Posts Tagged ‘jon fournier’

Hey Hey Ho Ho this Cultural Marxism has got to go

Posted: January 23, 2020 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

Political correctness and social justice are both designed by the political left to dismantle all of the institutions that built the United States into the freest and most prosperous nation that ever existed.  Both of these darlings of the left, which have been embraced by the modern Democrat Party, are based on the philosophies of Karl Marx.  His philosophies have now been applied to all aspects of culture rather than economics.  The Marxist roots of these leftist philosophies is explained in great detail in this American Thinker article Economic vs. Cultural Marxism: The Most Important Distinction

In this quote the author explains the roots of economic Marxism. 

As Marx phrased it in Das Kapital, “[i]n order to establish equality, we must first establish inequality” (1).  By finding the inequalities of the world, the Marxist can then begin eliminating the obstacles that impede equality.  The more of these sources of inequality the Marxist eliminates, the closer we move to an equitable socialist utopia.  This is why Marx was so adamant about abolishing certain fixtures of society.

Among the ills of society perpetuating inequality that need abolition, according to Marx, were history, private property, the family, eternal truths, nations and borders, and religion (2).  By destroying these sources of inequality, the Marxist is one step closer to the equitable world the Marxist knows is possible.  Marx believed that economic issues are the driving force of conflict in the world (3).  Eliminating class structure was the central goal of Marx’s Communist Manifesto.

It is obvious if you’ve studied the cultural wars that have been raging in the United States over the past few decades, which are all about implementing political correctness and social justice, the goals of Cultural Marxism are the same as Economic Marxism.

One person was most responsible for the transition from Economic Marxism to Cultural Marxism.  That person was at the Frankurt School.

György Lukács, is credited as the first person to advocate for the application of Marx’s economic principles to cultural struggles: “he justified culture to the Marxists by showing how to condemn it in Marxist terms.

Like Economic Marxism, Cultural Marxism is all about the destruction of the individual

The modern social justice advocate uses the abolition of individuality as a tool to strip human beings of their individuality and bifurcate society.  A bifurcation is a logical fallacy where a person makes things one or another, with no area in between.  For example, a bifurcation would be the faulty assumption of saying a person is either a Trump-supporter or a Hillary-supporter.  What about those who like Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz?  What about those who like both Trump and Hillary?  What about those who like neither?

For Marx, his bifurcation was the bourgeois versus the proletariat.  You were either a rich person or a working stiff.  There was no in between.  For the social justice warrior, you are either privileged or oppressed. 

This bifurcation fallacy has been spread by our education system, Hollywood, and news media.  It now effects all aspects of our culture.  I have encountered this many times when I debate liberals on social media.  It is not much fun to be accused of supporting child molestation because I don’t embrace transgenderism, or being accused of supporting slavery because I embrace the Constitution.

You can see from this next quote why abolishing individualism is so important to Cultural Marxism.

Social justice is not just about living individuals involved in the current world; rather, it is about abstractions, generalizations, and the past.  Sowell explained that “cosmic justice must be hand-made by holders of power who impose their own decision on how these flesh-and-blood individuals should be categorized into abstraction, and how these abstractions should then be forcibly configured to fit the vision of the power-holders”

The social justice–Marxist strips the individual of individuality and then turns the person into an abstraction.  If a human being is an individual, then we can be held accountable only for our own actions; we cannot be held accountable for the actions of another person, let alone the actions of a group of people who lived and died long before our time.  If we are not individuals, then we can be turned into abstractions.  As abstractions, we can then be blamed for the actions of others who classify as members of these abstractions.  Those in power are the ones dictating the terms of these abstractions.

For an example of this, take race relations.  If I am an individual, I had nothing to do with slavery, Jim Crow, waging war with the American Indians, or anyone who did anything hundreds of years before I was born.  However, if my individuality is abolished, I am not a unique individual with specific characteristics.  I can be broken down into an abstraction designated by those in power. Individualism is something I embrace with every fiber of my being. 

I rage at the destruction of individualism that is at the heart of political correctness, social justice, and all other leftist philosophies.  Writing articles such as this is my way of fighting back

An essential reading list for all Patriots

Posted: January 16, 2020 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

if a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be. the functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty & property of their constituents. there is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information. where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.

Thomas Jefferson quote from a letter to Charles Yancey

Unfortunately our abysmal educational system, at all levels, has worked very hard at keeping everyone ignorant to the true meaning of our Constitution.  Because of this very few of us have a proper understanding of that most magnificent document which is the foundation of our nation and legal system.  Because of our ignorance the federal government has distorted the true meaning of the Constitution so much that they now use it as a weapon to take away our freedoms, rights, and property.  The only way to reverse this is for all of us patriots to educate ourselves and others about the true meaning of the Constitution. 

I’ve assembled a reading list of seven books that I consider to be essential reading for all patriots who wish to educate themselves about the Constitution,

1. The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen

This is the book that got me started on my journey to becoming a Constitutional scholar.  I consider it to be the best primer for learning about the concepts that the founding fathers used to write the Constitution and build the United into the freest and most prosperous nation that ever existed.

2. The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution by W. Cleon Skousen

Every single clause of the Constitution is broken down and explained in great detail using quotes from those that wrote and ratified the Constitution.  This is a lengthy book however it is extremely informative and very interesting.

3, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 by James Madison

There is no better way to achieve a proper understanding of the Constitution than to study the transcript of the convention where the Constitution was written.  James Madison’s transcripts chronicle the many twists and turns during the entire process of the drafting so you achieve a perfect understanding of the final product.

4. The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay

The ratification of the Constitution was very touch and go.  It looked like it would not be passed in several states.  To improve the odds three individuals wrote essays explaining the different components of the Constitution in great detail, often answering concerns of critics of the Constitution.  This is a perfect resource for understanding the Constitution. 

5. The Anti-Federalist Papers by Robert Yates and Et Al

The Anti-Federalist Papers are a collection essays from critics of the Constitution.  In most of the essays they raised valid criticism, pointing out actual flaws.  In many cases it took decades for their criticisms to be proven correct.

6. The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding by Eugene W. Hickok Jr.

The current meaning of the Bill of Rights is 180 degrees opposite from the meaning understood by those that wrote and ratified it.  The author of this book compares the original meaning and the current understating of every clause of the Bill of Rights,  There is no better resource on the Bill of Rights that I’ve found so far.

7. The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom by Walter Levy and William Mellor

The Judicial Branch is the one branch of the federal government that was restrained the least by the Constitution.  The Supreme Court has issued far too many rulings that contradict the meaning of the Constitution.  This has allowed the federal government to grow so huge that it is now a direct thread to our freedom, liberties, and rights.  This book examines twelve cases that were the most egregious examples of the Supreme Court not following the Constitution.  

Climate Change is not responsible for the Australian bushfire crisis

Posted: January 9, 2020 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

Almost immediately after the apocalyptic nature of the Australian bushfires became apparent claims that the infernos are either caused by, or made worse, by climate change began to fill news reports and the internet.   A large majority of the Australia bushfire stories falsely point fingers directly at climate change.  

Fortunately there are articles such as this Breitbart article Delingpole: Environmentalists Made Australia’s Bush Fires Worse which actually uses science, historic data, and real facts to determine the true cause of this catastrophe.  I highly recommend reading the original article, it is full of supporting scientific data and charts.  With this quote you can see that there was nothing extreme about the lack precipitation the area has been experiencing

As Paul Homewood pointed out last month, there has been no significant long-term decrease in rainfall or increase in temperatures in the affected regions.

Yes, it has been dry in New South Wales (where most of the worst fires are), but there have been several years, especially pre-1960, when it was drier

The same holds true for the temperature, which rules out climate change.

The same applies to temperature. Yes, this has been a hot spring in New South Wales. But there have been times when it has been much hotter — making a nonsense of all stories in the Australian media about temperatures being the hottest evah

This next quote points the blame directly where it belongs.

So, to be clear, there is zero evidence of any change in climatic conditions that might have increased the likelihood or severity of these bush fires. This is not — repeat NOT — a man-made climate change story, and anyone who claims otherwise is either a gullible idiot or a lying charlatan.

There is, nonetheless, good reason to believe that the stupidity and irresponsibility of man is at least partly to blame for this disaster — just not quite in the way that the left-liberal MSM and the green wankerati would have you believe.

Arson is the number one cause of the catastrophe.

Man-made culprit #1: all the firebugs who have been deliberately starting fires in New South Wales, Queensland, and elsewhere. You won’t be surprised that their involvement has had very little coverage in the left-liberal MSM.

Bad forest management caused by environmentalists is the number two cause.

Man-made culprit #2: well-meaning idiots who don’t understand that unless you manage forested areas with controlled burns, you’re going to end up with out-of-control wildfires.

Jo Nova has a damning story about locals in East Gippsland in the state of Victoria who successfully stopped a planned controlled burn at Nowa Nowa. Two of them were pictured holding signs saying, “Spring burns kill baby birds alive” and “Stop burning nesting birds”.

A you can see from the next three quotes, bad laws passed to solve the mythical boogie man climate change are also to blame.

Man-made culprit #3: Greens  The people most to blame for the Australian bush fires are the greens. Just like in California, their tree-hugging Gaia worship blinded them to the reality that forests need regular clearance and maintenance if they are not to become a major fire hazard.

in large parts of Australia, it remains illegal to remove trees from your land even in order to create fire breaks and protect your property — despite the obvious risk this ban creates to homeowners living in potential bush-fire zones. Trees have been designated a ‘carbon sink’, which supposedly offset Australia’s CO2 emissions.

Liam Sheahan is an Australian fireman who in 2002 was fined $50,000 – and paid another $50,000 in costs – for illegally clearing the trees round his home in rural Victoria. In 2009 he was vindicated when his property was only one left standing after bushfires destroyed his town.

This Breitbart article Police in Australia Begin Massive Criminal Investigation into Bushfire Arson documents just how large a role arson has played in causing the catastrophe

The Conversation reports experts estimate about 85 percent of bushfires are caused by humans. A person may accidentally or carelessly start a fire, such as leaving a campfire unattended or using machinery which creates sparks.

Research has shown about 8 percent of officially recorded vegetation fires were attributed to malicious lighting, and another 22 percent as suspicious. However, about 40 percent of officially recorded vegetation fires did not have an assigned cause.

When unassigned bushfires were investigated by fire investigators, the majority were found to be maliciously lit

18 to 20 year olds can fight and die for our country but they can’t legally smoke or buy alcohol

Posted: January 2, 2020 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

The oppressive paternalism that has become the hallmark of Washington DC kicked into overdrive this past weak when President Trump signed a military spending bill that also raised the smoking and vaping age to 21 all across the United States.

I am not a smoker.   I have not smoked a single cigarette, or anything else, so this article is not about something I indulge in personally.  I strongly believe that government should not stop us from doing what we want to do, even if it is bad for us.  Allowing the bad along with the good is an essential ingredient to maintain a free society. 

I am well aware of the very negative health consequences of smoking.  I believe that individuals should make up their own minds whether they wish to smoke or not, not have their behavior controlled by the government.

Eighteen has always been the age where we consider individuals to be adults, capable of making decisions on their own.  That is the age anyone can enlist in the military so they can defend our country and die if necessary.  There has been a steady drift in this thinking, which has increased in speed the past few years.  This began with the drinking age, then spread to the age that some states allow the purchase of weapons, now it has spread to smoking and vaping.  It does a tremendous disservice to 18 to 20 if we strip them of their adulthood and coddle them.

Banning something never solves a problem, and if you study the prohibition period, you’ll see banning things only causes more severe problems.  Banning something from teenagers will only cause more demand.  The banning of tobacco products will only make them more appealing because they are banned.  This will result in a  black market for tobacco products and a lot of 21 and over individuals becoming criminals after purchasing tobacco products for those under 21. 

The US Constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to ban anything.  The federal government twisted the original meaning  of the Commerce Clause to unconstitutionally grant itself that authority.  The Interstate Commerce Clause only grants the federal government the authority to regulate the large scale movement of goods and services between states by imposing taxes. 

President Trump not only signed the age increase, he celebrated it with this Tweet:

This tweet really disappointed me.  It proved once again that President Trump is a big government Republican type who believes in banning things rather than a truly conservative or libertarian president.  He’s not perfect but he’s infinitely better than Hillary or any other progressive.

Older Entries
Newer Entries