http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=collectivism Sat, 25 May 2013 09:58:07 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=collectivism Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:09:20 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef6_1365721127 10fold a kind of response video to Flashovr's YS vid: Community Kids. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=281_1365551222 The destruction of the family unit is an essential step to take towards achieving totalitarian rule. Radical feminism and global collectivism are slowly but surely eradicating individuals and families alike paving the way for a one world government controlled by the state. "The Life and Death of Radical Feminism" with Stefan Molyneux: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n51kdAFPN7U http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef6_1365721127 10fold Children Of The State Children Of The State Tue, 09 Apr 2013 15:13:53 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bbc_1365534553 ConspiracyTardLL CSCOPE: EXPOSING THE NATION'S MOST CONTROVERSIAL PUBLIC SCHOOL CURRICULUM SYSTEM In February, Texas announced that the state, along with the Texas Education Service Center Curriculum (TESCCC,) would enact major changes to the controversial curriculum management system dubbed CSCOPE. The system received a litany of complaints from faculty members and parents alike concerning its lack of transparency (parents were allegedly not permitted to review lesson-plans), lack of oversight from the State Board of Education, and for allegedly imposing oppressive working conditions for faculty members. CSCOPE was created so that teachers could frame their year around teaching points required by the state. Lessons, which are written by CSCOPE staff and current and former teachers, can be updated and delivered online, making it more cost-effective than standard textbooks. To note just how off-color some of the CSCOPE curriculum is, consider that the Texas CSCOPE Review, an independent watchdog group, uncovered an out-of-date, optional CSCOPE lesson-plan on terrorism - "World History Unit 12 Lesson 07'' - which allegedly likens the Boston Tea Party to "an act of terrorism." The system also recently asked students to design a flag for a new socialist nation . To glean greater insight, Glenn Beck invited special guests David Barton and Pat Gray, along with teachers Mary Bowen, Stan Hartzler and Texas State Sen. Dan Patrick to discuss what is truly going on within their state's education system. Barton explained that CSCOPE is referred to as "instructional material" and not "curriculum," therefore is not subject to regulation by the State Board of Education. The historian also brought in artifacts of Texas public school curriculum to showcase just how different it is today and to mark, year-by-year, the increasing application of political correctness in lesson plans. Using a chart, Barton documented and mapped out core CSCOPE material, which eliminates national values, Americanism or rather, American exceptionalism, the study of federalism and majority rule (the core of our constitution) along with patriotic symbols like the Liberty Bell. Christopher Columbus, Rosh Hashanah and Christmas are all relegated to the dustbin along with American military history. Equality and a belief in justice is replaced by "fairness" and instruction on American propaganda and imperialism. Disturbingly, Beck and Barton noted that the worst is yet to come. Showcasing a lesson plan for grades 1-3, Barton revealed CSCOPE's list of "heroes," which comprises a dozen secular progressives and only three conservatives or political moderates. According to a previous report from TheBlaze, teachers complained that they were expected to deliver the curriculum verbatim and only on days allotted by the CSCOPE lesson plan. Even if students were unable to absorb the lesson, teachers were allegedly directed to progress to the next lesson regardless. TheBlaze also reported that teachers were "asked to sign a contract that would prevent them from revealing what was in the CSCOPE lessons or face civil and criminal penalties." The controversial program's website states that CSCOPE is a comprehensive online curriculum management system developed and owned by the Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative (TESCCC), a consortium composed of the 20 ESCs in the state." It goes on to explain that the CSCOPE system provides curriculum framework for grades kindergarten through 12 across a broad range of subject areas. The online description might raise red flags for some when it states that the CSCOPE content is regularly updated based on, among other criteria, "feedback collected through various stakeholder groups in the collaborative, including individual teacher submissions through the CSCOPE website and the School District Advisory Committee, comprised of district representatives from all participating regions of the state." What, or rather who , comprises CSCOPE's collaborative and stakeholder groups? That question and a myriad others are what critics hope to get to the bottom of. But while the groups to which CSCOPE appears relatively beholden may sound alarms for critics, the actual researchers CSCOPE credits with providing the basis for its curriculum seem to be formidable industry veterans by and large. Those educators include Robert Marzano, Fenwick English, John Crain, Heidi Hayes Jacobs, Grant Wiggins, Jay McTighe, H. Lynn Erickson, and James Barufaldi. CSCOPE has been adopted by some 75 percent of Texas schools and the aim was to implement a national adoption of the management system. However, according to some education blogs, Common Core Standards sought to purchase CSCOP as a national curriculum standard. It is by far and away, one of the more hotly contested topics in the current education debate and much mystery still remains as to CSCOPE's core tenets. Beck noted that secular progressivism, further, the notion of communal life and collectivism, is at the system's core. Other points of contention concerning CSCOPE curriculum include lesson-plans positing that Christopher Columbus was an "eco-warrior" and, when referring to the famed explorer's journal, all references to God and Christendom were removed. Students are also posed with hypothetical scenarios concerning historical figures and have allegedly been asked to take a position on population growth. Students were even subject to a lesson framed around the idea that "Christianity was a cult," Beck noted. CSCOPE's director, Wade Labay has defended his curriculum and maintained that controversy has stemmed from misconceptions." For instance, he said that framing the Boston Tea Party as an act of terrorism was merely one teacher's way to engage students in the day's lesson. State Sen. Patrick, who chairs the Senate Education Committee, has led the CSCOPE hearings, bringing the controversial system to public light. He pushed CSCOPE to allow parents to view curriculum and to lift gag-orders on teachers. Patrick explained his experience bringing CSCOPE to task and revealed what he believes is in store for his state. Hartzler, who taught math for nearly four decades, retired early because of CSCOPE. He said that he was written nearly a dozen times for not following the system's lesson plan and maintains that CSCOPE is dumbing-down American students. He said he tried his best to follow the lesson plans, but simply could not. Bowen, who is currently forced to use CSCOPE in her school district, feels that schools are now more like factories that send children out into the real world from an assembly-line that has not even given them the basics. She spoke to Beck despite the fact that CSCOPE had set up disciplinary consequences for doing so. Bowen said that the lessons were mediocre at best, often "riddled with errors" and that "tests were invalid." "There's tremendous coercion. It's an incredibly oppressive environment." She added that there have been teachers who were fired for speaking out to the school board. Bowen also explained that teachers spend "one out of every five" days testing students, and that those tests provide data for the government's use. When asked what they tell parents who are inquisitive about their child's lesson-plans, Hartzler said he violated his gag-order "right away." He said he showed the parents why the students were struggling and where they should go from that point on. Beck said that President Obama will look to move forward with implementing CSCOPE or such systems within a short time-frame. The panel said concerned Americans should send letters to the Attorney General and that emergency legislation should be enacted to help teachers push back. SOURCE: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/07/cscope-exposing-the-nations-most-controversial-public-school-curriculum-system/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bbc_1365534553 ConspiracyTardLL CSCOPE: EXPOSING THE NATION'S MOST CONTROVERSIAL PUBLIC SCHOOL CURRICULUM SYSTEM Glenn beck, CSCOPE, Education, USA,Controversial, Curriculum Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:29:17 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=523_1363813345 star53 The debate about where Nazism should be placed on the political spectrum has enjoyed a renaissance of late. The answer is so obvious that we really needn't have bothered. Okay, let's pause for a minute, note the above title, and have a collective 'face palm' over how absurd it is that this article even needs to be written in the first place. But it does. This debate has never gone away of course; but recent weeks have been something of a renaissance - largely thanks to the bizarre suspension (and eventual - and sensible - reinstatement) of Dr. Rachel Frosh from the Conservative Party candidate list due to a retweet linking Nazism to socialism. This rather embarrassing affair is in fact a sad and clear indictment that the words 'never again' are little more than a hollow slogan. For if we refuse to accept, and more importantly challenge, the ideological origins of a movement that culminated in the systematic murder of millions of innocent human beings, there is absolutely no way we can prevent the same from happening again. The easiest way of proving that the origins of Nazism are in no way remotely conservative is to start by looking at some defining features of conservatism itself, specifically the European variety. These include: the belief that a society rooted in monarchy and aristocracy is preferable to mass democracy; that there is a transcendental moral order (what Kirk called the Permanent Things) which in Western Civilization has been preserved and passed down through the Christian Church; that property rights are the very foundation of ordered liberty; and, of course, the universal conservative belief that any necessary societal change must occur slowly and without structural damage to ancient and proven institutions - that problems in society come not from broken traditions and institutions but from broken men and morals. It should go without saying that Nazism had no love of monarchy or aristocracy. Hitler didn't reinstate the House of Hohenzollern; he made himself dictator. The notion that the son of a minor civil servant (Alois Hitler himself born a bastard and of peasant stock) had a right to rule over Germany can hardly be called traditionally conservative. Moreover, his great dislike of the aristocratic military establishment is well known; the lack of a 'von' in front of his surname was a permanent chip on Hitler's shoulder. Granted, Himmler liked to play feudal lord with the SS, but his was a 'feudalism' based on a half-cocked interpretation of a quasi-mythical pagan past. This brings us nicely to defining conservative feature number two: Christianity. Himmler's obsession with paganism is very well-documented. Hitler may have viewed the SS as his personal bodyguard, but Himmler viewed them as a pagan Knights Templar, destined to recreate a utopic, pre-Christian Teutonic society. Furthermore, the 'official' religion of Nazism was positive Christianity, a doctrine that can hardly be called positive or Christian. This 'Christian' ideology rejected the Jewish bible in its entirety, rejected Jesus' Jewish origins, and wished to wipe Catholicism off the face of the earth (stalwart defender of tradition it is) and create a united Nazi protestant church. Nor can it be said that the Nazis had any respect for traditional property rights. They nationalized industries, advocated progressive taxation schemes, and were virulently anti-capitalist. Now, that's not to say that conservatism must necessarily be in favour of pure, unrestricted laissez-faire capitalism (see Kirk, Chesterton, etc.), but whereas the traditionalist objection to capitalism is at its heart an objection to the disastrous spiritual and moral effects of industrialisation, the Nazis' objection to capitalism was rooted firmly in post-industrialist, Marxist interpretations of economics. The conservative argues that socialism isn't a cure for the disease of industrial society, but a symptom of the same sickness. As we all know, Nazi property violations weren't limited solely to estate, they also infringed upon life and liberty with spectacular zeal, especially the life and liberty of those they deemed sub-human. 'Aha', says the skeptical reader, 'this is where I have him! This crazy conservative doesn't know what he's talking about. He just wrote it himself, the Nazis were a bunch of racists, surely that means they were right wing!' Now, unlike you, my dear liberal reader, I understand that man is fallen, so I'll forgive you your ignorance on the matter. First, let's briefly get this 'right wing' thing out of the way, shall we? Yes, fascists and Nazis were almost from the start called 'right wing', but this was a slander employed by other socialists, meant to discredit these socialists of a distinctly nationalist bent in the eyes of fellow radical travelers. If they were 'right wing' at all they were the 'right wing' of the left. As Jonah Goldberg explains in his brilliant (and apparently woefully under-read) Liberal Fascism, this is why street fighting between fascists and communists was so vicious in Germany; these people were fighting for the same hearts and minds, the same segment of middle class voters susceptible to revolutionary nonsense. The godfather of fascism himself, Mussolini, was a member of the International, and the term 'national socialist' was in use in leftist circles well before the Nazi party was created. Now, let me be as clear as possible on this subject: ethnic nationalism, let alone racism, is in no way conservative. The scientific racism of the Nazis, so popular across Europe from the beginning of the twentieth century until the devastating and inevitable result of its assertions, would never have developed if not for nationalist movements. Nationalism as we know it was one of the earliest leftist ideologies, and remains fundamentally left wing, going hand in hand with identity politics. It was forged, as almost all ideological poisons that plague us today, in the fires of the French Revolution, and developed as a means of undermining the old European order, specifically the grand and, more importantly, multi-ethnic empires of Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, and, to an extent, Britain. The idea that countries should be based on single ethnic groups - the promotion of nation states - is an ideologically radical position. To a conservative, culture, not race, is what matters. The cry of the National Socialist is blood and soil, race and nation. The cry of the conservative is king and country. Thus do the intellectually honest arrive at the inescapable conclusion: Nazism is not conservative. And if it is not conservative, it cannot be truly called right wing. It is a product of the French Revolution, just another bastard child of Rousseau's love affair with himself, simply one more in a long line of deformed, monstrous political creatures to slither its way out of the primordial Jacobin soup. The fact that Central and Eastern Europe (really all of Europe for that matter) have a long and at times vicious history with anti-Semitism is well known, and frequently referenced when discussing collusion with Nazis in occupied countries. What is noted with far less frequency, and is far more important, however, is that fact that not until the dissolution of the Christian monarchies and the introduction of mass democracy was there an organised, systematic attempt to wipe out European Jewry (if you think the Holocaust is in any way comparable to the Inquisition in premise or scope, you comprehend neither). In fact, between the time the Christianization of Europe was completed and the French Revolution, there were really no organised, systematic attempts to wipe out anyone in Europe. This is the obvious truth we ignore when we censure and censor people who would accurately link Nazism with leftism. Political theorist Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn articulated this truth brilliantly: The fatal year is 1789, and the symbol of iniquity is the Jacobin Cap. Its heresy is the denial of personality and of personal liberty. Its concrete realizations are Jacobin mass democracy, all forms of national collectivism and statism, Marxism producing socialism and communism, fascism, and national socialism, leftism in all its modern guises and manifestations to which in America the good term 'liberalism,' perversely enough, is being applied. The issue is between man created in the image of God and the termite in a human guise. Only a German people ripped from tradition, a German people starved of Judeo-Christian morality, drugged with the false promise of a better future, and subjected to the authority of those who have no right to it, could stand by and watch, at times cheer even, as millions of human beings - precious, living, breathing human beings - were systematically herded up like cattle and sent to be exterminated like termites. "MAKE NO MISTAKE. THERE IS LITTLE DIFFERENCE, IF ANY, IN PRINCIPLE BETWEEN FASCISM, COMMUNISM, AND PROGRESSIVISM - BETWEEN SOVIETS, NAZIS, AND TODAY'S UK LABOUR PARTY OR US DEMOCRATIC PARTY". The difference lies only in the degree to which those ideological principles are followed through. All promise a utopian future, to be attained by sacrificing tradition at the altar of progress. All deny class distinctions as well as the old order, politically rooted in Feudalism, morally rooted in Christianity. They deny individual liberty, responsibility, and property rights. And most importantly, perhaps not to be counted among the ideological tenants listed above, but as a result of them, they inevitably end up denying the sanctity and value of human life. In Nazi-occupied Poland, an elderly Jewish rabbi becomes nothing more than a germ, merely to be cleansed. In Soviet-occupied Lithuania, a respectable businessman becomes an enemy of the people, merely to become part of a statistic. Students across the globe rhetorically ask how people could participate in something as evil as the Holocaust. The answer is simple: It is the easiest thing in the world to commit evil when one doesn't believe it to be such, when one exists in a society governed by moral relativism. The choice is indeed between man created in the image of God and the termite in a human guise. Those who would obfuscate the ideological and philosophical origins of Nazism have made their choice known http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2827/once_and_for_all_the_leftist_origins_of_national_socialism http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=523_1363813345 star53 Once and for all: The leftist origins of National Socialism leftist origins,National Socialism, FASCISM, COMMUNISM,PROGRESSIVISM,LBERALS,U.S. Democratic Party,SOVIETS, NAZIS,politics,journalism Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:01:26 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1e4_1362960011 LostRothschild The Lies That Gun Grabbers Tell http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-08/guest-post-lies-gun-grabbers-tell When a group or organization seeks to establish any social policy, it helps tremendously if that group remains honest in their endeavor. If its members are forced to lie, tell half-truths or use manipulative tactics in order to fool the masses into accepting its initiative, then the initiative at its very core is not worth consideration. Propaganda is not simply political rhetoric or editorial fervor; it is the art of deceiving people into adopting the ideology you want them to espouse. It is not about convincing people of the truth; it is about convincing people that fallacy is truth. Nothing embodies this disturbing reality of cultural dialogue more than the ill-conceived movement toward gun control in America. It isn't that gun control proponents are impossible to talk to in a rational manner; most gun control activists have an almost fanatical cult-like inability to listen to reason . It isn't that they are so desperate to paint themselves as "intellectually superior" to 2nd Amendment advocates; intellectual idiocy is a plague upon many ideological groups. What really strikes me as astonishing is the vast and embarrassing lengths to which gun grabbers in particular will go to in order to deny facts and obfuscate history. I have seen jaw-dropping acts of journalistic debauchery and blatant disregard for reality since the gun debate exploded in the wake of Sandy Hook. I have seen past precedents rewritten in order to falsely diminish gun rights arguments. I have seen dishonest and volatile tactics used to misdirect discussion and attack the character, rather than the position, of those who defend the 2nd Amendment. I have seen gun grabbers use unbelievable acts of deception that border on clinically sociopathic in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. A perfect example has been the assertion by gun control proponents that despotic regimes do not disarm their populations before committing genocide. This primarily stems from the rationalization that the Third Reich did not exactly introduce gun control measures, rather it used measures that were already in existence. Gun grabbers are willing to cherry pick historical references in defense of Adolf Hitler in order to get their way. Sadly, they seem to forget that Hitler's gun control policies of 1938 disarmed the Jewish people as his "Final Solution" was being implemented. Apparently, gun grabbers do not count the Jews as German citizens victimized by disarmament. http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/lets-stick-to-the-facts-when-discussing-gun-control.html/ The Nazis did deregulate some firearms as gun grabbers argue, but what they don't mention is that this deregulation was designed to benefit only those citizens who proved to be loyal to the Nazi Party. Hitler was happy to arm those who swore fealty to the Reich. In one of the latest instances of gun grabber duplicity and disinformation, I came across an opinion piece by Henry Blodget, the CEO and editor-in-chief of Business Insider and a regular on Yahoo's "Daily Ticker," entitled "Finally A Gun Is Used To Stop A Crime Instead Of Killing Innocent People." Blodget is primarily an economic analyst, as I am, and is not exactly an unintelligent louse. He is well aware of the proper methods of research and how to present a debate point with tangible evidence. He should know better than to publish a piece with so many inconsistencies and broken pretenses. However, it presents an important opportunity to examine the cognitive dissonance of media gun grabbers and their attempts to influence the populace. Blodget is asserting that private firearms ownership is not a practical means of self-defense, that instances of self-defense are rare and that this view diminishes the "need" for 2nd Amendment protections. He goes on to proclaim: "In practice, unfortunately, the guns that good guys own to protect themselves from bad guys too often end up killing the good guys' kids or wives or the good guys themselves (either via suicide, accident, or, in some cases, because they're grabbed by the bad guys and used against the good guys). Or, as in the case of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, the guns kill people who the good guys think are bad guys but who aren't actually bad guys..." Blodget never actually qualifies any of the notions contained in this statement. He never provides any statistics on wives and children of good guys being shot. Also, I was not aware that the Trayvon Martin case had already been decided and that Trayvon was found not to be the aggressor. Does Blodget have a crystal ball? Blodget starts off his anti-gun tirade very poorly with several unqualified statements that he never answers for. This is highly common among gun grabbers; they feel so righteous (overzealous) in their cause that they feel no regret in spouting baseless conclusions with the presumption that their audience will never question their logic. Blodget then focuses on a single event as an example of the "rarity" of successful gun defense. This instance involved the death of a teen who held a gun on a reserve police officer and high school basketball coach. The coach pulled his own personal weapon and fired in defense. Blodget uses some strategic omissions in his description of the event. For instance, he fails to mention that the coach was 70 years old, and that perhaps owning a gun was indeed his only practical means of protecting himself and his players against two young thugs, one of whom obtained a firearm illegally (as most criminals do. According to the FBI, only 8 percent of guns used in a crime are purchased legally at a gun store). Blodget also uses the smiling image of one of the attackers at the top of his article, as if we should feel sorry for him. Perhaps I'm just coldhearted, but the death of a violent offender at the hands of his intended victim does not bring a tear to my eye. The fact that he uses this particular instance of gun defense was, of course, strategic. A teen died, and both the attacker and the defender were armed with guns. He means us to see the event as a tragedy caused by the very existence of civilian firearms ownership. Blodget somehow overlooks the thousands upon thousands of other self defense stories out there in which gun ownership saved lives... What about the story of student Chris Boise, who used an AR-15 to ward off two armed assailants breaking into his apartment. The criminals ran at the sight of his weapon: http://www.13wham.com/news/local/sto...wgAZpGO4g.cspx What about an Atlanta mother of 9-year-old twins who shot and killed an assailant with a previous record of battery breaking into her home. A police officer on scene after the event noted that "she handled her first shooting better than he did..." http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-two-surprises-burglar-with-five-gunshots/nTnGR/ How about the 1997 incident at a High School in Pearl, Mississippi, in which a 16 year old murdered his mother, then went to school with a rifle and opened fire (sound familiar), shooting several and killing two. The student was subdued by the Vice Principle, who had to run to his care to grab his .45 Colt (Note that when a staff member of a school is armed, the body count of these attacks goes way down): http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,136736,00.html And why not mention the man who entered a Golden Food Market in Richmond, Virginia opening fire at employees and customers, only to be shot down by a conceal carrying citizen: http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/14664/statistics-show-concealed-carry-saves-many-lives-takes-few These are just a few of the numerous instances of gun defense across the U.S. that the mainstream media likes to ignore. Blodget had all of these examples at his disposal. He could have written a fair and honest editorial, but he didn't. After Blodget presents his carefully picked gun defense story, he then makes these three points: "First, and most importantly, the gun used for protection in this case would be perfectly legal under the proposed new gun-control laws. The proposed laws ban military-grade assault weapons and massive ammo clips, not handguns. And assuming the coach did not have a criminal record, he would still be a legal gun owner. The bottom line is that no mainstream politician in the current gun control debate is talking about banning the kind of gun used in this incident..." To which proposed gun law is Blodget referring? Many gun grabbers are suggesting that the New York SAFE Act model be applied nationwide. The SAFE Act makes any weapon that can hold magazines of more than seven rounds illegal. Some lawmakers, like Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), have openly suggested a total ban of all firearms that includes confiscation. So, depending on which laws are passed, the coach may not have survived the attack unless, like the criminal, he obtained a weapon illegally. "...Second, the coach was a trained police officer. He knew very well how to carry, handle, and use his handgun. And the fact that he used it effectively under the extreme shock and pressure of being robbed at gunpoint shows how well trained he was." The coach was a reserve police officer, but this is irrelevant to the incident. Aspiring police officers qualify in the firearms segment of their training using a mere 50 to 60 rounds during scenarios that are taught in even the most rudimentary civilian courses, which often use hundreds of rounds during qualifications. Police officers do not get magical training. In fact, many officers are forced to attend civilian-run training facilities in order to get more time and more complex experience. Civilian combat weapons enthusiasts are often far better prepared for a violent situation than the average law enforcement official. The reason Blodget fixates on the police status of the victim is because, like most gun grabbers, he is a statist. In his mind, a designated state official is given credence by the government and is, therefore, somehow a superhero with amazing gun-wielding powers that us poor civilian mortals could never hope to master. This na"ive sentiment is displayed by many a gun grabber who has never actually owned or fired a gun in his life. "Third, this incident could easily have turned out differently-as many similar incidents do. If the coach had been a bit slower or clumsier in pulling his own gun, the attackers could have shot and killed all three of the victims before they had a chance to defend themselves. (In the wild west, when everyone carried guns, it wasn't always the bad guys that got shot.)" Yes, and a comet could fall from the sky and roast the Earth. Hypothetically, anything could go wrong at any moment, yet, thousands of Americans defend themselves each year with a firearm without killing innocent bystanders or being too slow or clumsy on the draw. Why should gun owners abandon their rights just because some people cannot control their personal fears? Finally, how much better are an unarmed victim's chances of survival? Is Blodget really trying to insinuate being armed does not increase a victim's ability to defend himself unless he happens to be a cop on a government salary? If faced with a gun- or knife-wielding attacker who threatened him or his family, would Blodget turn down the use of a firearm if available? Would he try to shoot the perpetrator, or would he fall to his knees and beg for mercy? The only tangible evidence that Blodget uses to buttress his opinion that self-defense is not a viable argument for gun ownership is a single FBI statistic on justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide is a gray area of law, and the number of instances recorded by the FBI in no way reflects the actual frequency in which guns are used in self-defense. By exploiting this one statistic, Blodget knowingly disregards the fact that many gun defense situations do not end in the death of the attacker. He also disregards the number of criminals who run at the sight of an armed target, as well as the number of crimes that are prevented completely because the criminal is not certain whether his targets are armed. Most police departments do not keep accurate records of attempted crimes which were thwarted by armed citizens. The only sources of such statistics are surveys held by various organizations and institutions. Blodget quickly dismisses the widely disseminated survey by criminology professor Gary Kleck, which shows that there are far more instances of guns used to thwart crime than guns used to perpetrate crime. Blodget claims that the study is "old and highly flawed because it used a small number of people as a test group", all common assertions by gun control fanatics. The study was held in 1994 (hardly ages ago), and surveyed 5000 households. A recent Reuter/Ipsos poll used widely by gun grabbers claimed that 74% of Americans support an assault weapons ban, yet their survey only involved 559 people with far less oversight than Kleck's study. The hypocritical nature of the anti-gun mindset is revealed again... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/gun-poll_n_2498840.html Vehement gun control advocate and criminologist Marvin Wolfgang made this comment on Kleck's study: "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator." He went on to say that a conflicting National Crime Victimization Survey (also used widely by gun grabbers) did not contradict the Kleck study, and that the argument of "too few participants" was unfounded: "I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well. ... The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the universe are common criticisms of all survey research, including theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism methodologically." According to survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology entitled 'Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment', U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year. This is a conservative estimate compared to Kleck's 2.5 million, but it is still a far larger number than the amount of annual homicides by gun. The argument that gun murders outweigh gun defense is a defective one. Blodget knows it, which is why he dances his way around so many viable pieces of evidence. He is not interested in the facts, only promoting his own twisted worldview. Violent crimes (assault, burglary, rape, etc.) have skyrocketed in countries like the U.K. and Australia where stringent gun control has been enacted, simply because criminals know that because of government controls the odds of running into an armed victim are slim. Gun grabbers like Blodget do not care about this, though. They are not actually interested in saving lives. What they are interested in is imposing their ideologies on the rest of us. If the only drive of anti-gun advocates was a sincere concern for public safety, they would not feel the need to misrepresent the facts and lie outright in order to convince others. Those who use disinformation to their benefit are acting on much darker emotional impulses and biases, like fear and malevolence. Their goal is not to find the truth, but to "win". Their goal is not to encourage understanding, but to destroy their political enemies. The most enticing motive for the average yuppie within the gun control society is not their hatred of guns per say, but their hatred of gun culture. Being worshipers of the establishment, they do not like our defiance of socialization, collectivism, and the corrupt state in general. They do not like our methodologies of decentralization and independence. They do not like that we have the ability to crush their skewed arguments with ease. And, they do not like that we have the physical capability of denying their pursuit of power. Gun control is not just a war on guns; it is a war on traditionally conservative Americans, our heritage, our beliefs, and our principles. It is a war the gun grabbers will lose. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1e4_1362960011 LostRothschild The Lies That Gun Grabbers Tell 2, 2nd, second, amendment, gun, firearm, rights, constitution, tyranny, freedom Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:08:39 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c90_1282795411 mdscorpio71 Despite its dismal track record, collectivism continues to hold appeal for some. Professor Friedman discusses this dynamic. http://www.LibertyPen.com http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c90_1282795411 mdscorpio71 Milton Friedman - <span class="highlight">Collectivism</span> Milton Friedman, Collectivism Tue, 17 Aug 2010 18:34:21 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=57b_1282083765 star53 This is an excerpt from a 1958 interview of Ayn Rand on the Mike Wallace Show. Ayn Rand was a child during the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia before visiting America and staying. Ayn Rand has a brilliant mind and fought against communist philosophy present in America in the 1930's - 1950's particularly. Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged, speaks of how collectivism will destroy America's free enterprise economic system. Ayn believes we should not be allowed to vote on EVERY issue. She disdains government forced coercion in any name, even social inequalities. Some 50 years later we can see the devastation caused by social welfare programs that she warned against. Ayn Rand was a staunch defender of capitalism and contributed ALL economic problems to government meddling. Ayn says we Americans have not been given a choice between freedom and collectivism as both political parties both subscribe to socialism tenants. She says government "regulations are creating robber-barons" and that "capitalists with government help is the worst of all economic phenomenon". http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=57b_1282083765 star53 Ayn Rand Forecasts Economic Disaster from <span class="highlight">Collectivism</span> &amp; Socialism 1958 Economic Disaster,Collectivism,Socialism,Ayn Rand, capitalism,government regulations Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:31:08 -0500 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6f6_1201527068 Illuminated1234 The True Debate of Our Time An animated series exploring the substance behind the political terminology used in contemporary debates. The research of Mr. G Edward Griffin reveals how all viewpoints can be stripped down to 2 basic positions. Discover how the different approaches of Collectivism and Individualism impact on all aspects of our lives, from human rights, governmental authority and the use of force. # INTRO # P1. The Nature and Origin of Human Rights # P2. Group Supremacy # P3. Coercion vs Freedom # P4. Equality and Inequality under the Law # P5. Proper Role of Government http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/ I will be posting the remaining parts soon. I think these videos will be good for our LL debates! i http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6f6_1201527068 Illuminated1234 INTRO - Individualism vs <span class="highlight">Collectivism</span> Ron Paul, Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Rudy Giuliani. John McCaim, Republican, Candidates, Election, CNN, Fox News, Debate Polls, Polls, President, race, Individualism, collectivism. Politics Thu, 08 Mar 2012 14:07:41 -0500 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=16d_1331233416 mdscorpio71 Prof. Aeon Skoble claims that if we really care about the wellbeing of communities, we should keep in mind the unique and autonomous individuals that make it up. Each individual is deserving of respect and dignity, and should be free to pursue their own ends as long as they don't infringe upon the freedom of others. Although the concept of community is important, it does not warrant overlooking the individuals that comprise it. Watch more videos: http://lrnlbty.co/y5tTcY http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=16d_1331233416 mdscorpio71 Individualism vs. <span class="highlight">Collectivism</span> Learn Liberty, Aeon Skoble, Individualism, Collectivism Thu, 11 Jun 2009 05:55:14 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=446_1244713981 dan_man On Wednesday, according to news reports, James W. Von Brunn, a longtime belligerent racist and anti-Semite, walked into the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and opened fire, murdering a security guard before he himself was shot and neutralized. Good people everywhere recognize the vicious criminality of his attack, and the particular insidiousness of his motivation to lash out where he did. In reflecting on this tragedy, it is an appropriate time to contemplate the sanctity of innocent life, the horror that is unleashed by bigotry and intolerance, and the fragility of peaceful human relations. We should all be thankful that such hate-motivated violence is rarer in modern America than it has been in other places and times. Unfortunately, many commentators have found a political, even partisan, lesson to be learned. They have said this vindicates the Department of Homeland Security document circulated earlier this year that warned against "right-wing extremists." Specifically, they have said that those who criticized the report were wrong all along. But what were the criticisms? I recall no one arguing that anti-Semitic murderers were not criminals whose acts were horrific and uncivilized. There was no critic of the report, so far as I know, who complained that such antisocial elements as Ku Klux Klan members, Timothy McVeigh wannabes, and bigoted criminals, did not deserve the condemnation that all of civil society heaps upon them. The problem with the report was that it painted all so-called "right-wing extremists" with an absurdly and obscenely broad brush. It lumped together the above violent agitators with peaceful political activists and recently returning veterans. It warned about people who are anti-government, anti-Federal Reserve, anti-gun control, anti-illegal immigration and anti-abortion. The facts that von Brunn himself was a veteran -- from World War II, not exactly fitting the profile -- and that he had a very incorrect conspiratorial, anti-Semitic understanding of the Federal Reserve, even trying to kidnap Fed officials back in the 1980s, have been noted, but it still does not justify this broad brush. (Liberty lovers oppose the Fed not out of racism or hatred of Jews, as von Brunn apparently does. In fact, many of us have come to oppose it having been thankfully influenced by the most brilliant analyses ever written on central banking by Jewish economists Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard.) Consider what "right-wing extremism" actually means. Some would call Barry Goldwater a rightwing extremist, although he was incredibly socially liberal on issues ranging from homosexuality to drugs and even abortion. Was Ronald Reagan a rightwing extremist? He busted the budget, legalized abortion in California, favored gun control and enacted immigration amnesty. Whatever you think of these actions, they demonstrate the limits of such labels. Some would say George W. Bush was a rightwing extremist, although it would be disingenuous to say he represented "anti-government" sentiment in any respect whatsoever. Indeed, it was the agency he created, the DHS, that began work on this report, while he was still in power. The Nazis, whose current admirers have reportedly associated proudly with Von Brunn, are often considered the paragon of rightwing extremism, but Hitler and his followers were definitely not anti-central bank or anti-gun control and certainly not anti-government. Indeed, it does not take much to realize that the Holocaust had nothing to do with being anti-government. And so apparently "rightwingers" can include peaceniks and warmongers, libertarians and fascists, radical individualists and racist totalitarians and everything in between. A similar broad brush was used under Bush, but against different groups of people -- Muslim terrorists, normal followers of Islam, leftist activists and antiwar patriots were often thrown together as enemies of America. Peaceful Americans who opposed the war were lumped in with fanatics who slit the throats of innocents. "You're either with us, or against us in the fight against terror," the president said. This failure to differentiate among different people is actually very similar to the root problem with racism. Racists see the world in terms of groups, defined most often by skin color, rather than acknowledging the unique character inherent in every individual. Instead of appreciating the dignity and human singularity of every man, woman and child, racists see the world in terms of black and white, where all people fall into one of several groups of dubious significance. The very worst of them not only fail to understand these differences; they disregard the human rights of individuals and countenance or even perpetrate criminal acts against the lives, liberty and property of people merely on the basis of their perceived racial group. This bellicose racism is incompatible with an open, tolerant society, and to say so is uncontroversial. Those of us who believe in liberty and oppose big government tend to believe that a free society of open exchange, free trade and individual liberty will foster interracial tolerance and social peace, whereas government tends to divide and amplify social and racial tensions. To take it further, now that the topic has been opened up for political discussion, let us consider the political atmosphere most conducive to the worst racial atrocities. As horrific and inexcusable as the occasional neo-Nazi or hate-motivated violence is in our own society, what was it that allowed the actual Nazis, the ones who controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945, to translate bigotry into mass murder on an unspeakable and technologically systematic scale? There are people in every society with views as immoral and disgusting as Adolf Hitler's. But what made Nazi Germany, a regime that terrorized Europe and murdered millions of Jews, Poles, Slavs, homosexuals, handicapped persons and Gypsies, among others, possible? The answer is centralized political power. The answer is unlimited government. The Nazi regime was a hate crime multiplied millions of times over. It was only possible because Hitler was not just a thug with a gang of criminals -- he was a thug in political control of a whole country. And here we see the profound irony behind associating Nazi nutcases with good old American anti-government sentiment, as some have been doing. Nazism, or National Socialism, was an ideology concerned not just with racist nationalism but also with building the total state. The Nazi regime was the antithesis of the old liberal ideal of a free society. Aside from aggressive war, the demonization of "the Other," the elevation of The Leader above all, the suspension of civil liberties and a free press, and aggressive war, it embodied an economic program of fascism -- rightwing socialism. As Lew Rockwell has pointed out in ""The Violence of Central Planning," once in power, Hitler "suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public works programs like Autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national health care and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime's rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country. . . . "So it is with protectionism. It was the major ambition of Hitler's economic program to expand the borders of Germany to make autarky viable, which meant building huge protectionist barriers to imports. The goal was to make Germany a self-sufficient producer so that it did not have to risk foreign influence and would not have the fate of its economy bound up with the goings-on in other countries. It was a classic case of economically counterproductive xenophobia." Interestingly, much of Hitler's economic program would have bipartisan support today. This is of course not to say that Americans who agree with some of these policies are comparable to Hitler. But it is worth noting that the entire Nazi program was contrary to liberty and restrained government, even on relatively mundane questions like unemployment insurance, and so anyone who is actually "anti-government," or opposed to central banking, gun control, central economic planning, or the growing federal bureaucracy is to that extent emphatically opposite of the Nazis in ideology. We at the Campaign for Liberty, and all who join us in a consistent opposition to unlimited government, not only oppose the poisonous racism that feeds occasional and more or less isolated atrocities like the one on Wednesday, but uphold an ideology and political agenda that would prevent racial hatred from manifesting itself in racially motivated atrocities on the grand scale that only an unleashed government is capable of producing. In our own country, things are not as dire as they were in Nazi Germany, thanks in part, we would hope, to having a more tolerant culture. But it is mostly because of our classical liberal tradition that we have had a better racial history than some nations. To the extent we have strayed from the ideals of liberty, we have seen shameful acts committed in our name, and acts throughout history that have blemished the legacy of our nation. Slavery would have been impossible to maintain without government support. The mass slaughter of American Indians was facilitated by the federal government. Innocent foreigners have been killed in great numbers by the U.S. in wars of choice. Those seen to be different from the norm -- from the Japanese-Americans interned during World War II to the African-Americans disproportionately locked up in the war on drugs to the Branch Davidians killed by the FBI at Waco, Texas in 1993 -- have always been the most vulnerable. This reflects the need for both a culture that respects innocent life, individual rights and tolerance as well as strict limits on government power. The cultural element and the political are related, and reflect on each other. A free society at peace with itself is less likely to be bullied into huge governmental power grabs, whether in the name of economic crisis or national security. Just as these were the excuses Hitler exploited to do the unspeakable, they are the excuses that have allowed American politicians to compromise our liberties, expand their own power and send young Americans to kill and die in aggressive war. Again, this is not to say that Obama or the liberals who favor expansive government are in the same league as Hitler. But given that the DHS report tarred so many people with the same brush and that it is being brought up again, we should note that the ideology of totalitarianism and mass murder is anything but an anti-government, anti-establishment ideology, despite what many are today saying and implying. Quite the reverse. As we look at the national security state built up by Bush in the name of the war on terror -- preemptive war, the suspension of civil liberties, indefinite detention, torture and warrantless surveillance -- and as we consider the corporatism, the nationalization and federal control of industry, the bailouts and stimulus started under Bush and continuing and accelerating under Obama, we have to ask ourselves: What is the way to guarantee that America never repeats the horrors which the Holocaust Museum was intended to make us never forget? Bush was not Hitler and neither is Obama. But just as seemingly benevolent Weimar policies and precedents were seized upon and expanded by Hitler so as to conduct the most ghastly of evils, today's indefinite detention centers, centralized economic powers and unlimited presidential military powers could one day be seized by a powermad "leader" with not just the bad judgment and hubris of Bush and Obama, but with the worst of intentions. If any political lesson is to be taken from the shooting on Wednesday, it is not that those concerned with protecting individual liberty and limiting government are the problem in our society. It is not that the DHS report is in fact beyond harsh criticism. There will always be sick minds in the world. Occasionally, a crazed killer will act out of hatred and commit a violent crime, and the seriousness should not be minimized. But the way to actually prevent such attitudes from gaining ground is to hold up the opposing ethic of individual rights, dignity and respect. The only way to make sure such madness never translates into nationwide or global horror is to keep political power constrained. By Anthony Gregory Published 06/11/09 *********************** Anthony Gregory is Editor-in-Chief at Campaign for Liberty, a research analyst at the Independent Institute, a columnist at LewRockwell.com, a policy adviser for the Future of Freedom Foundation, a freedom activist, and a musician. See his webpage for more articles and personal information. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=446_1244713981 dan_man James W. Von Brunn and the Poison of Racist <span class="highlight">Collectivism</span> Von Brunn ,Holocaust Memorial Museum,Racist Collectivism,racism,perspective,campaign for liberty Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:59:54 -0500 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4b7_1359669437 shanklinmike Collectivists, if you want to encourage good collectivism... you MUST stand up AGAINST forced collectivism. http://voluntaryvirtues.com/ Please "Like" the facebook page, "Statism Is Slavery": http://facebook.com/statismmakesyouaslave Thank you for your support of individual rights and Freedom. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4b7_1359669437 shanklinmike COLLECTIVISTS, IF YOU WANT GOOD <span class="highlight">COLLECTIVISM</span>, YOU MUST STAND UP AGAINST FORCED <span class="highlight">COLLECTIVISM</span> Politics, News, Voluntaryism, Non-aggression Principle, Self-Ownership, Statism, Anarchy, Anarcho-Capitalism, Freedom, Libertarian, Liberty, Libertarianism, Individual Rights, Coercion, Violence, Force, Government, Slavery, Philosophy, Empire, War, Peace, Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:33:24 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f5d_1348068583 Aubrey NEW YORK - A 1995 video depicts Barack Obama calling for "democracy with a small 'd,'" while pushing a society based on collectivism and "common good." In the video unearthed by KleinOnline, Obama hails unions and collective bargaining as encapsulating the societal "common good" of which he speaks. Obama urges society to collectively move "forward" - a word that would later serve as his 2012 campaign slogan. Obama was speaking in an Aug. 11, 1995 interview pushing his just published book, "Dreams From My Father." At the time, Obama was a community organizer planning to launch a political career. Obama tells the interviewer the "best part" of the dream of his "African father and white American mother," was the "notion that we collectively can decide on our fate." He continued: "That things like technological change, things like mass media, things like the market are all subject to our control. That we can make decisions for better or for worse and continue to move forward and progress."The interviewer then asked Obama whether he is "willing to stake your political career on your common ground?" "That's the core of my faith," Obama replied. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f5d_1348068583 Aubrey Obama calls for 'democracy with a small d'; Pushes society based on <span class="highlight">collectivism</span>, 'common good' Obama, Collectivist, Redistribute, Socialist, Transform America. Sun, 20 May 2012 18:18:32 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4fe_1337551169 shanklinmike "The plans differ; the planners are all alike..." ~Frederic Bastiat Collectivism is anti-individual rights. Whether voluntary collectivism or forced collectivism, the hatred for the individual is ever prevalent. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4fe_1337551169 shanklinmike <span class="highlight">Collectivism</span>/Anarcho-Communism - Planned Chaos Politics, News, Voluntaryism, &quot;Nonaggression Principle&quot;, Self-Ownership, Statism, Anarchy, Anarcho-Capitalism, Freedom, Libertarian, Liberty, Libertarianism, &quot;Individual Rights&quot;, Coercion, Violence, Force, Government, Slavery, Philosophy, Empire, War,