Absolutely shocking facts about the GOP

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Misoir

 

First of all, neither materialism nor internationalism are liberal democratic ideals. Materialism and nationalism are conservative ideals, idealistically opposed to liberalism and egalitarianism.

Materialism is a form of liberal democratic ethos as materialism embraces the core concepts of every socio – economic ideal from Liberalism (Classical and Modern) to Marxism (Communism and Socialism). Materialism bases itself around economic principles rather than political ones as its main focus. For example, Capitalism and Communism are two sides of the same coin to me because I view Communism as merely the inversion of Capitalism. Both hold onto materialistic conceptions of the world.

Internationalism is both a Liberal and Socialist view which first emerged during the French Revolution of 1789 with the main phrase of theirs being ‘citizen of the world’. This is tied into the democratic movement which is fundamentally opposed to a hierarchical or aristocratic socio – political structure.

If you don't support liberalism and egalitarianism than you are diametrically opposed to the very ideals on which the U.S. was founded, as laid forth in the The Declaration of Independence, where they substituted the pursuit of happiness for property.

I believe in the right to private property but that it is fundamentally undermined with a ‘public’ government like that of a democracy or republic. And yes, I know my views are diametrically opposed to those of the founders.

Your problem, like other conservatives singing the same song, isn't that the republican party doesn't represent you, they do, but that the policies and ideals you support, consistently lead to economic failure, and a break down of our society. Tax cuts for the super rich, failure to enforce laws against crooked business activities, big military, and oppression of individual liberties based on religious intolerance consistently fail.

First of all, it saddens me you cannot think of others outside of the political sphere of commonly expressed Conservatism. America does not have any true Conservatism to be fair.

1. I do not believe in Capitalism as it is a materialistic construct developed to subject the governing body to the whims of an imaginary ‘invisible hand’. This ‘hand’ is nothing more than a lie developed to allow speculators, mass investors, and opportunists to control the society.
2. Big business should be smashed, period. A cap placed on the size of all businesses enforced by the government with most of the local branches of corporations turned into worker co – operatives. The closest economic system to my views is Distributism but I will not adhere to it simply because economics is subject to politics, not vice – versa.
3. I do believe in a strong military but am opposed to foreign interventionism abroad. My general views fall in line with that of Ron Paul.
4. My views on modern religion are extremely negative as I feel that it has been perverted by democratic, human rights, and egalitarian ethos. The churches refuse to speak out forcefully against modernity. Freedom of religion I do not agree with, freedom from persecution based on your religion I do agree with. The Roman Catholic Church for example is far too liberalized, especially after Vatican II which I vehemently opposed for its modernizing of liturgical practices.

Now, maybe you don't support a big military or government regulation of individual behavior based on religious intolerance, but most conservative do believe in these things. In addition, tax cuts for the super rich and failure to enforce laws against fraudulent business activities, will always lead to a military police state, where individual liberties are suppressed under religious intolerance, as these things support the power of the super rich, as history has demonstrated over and over again.

The merchant/capitalist class or, bourgeois, should not be the ruling class. Manipulating or making money is not the sole reason for existence nor does it mean one has the ability to properly govern. The masses are far too stupid to govern themselves and should not be treated as though they are anything but that. The rich should be subject to a higher political class which is made up of religious, intellectual, military, and hereditary figures, much as nearly all functioning systems throughout history have been. A Republic can be acceptable but not one founded on democracy, egalitarianism, or secularism.

The republican party was from the beginning, a conservative party, with support of some liberal beliefs, such as the abolition of slavery, and the rights of family farmers over plantation owners. The embrace of the radical religious preferences demonstrated that at its heart, the republicans were conservatives.

Once again you prove the poor grasp you hold of political history. During the 18th through early 20th centuries the Protestant religions were key to advancing Liberal ideas; arguably it was the Calvinist doctrines which began the ‘Enlightenment’ which spawned Liberalism/rationalism/scientism/individualism. The same is true for the 19th century as the social justice aspect of religion was used to advocate many social reforms which they felt went against Christian doctrines. They were wrong of course because they interpreted the religion liberally, not strictly.

This is the same reason as to the current existence of ‘social justice’ in our political debates; it was originally a Christian doctrine but was used by Socialists and Progressive Liberals to advance their cause. Christianity has also been turned into a religion of pacifism from an emphasis on particular texts over other ones; for example, even most fundamentalist Christians begin to squirm when you mention God commanding his subjects to kill entire peoples because it goes against their pacifist values. People now assume they can use their rationalist and secular Christian morality to judge G-d.

The Democratic-Republican party started by Jefferson, which changed to the Democratic party under Jackson, was always liberal, and believed in liberal democracy and egalitarianism. They were moved towards conservative beliefs by conservative Southerners, who had always been conservative, where most of the loyalists during the Revolutionary War were located, and who are very religious.

Actually the South was the hotbed for much of the Classical Liberalism in America. The only ‘Conservatism’ was actually expressed in the Federalist Party and some of it transferred over into the Whig Party. Alexander Hamilton was the closest to Conservative we have ever had in America. Unlike what others may tell you, Classical Liberalism fused with religious fundamentalism does not a conservative make. The best example of this is that the Federalist believed vox populi to hardly ever be vox Dei, while the Democratic – Republicans disagreed.

Today's Democratic party fails to represent the working class, possibly more than any time in our nations history. They have become elites who look down upon workers as inferior people.

This I will not disagree with.

What we need is a party that recognizes the importance of the democratic process, which actually supports the common citizen against the tyranny of giant institutions.

Well I agree with opposing large corporations as you should by now know my feelings towards them and towards the wealthy capitalists, but I staunchly disagree with your evaluation of the democratic process. But my views are largely academic and will presumably never be implemented without a serious change of beliefs in the West. I am an ardent reactionary in all definitions of the word and do not apologize for it.

reply to post by orangetom1999


I hear what you are saying.

What is interesting to me is that there are some people in this phony fiat money system who can make money and these parasites want to take from them/penalize them for being successful.

Those people making money from this fiat money system are the ones who control our government to far too greatly. They preach small government, but they will always increase the size of government, because it continues to make them rich.

Hike taxes up the wazoo on the super rich, and make them pay for government, and only then will they work to reduce government.

Good post. Of course their is much more to it and both parties have shady origins and the bosses behind the scenes are the same for both. Which is why it doesn't matter who gets in they continue to advance the same agenda and the only thing that changes is the propaganda to the sheeple to keep them distracted. You have to hand it to them they are masters of deception and have been in power now for nearly two centuries because of it

You have discovered something here most middle class American conservatives have no clue about

Discovered? Please, average American Conservatives have no clue about anything.

I completely disagree however that the roots of our current parties are still influencing their policies today. Cultures change, societies change, and organizations change over time, and while the old establishment figures in both parties may seem to be archaic, the parties overall have little resemblance to the parties of the 19th century.

reply to post by poet1b

Hike taxes up the wazoo on the super rich, and make them pay for government, and only then will they work to reduce government.

From "TEN PLANKS OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO"



Second Plank: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Sound familiar???

Good guy/Bad guy. This gets to tacky after awhile. Good cop/Bad cop. Very few realize that they are all bad cops..or bad guys.

Bad guys is what is fed to us so that we don't notice the nature of the baddest of them all...the guys who can create monies unlimited.


They will not work to reduce government. When they get rid of what they call rich folks...then they will work on the rest of us. We will be the rich. No brain power needed here to figure this out.

Thanks,
Orangetom