Liberalism: The ‘Gateway Drug’ to Socialism – and Mass Murder

In The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, America’s celebrated founder – the one who’s on the 100-dollar bill and never held the office of President – details the account of his having pushed for capital punishment of British sympathizers during the Revolutionary War period.

Franklin did not advocate for capital punishment of British collaborators, mind you; he advocated for capital punishment involving those who sympathized with the British crown, those who were opposed to independence of the thirteen colonies. This would have included Franklin’s own estranged son, William Franklin.

Well, that policy was apparently a little too extreme in the eyes of Franklin’s compatriots, and it got shot down.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back?

  • Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Watch Obama Trash the USA 18 Different Times During His Recent Trip Abroad

This is actually an encouraging anecdote from a contemporary point of view, in suggesting that such action – the execution of traitors to America – will not necessarily become an imperative with regard to the preservation (or restoration) of the Republic. The logic here being that while collaborators with the British were occasionally executed during the Revolutionary War period, sympathizers with the British were not institutionally persecuted; thus, the opportunity to preserve (or restore) the Republic without anyone’s widespread persecution certainly exists.

In the referencing “traitors to America,” of course I am referring to those who espouse the encroaching socialistic paradigm currently infecting our governmental and cultural model.

These statements will probably engender mortified responses on the part of even many conservatives and constitutionalists in light of the First Amendment and our modern, refined notions of civilized behavior. Liberal Internet trolls may seize upon them as hard evidence that conservatives are indeed laying in wait for the opportunity to murder those who do not subscribe to their views.

Personally, I make no secret of the fact that I support the eradication of everything even remotely resembling socialism from public policy in America, and I hold that liberalism is merely a construct of the radical left calculated to incrementally – or progressively – establish a socialist state. Therefore, liberals, progressives, socialists, national socialists, and communists must be completely disenfranchised politically. Further, I believe that those who do support the Republic and the Constitution ought to be quite up front about their intentions in this area, as well as demonstrably ruthless.

If asked, many Americans would likely admit that they don’t consider socialism much of a threat. After all, some long-established government institutions that have helped a lot of people contain socialistic components, and look at how well socialistic practices have worked in a some notable developed nations such as Japan, and in Scandinavia (The latter claim being one that has been eroded in recent years, particularly in light of the Muslim invasion of Scandinavia).

In America, this monumentally imprudent acceptance of aspects of socialism has given rise to large numbers of mental defectives supporting the geriatric Vermont Sen. [score]Bernie Sanders[/score] for President of the United States; the conservative press references Sanders as a socialist, though his political views are more closely aligned with communism. The idea that even one American would consider this man as a viable candidate for the office of President would be laughable if he did not actually have significant numbers of people queued up to vote for him.

There are simply no counters to the moral and intellectual argument which irrevocably condemns socialism, and it is this: In the last century, socialism in its various forms was responsible for the murder of nearly half a billion people, and the persecution of millions more. Ultimately, socialist governments always wind up murdering millions of their own citizens outright; the only exceptions to this (thus far) are those nations that have, or until recently have had, ethnically homogeneous populations.

We’re certainly aware that the Marxist-Leninist view holds that capitalism and Western democracies have been responsible for at least as many deaths and just as much persecution, since this is the line that activists and college professors have been bleating for decades. We’re also aware that this is simply morally relativistic extrapolation for the purposes of propaganda, and it does nothing to negate the fact of socialism’s culpability in in the deaths of millions.

Considering the foregoing, patriotic Americans should have no reservations whatsoever in condemning socialism’s various incarnations, including liberalism, nor should they stand on subverted and misrepresented notions of free speech, fraternity, or inclusivity in their aggressive opposition of those who support these manifestly evil doctrines.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.