Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Tupolite wrote:What I primarily resent is this laissez-fairist economic interpretation of LBJ's depredations where it's the usage of the public finances to subsidize hard-on-their-luck working-class folk and rural bumpkins that is itself the killer. The fundamental question cannot be reduced to any other than that of disorder wreaked by the wickedness of multicultural society. The centerpiece of my ideology is the Hegelian notion that the state is the aspect of the moral absolute, which we might state as equivalent to God in some pantheistic sense, that the common faith and pooled political and cultural consciousness of a people is capable of interpreting through responsible participation in civil society. Furthermore, while I don't believe that the biological elements of the concept of race are deterministic in their entirety of an ethnic group's capacity for meaningful participation in civil society, I do believe that race makes its first mark on culture, and the insuperable gulf between whites and blacks in American society, engendered by the tolerance for the autonomy of the latter, is the cause of the welfare system's abuse. Implicit in this also is that a welfare system cannot be held responsible for the country's financial woes ipso facto, and in fact that it would be entirely beneficent if its rewards were primarily reserved for America's ethnic nucleus (i.e. the white majority), whereas other and more directly coercive systems must exist to integrate the blacks and other minorities to any significant extent into the national framework, and thus justify their toleration. I also don't necessarily think of LBJ and Great Society as being particularly socialist, especially if we regard socialism as Marxism and Bolshevism. Marxian socialism's faults were numerous, both in theory and practice, starting with its stateless international utopianism and its concept of man as a purely economic factor with purely material preconditions to his state of greatest self-actualization, and ending with its thesis of the war of classes over the mode of property ownership, its relegation to meaninglessness of all romantic myths which grant heroic significance to the prime movers of history, and its slavery of the proletariat under the guise of its liberation. But what every tired politico-economic machination in the United States since the beginning of the 20th century onwards has represented is merely the banal essence of liberal democracy, where politicians vie for power and access to government resources by recklessly promising the biggest piece of the proverbial pie away to one demographic, social class, or occupational group. In this sense, we can see Great Society as symptomatic of the American republic's very nature to arbitrate the struggle between heterogenized factions of people for the largest share of the country's vast resources, by sublating the simmering tensions which are kept to boil just under the surface to a clown show where a bunch of well-heeled idiots in suits trot in front of the frothing public and make increasingly inane spectacles to bask in their rage.

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

Pevvania wrote:10 generations of "firm discipline" doesn't have a very 'civilizing' influence when it totally strips you of your ethnic heritage and identity, suppresses any creative and industrious impulses and dehumanizes you to the point of being considered less than a whole human being. I'd argue that slavery and segregation, or 'firm discipline' as you'd call it, are in themselves savage, tribalistic and deeply destructive ideologies.

Also remember that throughout the Middle Ages, Africa (particularly the Mali Empire and the Great Zimbabwe) was viewed as a land of great opulence and wealth by Europeans, who for centuries existed in a quagmire of squalor and backwardness.

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.

Narland wrote: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.

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]

Pevvania wrote:10 generations of "firm discipline" doesn't have a very 'civilizing' influence when it totally strips you of your ethnic heritage and identity, suppresses any creative and industrious impulses and dehumanizes you to the point of being considered less than a whole human being. I'd argue that slavery and segregation, or 'firm discipline' as you'd call it, are in themselves savage, tribalistic and deeply destructive ideologies.

Also remember that throughout the Middle Ages, Africa (particularly the Mali Empire and the Great Zimbabwe) was viewed as a land of great opulence and wealth by Europeans, who for centuries existed in a quagmire of squalor and backwardness.

claps four times Well said.

[/spoiler]

Rateria

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Nah, I remember. You're the Palestinian Fascist self-hater, who secretly enjoys associating with a region filled with libertarians, anarchists, Jews, and "degenerates" of all kinds. It's fine, your secret is safe with us. We won't out you as an asset of the Secret 'Tatemite Empire and its plot to destroy statist collectives from within. Your secret is same with us, besides it's Technocally impossible for a secret empire to out its secret assets because both are secret.

But wait, there's more:

Tupolite is a fan of the musical.

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?

Tupolite wrote: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.

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

Narland wrote: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 implementedinstead taking off the Marxist colored lenses that keep people from seeing each other as fellow human beings.

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.

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

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Maybe you're scooby doo.

That would explain it

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:But you are Palestinian.

That is, unless that was secret, in which case, oops. Hopefully that won't damage your chances with the fashy fellows over yonder. Makes you wonder what the whole point of it is in that case... Maybe Libertatem is trying to insert "racial degenerates" into fascist regions to weaken their ideology on NS. Possibly. Maybe not.

Southern Italian, they might appear a little Palestinian or Levantine or vise-versa. Of course only fools care about that stuff.

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

Skaveria wrote:I'll take a fashy over a commie any day.

#should'vesidedwithGermanyoverRussia

I don’t think endorsing the Nazis is very good

Rateria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Skaveria wrote:I'll take a fashy over a commie any day.

#should'vesidedwithGermanyoverRussia

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.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Tis my job, sonny. It makes no difference to me whether or not your real name is Ahmed or Schlomo or John or Ping.

What if its any ideology that is rooted in both what is and what ought? Lol.

That would have been my response.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Nah, I don't think I could ever side with any person or persons who believe in the total (and fascism is the absolute state) existence of the state, the supremacy of races, the right of one group to exterminate another based on supposed biological traits, etc. Over an ideology that still has some liberal characteristics at its core. Despite the evils brought about by communists, and the lunacy of their ideology, it is still fundamentally based on Liberalism. Fascism is not the supremacy of the state, but the totality of the state, it is the worst of socialisms in that it leaves no room for the individual.

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...

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:

What if its any ideology that is rooted in both what is and what ought? Lol.

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.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Another thought:

The totality of the State in Fascism is shown to find its opposite in Liberalism...

Fascism is the totalization of the State, the Individual does not exist. The Fascist state is truly the only Totalitarian state in that nothing can be outside of it without it losing its Fascist character the very fact that State cannot do something is the sole proof necessary to find that you do not live under Fascism. The State is a law in itself...

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.

The United States Of Patriots wrote: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?

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?

Jadentopian Order wrote:I don’t think endorsing the Nazis is very good

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.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I don't think you fully understand what Fascism is if you refer to the Pinochet regime as Fascistic, or Fascism as a *path* to Totalitarianism (it is actually defined as pure Totalitarianism by Mussolini and others in various boos, speeches, etc.)

I should clarify, both Fascism and Communism ARE totalitarian. The path was in reference to persuing Fascism or Communism. I worded it poorly.

Skaveria wrote: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.

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.

Skaveria wrote: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.

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.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I don't think you fully understand what Fascism is if you refer to the Pinochet regime as Fascistic, or Fascism as a *path* to Totalitarianism (it is actually defined as pure Totalitarianism by Mussolini and others in various boos, speeches, etc.)

See, Bill gets it. But he's a Freemason, so of course, it is anathema to him

Tupolite wrote: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.

"That depends on what your definition of 'is' is"

Narland

The United States Of Patriots wrote:"That depends on what your definition of 'is' is"

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.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Pinochet, despite the claims of some, was not in any way, a Freemason.

Salvatore Allende was a Freemason, and an active one at that. He was the son of the Chilean Grandmaster Ramón Allende Padín, and participated in Freemasonry around the world throughout his life. He was initiated 16 November 1935 and was made a Master Mason two years later in Progress Lodge in Valparaiso, and would affiliate with and become the Master of Hiram Lodge in Santiago.

Pinochet was never a Freemason.

He served the Masonic agenda well enough

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I disagree entirely. You clearly don't seem to understand what the "masonic agenda" is if you think Pinochet served it in any capacity.

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

Miri Islands wrote: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.

Miri Islands wrote:Am I off base to just see anything to do with the Freemasons as conspiracy theories

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.

Miri Islands wrote:Am I off base to just see anything to do with the Freemasons as conspiracy theories

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.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:[sarcasm]Just a cover for our plans to take over that world we apparently already have control over.[/sarcasm]

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.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Blame Tupolite (suppose this is technocally his name) for the conspiracy crap spilling onto the RMB. Lol

Tupolite is a jackass, Fascism is not the answer, the answer is libertarianism/paleoconservatism

Suzi Island wrote:Tupolite is a jackass, Fascism is not the answer, the answer is libertarianism/paleoconservatism

but like dude my culture

Suzi Island wrote:Tupolite is a jackass, Fascism is not the answer, the answer is libertarianism/paleoconservatism

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

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Blame Tupolite (suppose this is technocally his name) for the conspiracy crap spilling onto the RMB. Lol

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

Miri Islands wrote:Am I off base to just see anything to do with the Freemasons as conspiracy theories

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 shouldn’t 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.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I've met plenty of that kind. It's not necessarily directed ar women, they desire liberty for themselves at the expense of whatever religious, racial, social, political, or geographical collective they happen to have some illogical dislike of. Racism, Sexism and all kinds of bigotry are detrimental to liberal movements, and we can't talk about a libertarian society if libertarians are fine with such irrational hate and fear within their ranks.

I don’t think I’ve 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.

Rateria wrote:I don’t think I’ve 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?

Rateria wrote:There seem to be a few self-proclaimed libertarians on the Internet who believe that women shouldn’t 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.

You’ve got to fight bigotry at every chance you get.

Rateria

Suzi Island wrote:The Illuminati and their off-shoots (Masons, Skull and Bones, Bilderbergs, etc.) are organizations steeped in demonic practices.

Me, a liberal? That's rich

Suzi Island wrote:The Illuminati and their off-shoots (Masons, Skull and Bones, Bilderbergs, etc.) are organizations steeped in demonic practices.

Don't care about religious undertones in these spooky organizations

Tupolite wrote: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

It's the neo-cons that were all pro war not the paleo-cons

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:We held a veteran's breakfast the other day. [sarcasm]Just a cover for our plans to take over that world we apparently already have control over.[/sarcasm]

Yes, calm the sheeple with propaganda

Miri Islands wrote: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

Tupolite wrote: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

Miri Islands wrote: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

Miri Islands wrote:Me, a liberal? That's rich

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.

Skaveria wrote: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 wasn’t enough activity for parties. Perhaps parties can help stimulate activity among the region’s inhabitants.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

'bring back the 2nd republic' party

Rateria wrote: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.

Libertarianism and democracy are contradictory in the first place, no?

Miri Islands

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

The New United States wrote:Libertarianism and democracy are contradictory in the first place, no?

Not unless you're an anarcho-capitalist, I don't think

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I guess one of the issues is the conflation of voting with democracy. Popes are elected via vote, but the election is not democratic.

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

Tupolite wrote:....

.... 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.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I should mention that Masonic fraternities are not insurance societies. They also aren't generally great places for politicking and selling your business.

Freemasons like to make the claim that they are the oldest fraternity (or first, though this is probably erroneous). Of course, this lable usually excludes the Christian and Muslim religious fraternities of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East, which are usually much older. Nearly all later fraternities, clubs, etcetera were modeled after the masonic system.

There isn't really a masonic "doctrine," that I can think of.

Masonic ritual is biblically based, even though not all masons believe the bible to be especially holy.

Masons are charged to excel, and I think that's the biggest reason for why they do in all fields within the Free Nations.

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

Tupolite wrote: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

Skaveria wrote: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.

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.

Tupolite wrote:Your god Muh Roads is dead, 'Tatemites. Should I bring flowers or tarmac?

I hope this bothers you

https://youtu.be/yhj6EGPcspc

Re-edit

Re-Edited

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:This, if I understood correctly, is wrong. The vast majority of the large church organizations in North America and Europe are not opposed to Freemasonry. There are no statistics, but I'm fairly certain that the majority of Freemasons in America are Baptists and Evangelicals within Baptist and Evangelical churches. Those churches that do have statements against Freemasonry are generally not among the largest, and it's clear that none have any legitimate claim to be the sole voice of their religion or sect. The Knights of Columbus actually have a very high number of Masons within their organization, and opposition to Freemasonry is not a catholic activity, but an activity by some Catholics who happen to be very loud and hold important church positions. There are bishops who are Freemasons, and Bishops who recognize that Freemasonry is neither anti-Christian nor incompatible with Christianity or Catholicism. There are no good arguments by any church as to why Freemasonry is incompatible or problematic with Christian teachings. No one has to relinquish anything upon becoming a Freemason, especially a "biblical understand of Christianity," and there is nothing with a masonic obligation that would imply such a thing.

It would make no sense for someone to be required to abandon a "biblical understanding of Christianity" (whatever that is) when they become a Freemason.

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.

Muh Roads wrote:I hope this bothers you

https://youtu.be/yhj6EGPcspc

That bothers me for the simple reason Kid Rock sucks

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Jadentopian Order wrote:That bothers me for the simple reason Kid Rock sucks

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

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:And yet, I still haven't heard any real argument that Freemasonry is incompatible with Christianity. I have heard arguments based upon false premises, repeated statements that it just has to be incompatible, and outright lies. So far, never once over the years have I heard an actual real argument for the incompatibility that was held up by facts.

For instance, the Missouri Synod Lutherans, base their arguments on lies.

Freemasonry is not a secret society. Masonic fraternities are public, and are at the forefront of society. Their buildings, times of meetings, organizational structure, beliefs, etc. are all public. There is no forswearing in Freemasonry.

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).

Jadentopian Order wrote:Happy Labor day all

I worked today in order to stick a middle finger to this commie holiday.

Happy socialist bs day.

Pevvania

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I worked today in order to stick a middle finger to this commie holiday.

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.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:81 minutes ago: The Retiree of Humpheria arrived from Osiris.

What about it?

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

you people talk too much

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I still don't see what stands opposed to Christianity.

Freemasonry, not being a religion, and not qualified to make statements concerning religion, does not have a position on the subject. There is never any forswearing, as Freemasonry neither expects, nor does it desire for men to abandon their religion. It's goal, in regards to religion, being the promotion between Masons mutual tolerance and understanding of eachothers faith and the similarities between.

Freemasonry, not being a religion, and making no statements in regards to religion, and furthermore not being a political ideology, makes no statements regarding government or law.

It cannot come into conflict with religion, and Christianity in specific, because it holds no view on either, and does not deny anything within Christianity.

EDIT BELOW:

Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

~ Giordano Bruno

The topic is old, and discussion probably leading to nowhere, yet I cannot help but make another statement in regards to the stated opinion of some churches in regards to Freemasonry. Many churches, such as the Lutheran church I mentioned, have used as justification for their position the fact that certain other churches stand in opposition to the society. I have seen this used in a number of ways, including the dubious assertion that if the heretics, blasphemers, and infidels oppose it, there must be something wrong with it. This is also true for other groups, for instance the Ottomon Caliphs: Mehmet I banned Freemasonry almost entirely because Pope Clement XII excommunicated Catholic Freemasons in 1738. The Orthodox followed suit, again, solely because the Pope in Rome did it.

The Lutheran Churches of Scandinavia, and the Church of England, as well as many of the Calvinist associations, especially among the Huguenots (it could be argued that Freemasonry owes its success to this group, as it was largely the work of English Huguenot masons that Freemasonry became centralized into orders, and spread throughout the world. While I could write a book on the disproportionate influence of certain Huguenots in masonic history, I'll simply mention that ot was supposedly* the work of a Huguenot that Freemasonry suffered an unfortunate schism between those orders of the French and English traditions, and that the first recorded Masonic Templar in America was the Huguenot, Paul Revere. Leaving the topic of bandwagon, I end with another quote from Bruno:

It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority.

To address, because I failed to do so previously, the claim that masonic ritual is secret, and therefore conflicts with Christianity, and is therefore, to follow such logic to its natural conclusion, anti-Christian:

Masonic ritual is not secret. It is not secret because Freemasonry publicly acknowledges—proclaims—that it is an initiatic society. The subjects of the rituals are public. The symbols are public. It would actually be wrong to call any part of it secret, because it is not secret, but simply private. Private in the same way that your personal information is private, or what happens in your bedroom, or any other thing that may be justifiably concealed from public view. Unless Christianity endorses police state, and especially constant and infinite surveillance, how could the private nature of Freemasonry be considered to be in opposition to Christianity, and especially a "biblical understanding" of it? The sectarian leaders never answer this. Furthermore, most of these same churches do not consider the duties of the Presidency to be unchristian, or the Military, Nd these are oftentimes truly secret. They even swear an oath, which is of similar style and format to those often employed by masons went taking obligations. I don't see the Missouri Synod, Catholic Church, or any other major source of religious objection to Freemasonry issuing similar statements regarding governmental or military service.

I could write a sequel to the Huguenot book cataloging the many examples of misinformation, misunderstandings, disinformation, and outright lies brought about by the churches concerning Freemasonry, but I won't. I'll stop short and list a few:

1. that Freemasonry teaches Indifferentism (first leveled by the Pope, he meant that Freemasonry doesn't outright declare that the Catholic Church is the voice of God on Earth.) Freemasonry is unqualified to make statements concerning religion, makes none, and therefore cannot teach such a thing.

2. That Freemasons teaches Universalism or has its own Universal god. However, Freemasonry, again, cannot teach such a thing, since it makes no statements on the topic, and secondly, it is not a religion, and therefore has no deity. Most masonic orders predicate membership on a profession of belief in a supreme being, but this is not a statement that there exists one, nor a statement to the contrary, but only that one must believe in one to join. Likewise, Freemasonry does not oppose atheism, nor could it possibly have an opinion on it.

That Freemasonry teaches salvation through works, or membership in a masonic order, or the existence of Afterlife. This accusation would he valid if Freemasonry were a religion, taught these things, and was not simply a collection of sovereign fraternities that (sometimes) employed the use of other worlds allegorically.

I will end it here.

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.