This blog began in 2010 and we are grateful to our faithful followers who understood the mission of SOCCOS was to bring an understanding of why socialism is not a cornerstone of democracy.
Our many articles have shown how the path of socialism and democracy have diverged whenever the two have coincided in time and place. We have demonstrated how socialism together with it’s counterpart, acute liberalism, suffers from a steep slippery slope toward totalitarianism. (The Slippery Slope from Liberalism to Socialism to Totalitarianism)
Here in the United States the freedom of the individual as defined in the ideals of democracy has become frayed by the internecine conflicts of conservative and progressive liberal groups and their attitudes. This phenomenon of irresolute attitudes, particularly by the far left, is undermining the very foundations of democratic society. Why are we at SOCCOS, aiming our criticism at the far left?
It is because by some strange force, the far left or the extreme liberal arm of democratic society has become not just more vocal, but more prone to excessive rhetoric, and even violence. Our universities reflect this tendency by the collective attitudes of the faculties and staff while inculcating the students with ideology that opposes all forms of conservative debate. This opposition is reinforced by direct violence that can be compared to the Brown Shirts movement of Nazi Germany prior to WWII. National Review article.
Strangely, the “Force” as we call it, has not confined itself to America but has been felt for many years throughout Europe where progressive ideology has developed roots so deep that common sense philosophy has been overturned by so called, “political correctness” (PC).
Conservative elements in Europe have all but diluted their principles with the threat of PC induced rhetoric from liberal groups falsely accusing them of, what they themselves are, fascists. They of course, call themselves multi-culturalists! (MC)
Religion which should not by itself, delineate ideological boundaries between conservative and liberal thinkers, has in fact has now become a serious factor between right and left. We are seeing an accelerating decline in support of the Christian faith especially in Europe. In England the rapid decline of the Church is exponentially overtaken by the rapid growth of Islam and even acceptance of Sharia law as discussed by Giullio Meotti.
He describes the closure of 500 churches in London with the opening of 423 new Mosques. Typically in Western society, immigrants were in the past, of Judeo/Christian background and could assimilate or integrate into the local milieu whether of Catholic, Methodist, Jewish or other Western ideology. There was a clear path of societal acceptance. With the increasing influx of Islamic peoples into Europe and the ever growing secular MC groups, there is now a distinct decline of national psych or character that seeks to provide acquiescence to the demands of these minorities. This acquiescence includes the acceptance of Sharia Law in certain geographic areas. The secular MC groups appear to be blind to the inevitable future dominance of Islamic law and culture. The Islamic immigrants do not integrate into the national culture as immigrants have done in the past, but separate themselves by demanding special dispensation to maintain their exclusive identity. The fact that this dispensation means demanding the changing of laws and regulations of their adopted countries, is totally different from immigrants of the past who accepted the welcome offered to them, and integrated into the milieu accordingly while preserving their cultural identities, without demanding changes to local laws or customs.
If one accepts that progress of mankind is through an evolutionary process of melding and merging of many aspects of philosophy and religion, then you or your progeny will not be surprised when Islam and its rigid mores define the national character in the not too distant future. The birth rate of the followers of Islam has by itself, overtaken the birthrate of Europe’s indigenous populations. Thus, whereas in times past, when different ethnic groups bred at different rates to some other groups, the population as a whole were still a unified nation of a singular characteristic. The current trend will forever change Europe’s diverse nationalistic character into one unified entity. There will no longer be a typical French person, English person, or other European national. There will instead, be a European Muslim who may speak a different language from another European Muslim of a different geographical region of Europe; but, will be of a unified character under their religious dogma. To understand this philosophy we suggest you read our article “Islam”
How then does this “Force” of change effect conservatism and liberalism? So far it has produced a more militant form of liberalism intolerant of conservative opinion. Likewise, because of the increased intensity of liberal rhetoric and protestation, conservatives have become less inclined to accommodate the extreme liberal position or viewpoint when negotiations or deliberations are entered into. The “Force” has further eroded the liberal’s common sense decision making process by developing a strong contrarian or obstinate state of obstruction to laws that protect a country’s sovereignty or security of its citizens. Acquiescence will never satisfy an adamant dogmatic opponent and will never satisfy the extreme left, who when given a hand, will demand an arm.
The “Force” is further strengthened by a media, not just in the USA, but throughout Europe where in an article by Anup Shah writing for the Global Express in 2012 he said;
“Those with power and influence know that media control or influence is crucial. A free press is crucial for a functioning democracy, but if not truly free, paves the way for manipulation and concentration of views, thus undermining democracy itself.”
However, being free does not necessarily mean unbiased. We see everywhere the personal bias of journalists who, while reporting a factual story will, add a word or two that lends itself to the journalists own point of view or to the media’s ownership’s known bias. Others will unashamedly distort the news of the day to fit their biased narrative, insert false information from unknown “sources” or “officials”, and ignore or trivialise news of achievements or successes their targets may have attained. Thus today, the “Force” has on its behalf, developed a formidable array of media in the form of television, radio, newspapers, magazines and internet outlets that are in the main, far left or extreme liberal. Although the media needs to be free, it should not be collectively free of collaborative bias in one direction or another. With a significant proportion of the media, the “Force” seems to be striving to propagandize its content so that minds of the populations it covers, are constantly bathed in far left dogma.
Who or what is guiding this “Force”. We do not know. Will this “Force” bring us to a point of conflagration or global turmoil? If so, when could we expect this to happen? There is no way to know for sure, but what we do know is, an eruption is inevitable and it will not be pretty. “May the “Force” NOT be with you!
Click on the Comment below and give us your opinion. Your comment will appear subject to filtering of appropriate language and spam within 24 hrs.
Watch for our next article, “The continuing “bloodless coup“, coming soon.