idw.community
32 15

Are you a fascist?

A common tactic of the progressive left is to call people who disagree with them a hate-loaded term such as racist, bigot, or fascist. The definition of these terms have broadened recently to basically mean "bad person". The term "fascist" has the extra punch of visualization of Mussolini and Hitler and them demanding militant adherence to their causes... using totalitarian force. Conservatives often counter that they see fascism coming from the Left. Is one side more right than the other? How to know?

Dictionary definitions of "fascism" include the following (some thoughts from the left and right):

  • Strong central government (welfare state?)
  • promoting your own country above others (america first, open immigration)
  • promote your own race above others (deny "systemic racism", whites are guilty and should give to non-whites)
  • does not allow any opposition (cancel culture, "you're either an anti-racist or a racist", ANTIFA)
  • extreme views or practices that try to make other people think and behave in the same way ("race sensitivity/critical race theory" training/indoctrination, Trump rallies)
  • militarism (strong military, reduce/expand foreign deployment)
  • quasi-religion (wokeism, cult of Trump)
    - exalts race above the individual (identity politics, old-school racism)
  • government headed by a dictatorial leader (Trump? Biden/Pelosi?)
  • severe economic and social regimentation (covid lockdown?)
    - be extreme right-wing (put here by definition... but should it be?)

As it's easy to see the flaws in others and overlook ones own flaws, is it possible to self-assess if you're a fascist? How could someone else convince you that you promote fascist ideas?

Who's more fascistic?

  • 33 votes
  • 2 votes
  • 5 votes
  • 6 votes
Admin 8 Oct 12
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

32 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

8

Terms like fascist, socialist and communist are used in today's climate just for the easy way out of discussion. Most people I see using those terms don't really understand what they are or understand how both parties are identical once the election is over and it's time for policy. People can believe the left is this or the right is that or blah blah blah. From my experience the people who understand political ideologies, and are also informed about what policy is getting passed with teamwork from both parties, have checked out and just don't engage folks be wise it is useless. I've had a person tell me that the congress.gov website was fake news because I showed them how the democrats actually voted completely opposite of what they thought on bills. Nothing will ever change if people refuse to believe their congress person's public vote record. I've basically given up even showing people the actual truth. When MSNBC reporters are more trusted than the public confessional record we are in serious trouble.

george Level 7 Oct 13, 2020

I have also showed people evidence - which could be easily verified independently — and they rejected it outright. Because post-modern thinking rejects the basic pillars of reason, reality and truth, rational conversation is not possible.

@GeeMac Once someone has faith that the other side is evil, evidence no longer internalized.

7

“The further Fascism receded into history and the fewer visible fascists there were on display, the more self-proclaimed anti-fascists needed fascism to retain any semblance of political virtue or purpose. It proved politically useful to describe as fascist people who were not Fascists , just as it proved politically useful to describe as racist people who were not racists.” ― Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam

“In Italy, Fascists divide themselves into two categories: Fascists and Anti-Fascists.”
— Ennio Flaiano

The term "fascist" has been used as a pejorative, regarding varying movements across the far right of the political spectrum. George Orwell wrote in 1944 that "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'".

Communist states have sometimes been referred to as "fascist", typically as an insult. For example, it has been applied to Marxist regimes in Cuba under Fidel Castro and Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh. Chinese Marxists used the term to denounce the Soviet Union during the Sino-Soviet Split, and likewise the Soviets used the term to denounce Chinese Marxists and social democracy (coining a new term in "social fascism" ).

In the United States, Herbert Matthews of The New York Times asked in 1946: "Should we now place Stalinist Russia in the same category as Hitlerite Germany? Should we say that she is Fascist?". J. Edgar Hoover, longtime FBI director and ardent anti-communist, wrote extensively of "Red Fascism". The Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s was sometimes called "fascist". Historian Peter Amann states that, "Undeniably, the Klan had some traits in common with European fascism—chauvinism, racism, a mystique of violence, an affirmation of a certain kind of archaic traditionalism—yet their differences were fundamental....[the KKK] never envisioned a change of political or economic system."

Professor Richard Griffiths of the University of Wales wrote in 2005 that "fascism" is the "most misused, and over-used word, of our times".

"In short, “fascist” is a modern word for “heretic,” branding an individual worthy of excommunication from the body politic. The left uses other words—“racist,” “sexist,” “homophobe,” “christianist”—for similar purposes, but these words have less elastic meanings. Fascism, however, is the gift that keeps on giving. George Orwell noted this tendency as early as 1946 in his famous essay “Politics and the English Language”: “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.

American Progressivism—the moralistic social crusade from which modern liberals proudly claim descent—is in some respects the major source of the fascist ideas applied in Europe by Mussolini and Hitler."

If the word "fascism" has no real meaning, why is used so frequently? Is there any good reply to someone if called a fascist?

@Admin It is used so frequently because its a classical way to avoid actually arguing about something. Calling a person racist, fascist, and myriad of "phobias" like homophobe, xenophobe, transphobe, is to avoid actual responsibility if justifying ones action.

Imagine one of the Antifa as in (anti-fascists) protesters or riots having to actually explain what word Fascism or Racism means?

In fact if they are not busy burning down buildings and yelling at people, you can ask them to explain what the word fascism means. Normally if they do reply, they will try to deflect the question by saying something along the lines of "I know what it means, I don't need to tell you" or they will say "Trump is fascist" etc. Basically regurgitating bunch of propaganda nonsense they have been fed by various media outlets or their peers. And if they have an ounce of self respect and self awareness they will feel embarrassed that they really can't tell you what it means.

This same thing applies to other terms. Here are just some of the them. "Racism" "human rights" "far right" myriad of "phobias" like homophobe, xenophobe, transphobe and the list goes on. You can also ask someone who believes or supports a trans person to define you what is a man or what is a woman and observe hypocrisy, contradiction in their own logic or downright detachment from reality.

Bottom line is, that the words have been sodomized by various political activists playing with words to the point that the original meaning has been lost completely when it comes out of their mouths. its just an insult.

If you are lucky enough to find one of these fruitcakes who still has an ounce of self respect and self awareness left, you can ask them to define the words and tell you about the history of the word. They won't be able to tell you anything. And if they stutter and actually, however briefly become aware of their own stupidity than you might have something resembling a dialog. But in most cases you won't be as lucky, because the words like "fascism" has a purpose of avoiding those kind of conversations to begin with.

“The concept of “microaggression” is just one of many tactics used to stifle differences of opinion by declaring some opinions to be “hate speech,” instead of debating those differences in a marketplace of ideas. To accuse people of aggression for not marching in lockstep with political correctness is to set the stage for justifying real aggression against them.” ― Thomas Sowell

In a nutshell. The adults have allowed the kids to talk back to them and now there is a mess.

"In the United States today, there is a pervasive tendency to treat children as adults, and adults as children. The options of children are thus steadily expanded, while those of adults are progressively constricted. The result is unruly children and childish adults." —Thomas Szasz

In a healthy society when someone would use the word fascist outside of its original meaning.... and used as insult, they would be replied with equal measure by everyone. Which is "piss off". And that would be that.

But because society is by and large uneducated as it is, political activists like feminists and LGBT and now antifa and BLM were allowed to play with words at the expense of everyone. And so here we are.

The more I read about it, the more I agree with the view of P. D. James: “I believe that political correctness can be a form of linguistic fascism, and it sends shivers down the spine of my generation who went to war against fascism” (Paris Review, 1995).

“Democracy was supposed to champion freedom of speech, and yet the simple rules of table decorum* could clamp down on the rights their forefathers had fought and died for.” ― E.A. Bucchianeri, Brushstrokes of a Gadfly,

*Decorum (from the Latin: "right, proper" ) was a principle of classical rhetoric, poetry and theatrical theory that was about the fitness or otherwise of a style to a theatrical subject. The concept of decorum is also applied to prescribed limits of appropriate social behavior within set situations.

6

Words have a specific meaning and should be used judiciously in communicating ideas. In reading responses to many different posts it appears that there are those who do not understand the definition of words they use. Communist, fascist, freedom, liberty are some. The way they are used in the posts or comments indicate that all they mean is bad, bad and good, good.

Pand0ro Level 7 Oct 13, 2020
5

For years now both political extremes have and continue to concern me, as extremes of any sort are generally not a positive thing for society as a whole. A fascist mentality can manifest from either extreme, on the left when it comes to pushing communism, and on the right when it comes to pushing theocracy, as both communism and theocracy are authoritarian in nature. Embracing concepts such as individualism, free markets, free speech/expression, and the freedom to own weapons in which to protect oneself can help deter authoritarianism, as the true power mongers out there are opposed to all of those.

Can you give an example of the right pushing theocracy... besides abortion?

@Admin How about them trying to prevent gays from getting married, in what is supposed to be a free country? I'm not homosexual, but I think in a free country consenting adults should be free to make their own choices. Grant it, some states are better in that department than others, but that doesn't remove the fact that theocratic zealots are pushing to abolish gay marriage.

How about Christian prayers in taxpayer-funded public schools? I'm all for people being able to pray as they see fit, but having teachers lead their classrooms in prayer like alot of those advocating for such would want, that is too extreme and besides in order to be fair with all kids there would have to be prayers from other religions including Satanism, and I'm sure that wouldn't go over good with some folks. Even though we no longer have such in public schools anymore, there are plenty of those out there advocating for a return to that.

Abortion, as you mentioned above, appears to be the big one though.

@Admin
If you consider the United States founding fathers and the US Constitution to be of the "Right" (as opposed to the Left) side of the political philosophical spectrum (and I do not know how anyone could say otherwise) then you also know that they were inspired by the teachings of Christian Scriptures and doctrine.

How many references to God - the Creator are there in the founding documents themselves. How many times has God been mentioned in the private letters and other correspondence of the men who established this Nation. How many times is God mentioned in song and in Oratory - Speeches about the United States of America. How is it that we emblazoned the words "In God we Trust" upon our currency.

If the political Left is altruisticaly Atheistic (and I believe they are) and they want God and all references to God removed from the Public Square - removed from every document, removed from the daily consciousness of America herself then by opposing each other there can be no other conclusion to say that "the Right" promotes Godliness - religiosity and "the Left" wants to drive religiosity out.
Having said all that I also will point out that the debate over Abortion is not so much about Religion as it is a bout secular morality vs A-morality.
There is a fine distinction I know between a given "moral argument" and a "religion argument" but they are not the same thing at all.

@SpikeTalon "I'm not homosexual, but I think in a free country consenting adults should be free to make their own choices."

Sure, but we know that did not happen, and we know why. LGBT lobby and activists have demanded their "rights" based on nothing more than sexual preference. And than not only did they wanted equality but they started prosecuting others and attacking other people's rights. This is not about love or freedom, this is about politics.

There is that famous case where Christian baker didn't want to bake the cake for Gay couple getting married, because of his religious beliefs. So gay couple sued the Christian and course even, supreme court did not reject the law suit. In effect one set of rights were taken away for another set of right. Constitution in the United States does not state that gay's have right to marry and sue people who don't bake cakes for them, but it does speak about freedom to practice religion and not be prosecuted for it. And yet here we are.

The infamous Roe vs Wade case with abortion. Same problem. The supreme court asked a question that it had no business answering and did so anyway, in the process took away rights or fathers, gave middle finger to majorty of religious and non religious community and gave all the "rights" to women. Even if that is not its job. Not the mention that I'm all for women to have a choice in regards to their bodies, but one can make a choice not to get pregnant not abort the child. So you see how feminists have pushed for something that will destroy the nation. You can look at every metric on society and see decline in family units, poverty, domestic violence, crime etc. All that because courts started pushing something that is not their business.

If you think Christianity is the problem, you are doing the same thing as so many have done, you fail to look on the other side and see the problem of the Marxist ideologues. Fanatical religion.

Liberalism: the Good, the Bad, & the Ugly

“I would rather try to organize politics and political discourse in a way that encouraged engagement on moral and religious questions. …If we attempt to banish moral and religious discourse from politics and debates about law and rights, the danger is we’ll have a kind a vacant public square or a naked public square.

And the yearning for larger meanings in politics will find undesirable expression. Fundamentalists will rush in where liberals fear to tread. They will try to clothe the naked public square with the most narrow and intolerant moralisms.”

  • Michael Joseph Sandel is an American political philosopher.

“In the end, the actions of such liberals have the effect---again unwittingly---of continuing to cover for the goals of the extreme Left. Yet again, the soft Left is helping to conceal the hard Left, whether it realizes it or not.” ― Paul Kengor, Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century

Liberalism is a good idea on paper, but you know, communism is also good idea on paper. And the fact that liberalism as an idea is not to be criticized is one of the big problems, because it likes to think of all the previous systems as evil and oppressive and its self as enlightened and progressive. Sadly this kind of attitude and ego creates blind spot for the most extreme elements further down left to come rushing in.

After all it was liberalism which protected the communists, fascists, and Nazis and today it protects BLM and Antifa, and feminism, and LGBT movements. All radical lefties with the most narrow and intolerant moralisms. All terribly anti social.

@SpikeTalon Most are not against gay unions they were more against using the actual term/ words “ marriage/ husband and wife” used. To most, marriage was sacred and between a man and a woman. New words are created every day. Couldn’t they create a new term. JMO

@Krunoslav No one ever said that making such decisions or enforcing such rights wouldn't come along with potential consequences. Take guns for example... living in a society where many citizens own them, conceivably innocent people are going to be injured or killed by bullets, but banning or putting tough restrictions on firearm ownership does not solve the problem. I'm convinced everything has its price, and that's a potential price we pay for living in such a society and a rather small price it is at that.

I'm fully aware that gay rights activists and feminists have become radicalized in fighting for their rights, but that wasn't the original point I tried to make. Even though from a personal standpoint I do not care for either homosexuality or abortion procedures, I can't help but think we become the intolerant ones when we seek to curb the free will of others. By the way, I do not blame liberalism for such perceived ills in society, I blame human beings for such and not ideologies. The Founding Fathers were quite liberal for their day, and Americans today enjoy the liberties they have due to the Founder's taking a stand against tyrants. To be fair, both conservative and liberal have their pros and cons. As for religion goes, I don't think religious people are terrible, and once again to be fair both religious and secular individuals can be a mixture of civil and evil. Both sides can be generous and kind, and equally so intolerant as well.

@FEWI From a personal standpoint I do not favor "gay unions", and marriage does have its definition, which is a union between one man and one woman. Yes, the gay rights activists could have indeed gone about manners in another way that of which would not have been so intrusive (or personal) to others who do not share in such views. Still, my original point was that in a free country the Government should not get involved in such personal affairs, as such actions could open the door to more Government involvement in our personal lives.

@SpikeTalon "As for religion goes, I don't think religious people are terrible, and once again to be fair both religious and secular individuals can be a mixture of civil and evil. Both sides can be generous and kind, and equally so intolerant as well."

I agree. I think we agree in general terms, but perhaps we are thinking of two different things. I was criticizing the philosophy of liberalism that is inherently problematic but does not like to see itself as such.

Sadly liberalism has a pretty bad historic record of creating conditions that gave rise ideologies, religions if you will that are responsible for millions of people suffering and dying. Mainly because it makes an assumption that all people, not just individuals are by nature men or reason and are inclined to do good, not evil. And that assumption is off course wrong. Only individuals are capable of that. The founding father generations were on the momentum of cultural and moral background of the Christians cultural norms and moral code. Once that dried out than liberalism started to protect much more terrible religions / ideologies.

Nothing as terrible has been done on such a scale as communist and Natzis, because of Christianity, and the fact that it managed to survive for 2000 or even more if you count Judaism, is evidence that is more constructive than destructive in the long run. Fascism, Natzism and even Communism did not manged to survive that long and manged to destroy far more than it created. And unlike those ideologies, Christianity actually does have tried and tested set of moral laws. The other ideologies do not. Neither does liberalism. That inventively lead to bad results. As history shows.

Fascism, Nazism and even Communism and now BLM, Antifa, Radical Feminists etc. All were born and manged to get to power under Liberalism. I've posted in my other post reasons why that is.

Liberalism that acts as conserving force by respecting previous moral and cultural ties is the one that is most to what you suggest. Liberalism that is trying to progress toward some kind of utopia or is simply a religious of selfish individuals who don't care about others, is death of nations.It is inherently destructive.

I was criticizing the philosophy of liberalism that is inherently problematic but does not like to see itself as such.

@SpikeTalon I totally agree but I was just trying to defend the right and religious on the gay subject of marriage It’s not about hate or homophobia, it’s just sacred. The government slowly but surely is creeping into our private lives.from child rearing to drinking large sugary sodas. What are we to do about it?

@Krunoslav The liberalism that you speak of (just in my opinion here) is not really what I would call true liberalism, but rather politically correct-fueled progressivism. It's that progressive mentality that has long hijacked typical left-leaning views. To be a classic liberal usually means one is willing to be open-minded to differing views, while the progressive brand of politics is only focused on forcing their will upon others at any cost.

I do not deny that religion has benefitted mankind in some way or another, but it has also been a source of great misery and division as well. Christianity is not exactly a benign force, over the years it too has been responsible for the persecution of innocents. That moral code you speak of did not originate from Christianity, such a moral code had been established since the days of the ancient Egyptians (think code of Hammurabi), and the Abrahamic religions had adopted many of ancient Egypt's (among other ancient religions) moral standards. Getting back to the point you brought up on the moral code... the early Christians moral code ended up being so strict that the individual rights of others ended up being infringed upon. When it comes to Nazism, keep in mind the Italians (Benito Mussolini) backed Germany, and Italy in turn was backed by the Catholic Church (the Swastika is nothing more than a bent crucifix), and Nazi Germany was hardly a liberal utopia. Over the years I've personally known individuals who identified as being a Nazi, and not surprisingly every one of them were also Christian who believed all Jews were literally the spawn of Satan himself.

@FEWI I don't blame the religious for being upset over that, I just often wonder why they let the views/opinions of others sway them. I simply ignore such folks who insist on shoving their views on me like that. In other words... don't let your heterosexual marriage be undermined by something dysfunctional. On the Government part I certainly agree, big brother just keeps creeping into our personal lives more and more with each passing day, and quite a concern that is.

@SpikeTalon I actually was thinking classical liberalism from the French revolution days. Same one in America. I posted a video, not sure if you have seen it, Liberalism: the Good, the Bad, & the Ugly, but it explains the fundamental problem of the philosophy. The "politically correct-fueled progressivism" you mentioned is the inevitable side effect of classical liberalism, which is the core of my argument. I encourage you to take a look at the video, it has strong arguments that are evident now, but were perhaps less so when the interviews in the video were made. Some 30-40 years ago.

The moral code of Christianity is more than just a moral code, it was integrally part of culture, which is where its biggest benefit lies. The Catholic Church was as much political institution as it was religious one. But if you know the history of Western Europe, its hard to see anything else that could have accomplished what Christianity did, after all in the middle ages it was the only biding force that connected various barbarian kingdoms. And in the Byzantine Empire it protected the Europe from another religion, Islam. It also preserved the Grecko Roman traditions after the fall of Western Roman Empire.

Italy and Church was a complicated matter, since Musollini did not want Church to Rule Italy and they were both strong enough politically that compromise was made. Musollini made Vatican City the state for Church and Italy for himself. Later after the WWII Church went in bed with communists in Vatican II or the second Vatican council. The continuation of that is that now Pope Francis is supporting Biden and open borders. So I don't think that Church itself is force for good, but it is a powerful political institution. These are Catholics off course, and Christianity comes in many forms. Catholicism has prevented LGBT activists to take hold in Poland and Hungary and my country of Croatia, not because of Church, but because of the cultural values that came from 2000 years of Christian influence.

Moral codes are for individuals and Church is often political but cultural activities are the most important aspect of it. And many of the things you and I consider moral are not just something one individual has among many, its supported by parenting, institutions etc. all steaming from Judeo Christan moral teachings.

Problem happen during Vatican II in the 1960's when young spoiled generations rebelled and Church instead of acting as a father said , you can be all you want to be. And if you look at the degradation of moral character and decadence of culture since than its been a disaster.

I don't think society can be without a religion, an individual can, but not society. And when you remove Christianity for all its faults, something else comes in to fill the void, and historically nothing better only worse came rushing in. At least here in the West.

@Krunoslav I maintain the progressive brand of politics and classic liberalism are two different things, they are not a result of one or the other. Over the last fifteen or so years now I've done quite a bit of research on political views, which leads me back to my original point that both liberal and conservative politics have their pros and cons.

Throughout history societies were often shaped by whoever was the victor in wars or who was the most aggressive and ambitious. Christianity became the dominant force it was because for the most part no one dared question it, and in the early days of Christianity one could face the death penalty simply for reading the Bible by oneself. The very start of Roman Catholicism has its roots in needless bloodshed, but that's another story for another time perhaps. Just the mere fact that Christianity has so many denominations all of which claim to be the "truth" tells me the ideology is not as stable as some would believe. I know I'm not going to change your mind on that no sooner than you're going to change my mind, but I have now been on both sides of that debate, and think as I do on the matter for specific reasons.

I have a feeling you are right on the last part, society as a whole will always look to some sort of religion to "fill the gaps" so to speak, but that doesn't automatically mean in doing so is necessarily a positive move for mankind. As for removing Christianity from the equation and historically speaking nothing better has replaced it, that's a matter of opinion and does not mean that conceivably down the road nothing else better won't come along.

@SpikeTalon "The very start of Roman Catholicism has its roots in needless bloodshed, but that's another story for another time perhaps."

I think that is a story I would like to hear, because something does not feel right about that statement.

In regards to your comment on many denominations, actually the stability of Christianity lies in its adaptability, paradoxically. If Christianity was not adoptable it would not survive. And there are many many reasons why various denominations exists and how they came about, it would be dishonest to come up with a simple conclusion about "truth" simply from the fact they exist. Its much more complex influence of many factors.

You say: Christianity became the dominant force it was because for the most part no one dared question it, and in the early days of Christianity one could face the death penalty simply for reading the Bible by oneself.

I don't know how much you know about Christianity, but Jesus was crucified, their followers after him who preached his message weer prosecuted and killed by Romans and for first three hundred years of Christianity, many were prostituted by various Roman empires, until Constantine adopted Christianity as his religion. so I'm not sure what you mean exactly. I also am not sure are you familir with the after math of the fall or Western Roman Empire and role Christianity played in rebuilding Western civilization and the role Eastern Roman Empire played in protecting both the Greco Roman knowledge and protection against invading Muslim armies. I'm not sure you appreciate the enormous contribution to everything we now enjoy that happened in large part because of Christianity and its central role in Western Civilization for 2000 years. The literature, the arts, the architecture, the social events, the cultural norms, the development of philosophy and theology in the Western world that lay the ground work for many innovations.

I agree with you that inquisition, parts of the Crusades, and corruption in the Churches by the politics are not great aspect of it, but I don't think people have seen alternatives of that time to have a reference. Were the Turks or Huns more tolerant than Christians? Remember there was nothing else available.

You said that progressive brand of politics and classic liberalism are two different things, they are not a result of one or the other. Can you explain that please, I don't think I agree with you, but I'm not sure how you come to your conclusion. So I'm curious.

I agree that there could be something better than Christianity in the West, but I'm having a real problem finding it. BTW it should not make much of a difference for my arguments, but in case it matters to you, I'm not religious person myself. I don't say things because of religion, its simply what I've concluded from historic events and human nature.

@Krunoslav I don't deny the reason for multiple denominations existing is complex, but that doesn't exactly make for a compelling argument either. The mere fact so many versions of truth exist in what is supposed to be one religion makes me cautiously distrustful of it. As for it surviving so long... keep repeating a lie and eventually the masses of people will come to accept it as truth. Also throw in fear of the unknown (aka an eternity in hell if you should disobey) and you'll be able to keep alot of people under the control of the church. Nevermind the fact that most of the Christian doctrines contradict the teachings in the books of the Old Testament which pretty much comprises the religion of the Jewish people. Are all Jews wrong for believing as they do, being none of them go along with the crucifixion story?

I'm very familiar with Christianity and the fall of the Roman Empire. As a religion, Christianity did not exist until about 300 or so years after the time of Christ, when then Emperor Constantine declared a war on paganism, hence my comment on the bloody start to Catholicism. That is nothing to be proud about, and every Christian denomination that exists today derived from the original form which would be Catholicism. As for Christ's followers being persecuted... they were persecuted because they blasphemed against the teachings in the OT, and the Jews in particular were very upset with the blasphemies of Christ. As for the accomplishments in the arts etc, again, I do not deny that some good has come from the religion, but that works both ways though, there is equally plenty of negative that also came from it. Whether Turks or Huns or anyone else was more tolerant is shifting focus away from my main point, and to be fair the ancient/older civilizations were not nearly as civilized as what we see today. I was only talking about Christianity there and not any other religion or culture.

Liberal is derived from the word liberty, so when one is truly liberal that means you would be inclined to embrace individual liberty(s). The progressives on the other hand are fueled by political correctness, equality, and social justice, all three of which run afoul of individual liberty as they rely on coercion to achieve their goals. Conservatives and classic liberals have far more in common than true liberals do with progressives. If you still choose to disagree with me on that fair enough, but I do not view the real liberals as my adversary, and I stand behind that. On a side note, can't say I'm fond of identity politics and labels of the kind. Sure, conservative would probably be the best term to describe my overall political views, but I usually don't care much to associate with such labels, as labels I fear have been a strong force in keeping us divided as a people. Those in positions of power and authority love it when the people are distracted with division.

I'm not religious either and have no axe to grind with those who are. I strongly believe there is something better out there, and I also believe each individual must seek out such on their own. On the flip side, can't say I always care for secular society either, the cliqueish mentality never fazed me much.

@SpikeTalon Well actually Christianity did exist before Constantine but it was prostituted in Roman Empire and in to extent elsewhere. even in China. Constantine did not declare war on Paganism, he only made Christianity and Christian God another religion in the empire. Its a common misconception. He signed The Edict of Milan - was the February AD 313 agreement to treat Christians benevolently within the Roman Empire.

After Constantine came others who prosecuted pagans. Edict of Milan, proclamation that permanently established religious toleration for Christianity within the Roman Empire. It was the outcome of a political agreement concluded in Mediolanum (modern Milan) between the Roman emperors Constantine I and Licinius in February 313. The proclamation, made for the East by Licinius in June 313, granted all persons freedom to worship whatever deity they pleased, assured Christians of legal rights (including the right to organize churches), and directed the prompt return to Christians of confiscated property. Previous edicts of toleration had been as short-lived as the regimes that sanctioned them, but this time the edict effectively established religious toleration.

Constantine contribution to Christianity was that he offered legitimacy to Christianity and made one of his largest contributions to the faith by summoning the Councils of Arles (314) and Nicaea (325), which guided church doctrine for centuries afterward. He wasn’t baptized until right before his death in 337.

He also build the Constantinople the new Rome as Christian city. But Christianity spread to the China where they were shot down by rise of Confucianism and even to India and off course Syria and Africa where they were eventually prosecuted by Muslims.

The reason Christianity survived was because it offers more than it takes away, and in the marketplace of ideas for a long time it was either the only idea in the area (fall of Western Roman Empire) or in the case of later centuries it was just very adaptable and constructive. Its hard for people to understand that today, but Western civilization owes a lot to something many today don't like because of "cult or reason" we talked about earlier.

If you knew history of Western Europe after the fall of Western Roman Empire you would know why I mentioned Huns because they were the only other alternative and they drove many other barbarian tribes because they were more brutal than everyone to the Roman territory from the Germanic lands. You speak of Christianity as if there was a buffet of ideas to choose from back in that time. There were not. And there are good reasons for that.

I could explain in more detail other things you mentioned, but it seems to me that you haven't studied history that much , because many things you say are had to conclude if you did.

In the case of liberalism, yes, I don't think you know that much about the history of philosophy of liberalism and what it stands for and how it came about. You seem to be very imprecise in your explanations. I can only imagine that you haven't studied it in detail.

Not sure if you want to or not, so I won't write about it. I guess I think you have similar intentions as I do, but haven't thought about the ideas and their historic context as I do, so its more something you feel than know. Which is fine , its your choice.

@Krunoslav There were disciples of the Christ, but Christianity started to gain traction once Emperor Constantine declared it the official religion. Before that time the disciples were spread out and lacked organization. In acknowledging Christianity in the way he did, that paved the way for persecution against the pagans.

I disagree on Christianity offering more than what it takes away. In order to be a true Christian one must not only accept Christ as their savior but also ultimately turn their own life over to Christ, and in doing so one would no longer have free will as your life and fate belong solely to Christ. In comparison, the core tenet of Judaism is that there is no such thing as a blood sacrifice to remove perceived sins, one must be held accountable for their actions and atone for any sins in another manner beside a human blood sacrifice. In reality, Christianity does not give you more. Who exactly determines how benevolent western society is over another? Eastern civilization offered humanity positives as well, so I think such a conclusion is strictly a matter of personal opinion.

Comparing Christianity with other groups was not my original point, so not sure why you keep bringing that one up. I haven't studied history you say? I beg to differ, I've done much studying on history and stand by what I mentioned above. I get the feeling you said that because I'm not seeing eye to eye with your point of view, which is fine.

Imprecise on the liberal part? I tried to answer your question honestly and in as much detail as possible. Again, I think you concluded such because I didn't agree with your take on the matter, and I surely didn't accuse you of not being knowledgeable on the matter for simply disagreeing with me. You maintained above that one such manifestation of liberalism has been communism, but liberalism that promotes individual liberty and communism which supports absolute government control of society can never truly coexist as they are polar opposites, but you already knew that though right? The rise of Nazism is another good example, the Nazi's weren't liberal, they were fascist and mostly so due to their personal beliefs that the aryan nation was superior, which such beliefs in turn came from religious beliefs (all Jews are spawn of Satan for example). That's hardly anything liberal and much more closely related to a far-right fringe.

I'm not much of a feeler, but I do research topics though. I see, when someone tries to engage with you on such topics if they say something that goes against your own views you accuse them of not knowing history etc. I didn't do that to you, but I certainly could accuse you too of "feeling" what you think is the correct version of history. If that's how it is, you are right, I don't care to discuss it further as it's not getting me anywhere but wasting my time. You are also right on the choice part, and I'm not fond of all the names and titles (like Jew, Christian, liberal, conservative and the list goes on) alot of my fellow human beings insist on associating with, as none of that brings anyone together, it only divides us more. Liberalism is far from perfect, and conservatism is far from being perfect as well, mankind has yet to discover any political or social system that is free of any flaws.

@SpikeTalon " There were disciples of the Christ, but Christianity started to gain traction once Emperor Constantine declared it the official religion. Before that time the disciples were spread out and lacked organization. In acknowledging Christianity in the way he did, that paved the way for persecution against the pagans."

Are you sure about that. Even if Constantine did not adopt Christianity, in all likelihood it would have taken over. And they were quite organized, they already had Churches in Jerusalem, Rome, and Alexandria and off course Antioch was also one of the earliest centres of Christianity; it was there that the followers of Christ were first called Christians, and the city was the headquarters of the missionary St. Paul about 47–55 ce.

When Constantine went to battle with Christian Symbols he didn't know much about Christianity, but by that time doctrine was already established enough.

The books of the canon of the New Testament were written before 120 AD. The Catholic Church provided a conciliar definition of its Biblical canon in 382 at the (local) Council of Rome (based upon the Decretum Gelasianum, of uncertain authorship). Constantine had a vision or dream before the Battle of Milvian Bridge 312. So it was on its way to become a secured doctrine. Councils of Arles (314) and Nicaea (325) were more a matter of formalities than faith.

Council of Arles, (314 CE), the first representative meeting of Christian bishops in the Western Roman Empire. It was convened at Arles in southern Gaul in August 314 by Emperor Constantine I, primarily to deal with the problem of the Donatists, a schismatic Christian group in North Africa.

The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in the Bithynian city of Nicaea by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. This ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all Christendom. Obviously at that point it was a political thing.

When I say Christianity offers more than it takes away, I was not only talking about the beliefs, its far more than that, its the cultural events, inspiration for philosophy, literature, arts, it was politically critical for unifying barbaric kingdoms in the Middle Ages and for the establishment of The Holy Roman Empire, the only way any culture outside nomadic one could flourish.,

@SpikeTalon Also: The Byzantine Empire, being smaller in size/scope than its predecessor, did not have the same influence on the world as the ancient Roman Empire which spread Latin to much of Western Europe and influenced laws, administration, politics, architecture, ideology, etch. It did have a great deal of influence however and played a crucial role in shaping our world. It is also better to see the Byzantines as part of the broader Roman imperial history and Greek civilization, as a continuation of those two great traditions rather than as a state/civilization on its own.

Saved much of Greek literature and is one of the reasons why we can study ancient Greek texts today. Without the Byzantine scholars, many ancient Greek texts would have been lost and our knowledge about the ancient Greek world would be much poorer. Byzantine scholars studied those texts and were deeply influenced by them. They attempted to imitate the writing style of the ancient Greek authors and were using a form of Attic Greek in their writings. Byzantine historiography was especially influenced by Greek authors such as Thucydides. Homer's epic literature was also taught as were Demosthenes’ orations. Scholars like Michael Psellus studied ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato.

It defended Europe from eastern invaders for centuries. The Byzantine Empire acted as a bulwark for Europe against invaders from the east, first the Sassanid Persians, then the Arab Caliphates and finally the Seljuk and later Ottoman Turks for some time. All of them were fierce opponents; the Persian empire was a bureaucratic state comparable with Byzantium, the Arabs had some of the best soldiers and generals of the Middle Ages as well as more resources and the Turks were highly skilled cavalry warriors. Yet Byzantium managed to stand firm for centuries, despite the setbacks it suffered, allowing Western Europe to survive and flourish.

They contributed to science. They made innovations such as: ship mills, the pointed arch bridge, the pendentive dome, hand and counterweight trebuchet, Greek fire, grenades and an early version of the flamethrower (cheirosiphōn).

Byzantine missionaries spread Christianity among the Slavs of the Balkans and Russia. With its proselytizing activities and efforts to bring the Slavic nations of the Balkans and Russia under its influence, Byzantium played a crucial role in Christianizing those peoples, transmitting them the Roman Orthodox civilization and the writings of the Greek church fathers and integrating them into broader Christendom and thus making them part of European civilization. Orthodoxy is still an important component of Balkan and Russian culture.

Byzantine art influenced the West and its traditions are maintained in Orthodox nations. Byzantine art was renowned in the Middle Ages for its splendor. Both the Caroligians and the Ottonians in the West made a conscious effort to produce art that would be fit to stand next to Byzantine art. Byzantine artistic traditions are still maintained in Orthodox countries such as Greece, Cyprus, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Russia.

The hospitals in Byzantium were the beginnings of modern hospitals. They had institutionalized hospitals which favored the growth of medicine and pharmacy. This was especially true for the era of the Komnenoi Dynasty (eleventh-twelfth centuries), when the Hospital of Pantokrator included a pharmacy.

Justinian’s Code had a lasting influence on European legal systems. From 529 to 534 Justinian collected and codified Roman Law in his Codex Justinianus (Code of Justinian). This formed the basis of Byzantine law for centuries and was later transmitted to the West, where it had a lasting influence on European legal systems.

Institutions of the Byzantine Empire influenced the administration of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Sultans also claimed to be Emperors of the Romans (Kayser-i Rum).

@SpikeTalon You are imprecise on on the liberal part, in the way that you didn't define

a) how liberalism even came about as an idea, and why. In its history lies the key to its understanding.
b) you haven't defined the terms of the liberty and on what they are based on, its critical to its understanding.

I don't know if I should write about it, but it is critical to understanding it. Its all connected as concept of Natural Law is connected to liberalism as much as liberalism is connected to "human rights". Just as original humanists like Petrarch have created way for secular humanist later.

How about Lisabon Earthquake and aftermath, including : The Lumières (literally in English: Enlighteners) was a cultural, philosophical, literary and intellectual movement of the second half of the 18th century, originating in France and spreading throughout Europe. It included philosophers such as Baruch Spinoza, John Locke, Pierre Bayle and Isaac Newton. Over time it came to mean the Siècle des Lumières, in English the Age of Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment fueled revolutions, stimulated religious tolerance, and created logical thinkers.

  • Thomas Hobbes believed that life was nasty brutish and short, and people are naturally born evil. He believed that monarchs needed to hold on to absolute power. Often in class his views were juxtaposed with the book The Lord of The Flies.
  • John Locke believed in Sovereignty , Monarchs are not chosen by God, people are born with tabla rasa, and are started as a good person.
  • His views had a large influence on Thomas Jefferson when he wrote The Declaration of Independence.
  • Montesquieu was from France, and he wrote The Spirit of The Laws. He believed that a separation of powers was the best form of Government. He felt that each branch could limit powers of the other with Checks and Balances.
  • Voltaire believed in religious tolerance, and that the church and the state should be separate. His ideas influenced the writing of the Constitution. He was a deist and believed that God set the clock in motion, and that it should be allowed to run without interference.
  • Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote the Social Contract and believed Government is a Contract between rulers and the people.

These ideas perverted and fulfilled by revolutionaries led to many changes, that are critical to understand liberalism if you study history. You claim you researched a lot, but how could you skip that.

They give birth to the idea of people's state which gave birth to liberalism and from it came socialism and nationalism . International socialism became later communism and national socialism was to become Natzi Germany and Fascist Italy, with their own spin on ideas. But in essence national socialism, born out of and as people's state. The dream of liberalism turned to nightmare.

Its not hard to understand how it all went wrong if you understand what the terms are and how they came bout as ideas and why. That is why I say that liberalism , classical and even more so modern , are what gave birth to Marxist ideologues of the left, even those we see now in the America. BLM, Antifa, radical feminists, and all the alphabet people etc.

@Krunoslav While it may still have spread regardless of what Constantine did, it at the least would have taken much more time to spread out and in that amount of time may very well have become extinct. Constantine played a major role in assisting the growth of Christianity, and when he did others suffered the consequences of his actions.

Okay, fair point on the contributions part, but other religions/cultures have also contributed much to humanity too, including the ancient Greeks and Egyptians. Such contributions are not exclusive to Christianity. To say Christianity is unique in any way in regards to that, I maintain is strictly a personal opinion.

@SpikeTalon BTW you keep mentioning natzi as not being liberal, yes I agree. But only in liberalism could Nazism came about. Also Natzis are not far right.
In the same century, (18th century) four ideas swept through the West and shook the world.

Individual liberty and the social contract

This effort to research and elucidate universal laws, and to determine their component parts, also became an important element in the construction of a philosophy of individualism, where everyone had rights based only on fundamental human rights. There developed the philosophical notion of the thoughtful subject, an individual who could make decisions based on pure reason and no longer in the yoke of custom. In Two Treatises of Government, John Locke argued that property rights are not held in common but are totally personal, and made legitimate by the work required to obtain the property, as well as its protection (recognition) by others. Once the idea of natural law is accepted, it becomes possible to form the modern view of what we would now call political economy.

Baruch Spinoza took Descartes' side, most of all in his Ethics. But he demurred from Descartes in Tractatus de Intellectus Emendatione ("On the Improvement of the Understanding" ), where he argued that the process of perception is not one of pure reason, but also the senses and intuition. Spinoza's thought was based on a model of the universe where God and Nature are one and the same. This became an anchor in the Age of Enlightenment, held across the ages from Newton's time to that of Thomas Jefferson's (1743–1826).

The Lumières' philosophy was thus based on the realities of a systematic, ordered and understandable world, which required Man also to think in an ordered and systematic way. As well as physical laws, this included ideas on the laws governing human affairs and the divine right of kings, leading to the idea that the monarch acts with the consent of the people, and not the other way around. This legal concept informed Jean-Jacques Rousseau's theory of the social contract as a reciprocal relationship between men, and more so between families and other groups, which would become increasingly stronger, accompanied by a concept of individual inalienable rights. The powers of God were moot amongst atheist Lumières.

The Lumières movement redefined the ideas of liberty, property and rationalism, which took on meanings that we still understand today, and introduced into political philosophy the idea of the free individual, liberty for all guaranteed by the State (and not the whim of the government) backed by a strong rule of law.
To understand the interaction between the Age of Reason and the Lumières, one approach is to compare Thomas Hobbes with John Locke. Hobbes, who lived for three quarters of the 17th century, had worked to create an ontology of human emotions, ultimately trying to make order out of an inherently chaotic universe. In the alternate, Locke saw in Nature a source of unity and universal rights, with the State's assurance of protection. This "culture revolution" over the 17th and 18th centuries was a battle between these two viewpoints of the relationship between Man and Nature.

This resulted, in France, in the spread of the notion of human rights, finding expression in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which greatly influenced similar declarations of rights in the following centuries, and left in its wake global political upheaval. Especially in France and the United States, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of thought were held to be fundamental rights.

As Deirdre McCloskey recently wrote, in the century that followed, three big ideas swept through Europe that would also shake the world. One of those ideas was fantastically fruitful, while the other two proved to be disastrously destructive.

What Went Wrong

The revolutions from 1688 to 1917 replaced one superstitious basis of state legitimacy with a new one.

There are two kinds of liberty, ancient and modern. (The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns)

Again we must ask, as Constant did two centuries ago: what went so wrong? It all goes back to the reliance of the original liberals on the people’s state. John Locke’s notion of a hireling, representative government simply misunderstood the nature of the state. Legal plunder is not a “perversion” of the state, but its actual, primary function.

As liberals came to discover through their pursuit of “legal plunder” theory, the state is and has always been a parasitic protection racket. It doesn’t tax in order to protect, but “protects” in order to tax. Like in the Twilight Zone episode “To Serve Man,” the state’s “social contract” is not a service agreement, but a cookbook. “To protect and serve,” indeed, Mr. Policeman writing me a $200 ticket.

The true basis of whatever amount of liberty we manage to retain and reclaim stems, not from the state but in spite of it: from our growing realization (whether as a vague sense or a full understanding) of the state’s kleptocratic nature, and our stubborn intolerance of depredation that results from that realization.

That all-important realization is precluded by the belief in the people’s state: by the conceit that “the State is us.” But the State is not us. There is no such thing as “rule by the people,” because there is no such thing as “the people.” There are only individuals. There is no such thing as a “general will.”

Only individuals have wills. “The People” is an incoherent abstraction: a fictional, willful entity that we have been inculcated into believing in, even though we cannot comprehend it. The revolutions from 1688 to 1917 replaced one superstitious basis of state legitimacy with a new one. The king and state clergy graced by an incomprehensible god have been supplanted by a commander-in-chief and technocratic bureaucracy graced by an incomprehensible entity called “the people.”

The new superstition is even more powerful and dangerous than the old, because it involves the tempting delusion of self-service through participation in state power. The perils and evils of nationalism and socialism did not end with collapses of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

It is also more powerful and dangerous because it is a superstition that feeds, and feeds on, avarice, belligerence, and collectivism. It provides an easy lever for the state to use to divide and rule. Simply declare a foreign war, and nationalists will rally around the people’s state to achieve the national unity necessary to overwhelm and plunder foreign enemies. Simply declare a class war, and socialists and other class warriors (social justice warriors, crony capitalists, etc) will rally around the people’s state to achieve the class unity necessary to overwhelm and plunder domestic enemies. By extending an open invitation to participate in legal plunder, the people’s state divides its subjects into warring factions that are too committed to fighting each other using the state to recognize that its true enemy is the state.

The perils and evils of nationalism and socialism did not end with collapses of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. They haunt us still.

As young university-bred cultural Marxists and the new insurgent movement of young populist nationalists both continue to radicalize and face off with ever greater hostility, it becomes ever more important to discard our misplaced faith in the people’s state that fosters the conflict and collectivism driving such movements.

Of course this does not lead us to the foolish notion of returning to the princely state. It does not mean abandoning the new superstition to return to the old one. It simply means dispelling superstition altogether and pursuing liberty through a moral revolution of individuals, and not through state revolutions or the incremental revolutions of people’s-state activism.

Such moral progress, and not the structure of government, has been the true source of the triumphs of liberalism all along. As Thomas Paine wrote, “It is wholly owing to the constitution of the people, and not to the constitution of the government that the crown is not as oppressive in England as in Turkey.”

A non-state-centered revolution in minds and morals is what we need to truly shake the world and to finally shake off the chains of oppression, war, and poverty that bind us.

Written by Dan Sanchez

I will post this again in case you are interested or someone else as a reference, but it perfectly explains it.

Liberalism: the Good, the Bad, & the Ugly

“I would rather try to organize politics and political discourse in a way that encouraged engagement on moral and religious questions. …If we attempt to banish moral and religious discourse from politics and debates about law and rights, the danger is we’ll have a kind a vacant public square or a naked public square.

And the yearning for larger meanings in politics will find undesirable expression. Fundamentalists will rush in where liberals fear to tread. They will try to clothe the naked public square with the most narrow and intolerant moralisms.”

  • Michael Joseph Sandel is an American political philosopher.

@SpikeTalon I think many religions contributed yes, I agree both Egypians and Greeks. But you must understand that if it was not for Byzantine Empire Greek writings would have been lost, and its amazing what Western Civilization managed to accomplish that all the other religions did not. China was far more advance than Europe was in the Middle Ages, but slowly trough Christianity as a binding force, eventually Europe started to become powerful enough to colonize others. Even China in the Opium Wars. If it was not for Christianity Europe would probably be under Muslim Rule, which may have been better or worse, hard to say. But make no mistake Christianity is not just some set of ideas someone chose to believe in, its a force that fueled much of the Western Civilization for almost 2000 years. Something Egyptians and even Greeks could not do.

You said: " Constantine played a major role in assisting the growth of Christianity, and when he did others suffered the consequences of his actions."

What consequences do you mean? As appose to what?

@Krunoslav Classic liberalism gained traction sometime in the 1700's during what is frequently referred to as the Enlightenment period. The origins of rights were seen as being in an ancient constitution, which had existed from time immemorial. Some call that natural born rights. It came about as an idea as more men realized the value in individual rights as opposed to government or church control of the citizen's lives. The terms of the liberty is fairly straightforward, the core belief was that each individual had certain inalienable rights and that each was responsible for making their own choices in life.

Socialism is in essence an offshoot of communism, and the father of Marxist ideology Karl Marx was influenced by his observations in regards to capitalism and how it affected all citizens. Here is a brief explanation of Marxism- a social, political, and economic theory originated by Karl Marx, which focuses on the struggle between capitalists and the working class. He believed that this conflict would ultimately lead to a revolution in which the working class would overthrow the capitalist class and seize control of the economy. This is why I say classic liberals and true Marxists can never coexist as the former is for individual liberties while the latter is focused on what is good for society as a whole. It goes without saying that Marx was very wrong on his view on capitalism, as capitalism has been the only system known to man that has eliminated the most poverty. As you put it, there were perversions of certain views, exploited by those who favored more government control of private affairs. Marx may have tried to incorporate classic liberal views into his own radical ideology, but the individualist attitude present in classic liberal thought cannot exist side by side with the likes of communism, so that's what it is a perversion. Both liberalism and conservatism have been perverted over the ages by certain individuals, so it is disingenuous to pretend liberalism is the only viewpoint that carries negatives.

@Krunoslav I was referring to the Nazi's during World War two, not as they are nowadays. The title of that video summed it up nicely, and while there are cons to consider in liberalism, there is also some good too, and that was my original point.

Once again... I do not deny that meaningful achievements came out of Christianity, my point was that works two ways... while there was some good there was also a dark side to it as well. In other words, I acknowledge the good and bad that came out of the Christian religion. On the consequences part, Constantine's decision resulted in the deaths of many pagans, was that needless bloodshed worth it just to promote an ideology? Christianity may or may not have found a way to grow and thrive regardless if the war on pagans never occured, as they say where there's a will there's a way.

@SpikeTalon Your explanation of liberalism is I would say mostly correct, but there are few things I could tweak. The concept of "natural law" "that each individual had certain inalienable rights and that each was responsible for making their own choices in life." was indeed something that arose in Ancient Greece, but it was in a different context. It was primerally meant to be philosophical question that might help Greeks develop a more idealized Greek nation state. What was specific about natural law was that is was specific for the problems Greeks faced at that time. It was not a global philosophy as liberalism is, but rather an idea for Greeks. The idea was not to oppose the state but to find a way to better govern state with more common ideas. But it never really came to fruition, it was more of a philosophical discussion.

Later this idea of common interests was adopted in England as "common law." The English common law originated in the early Middle Ages in the King’s Court (Curia Regis), a single royal court set up for most of the country at Westminster, near London. Like many other early legal systems, it did not originally consist of substantive rights but rather of procedural remedies. The working out of these remedies has, over time, produced the modern system in which rights are seen as primary over procedure. Until the late 19th century, English common law continued to be developed primarily by judges rather than legislators.

The common law of England was largely created in the period after the Norman Conquest of 1066. The Anglo-Saxons, especially after the accession of Alfred the Great (871), had developed a body of rules resembling those being used by the Germanic peoples of northern Europe. Local customs governed most matters, while the church played a large part in government. Crimes were treated as wrongs for which compensation was made to the victim.

Natural Law. It has a nice ring to it, but its off course based not on reality or reason, but rather faith. No different than that of the Church and God's law. And so "Enlightenment period" or as some call it "Cult of Reason" traded one set of beliefs for another.

"Natural law, system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society (positive law). Its meaning and relation to positive law have been debated throughout time, varying from a law innate or divinely determined to one determined by natural conditions."

First to sweep through was the bright idea of, in the words of Adam Smith, "allowing every man to pursue his own interest in his own way, upon the liberal plan of equality, liberty, and justice.” In the first half of the 19th century, this idea became known as liberalism.

Then, just as liberalism began to transform the world, two pernicious ideas began to vie with it. Nationalism and socialism began to capture the imaginations of intellectuals and would eventually displace liberalism completely in the hearts and minds of the West.

Liberalism unlocked humanity’s creative potential, yielding the first ever rise of widespread abundance through industrial mass production. Nationalism and socialism unleashed humanity’s capacity for destruction, unleashing the first ever rise of industrial-scale mass murder.

The twin banes of nationalism and socialism followed the boon of liberalism remarkably quickly. To understand why, we must consider a fourth big idea that historically links the other three: the idea of the people’s state.

A philosophy of natural rights encouraged the American revolutionaries and provided a foundation and a form for the American Republic.

The prominence of the natural rights discourse from the Early Modern thinkers played a crucial role in guiding the creation of the founding documents of the American Republic. The rhetoric and logic of the natural rights tradition can be found in the resolutions of the first Continental Congress in their appeal to ‘the immutable laws of nature,’ and in the affirmation of the ‘unalienable rights’ of man in the Declaration of Independence. The Founders sought to secure the liberty and autonomy of the citizens of the American Republic, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights display the preoccupation with and concern for the inviolable rights belonging to man.

. In France thought things could not develop as they did in America because of time and place. And so French revolution ended with reign of terror than an Emperor and than another monarchy and another revolution or two later it finally became a republic.

The Republic had promised, as the revolutionary slogan said, “liberty, equality, fraternity.” Instead it delivered conscription, subordination, fratricide. The dreamt-of French people’s state was to be the ultimate safeguard of French liberty. In reality, the Republic ended up violating “the rights of man” more rampantly and atrociously than Louis XVI would have ever been capable of.

Problem is the religious belief in new concepts. "will of the people", "natural law", "human rights" and instead of king or God giving it to people its the bureaucratic politicians. But belief in god is about as irrational as belief in abstract terms such as "will of the people", . And in the name of the people all manners of atrocities can be commuted. Even more so and on industrial scale that far exceeds kings or Church.

@SpikeTalon You said "Socialism is in essence an offshoot of communism, and the father of Marxist ideology Karl Marx was influenced by his observations in regards to capitalism and how it affected all citizens. "

I tihnk its backwards. Socialism preceedes communism. Socialism is path to communism, not the other way around.

“The goal of Socialism is Communism."
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

“The difference between communism and socialism is that under socialism central planning ends with a gun in your face, whereas under communism central planning begins with a gun in your face.” ― Kevin D. Williamson, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism

Techncially Karl Marx did not investn Marxsim, it was invented by others, mostly by Lenin because he needed the ideas of Karl Marx for his revolution in Russia in 1917. But Russia was not industrialized nation and Marx never explained how to really conduct a revolution and what happens after it. So Lenin wrote his own doctrine called Marxist-Leninism, based of the Marx initial ideas in communist manifesto and than adopted non industiral nation to fit the Marxist-Leninism.

Karl Marx was not Marxist, anymore than Jesus was Christan. Karl wrote communist Manifesto and Das Kapital and some other stuff, but those were not same things that Marxism as we know it today is used for. Karl Marx provided theory of alientation, materialistc view of history, and class struggle in particualr context. All that existed before him in French Revolution, exctept Karl put it in contxt of inustrial reovlution, in modernity.

You say that clascial liberals and Marxist cannot coexist. But that is not true. Liberal sociaty fosters Marxist ideas, just look at the most liberal sociaties, they are so liberal they allow at first and later promote Marxist proffesors. And that way my whole point. Marxism as an idea can comfortably exist in liberal sociaty, and even be protected, provided a warm home, until it grows big enought to take over. At that point, it is true liberals cannot exist along side Marxist, but up until that point liberals make home for Marxist in form of Culturl Marxism. As seen by the succes of Critical Theory. That is the problem that liberals don't want to deal with. Their weak point. Liberals are so afrad of church and kings, they let Marxist do its dirty work. And modern liberalism embrasces it full, precisly because of concept of "natural law".

Natural rights would persist as a guiding principle for political activists and thinkers in twentieth-century America, as well. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the activists of the Civil Rights movement invoked them in their arguments against racial discrimination and segregation, though King also reintroduced Augustine’s formulation of natural law ‘iniusta lex non est lex’: an unjust law is not a law and therefore cannot bind. Natural rights have proved integral to the American theory and practice of government, and from Lincoln onward, they have been placed at the center of American constitutionalism.

@SpikeTalon To make sure I got this right:

Classical Liberalism

Adam Smith belonged to a group of people who are now known as Classical Liberalists.

  • The rights and freedoms of the individuals as the most important aspect of society.
  • These rights tended to focus on economic aspects of society.

Liberal Ideas on Political Systems

John Locke, essential rights and freedoms:

  • To be allowed to participate in government.
  • To be free from excessive government intrusion into one’s life.
  • To be assured that no one (especially the king and the nobility) is above the law (that is, rule of law)
  • To be protected and permitted to exercise individual rights.
  • To be free and to make decisions on one’s own behalf.

Liberal Democracy

A political system that is based on the equality of all citizens and that has free elections, multiple political parties, political decisions that are made through a democratically elected legislature, and legal decisions that are made by an independent judiciary.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was a classical Liberalist who wrote essay “On Liberty” during the Industrial Revolution. Dubbed "the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century", Mill's conception of liberty justified the freedom of the individual in opposition to unlimited state and social control. A member of the Liberal Party, he was also the second Member of Parliament to call for women's suffrage after Henry Hunt in 1832.


Role of government was to do only three things:

  1. Preserve the rule of law,
  2. Protect private property,
  3. Ensure the security of the individual.

Rule of Law

Not based on what might happen, but rather what will happen. Based on the rationality that humans innately make wrong choices. However, he does not say that humans should not be allowed to make these wrong choices. Therefore, the government persuades society, it does not force. The idea of individual liberty is essential to the idea of liberalism.

He also warned governments of the idea of the “mass mind” approach to society, or the dangers of forcing people to think one particular way. He believed it was dangerous to silence the individual, therefore societies should embrace free speech.


Beginnings of Modern Liberalism

Developed over time to address the concerns about inequalities created by laissez-faire capitalism.

Classical vs. Modern Liberalism

Classical Liberalism: Interested in protecting the freedoms of individuals in economic affairs. Maximum rights and freedoms for certain individuals (entrepreneurs). Government rules, regulations, and social programs, are kept to a minimum, with every person acting on his or her own behalf.

Modern Liberalism: Interested in creating equality of opportunity for all individuals. Freedoms and rights favour the individual, with more individuals in society receiving rights. Government intervenes to ensure that the most vulnerable people are cared for.

Natural rights would persist as a guiding principle for political activists and thinkers in twentieth-century America, as well. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the activists of the Civil Rights movement invoked them in their arguments against racial discrimination and segregation, though King also reintroduced Augustine’s formulation of natural law ‘iniusta lex non est lex’: an unjust law is not a law and therefore cannot bind. Natural rights have proved integral to the American theory and practice of government, and from Lincoln onward, they have been placed at the center of American constitutionalism.

And "civil rights" movment became "human rights" that went from allowing people to obatain welth and happiness on their, and protecting rights to do so, to something where now more and more want goverment to do it for them. And that is scoialims that leans to Marxism and trans communism or whatever comes from it. Ans so socialism/Marxism got repacklage under the term "human rights". And that is the danger or "rights docrtine"

“Modern liberalism suffers unresolved contradictions. It exalts individualism and freedom and, on its radical wing, condemns social orders as oppressive. On the other hand, it expects government to provide materially for all, a feat manageable only by an expansion of authority and a swollen bureaucracy. In other words, liberalism defines government as tyrant father but demands it behave as nurturant mother.” Camille Paglia

“But I had little knowledge of Marxism, and in political discussions with my communist friends I found myself handicapped by my ignorance of their philosophy. I decided to remedy this.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk To Freedom

"And then, at that exact dispirited moment when there seemed no one at all willing to play the proletariat, along came the women's movement.” ― Joan Didion, The White Album

...and the rest is as they say, history.

“As Baskerville points out, wherever fatherhood is discarded or diminished, we find “impoverished, crime-ridden and drug-infested matriarchies.” Taking on the role of proprietor, the state becomes the father under such “matriarchies.” According to Baskerville, “Without paternal authority, adolescents run wild, and society descends into chaos.” Quite naturally, the state has an ever-increasing reason to intervene in such a society – and inevitably, in the economy. What many defenders of capitalism have failed to understand is the connection between paternal authority and the free market. They have failed to understand that the erosion of patriarchy signifies the rise of a leviathan state (i.e., ever increasing government controls on the economy, and socialism).” ― J.R.Nyquist

Its just inevitable. Liberalism even in its classic edition has a nasty tenancy to lead to totalitarianism. This problem is part of the philosophical DNA of liberalism.

“In the end, the actions of such liberals have the effect---again unwittingly---of continuing to cover for the goals of the extreme Left. Yet again, the soft Left is helping to conceal the hard Left, whether it realizes it or not.” ― Paul Kengor, Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century

@SpikeTalon I don't think your condemnation of Constantine decision to convert to Christianity is what resulted in deaths of many pagans is warranted. Pagans prosecuted Christians. So did Muslims. But hat number was minute, compared to population as a whole, it was not a mass genocides. People had many gods at first and some converted to Christianity because if Emperor is Christians, it must be more powerful God. Some converted before Constantine because they liked the idea Christianity was offering, and some were inspired by the defiance of Christianity being burned alive or eaten by lions in the Colosseum because they believed so strongly in their God they we willing to die in horrible deaths, being sure of the after life. It must be powerful God indeed that offers such after life.

Also many converted to Christianity because it was smart career move. That is how Christian Empires got a lot of nobility to convert. For many it was smart business or political move. Lets not forget that believing in many pagan gods of the time was not about salvation or after life, as much as luck or something to do with fields having better crops etc. Christianity offered more. And Emperor was Christian. Why not convert?

And also people were killed and tortured in the Ancient world for all kinds of reasons, lest of all Paganism. When Rome started converting to Christianity more of it was about rebuilding temples as Churches and condemning old gods as devils and demons than killing pagan believers. Many simple converted and both religions assimilated one another.

Catholicism has heavily adopted from its pagan past in art, literature and Catholic Saints are almost like multiple choice that was once in in pagan Rome. if you pray to St. Francis , its like Praying to Jupiter instead of Appolo. It may be one God, but you have many saints to ask for help. Renaissance is all about recasting pagan Greek and Roman Gods as Christian Characters. its all connected. After all 2000 years is a long long time, nothing happens over night.

@Krunoslav I disagree on the society part. Those who advocate for communism are not liberal, or at the very least those advocating for such have their definitions confused. Either way, I don't believe they are true liberals in the sense.

Once Christianity became prominent throughout Europe, pagans were systematically persecuted and put to death, and to be fair just about every major world religion at one point or another faced persecution. You're right about the conversion part most likely to advance career/business, that sounds plausible.

That assimilation was not exactly a peaceful one, bloodshed followed as conceivably there were some who would not convert, and they were eventually met with force.

You're also right on the last part, Catholicism has a heavy pagan influence, but most Catholics I personally know will never accept that conclusion.

@SpikeTalon Fair enough. Do you have any record of this bloodshed you speak of?

@SpikeTalon BTW, I'm not saying that those who advocate for communists are liberals, I'm saying that liberalism protects and fosters communist in liberal society. After all, liberalism is about not imposing world view on people but protecting certain rights, isn't it? And to keep their right to have any worldview they want they are allowing dangerous ideas to flourish. And without monarchy or Church at the top, but the people's state, you can use people to move against that established government. As we see now in America. Marxism.its everywhere.

Socialism in the French People’s State

Besides nationalism, the people’s state stimulates yet another kind of belligerent, avaricious, and collectivist spirit: what Karl Marx called “class consciousness.” In Revolutionary France, just as nationalism drove foreign international warfare, class consciousness drove domestic class warfare.

In political theory and particularly Marxism, class consciousness is the set of beliefs that a person holds regarding their social class or economic rank in society, the structure of their class, and their class interests. According to Karl Marx, it is an awareness that is key to sparking a revolution that would "create a dictatorship of the proletariat, transforming it from a wage-earning, property-less mass into the ruling class"

Policies like the General Maximum and the plundering of rural peasants to feed the urban proletariat were implemented by the Jacobins in order to appease the working class sans-culottes, who flexed the strength of their numbers both through street mobs and voting.

In the new people’s state, “partial plunder” was replaced by what Bastiat called “universal plunder.”

For even more radical revolutionaries, Rousseauian equality demanded that, not only the peasants, but the bourgeois middle classes be expropriated. On behalf of the poor, a “Conspiracy of Equals” plotted to take over the Republic, abolish private property, and seize the wealth of France for equal redistribution. The conspiracy was detected and its leaders were guillotined.

And upper-class intellectuals like Henri de Saint-Simon dreamt up utopian schemes in which the welfare of the poor working classes would be guaranteed by central planning. These dreamers came to be known as socialists, referring to their concern for broad “social” concerns, as contrasted to the “narrow” individualism of the liberals.

See, by focusing on liberalism and all ideas, what happens is that those intellectuals that get education start to think of themselves as better than everyone and that they have solution to all the world problems. Karl Marx was one of them and all the others were the same. The postmodernist French were like that as well. It always happens.


By the 1840s, Paris was abuzz with socialist agitation. Frédéric Bastiat, the leading French liberal of the time, recognized socialism as a threat to liberty that was just as severe as autocratic royalism, if not more. In addition to skewering the sophistries of socialism, Bastiat insightfully explained the political dynamics that led to its rise.

Frédéric Bastiat, like John Locke, believed the true purpose of “the law” was the security of the people from having their lives, liberties, and property ravaged. But the law had become “perverted”; instead of preventing such plunder, it came to systematically perpetrate it. Bastiat called this “legal plunder.”

“Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws! Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.” [Emphasis added.]

Bastiat encapsulated his taxonomy of legal plunder as follows:

“It is absolutely necessary that this question of legal plunder should be determined, and there are only three solutions of it:

  1. When the few plunder the many.
  2. When everybody plunders everybody else.
  3. When nobody plunders anybody.

Partial plunder, universal plunder, absence of plunder, amongst these we have to make our choice. The law can only produce one of these results.

Partial plunder. This is the system that prevailed so long as the elective privilege was partial; a system that is resorted to, to avoid the invasion of socialism.

Universal plunder. We have been threatened by this system when the elective privilege has become universal; the masses having conceived the idea of making law, on the principle of legislators who had preceded them.

Absence of plunder. This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, conciliation, and of good sense, which I shall proclaim with all the force of my lungs (which is very inadequate, alas!) till the day of my death.”

The last sentence referred to the fact that Bastiat was dying of throat cancer as he wrote these brilliant words.

Bastiat concluded:“The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.”

And elsewhere, Bastiat wrote:

“Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

”French Poet Paul Valery wrote:

“There are two ways to acquire the necessities of life:

  1. To produce them or
  2. To plunder them.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of people living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

@Krunoslav I get what you're saying on how communists can shield their ideology under the disguise of liberalism as liberalism would allow for that sort of thing, but the same is true for virtually any political system. To that extent, I would not blame liberalism for that directly, but rather the human beings who seek to use it as a shield to hide behind so to speak. I do not blame political or philosophical systems for the ills that human beings commit, that blame belongs to man and man alone.

@SpikeTalon I would agree about individuals. But the premise of liberalism as a philosophy is that all men are predisposed to do good and that all men are reasonable and rational. And we know that is not correct. Also there is not grandiose moral system that exists in liberalism. Unless its cultural Judeo-Christian values , liberalism itself does not have a moral system. Not because it does not believe there is no such a system , but because it believes that every man must be allowed to come up with his own. As a result you get all kind of problems.

You see what I'm trying to say. Liberalism as an idea, has built in flaw in itself that never is comfortable admitting, much less correcting and so ever since it was implemented in American and French revolutions it resulted in disasters. This was not a one man responsibility, its the defect of the system.

I do agree with you that every political system is flawed. We always think we are so smart, but at the end human nature has the final word. Always .

“If your political theory requires humanity to "evolve", then you do not have a theory.... you have a dream.”
A.E. Samaan

“Nature is always pulling the rug out from under our pompous ideals.”
Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson

"At times, the most dangerous politicians have been those impelled by dreams and ideals, rather than basic realities." Clarence H. Burns

Liberalism rests on the assumption, wrong assumption that it is enlighten and above all else. And yet, history shows us that is far from it. It is deeply flawed.

@Krunoslav Never said I believe all aspects of liberalism, it has its flaws like any other ideology. Mankind has some sort of problem(s) with every political system ever thought up, no perfect vision or utopia has been established as of yet and with any and all indication there never will be.

Right from the start I understood the point you were trying to make and don't deny there are flaws in liberalism, I went one step beyond that though when I said all political ideologies have flaws. When it comes to said flaws, there is no shortage of blame to go around. Indeed, human nature will get the final say, as it has since the dawn of humanity.

4

When it comes to the left I keep it short and sweet.........COMMUNIST....

3

As with almost all -ists and -phobes, fascist is just another word hijacked by the Left for use in creating a false narrative. The common misconception that it's a right-wing ideology is laughable. I see more fascist-like behavior on the left, but I don't look at it literally as fascism...I just think they'll do almost anything to get what they want.

With the abysmal divide in the country today it seems that a loud cabal on both sides are doing anything they can to get what they want. Social media has provided a feedback loop that panders to the worst in us. The radical fringes are pushing fear and mistrust which promotes insecurity. Latching on to a seemingly safe and solid object gives us the illusion of security but separates us from reality.

3

I'm whatever the Communists say I am X 10.

That's the only way to deal with them.

Triumph Level 6 Oct 13, 2020

@Triumph Same 👌

3

The modern ENGLISH definition is state controlled production and centralized society. which is the definition that was adopted by the west via the UK post World war 2 under the influence of the KGB in Oxford and Cambridge. This has been well documented.

Facismo is a strange bird. As it shares certain things with Socialism and yet there is a very strong difference that has been from what I can tell intentionally over looked in the West and most heavily in English and German speaking countries.

Historical fascism as it was functioning in Italy (the only actual fascist country in history, Franco was a socialist dictator) Had these ideological points:

  1. Credo = The faith and cultural foundation that faith creates.
  2. Famaglia = Family and the extremely important role it plays in community and society
  3. Patria = Your national identity and how that also influences ones culture and social structure.

This created a society that had government influence in production but not as much government control as most folks wish to make it seem. Not until the war did the Italian government start controlling production to any great extent and both the US and Britain di more in direct influence and control of production during the war then Italy did and the UK's controls went on for over 10 past the end of the war (mainly under socialist governments).

While I don't support fascism and do point out that as with all authoritarian forums of government it is prone to abuse, I would not put it in the same camp as Socialists and communists as is the current fad among academics who are simply repeating the lie that Stalin sold to the west to save the face of Socialism due to the damage that Hitler did to it.

The modern left is like most of the left in history; they have little to no actual understanding of history nor of their own nature. Which means they are very good fodder for those who wish to gain power and control over others.

It is one of the reasons to read and speak at least two languages though three or more is better.

Very nice.

I was going to make a post outlining how technically the Nazis were not Fascist but then thought it was a bit like saying the last Christian died on the cross in roughly 30 AD.

I admit that I'm guilty of comparing socialism to fascism. I also argue that the U.S. is a meritocracy. It's not that the fine points don't matter but at times it is understood that we are making generalities or simply making a point with lose analogies.

"Mussolini was a socialist before becoming a fascist.
Born to a socialist father, Mussolini was named after leftist Mexican President Benito Juárez. His two middle names, Amilcare and Andrea, came from Italian socialists Amilcare Cipriani and Andrea Costa. Early in Mussolini’s life, for instance, those names seemed appropriate. While living in Switzerland from 1902 to 1904, he cultivated an intellectual image and wrote for socialist periodicals such as L’Avvenire del Lavoratore (The Worker’s Future). He then served in the Italian army for nearly two years before resuming his career as a teacher and journalist. In his articles and speeches, Mussolini preached violent revolution, praised famed communist thinker Karl Marx and criticized patriotism. In 1912 he became editor of Avanti! (Forward!), the official daily newspaper of Italy’s Socialist Party. But he was expelled from the party two years later over his support for World War I."

[history.com]

I think it is fair to say socialist ideology had a significant influence on the formulation by Mussolini of Fascism.

@wolfhnd Read the second paragraph again. Then the third. Mussolini rejected the Socialist ideology that the state should completely supersede family and it's importance. which is were the spilt started from there it widen. which is why Hitler and the national Socialist first created AntiFa as a way to combat the Fascist ideology in Germany. Like I stated they are strange birds that over lap but don't share the same nest comfortably.

3

I sign birthday greetings to my daughter-in-law, "with love from your favorite fascist." She went to the University of Vermont Law School, is a Bernie Gal and believes fervently in the gospel of systemic racism.

The word "fascist" has been so devalued that giving insufficient Halloween treats can earn you that status. Meaningless...

3

Most fascist governments are Radical Left/Socialist. Trump is against the establishment that wants to control by strong central government. Look at the amassed wealth of the Democrats while in office. Vermont, land of Bernie is an excellent example...he is one of the wealthiest people in a very, very poor state where there is a huge divide socially, economically and politically between the rich and poor.

3

Cult of Trump? Meaning Cult of Individualism? Or, Cult of Personal Responsibility? Or, Cult of Individual Freedom? Or, Cult of Work Hard to Get Ahead?

3

Actually, I am a fascist.

FWIW, I was thinking about asking if fascism in some form is a desirable thing? In what way do you consider yourself one?

@Admin It's a somewhat complex topic because people have incorrect ideas about what fascism is and because they presuppose Enlightenment values. At the risk of oversimplifying, I support the ideals of hierarchy, natural order, moral order, national unity, and Third Position economics.

@WhiteDebbil I think that's a good summary. Given there's no hard and fast definition of #Fascism, it's not like there's a rubric you have to check off 5 of 7 qualities in order to qualify as Fascism.

I consider the #PRC to be Fascist in practice and #Communist in name only.

About the only one of the following definitions I don't get down with is anti-liberalism. I'm a huge proponent of free speech.
[en.wikipedia.org]

  1. the "fascist negations": anti-liberalism, anti-communism, and anti-conservatism;

  2. "fascist goals": the creation of a nationalist dictatorship to regulate economic structure and to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture, and the expansion of the nation into an empire; and

  3. "fascist style": a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view of violence, and promotion of masculinity, youth, and charismatic authoritarian leadership.

@Admin

3

I find it more than a little bit interesting to observe how "fascism" has somehow attained its negative connotations (rightfully so) while "socialism" and "communism" have not. Glaring incongruity IMHO.
Incongruous in the fact that all Socialist regimes (especially Nazi Germany - the 3rd Reich) wielded fascistic tactics in order to impose their authority.

iThink Level 9 Oct 12, 2020

"socialism" and "communism" sound great as utopias... if only it was done right 😉

Yes that is because hypocritical lefties in their usual sneaky way, have moved fascism and Nazism to the right side of political spectrum, even if much like communism or socialism its lefty, and only thing they could not denounce communism so they just ran with it. And since they lead the moral discussion , they place themselves always on the "right" or correct side of history. Now its ok to call oneself "literal communists" and yell insults at everyone else who is sane, by calling them far right fascists and Nazis. Lefties only speak hypocrisy language. Whatever they accuse others, they are sure to be the very same thing. Their only victory is the ability to control that language and narrative.

And this is British The Labour Party in 2019 - Freaking Communists! (Trans-comrades)

2

Seems from the well informed posts I think we can conclude that Fascism never was put into practice. It also appears that the only thing socialists are opposed to is anything that isn't socialism. Maybe it would be better to add descriptive terms such as Gentilé Fascism, Nazi Socialism, Marxist Communism, Soviet Communism, U.S. capitalism, etc. anytime were tempted to assign political labels.

wolfhnd Level 8 Oct 13, 2020
2

It seems that everyone calls everyone else fascist. But in fact a true fascist would be very nationalistic, anti-communist, anti-socialist and anti-democratic. The true socialist would despise the whole notion of equality as it is preached from the political pulpit these days. As far as equality is concerned I think a thoughtful fascist would say it means that everyone gets to play but not everyone is qualified to be the captain of the team. Like it works with every other "ism," elitism has given the elite a bad name. However bad the reputation may or may not be, the elite are still elite.

2

State control of production. That is the definition of fascism. Constitutionalists are opposed to that. The Soviet Union and its satellites, Cuba, Venezuela, China, the Congo and many others are examples of state control of production. They are all some form of socialism.

Those ignorant of history, and claiming anyone is facscist who disagrees with them, are not worth engaging in intelligent discussion. It would be pointless.

Many people who have not bothered to read much and depend on the media to tell them what to think, believe there is nothing wrong with socialism, even though throughtout history it has been imposed at the barrel of a gun, and millions of humans have died in its maintenance.

I have no respect for the closet leftists living the capitalist dream and insisting on tearing the system down.

Can these people be convinced that someone else sees what they cannot, when they believe they are being fed the most intelligent and true stream of information from the media? Probably not. Will we be unique in history to avoid falling onto the abyss of destruction that comes from socialism? The odds are hugely against us.

2

At one to time you could simply open the Oxford dictionary read the definition and most educated people would agree on the definition.

wolfhnd Level 8 Oct 12, 2020

[merriam-webster.com] they recently added systemic racism as factual.

2

I picked something else, but I'm actually I'm really not sure. The wokest clan mentality would like you to adhere to the rules unquestionably. Their more extreme tactics are eerily similar to historical facism. Yet, there seems to be a lack of leadership coming from them. For me, the majority of the outrageous behavior is closer to a real life "copy paste" techniques used online only mirrored in real life. When I hear someone speak, it's just the same few declarative statements without real depth or thought put behind them.

Clueless, aimless, and only concerned with instant gratification, these extreme leftist groups come off as more like a blob of empty headed idiots who are more interested in causing violence rather than achieve a goal of opposition conversion. They actually seem to get more pleasure out of getting a rise out of people and capturing it on their phones for social media clout.

I don't see the same kind of extremism coming from the right that the left keep saying. Which is troubling coming from Democratic politicians who I thought would be more centered than that. It does make me wonder just how much is condoned by these Democratic officials, and how much they shy away from in order not to rock the boat this close to election.

As Biden says, "ANTIFA is not an organization, it's an idea". 😉 Does a fascist movement need a leader if it has a website with game plan, mission, and tactics defined for mobs? Or perhaps that just clears the field?

@Admin That's a good point. Lol Yeah, I'm unsure what to make if it. Still, not doubting the striking similarities in strategy. Attacking key monuments and government buildings, not posing a big enough threat to lives, hidden under the guise of social justice (which I have no doubt many do believe in). Demoralizing authority representatives like police and law enforcement is also a tactic. I wonder how much is coordinated and how much is "conveniently" beneficial to make either Trump or Biden look bad. This is "his" America.

1

I think it's all about the middle class: left=hating the middle class right=loving the middle class. Those who hate the middle class don't want majority rule, are fundamentally anti-democratic which is fascistic. So I think the left is leaning toward fascism by nature.

Corjova Level 6 Oct 13, 2020
1

The core issue here is how post-modern skepticism is rapidly stripping the language of any and all meaning. How can we make sense of a complex term like “fascism” when simple concepts like “man” and “woman” no longer have meaning?

A lot of this is pure leftist ignorance. When Trump, for example wanted a points system for immigrants — favouring those with job and language skills — he was denounced as a racist. Yet, he was describing the exact same system in place for decades in Canada, which is viewed as highly progressive on immigration.

So when a Canadian does it, it’s viewed as empathetic and progressive. WhenTrump suggests exactly the same policy, he’s condemned as a monster.

Why is the left never called on this?

GeeMac Level 8 Oct 13, 2020
1

There are certainly elements of fascism on left and right. In fact, the self inflicted death by a thousand cuts the dems have been experiencing makes me wonder if we are seeing some sort of Hegelian dialectic puppet show.

As far as the hammer and sickle, Che Guevara idolizing, leftist crowd goes, if they accuse the right of fascism the best response is a little communist wake up call.

I wonder how sure Leftists are that there won't be mass death with modern socialism. Modern life seems to be a veneer over the fragility of society... online entertainment, Ubereats, etc.

1

Progs have been doing this for decades, way back in the seventies they started by calling everyone racists and bigots... they didn't even know the difference between racial and racist. They still don't.

There's few good responses to being slurred... except perhaps FU.

1

Anything that works like Antifa is fascist to me. Yuh suppose Biden thinks Trump et al are fascist but Biden still running for the senate so that’s enough to convince me he’s planning something really big and we don’t get it.

Rick-A Level 8 Oct 12, 2020

Packing the court seems to be the first goal so they can reinterpret the Constitution. Scary when a candidate says he won't tell his position until after he's elected. Sinister?

@Admin That goes beyond sinister in my opinion...

@Admin Yes that’s going to be the program until it totally blows up in his face. It’ll keep his idiots in tow for the election, which Biden will lose. I have an aircraft hangar for rent if Harris needs one to use as an echo chamber.

0

I have always thought National Socialism was the best system yet. Now I’m not talking about the anti Semitic part at all (people can not separate the racism from the social system, it’s a totally different debate). i believe the top intelligence should lead.

0

Interesting thread.

The only thing about this discussion that I feel I can add that is not mentioned is the fact that socialism is as much a process as it is the objective. Most define it in terms of its final objective - A centrally engineered socio/economic state with ownership of production, blah, blah, blah. The process to achieving that state is, however, the most important aspect of it and why it is so insidious. States tend to centralize power and control not decentralize. It takes great effort to decentralize the State once it starts to concentrate power and control.
I include all forms of socialism in my definition that are defined as communism, fascism, nazism, or whatever -ism it is labelled, democratic socialism, Marxist/Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism...whatever. They all followed a process and became centrally engineered socio/economic states. The final stages of the process are the total seizure of power and the elimination of all politically competitive opponents. Communism seizes power through revolution with a short evolutionary period. Most forms of socialism work to erode a nation's constitutional fundamentals and gain power over time. Communism is also an international movement and global in nature. Most forms of socialism are nationalist in nature but socialism tends to spread like a cancer. All a nation needs to move further towards the total state is a socialist politician or party. Obama was a socialist, he succeeded, by lying to the people mind you, in establishing a centralized health insurance scheme - one that would eventually evolve into a single payer system. This is an example of how a nation moves towards the final objective. America, to its credit, only established a national education department in 1978 under socialist politician Jimmy Carter. These things all look like they are progress and are helping those who are more in need so they can become popular. In reality citizens are voting for their own erosion of freedoms.

I hope this adds to a greater understanding of socialism. The process is dual purposed, it is designed to centralize power and condition the populace to more control over their lives

Write Comment

Recent Visitors 119

Photos 128 More

Posted by Admin Does teaching "white guilt" also cultivate a "white pride" backlash?

Posted by Admin Is it time to take a knee on the Superbowl?

Posted by Admin Why not equality right now?

Posted by Admin How's Biden doing?

Posted by Admin How many good friends do you have from other political tribes?

Posted by Admin What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Under what time and circumstance is the use of violence warranted?

Posted by Admin Now what?

Posted by Admin What do you expect to be achieved by this week's pro-Trump DC rally?

Posted by Admin What did you learn in 2020?

Posted by Admin Should pedophiles be allowed to have "child" sex robots?

Posted by Admin Do you have a "line in the sand" regarding political or social change?

Posted by Admin Should big tech firms hire more Blacks and Hispanics?

  • Top tags#video #media #racist #world #biden #truth #liberal #government #racism #democrats #conservatives #society #politics #community #FreeSpeech #youtube #justice #IDW #hope #Police #friends #videos #Identity #culture #Google #book #policy #vote #conservative #evidence #violence #liberals #reason #economic #Socialmedia #USA #tech #money #god #guns #gender #whites #campaign #population #laws #religion #TheTruth #equality #democrat #Christian ...

    Members 9,746Top

    Moderator