Liberalism, conservatism, fascism, communism...who cares as long as we're happy?

Thread title,

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I rather we not have ideologies and just go with every event or need for policy and law as a a individual event requiring an individual solution unique to each event.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thread title: Sure. But that's not reality.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But some people are only happy when they're arguing about what governmental system that's controlling them and their society!
Some people are only happy when they're stealing from other people in the society!
Some people are only happy when they're fighting with neighbors.
Some people are only happy when they're killing and robbing others in dark alleys.
Some people are only happy when they're drunk as skunks and driving their cars.
Some people are only......

Well, I hope you get the picture,

Baron Max

 

I certainly do not care up to the point that someone tries to interfere with my liberty or personal beliefs. I say let em do whatever but not on my property

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No actually we do have to care. We have to care because if we don't then some wanker starts changing laws or other people get together and vote in some tyrant. So although I like to live and let live we must be engaged to some degree in the society or community we live in. As long as someone's ideas remain their ideas and they live with it in their nation or community and its not forced on me in my community then its all good.

 

I hear george II is looking for a job. Anybody have a country in need of a failed leader?

 

The way things are going, I hope Obama isn't right behind him.

Keep punishing the middle class tax payers and small business, see what kind of country this is in fifty years. Can you say Socialism?

 

Fifty years? Fuck. Obama, Pelosi, and Reed are hellbent on turning us into a European style socialist country before the summer is over!

 

and we would be better of for it to bad it isn't true.

 

Ever read that Lord of the Rings trilogy? Yeah, it's sort of like that.

Let's say, um. . . the French, they get to be, oh, I don't something useless, like, the Hobbits? Yeah.

And we'll let the English be. . . um, well, let's let them be all pretty and nice, and mild mannered, and kind of the good guys, how about the Elves, all rationalal, not easily fooled.

Let's see, who are we missing? Oh yes, the Germans. All Industrious. We'll let them be the Dwarfs. Mining and working away. So industrious.

And Then their are the Barbarous and conquering Men of Gondor, or of the Southron invaders, or the Orcs, who cares who we let the Americans be, just some one powerful, big and bad, right?

But yeah, probably the Nine Kings of men.

But you know, it doesn't really matter, because, there is one ring to rule them all see?

So it doesn't matter if you are an adherent to Liberalism, conservatism, fascism, communism etc. , because the one ring is going to rule them all, global world socialism has been in the offing for quite some time and is only now in it's final stages. There is now so very little difference between the two main political ideologies in any of the countries. THE PEOPLE argue over what should be done. . . but the elite pretty much know what they are going to do over our objections. They only question remains, how pissed are we going to get before we act? Or are we going to just going to let them continue because we have such a cushy little modern life and let them take more, little by little?

One of my teachers taught me a little parable for what is happening to all of, you to wake you up. Make you think about this.

Take two pots, one at room temperature, put a frog in it. The other leave empty. Hold the frog in your hand. Now, turn both pots burners on and ever so slowly raise the temperature of the water of the pot of the course of time. Know what happens? Nothing. The frog doesn't jump out. The water boils. The frog dies. It doesn't realize the temperature is ever so slowly increasing because it slowly gets used to it. Now, in the pot of boiling water, drop the frog. What happens? It jumps out. Lesson? Who cares? Just because you think you might be happy now as your freedoms are slowly eroded doesn't mean there won't come a day when there is a point of no return.

 

What freedoms are being eroded

There does arise a question of just what freedoms are being eroded by the rise of "global world socialism".

When I was a kid, the anti-communist arguments I heard involved typical nightmares. We'll all have to dress the same, think the same, speak the same, &c., &c.

I don't foresee foil suits anytime soon. And, frankly, I don't think the idea that one should not go out of their way to be offensive (nigger, bitch, kike, spic, nip, chink, dago, mick, faggot, ad nauseam) especially in public or semi-public institutions—e.g., government offices, schools, places of employment—really means we have to think or speak the same.

To the other, the long conservative rant about political correctness seems ironic to me. Civilian deaths in a war are "collateral damage". Torture is "enhanced interrogation techniques". I don't so much mind "improvised explosive devices", since there are various kinds of bombs, and a hand grenade is much more formal than an ad hoc shape charge stuffed in a dog carcass on the side of the road. And the Israeli/FOX News attempt to introduce the phrase "homicide bomber" into the lexicon just didn't work; I see a terrorist suicide bomber (the original target of the phrase) and a regular military bomber pilot as being much different, even though they both are, technically, "homicide bombers" insofar as they commit homicide with bombs. But PC is just a subsection of euphemism, much like BS (bureaucratically suitable) phrases. And while conservatives have long complained about PC, it seems they have been enjoying many benefits of euphemistic language.

Indeed, of late liberals have been scorching an alleged liberal bastion—National Public Radio—about its policy against using the word "torture" when referring to acts like waterboarding committed by American personnel.

When I was younger, my Reagan-Republican father used to tsk and scold my naturally communitarian leanings. "Would you rather take care of yourself and your family when you're older," he would ask, "or have to pay for a bunch of people who don't deserve it?" Well, Dad, you shouldn't have sent me to church, then. But, oh, that's right, you signed that commitment in the adoption papers, didn't you? Good one. Still, though, the loudest political voice of Christianity in the U.S.—e.g., the evangelical right—would condemn the Apostles as communists (Acts 4.32-ff). And, curiously, evangelicals are more likely to support torture. And social persecution; it was conservative Christians who kicked off the gay fray in the early 1990s—in Oregon, for instance, they demanded that state institutions, including schools, teach that homosexuality is abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse, and that such behavior should be discouraged and avoided. Certainly, Tipper Gore was a Democrat, but Susan Baker was a Republican—they founded the Parental Music Resource Center in the 1980s—and it has long been conservative Christianity that has fought against rock and roll, rap, heavy metal, and other music forms. It seems to me that it is mostly conservatives who have been telling me how to think all my life.

The freedoms at the heart of the conservative political causes center around one's freedom to treat other people poorly, especially when money or beliefs are involved; they want the freedom to arbitrarily injure other people's quality of life. They want the freedom to be frightened beyond logic—to shoot people for the crime of asking directions, for instance. The freedoms genuine liberals tend to support involve the freedom to believe what you want, love who you want, and say what you want, among others. I'm not worried about the erosion of freedoms under the advance of socialist, communist, or other communitarian ideas. Liberal freedom is, to be sure, not perfect; we have our share of hand-wringing morons complaining about the content of movies, music, and video games, but they're not winning the day. Hollywood keeps making shitty movies; record companies keep buying airtime for shitty songs; video game sales are massive—and did anyone catch the Penn & Teller Bullshit on video games? But the freedom to have one's excess depend on the maintenance and growth of a poverty class is far less genuine and considerably less important to most liberals than the freedom to read what you want without the government harassing you.

I'll take the right of equality before the law over the right of supremacy any day. Not so with the conservatives.

The march of "global world socialism" will, if genuine, vindicate Marx. A communist outcome is virtually inevitable. We see the roots of it in the world today. People might distrust the government with their education, health care, and retirement, but they have various tools with which they might enforce the social contract. In the meantime, they have turned a certain portion of those issues over to corporations whose only allegiance is to the ledger. Sure, your company will help you with your education, but many of them limit the subjects you can study. Sure, your company provides health care, but that penny-pinching has resulted in the current American outcry for relief. Sure, your company will help you with your retirement, but between Enron and the current economic mess we're in—both disasters invested in conservative outlooks—we're starting to see the problems there, too.

The people's duty in a world of e'er increasing complexity is to safeguard themselves against the annexation of the coming "global world socialism" by nefarious and dishonest interests. Right now, the first purpose of health care is not the provision of health care; rather, it is the satisfaction of greed. At present, it isn't a liberal government that has led the world into wars and rumors of wars, but conservative and neoconservative establishments. And it's been this way for a long, long time.

Oh well done Lord E---n! and better Lord R---r!
Britannia must prosper with councils like yours;
HAWKESBURY, HARROWBY, help you to guide her,
Whose remedy only must kill ere it cures:
Those villains, the Weavers, are all grown refractory,
Asking some succour for Charity's sake--
So hang them in clusters round each Manufactory,
That will at once put an end to mistake.

The rascals, perhaps, may betake them to robbing,
The dogs to be sure have got nothing to eat--
So if we can hang them for breaking a bobbin,
'Twill save all the Government's money and meat:
Men are more easily made than machinery--
Stockings fetch better prices than lives--
Gibbets on Sherwood will heighten the scenery,
Showing how Commerce, how Liberty thrives!

Justice is now in pursuit of the wretches,
Grenadiers, Volunteers, Bow-street Police,
Twenty-two Regiments, a score of Jack Ketches,
Three of the Quorum and two of the Peace;
Some Lords, to be sure, would have summoned the Judges,
To take their opinion, but that they ne'er shall,
For LIVERPOOL such a concession begrudges,
So now they're condemned by no Judges at all.

Some folks for certain have thought it was shocking,
When Famine appeals, and when Poverty groans,
That life should be valued at less than a stocking,
And breaking of frames lead to breaking of bones.
If it should prove so, I trust, by this token,
(And who will refuse to partake in the hope?)
That the frames of the fools may be first to be broken,
Who, when asked for a remedy, sent down a rope.​

The institutions of the world often—even generally—vilify liberalism as a threat to freedom, yet history itself speaks otherwise. Certainly, plenty of seeming liberals, such as Napoleon or Soviet Communists, have proven themselves as corrupt as any other human beings, but Napoleon abandoned his liberal, republican appeals to reiterate a conservative idea in a becoming a monarch, and while Lenin and Trotsky are reviled by many in the West, it was the despot Stalin who ensured the eventual failure of the Russian Revolution; the dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed to be temporary, and the more so the better—it is not actually a proper communist society (cf. Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme").

In this program, I'm going to argue that the Industrial Revolution wasn't at all brought about by a few great British geniuses, and that in fact, most of the famous inventors of the time were, in truth, not very good, or frauds, or nut cases. And also that one of the most forward-looking and progressive groups of the whole period was the Luddites.

(Steel)​

These days, Luddite is a pejorative rendered mild by its overuse. But there is an interesting consideration to be had about that. The vilification of the Luddites focuses on their radical campaign to destroy technological innovations that displaced workers. It's the latter part that most people forget; Luddites are viewed as opposing technology, which isn't accurate. Their dispute was with the displacement of laborers by new technology.

So most people's perception of the Luddites is that they were anti-technology mad .... In fact, the Luddites weren't against new technology at all; they were just against it being introduced in such a way as to leave them starving. Nor, at first, were they violent. For a long time, croppers tried to prevent the mass use of the shearing frame by invoking a statute of Edward the Sixth, which made their use illegal ....

.... They left alone the machines of the employers who ran compensation schemes, so it wasn't just the machines that they hated. And many Luddites were in jobs that weren't directly affected by those machines. And their demands were: the craftsmen made unemployed by technology should be compensated; that they should be given a chance to retrain; and that funds—i.e., taxes—should provide a safety net for the poorest victims. Which is why it's right to say the Luddites were amongst the most forward-looking people of their time.

(ibid)​

And this is what makes Luddites so despicable. They challenged the right of the wealthy and powerful to abuse and exploit other people in pursuit of greater wealth and power. And the wealthy and powerful have responded with a con game. There is an ultimately silly advert going around protesting Obama and health care that tries to convince people of the dire costs of a new public health plan. Part of the advert depicts a grocer, says that a tax in lieu of providing a health plan for his employees will cost him $40,000, which will cause him to have to fire an employee. What? Okay, now wait a minute. Just what kind of private, for-profit business makes no profit? It's a laughable proposition. What they will fire an employee for is to offset a $40k dent in profits that could well range into the millions of dollars. It's a con job. Because they know the real argument simply won't fly: We should not have to decrease our excess in order that our employees should be healthy. After all, if one gets sick, we can just cut him loose and hire another one. And they might as well add, After all, you have the freedom to not get sick.

The "global world socialism" will only come about because people want it. And it is clear that they will only want it if nothing else works. Each new component of the structure will evolve out of the failures of other systems.
____________________

Notes:

Blake, John. "Torture prompts soul-searching among some Christians". CNN. May 22, 2009. CNN.com. July 17, 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/22/torture.christian/

Byron, George G. "An Ode to the Framers of the Frame Bill". Morning Chronicle. March 2, 1812. Loyola University Chicago. July 17, 2009. http://orion.it.luc.edu/~sjones1/byr2.htm

Marx, Karl. "Part IV". Critique of the Gotha Programme. 1875. Marxists.org. July 17, 2009. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm

Steel, Mark. "The Industrial Revolution". The Mark Steel Revolution. BBC. Radio 4, London. July 21, 1998.

 

Communism is obviously the shittiest political and economic system ever conceived, I still ponder to this day whether Marx was snorting from laughter as he wrote the communist manifesto on his vodka-drenched parchments. I've read journals which detail the account, illustrating how Marx was embarrassingly terrible at rolling joints, on many occassions being verbally berated by his coauthor Engel for spilling high quality kush on the carpet, like "be careful ... steady ... watch the tip, a good lick should be enough, yep, start rolling ... be caref - aw, fuck, you cocksucker, you just spilled half, fuck, man ... no man, I'm tired of this, c'mon" at which point Marx's cold tears were lost in his smelly beard. The journals are in a British museum, they're fascinating first-hand historical documents. They even have Marx's crack pipe on display, which he occassionally used to sodomize his young disciples.

Socialism isn't as bad as communism, but it's shit nevertheless. Liberals used to be cool before the 1900s, but ever since Marx perverted the left, it's been an outlet for supporting sodomy and government power, reducing people to mindless workers whose only perks are impunity from the law for pracicing and receiving rimjobs. I'd say the legality of rimjobs is one of socialism's and liberalism's few successes, but I figured a couple centuries would garner more innovation than tonguing sphincter. I'm still waiting. The title to this thread is misleading because there's never been a happy socialist state, and there sure as hell has never been a happy communist state. Classic pictures always show poor folk in communist states wearing grey trenchcoats and silly Russian hats whilst shivering in the cold (it's always winter in communist countries), and they are never smiling in pictures, absolutely not, their faces are expressionless and emotionless, partly because they lack souls, and partly because they've been bred to be heartless killing machines.

Sure, maybe Marx genuinely believed the lower class scum worldwide would overthrow their oppressive upper class overlords and take over the world and stuff, but that never happened, world war two being the best example. Lower class people don't give nearly as big a shit as Marx did about class divisions - they almost always fight for their country first, which is only natural. Marx did have balls though, got to give him that, I mean, here's a guy who's watching governments compromise with people as to how much power each side gets, and as the negotiations are ongoing Marx pops up and says, "here's an idea, how about the government controls everything, and you shifty bastards get nothing? hmmm? sounds good? c'moonn, good idea, huh?" It was in fact such a shitty - such a mindblowingly shitty - idea that people actually thought it was good.

I always found it funny how liberals and communists would call right-wingers fascist. It's like, liberals obviously want to take away the concept of free speech and replace it with political correctness, they tell you what to do with your business, they tax your paycheck and spend it as they wish, tell you that you can't own guns, etcetera, so the rightwing says, "hmm ... these communists sure love taking away freedoms, maybe we'll give people maximum liberties instead and not allow gay marriage, I'm sure that wouldn't be such a big deal", and the leftists get all angry and shout "you fucken fascist, you dirty filthy fascist, banning gay marriage? What business is it to you rednecks, grrrrr".

Global socialism is obviously a terrible idea, anybody who has even a vague understanding of history knows it will end up with mass killings, most of the casualties being anti-authoritarian intellectuals, it's so obvious that it's irritating. It will never come into fruition because the nearly two billion muslims will never accept some sodomite socialist's world visions, the one and a half billion chinamen will not surrender their nationality for some perverted global socialist wetdream, especially Russians will say "hmm ... communism, huh? It only killed sixty million of us last time, but I'd be willing to give it another go". Yeah, right ... not happening. After the dust has settled following global violence and savagery, people will return to old national ideals and say "what the fuck were our parents' generation thinking? dirty sodomites".

 

I'd like to try my hand at making a nuclear device, about 10 kilo tons would be nice, is it OK if I do that at my house?

I'd also like to make some other very nasty things but if they were to get away from me, many might get hurt or even die! Can I make them as well?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Again numbers originated from Solzhenitsyn. It`s rather funny that words from a person who wasn`t a historian and never even worked with State Archives are so widespread.

 

So then by your definition you have effectively and permanently eliminated yourself from any credence.

Now, if only the rest of the kingdom of marxism would admit as such.

 

I don't think I could be happy living under an authoritarian system of government; be it communism or fascism/socialism.

 

Socialism is not fascism nor authoritarian.

 

Conservatives do not oppose voluntary acts of charity or even groups of people living together in a commune. It's collectivism at the point of a gun we object to. Did Jesus forcibly relocate anyone or seize anyone's assets? Or did he simply preach and ask people to join him freely.

Grocery stores have an average net profit of 6%. So some small corner grocer is not going to be raking in millions of dollars in profit. They're going to have to sell a hell of a lot of milk and eggs to make up that 40k Obama's plan hits them with and may well be forced to fire an employee to stay in business.

Ah yes, the retched excess of the small, independent.grocer. We're always seeing them on lifestyles of the rich and famous.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Most of the freedoms you spoke of, I am not referring to at all. Global world socialism is bad, because it seeks to deal with local communities on an international basis. Even now, the federal government seeks to educate the nations children, and have "national standards" when this is a local issue. In fact, education is something that is deeply personal and should be left up to the parents and the community. It is an essential freedom. The government has no place trying to control the minds of future generations. The people that are most efficient and know best how to deal with the problems they have, are the people in their own communities. I have nothing against communitarian philosophy other than it leaves all consideration of man's spirit out of any philosophy of governance. In my view, the most successfully run and complete societies are tribal societies. Each person has a place in society, each contributes, no matter how old, whether handicapped, young and old alike, everyone. And all receive what they need from the communities resources.

Modern forms of state run institutionalized governments? None of them, ever deliver. It is time for a knew paradigm shift in how we think of governance. ALL types of government (Liberalism, conservatism, fascism, communism), cause a separation between the governed and the representatives. They are elites who think themselves above those they serve. They have all become career politicians, not part of the people they serve, as such, they think of the people as chattel, something to be managed, and culled if necessary. Modern society has become too large, too impersonal, too bureaucratic. It's the bureaucrats who influence your day to day lives now more than the pols.

What I am talking about is the freedom to LIVE. The freedom of SELF-DETERMINATION. The freedom to read, speak, and write what you want. Sure, it seems preposterous now that these would ever be in doubt. But in order for the world's elites to achieve THEIR vision of global world socialism, soon, these very liberties are going to be in jeopardy. Did you read my post about Codex Aliementarius (link) in the Vitamin thread?

If you saw my post in the the health care thread, you would understand that this health care plan isn't about universal health care, it's about the government getting into the third largest sector of the economy. They don't want people healthy, they want them sick. They want that industry to GROW.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2312385#post2312385

Global world socialism is not run in the interests of the worlds people. It is clear you have done very little research on this topic.

Educate-Yourself
The Freedom of Knowledge, The Power of Thought

Just like people didn't have a choice as to whether there would be a federal reserve or the CFR established here in the United States, the NWO is being established by the world's elites with out the consent of the world's masses. It has nothing to do with "what works" or not. Was this recession wanted? I would say not, yet they planned it and made it happen anyway. The manipulation of interest rates, the media, and the markets do wonderful things. If you have a TV, chuck it. Be aware, five major corporations own 99% of all the American media, almost all information you read about what is going on is nearly a lie, you must use discernment very carefully.

 

What grocery store is that? I want to buy their stock! Walmart and Costco (both of whom I've worked for) are two of the most profitable retailers and in a BUNKER year their margin wouldn't pass 4%. I work for a retailer that is a Wall Street darling right now and our typical profit margins are about 6.5% (though this past year it's about 1%).

~String