By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great local journalism.
Opinion: Here's the difference between liberalism and socialism
Hank Sullivan
Hank Sullivan is a Forsyth County resident, businessman, author and speaker on American history, economics and geopolitics.

You may recall, I have previously warned that socialism is at our door. Increasing population densities are the cradle of liberalism. Liberalism is a necessary precursor for socialism. Thus, as the population of Forsyth County grows, liberalism and cries for socialism will become increasingly commonplace.

I have also warned that if Republican candidates running in the 7th District do not firmly support President Donald Trump, exciting the conservative base to the polls, Forsyth County may soon be represented by a socialist in Washington D.C.

That said, I venture that most people do not thoroughly understand these terms, liberalism and socialism, the difference between the two, and what they mean within a broader context of deeper endangerment.

So, today let’s take a few minutes and place these terms in appropriate context. By framing them properly, readers might better recognize these imminent dangers to our American way of life.

Think of it this way. Liberalism is simply the cultivated mindset necessary for socialism to initiate. At its root, the liberal mind eschews absolutes. The prodigious thinkers who calculated all this believed that if they could educate the impressionable public against thinking in absolute terms, they could fool the masses to believe that nothing is necessarily “good” or “bad,” except what one prefers to be so. Owning the keys to America’s education system – the foundational step toward socialism – was to train entire generations to believe that whether a human activity or mode of thinking might be morally justified is a simple matter of opinion, rather than a defined condition within a common Godly jurisdiction.

Part of that step toward socialism was to equate “good and bad” with “good and evil.” America is founded on concrete, Judeo-Christian principles. To circumvent that fact, the social engineers in charge promoted the idea that even the existence of God, as author of absolute truth, is itself a mere opinion.  The result is an increasing belief within American society that morality is in the eyes of each observer. The term for that is “moral relativity.”

And so, by marginalizing the very assumptions providing the foundation of America, and subordinating America’s founding principles as mere opinions rather than reliable truths, the promoters of liberal-thinking sought to transform America away from a nation guided by immutable, Godly principles codified in a constitution to one ruled by public opinion – a democracy – cementing the impression in the minds of the unsuspecting masses that the Constitution was never meant as an embodiment of rigid, absolute rules.

Over time, the Constitution became a “living and breathing” national agreement subject to change according to ambient public opinion. Accordingly, if the originators of this redefined, pseudo-American perspective could simply control public opinion, they could also control the American government.

See how that works?

Socialism is the ideological second step toward the goal of controlling the American government and beyond. Its promoters market socialism as a way to encourage the belief that life would be better for common people under its workings. In keeping, socialist candidates ever-vow to extract resources from those who “have” and award them to those who “have not.” In practice, however, that system breaks down because those “who have” stop working and those “who have not” tire of complaining that what they are owed from the government never materializes. That leaves everyone angry and malcontent. That kind of population is difficult to control.

In furtherance of their overall purpose, and to control all those malcontents, central planners next employ communistic control systems. Communism is a third, physical enforcement step beyond liberalism and socialism, one necessary to control the masses of disaffected socialists and their victims, once everyone discovers that socialism is a lie. Unsuspecting masses go in believing socialism to be an equitable mechanism for evenly distributing a nation’s wealth. They eagerly volunteer to live under its tenets, socialist politicians promising to steal from the rich and give to the masses of voters while arguing that wealth transfer protocols are morally justified (see moral relativism above).

In the end, however, the duped masses of voters toil for an elite few at the top who own and control everything with an iron fist. Those are your oligarchs. Because this system lends itself to total domination and world enslavement, there is another term perhaps even better suited to describe these elites. That term is, “globalist.”

President Trump defines globalists as “the Washington establishment and the financial and media corporations that fund it.” Until Trump became president, globalists on both sides ran the American government. The financial corporations to whom Trump refers are the Wall Street banks, all members of the private Federal Reserve money creation system. Those banks are the linchpin of globalist control because they have the means to create money and channel it wherever necessary to promote globalist purposes. As a result, until Trump’s election, the American government was run by the collective will of multi-national corporations rather than the American people.

The media corporations to which Trump refers are six conglomerates that control the dissemination of propaganda (news) across America. They behave as a monopoly. They are biased against Trump because he has vowed to destroy globalist control over America, appropriately identifying the media’s propaganda as “fake news.”

So socialism is not an end in and of itself. Socialism is simply an ideological step toward total globalist control of the world population.