|
Liberalism, Socialism and
Communism;
links in the chains of slavery
By Wesley Bailor
Our Founding Fathers,
being keenly attuned to the goal of personal freedom, accurately
analyzed the manner in which freedom was so trampled by the political
systems from which they had fled in Europe. Their genius was the
recognition that tyranny must be expected from unfettered governmental
power. How wise they were, to separate our government into three
branches, such that each could keep an eye on the other two.
But at this date, we've been inundated with another kind of
thinking. John Dewey, from his post at Columbia University, exerted a
socialist influence that has since spread to most of our educational
system. Instead of a healthy distrust of governmental power, we look
to it as our nanny. "Absurdity" is not too strong a word to describe
many of the things that some folks believe government should do. A
very recent example is the decision to spend tax money for sex-change
surgery. We could write a whole catalog of such anecdotal cases, which
to freedom-oriented people, are absurd to the point of insanity.
One might ask, "What does tax supported sex-change surgery have to
do with freedom? Can't we be a free society and also use our
government resources to solve various and sundry problems?" In fact,
we cannot. There is no bottom to the pit of various and sundry. With
our focus on various and sundry, we lose track of the current status
of the freedom which is being traded for various and sundry.
The Liberals, those who advocate a "nanny government", are not in
tune with the American people whose mind-set is oriented toward
freedom. As one who has lived in a country with a totalitarian police
state, where freedom is not even considered except as part of a lie,
(the lie being that freedom means to live under their system) this
writer knows some parallels between the totalitarian police state and
our American Liberals and/or Socialists.
- They both claim that the government is the solution.
- They both assume the people are too stupid to take care of
themselves.
- They both assume that they, the elite, are somehow superior, and
thus, have the right to rule.
- They both are afraid of the people; so much so, that they try to
eliminate free speech. (The police state does so by forbidding
assembly; the U.S. Liberals do so by such devices as "political
correctness".)
- They both fear an armed citizenry. The totalitarians, since they
have the power, simply forbid it, while the American Liberals use all
their propaganda machinery to make it appear that the right to bear
arms is Neanderthal, and is not connected to the issue of freedom of
the citizenry. (Would an emperor want his peasants armed?)
- They both spring from the secular humanist philosophy which
dictates that freedom is a gift from the state, as opposed to the
thinking of our Founding Fathers, who recognized that freedom is
God-given, thus the state must be suspected and prevented from taking
the people's God given freedom. Genius!
Liberalism is a kissing-cousin to Socialism, as Socialism is to
Communism. Let's check this out. Maybe I paint with too wide a brush.
The parallels above reveal a kinship between Liberalism and Socialism.
Let's compare Socialism with Communism.
According to the dictionary, Socialism is the system in which the
major means of production are owned by the state. My dictionary
describes "Communism" as the state controlling the means of
production, the distribution, and the consumption.
This all sounds so very sanitary, but in real life, it has not been
so. In the Communist countries of China and Russia, millions upon
millions of innocent citizens have been killed (the ultimate loss of
freedom) for no just reason, whatever. Not in wars, just the fact that
the government has the guns. The lucky ones are merely sent off to die
in prison labor camps. The experience of Alexander Solzhenitsyn is a
prime example. He was a loyal officer in the Russian Army, fighting
against Hitler's Nazi forces, when he wrote a letter home mentioning
his danger on account of the skill of a certain German officer who was
directing the enemy forces. Solzhenitsyn had no rights, no freedom.
His letter was intercepted, and his mention of the skill of the German
officer was twisted. The Communist leaders decided that he was
disloyal, on account of his "praise" of the German officer. For this
totally innocent letter home, he spent eight years at hard labor in the
freezing Siberian prison camp. After they let him out of prison, he
was forced to live in Central Asia for another 4 years, before being
allowed to return to his normal life.
With my own eyes, I saw the bullet chips on the statues and marks
on the pavement left by the army tanks, which had run over the tents
where the students slept in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China in
early June of 1989. These students were accused of being criminals and
enemies of the State. What did they do, to be judged thusly? They had
PEACEFUL demonstrations asking for a bit of FREEDOM. They were totally
unarmed. They didn't even have sticks or stones. What did the
Socialist state use against them? Guns and tanks! Under Socialism, the
people have no rights. There is no appeal for justice. In the
totalitarian socialist state, justice is whatever the government
leaders SAY it is. If you don't like it, tough beans, Charlie!
Why get all worked up over things that happen in other countries? The
reason is that Liberalism, Socialism and Communism are LINKS IN THE
SAME CHAIN. The chain designed to destroy freedom. If we are so
foolish as to be blind to the connection between American Liberalism
and the living Hells of Socialism and Communism, we will suffer the
same fate as the forgotten heroes who were killed by their government
in Tiananmen Square.
Wesley Bailor, a native Oregonian and teacher,
taught school in Arizona and Michigan. For three years, he lived in
China, teaching and working with a people-to-people
organization.
|
|
