Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
YOU resent the fact that mid 20th Century hard-working Americans (those who believe in and successfully practiced free markets of free and equal people in a free and just society) had their free markets pulled out from under them (rural and urban) by Progressivists so they would become dependent upon the political class? That those people, of which I am/was a part would have that view?) bahaha. How do you think we feel? This wasn't a mere armchair intellectual exercise for us, this was the destruction of our families and livelihoods by so-called "experts" (Statists all) who pretend to care.
Resent all you want, but the truth hurts to those who hate the truth. Statism (even Socialism as an excuse for Statism) kills, steals, and destroys, from very people it pretends to help. America was a country founded by people who who just wanted to be let alone and live their lives on the ideals of limited government, free enterprise and our natural rights. We fought a Revolutionary War, a Civil War, and WW2 for these principles. WW2 and the evils of Socialism -- Nazism, Fascism, and Communism were fresh in our minds in Middle America. Sure, the over-educated Elites in their Ivy Tower Academia with their political stooges in the Beltway, and the delusional Storytellers of Hollywood at the time were (as they still are) hostile to the principles of Liberty and Equality despite their Hegelian dialectics to "progress" us into a Socialist State using the tactics of fear, hate and distrust by whatever they can use to divide us. Because of their efforts we have the worst of Corporatism and Bureaucratism as two faces of the same Socialist coin. Free Market Economics is Liberty from petty despots -- managed economies by the gun of the state is tyranny (civil and criminal bullying). No state managed command economy can work. It fails for everyone who tries it, No True Scotsman included.
Pevvania
Great Zimbabwe was a circular wall of bricks surrounding a cattle enclosure basically, and that was the greatest achievement the Bantus ever managed under their own auspices. The Mali Empire was subject to great influence from Middle Eastern peoples which rose their standard of civilization, but even then their unique cultural achievements, in spite of sitting on tremendous material wealth that would have made Vladimir Putin, the entire Rothschild family, and every Wall Street banking family put together jealous, were limited to an inferior imitation of the Arabs and adobe-hut villages.
The failure of yesterday's solutions to the question of the blacks in instituting slavery, and then Jim Crow and segregation, is simply that these policies were enacted with the myopic goal of simply keeping the blacks separate. There was no sprawling program to civilize the blacks by reordering their entire society through brute force and social engineering. Slavery existed to serve a private capitalist interest, absolving the plantation owners of any obligation to hustle to make a living and keep their businesses afloat, since they had people to do it for them. However, it was observed by George Fitzhugh, an often ignored but remarkably intelligent antebellum-Southern anti-abolitionist, that the model for slavery was benevolent and even proto-socialist in its rationale. The slaves pooled their labor into the enterprise, and they received exactly according to their need. I have given this a good deal of thought and believe that an arrangement for the blacks approaching this would be the best for them at their level of moral and material civilization, but not to the extent of outright slavery. I wouldn't deny the African the right to own his house or to receive a fair wage for his efforts and then to be free to purchase goods and services as he wishes, but employment itself would be mandatory and the state would have an enforced monopoly on the right to purchase their labor. If private capitalist enterprises were allowed to employ the blacks for cheap, then it would leave the white working-classes out to dry, whereas if the state didn't intervene sufficiently in the economy to control employment in both the public and private sectors, then we would just have what we have now with all these blacks lounging around in decaying apartment buildings, running the property values down and having children they have no intent to keep or raise, just for the welfare benefits, while white workers would be increasingly out of work because the Chinese can make their slaves more attractive to the American multinational corporate enterprises. In any event, I don't believe in making employment non-compulsory for whites either, so what I suggest in the final analysis isn't all that radical if one compares what the status of whites and blacks would be.
Since you're Australian, I thought you'd understand the problem. Your country has its own lot of primitive ingrates bleeding the nation's lifeblood dry.
What I resent is that you fail to see the real truth, which is that it is not the welfare apparatus and government intervention themselves but rather the abuse of the former by useless urban blacks combined with "free trade" that accomplished the systematic destruction of the country. I resent that you are looking for an economic root to the problem when the real causes are cultural and demographic, if anything exacerbated by aspects of your proposed solutions.
The majority of people are libertarian at their core
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
Oh hai all
[spoiler=Spoiler for brevity]
claps four times Well said.
[/spoiler]
Rateria
I am not Palestinian, you imbecile! I'm Italian and no one who looks at my face and knows my name would say any differently.
And what's wrong with musicals?
Wow. If I am to understand you correctly, I do not know how to respond except that prejudice and bigotry have no place in a free society, and must be groomed out of the human heart each generation. If I misunderstood, I apologize.
All ideas have economic consequences when implemented -- it cannot be otherwise. The consequences can be ignored but not avoided. Governments ignoring the consequences of ideas have killed more people in the 20th Century than any other cause.
Our fight is against the darkness (ignorance and delusion) and the indolence and immaturity of the human heart from which bad ideas spawn to tyranize the mind and hence the world. To repeat, these wrong-headed ideas must be fought against (again and again) every generation -- not against the individuals plagued by them necessarily, but we will defend ourselves from those who try to steal, kill, and defraud us; and welcome any who wish to seek liberty and live free regardless of race, class, creed, colour, and former station. This is my heritage as an American.
Anyone with an attitude against a segment of our fellow man whom is judged not by the excellencies of word or deed, but by accident of birth will never be happy nor satiated. Such an one will never be capable of making others happy. Worse that one will never be free of hate, resentment and bitterness that blinds him/her from that happiness. That person will continue to infect others with such misery as well until it festers into full blown lawlessness and despotism such that no on can be happy, and civilization is in ashes.
No "new man" ever arises out of the ashes. It is always the same old strong-man who claws his way to the top by bullying others with their power and destroying anyone that is a threat.
Yes, the bureacratization of America (patently unconsitutional) in trade (bureacratic regulation upon regulation against our livelihood domestically) and the buracrization of commerce (so-called Free Trade (GATT, NAFTA, up to and including Obama's flavor of the month (the last being TPP) has nothing to do with freedom, free enterprise, or free trade, or respecting the equality of each and every individual as it only allowed anyone but the special few to engage in foreign commerce) is destoying America; but it can be changed, and we can return to Liberty and Constitution.
What makes America great is that America is founded on a notion. One does not have to belong to a privileged class enforced by Statist monopoly -- such as bureaucrat, civil leader, don, lord, countess, or party commissar, but that we all are allowed equal opportunity to succeed or fail based on the merits of our ideas, our work, and our ability to love one other (that is treat others the way we want them to treat us). The ideas of limited government, freedom and equality work when they are implemented. Taking off the Marxist colored lenses that keep people from seeing each other compassionately as fellow human beings is a good start.
I cannot help you that you are offended. If I understand correctly i think your offence is a pretense. I will not assuage it, but I can offer you a better alternative.
Rateria
What I'm saying is that social security nets should exist as a means for the nation-state to help its financially weaker and down-on-their-luck elements and thus preserve its integrity and unity, but because America is so multicultural, minority demographics just suck in tax money and produce nothing in return because they have no fidelity to the nation-state that they ostensibly are supposed to belong to. And I'm saying that it was freeing up trade, not bureaucratically regulating, it, that destroyed American industry, because the lack of trade barriers or simply ordering the industries to remain by fiat is exactly what enabled them to pursue their "rational economic interest" in China, by purchasing the cheapest foreign labor possible.
That is the crux of my argument, simplified
That would explain it
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
Hello!
Rateria
No, it's objectively incorrect than I'm Palestinian. I have some Levantine ancestry (not from Palestine though), but the majority of it is from Calabria with a smaller Irish contribution (and I was raised Catholic in the midst of other Italians and Irishmen). As for your implication, most of the TIC crew did know about my ancestry, and I knew about theirs as well. You realize that most of the others were Latin American mestizo, right? And Einsiev is Jewish. It's not like we don't aggressively insult each other about it.
Why do you always have to ruin everything, Wilhelm?
Any ideology that requires human nature to change or "evolve" for it to work is an ideology doomed to fail, and fail miserably. Only ideology rooted in was is rather than what ought can "succeed".
We, of course, should try to appeal to the better angles of our nature, but any change in spirit can only be accomplished introspectively through self discipline, rather than tyrannically foisted down by an outside power.
The simple fact that human nature has remained practically the same for all of history is why ideologies such as fascism and communism are destined to fail, and fail miserably, every time they are attempted.
Narland
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
I'll take a fashy over a commie any day.
#should'vesidedwithGermanyoverRussia
Tupolite
I dont think endorsing the Nazis is very good
Rateria
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
I can tell we're going to be good pals. Of course, you and I know that there was no possibility of America siding with Germany over Russia, since the Russian Bolsheviks, the British Empire, and the Wall Street bankers who held influence with FDR were tied by not only the international web of high finance but also by clandestine Masonic connections.
That would have been my response.
Communism ultimately desires the atrophy of the state into nothingness, followed by a theoretical utopian age where nations will cease to exist and be replaced instead by the colorless uniformity of total egalitarianism. This is the truest and purest sense in that fascism and communism are total opposites. Fascism recognizes that the state forms the nation and thus is the pillar on which national identities stand, through offering a hierarchical political and civic order to regulate, channel, order, and control the people's unique way of life. Communists want to obliterate the state in the service of levelling everything, in its deranged notion that a stateless, nationless world order founded on international class unity can be realized. I might add here that the prevailing trend of libertarianism also aims at the obliteration of the state, albeit rationalized through extreme liberalism rather than Marxism...
Then it is rooted in reality and is more likely to succeed. If what is is what ought, there is no conflict. Not sure what contradiction you see?
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
I agree with this much, although I would point to my implication above that communism and libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism are just two sides of the same coin, with the same holding true of liberalism and socialism, their antecedents.
However, I detest that you insist on separating the concept of rule by law from that of totality of the state. The state occupies the whole dimension of supreme moral law applicable to a nation through its unique line of cultural development: As such, attempts at formulating "law" by setting it aside from the state and making the nucleus of all human activity external to the unity found in the state, such as through exaltation of the individual or the fraud of international solidarity, will ultimately be supplanted, as the law thusly expressed on paper will deviate from the law implicitly known and recognized by the people through their organic unity. The only result possible is the collapse of the socialist or liberal state which puts down these empty words in their legal documents before a revolution to enshrine the natural law, or in other words, what you unjustly malign as the "arbitrariness" of totalitarianism. Although you call it "arbitrary," the more accurate description would be to call it "spontaneous," because that is exactly what fascist justice is. Where all spheres of activity and life are absorbed into the state, and no line is drawn between public and private affairs, what to you seems as "arbitrary" punishment is just the automatic dispensation of justice by a state that implicitly knows the crime through the mode of social conduct and behavior of its citizens.
I would say that almost every political ideology has an assumption of "what is" and "what ought to be," but the differences all lie in identification of the "is" and "ought to be." I doubt a majority of people, regardless of their political persuasion, would regard libertarianism any less "utopian" than fascism if that's what you're angling at.
Your god Muh Roads is dead, 'Tatemites. Should I bring flowers or tarmac?
Only over Communism, the way I see it, Fascism and Communism both inevitably lead to totalitarianism, as much as An-Coms would wish it were otherwise.
What makes them different is their theory on economics. Communism is objectively FOR the abolition of Capitalism and the implementation of forced equity. Fascism, however, treats Capitalism and Socialism as tools to achieve state power. Fascism is economically variable, whatever works to produce more resources and more thoroughly unify the people under a national identity.
So my quick, cursory equation is like this:
Fascism = Totalitarianism + perhaps some variable degree of Socialism.
Communism = Totalitarianism + unquestionably full Socialism.
You could even say that the Chilean version of Fascism was unquestionably Capitalist, but I would also hesitate to even call it Fascism, because it's main goal wasn't ONLY national unity, but also the eradication of Socialism. Whereas a pure Fascist state might eradicate Socialists, but only in the interests of national cohesion, not because it's nessisarily ideologically opposed to Socialism.
There's also the reason that I'm more sympathetic to the Nationalist plight than most Libertarians. While Individualism is superior to Nationalism, Nationalism is then still FAR superior to Globalism.
I have no delusions that I wouldn't be considered a filthy degenerate by Fascists the world over, but I also recognize that a unity between Nationalist security and Libertarian ideals would be ultimately nessisary to preserve a Libertarian society.
You could say I advocate for an extremely radical amount of freedom within the United States, but combined with a hardened shell of Nationalism around it.
I guess itd be fair to call me a "National Libertarian."
So economically extreme right, culturally extreme left, and nationally extreme right.
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
I should clarify, both Fascism and Communism ARE totalitarian. The path was in reference to persuing Fascism or Communism. I worded it poorly.
Communism isn't totalitarian. It is internationalist and anti-state. The only reason you believe this is firstly because of losers like Hannah Arendt who have worked to destroy the understanding that totalitarianism is a positive notion. Only fascism is totalitarian: its totalitarianism is a description of its all-absorbing, all-embracing outlook and corresponding politico-socio-economic system.
This is just a crock of nonsense. Fascism is not "economically variable," as you would know if you spent any amount of time researching the topic or listening to what I've been saying. Economic fascism is corporatism, which is neither fully capitalist nor fully socialist, but an intermediate synthesis of the two, more specifically a synthesis of syndicalism and state-capitalism with Keynesian economics.
Augusto Pinochet was not a fascist, but rather a neoliberal ass-kisser of Henry Kissinger, a puppet of the CIA, and possibly a Freemason. With the complicity of Milton Friedman and his gang, he worked to put Chilean industrial capacity into the iron stranglehold of international finance capital, being a first-order case of "out-of-the-frying-pan-and-into-the-fire," seeing how the alternative was for Salvatore Allende to throw the country to the proverbial communist dogs. The last thing Pinochet could be reasonably called is a nationalist. Most true nationalists don't aim to be America's lapdogs on the world stage.
And "national libertarianism"? Don't make me laugh. Economic liberalism compels businesses to make "rational" economic decisions and compels individuals to seek maximum utility as consumers. This equation, plus the de facto default of power from state to private capital through the weakness of "limited" government and the madness of free markets and the resultant decentralization of the processes by which assets and liabilities are allocated, ascertain that all liberal, libertarian, or laissez-faire solutions to America's problems will only end in the transformation of mankind into a single homogeneous mass whose "culture" amounts to gluttony and rawest materialism.
And there we might see how communism and capitalism will yield the same result from opposite ends of the continuum.
The only viable formula of nationalism is one where the state is enshrined to give absolute order to the social life of the nation. Any who cannot understand that nationalism necessarily implies an ideological collectivism of some sort, and attempt to reduce nationalism to a self-aggrandizing gut instinct, are fools.
See, Bill gets it. But he's a Freemason, so of course, it is anathema to him
"That depends on what your definition of 'is' is"
Narland
Please kindly process my citizenship form so The Red Fleet can try to make you look bad again, especially with that admiral of TRF in your very server doubtless mining all the politically incorrect content which resides there, of which Lib and I are the main producers.
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
He served the Masonic agenda well enough
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
The Masonic agenda is liberalism. Pinochet was an economic neoliberal.
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
Am I off base to just see anything to do with the Freemasons as conspiracy theories
One Masonic conspiracy that even Wilhelm won't dismiss is that of the covert group, run out of the Masonic lodge Propaganda Due by Licio Gelli, to expand American international hegemony on the behalf of the CIA in Italy during the Cold War through false-flag terrorist incidents. While Wilhelm would be very happy to point out that Gelli was an affiliate of the fascist regime in Italy during and before the war, what he would not mention is that the dirty, ignoble coward betrayed the PFR near the end of the war and joined the communist partisans in their debauchery. No one who aims to terrorize his country on the behalf of a foreign power, much less through a lodge of the Freemasonry so despised by Mussolini, could be a fascist.
That's because you're a liberal who doesn't see the chaos they perpetuate with their pseudo-altruistic humanism.
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
The Illuminati and their off-shoots (Masons, Skull and Bones, Bilderbergs, etc.) are organizations steeped in demonic practices.
Tupolite
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
All while conspiring to elevate the Jews to masters of the universe.
Narland, Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
Tupolite is a jackass, Fascism is not the answer, the answer is libertarianism/paleoconservatism
but like dude my culture
I want to hear you define paleoconservative without mentioning the war in Iraq.
Thanks for the ringing endorsement by the way. It lets me know I'm on the right track
If it weren't for me, you would just be arguing over the Federal Reserve or something
Besides, Lib went away, so someone's got to pick up the slack. I like to think I'm more interesting than Lib anyway. My politics are better defined
Highway Eighty-Eight
A bit off base.
Because Secret Societies are secretive, given to bouts of dubious esoteric knowledge, full of ciphers, symbology/emblemology and (by today's standards) heavily ceremonious, they are low hanging fruit in the Conspiratorial Blame Game. It is easier to blame a secretive group of people for all the evils of the world than examining the condition of the human heart and our human nature as individuals participating in human action. In a way, Freemason Conspiracies are a conservative's version of virtue signalling.
Historically, each Benevolence Society had or has a reason, a purpose that provided some sort of mutual beneficence. At one time, 70-80% of working men in the US (the turn of last century) belonged to a Benevolence Order of some sort and that with American Churches covered almost all of American Society) regarding issues of civic virtue and public welfare since the Jacksonian Era. Between them all were provision for what now is now workers compensation, social security, medishare, life and health insurance, and funeral expenses, and more.
Fraternities (college and non-college) and Benevolent Societies (including "Secret" Lodges) were the pre-mass communication era networking and social safety nets arising out of Modernism, and flourished in the US up to and a bit beyond WW2. Since WW2 (and the IRS unconstitutionally taxing our freedom of association) many of their functions have been preempted by the state power grab to control public charity in the name of "Welfare." Benevolence Societies (like the Freemason) offered the aforementioned as well as ethical/moral support and as well as morale support, business forecasts and market information (at a time when 90% of the people were self-employed). It also provided a sense of belonging, non-sectarian and interdenominational camaraderie, and directed charitable activities to efficient use.
Freemasons won the "franchise wars," (Demolition Man reference) and became the largest and most influential. Because of their rituals, secrecy, and unbiblical doctrines they are deemed suspicious. Because of their networking in markets and politics Freemasons tend to rise to high positions.
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
There seem to be a few self-proclaimed libertarians on the Internet who believe that women shouldnt have the right to vote. They claim that the 19th Amendment has led to women somehow voting America into a downward spiral.
I have a problem with people who claim to support liberty, yet want to disenfranchise about half of the population due to the political beliefs of some of its members.
Highway Eighty-Eight
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
I dont think Ive run into any libertarians who want to disenfranchise any group other than women. Liberty for me, but not for thee is still a common mindset, unfortunately.
I know, why don't they learn that liberty is dead and get to the business of burying the corpse already?
Youve got to fight bigotry at every chance you get.
Rateria
Me, a liberal? That's rich
Don't care about religious undertones in these spooky organizations
It's the neo-cons that were all pro war not the paleo-cons
Yes, calm the sheeple with propaganda
I know the neocons were pro-war, dummy. I'm asking if you can even define paleocons without pointing out they were against the war.
Having paleocon relatives, I'd say you can't
The paleo-cons are like the libertarians in that they have small government views especially in spending however they are highly moralistic and believe government should have the authority to police social issues like the gays and drugs
And you fail to realize how a truly free market only favors "the gays and drugs"? It's how capitalism works. There's always a niche in the market. The big businesses would love to distort culture through varied commercial campaigns into a variety of forms, since it only gives them a greater multitude of degenerate lifestyles that they can profit from catering to. And in any government which professes to be "small," "limited," or "democratic," the interests of private capital can only play greater havoc. Economic power rules when political power defaults. Votes would get rigged (and they do, as the Democrats and the GOP both rigged the 2016 presidential vote, albeit the Democrats using illegal immigrants and dead people with the GOP using the Mossad), candidates would get bought, and popular opinions would get entirely decided by the immense power over political culture possessed by private sensationalist news corporations. As I said, when everyone is just a stupefied consumer, there will be no culture left to "conserve." You'll just be a living, walking, breathing placard advertising whatever popular products they want to sell in prodigious quantities. You would live and breathe nothing but the engineered popular commercial trends, existing to perform some brainless service job and line the capitalists' pockets with money by purchasing unnecessary garbage to increase your empty material comforts. It would be the virtual end of Western civilization. Nationalism and traditionalism can only endure with the totalitarian transformation of the state apparatus. There is no morality in the hideous bourgeois excesses of materialism or in the selfishness of so-called personal freedoms, so I find it laughable to imply that the paleoconservative can be "highly moralistic" in reality. The truth is that they're just stupid. They think that poor public morality is somehow the consequence of big government, when in fact big government (albeit not a leftist big government, but one put to pursue nationalistic goals) is the only thing that can preserve public morality, by putting the deviants in their place through force
But you are
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
I had thought the region was pretty anti-party as of late.
From what I can tell, it was more or less the consensus that there wasnt enough activity for parties. Perhaps parties can help stimulate activity among the regions inhabitants.
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
'bring back the 2nd republic' party
Libertarianism and democracy are contradictory in the first place, no?
Miri Islands
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
Not unless you're an anarcho-capitalist, I don't think
There is a commonly understood notion of "democracy" which is more prevalent than your strict notion of democracy as direct democracy. As far as I'm concerned, you all fall into the liberal-democratic camp
Fascists shouldn't talk about camps...
Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight, Tupolite
I'd like to announce my candidacy for the first consul position.
Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Highway Eighty-Eight, Miri Islands
Elections for the consulships will be taking place prior to the beginning of the term on the 10th. Those interested will have until the 6th to announce their candidacy.
Rateria
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
You are correct. I was trying to illustrate that it is off-base dismiss Freemasons as a thing of conspiracy when they were and are such an integral part of the American fabric. Other benevolence societies did offer many benefits (and did not mean to confound the issue) but it is the Freemasons (who are are included historically as a benevolence society) have outlasted most all of them. Roman Catholics steer their members away from Freemasonry to the Knights of Columbus, and cases are made in Evangelical Christianity in general, and Baptistic Christianity in particular why Freemasonry is problematic to Christian teaching. A Biblical understanding of Christianity must be relinquished to the Lodge's to keep one's oath in acceptance of various degrees.
Among the most pacifist?
NO
[B]Hippie!
Anybody seen the new Dave Chapelle comedy special on Netflix? It's a wonderful thing to see such a respected comedian, and one especially respected in black culture at that, stand up to the PC narrative.
Narland
I found it okay. It was not my cup of tea, but more entertaining than other things on Nitflix. Certainly better than most of what passes for comedy. He did have some zingers in there . I never thought I would say that I miss George Carlin, but I miss George Carlin.
Wow, we are once again coming upon that holiday where people who can afford to take of a day of work celebrate those who cannot. Happy Labor Day.
Rateria
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
I hope this bothers you
https://youtu.be/yhj6EGPcspc
Re-edit
Re-Edited
I do not dispute the numbers nor your perspective. I typed that an argument can (and is often made) against Freemasonry concerning Biblical understanding(s) of Christianity -- e.g., those who practice a comprehensive Biblical worldview (be it Objective Realism, Christian Humanism, Classicism of some sort in various Sects and Denominations) that finds Masonic teaching contrary to its tenets.
One particular denomination with which I affiliate, Orthodox Presbyterian Church has no problem with members becoming Freemasons and in a large part was held together by its Freemasons whereas the independent Congregational Community Churches are rather blunt against secret orders in general and Freemasonry in Particular. Within Roman Catholicism it is still an ex communicable (if that is a word) offense; and any Baptistic/Anabaptistic Sect that refuses secrecy, forswearing and oaths such as the Church of the Brethren or the Society of Friends will still shun such an one that claims to be a Brother and refuses to abjure Freemasonry.
A biblical understanding of Christianity, i.e., a comprehensive Christian Worldview based on the Imperatives of Christ from the Holy Scripture (and any philosophy thus derived from (Christian) tradition that holistically sources the Scripture -- be it Anselm, Augustine, Aquinas, (and from my mixed heritage the aforementioned and) Calvin, Grotius, Edwards, Knox, Fox, Penn,Wesley, Greenleaf, Witherspoon, Marshall, Webster, to contemporary Ellul, Trueblood, Lewis, Schaeffer, Muggeridge, Sproul, Mohler, Platinga ad naseum) is the "is" of which you wrote "whatever that is." They invariably albeit tenuously agree as to the orthodoxy and are varied in their praxeology even if they do not agree to every point (such as the acceptance or rejection of Freemasonry. "How Then Shall We Live" by Schaeffer; "Christian Worldview" by RC Sproul and "The World Next Door" by Spire; are some light reading regarding it. The Roman Catholic Church of course has its Canon Law and Catechism with Summa Theologica et al, the Baptists their various Credos if not the Bible sola, and I am particular to the Westminster Larger Catechism and (when my brain is clear) the works of Poythress, Frame, and Vanhoozer is a bit beyond me at my current state of health.
Sorry, I do not have the time to edit this down, but it kind of struck me odd -- Kind of like the American Student protesting that he doesn't have a culture (which not because he is uncultured (as in uncouth -- wich oft times may be true) but because he isn't aware what it is). Of course Christians who value or take the Bible seriously are going to develop a Biblical Worldview, they cannot but. Christianity isn't merely a ritual but a comprehensive religion with a philosophical frame, a lifestyle, and a path which many find incompatible with aspects of Freemasonry.
That bothers me for the simple reason Kid Rock sucks
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
Then I think I have a song that you would like better, and is also relevant to Muh Roads coming back.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XUhVCoTsBaM
Jadentopian Order
Happy Labor day all
Narland, Rateria
That is because your argument isn't with me. I can argue some of the fine points but not the general prohibition (such as the canon of the Roman Catholic Church), because I agree with your general assessment. I believe that one can be a lodge member and a Christian, as well as a church member and a Freemason. Where I think we disagree is that Freemasonry and Christianity are 100% compatible in every conceivable way. My assertion is (just as with any challenge for any Christian in the fallen state of the world) that when a Christian runs into something contrary to the precepts of his faith in Jesus Christ, the Christian (to be Christian) must choose Christ. Were Freemasonry 100% compatible with Christianity and identical to it, it would be a church if not the church.
You have the forswearing reversed. It is the Christian who must decide to forswear that article of Christianity where wherein they conflict if he is to keep his oath to the degree in which he seeks when that person who belongs to a Christian sect or denomination wherein they clash. I find any organization that encourages integrity, justice, and other such virtues more of a benefit to society than a bane. Your argument (regarding that) is with them.
Freemasonry has secret rituals in which the participant is (in the vow) not allowed to share without. This is what is meant by secret. I am sure you know that I do not mean that they hide that they are Freemasons and the purpose of their buildings in a hush. I understand if you feel the need to clarifying some of the misconceptions that are out there.
Remember, my first post was regarding how prominent Freemasonry is in American history and its preeminence in American Society such that it is "a bit off base" to relegate Freemasons to "conspiracy theories." Freemasons have been an integral part of the American Experiment. Freemasonry and Christianity will most likely outlast the American Experiment as well (unless George Washington's vision is true and was accurately conveyed to the Bloomfield Herald/Stars and Stripes newspaper of the Civil War era).
I worked today in order to stick a middle finger to this commie holiday.
Happy socialist bs day.
Pevvania
You really stuck it to the man by doing exactly what he wants you to do.
...That being said, I had classes.
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
What about it?
Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.
you people talk too much
My final thoughts:
You keep typing in reply that in which I agree with you as If I don't. I do not think you understood the meaning of the what I typed at all. I do think you are missing the obvious regarding Christianity. That is okay.
I am not attacking you or Freemasonry as a benevolent order. This all began because I was pointing to the historicity of Freemasons as a substantial part of Americana not to be relegated to mere conspiracy theory (e.g., bigfoot, space aliens running the Pentagon, Satan worshiping Illuminats with goat's skulls on their heads controlling world governments by their thought beams from Globalist superyachts inside the Bermuda Triangle etc.). I do understand your desire to clear up misconception regarding Freemasonry.
Again, I tend to agree with (and respect) your general perspective. Again, your argument regarding those things with which we agree is not with me, but with others. Again, in areas where we actually disagree which (I think) seems to be the nature, and purpose of Christianity (which I offered some reading to entreat you). I hope you do not see this as anything other than an amicable discussion, because I am not hostile about it. I do hope you feel the same and are not frustrated.
I keep seeing lefty candidates say they want the government to fix the problems with expensive college and health care and they want to spend more to fix it. On the other hand we have libertarians and small government conservatives saying that the government is the problem yet neither really go into detail as to how to fix it. How would you go about fixing these two problems in specifics
Rateria
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.