Translate

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

WARREN B. SMITH: THE MODERN CHURCH & HOW DID WE GET HERE?~"ANOTHER JESUS" CALLING~THE RIGHT HAND OF FALSEHOOD

WARREN B. SMITH: 
THE MODERN CHURCH & HOW DID WE GET HERE? 
Warren B Smith - The Modern Church, How Did We Get Here? https://www.NewAgeToAmazingGrace.com This teaching was given at Calvary Chapel Cypress (2015). Warren B. Smith - Resources https://www.lighthousetrails.com/39-w... Deceived on Purpose: The New Age Implications of the Purpose Driven Church A "Wonderful" Deception: The Further New Age Implications of the Emerging Purpose Driven Movement False Christ Coming: Does Anybody Care?: What New Age Leaders Really Have in Store for America, the Church, and the World Light That Was Dark: From the New Age to Amazing Grace "Another Jesus" Calling - 2nd Edition: How Sarah Young's False Christ is Deceiving the Church Pressing On Through It All: Scriptural Encouragement For These Last Days
________________________________________________________
Warren B Smith - "Another Jesus" Calling (Berean Call Conference)
"Another Jesus" Calling https://www.NewAgeToAmazingGrace.com "Another Jesus" Calling (The Berean Call Bible Conference 2014. Author and speaker Warren B. Smith has extensively researched and written about Sarah Young’s devotional book Jesus Calling. At this conference he explains numerous scriptural problems that Sarah Young’s “Jesus” has communicated to (through) Sarah Young, and he gives a clear biblical warning about the danger of listening to “spirits” and "voices" without "testing" them in light of the Word of God. This video and Warren's book "Another Jesus" Calling (EXPANDED 2ND EDITION), serve as solid evidence that Sarah Young's "Jesus" is indeed a false christ ! RECOMMENDED READING: BOOK - "Another Jesus" Calling - EXPANDED 2ND EDITION https://www.lighthousetrails.com/disc... BOOKLET - 10 Scriptural Reasons Why Jesus Calling is a Dangerous Book https://www.lighthousetrails.com/new-... BOOKLET - Changing "Jesus Calling" - Damage Control for a False Christ https://www.lighthousetrails.com/fals... BOOKLET - The New Age Implications of Jesus Calling https://www.lighthousetrails.com/new-... New Age Implications: Ten Examples 1) The New Age Book God Calling 2) Channeled “Messages” from “Jesus” 3) Visualization 4) Meditation 5) New Age Terminology 6) Divine Alchemy 7) Co-creation 8) God’s Dream 9) God “in” Everything 10) Sarah Young’s New Agey Mystical Moonlight Conversion RELATED TOPICS: Are the Jesus Calling communications a form of spiritism? Is Jesus Calling spirit channeling, like A Course In Miracles? Is Sarah Young, through Jesus Calling, promoting “listening meditation”? Is Sarah Young, through the Jesus Calling material, hearing actual voices? Are Jesus Calling videos endorsed by Sarah Young’s publisher? Is the Jesus Calling podcast a safe way to endorse the Bible? Is the Jesus Calling devotional an actual spirit guide speaking through the author? Are subliminal images embedded in the Jesus Calling artwork and study guides?
_______________________________________________________

Warren B Smith - The Right Hand of Falsehood 

(Great Lakes Prophecy Conference)

The Right Hand of Falsehood https://www.NewAgeToAmazingGrace.com Filmed at the Calvary Chapel Appleton - Great Lakes Prophecy Conference (2016), Warren B Smith gives documented evidence of how - through great deception in the Church - 'The Right Hand of Falsehood' is being embraced by leaders worldwide. He explains how how the Bible describes how such a thing could happen when leaders let down their guard, and he also gives numerous examples. SUGGESTED READING: BOOK - "Another Jesus" Calling EXPANDED 2ND EDITION https://www.lighthousetrails.com/disc... BOOKLET - Leonard Sweet (A More Magnificent Way of Seeing Christ?) https://www.lighthousetrails.com/new-... NEW AGE MOVEMENT - https://www.lighthousetrails.com/2028... BOOK - False Christ Coming: Does Anybody Care?: What New Age Leaders Really Have in Store for America, the Church, and the World https://www.amazon.com/False-Christ-C... WARREN B SMITH RESOURCES https://www.lighthousetrails.com/39-w...

THE HORRIFYING FETAL BODY PARTS MARKET~DEATH ON DEMAND: THE NEW DEMOCRAT POSITION ON ABORTION

THE BRAINWASHING OF STUDENTS IN UNIVERSITIES & COLLEGES INTO THE LIBERAL, GLOBALIST MINDSET TOWARDS "POPULATION CONTROL" FOR THE SAKE OF ALLEGED "SUSTAINABILITY" OF THE PLANET
KAITLIN BENNETT OF INFOWARS INTERVIEWS THEM

The Horrifying Fetal Body Parts Market
THE HORRIFYING FETAL BODY PARTS MARKET
 Learn about one of America’s darkest secrets
BY JON BOWNE
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Since the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe Vs. Wade, the abortion debate has been a controversial battleground met by a host of philosophies, religions, and science.
But while the dispute raged on, an underground industry of the sale of fetal body parts grew until it reached discovery and prosecution.
New investigations have uncovered horrific middlemen procurement businesses selling baby parts like you would sell a cow or a pig.
The left has proudly championed the right to accelerate the demise of the innocent while continuing to sell the public on the facade that its party protects those who cannot speak for themselves.
But nothing could be further from the truth.
________________________________________________________

“RIPPING BABIES STRAIGHT FROM THE MOTHER’S WOMB”: TRUMP BLASTS DEMOCRAT SUPPORT FOR INFANTICIDE

“Virtually every top Democrat… now supports late-term abortion,” President noted

BY ADAN SALAZAR
SEE: https://www.infowars.com/ripping-babies-straight-from-the-mothers-womb-trump-blasts-democrat-support-for-infanticide/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
President Trump on Monday slammed Democrat support for infanticide during a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina, Monday night, specifically calling attention to Gov. Ralph Northam’s (D-Va.) despicable comments about post-birth abortions.
“Virtually every top Democrat also now supports late-term abortion,” the president said. “Ripping babies straight from the mother’s womb, right up to the moment of birth.”
Trump added that Gov. Northam’s comments about post-birth abortions were indicative of how far-left the party has gone on the issue.
“And if you look at Virginia, the governor of Virginia, he was even talking about essentially, you would say an execution. He was talking after the baby is born, the doctor will talk to the mother and they’ll make a decision as to whether or not that baby lives. This is a radical Democrat idea! That’s why I’ve asked Congress to prohibit extreme late-term abortion because Republicans believe that every child is a sacred gift from God.”
Northam back in January went on radio station WTOP and defended a 40-week abortion ban proposed by the state’s Democrats. 40 weeks is typically considered the end term of a pregnancy, but Northam offered an example in which a baby would be brought to term, delivered, then parents and doctors would decide whether it would stay alive.
“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
On Tuesday, fact-check site Politifact deemed President’s Trump’s comments correctly reflecting Gov. Northam’s statements “false.”
 Follow the author on Gab: https://gab.ai/adansalazar

_______________________________________________________________

Death on Demand: The New Democrat Position on Abortion

BY JAMES MURPHY
SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/33375-death-on-demand-the-new-democrat-position-on-abortionrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
For Democrats, the days of “safe, legal and rare” on the abortion issue are in the distant past. Perhaps, their new motto should be, “whenever, wherever and however.” In the new Democrat Party, abortion is being touted as not only an effective and even preferred method of birth control, but also as a primary component in their plan to fight climate change.
Asked whether he would be “courageous enough” to address population control as it relates to climate change, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was more than ready to connect climate change to abortion/population control. “So, I think, especially in poor countries around the world, where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies and where they can have the opportunity to birth control to control the number of kids they have is something I very, very strongly support.”
Sanders also ranted about the Mexico City Agreement, a government policy that denies funding to non-American NGOs that perform abortions or offer counseling for them. Republican administrations typically follow the policy, while Democrat presidents do not. “And the Mexico City Agreement, which denies American aid to those organizations around the world that are — that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control is totally absurd,” Sanders said.
It seems to me that Sanders is not only proposing abortion as a means of population control in “poor countries” but is suggesting that we use U.S. taxpayer funds to do so. Yet, he has the gall to call Donald Trump a racist?
And just so you don’t think that Senator Sanders is the only Democrat who has dived into the issue, Mayor Pete Buttigieg has gone on record declaring that abortions should be allowed until a baby takes his or her first breath. Buttigieg also absurdly claims that his position is biblical.
“There’s a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath,” Buttigieg said in an interview on The Breakfast Club radio show. “No matter what you think about the cosmic question of how life begins, most Americans can get on board with the idea of, ‘I might draw the line here, you might draw the line there.' The most important thing is the person who should be drawing the line is the woman making the decision.”
With his “life begins at breath” pronouncement, Buttigieg is signaling his support for extreme new abortion laws such as the New York law signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo in January. That law, the so-called Reproductive Health Act, allows abortion up until the moment of birth in the Empire State.
States' laws about abortion have seen drastic changes in 2019. Depending on the state, those laws have been both good and bad news, depending on which side of the life debate you fall on. Pro-lifers scored a huge victory in the State of Alabama when Governor Kay Ivey signed the Human Life Protection Act, which prohibits abortion in the state unless there is a serious threat to a pregnant woman’s health; if the fetus were to be stillborn or die shortly after birth or if the pregnant woman is diagnosed with a serious mental illness. The law is scheduled to go into effect in November but lawsuits by pro-abortion groups may delay it.
Other states that have passed significant pro-life legislation this year include Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, and Ohio. Most of these laws are being challenged in court by pro-abortion groups.
On the other end of the spectrum, states such as New York have passed laws assuring that babies are at risk of abortion up until the time they’re born — perhaps even after they’re born if you ask Virginia Governor Ralph Northam.
The New York Law, the Reproductive Health Act, made abortion legal at any time “when necessary to protect a woman’s life or health,” which, basically, gives women the right to ask for and abortionists the right to perform abortions at any time up until the moment of birth. The law also repealed aspects of the New York criminal code pertaining to abortion.
Democrat Governor Cuomo was so happy with his new “death bill” that he ordered the One World Trade Center lit up pink to celebrate the bill’s passage.
Vermont, Nevada, Illinois, Maine, Washington, and Virginia have all passed pro-abortion laws this year.
So, as usual, the country is split on the issue of abortion. But 2020 Democrats are staking out the most extreme pro-abortion stances they can in preparation for the coming election.
As Democrats struggle and strive to gain the acceptance and the votes of their far-left “woke” base, they risk losing ordinary citizens who struggle with issues such as abortion. While this is possibly good news in the short-term, the move to more extreme positions signals an ever-more leftward tilt in the national discussion on abortion. The GOP and pro-life advocates must be careful that they are not pulled to the left as well.
_______________________________________________________________
PETE: BIBLE SAYS LIFE STARTS 
WHEN BABY BREATHES AFTER BIRTH: 
Pete Buttigieg's 'Brother-in-Law' Says Candidate Has 'Manipulated' the Bible, Calls on Him to Repent
BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: https://christiannews.net/2019/09/10/pete-buttigiegs-brother-in-law-says-candidate-has-manipulated-the-bible-calls-on-him-to-repent/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
CLIO, Mich.  Rhyan Glezman, an evangelical pastor who is also the “brother-in-law” of Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, has been speaking out after Buttigieg recently used the Bible to support his views in favor of abortion “rights,” suggesting that the Scriptures can be read by some to say that life doesn’t begin until one takes their first breath.
“My brother-in-law needs to repent from this radical false teaching,” Glezman, the senior pastor of Clio Community Church of God in Michigan, posted to social media on Friday. “God does not endorse this nonsense. Only false religion does.”
Glezman was referring to Buttigieg’s interview with “The Breakfast Club,” in which he discussed various issues, from homosexuality to religion in politics. Buttigieg is a homosexual and is “married” to Glezman’s brother, Chasten.
“[Republicans] hold everybody in line with this one piece of doctrine about abortion, which is obviously a tough issue for a lot of people to think through morally. Then again, there’s a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath, and so even that is something that we can interpret differently,” Buttigieg said at one point during the radio show.
“No matter what you think about the kind of cosmic question of how life begins, most Americans can get on board with the idea of, ‘Alright, I might draw the line here; you draw the line there.’ But the most important thing is the person who should be drawing the line: … the woman making the decision,” he continued. “Since when should men be dictating what women ought to be able to do?”
Glezman says that he feels compelled to speak out about the matter in light of what Buttigieg suggested, which he believes is a “manipulation” of the Bible.
“God places a very high value on all human life,” he told the Washington Examiner. “Everyone is created fearfully and wonderfully in the image of God with intrinsic value. That doesn’t start at the first breath. It starts when we enter our mother’s womb.”
“If we’re going to say we’re for all people and we love all people, but we don’t value human life in the womb, that’s being a hypocrite,” Glezman said. “You’re hypocritical if you don’t stand up for all life. So that’s why I’m speaking out.”
Minutes after making his abortion remarks during the “Breakfast Club” interview, when asked if he believes if God cares about politics, Buttigieg said that God cares about how men treat each other. He pointed to the words of Abraham Lincoln, who said that men should seek to be on being on God’s side rather than working to get Him on their side.
“Lincoln talked about — I think during the Civil War — [how] everyone wants to call God onto their side, but we should spend less time praying to get God on our side and more time figuring out if I can get on God’s side,” Buttigieg noted. “And that’s how I come at this.”
“The funny thing about praying is that sometimes we do it in the sense of telling God what to do,” he also remarked moments later. “I think it ought to be more a process where we’re deciding how to align ourselves, how we tune our own hearts. If we’re going to pray for our politics, let’s pray for ourselves to walk in a way that is better for humanity on all sides of our politics.”
Glezman said that he loves Pete, but is concerned with Buttigieg’s use of Christian terminology to justify his liberal policies, such as those on abortion and homosexuality.
“Anyone who makes those claims, anyone who’s going to weaponize the [Bible] in that way, I would say to anyone that you need to repent. This is leading people astray and it’s very, very dangerous,” he stated.
Buttigieg commented during the interview that he believes Republicans have used “faith as a way to order people into living their lives a certain way.”
Conversely, Glezman, who suffered division in his family when he became a Christian, said that it is the liberals who are rather pressuring people of faith. He compared those such as Buttigieg to the Pharisees of Jesus’ time, as they came up with their own human rules and traditions, which superseded God’s commands and made the Word of God “of no effect” (Mark 7:13).
“In their eyes, if we don’t celebrate or endorse their marriage views or their abortion views, then all of a sudden we become the homophobic bigots, which is just not true. You can love people and have a disagreement,” he told the Washington Examiner.
“And that’s what I’m seeing with this false religion,” Glezman stated. “That’s why I compared them to the Pharisees of today, with their new laws that they’re trying to instill. And they’re saying, ‘If you don’t believe the way I do, then you’re a hateful, bigoted person; you’re homophobic, you’re anti-woman.’ It becomes this hostile division.”
He urged followers on Friday to pray for Buttigieg, and posted a Scriptural reminder on Sunday from 2 Timothy 4:3, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions.”
______________________________________________________________
New Sexual Fetish; Couples Getting Pregnant and 

Having Multiple Abortions

“My girlfriend enjoys her pregnancies and she enjoys the abortion.”
BY PAUL JOSEPH WATSON
SEE: https://summit.news/2019/09/11/new-sexual-fetish-couples-getting-pregnant-and-having-multiple-abortions/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
A new sexual fetish has emerged where couples repeatedly get pregnant then have multiple abortions.
Every day we stray further from God’s light.
In a Reddit post entitled ‘Question regarding abortion and breeding fetish’, one user reveals how she has “a female friend who has a really powerful fetish for breeding” and never used birth control.
“She is with a male partner currently who is just like her, into breeding and they have been practising their fetish for quite a few abortions,” the post reads.
Another male respondent then shared details of his own abortion fetish lifestyle.
“I know this fetish. My girlfriend and me have the same fetish. My girlfriend enjoys her pregnancies and she enjoys the abortion. Her preferred date to abort is between 20 and 24 weeks of gestation. I enjoy making her pregnant. And I enjoy the time of her pregnancy. She has no menstrual period and she is sexually very active,” he writes.
“In the last ten years in our relationship we have done seven abortions and my girlfriend is pregnant again with a little girl,” he adds.
Another respondent then praises him for sharing his fetish, writing, “It is good (and rare) to hear of a couple (both man and woman) where both members are into abortion and pregnancy. This is a wonderful and potent example of personal power, where sex meets violence and creation combines with destruction.”
Truly sick.
Given that the left has turned abortion from something that used to be a shameful last resort into a celebrated virtue, it becoming a sexual fetish was always the next (il)logical step.
_______________________________________________________________
NURSE JILL STANEK, FIRED FOR EXPOSING 
LIVE BIRTH ABORTIONS
jill-stanek2
CHRISTIAN NURSE TELLS HER STORY
Illinois Hospital Created ‘Comfort Room’ For Aborted Babies to Die In 
Infants remained alive for hours after abortion procedure
“Before the Comfort Room was established, babies were taken to the Soiled Utility Room to die,” Stanek added in her article.
BY PAUL JOSEPH WATSON
An eyewitness nurse revealed how a hospital in Illinois has a “comfort room” in which aborted babies who survive for hours outside the womb are left to die.
Jill Stanek told a hearing on the Born Alive Act in Washington, D.C. that doctors at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn perform “live birth abortions” where the baby is allowed to die during or after the abortion procedure.
The hospital provides “comfort care” for the babies for hours after the procedure by wrapping the infant in a blanket and keeping it warm until it dies. Parents of the baby are also allowed to hold it during this time.
“If staff did not have the time or desire to hold the baby, she was taken to Christ Hospital’s Comfort Room, which was complete with a First Photo machine if parents wanted professional pictures of their aborted baby, baptismal supplies, gowns and certificates, foot printing equipment and baby bracelets for mementos, and a rocking chair,” Stanek said.
null
She also revealed how once she witnessed a nurse deliver a live baby but then fail to clamp the severed umbilical cord, causing the baby to begin bleeding. The infant was then placed in a bag and thrown in the trash.
Stanek also related how she held a 22 week old down syndrome baby for the last 45 minutes of his life because his parents did not want to hold him.
“Toward the end, he was so quiet I could not tell if he was still alive,” Stanek said. “I held him up to the light to see through his chest wall whether his heart was still beating. After he was pronounced dead, I folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken.”
Stanek subsequently quit her job at the hospital.
Meanwhile, as I explain in the video below, a new sexual fetish involves couples repeatedly getting pregnant and aborting multiple babies.
SEE VIDEO IN POST ABOVE.
_______________________________________________________________
SEE ALSOPro-Life Nurse Fired from Christ Hospital

PRAGER U VIDEO: GOOGLE INSIDER EXPOSES GOOGLE BLACKLISTS OF CONSERVATIVES

PRAGER U VIDEO: 
GOOGLE INSIDER EXPOSES GOOGLE BLACKLISTS

"What they are saying is untrue."

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274836/prager-u-video-google-insider-exposes-google-prager-universityrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
In the latest video from Prager U, a whistleblower has come forward to expose Google's hidden editorial bias against conservatives, and a huge cache of internal Google documents has been released via Project Veritas. Don't miss it!


ANOTHER TRANNY ACTIVIST GETS CAUGHT FOR SEX ABUSE WITH A FOUR YEAR OLD GIRL, DISTRIBUTING PORN VIDEOS & PHOTOS OF HIS ACTS

"19-year-old Jakob Nieves, a man who identifies as a woman, “did knowingly employ, use, persuade, induce, entice and coerce” a four-year-old girl “to engage in any sexually explicit conduct” with him “for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct,” court records show."
QUOTE ABOVE FROM: http://archive.is/fNwFv
Dakota (né Jakob) Nieves
ABOVE: Jakob Nieves, a 19-year-old man who identifies as a woman named Dakota, is accused of raping a four-year-old girl and sharing the images with an undercover agent.
ANOTHER TRANNY ACTIVIST GETS CAUGHT 
WITH A FOUR YEAR OLD GIRL
SARAH CORRIHER REPORTS ON SEX ABUSE
Predators are coming to a women's bathroom or locker room near you, and they pretend that it's a civil right to see your daughter's privates. All of this gets applause from the Democratic Party. Jakob Nieves is the latest transgender 'activist' accused of child rape.
SEE ALSO:

SHADOWS IN THE PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM~BEHIND THE DEEP STATE

SHADOWS IN THE PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM~BEHIND THE DEEP STATE
In this episode of Behind the Deep State, host Alex Newman brings attention to what’s been happening in the public school system for decades. Beginning with John Dewey, through the Bill Gates funded Common Core standards, the public schools have been at the mercy of those who have cheerleaders for communism, globalism, the United Nations, and environmentalism.

ONE AMERICA NEWS FILES $10 MILLION LAWSUIT AGAINST COMCAST, MSNBC FOR LIBEL

ONE AMERICA NEWS FILES $10 MILLION LAWSUIT AGAINST COMCAST, MSNBC FOR LIBEL
 One America News is holding Comcast and MSNBC accountable for their actions, and has filed a $10 million lawsuit against the corporations. One America’s Pearson Sharp explains how Rachel Maddow’s words could soon cost her and her network a lot more than they bargained for.

NEW YORK CITY: SERIOUSLY? BICYCLE LICENSES ARE COMING~THE LEFT IS OBSESSED WITH GIVING THE NANNY STATE MORE POWER WITH OPPRESSIVE LAWS

Seriously? Bicycle Licenses Are Coming
NEW YORK CITY: SERIOUSLY? BICYCLE LICENSES ARE COMING~THE LEFT IS OBSESSED WITH GIVING THE NANNY STATE MORE POWER WITH OPPRESSIVE LAWS
BY MILLIE WEAVER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
New York City Mayor, and not so popular Democrat Primary Presidential Candidate, Bill de Blasio wants to require you to have a bicycle license as well as a helmet to legally ride a bike and promises to regulate cyclists with stricter law enforcement.
De Blasio and “progressive” allies have pushed New York city towards redesigning their transportation away from fossil fuel-powered motor vehicles to “formalize and codify a hierarchy of street use that prioritizes pedestrians and cyclists over private cars [BikeNYC2020].”
However, the nearly 100 miles of dedicated lanes for cyclists have generated a spike in collisions involving cyclists and pedestrians as well as motorists.
De Blasio has done little to address the problem that bikers themselves pose until now.
His solution?
More fines, fees and regulations of course.


  

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SPEECH AT MAGA RALLY IN FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SPEECH AT MAGA RALLY 
IN FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA

THE DEADLY HISTORY OF SOCIALISM

THE DEADLY HISTORY OF SOCIALISM 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Many Americans, especially young people, want to get rid of capitalism — because of its inequality — and install socialism as a replacement. But such a plan has been tried all over the world, with disastrous results.
Today, if you are a young adult, finishing high school or making your way through college, or maybe even just entering the workforce, you have been made keenly aware of inequality by your teachers, your guidance counselors, and by nearly everything you see and hear in the media. 
You have been told, repeatedly, and may even believe, some of the following: The one-percent exploit everyone else; white people have an unfair advantage over everyone else; workers are exploited by business owners; the justice system only works for the rich; conservatives and/or Republicans are Nazis; freedom of speech is a cover for intolerance and hate; it’s unfair that some people have more wealth than others, and they got that wealth by cheating, lying, and deceiving others, or by using their unearned “white privilege.”
If you believe these things, and others like them, then you likely believe that there is only one valid solution to the problem. And that is, we must get rid of capitalism, overthrow any whiff of privilege, and institute a fair system of socialism that takes care of the underprivileged and takes away any unfair advantages that others seem to enjoy.
If this were attempted, would it work? Would such a system actually result in a better society, one that offered greater but more-evenly distributed prosperity? 
Well, there is no need to guess or speculate. In fact, over the last 10 to 12 decades there have been many nations that have tried to implement just the type of socialist system that is now so widely recommended for America. How did those efforts turn out?
The short answer is: not very well. Let’s examine some of the outcomes.
Germany
In the 1930s and 1940s, until the destruction of the Hitler regime in 1945, Germany was a socialist nation. No doubt, you’ve heard that this isn’t true, that Germany was a fascist nation or a Nazination. Moreover, you’ve been told, repeatedly, that Nazism is an ideology of the politics of the Right. More bluntly, you have been told, or at least you’ve heard repeatedly, that conservatives and Republicans are today’s modern, racist Nazis. 
Let’s clear up this foggy notion straight away. “Nazi” is an acronym for the full name of the party in question: the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP. In English that is the National Socialist German Workers Party. Let’s put a fine point on this: In Nazi-era Germany, the plan was to build a socialist nation favoring ethnic Germans by ending the supposed privileges others, such as the Jewish minority, were imagined to have.
This tells you something very specific about socialism in general that we will see played out again and again everywhere socialism is implemented. While the prevailing belief today is that socialism is about fairness for everyone, the reality is that socialism is really about favoring some group or groups over all others. In Nazi Germany, the group to be favored was the ethnic Germans. 
Now, socialism, when instituted, has both economic and social consequences. These may appear unevenly, depending on the means and areas of emphasis of socialist strategies of implementation. In Nazi Germany, the most immediate and obvious impacts were in the area of social consequences.
It’s all well and good to speak in theoretical terms, but let’s make this personal. Suppose you are a young high-school aged person in 1938 Germany. You are and have been close friends with the boy or girl next door, who, like you, is ethnically German. Unfortunately, your neighbor, while just as German as you, is also Jewish. And his father, who for years worked hard to build up the success of a clothing factory, was no different than your father who worked hard leading a local chemical factory. While your father, proud of his red Nazi arm band, prospered and his factory grew large selling the ingredients of war and death to the regime, your neighbor’s father was forced to sell his clothing factory to an “Aryan” for pennies on the dollar. Then, one day not long after, you noticed that local family had disappeared, carted off to a concentration camp.
Lest you think this is fiction, be assured that it is not. It is, in fact, the story, in broad outline, of a young man named Gert Silberbart. Interviewed after the war about his experience when he was only 18 years old, he recalled how his family was arrested in Berlin early in March 1943. Soon thereafter, the family was loaded into cattle cars for the three-day journey to the Auschwitz death camp. After that, Gert never saw his family again. He survived unimaginable conditions including slave labor, death marches, beatings, starvation, and much more, until the American armies reached nearby. At that point, a concentration camp commander promised that all prisoners would be peacefully and quietly handed over. Gert didn’t believe this, and rightfully so, as tens of thousands who were unable to hide were killed. 
Gert described the ordeal at length: “I had hidden in several blocks, in basements, partly in the sewers ... in holes in the sewage system, in attics, in short, in every hideout where I could disappear,” he recounted of his survival tactics. “Thus I was hiding for about a week. Constantly there was the call for the Jews to come out [‘Juden raus,’ literally ‘Jews out’] and when the largest part of the Jews were gone, they went after the Christians. There were daily transports from the camp, so that in the camp that had held 100,000 people a week before, at the point of liberation by the Americans on April 11, there were only 22,000 people left.” 
Because the Nazis wanted to have “fairness” for “Aryans,” they persecuted and murdered most everyone else. Does this strike anyone as fair? Of course not. Yet to many Germans of the era, and especially to the fervent followers of the NSDAP, their victims received what they had coming to them for being hitherto thought to be unfairly advantaged compared to the average German worker. It doesn’t matter that there wasn’t any actual advantage enjoyed by the Silberbart family or by those other millions of men, women, and children whose lives were destroyed by the Nazis. Facts, in socialist systems, don’t matter. Only feelings matter. Only outrage matters. Only propaganda matters. To socialists, the individual lives of those outside of the favored group don’t matter. 
What was the result of this, in Nazi Germany? Millions were enslaved. Millions were murdered in cold blood. 
There is much that can be said about the specifics of Nazi Germany. But the salient point, the most important point, and one that you will see repeated with so many socialist efforts, is that millions of people who did not deserve to be killed were murdered by the socialist government. 
Keep in mind, also, that the blood-drenched Nazi government came to power legally. Moreover, Germany before the Nazis was hardly a backwater. It was the most advanced nation in Europe, with the world’s best scientists in physics and chemistry, a robust and prosperous industrial economy, and a centuries’ long history as a leader in the arts, in literature and in philosophy.
After the war, Germany was divided between the armies of the Allies and the Soviet Union. Thus split in two, Germany now became two nations, a free Germany in the west, and, in the east, a communist gulag state.
Both versions of Germany started from the same point economically and socially. Devastated by war, their housing stock, factories, distribution networks, communications channels, and, above all, their people, were in shambles. In one part of the country, growth and development would take place under the free, Western model. In the east, growth and development would take place under the communist-socialist model. This gives us a perfect opportunity to understand if the socialist theory is correct: that under the socialist system people are happier, healthier, and wealthier than under the Western system of freedom.
From the Cold War Western point of view, it’s long been obvious which version of Germany was more successful. In the West, the damage from the war was quickly repaired. The West German economy rapidly became the most successful in Europe, and goods and services were readily available. In East Germany, by contrast, damage from the war lingered for decades. Cars were rare and uniformly horrible. Travel was heavily restricted and the population was kept in check by the Stasi, the much-feared secret police.
As with the Nazi regime, we again have eyewitness accounts of conditions in East Germany. Among the best of these are the letters from East Germans that American German-language teacher David F. Strack received over several decades from ordinary East Germans that detailed aspects of their lives. 
Strack, himself, had had occasion to visit East Germany, starting in the mid-1960s. Recounting his first visit to East Berlin in the opening pages of his book Letters Over the Wall: Life in Communist East Germany, he told of seeing extreme battle damage to buildings that still hadn’t been repaired even two decades after the end of World War II. Astonishingly, there were even piles of human remains near one bombed out church. “An experience I’ll never forget,” he recounted. “After taking a picture (35mm slide!) of the still to be rebuilt roof structure of a large building — the German Cathedral on Gendarmen Square — I looked down from the pile of rubble where I was standing. To my shock, lying on the rocks, bricks and debris, were human bones!”
“And yes, I did take pictures of them.” The grisly photos are reproduced in his book.
The East Germans whom Strack met during his visits, and who corresponded with him afterwards over the decades, were quite well aware of the disparity between their lot behind the figurative Iron Curtain — and the all-too-real Berlin Wall — and their German counterparts in West Germany and West Berlin.
In one letter from East Germany, “Gerard” (Strack changed the names of his correspondents to protect their privacy) described his living conditions: 
We live here in a strange country and in an even stranger city. Especially here in the city, the division between East and West is just crazy. Railroad, streetcar lines and streets end suddenly at the border, many houses are even divided. When I stand at the border and look at the people and buildings on the other side — it’s a very strange feeling. And they are Germans — even my relatives — and I’m not allowed to visit them. If I were to illegally go over the border I would be shot or would spend two years in prison. I’m not allowed at all to travel to a capitalistic country; therefore I can never visit you. In West Germany the people live better, and if the border were open, many people would leave this country and want to live there. In the GDR [German Democratic Republic], workers are needed, and if all of them left, who would then do the work?
Indeed, so many East Germans “voted with their feet” and sought asylum in the West that the government of East Germany built a wall, the Berlin Wall, to keep people from leaving. According to CNN, from 1949 to 1961, more than 2.7 million people escaped East Germany, fleeing to the West. Once the East German government cracked down on travel and built the wall, such escape became nearly impossible to accomplish. Border guards, in fact, were authorized to shoot to kill.
This raises the question: If the socialists of East Germany had built a utopian paradise, why were so many so eager to risk their lives to escape it?
Mao’s China
The reason why everyone frantically attempts to escape socialism once it’s shackled upon them is because it does, in fact, bring equality to the people — by making them equally unfree, equally poor, equally miserable, and very often, equally dead.
The formula for the ideal socialist “paradise,” a formula that has since been tried in one form or another in every socialist state, was proposed during the era of the French Revolution by François-Noël “Gracchus” Babeuf. 
A socialist revolutionary, Babeuf was eventually arrested, tried, and executed for his attempts to foment revolution. During his defense, he elaborated on his social program. 
“The products of industry and of genius also become the property of all, the domain of the entire association, from the very moment that the workers and the inventors have created them,” he argued. 
Elaborating further, he continued:
To be more specific, it is necessary to bind together everyone’s lot; to render the lot of each member of the association independent of chance, and of happy or unfavorable circumstance;to assure to every man and to his posterity, no matter how numerous it may be, as much as they need, but no more than they need; and to shut off from everybody all the possible paths by which they might obtain some part of the products of nature and of work that is more than their individual due.
The sole means of arriving at this is to establish a common administration; to suppress private property; to place every man of talent in the line of work he knows best; to oblige him to deposit the fruit of his work in the common store, to establish a simple administration of needs, which, keeping a record of all individuals and all the things that are available to them, will distribute these available goods with the most scrupulous equality, and will see to it that they make their way into the home of every citizen. 
Babeuf lost his head to the guillotine before he could see his plan put into action. But has it ever been tried? And, how does it work in practice? 
In fact, it has been tried, and the results have been miserable, bloody failure and genocide.
Mainland China fell to communist domination in the years following World War II. Under the dictatorial control of the Communist Party, led by “Chairman” Mao Tse-tung, the regime set about implementing Babeuf’s plan to the letter.
Final implementation came in the form of the not-so-aptly named “Great Leap Forward.” Through enslavement of the people as described by Babeuf, Mao intended to force China’s economy to match and then exceed the production capacity of England within just a few years. 
By now, you can likely guess what happened. Frank Dikötter, a Hong Kong-based historian who has had access to a wide range of Chinese communist archives and has done groundbreaking work in removing the veil from decades of Chinese communist tyranny, put it succinctly in his 2010 book, Mao’s Great Famine. “Between 1958 and 1962,” he wrote, “China descended into hell.”
Summarizing his findings in the book, Dikötter wrote:
The peasant masses were mobilised to transform both agriculture and industry at the same time, converting a backward economy into a modern communist society of plenty for all. In the pursuit of a utopian paradise, everything was collectivised, as villagers were herded together in giant communes which heralded the advent of communism. People in the countryside were robbed of their work, their homes, their land, their belongings and their livelihood. Food, distributed by the spoonful in collective canteens according to merit, became a weapon to force people to follow the party’s every dictate. Irrigation campaigns forced up to half the villagers to work for weeks on end on giant water-conservancy projects, often far from home, without adequate food and rest. The experiment ended in the greatest catastrophe the country had ever known, destroying tens of millions of lives.
Supposedly for the good of all, the central planners determined what work needed to be done, who should do it, and how much should be produced. That, in turn, determined how long people should work, and where they should work. In addition to sending tens of thousands away from home to work on water control projects (such as dam building), others were forced to work the fields on massive collective agriculture projects, and most were required also to set up backyard iron smelting operations. 
Now, anywhere in the West, if dams are to be built or other massive construction projects are undertaken, heavy equipment is used. Not so in Mao’s communist China, where laborers were forced to use hand tools (if they were lucky) or their bare hands. In the West, for iron production, iron ore is smelted — heated in a furnace until the iron separates from the impurities. Raw materials were scarce in communist China, so to maintain and reach production quotas, the “smelters” just melted down any metallic item that could be found, including axes, shovels, hammers, nails, pots and pans, and everything else. As a consequence, soon there were no tools to use for any job, including cooking. 
Finally, in agriculture, again without tools, pressure was deployed to use techniques that did not actually work, and production plummeted. Meanwhile, with fertilizers nearly impossible to find, houses were torn down and their materials used to build communal canteens and even to fertilize the ground instead. Error compounded mistake and engendered increasing brutality. 
While the socialist program in China was supposed to be for the benefit of all the people, if you believed the propaganda, the reality was that state power was being used to oppress and destroy people. In fact, outright economic and physical war against the people was openly demanded by communist officials.
Discussing agricultural production and the impact on the majority of poor Chinese citizens, historian Dikötter noted that the communists wildly overestimated actual production and then punished the people for failing to achieve in reality the fantasies of the planners.
“The actual grain output for 1958 was just over 200 million tonnes, but on the basis of all the claims made about bumper crops the leadership estimated that it was close to 410 million tonnes,” Dikötter wrote. “Punitive extractions based on entirely fictitious figures could only create fear and anger in the villages. The stage was set for a war on the people in which requisitions would plunge the country into the worst famine recorded in human history. [High-ranking party official] Tan Zhenlin was blunt, addressing some of the leaders of South China in October 1958: ‘You need to fight against the peasants.... There is something ideologically wrong with you if you are afraid of coercion.’” 
Chairman Mao was even more blunt in response to the vast amount of death and suffering he was inflicting on the country. “When there is not enough to eat, people starve to death,” he said in a speech in 1959. “It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.” Of course, there would have been plenty to eat if it hadn’t been for Mao and his attempts to realize Babeuf’s twisted vision of Utopia.
Instead, villagers starved to death. Some were forced to eat their own children. Relating what he had been told by survivors of the “Great Leap Forward,” Wei Jing-sheng wrote: “Mao Zedong and his henchmen, with their criminal political system, had driven parents mad with hunger and led them to hand their own children over to others, and to receive the flesh of others to appease their own hunger.” 
There was even a black market for human meat. “Human flesh, like everything else, was traded on the black market,” wrote Dikötter. “A farmer who bartered a pair of shoes for a kilo of meat at the Zhangye railway station found that the package contained a human nose and several ears.... To escape detection, human flesh was sometimes mixed with dog meat when sold on the black market.” 
Lest it be thought that these are just ugly and sensational anecdotes, Dikötter quoted from official reports.
It’s hard to conceive of the scale of Mao’s destruction. According to Dikötter, his research “shows that at least 45 million people died unnecessarily between 1958 and 1962.” To put this into perspective, there are approximately 42.5 million people living in the three largest metropolitan areas of the United States combined (New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago). Thus, in just four years, the Chinese Communists wiped out the equivalent population of our three largest cities. 
But even this horrible statistic doesn’t fully capture the scale of Chinese communist bloodlust. The authors of The Black Book of Communism, the pre-eminent scholarly catalogue of communist mass murder and atrocity, estimate that 65 million died or were killed as a result of communist policy and atrocity in China. 
Famine and Genocide in the Soviet Union
Marxists, communists, socialists — whatever you choose to call them — these followers of Babeuf’s vision tried repeatedly to nationalize and collectivize the societies that they enslaved, always with the same result.
In the former Soviet Union, after the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin first, then Stalin sought to collectivize agriculture and nationalize industry on the Babeuf plan. Not surprisingly, this ran into opposition from those who didn’t want to see the hard-won fruits of their labor stolen from them by the new state authorities. Thus, as is often the case in hard-core socialist states, ideological “enemies” had to be hunted down and destroyed.
The team of French historians who catalogued the many and varied egregious crimes of communism in their invaluable Black Book of Communism noted that Lenin and his henchmen in the USSR wasted no time in hunting down their “class enemies.” 
“Lenin and his comrades initially found themselves embroiled in a merciless ‘class war,’ in which political and ideological adversaries, as well as the more recalcitrant members of the general public, were branded as enemies and marked for destruction,” they wrote. Lenin and his fellow communists “had decided to eliminate, by legal and physical means, any challenge or resistance, even if passive, to their absolute power.” 
One group that came in for especially harsh treatment were the Cossacks, an ethnic group with a long tradition of independence and a fierce reputation as skilled warriors. Many Cossacks had been anti-Bolshevik. 
The communists, as a result, began an explicit policy of “de-Cossackization” in about 1920, which resulted in widespread genocide. The “Cossacks ... were exterminated, the men shot, the women, children and the elderly deported, and the villages razed or handed over to new, non-Cossack occupants,” wrote the authors of The Black Book of Communism
A few years later came the campaign of “dekulakization,” which applied the earlier strategy of de-Cossackization on a larger scale. The Kulaks were a class of independent farmers in Russia and Ukraine who had gained a bit of wealth through their hard work. Naturally, this was intolerable to the communists now ruling from Moscow, and so the order came down “to exterminate the kulaks as a class.” 
This deadly campaign was conducted simultaneously with state restriction on the food supply, resulting in one of history’s most deadly famines, one that would foreshadow the famine of Mao’s Great Leap Forward, the mass deaths under Cambodia’s brutal Pol Pot, and the starvation of millions in socialist Ethiopia in the 1980s. 
In the first decades of the Soviet Union’s bloody history, millions lost their lives in the communist pursuit of Babeuf’s Utopia. But even in the 1970s, when Soviet bloodlust had begun to ebb, the socialist system was still incapable of providing anything but a miserable, poor life for the average citizen.
In his book on life in Soviet Russia, Washington Post reporter Robert G. Kaiser pointed out the challenges that the average resident of Moscow faced in the 1970s in acquiring the basics of life that people in the free world, even those of the poorest conditions, took for granted.
“‘If you wanted to have potatoes every day,’ a young man responsible for the family shopping explained, ‘you would have a hard time getting them,’” he told Kaiser. “‘Some parts of Moscow just don’t have potatoes on some days, you might have to go way across town. And you wouldn’t know which direction to set off in, because there’s no telling where potatoes might be. So you don’t have potatoes every day, you buy them when you can.’”
Meanwhile, in the free nations of the West, anyone could (and still can) enter any grocery store at any time, even in the middle of the night at 24-hour retailers, and buy potatoes for what amounts to pocket change. Moreover, tens of thousands of other items are simultaneously on sale, a vast cornucopia readily available. None of this was possible in the Soviet Union, a “super power” that couldn’t readily provide even basic staples on a continuing basis to its unfortunate citizens. 
This was the reality of socialism. It’s no better today in those socialist nations that remain. Such a statement seems counterintuitive — after all, there does not seem to be mass murder and assorted other mass atrocities, as were so prevalent in the past, occurring in these nations at the moment. 
The lack of present-day tyrannical bloodlust in the remaining socialist nations of our world does not mean that socialism no longer poses a threat. Indeed, the threat of atrocity remains latent within.
Socialism requires at its very core that the state, representing the collective, supersede in all ways the rights and dignities of the individual. It is not possible within the scheme of socialism to speak of the natural rights of individuals. As such, the state represents a concentration of power — of force — within the few hands of the socialist ruling cadres. Nothing intrinsically restrains the tyrannical exercise of this force in a fully socialist nation. No individual rights are recognized; therefore, there are no individual rights to infringe. In the name of enforcing “fairness,” anyone, for any arbitrary reason, may be suppressed. 
Whether it be called communism, Nazism, socialism, or even progressivism, the kernel of absolute tyranny lies within the heart of the socialist doctrine. It cannot be expunged. It is intrinsic to the ideology, as the history of socialism amply demonstrates. 
Socialists promise to deliver a better world that provides equality of outcomes for everyone. But that is only an illusion, a bit of propaganda aimed at the gullible. Those who really want to see an improved world, with greater prosperity for all and respect for the individual, need to look elsewhere. They need to look to limited government, diffusion of power, and respect of individual natural rights. 
If you really want a better world, then fight not for socialism; fight for freedom.
This article originally appeared in The New American’s September 2, 2019 special report on socialism. To order the full report, click hereThe New American publishes a print magazine twice a month, covering issues such as politics, money, foreign policy, environment, culture, and technology. To subscribe, click here.