Those still not convinced should ask themselves before they run off and join such groups how much control they want to cede over their lives to the beneficence of the collective. For once one signs over the very right to ownership to one’s dwelling and possessions, where does it end?
Willing to relinquish rights to the conjugal affections of your spouse to the group? Don’t snicker.
In many cults, those not willing to surrender their spouses to the group are labeled as being insufficiently devoted to the group or "too individualistic" in orientation. Interestingly this allegation is invoked increasingly in the churches of today as they totter ever closer to the edges of apostasy and unbelief.
Those enamored with their own smug progressivism will claim such excesses are more characteristic of the religious mindset. Secularists would never stand for such outrages and the infringement on the most basic of relationships?
Think so do you? Though he might have started off religious, before the last drop of Kool-Aid was slurped, Jim Jones' position on the Scriptures and the beauties of socialism had more in common with the National Counsel of Churches than Moral Majority or the Christian Coalition. And for those that think Marx is the cat's whiskers, what do they have to say about this thinker's proposal that the individual family and private marriages should be abolished?
And even if one happens to have a proclivity to these bizarre living arrangements without all the kinky wifeswapping and such, on what grounds does one object when these compounds lay claim to your children? Some of these COMMUNITIES conspire to undermine familial bonds between parents and offspring in a group setting or by minimizing the time parents spend alone with their biological progeny.
Yet one does not have to be locked away on some dope-smoking commune to be influenced by this kind of childrearing mentality. The perspective is already prevalent throughout the social welfare establishment that children do not belong to the parents but rather to the COMMUNITY as manifested by the state. If anything, a child enjoys a status barely above that of a library book since the parent is granted permission to enjoy the child for a time but forced to surrender the youngsters to the state on the terms of the state as evidenced in laws establishing lower and lower ages for mandatory preschool and bureaucratic homevisits.
With America's relative prosperity, citizens are pretty much able to ignore such kooks. But what will happen when these lunatics acquire more and more power unto themselves and connive to impose their cherished deprivations upon the rest of us?
For if these neo-primitives have their way, you won't even be permitted to procure the same quality of sustenance to which you and your family are accustomed. Rather, you will be compelled to gnaw on the twigs and shrubs beneath your very feet if you are fortunate to be deemed worthy enough of the privilege of continued existence.
For a while now, it has become popular in eco-socialist circles to whine incessantly about how far food must be transported to reach the masses of humanity. Instead of marveling at the bounty and variety of food available year round and in the most hostile of climates, environmentalists lament this fact.
Anybody that is anybody these days has a website (I wonder if the ones run by these people function on moonbeams and fuzzy thoughts since the rest of us are suppose to cutback on electricity), an organization, and a cadre of propagandists to spread the message. The mass starvation racket (or the inconvenient food syndicate) is no different.
One such outfit fomenting this hooey is Slow Food USA, described as “supporting and celebrating the food traditions of North America.” Let me point out they are not referring to a burger, fries, and a Coke.
The organization’s executive director Erika Lesser (“lesser” is the amount of food you’ll be eating if her organization has its way) gave a lecture titled “Live Slow: On The Path To A Delicious Future”. Those in attendance were invited to “Join the slow food table on biodiversity issues and the benefits of good, clean, and fair food." This ought to be considered because, "Education in taste is the first step towards transforming consumers into co-producers who can help safeguard food traditions and the health of the environment. By choosing wisely and eating with pleasure, you --- as well as your community and the planet --- can reap the delicious and healthful rewards of responsible coproduction.”
From that litany, the primary thing that stands out is how the consumer will be “transformed” (New Age socialistic euphemisms meaning revolution imposed from above whether you want to participate or not) into a “coproducer”. In other words, it is the intention of this to drag you out into the fields for a little conscripted labor.
For some reason, upon reading about being transformed into being a coproducer, I can’t get out of my head images of what I’ve read about the placards that use to hang on the gates of the concentration camps run by the Nazis reading “Work shall make you free” or how the Khmer Rouge use to march the people out to labor in the rice paddies. You know, the entire reeducation through labor bit (or as it is called today, “community service”).
Though slow food fronts disguise themselves in an agrarian or proletarian cloak, as with most that make playing unscrubbed revolutionary their life’s work, the movement is quite elitist in nature. For example, on the website the organization laments the advent of low-cost chickens consumed by the masses.
Rather, the group advocates more expensive breeds. Most likely since the consumption of meat will be limited to the revolutionary vanguard whereas those of us deemed to possess a consciousness of insufficient awareness and sensitivity will be compelled to simply piddle in the dirt for a root or a grub; but we will probably be forbidden that as well since disturbing the soil to even a miniscule extent will be an example of the butterfly affect that could lead to an erosion-based environmental disaster.
As with most of the other groups mentioned in this epic epistle, Slow Foods USA has a phobia about people doing things by themselves. This is for pretty much the same reason the Nazis did not want people listening to the radio alone. When you are alone, you are more likely to be critical since in that context you are more apt to pay attention to the message rather than taking cues on how you are to respond from those around you.
Rather than eat alone, the socially responsible are obligated to join and take their gastronomical orders from a group called a “Convivium”. Since everything to these people is group and movement oriented, if food is now to go in one end in the presence of the group, I guess it won’t be long until one will be obligated to have the remnants emerge at the other end in the presence of the COMMUNITY. After all, only those with something to hide want privacy we are constantly reminded by the radical communalists.
Use to be, one ate meals with one’s family. Maybe if these hags had not aborted themselves into sterility, supper time would not have had to be turned into an act of COMMUNITY service measuring one’s devotion to the good of the cause.
Slow Food USA prides itself on being everything fast food is not. Thus, one good thing about the movement is that the shrill biddies comprising the membership might be forced back into the kitchen where hussies with too much time on their hands belong and won’t have enough energy to undertake their idiotic activism.
As stated, left to themselves and cordoned off from the rest of us, these radicals would not present all that much of a problem. However, as with other useful idiots manipulated by the elites, these halfwits play a vital role in bringing an end to life as we know it when they form strategic alliances with the other mouthpieces of perdition for the purposes of getting the American people to surrender their freedom with a wink and a smile.
To the regular American blissfully ignorant of the ideological struggle being waged all around, television news outlets and correspondents exist to convey in an objective manner information of use and importance to concerned citizens. However, often these communicators and the interests they represent are as partisan as those blatantly seeking to persuade you as to the veracity of a particular opinion.
Prominently featured in the top half of page 10 of the 2006 edition of the Green Festival program was an advertisement for a panel discussion conducted by WRC-TV news personality Wendy Rieger. From the text, the reader learns that Rieger’s “Going Green segment features green lifestyles and products.”
However, had Rieger earned a reputation for grilling adherents of this movement and exposing the fallacies in the arguments endangering the nation’s very standard of living, it is doubtful she would be given a place, the promotional literature categorizes, as on the “main stage”. Furthermore, if Rieger is snuggling under the mulch with environmentalists, how can we be sure the remainder of her reportage is not as slanted?
Would the Green Festival allow a correspondent more critical of the celebration’s claims to ascend the rostrum such as John Stossel or Rush Limbaugh? Tolerancemongers will snap, “But its a private function and the organizers are not required to invite anyone they don’t want.”
And they are absolutely correct. Perhaps we should remind them of that as these Reds drag out notions such as the Fairness Doctrine in the attempt to silence Conservative talk radio.
Conversely though, if we are suppose to trust some dyed-blonde newsgirl in the green movement's pocket, would those having no problem with that be as quiet if some newsgal was in Jerry Falwell’s back pocket getting chummy with the Moral Majority gang at one of those kinds of shindigs? The aging beatniks do not consider what they believe to be a bias as anyone that does not believe as they do will be carted off to electroshock therapy once they ascend to unrivaled power.
Some will dismiss this clarion warming, claiming it has gone all over the map and too far afield. However, Francis Schaeffer once pointed out that a shortcoming of the Judeo-Christian mind and thus the conservative worldview as an extension of that perspective is the failure to view reality as a single comprehensive unit.
As such, if the free peoples of the earth give a foothold to these Communitarians in one area, by curtailing our innate liberties in that particular area, it won’t be that long in terms of the totality of history until we will have surrendered all the areas that make life worth living. If today we allow these so-called “guardians of the earth” to alter driving patterns and the like, what will prevent them in the future from coming back to take our cars and even our homes away all together?
by Frederick Meekins