Are Liberal Politics Anti-Male?

Status
Not open for further replies.

AttackFormation

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
4,124
Reaction score
3,663
Age
31
Location
Sweden
Here's an example for you. Separation of church and state was enacted when ONLY Christianity was around in the United States. The differing opinions were only differing sects of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson could have never imagined a non-white America. Much less islam, satanism and all the other religions. The founding fathers were human, just like we are.

Thus, your thinly veiled insult has no point whatsoever. Not to mention those conservatives are, at minimum, more factually grounded than most liberals.

I do agree with the majority of your post, though. I can't reason with liberals, so I ignore them. I have to try and unite conservatives, so they are who frustrate me the most when they venture off into stupid-land.

So while we agree (as in you and I), we don't really agree, and we certainly aren't on the same side about most things.
That they didnt want other things either doesnt change the fact that the founding fathers directly mocked christianity at a personal level, and at a political level founded the only white country at that point which *had* a separation of christianity and state. What more did they have to do to make it clear they wanted to found an officially secular country?

Its not meant to be an insult, im showing my point that facts are secondary when push comes to shove. But i make peace and accept that. I didnt even wanna start an argument as i know your mind wont change. I treat myself the same.

Here in Sweden "liberal" means right wing, but im not a liberal in the american context either. Im an anarchist sympathizer as i believe representative democracy is too corrupt and inadequately democratic to run the economy and solve problems and i also have MMT views on economics. Thats too far left to fit into the mainstream political spectrum lol. Maybe thats why you could do more than ignore me? ;)
 
Last edited:

AttackFormation

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
4,124
Reaction score
3,663
Age
31
Location
Sweden
"Liberalism" (which, in contemporary use, has become nearly synonymous with socialism) removes wealth from the creative, hard-working, entrepreneurial and productive segment of society and gives the vast majority of it to the sprawling and ever-increasing bureaucratic class. A few scraps get thrown to the so-called "weak" and "needy" (many of whom can be more accurately described as lazy) - just enough to keep them voting for the party of handouts.
Lol, its like reading a cult initiation origin myth.
 

speed dawg

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
4,768
Reaction score
1,235
Location
The Dirty South
That they didnt want other things either doesnt change the fact that the founding fathers directly mocked christianity at a personal level, and at a political level founded the only white country at that point which *had* a separation of christianity and state. What more did they have to do to make it clear they wanted to found an officially secular country?

Its not meant to be an insult, im showing my point that facts are secondary when push comes to shove. But i make peace and accept that. I didnt even wanna start an argument as i know your mind wont change. I treat myself the same.
That's all fine, but just remember, you can say it 100 times and it won't be fact if it's not fact. You declare to us that you deal in facts, yet you do not. The US was founded as a Christian country, and beyond that, you need to just do your own research or something, I'm not going to bother debating that any longer. Believe as you will. I suggest looking in a mirror and arguing with that guy.

Here in Sweden "liberal" means right wing, but im not a liberal in the american context either. Im an anarchist sympathizer as i believe representative democracy is too corrupt and inadequately democratic to run the economy and solve problems and i also have MMT views on economics. Thats too far left to fit into the mainstream political spectrum lol. Maybe thats why you could do more than ignore me? ;)
Legit LOL. I don't think you really want to live in a country absent of the government you claim to hate. You might not last very long.
 

AttackFormation

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
4,124
Reaction score
3,663
Age
31
Location
Sweden
That's all fine, but just remember, you can say it 100 times and it won't be fact if it's not fact. You declare to us that you deal in facts, yet you do not. The US was founded as a Christian country, and beyond that, you need to just do your own research or something, I'm not going to bother debating that any longer. Believe as you will. I suggest looking in a mirror and arguing with that guy.


Legit LOL. I don't think you really want to live in a country absent of the government you claim to hate. You might not last very long.
Show me a single line in America's constitution from its founding that explicitly establishes it as a christian country. You can't because there is none, and we both already know that, which is why only "allusions" and personal identity are offered as evidence by christian organizations.

The constitution only says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Then there is the treaty with Tripoli signed by personally christian, founding father and president John Adams in 1797, where he says "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion", a statement that was ratified unanimously by the senate.

You haven't "debated" in the first place with a single piece of historical evidence, just repeated that "America was founded as a christian nation". That's just an opinion or statement. In that case I might as well say America was founded as a babylonian nation because although the constitution makes no mention of it, you can "allude" to it since the foundations of western civilization they use or talk about like money, accounting, writing and so on came from the Near East.

I agree, it would be very dangerous to live in a stateless area like the Paris commune, Free Territory in Ukraine or revolutionary Spain as these are inevitably attacked and massacred by states. I'm not a utopian so I'll take the best deal available, living here isn't too bad.
 
Last edited:

AttackFormation

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
4,124
Reaction score
3,663
Age
31
Location
Sweden
The only men still on the left somewhat respectable (though sad) are the old-school working men trade unionists who are constantly trying to fit themselves into the new-school liberal paradigm whilst being told they are white male privileged, but yet strangely too proud to vote conservative (it's not what their fathers did, afterall).

It's a weird mix of being a proud male, yet taking the feminist harpy boot without a smack back. Hence mixed feelings on em.
There isn't really a "left" left today in the sense of mass worker activism based on economic theory and the structure of government. A culture war is not what the First International Workingmen's Association was founded to act for or why it was covertly and violently opposed by states and businessmen. Those guys you talk about are just a last vestige of what was.

We're going back to the economic conditions that gave rise to them, but now we have a culture war instead of an economic war (well, in the minds of the population that is, not the minds of the guys and their buddies who look on and smile while lobbying for and writing economic policy in the background).
 
Last edited:

AttackFormation

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
4,124
Reaction score
3,663
Age
31
Location
Sweden
Our labour party leader is largely decided on trade union votes is one massive example of remaining influence.

It's still very much there - and in the culture of men especially of a certain age (above 40) as I mentioned. Though our 1970's were absolutely completely mental for it before Thatcher. Obviously can't compare it to that of course.
Yeah that's true, but even then I would hazard a guess that discussions of economic theory - the "political economy" back in the day - are secondary at best or just absent. You'll never hear phrases like "economic rent" or "debt deflation" today. I fear it'll just be an utterly simplistic "employees vs evil employers" rather than economic theory (like Adam Smith would've written about to take a well known example), and if there is theory, the parties will be in the same Overton window anyway. And that's assuming the political leadership is not corrupt in the first place. But I would only be happy to be wrong if it's progressing in that regard over in Britain.

But, it's not like this is hidden from view. If people want to move beyond the political Overton window they can do so, but people still vote for the mainstream. As the ultra-conservative Joseph de Maistre said and which I believe applies to democracies, "every nation gets the government it deserves". That's why I don't really care.
 
Last edited:

Bokanovsky

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
4,817
Reaction score
4,491
Fvck knows why I even bother making a post as I can't be bothered to care anymore, but I can't resist. I regret making this post because I don't want to argue, but now I don't want to delete my effort.

Private oligarchy that takes control of government is typically the reason why governments are used aggressively against the rest of the citizens. Concentration of economic power leads to concentration of political power, and vice versa. That's what history has been, not a history of large masses of people democratically deciding to oppress poor little "producers". "Government" is not a monolithic alien.

The share of gdp growth that goes to the lower parts of society has flatlined or been cut back in the recent several decades, not increased. We are seeing wealth inequality get back to the 19th century and before, and it's not because of migration.

The reason why "producers" ie workers are taxed more is to shift taxes off property and finance (especially in particularly corrupt countries like Argentina where the oligarchs simply steal those taxes through financial schemes involving things like debt payments), which have always been the way to get wealthy since ancient history (aside from crime), and on to work and consumption. You can have a country with everyone working. You can't have a country with everyone living off of capital gains (including interest). No idea where you are getting the idea from that most of the population is living off of welfare handouts or whatever.

History and contemporary reality is exactly the opposite of right-libertarian descriptions, which is of course precisely the intention of its ideologues as that portrayal is necessary for their deductive logic to work which in turn makes their economic theory "work". The start of the policies and institutions that gave rise to western civilization was in the Near East, and was with a public system based in the palaces and temples, not privatization and "spontaneous order" from atomistic barter.

If people knew that what they preach is simply the same austerity, privatization, deregulation and regressive taxation of Europe's feudal ages or 19th century but under rebranded slogans and fake logics, they'd be even less popular than already. Mises, Hayek and Friedman are just a trio of con artists peddling the same things that Rome's oligarchy did 2000 years ago, along with hacks like Carl Menger and his fake economic history. We actually got a recent example of their intentions in Europe itself when they sent their economic pupils to the dissolved Soviet Union as "advisors" to help create and justify the Yeltsin kleptocracy there, as elsewhere like the Pinochet dictatorship. The goal is the same as with every other aristocracy in history: privatize banking, infrastructure and real estate to themselves, make themselves tax exempt, and suck out the rest of the population.

But the most tragic thing is that the so-called "left" parties today are just scams. They are not left wing on economic policy at all. It's just a theater. Taxes on work and consumption and policies adopted from the right wing of austerity, privatization, deregulation and regressive taxation are not left wing economic policies. They don't even talk about how banks really work, or the difference between cost and price and what economic rent is, that people like Adam Smith, Thorstein Veblen, Simon Patten etc. were writing about centuries ago. But nothing is better for the right than having a weak, corrupt, incompetent left. But that is what "representative democracy" is, a corruption which inevitably is corrupt.

"The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and powerful, and to despise, or, at least, neglect persons of poor or mean conditions... is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments." - Adam Smith. Although not the most informative citation as it contains no mention of economic policy, it's a nice note to end this wasted post on.
That's quite a word salad you've got there. Can you give me a specific example of austerity or deregulation policies during "Europe's feudal ages"? Or how about an example of a left-wing government that was not a corrupt oligarchy?

No one says that oligarchy is good. But you fight it through anti-trust measures and not through excessive taxation and redistribution of wealth.
 

AttackFormation

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
4,124
Reaction score
3,663
Age
31
Location
Sweden
That's quite a word salad you've got there. Can you give me a specific example of austerity or deregulation policies during "Europe's feudal ages"? Or how about an example of a left-wing government that was not a corrupt oligarchy?

No one says that oligarchy is good. But you fight it through anti-trust measures and not through excessive taxation and redistribution of wealth.
Yeah, hell of a long post... as this turned out to be too.

Commodity-based money like gold is austere/deflationary in of itself, as more cannot be produced and allocated according to need (but credit based on alleged reserves of it can, which is how you get the gold boom/bust cycles, a fact that metallists "don't want you to know"). And the constant, big wars were financed by taxing the public (but not the wealthy) and cutting spending in general to repay bond holders, like what happened to England's budget in the 18th century or Spain's continuous bankruptcies. Funnily enough, the post-WW2 war spending was what also forced America off gold. But in feudal and early modern Europe as wealth was already mostly privatized and the aristocracy unchallenged in its control of the state, there wasn't the same need to call for austerity->privatization as a specific policy like there is today in our age, where austerity sets up the privatization ("we can't afford keeping them") of assets that were made public or created as public in the 19th and 20th centuries. Austerity for the public was already the default state in the form of already completed privatization, regressive taxation and an absence of social programs.

Deregulation is a bit harder to show as things simply weren't that regulated in the first place (like working day hours), or it was the regulations themselves that were oppressive (like limits on workers' wages at a time in Sweden) since an aristocratic minority controlled the state. So like austerity, deregulation as a policy-call is a more modern phenomenon, seeking to do away with the regulations that were instituted in the past like environmental protections, consumer protections, regulations on what banks can create credit for, and union rights. I guess the closest equivalent would be the rights of aristocrats to the things they could do with their serfs, when Sweden conquered Livonia for example the swedish kings didn't like the serfdom there and sought to do away with it while the local aristocrats wanted to keep it "deregulated" so to speak. The point is that like the old aristocracy, those who call for deregulation of these things want to be free to do whatever they want to people in a more vulnerable position.

Revolutionary spain wasn't a corrupt oligarchy, although as other such places like the Paris commune, it didn't last too long before being crushed. If antitrust laws worked, we wouldn't still have corruption today. The problem is the same of who watches the watchers and probably requires a structural change of society rather than just some laws on paper.

That's about it for me... I'm not on this forum to discuss economics so if you want the last word go ahead and take it. I regret even starting to talk about it lol. I just don't care that much anymore these days.
 
Last edited:

Bokanovsky

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
4,817
Reaction score
4,491
Yeah, hell of a long post... as this turned out to be too.

Sure - look at the tax and spending policies of early modern Europe. Rulers were bankrupting their realms on war while exempting the most wealthy from taxation.
I don't know where you studied medieval European history, but this is complete nonsense. If you were a medieval king going to war, you needed to raise cash quickly. Medieval peasants were poor as fvck - you couldn't raise large sums of money by taxing them. European kings taxed the nobility all the time, which often led to civil wars. Ever heard of the Magna Carta? It was enacted after the English barons rebelled against excessive taxation (and was repealed only a few years later).
 

AttackFormation

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
4,124
Reaction score
3,663
Age
31
Location
Sweden
I don't know where you studied medieval European history, but this is complete nonsense. If you were a medieval king going to war, you needed to raise cash quickly. Medieval peasants were poor as fvck - you couldn't raise large sums of money by taxing them. European kings taxed the nobility all the time, which often led to civil wars. Ever heard of the Magna Carta? It was enacted after the English barons rebelled against excessive taxation (and was repealed only a few years later).
That's true, the peasants were largely outside of the money economy. But if they had no money they were taxed in produce and labor, whether it was to the king on crown lands or the nobility on their lands. You are right that some kings did try to tax the nobility, but there were likewise kings who didn't and protected their privileges as with the peasant/serf rebellions that were put down. I am willing to bet that when the kings could raise taxes on the nobility it wasn't uncommonly because the nobility itself was in on it since they were also looking to profit either from plunder, being given new lands or privileges for their support, or both.

Funnily enough in some regards the tax system of the feudal age was more fair than the one we have today, in the sense that at least there was a land (the primary wealth at that time) tax that was the foundation of the tax system and it wasn't really until later on that the regressive taxes on wages and consumption were consistently introduced. And there was still somewhat of a ban on interest, which is a form of economic rent and a road to debt deflation. Although the main way of indebting people at that time was by arrears on land rather than credit interest. The tax/government system in the ancient Near East though was better still.
 
Last edited:

speed dawg

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
4,768
Reaction score
1,235
Location
The Dirty South
Show me a single line in America's constitution from its founding that explicitly establishes it as a christian country. You can't because there is none, and we both already know that, which is why only "allusions" and personal identity are offered as evidence by christian organizations.

The constitution only says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Then there is the treaty with Tripoli signed by personally christian, founding father and president John Adams in 1797, where he says "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion", a statement that was ratified unanimously by the senate.

You haven't "debated" in the first place with a single piece of historical evidence, just repeated that "America was founded as a christian nation". That's just an opinion or statement. In that case I might as well say America was founded as a babylonian nation because although the constitution makes no mention of it, you can "allude" to it since the foundations of western civilization they use or talk about like money, accounting, writing and so on came from the Near East.

I agree, it would be very dangerous to live in a stateless area like the Paris commune, Free Territory in Ukraine or revolutionary Spain as these are inevitably attacked and massacred by states. I'm not a utopian so I'll take the best deal available, living here isn't too bad.
The constitution is secular, because they wanted it that way, because they saw the problems that could happen when corruption (even in Christianity - i.e. the Catholic church and others) became rampant. It was smart - WHEN CHRISTIANITY WAS THE MAIN RELIGION. Again, they could not even imagine the country not being Christian at that time. Most all of the founding fathers were Christian believers. The entire government mirrors Christian principles. Giving the freedom to do whatever you choose is a Christian principle. Most other religions don't give you any choice at all.

You're simply wrong on this. You don't see the big picture. You have to really possess the skills of discernment to understand these things.
 

Epic Days

Banned
Joined
May 7, 2019
Messages
1,877
Reaction score
1,644
Age
40
Most all of the founding fathers were Christian believers.
This is misleading. The bulk were Deists, which was why the constitution was secular. The “church”, any church had no authority over the rights of men or the government.

When Jefferson say’s “God”, he means creator. He was not a Christian. Nor was Franklin.
Believe in god? Yes of course.

DEISM:
  1. belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.
 

Bible_Belt

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
17,078
Reaction score
5,708
Age
48
Location
midwestern cow field 40
I'm pretty sure that all seeing eye on our dollar bill is not exactly a Jesus symbol. Gnostic and Mason symbolism run deep in our political origins. The Washington monument is actually a d!ck. Phallus worship predates monotheism.
 

Xenom0rph

Master Don Juan
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
1,929
Reaction score
2,469
Liberal politics are built on the victimhood narrative which states: "Hey, you're oppressed, vote 4 me so i can help you."

But of course liberal politicians wont lift a finger to help their constituents because they need their constituents to be eternal victims and slaves to farm future votes.... Hence the phrase "The liberal plantation."

Are liberal politics anti-male...???... Yes it is. Democrats petpetuate the myth of the Evil Male Patriarchy that oppresses women...
 
U

user43770

Guest
I'm pretty sure that all seeing eye on our dollar bill is not exactly a Jesus symbol. Gnostic and Mason symbolism run deep in our political origins. The Washington monument is actually a d!ck. Phallus worship predates monotheism.
You're finally putting that law degree to some use, eh?

Christianity built this country that you've taken advantage of. Maybe you should show some respect?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top