"The Narrow Road": Blogs By Shane Kastler

Does the Church Belong to Caesar?

By Shane Kastler

I'm not sure which is more sad. That American pastors are being arrested for having public worship services. Or that most Christians seem to be perfectly fine with that travesty. While I always assumed the American “church” would fold at the first sign of persecution, it turns out that many have folded far easier than that. They didn't have to be beaten, shot, or tortured; they merely had to be commanded by the government to stop meeting; and most squeamishly complied. The First Amendment has been discarded as nothing more than a quaint footnote to a bygone era. To a time when “patriots” valued their freedom to assemble and worship as they pleased. To a time when they would rather die than give up this freedom. And to a time when a nation was formed with the idea of enshrining this freedom as the law of the land. Sadly, today we are told it is our “patriotic duty” to cancel church services for the sake of the greater good. Cable news anchors are exempt from such decrees because they're considered to provide an “essential service.” Yet pastors are deemed “non-essential” and most Christians seem fine with that. And while it is not surprising to see a secular government make such dictatorial decrees, it is astounding to see how quickly the churches have submitted. Things used to be different in Christian circles. They were certainly different in New Testament times.

Some have said it is the church's duty to “render unto Caesar” as Jesus said to do. The passage in question involves a time when Jesus was asked about whether or not it was lawful for a Jew to pay taxes to Caesar. According to scripture the question was posed by a group who was trying to entrap Jesus and get him arrested. Luke records, “The scribes and the chief priests tried to lay hands on Him that very hour, and they feared the people; for they understood that He spoke this parable against them. So they watched Him, and sent spies who pretended to be righteous, in order that they might catch Him in some statement, so that they could deliver Him to the rule and the authority of the governor.” (Luke 20:19-20)

Several things should be noted. First of all, Jesus was in hot water because he PUBLICLY SPOKE AGAINST THE AUTHORITIES. In this case, it was the Jewish “scribes and chief priests” who were not only religious authorities, but also the local governing body for the Jews. All under the authority of Rome. If the “render unto Caesar” argument is followed to it's logical conclusion, then Jesus was blatantly refusing to “submit” to the local “Caesars” (I.e, scribes and chief priests) by continuing to speak publicly against them. Why didn't he submit to the Sanhedrin, since they were the local authorities who governed with Rome's blessing? In fact, Jesus did the opposite.

Secondly, the opponents of Jesus sought to “hand him over the the rule and authority of the governor.” Of course this eventually happened, when he was arrested and stood before Pontius Pilate. But why did they want him arrested? What was his crime? Why did they oppose him so vigorously? Because he spoke out against them. Jesus didn't go silently into the night, as many Christians seem willing to do today. Much of Jesus's ministry involved speaking out against corrupt authorities.

When asked the question about Roman taxation, Jesus used a denarius, with Caesar's inscription, as his object lesson. “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.” (Luke 20:25) Technically, Jesus was not answering a question about paying taxes in general, but rather explaining whether or not it was “lawful” for a Jew to do it; since some Jews saw it as an act of idolatry to grant Caesar such payments. Jesus's answer put the question to rest from a Jewish perspective, in telling them to “render unto Caesar” the taxes he demanded. The more telling aspect of Jesus's statement is the second half of the verse, which is often overlooked; and seems to be have been largely forgotten by Christians today. Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, AND TO GOD THE THINGS THAT ARE GOD'S.” (Luke 20:25 emphasis added) This begs an obvious question: Does the church belong to Caesar? Or does it belong to God? And does the church look to Caesar to find out if, when, and how they are allowed to worship God? Does the church in America belong to the government? Do individual Christians belong to the government? Or for that matter, does any person belong to the government? Are we citizens or are we slaves? Christians are indeed “owned.” But they recognize Christ as their rightful Lord and Master. He alone owns the title of possession, because he alone paid the price with his blood.

Churches today are certainly free to cancel their services, or go “online” as many have done. But they are also free to gather together. They should not cancel based on a false notion of “rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.” Because the church doesn't belong to Caesar. Nor any other governing authority. It belongs to God. America's founders understood that all too well, and were willing to die for this “freedom of religion.” They were willing to enshrine it in the Bill of Rights in the very first amendment which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The government can't force you to worship. They also can't STOP you; at least not LEGALLY.

Is it best for church's to cancel, in the face of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic? Some say yes and some say no. But it's not for Caesar to decide; at least not in a “free” country like America. And certainly not in a church which looks to Christ, not Caesar, as its ultimate authority. Are Christians risking their lives by going to church? Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. But shouldn't it be their choice to decide? Do we not take a risk every time we leave our house? Do we not take a risk every time we drive a car or get on an airplane? Life is full of risks. That isn't in question. The question is whether or not we have the freedom to take risks as we see fit. Being commanded to not leave your house is draconian. But being commanded to not gather for worship is demonic. Yet Christians today seem perfectly fine with such mandates.

In most cases, what fuels the Christian's compliance is fear. I get that. People are afraid of getting sick and dying. And they are afraid of getting arrested for non-compliance. But if the pandemic is real, then the church needs to meet. Or at least have the FREEDOM to. Let the people decide if they want to attend services or not, and let the government stay out of it; as they are Constitutionally bound to do. Don't claim that a “national emergency” renders the Constitution moot; because the document was written in the midst of a “national emergency” (or revolution) with the intent of protecting liberty. And liberty is most under fire during “emergencies.” Moreover, if our liberties can be squelched at such a time as this; whose to say that future administrations cannot do likewise over far lesser “emergencies?” Who gets to decide when an emergency is serious enough to take our freedom? And why should anyone be allowed to decide that for someone else?

Pastors are being arrested in America today, for the crime of “unlawful assembly.” And most Christians seem perfectly fine with that disturbing reality. But once upon a time Christians didn't fold their tents so easily. Once upon a time, Christians were willing to be arrested for their beliefs. They were willing to oppose unbiblical mandates against their faith. Indeed they were willing to die for the cause. Not so today. They're too busy “rendering unto Caesar” the things that AREN'T CAESAR'S TO TAKE. While forgetting to render unto GOD.... the things that belong to God.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this article reflect my own personal views and not necessarily the views of any organization to which I am affiliated.

Judas the Socialist

By Shane Kastler

If Judas Iscariot was walking the earth today, he would make an ideal presidential candidate for the Democrat party.  With the recent, hard left veer toward socialism, he would fit right in.  He was socialistic to the core.  He loved to spend other people's money.  He loved to criticize how THEY spent THEIR OWN money.  He loved to act like he cared for the poor, all while using it as a ruse to line his own pockets.  And scarily, he had the ability to influence others toward his way of thinking.

Socialism is an evil political and economic ideology that tries to disguise itself as benevolence. It involves an ever expanding governmental control over virtually every aspect of a person's life. Perhaps some people embrace it because they think it will be good for society. The idea is to take money away from those who earn it and give it to “the poor.” And while this might sound nice on the surface, there is nothing “Christian” about taking one person's assets by force and giving them to someone else who didn't earn them. It is a veiled form of thievery, and an overt form of bribery for politicians seeking to buy votes in exchange for free government goodies.

Some people espouse Socialism because they are well-meaning, but grossly ignorant of history. Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Adolph Hitler all held to some form of socialism; and the three accounted for the deaths of an estimated 180 million people in the 20^th century. It should be noted that all three also claimed what they were doing would “help the poor” but all it succeeded in doing was benefiting those who had political power, and killing and/or enslaving those who did not. Socialism always leaves a trail of rotting corpses in its wake. And 21^st century Americans would be wise to consider these lessons from history.

The Bible actually has more to say about these things than you might think. Judas is most well-known for being the betrayer of Christ, but he was also a thief. And, he claimed to have a desire to help the poor. On one occasion, when a women took some expensive perfume and poured it on Jesus to honor him, Judas became enraged, saying, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and given to poor people?” Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it.” (John 12:5-6) Judas was a typical socialist, and as such, he had a “brilliant” idea as to what could be done with someone else's money. That's the dirty secret to Socialism, it involves someone else's money. Judas could have given of his own resources to “help the poor” but socialists don't typically do that. They'd rather use your money instead.  And what's more, Judas's phony communistic kindness apparently had an effect on the other disciples, as Matthew's gospel records that they too joined Judas in his subversive cause (Matthew 26:8).

One might think Jesus would commend Judas for thinking of the poor, but he does not. Jesus answered him saying: “Let her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of My burial. For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me.” John 12:7-8) In other words, the perfume belonged to the woman and not to Judas, and as such she could do what she wanted with it. She chose to honor the Lord, and Judas didn't like that. He acted like he cared for the poor, and he wanted to use someone else's money to help them. In all honesty, he wanted to help himself to more money and power. Today's politicians who espouse socialism are no different.

While people might disagree on economic and political issues, they should be united in the rejection of a system based on stirring up class warfare and stealing from one group to bribe another. Judas was an evil man, and one of the ways this could be seen was in his socialistic tendencies. Don't be like Judas, who's philosophical descendants have names like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They make promises based on thievery and dishonesty, and their policies lead to destruction. They claim to care for the poor, but their actions primarily help them to stay in power. Don't be like Judas. Don't be like Bernie. Don't be like Cortez, people who use their power to bolster a diabolical system.  Jesus once called Judas a "devil."  Many aspects of his life bore this out, perhaps none so blatantly as his views on economics.  Judas was a socialist, who would gladly rob you blind, while telling you it was for the "common good."  Thankfully, Judas is no longer here, but his acolytes remain.  Be wise and beware.

My Twitter Debate With Yale Student Over Civil War Statues & Marxism

By Shane Kastler

I recently had a Twitter debate with a college student from Yale, over why I think Civil War statues should NOT be torn down. I believe history should stand and be preserved for future generations. Even if you don't like the Confederacy, then you can use the statues as teaching tools to share your opinion.  But silencing opinions and destroying history is the dark tool of totalitarianism. Erasing past history, ensures future ignorance.  It is Marxist to its core, and I oppose it. The following is the original headline that sparked my tweet,  followed by the exchange with Jeremy, who is a sophomore at Yale. By the end of the debate, he was clearly getting rattled, as some of his indoctrinations were being challenged.  His constant accusations of me using "straw man" arguments likewise showed his anxiety in the debate. It also showed that he doesn't really know what a "straw man" argument is; but constantly accusing someone of it is a way to ignore the fact that you're losing the debate.  Here's the transcript: 

Original Headline: James Comey Says In Light Of Recent Racism in Virginia, Confederate Statues Should Come Down

Transcript of Debate:

Shane Kastler: It's always easier to find a 150 yr. old scapegoat, rather than hold the ACTUAL PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE who committed the deeds. Couldn't POSSIBLY blame Ralph Northam. He's a Democrat.

Jeremy From Yale: The statue isn’t the scapegoat. It’s about ridding the state and the country of symbols of hate.

Shane Kastler: The problem is actual living people. Not marble images of dead people. Confront hate by confronting the actual people engaging in it. Erasing past history, ensures future ignorance.

Jeremy From Yale: News flash: you can do both. There shouldn’t be monuments of hate everywhere. People don’t have one track minds. You can hold racist people accountable and also take town symbols of hate as well. No ones erasing history, so don’t even try saying that

Shane Kastler: You espouse "taking down symbols" & also say "no one's erasing history." That's a logical contradiction. It IS erasing history. And who gets to decide what constitutes "hate"? Robert E. Lee lived a far more honorable & loving life than any of today's politicians. There was no hate from him.

Jeremy From Yale: It’s not a logical contradiction. If you learn history through a statue, you aren’t learning history correctly. They were put up decades after the war. They’re not history. They belong in a museum, not erected in the middle of towns.

Shane Kastler: You don't learn history from statues exclusively. But historic landmarks do play a part. If you learn history only through a book you aren't learning history correctly either.

Jeremy From Yale: How the hell else are you supposed to learn history? Through white washed statues put up during the 1900’s and during the Civil Rights Era?

Shane Kastler: Only books huh? A few minutes ago you mentioned museums too. Have you changed your mind? Have you ever been to a statue before? They do typically have markers and plaques on them. Lots of ways to learn history. And the more you avail yourself to the better.

Jeremy From Yale: The statues have no place being in public spaces. They belong in museums, like I said. Historical landmarks are different from erecting statues, and you know that.

Shane Kastler: Do you also believe that mosques should be torn down? Or that they don't belong in "the middle of towns"? Like Confederate statues? Honest question.

Jeremy From Yale: Mosques? Are you comparing the CSA to Islam? Are you seriously comparing a place where people worship to statues of racist traitors? You shouldn't be anywhere in the education industry. This is a reprehensibly charged question that seeks to do nothing but act as a straw man.

Shane Kastler: No, I'm not comparing them. But Muhammad was a slave owner. Would you apply the same "hate test" to him that you would the Confederacy?

Jeremy From Yale: The confederacy is hate. Period. And anyone who supported a traitorous treasonous Confederacy, that was completely based in preserving slavery, also represents hate. Depressing that a teacher doesn’t know this. Muhammad having slaves is not the same as the CSA literally fighting to preserve slavery. Also, mosques are not built to glorify Muhammad. This was a horrible attempt at a comparison.

Shane Kastler: You've clearly not studied the Civil War beyond "the books" (which are heavily propagandized). Numerous reasons for the war. Have you no knowledge of Islam either? Muslims certainly DO glorify Muhammad. And they have a legal right to do so. Just as others have the right to honor Lee.

Jeremy From Yale: Your straw man doesn't change anything I've said. Traitorous racists should not be honored. If you honor them, you are consciously praising a foreign entity that attacked the U.S. to keep black people as objects.

Shane Kastler: You say "Attacked the U.S." --- Actually the NORTH INVADED the SOUTH. 90 percent of the battles were fought in the South. Seriously. You should do some more reading on this issue. I'm not trying to be condescending. Did you know Northerners owned slaves too?

Jeremy From Yale: It's almost like you forgot when the CSA attacked Fort Sumter to start the war. It's almost like you don't understand that the CSA seceded was an act of treason in and of itself. Also, your straw man about northern slavery means absolutely nothing. At all.

Shane Kastler:Why does it mean nothing? Was it OK for the North to have slaves? Did you know the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in Southern states? Northerners were allowed to keep their slaves because they were loyal to the Union. Read the document. That's not a straw man.

Jeremy From Yale: It means nothing because you are using yet another straw man to ignore the fact that the South seceded and went to war because of slavery and the institutions surrounding it. You are actively changing the subject and it's on purpose. The numerous reasons for the war were based around slavery. Period. Don't tell me what I do and don't know about the Civil War. If you learn about it from statues, calling things propagandized is hilarious. And if you honor Lee, you literally honor slavery. Period.

Shane Kastler: In all seriousness. I encourage you to not simply accept everything your Marxist professors tell you. Study history & religion on your own. Learn to think for yourself. Don't follow the masses into a world of censorship. Even if you hate Lee, use the monuments to teach others why.

Jeremy From Yale: "Marxist professors"? It's almost like you are completely ignorant and don't know that I can do my own research. But I don't even have to. The declarations of succession of the CSA states clearly said it was about slavery. You're sounding like a CSA apologist.

Shane Kastler: Yes, I KNOW you can do your own research. And I'm encouraging you to do that.... And by "succession" I assume you meant "secession" - They are different things you know.

Jeremy From Yale: If you deny the basic fact that the war was about slavery, you are not worth having a conversation. Your ill-informed views inform your views on CSA statues and therefore it is not worth having a debate in such bad faith. You don't deserve to be a teacher. Spreading lies about the Civil War and wanting to uphold statues does a disservice. Those "Marxist professors" aren't propagandizing anything. You are, by blatantly lying about the war and defending CSA monuments so ardently.

Shane Kastler: Seems like you're upset because things you've always believed to be true are being challenged. That's a good thing. Embrace that anxiety and use it as fuel to study these issues independently.... Enjoyed visiting with you.

Jeremy From Yale: You haven't provided any evidence that the war wasn't about slavery. I have presented evidence that it was about slavery. You haven't challenged the facts I presented. Your projection is glaring.

Shane Kastler: It WAS about slavery. I never said otherwise. What I DID SAY, was that slavery was not the ONLY ISSUE. Wars are almost always multifaceted. Don't just accept the easy textbook answers. You won't learn much by doing that.

Jeremy From Yale: So please explain what else prompted the War. Was it taxes, because the North was continuing the industrialize and the South could not keep up with taxes because they refused to industrialize because they relied on slavery? Or was it state's rights... to slavery?

Shane Kastler: Taxes and state's rights were legitimate issues. They still are. I'm not denying slavery was a major cause. But there's more to it than that. There's lots of historical facts that your professors will never teach you. Here's a book recommendation. It was written by an economist from the North: “The Real Lincoln” By Thomas Dilorenzo. Read it when you get a chance.

My Twitter Debate Over Socialism With Ocasio-Cortez Fans

By Shane Kastler

Below is the transcript of a recent debate I had with some followers of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez  (AOC), over socialism. The initial tweet was from AOC. I then responded; and then had a nice exchange with two gentleman (Jon the Ph.D. and Johnny F.) - Happy reading!

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC):  It’s wild that some people are more scared of a marginal tax rate than the fact that 40% of Americans struggle to pay for at least one basic need, like food or rent. Imagine if we focused positively, away from fear of the former toward solving the latter.

Shane Kastler: Translation: "It's wild that some people won't allow politicians like me to mug them so we can give the proceeds to our voters. Um.... like..... that's so wild. If we could only make people think.... um....like..... POSITIVELY about getting mugged. Sheesh!"

Jon the Ph.D: You realise how that tax would work? Only those who earn over $10m in a single year would be affected. You would benefit, not be harmed.

Shane Kastler: Yes, I know how it works. But robbing from the rich to MAKE them poor is no more noble than robbing from the poor to KEEP them poor. It doesn't matter who benefits from thievery. It's still wrong. And how do you know I make less than $10m?

Johnny F:  You cannot make a rich person poor thru marginal taxes. It's just not possible.

Shane Kastler: If you take one dollar from them, then you've made them one dollar poorer than they were. Thievery shouldn't be justified, based on who the government is stealing from.

 

Johnny F: It's not thievery. The money belongs to the workers. It's being exploited by CEOs.

 

Shane Kastler: Workers get paid what they agree to work for. If they are worth more money, then they are free to find the employer who will pay them what they are worth. If no employer will pay that, then they aren't really worth that. They just think they are.

 

Jon the Ph.D: But taxation is essential for the existence of government & public services... Top rate taxes mean that those who have benefited most from the country and those who have the most means to pay pay the most. Why should Jeff Bezos pay less tax on the dollar than his cleaners?

 

Shane Kastler: I would argue that the solution would not be for Bezos to pay more, but for his cleaners to pay less? A 70 percent rate on anyone is exorbitant. The government should not TAKE twice what a person can KEEP.

 

Johnny F: The entire income isn't taxed at 70%. Only the money that is made after 10 million has been reached. Poor people aren't poor because of taxes. They're poor because rich people don't compensate labor fairly.

 

Shane Kastler: Yes, I understand her 70% on the "tippy tops" income (her words). And as I stated before, if the poor aren't compensated fairly they are free to find a new employer who WILL compensate them fairly. If no such employer exists, then their skills aren't as valuable as they think.

 

Johnny F: That's not remotely true. Human value isn't determined by the market. Humans aren't worth as much or little they are able to produce. That kind of thinking is dehumanizing

 

Shane Kastler: Human value isn't determined by the market. But MARKET value is determined by the market.

 

Johnny F: You're definitely arguing that human lives should be governed by their economic output. If it doesn't match market levels for housing and food, then they don't deserve to have those basics. It. Is. Dehumanizing.

 

Shane Kastler: I'm not arguing human lives should be governed by economic output. I'm arguing that human SALARIES should be. Under free market capitalism, both food and housing are FAR CHEAPER, than in socialistic countries. Google, "USSR food rationing"

 

Johnny F:  Entire demographics of people cannot afford the basics of survival when they work just as much as previous generations. What's the capitalist solution to those who fall between the cracks?

 

Shane Kastler: Charity. What is the socialist solution? .... If you think entire demographics of Americans can't afford basic survival, you should visit a 3rd world socialistic country some time. The "poor" in America are the richest poor people on earth.

 

Johnny F: The guy that died because his GoFundMe was short to pay for his monthly insulin was not available for comment.

 

Shane Kastler: For every ONE exaggerated example like that in USA, there are THOUSANDS of REAL examples under socialism. Not to mention the millions who have died under socialistic dictators who share AOC's ideology. Google "killed by Joseph Stalin" .....But you never answered my question. What is socialism's answer?   CONCLUSION:  Socialism has no answers.  Just gullible adherents, who are ignorant of both economics and history. Nice chatting with you.

Jesus vs. Ocasio-Cortez on Marginal Tax Rates

By Shane Kastler

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), loves to talk about “marginal tax rates.” In fact, she reminds me of a teenager who just learned a new word and constantly works it into conversations to sound smart. All while ridiculing anyone who disagrees with her. At the outset, it should be noted that she frequently uses the phrase incorrectly. She says we need to have marginal taxes, but we ALREADY have them. What she means is that she wants HIGHER marginal tax rates. In fact, she has floated the idea of a 70 percent tax rate on incomes that exceed $10 million. She says the government should seize this exorbitant rate on the “tippy tops” (her words) of people's incomes. “Tax the rich” is a popular rallying cry that is sure to gain some votes from those who are accomplices and recipients of your thievery. But is such taxation really beneficial to society as a whole? Is it moral? Is it justified, if the plunder is used to “help the poor”? These are thorny ethical questions that expose AOC and other socialists like her, as the unrighteous villains that they are. I dare say, that even Jesus would agree with my assessment.

The gospel of Mark records a quote from Jesus in which he says this: “No one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house.” (Mark 3:27) To be clear, Jesus was not addressing marginal tax rates in this passage. He was speaking of spiritual matters. But the example he uses is both telling and true. If you are going to “plunder” a man of strength, then you must first “bind” the man of strength. AOC is seeking to both bind and plunder in at least two ways. First of all, she used the political system to get herself elected into a position of extreme power. Secondly, she wishes to use this power to take money that doesn't belong to her and give it to people who haven't earned it. And she makes it sound so pious!

In a recent tweet, she wrote, “It’s wild that some people are more scared of a marginal tax rate than the fact that 40% of Americans struggle to pay for at least one basic need, like food or rent. Imagine if we focused positively, away from fear of the former toward solving the latter.” My twitter response, and accurate translation of what she said, was this: "Translation: It's wild that some people won't allow politicians like me to mug them so we can give the proceeds to our voters. If we could only make people think POSITIVELY about getting mugged!"

While my response may have been mildly sarcastic, it was nonetheless true. Her vacuous logic plays so well with an ignorant and immoral populace that sees plunder as their birthright. And the class warfare that AOC engages in, by pitting rich against poor, is a classic ploy of socialism. Demonize the industrious, so the mobs will side with you in your thievery. It worked for Lenin, so why shouldn't it work for AOC? Not to mention her vague terminology and questionable numbers of “40 percent who struggle to pay....” How do you define an ambiguous word like “struggle” in the world of economics? And even if some people do legitimately “struggle” - Does this justify taking from others?

The dangerous part of AOC's con game is how many people defend such actions. One “tweeter” chastised me by tweeting, “You realize how that tax would work? Only those who earn over $10m in a single year would be affected. You would benefit, not be harmed.” My response was this: “Yes, I know how it works. But robbing from the rich to MAKE them poor is no more noble than robbing from the poor to KEEP them poor. It doesn't matter who benefits from thievery. It's still wrong. And how do you know I make less than $10 million?”

This person's mindset is all too common in our world today. They justify thievery by basing it on who is getting robbed, instead of considering whether or not robbery itself is moral. Socialists like AOC, assume that if you have money, you must come by it nefariously. While it's true that some people steal and/or swindle their way to a fortune, what about those who actually earn it through work? The whole concept of increasing wealth through personal labor and sacrifice is antithetical to the leech mentality of socialism, which champions taxation at exorbitant rates; so the political class can buy votes through entitlements. And make no mistake, a tax rate that allows the government to take twice as much as you are allowed to keep, is pure thievery. Even if you concede the necessity of some taxation, it is impossible to justify such a gross imbalance that punishes production. An economy based on this type of “Robin Hood” ethics is doomed to fail, as history has proven time and again.

In conclusion, AOC's socialism is not only dangerous, it is immoral. And it is the way the immorality is packaged that makes it so dangerous. She may pawn herself off as righteous in her indignation of the “rich” and her supposed desire to “help the poor.” But if she were REALLY righteous, she might encourage the rich to give to charity, rather than using her newfound power to fleece them.  And if her indignation were rooted in morality, she would oppose all forms of thievery, regardless of who is robbed or who benefits from the theft.

Socialism's Three Disciples: Educated Idiots, Uneducated Idiots, & Evil Puppet Masters

By Shane Kastler

Committed capitalists are often baffled by socialists, and more specifically the apparent rise of socialism as an economic system. On the surface, the issue seems rather “cut and dry” to the capitalist. Isn't a system based on free trade preferable to government controlled trade? Would we not prefer to make our own decisions, rather than handing them over to a 3^rd party state apparatus? What about property rights? The capitalist is often legitimately perplexed as to why a socialists would push for more and more government control over life, liberty, and property rather than keeping the rights of self-reliance under our own control. The answer to this socialistic enigma finds it's genesis in three groups of people: the over-educated ignorant; the under-educated ignorant; and the puppet masters in power who convince them of Socialism's benefits. At the end of the day it is the puppet masters who benefit the most; but they need the proverbial “useful idiots” to stir up a crowd, storm the capitalists, or stuff the ballot box. America is in danger of this happening today.

Let's take a look at these three groups. First you must have the puppet masters who pull the strings. Karl Marx is an historical example. As was Vladimir Lenin, and (surprising to some) Adolph Hitler, who headed up the Nazi (National Socialist) party. While you could make a pretty convincing case that men like these were evil, and short-sighted; you must also begrudgingly admit that in some ways they were crafty. They certainly had a plan laid out for taking over power; and they knew how to whip a crowd into a frenzy. They also knew what the puppet master must always know about Socialism: It is THEY....the ones in power, who benefit the most from Socialism. Competition from the business world is squelched, and resistance from the populace is ceded; leaving the puppet masters in power unchecked and usually unhinged. The old adage, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” is never more evident than under a socialistic state. But other groups must exist to give these rulers power, which is where the two other groups come in.

The over-educated idiot bloc is a fast growing political force in America today. The universities are overrun with them, in both the faculties and student bodies. The misnomer is that education leads to knowledge, which leads to better decision-making. And this would be true if the degrees handed out in droves were actually the result of true education, based on true knowledge. But all too often, students are not taught to think; they are taught to repeat catch phrases and mantras. And look what this has produced. Beto O'Rourke cannot give a coherent answer to basic policy questions. Everything involves “a national conversation” or the need to “speak truth to power”, blah, blah, blah. How can an ignoramus like him have a conversation when he doesn't know what the true issues are? And how can he speak truth to power when he doesn't know the truth and he seeks TO BE the one in power? Simplistic answers to complex questions, parroted by a man with some education, a nice smile, and a blank stare in his eyes.

Sounds very similar to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) the latest darling of the American commies. In her we see this same type of educated ignorance, though in her case there is an added layer of hubris, disguised as false humility. AOC wants the people who elected her to think she's just “Alex from the Bronx” – that hard working, poor girl from the “average Joe” neighborhood, who overcame all the obstacles to become a success. In truth, she's a privileged girl from a rich neighborhood, who maneuvered her way into being a political hack.

Beto and AOC are both aspiring puppet masters. While neither comes off as especially bright, they both long for power (as most politicians do) so they can can force their ideas on the people; both the ones who agree and the ones who don't. Beto and AOC have climbed the socialistic ladder from uneducated ignorant, to educated ignorant, to puppet master; and they will be rewarded handsomely if their extreme ideology wins the day. But to gain power under a “democratic” system, they need the third group who falls for Socialism. They need the uneducated and ignorant.

This third group is defined by both factors: they are uneducated and they are ignorant. But it is important to note that the two don't always go hand-in-hand. Some uneducated people are very intelligent, and can see through the smoke and mirrors of Socialism's false promises. And, truth be told, a lack of formal education is not such a bad thing, when the formal education amounts to nothing more than progressive indoctrination. Most of the uneducated intellectuals of the world (the ones who can think for themselves) will reject AOC and Beto. They may be poor. They may have dead-end jobs. But they're not stupid. But AOC was elected by those ignorant enough to think handing power to “Alex from the Bronx” will make their life better, when in fact it will only serve to make “Alex's” life better. They will likely stay ignorant and stay poor, but with AOC's help they will be able to make a lot of other people poor also. At least then they won't feel so lonely.

They will THINK AOC is making their life better when she pushes for an astronomical minimum wage. They will cheer her and vote for her because she's a “champion of the common people” (ha ha, so was Lenin), not realizing that the wage hike will simply lead to their employer eliminating their job. But, yet again, the rabble-rousing, aspiring, puppet masters like AOC will be at the ready, bullhorn in hand to blame the companies for “taking these jobs away from hard working people” when it was AOC's policies that deep-sixed the economy in the first place. But her supporters won't care. They're ignorant, and her job security hinges upon them staying that way.

Historically, Socialism in all of it's ugly forms, has done nothing but make people resent each other and make them all collectively more poor. Except for the ones at the top. The puppet masters do quite well under Socialism. Why do you think they push for it? And push themselves into power to go along with it? It's not to benefit the commoners, and it won't benefit the commoners. It benefits the state parasites who sell it as a bag of magic beans.

The solution to the rise of Socialism is for those who can see it's pitfalls to point them out and hope against hope that the ignorant who embrace it will listen to reason, or self-educate themselves into a greater understanding. Formal education won't cut it, because it is largely given over to the dogma of the dictators. Make no mistake, politicians like AOC and Beto are dangerous, if for no other reason than because they have the personas to get themselves elected. And when they do, they will be welcomed to the country club of Socialism. And the commoners will be perpetually paying their tab.

Five Reasons Why Gun Control Doesn’t Work

By Shane Kastler

I’m writing this in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, but I could write this article after any mass shooting because the reactions from the anti-gun crowd are always the same.  Their logic is flawed, extraordinarily simplistic, and dangerously "statist" in nature.  Their thinking goes something like this: 1. Guns killed people.  2. Government should take guns.  3. People would be safe.  In reality, what happened was: 1. Lunatic killed people. 2. He used guns to do it. 3. Guns can be used to either murder or to defend.  Below are five reasons why gun control doesn’t work.

1. Gun Control Empowers Murderers. Strict gun control measures do nothing but empower murderers of all different kinds. Be they lone nut assassins, mass shooting perpetrators, or terrorist cells.  The more likely a killer is to face resistance, the less likely he is to provoke hostilities.  Would people packing guns have been able to prevent a massacre like what happened in Las Vegas?  Probably not.  A psycho shooting down on a large crowd from a 32^nd story window is nearly impossible to prevent.  But the point, the principle, and the question is if the government should have the right to disarm good citizens and thus empower bad ones.  Maybe Vegas-style massacres cannot be prevented. But this doesn’t mean other murders could not be prevented; and taking guns from honest people only empowers dishonest ones.
2. Gun Control Criminalizes Self-Defense. This fact is often overlooked by the gun control advocates of the world, who seem to think EVERY solution to EVERY problem involves the government “doing something.” In actuality, the government “doing something” is what causes many of the problems we face.  Why should laws exist that would criminalize a person’s attempt to defend themselves and their family?  The more laws that exist on the books, the more likely the government will use such laws to prosecute and even incarcerate those who have committed no act of aggression against anyone.  Furthermore, crooked governmental agencies would have yet another “law” with which to persecute their political enemies.  If politicians will use the IRS to punish their enemies.  They will use gun laws also.
3. Gun Control Creates a Violent and Unnecessary Black Market. Some would argue that economic reasons such as this are unimportant. Instead we should consider how many lives would be saved by eliminating gun violence, through gun control.  But this reason speaks to both the economic issue and the violence issue, as the two go hand-in-hand.  One of the inevitable results of making something illegal is the rise of a black market that will continue to sell the product.  Any gun that is made illegal will sky rocket in price underground; and will lead to crime, violence, and mayhem far worse than if such guns were simply sold legally in the open market.  If you think that making guns illegal will make them go away, then you are living in naivety.  If you say that making them illegal to manufacture will make them go away, then you are underestimating the ability of people to produce things underground.  In all honesty, guns are not that hard to make if you have a minimal amount of mechanical ability.  One simply needs a barrel, a trigger, and a firing mechanism.  And the government should not be allowed to determine who can and cannot make or own such devices.
4. Gun Control Gives Government More Power. Some people like the idea of government having more power. Usually these are people who either possess political power themselves, or who blindly assume those in political power only want to protect them.  The truth is much murkier than this.  There are plenty of both good and bad people in the world.  Which means there are plenty of both good and bad people who work in government.  The state, by and large, already has far more power over the individual’s life than they should.  Gun control simply “ups the ante.”  It gives even more power to those who already have power, thus creating an opportunity for greater coercion and corruption.
5. Gun Control Makes the World a More Dangerous Place. Bad people will always have access to guns. All the gun laws in the world will never change that.  Should good people be denied access to defend themselves with the same weaponry as the criminals?  And should the government have the power to hamstring those who wish to defend themselves and their families?  The more governments seize control of self-defense mechanisms, the more power that is given to both governments themselves and to criminal enterprises.

Tragedies like the one that happened in Las Vegas are horrific and sad.  There can be no good reason for such indiscriminate murder on such a mass level.  Emotions are bound to be raw, and the visceral responses to such crimes will be over-reactionary and dangerous.  Gun control is only good for those who are in power and can increase the control they have over people’s lives.  Citizens have a right to defend thermoses and this right should never be infringed upon, no matter what tragedy occurs.  If person “A” shoots person “B” then person “B’s” friends do not have a right to tell person “C” that they cannot defend themselves from person “A’s” next violent act.  Gun control is unconstitutional and immoral, and it should be rejected by all freedom-loving citizens of the world.

What if Congress Bails Out the NFL?

By Shane Kastler

Here’s an interesting “doomsday” thought.  The NFL stands to potentially take a financial hit from fans protesting the players “anthem conduct.”  What if the NFL owners argued to Congress that their financial failure spells economic doom for the whole country?  And what if the dolts in Washington believed them?  And what if they then put together a multi-billion-dollar bailout package to prop up the NFL?  And what if the NFL used the funds to subsidize their losses from the protests, while also granting their owners and players handsome bonuses?  And what if the angry ticket holders/ taxpayers ended up paying for it all?  Sound far-fetched?  It probably is, but stranger things have happened.

The NFL owners might argue that their franchises provide a tremendous boon for the local economies.  And if people aren’t coming to the games, then the team loses gate sales.  Concession stands lose money, which means suppliers lose money.  Hotels and restaurants near the stadium lose money because there aren’t as many people coming out for the games anymore.  It wouldn’t be hard for the NFL executives to trot out some charts, graphs, numbers, and “experts” to show the massive financial hit a city could take…..unless that is…… Congress wanted to “play ball” with a bailout. 

As the number one professional past time in America today, the league might argue they are “too big to fail.”  Have you heard that line before?  Remember when the banks were bailed out in 2008 because they were “too big to fail?”  Rather than letting financial and economic nature take its course, Washington politicians picked winners and losers.  And as usual, the biggest losers were the tax payers who fit the bill.

The housing bubble that sparked the chaos in 2008 and 2009 resulted from numerous factors.  On one hand, banks were issuing mortgages to people who would never be able to pay them back.  But on the other hand, the federal government was pressuring the banks to do so.  George W. Bush famously crowed about his desire to see “minority home ownership increase.”  The obvious question at the time, for those who bothered to ask, was “What does skin color have to do with the ability to pay back a mortgage?”  After all, this is not a “social issue” it’s a financial one.  Nevertheless, thousands of mortgages were issued.  Easy money flowed into the hands of those who couldn’t (or wouldn’t) manage it.  The real estate market experienced unrealistic gains in many sectors, and the bubble grew; eventually popping.  But the feds came to the “rescue.”  Yes, the same feds who largely caused the problem in the first place (thought they don’t want you to know that).

Obviously, the NFL situation is somewhat different.  Currently the league is caught between the “social justice warriors” and the “American flag warriors” and they are largely siding with the former.  Which means the latter are telling the NFL to take their ball and shove it.  In 2008, the banks didn’t suffer because of a political protest, like the NFL is experiencing.  But in both cases, those losing money, might very easily look to government to be their savior.  And they will package it as a “salvation” for the whole country.

While I doubt the protest will have that big of a financial impact….. what if it did?  Would America financially implode without the NFL?  Not hardly.  Like the “broken-window fallacy” in Henry Hazlitt’s classic Economics in One Lesson, no one knows where the money formerly spent on the NFL might go.  What other businesses might pop up to replace the NFL, as people “vote” with their pocketbooks?  What other sports might experience economic growth as a result of pro football’s economic decline?  These are all hypothetical questions, that would have very real and tangible answers; if the free market were allowed to decide who wins and loses.  But big money and big government cannot possibly allow that to happen.

Do I think Congress will bail out the NFL?  Probably not.  But Congress has a long history of stupidity.  Don’t be surprised if an NFL bailout is added to their dubious list.

Today's NFL: Bandwagon Protests & Millionaire Brats

By Shane Kastler

I love a good protest as much as the next man does.  In fact, because of my libertarian streak, I probably enjoy seeing protests against the government even more than most do.  And I believe people have the right to protest all they want.  But my “rational” streak causes me to take pause at times and question those involved in some protests.  Such is the case with the numerous NFL players who chose to kneel and ignore the national anthem on Sunday.  My question to them would be:  What EXACTLY are you protesting?  I’m certain that most of them could not give a coherent answer.  The examples that I’ve heard are very much non-sensical, and even laughable.  I heard one player say, “It’s not very often in life you get a chance to take a stand on something important, so I want to take advantage of this opportunity.”  Actually, you can take a stand on important issues everyday of your life, if you have the guts for it.  But most people don’t.  Most people follow the crowd like lemmings, and moo when all the other cows moo.  That’s what most of these players seem to be doing.  They are bandwagon protestors who don’t even know why they are protesting.  Because in truth, there is no good reason for it.

Some have said they are protesting “oppression.”  Colin Kaepernick, the former backup quarterback for the 49ers claimed this was his reason for kneeling last season, saying: “America refuses to address the pervasive evil of white cops killing black men, and I will not stand during a national anthem that honors the flag of such a country!”  Of course his mantra of “white cops killing black men” doesn’t hold water.  Statistically speaking, the amount of black men killed by white cops is almost non-existent, when compared to the amount of black men killed by other black men.  Furthermore, if Kaepernick and the NFL is so concerned about the plight of black men, why are they not EVEN MORE concerned about the thousands of deaths of defenseless black children, each year through abortion?  Could it be, that to them, only CERTAIN black lives matter?  I don’t see a lot of NFL players protesting the extermination of babies, perhaps because they wish to reserve the right to kill any which they inadvertently father.  With that said, protesting against abortion would be a worthy protest.  If only these players were kneeling and proclaiming, “We protest against a nation that allows the barbaric extermination of babies!”  But no, these men would have you believe that THEY are oppressed, and others like them.

And this is where the “laughable” part comes in.  Multi-millionaires would have you believe that they live in a country that oppresses THEM.  They would have you believe that they live in a country that is deeply racist against THEM.  A country, mind you, where they get paid seven-figure salaries to play a game.  In a league full of millionaires that is 70% black.  Hmmm.  That seems to be an inordinately high number, given the fact that blacks make up about 15% of the general population.  Perhaps the “affirmative action” folks should be protesting.  Are whites being discriminated against?  Should we demand that 70% of the NFL be white?  I wouldn’t expect to see anyone “kneeling in protest” for this anytime soon.  Nor would I want them to.  The best players should play, regardless of color.  And as a  rule, there are more good players who are black, than those who are white.  This is because not all people are equal (but that’s a topic for another day).  This statement also makes me a “racist” in FAVOR OF black athletes.  But I don’t suspect anyone will protest that either.

Liberals love to dream up non-sensical jargon to justify their grievances.  Such examples of ridiculous words and phrases are: “Social justice” “racial oppression” and “homophobia.”  The NFL is on the “racial oppression” bandwagon now, but the facts don’t align with their rhetoric.  While many blame Donald Trump for this problem, it actually started long before he took office.  In a prescient article on this issue, Pat Buchanan points out:  “Trump is taking a beating from owners, players and press for being “divisive.” But he did not start this fight or divide the country over it.  Kaepernick did, and the players who emulated him, and the coaches and owners who refuse to declare whether insulting the flag is now permissible behavior in the NFL.” 

Buchanan also predicts that Trump will be proven right.  Fans are fed up with the spoiled antics of pampered millionaires, and will likely show their displeasure by shunning the league.  This remains to be seen.  What is clear is that, for all their bravado the NFL is a league full of illogical cowards who simply adhere to progressive talking points.  The media fuels them.  Lots of politicians fuel them.  Today, sadly, even formerly “conservative” Christian leaders pour “racism” fuel on the smoldering fire of ignorance.  But the average American has had enough. Black millionaires, who just spent eight years with a black U.S. President, claiming that blacks are oppressed.  Sorry, but folks aren't buying it. Because it's non-sense.

Like it or not, this is partly what got Trump elected.  And while you may question his judgement, you cannot question the fact that he often says exactly what he thinks, and many Americans agree with him.  This doesn’t make him (and them racist).  It does make them tired of the constant airing of grievances by groups who have much more in this country than they would have anywhere else in the world.  Buchanan concludes his article with this:  “In terms of fame and fortune, no professions have proven more rewarding for young black American males than the NFL and the NBA. Whether or not they soil their nest, is up to them.”  Time will tell.

The Isolation of Non-Conformity

By Shane Kastler

Have you ever felt like you're the only person in the world who holds the views you hold?  You're probably not, but if you have a longing to know the truth and a streak of non-conformity in you; then you probably know the loneliness of isolation.  You are familiar with being considered an extremist in a world of lemmings.  And you know what it is like to be a one-eyed man in the world of the blind. 

A common misconception among Americans is that we live in a “Democratic” society, where the will of the majority is supposed to be the rule.  Numerous problems exist with this misunderstanding.  While there is a “democratic” aspect to America (since voting takes place), the government itself is not set up to be a true “majority rules” democracy.  Rather, it is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic, with elected representation to speak on behalf of constituents.  In this form of government, the laws of the land must pass the test of a written constitution, regardless of what the majority thinks.  If, for example, most citizens decide that murder is acceptable, the act should still be illegal because it violates the written constitution.  Of course, as a Christian, I would appeal to a higher power than mere government.  But at the very least, all who live within a certain governed region are supposed to receive the protection of the constitution.  And the assumption is that most of the people agree with this written code.  Of course, this is not how it always works.

Not everyone agrees with what the U.S. Constitution says, nor does everyone agree with what it is intended to say.  Judicial wars over “original intent” vs. a “living constitution” permeate the legal debates of our day.  Yet under both judicial philosophies, the question might be asked, “What about Non-Conformists?”  What does the law, the governing authorities, the “State”, academic institutions, or businesses do with people who simply hold a minority view on a topic?  Historically, these people have been silenced by the majority.  Sometimes violently so.  Take, for example, the “State.”

By “State” here, I’m referring to the bureaucratic apparatus that seeks to keep power over the masses.  Or to ask the question bluntly, what do Washington politicians, on both the political left and right do, when someone suggests (for example) that they are all crooks?  The answer is that the Democrats and Republicans quickly become bipartisan to try and eliminate any threat to the established power.  The State talks of liberty, but in truth the State loathes dissenters.  Those who refuse to conform and be chided like cattle into a pen.

The late Murray Rothbard wrote of this attempt to silence minority voices: “The greatest danger to the State is independent intellectual criticism; there is no better way to stifle that criticism than to attack any isolated voice, any raiser of new doubts, as a profane violator of the wisdom of his ancestors.” (Anatomy of the State, Kindle Edition, Location 90)

In other words, if you dare to think for yourself you can expect to be punished.  Sometimes the punishment is minor, as in verbal ridicule or name-calling (bigot, homophobe, etc.).  But sometimes the State will fire up the vehicle of legal power to silence dissenters.  This is seen today in the dictatorial usurping of unity campuses by groups such as Antifa.  Free-speech is disallowed, unless it is “free” speech that is approved by a certain group of self-proclaimed guardians of truth.  And any criticism of the power-players is instantly deemed “hate speech” and thus too abhorrent to be legally allowed.  Never mind the fact that those guilty of “hate speech” have not actually lifted one finger in assault of a single person.  No crime has been committed.  No act of aggression has occurred.  Dissenters are merely silenced and penalized for stating opinions. And this in a “free” society?  Such societies are “free” in name only for they exist only to protect the freedom of whichever band of thugs is in power at the time and in a particular place.  That isn’t freedom.

Rothbard continues:  “Another potent ideological force is to deprecate the individual and exalt the collectivity of society. For since any given rule implies majority acceptance, any ideological danger to that rule can only start from one or a few independently-thinking individuals. The new idea, much less the new critical idea, must needs begin as a small minority opinion; therefore, the State must nip the view in the bud by ridiculing any view that defies the opinions of the mass. “Listen only to your brothers” or “adjust to society” thus become ideological weapons for crushing individual dissent. By such measures, the masses will never learn of the nonexistence of their Emperor’s clothes.” (ibid, Location 92)

Rothbard’s eloquence points out phrases such as “listen only to your brothers” and “adjust to society” to give examples of phrases used to guilt independent thinkers into submission.  One of the new catch phrases is “you’re on the wrong side of history.”  This one has been used to shout down everyone from those who belief in traditional marriage to those who oppose the legalized racism of Affirmative Action, to those who refuse to kowtow to “Social Justice Warriors” on a whole myriad of issues.  Of course, what is consistently left out, indeed forgotten, is that it may be a good thing to be on “the wrong side of history.”  Because if there is one thing history teaches us, it is that the established powers are not always in the right.  Or, history might teach us that if the street mobs would stop vandalizing historical monuments, the academies would start teaching history, and the government hacks would stop trying to control thought in Orwellian fashion.

The Non-Conformist will always be subject to attack; either by the majority or by a more vicious brand of minority that would have you believe they are in fact the majority.  Many times, there truly is a so-called “silent majority” made up of those who love liberty for all but are too intimidated to speak up and speak out.  And so, the brow-beatings continue, both intellectual and physical.

Isolated Non-Conformists exist in every realm of society.  In the political world, look no further than former Congressman and Presidential candidate Ron Paul, who spent a career speaking out in defense of individual liberty and often be ridiculed by the political left and right alike for his positions. Dr. Paul still issues his daily “Liberty Report” with Daniel McAdams as s continuing voice of dissent in a sea of conformity. 

Or look no further than Rand Paul’s recent attempt of “sitting” in the well of the U.S. Senate until his amendment to end the unconstitutional overseas wars was heard.  His attempt failed, but at least there was an attempt.  Read the writings of Justin Raimondo on Antiwar.com as he consistently calls for peace and calls out the war hawks from both majority parties who often provide non-sensical and dangerous justifications for perpetual war.  Look to the late Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises and his declaration that all the American politicians of his day were simply espousing various forms of socialism.  Look the Mises Institute named in his honor, and the continuing work of Lew Rockwell, Jeff Deist, and others.  And look to, the now deceased (and aforementioned), Rothbard whose voluminous writing and academic career kept him as the odd man out in almost every venue he attended.

The religious world likewise presents many examples of non-conformity.  The very word “Protestant” means to “protest” and as such “Protestants” protested the corrupt Catholic church of their day.  Martin Luther spoke loudly and boldly, and was shouted down by the majority with equal vigor.

The English Baptist John Bunyan endured constant jailing for refusing to submit to the governing authorities of his day.  Of course, many other examples come from the Bible where the Apostle Paul, a Christian, refused to retreat to his former legalistic Judaism, and was persecuted with the compliant help of Rome.  The same Roman government that crucified Jesus, at the request of the same Jewish leaders, who saw him as a blasphemer, heretic, and above all a non-conforming threat to their malfeasance.

Modern day examples of Non-Conformists exist, though they are few and far between.  The college student who dares question the conventional theory of evolution in a Science class might easily be mocked or even flunked for not going along and getting along.  Likewise, the brave professor who challenges the dictatorial administrative policies of universities who ballyhoo about “free speech” then ban it from their campuses in the name of diversity.  In truth, diversity is the last thing they want.  They want conformity to a progressive agenda, that controls thought and punishes Non-Conformists.  And so, the Non-Conformist, yet again is the odd man (or woman) out.

The Non-Conformist largely lives their life in isolation.  Be it in the political, academic, or even religious realms, they are largely seen as eccentric threats.  And all too often, eccentric threats that must be destroyed, lest some Conformists start to wake up and realize that the powers that be have too much power.

While I don’t offer a magic bullet solution to these facts, I merely write as a Non-Conformist who is comfortable being largely alone in a world of conformity.  There will always be a majority view on every topic.  And there will hopefully be those who question that view, just for the sake of intellectual honesty.  Sometimes the majority is right.  Usually they are not.  So the Non-Conformist must stand up, speak out, and suffer the consequences.  Not because they enjoy causing trouble.  But because they long for the suppressed truth to be unleashed, and the archaic ideas of peace and liberty restored.

In the end, the status quo establishment must be resisted in intellectual circles and beyond. Truth exists, even when it is only being spoken by a lonely voice typing a blog, or an isolated man preaching in the pulpit, or an oddball professor, who knows he is bait in a swamp full of gators, and his days on campus are likely numbered.  But let the Non-Conformist know this.  He or she is not alone.  Isolated, yes.  Outnumbered? Normally.  But completely alone? Never.  There are others just like them, speaking, sometimes shouting, and often being drown out by the duped masses.  But they speak on nonetheless.  For the truth must be told, no matter the price.