, a tortoise or for redistribution of wealth, is pure Marxism because it abolishes private property as set out in the last two pages of Chapter Two of the Communist Manifesto. This is not rocket science. The simplicity of figuring this out might explain why so few schools teach about the dangerous cancer of the Communist Manifesto. Central control and private property irreconcilably conflict. One cannot exist in the presence of the other. The carjacker either has your car or he does not. There is no middle ground. The government has an affirmative duty to thwart carjackers and other property grabbers equally.

The reason for central control is irrelevant because Jesus taught the attitude of abundance, love and generosity with the fishes and loaves even in times of true scarcity. But the current attitude of scarcity breeds the brutality of the denial of sacred individual rights, as brutality advocated by Hegel, Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Hardin and Alinsky who spoke admiringly of Lucifer in his book “Rules For Radicals”.

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from the southern high plains of Texas.

Hegel 001

Alinsky Lucifer 001

Chap 2 Comm Manifesto 001

Share

What The “Science” of Global Warming/Climate Change is Really About

The fleecing of America.

It looks an awful lot like world-wide central planning (oversight) for the purpose of the redistribution of wealth ala the last two pages of Chap 2 of the Communist Manifesto.

From the National Association of Scholars:

“At the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December 2009, leaders from more than a hundred nations gathered to consider an agenda that included a massive transfer of money from developed countries to the Third World. The developed states were tagged to provide $130 billion by 2020 to help developing nations deal with the consequences of global warming. The proposed transfer was widely discussed as “reparations” for the damage caused by use of fossil fuels in the developed world.

The Copenhagen proposal went down in ignominious defeat. A motley collection of Third World countries brought the idea up again in 2013 in the run-up to the UN’s climate conference in Warsaw, but by then whatever impetus the idea had had was gone. President Obama instructed the U.S. delegate to oppose it. The State Department explained:

“It’s our sense that the longer countries look at issues like compensation and liability, the more they will realize this isn’t a productive avenue for the [UN Framework Convention on Climate Change] to go down.”

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from the southern high plains of Texas.

Share