LIBERALISM IS A RELIGION

by Steven M. Barry

Mr. Edwin Hamblin's unpleasant encounter with 'Liberals' while distributing Christian Coalition voter's guides outside his polling place should not have shocked him. He'd have probably been more politely treated passing out C.C. voter's guides outside a Nation of Islam mosque. You see, Liberalism is a religion with its own apostles, creeds, and articles of faith.

For Christians who are not familiar with Liberalism's core tenets of faith, I offer the following summary.

Liberalism elevates man to quasi-divinity, while reducing Christ to the level of man--a sort of Super Socialist do-gooder--and the Trinity to a quaint, if somewhat fuzzy concept not to be taken seriously. Liberalism, the worship of man, is, therefore, fundamentally atheistic.

The apostle's creed of Liberalism is the separation of church and state. In consequence, government must be atheistic. Thus, atheistic government is not bound by the Ten Commandments. That means government is free to lie, cheat, steal, and murder--which it does daily.

As worshippers of man, liberals deny God, and, therefore, Heaven and Hell. By denying Heaven and Hell, they deny the existence of one's immortal Soul. Having denied the existence of one's Soul, they have solved the problem of Evil. For without a Soul, man is just another animal to be milked, worked, or slaughtered.

Having solved the problem of Evil, liberals are free to promote such things as: the abomination of homosexuality as 'an alternate lifestyle'; infanticide and 'birth control' as 'choices' for females who won't keep their legs closed; divorce when marriage becomes 'inconvenient'; the deracination of Whites as a 'celebration of diversity'; collectivism as 'social justice'; the theft of property as 'economic justice.'

Liberal priests denigrate uncompromising moral and ethical standards as 'intolerance.' Nevermind that 'tolerate' means 'putting up with something that is distasteful.' The liberal lexicon deliberately everts the real meanings of words--every liberal definition is an emotionally charged antonym. You're not expected to think about the meaning of liberal swear words--just 'feel' good or bad about them.

So, Mr. Hamblin, when that young debate team ignoramus called you a 'fascist,' he didn't even know that fascism is a variant of socialism (and, therefore, Liberalism), nor did he care. He was simply parroting a liberal swear word that means 'you disagree with my faith.' That teen-something moron's intent was to both reduce any discussion to an emotional knee-jerk and to shut you up by branding your ideas with a 'bad word.'

That twenty-something female's intercession in defence of female sexual irresponsibility and homosexual perversion (subjects you had not broached) speaks volumes about the default moral degeneracy of the Liberal religion. The swear word 'hateful' she spit at you was nothing less than confirmation that Liberals fear nothing more such as principled moral intolerance.

In the liberals religion, principled moral and ethical intolerance is considered a mental illness. Why? Because the liberal religion's apostles are Marx and Engels. Their bible is the Communist Manifesto. And their faith is Communism--which they call 'social justice.'

Steven M. Barry, SFC, USA (Ret.) is the Managing Editor of The RESISTER . These are his observations.

THE MOST SUCCESSFUL REVOLUTION

by Mark Hadzewycz

There have been many revolutions in the history of the world, but one of the best known is the American Revolution. This revolution served as the inspiration for countless others, some good and some bad. Compared to every other one, Irving Kristol in his article, The Most Successful Revolution, tries to show us that the most successful revolution was the American Revolution. Kristol gives several examples to support his argument.

His first example deals with George Washington, the man who led the Continental Army during the revolution and became the first President of the United States. Kristol points out that modern revolutionaries cannot compare to Washington because of his gentlemanly conduct and reputation. On the other hand, most modern revolutionaries, such as Lenin, Mao, and Castro, were notoriously violent and brutal towards their enemies. Our first president just doesn't fit our description as a true revolutionary these days; we picture them as people living in an isolated camp in rough terrain with machine guns, and using guerrilla tactics to ambush government troops. Kristol comes to the conclusion that perhaps the American Revolution was not an 'authentic' revolution at all, but rather a kind of pseudo-revolution, which is why it could be led by so unrevolutionary a man as George Washington.

Another interesting fact deals with the leaders of revolutions themselves. During the American Revolution, and its aftermath, the leaders held power for a while and simply left office when their terms expired or when they were voted out of office. Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were all active participants in the revolution, all became presidents, and all quietly ended their terms. None of these men were assassinated; all died peacefully in bed. In fact, Washington's troops offered him was offered several times by his troops to become king, but he refused, and even went as far as threatening execution to anyone who proposed the idea anymore.

At the other extreme, revolutionaries such as Robespierre, Lenin, Mao, and Castro all held power (or will hold power, in the case with Castro) until they died in 'office' or were executed during a counterrevolution. Robespierre executed several thousand with the guillotine before being beheaded himself. Lenin ruled the Soviet Union for seven years before he died; Mao ruled China for nearly thirty years until he died; Castro has been the dictator of Cuba for nearly forty years! Washington set an example for the entire world when he gave up power peacefully after finishing his two terms in office.

A third example given by Kristol deals with the manner in which the losers of the American Revolution--the Tories--were dealt. Although they remained loyal to the King of England until the end of hostilities, the Tories weren't persecuted by the 'revolutionary' government. Although there were a few, extreme cases of cruelty perpetrated by private citizens against some of the Tories, the fledgling, American government did not confiscate their property, put them in jail, or have them executed. The American government even went so far as to let the Tories move out of the country at their own convenience. This type of "peaceful coexistence" (a term coined by Nikita Khrushchev) with a former enemy is, in itself, revolutionary! Modern revolutionaries are almost expected these days to persecute, imprison, or even murder the opposition. Again, we can look at Robespierre, Lenin, Mao, and Castro to name a few. All have gone down in history for their brutality to anyone that opposed them. One of the few instances where revolutions have been peaceful is the American Revolution.

After reading Kristol's article, we can see that there are many reasons why he considers the American Revolution the most successful revolution. Some of the examples--the gentlemanly conduct of the revolutionaries, their relinquishing of power voluntarily, and their peaceful coexistence with their former enemies--shows clearly that we Americans have a lot for which to be grateful. We can probably never thank Mr. Washington and his fellow patriots enough for their great contribution to this country and the entire world. We can only hope that any future revolutions, such as they might occur, follow the civilised precedent set by the United States.

Mark Hadzewycz is a high school student from Morristown, NJ. These are his observations.

RETURN TO GAZETTE MAIN PAGE. - Click here.

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page