The End Of Christian America

[The Dude]

Hmmmmmm. Let's see.

I grew up with parents who were together until the day my father died. My mother was a music teacher, opera soprano and for over 25 years was the choir conductor of her Methodist church. My father was a jeweler and, at temple, a cantor.

They were also both STAUNCH Republicans.

They always taught us that despite the fact we had quite a bit of money we were not better than anyone else, because they believed people are just people.

But in your case I'll make an exception. You are utterly beneath me, worthy only of my contempt and scorn.

Which is why I and others continue to laugh at you.

Awesome parents

 

[The Dude]

Christianity is a comic book

 

[IMT]

Dear evince:

your party caused it asshole

Who are you addressing here? What party are you referencing? I doubt it is my party you intend, since it has never been elected...

IMT

 

[IMT]

Dear Eno L. Camino:

Well, there's hardly anything paradisiacal about the Purges, Great Leap Forward, or the Killing Fields.

Certainly there are those who have claimed to be 'socialists' who committed atrocities. But atrocities are committed by people not because of ideology, but because they were monsters. Monsters do the same thing by whatever system their political economy is arranged. Saddling socialism with the ignoble deeds of those who have claimed the good name 'socialism' makes as much sense to me as blaming the Inquisition on Jesus.

IMT

 

[Stelakh]

You're quite an authoritarian, aren't you? And you're also an insulting history revisionist.

I didn't attack you first, mamas boy, you attacked me because you hated what the OP said. And your lot aren't as intellectual as you claim to be because leftists like you are always nothing but knee jerk reactionaries.

Me? Authoritarian? Perish the thought. I just believe you should help yourself even a TINY bit, here, by going back and finding the things you paint me as, because you're wrong (like you are everywhere else you post).

As to being insulting, well, am I? By the strict definition of the word, to YOU, yes, I'm insulting (treating with disrespect and scorn). But the true measure of an insult is simply this: An insult is only an insult if it's true. If you feel insulted, then you think real hard about that.

Did I attack you? Yep. I tend to attack idiocy, stupidity, lies, nonsense and insanity when I see it, because EVERYTHING you said in your original post was exactly wrong and I called you on it, and that indicated that you were unthinking and unreasonable. Which you proved with your little "Go to hell..." nonsense. Which is really just a response that means, "You're right but I don't want to admit it."

If you actually believe, honestly believe, that what I said is "revisionist," then you come back here and prove it all wrong with fact.

And now, I'm challenging you in front of every single person in this forum. I'm not daring you, I'm challenging you:

You go back and find actual proof from actual, peer-reviewed texts and scholars that prove what I said in my original post was wrong: about the First Crusade, Urban II's motivations, who fought against the Nazis and under what banner, if any of the comments I made with regard to the Tudor/Elizabethan eras, or any other part of that post (which of course included some humor) was incorrect. If you can't, then frankly, you should stop talking (typing) so you don't look any more of an ass than you already do.

And if you prove me wrong, I'll admit it in front of every single person in this forum and I'll apologize for getting it wrong, too.

Oh, and let me save you a little time in your challenge, little pill bug. World War I: Jews were involved. How do I know? My great uncle was in it, and was awarded the Croix de Guerre by Field Marshal Foch himself. He was Jewish, and did not ban together under a Christian banner. World War II: Jews were involved. How do I know? My father was in it, and came home with an Officer's Luger which he liberated from its officer, and wounds he carried with him to the grave. He was Jewish, and did not ban together under a Christian banner. So that's your "everyone gathered under the Christian banner" bullshit out the window for a start.

As to my intellect, it's an interesting statement you've made.

I've never actually said anything about whether or not I'm an intellectual. That is obviously an assumption you made based on your interaction with me. I'd thank you for acknowledging that my intellectual capacity is vastly greater than yours but honestly, you're trying to compliment the tenor for clearing his throat.

Finally, "mamma's boy"? Oh, come ON. Surely you can do better than... no. You can't, can you?

Ah, well. At least it was a good laugh (again).

 

[Stelakh]

Awesome parents

They were the best.

 

[Stelakh]

Dear Eno L. Camino:



Certainly there are those who have claimed to be 'socialists' who committed atrocities. But atrocities are committed by people not because of ideology, but because they were monsters. Monsters do the same thing by whatever system their political economy is arranged. Saddling socialism with the ignoble deeds of those who have claimed the good name 'socialism' makes as much sense to me as blaming the Inquisition on Jesus.

IMT

Or the Jews for sinking the Titanic. We get blamed for that all the time. "Iceberg, Goldberg, whatever," they say.

Humor aside, you're right. There is no one ideology, no one group, no one party, that has an exclusive franchise on atrocity.

In general, the largest problem with the political process - including those that lead to evil acts - is that it contains humans.

 

[Darth Omar]

Dear Darth Hussein Omar:



‘The fundamental problem with using the government as a means to help the poor and down trodden’ is that I have no idea what it means. Does ‘helping’ imply direct transfer payments, or does it mean work projects? Or does it mean that government has no role in regulating predatory businesses such as loan-sharking? Does it mean that no action should be taken to protect the poor [or anyone else for that matter] from economic or political attacks on them as a class? Or does it mean that government has no business challenging slumlord prohibition of renter associations? Correspondingly, may it mean that government may legitimately hinder the poor – say by allowing union-busting tactics? Lacking any kind of context, I don’t know what you mean by ‘government helping the poor.’

Is ‘a man is prone to work only as much as required?’ Is this ‘a very basic human instinct?’ Far too many counter examples are available to establish this dictum as a universal rule. Moreover, I’m not sure that we want to succumb to political/economic Darwinism. The animal kingdom to which you refer suggests to me neither democracy nor republic. As I see it, humans and rats are very different, although the supposition that they are the same might explain much of human history for reasons that might be explored in terms of systems of political economy. Of course, I believe that similarly, human migration may also be studied profitably from the perspective of political economy.

I didn’t begin referencing biblical texts and did so only because others were using the text to that end, and I believed that another kind of reflection on the literary text was possible. `

I’m not aware that Marxists offer anything resembling a Judeo-Christian vision of paradise, and I am a Marxist. Nor do I know where genuine socialism has ever been implemented. Out of curiosity, have you read much Marx?

IMT

Since it's never been implemented mean socialism is just a theory?

Government helping the poor and down-trodden is a manner of speaking. It stands for welfare in its many forms and not banking regulations. Food stamps, allow some folks to buy that smart phone they'd otherwise not have or work harder to get. Young mothers get tax benefits for every child they bear. That sort of thing.

A man is prone to work only hard enough to sustain himself isn't an absolute and wasn't intended as one. Of course many people work harder than they need to. But for every one of those there are a few that will game the system and slide by.

What happened in Venezuala? Why didn't socialism work there? Europe is more socialist than the US and it's on the financial ropes. What happened there?

 

[Minister of Truth]

Or the Jews for sinking the Titanic. We get blamed for that all the time. "Iceberg, Goldberg, whatever," they say.

Humor aside, you're right. There is no one ideology, no one group, no one party, that has an exclusive franchise on atrocity.

In general, the largest problem with the political process - including those that lead to evil acts - is that it contains humans.

Nice, I've never read about conspiracy theories claiming that Jews sunk the Titanic. At least you nailed DiCaprio in the process!

 

[IMT]

Dear Darth Hussein Omar:

Since it's never been implemented mean socialism is just a theory?

Government helping the poor and down-trodden is a manner of speaking. It stands for welfare in its many forms and not banking regulations. Food stamps, allow some folks to buy that smart phone they'd otherwise not have or work harder to get. Young mothers get tax benefits for every child they bear. That sort of thing.

A man is prone to work only hard enough to sustain himself isn't an absolute and wasn't intended as one. Of course many people work harder than they need to. But for every one of those there are a few that will game the system and slide by.

What happened in Venezuala? Why didn't socialism work there? Europe is more socialist than the US and it's on the financial ropes. What happened there?

Is socialism more theory than practice? I have to cede that point, Darth Hussein Omar. Intelligent Capitalists know this and argue backward saying there must be reasons for that. Of course Marxists and Capitalists disagree as to what those reasons are; but at least they agree on what they're arguing. That's uncommon enough!

Defining 'helping the poor and down-trodden' as a figure of speech meaning 'welfare' is helpful. Marx discussed this in context of one of Capitalism's many internal contradictions.

Marx said that Capitalism HAD to retain great swathes of people in destitution. Only when people were desperate would they present daily in the marketplace for to be exploited by employers offering the most meager of wages.

Because desperation has potential for insurrection, Marx noted that it was necessary for the Capitalist order to support those people with welfare. In other words, some concessions were offered to make the Capitalist system more resilient by offsetting mass opposition. But Marx also knew that especially in times of economic contraction, the bourgeoisie simply cannot afford to feed the masses. Therefore this condition is contradictory and unstable and intractable.

I can’t defend the premise that ‘Europe is more socialist’ than the US. We can say that Europe has more self-proclaimed socialists on a per capita basis, and that socialism has had more influence on the European mind. But then what is meant by ‘social democrat’ in Europe has little in common with revolutionary socialism. And increasingly, socialists distinguish themselves from ‘social democracy’ or ‘democratic socialism’ with the term ‘pseudo-left.’ Senator Sanders definitely falls into this category. Along that vein, Venezuela is an interesting case because even Marxists who live there cannot tell whether it is a Capitalist or socialist country.

Also, the case can be made that more than any other country, the US is ‘on the ropes,’ not only financially, but politically also. Yes, our economy [barely] outperforms others at present; but against this, recall that we owe money like no other nation! Our infrastructure is crumbling. Our military is burgeoning and the people are hemorrhaging. Increasingly, our political system is being abandoned, especially by our youth. It is only a matter of WHEN questions appertaining to the legitimacy of the state and the rightfulness of its claim to rule, and to speak and act as our federal head and legal representative are raised.

It is in this context that the bourgeoisie plays a very dangerous game in allowing the charlatan, Senator Bernard Sanders, to run for office posing as a ‘socialist.’ Once youths grasp the concept of the ‘pseudo-left’ [and they will], and sweep past him – what other options will it have? The state will have no choice but to turn guns on its own people and make their blood flow in our streets. The bourgeoisie knows this. And that accounts for the militarization of US police, for massive, routine domestic surveillance, and for infiltration by state police of everyone from communists to Mennonites.

The ground is shaking beneath our feet, Darth Hussein Omar. And Europe is no different.

I will say this; we agree profoundly that for all who work hard, ‘there are a few that will game the system and slide by.’ They contribute nothing to society and most assuredly are parasites of the very worst kind. Their malfeasance corrupts everything it touches and holds whole nations hostage to its insatiable appetite to consume all good on the earth.

The Marxist designation for this is the ‘bourgeoisie.’ It is the ownership/investment/banking class, and their bought-and-paid-for boot-licking sycophant-lackeys, the political class.

IMT

 

[IMT]

Dear Stalakh:

Or the Jews for sinking the Titanic. We get blamed for that all the time. "Iceberg, Goldberg, whatever," they say.

That's a new one to me. But I don't doubt that some people never saw a conspiracy theory they didn't like/believe LOL!

IMT

 

[Darth Omar]

Dear Darth Hussein Omar:


Is socialism more theory than practice? I have to cede that point, Darth Hussein Omar. Intelligent Capitalists know this and argue backward saying there must be reasons for that. Of course Marxists and Capitalists disagree as to what those reasons are; but at least they agree on what they're arguing. That's uncommon enough!

Defining 'helping the poor and down-trodden' as a figure of speech meaning 'welfare' is helpful. Marx discussed this in context of one of Capitalism's many internal contradictions.

Marx said that Capitalism HAD to retain great swathes of people in destitution. Only when people were desperate would they present daily in the marketplace for to be exploited by employers offering the most meager of wages.

But that's a caricature of capitalism. Of course, the whole point in finding a job is to acquire money; but to say this only works if the job seekers are destitute is a bit extreme. In this economy, which sadly, is saddled with a lot of corporate welfare and crony-capitalism, most workers don't enter employment out of destitution. Millions of them in fact, leave one job for a better paying job. Any economy that has a significant number of upwardly mobile workers trading one job for a better job is a healthy economy.

That said, there are far too many workers who enter the job market out of 'destitution'. The reason for the marks around destitution is because it means a totally different thing than it did in Karl Marx's day. The 'destitute' in this country live pretty well by global standards. Which is good and bad all at once, because the better the 'destitute' live, the less likely they will be motivated to find work.

The really real destitute [illegal immigrants] will take jobs our 'destitute' won't take. And since these kinds of jobs don't pay well, they look to government subsidies to survive. I'm not sure Marx had an answer for this.

Because desperation has potential for insurrection, Marx noted that it was necessary for the Capitalist order to support those people with welfare. In other words, some concessions were offered to make the Capitalist system more resilient by offsetting mass opposition. But Marx also knew that especially in times of economic contraction, the bourgeoisie simply cannot afford to feed the masses. Therefore this condition is contradictory and unstable and intractable.

We agree: the 'rich' will sooner or later run out of money.

I can’t defend the premise that ‘Europe is more socialist’ than the US. We can say that Europe has more self-proclaimed socialists on a per capita basis, and that socialism has had more influence on the European mind. But then what is meant by ‘social democrat’ in Europe has little in common with revolutionary socialism. And increasingly, socialists distinguish themselves from ‘social democracy’ or ‘democratic socialism’ with the term ‘pseudo-left.’ Senator Sanders definitely falls into this category. Along that vein, Venezuela is an interesting case because even Marxists who live there cannot tell whether it is a Capitalist or socialist country.

Also, the case can be made that more than any other country, the US is ‘on the ropes,’ not only financially, but politically also. Yes, our economy [barely] outperforms others at present; but against this, recall that we owe money like no other nation! Our infrastructure is crumbling. Our military is burgeoning and the people are hemorrhaging. Increasingly, our political system is being abandoned, especially by our youth. It is only a matter of WHEN questions appertaining to the legitimacy of the state and the rightfulness of its claim to rule, and to speak and act as our federal head and legal representative are raised.

It is in this context that the bourgeoisie plays a very dangerous game in allowing the charlatan, Senator Bernard Sanders, to run for office posing as a ‘socialist.’ Once youths grasp the concept of the ‘pseudo-left’ [and they will], and sweep past him – what other options will it have? The state will have no choice but to turn guns on its own people and make their blood flow in our streets. The bourgeoisie knows this. And that accounts for the militarization of US police, for massive, routine domestic surveillance, and for infiltration by state police of everyone from communists to Mennonites.

The ground is shaking beneath our feet, Darth Hussein Omar. And Europe is no different.

I will say this; we agree profoundly that for all who work hard, ‘there are a few that will game the system and slide by.’ They contribute nothing to society and most assuredly are parasites of the very worst kind. Their malfeasance corrupts everything it touches and holds whole nations hostage to its insatiable appetite to consume all good on the earth.

The Marxist designation for this is the ‘bourgeoisie.’ It is the ownership/investment/banking class, and their bought-and-paid-for boot-licking sycophant-lackeys, the political class.

IMT

So Sanders is a charlatan lol. Interesting.

This country is in worse shape than I've ever seen but I think the ship can be righted with time and better leadership and I think going socialist would be an absolute disaster.

 

[IMT]

Dear Darth Hussein Omar:

The indolent wealthy won't run out of money while money still exists to be extorted from the working class. But eventually, working class people will run out of money.

I would note the record profits by GM and other Detroit-based automakers. Such profits are built on contracts that butcher wages, particularly for new hires, and on multi-tiered contracts. But the issue here is not GM, contracts with lower wages and few benefits, or Detroit. It is rather that the auto and steel industries are something of a barometer for what happens in the larger US industrial sector.

Regarding the potential of upward mobility, I suggest that the entire, US political structure WITH the Democratic Party AND trade unions, are losing credibility. They are also losing the ability to block emerging, working class struggle. Nor are they able to stop independent action [so-called 'illegal' strikes, etc. which do not carry union sanction]. And as our economy enters recession [likely worse than 2008], Marx' insights may well become increasingly clear to ever growing numbers.

Remember, the ruling class rules on behalf of the bourgeoisie with two weapons. The first is ideology. The second -- guns. And as the ideology is repudiated ... well ... you're a clever boy [and if you're not male, apologies in advance].

As I see it, our choice is between barbarism and socialism.

IMT

 

[evince]

because your blind

 

[IMT]

Dear evince:

Since you see so very well, why not explain to us what you would regard as evidence that you are correct?

IMT

 

[Darth Omar]

Dear Darth Hussein Omar:

The indolent wealthy won't run out of money while money still exists to be extorted from the working class. But eventually, working class people will run out of money.

I would note the record profits by GM and other Detroit-based automakers. Such profits are built on contracts that butcher wages, particularly for new hires, and on multi-tiered contracts. But the issue here is not GM, contracts with lower wages and few benefits, or Detroit. It is rather that the auto and steel industries are something of a barometer for what happens in the larger US industrial sector.

I'm not a big Union guy but they have their place: I'd rather see unions put a check on large corporations than the government. John L. Lewis was an important figure in that regard.

But sooner or later either the uber rich or the working class is going to run out of money, right?

Regarding the potential of upward mobility, I suggest that the entire, US political structure WITH the Democratic Party AND trade unions, are losing credibility. They are also losing the ability to block emerging, working class struggle. Nor are they able to stop independent action [so-called 'illegal' strikes, etc. which do not carry union sanction]. And as our economy enters recession [likely worse than 2008], Marx' insights may well become increasingly clear to ever growing numbers.

Remember, the ruling class rules on behalf of the bourgeoisie with two weapons. The first is ideology. The second -- guns. And as the ideology is repudiated ... well ... you're a clever boy [and if you're not male, apologies in advance].

I agree which is why I support a straight forward interpretation of the First Amendment. Distrust of government is a healthy thing but it's frowned upon by the left since they love government. But government is a neccessary evil whose fundamental role is to protect society from anarchy and/or foreign invasion.

As I see it, our choice is between barbarism and socialism.

IMT

Well, the barbarians are at the gates.

But I think our system needs tweaked rather than junked. Capitalism has proven to work. Reason being, it's driven by human greed and neccessity. Capitalism does a better job of recognizing the human condition---it takes advantage of it; whereas, socialism denies at least part of it, so it is prone to fail where ever it is put into practice.

Your contention is that's because socialism has never been effectively implemented? To that I would say that's because it's unimplementable.

 

[philly rabbit]

Christianity is a comic book

Here we have the left insisting that america was never a christian nation but at the same time insisting that Christian inspiration gave the government the incentive justification to tax in order to help the poor through wealth redistribution. This is a double standard by exploiting Christianity to justify the welfare state.

They will always say: Jesus was the inspiration for charity contributions from everyone to the government. This is the liberal God state, prevalent in the early twentieth century but watch how enraged they all become when it is historically pointed out that the people of america were always predominately Christian within their Christian nation.

 

[philly rabbit]

If Jesus didn't preach common ownership, why did the early Church adopt it? Capitalism is the absolute enemy of Christianity, and stands for everything evil.

So your saying there must be a blend between religion and government to suppress evil capitalism for every one's benefit?

Do you understand the double standard I'm pointing out here, dear friends?

 

[evince]

Dear Darth Hussein Omar:

The indolent wealthy won't run out of money while money still exists to be extorted from the working class. But eventually, working class people will run out of money.

I would note the record profits by GM and other Detroit-based automakers. Such profits are built on contracts that butcher wages, particularly for new hires, and on multi-tiered contracts. But the issue here is not GM, contracts with lower wages and few benefits, or Detroit. It is rather that the auto and steel industries are something of a barometer for what happens in the larger US industrial sector.

Regarding the potential of upward mobility, I suggest that the entire, US political structure WITH the Democratic Party AND trade unions, are losing credibility. They are also losing the ability to block emerging, working class struggle. Nor are they able to stop independent action [so-called 'illegal' strikes, etc. which do not carry union sanction]. And as our economy enters recession [likely worse than 2008], Marx' insights may well become increasingly clear to ever growing numbers.

Remember, the ruling class rules on behalf of the bourgeoisie with two weapons. The first is ideology. The second -- guns. And as the ideology is repudiated ... well ... you're a clever boy [and if you're not male, apologies in advance].

As I see it, our choice is between barbarism and socialism.

IMT

well fettered capitalism has produced quite wonderful results


history shows that

 

[Darth Omar]

Here we have the left insisting that america was never a christian nation but at the same time insisting that Christian inspiration gave the government the incentive justification to tax in order to help the poor through wealth redistribution. This is a double standard by exploiting Christianity to justify the welfare state.

They will always say: Jesus was the inspiration for charity contributions from everyone to the government. This is the liberal God state, prevalent in the early twentieth century but watch how enraged they all become when it is historically pointed out that the people of america were always predominately Christian within their Christian nation.

They can't have it both ways, can they lol.

All 'Christan nation' means is we are a predominantly Christian people, since a nation is a people which share a common border and the like. Secularists are threatened by that, for some reason. They're a confused and conflicted lot.