Finally, we are getting some of the credit we deserve.
MAGA has far more in common with Confederate ideology than with “fascism.”
“Last week, President Biden delivered a speech warning of the threat to democracy posed by right-wing extremism. For perspective on the challenges he laid out, consider those the country faced during the Civil War.
By sheer coincidence, I traveled to Pennsylvania on Tuesday to speak to students at Gettysburg College. It was impossible to ignore the parallel between the decisive battle that happened there and the conflict we face today.
It takes no imagination to draw the line between the South’s mythical Lost Cause and the chant to “Make America Great Again.” Indeed, the MAGA movement venerates the Confederacy and managed to accomplish what the South never did: stage an assault on the U.S. Capitol bearing the Confederate flag and organize an effort to stave off the peaceful transfer of power. Both the old Confederacy and the MAGA movement pine for a fraudulent past and dress up base racism in a gauzy wrapping of honor, masculinity and military virtue. And the paranoia about an existential crisis that so many MAGA followers share tracks with the Confederacy’s fear that their way of life (slavery) was endangered by Northern forces.
No, the MAGA movement isn’t advocating for slavery. But it does seek to rewrite the history of race through its fraudulent attack on “critical race theory,” just as Jim Crow defenders sought to refashion the Civil War by erecting monuments to traitorous secessionists. The aim is the same: to exonerate Whites and to recast them as noble victims. …
The unfortunate truth about America is that it has always harbored a segment of people who want to redefine the country by race or religion or lifestyle, whether it was the anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant Know Nothings, the Confederacy or its 20th- and 21st-century admirers. Today, this cohort seeks to appeal to “real America” by delegitimizing the voters of cosmopolitan, urban centers. …”
The “semi-fascism” meme is stupid.
Southern leaders always insisted that the war was never about slavery. Slavery was only the incident or the occasion of the war. It was simply the issue which had triggered the conflict which was really about cultural and ethnic differences that can be traced back to the settlement of the colonies. The myth that the war was caused by slavery has been peddled by generations of Northern historians who want to attribute sectional conflict to slavery rather than the obvious cultural divisions which still exist.
Gender, for example, was one of the contributing causes of the War Between the States.
The following excerpts are from Paul Quigley’s book Shifting Grounds: Nationalism and the American South, 1848-1865:
“As the war progressed, the Examiner continued to assert national difference. In April 1862, the paper approvingly excerpted a passage from the New Orleans Bee that detailed racial distinctions between Yankees and southerners. Whereas northerners were intolerant, abusive of power, and inclined toward fads and “isms,” southerners were more honest, moral people who distrusted “new-fangled theories.”To the Examiner, this confirmed that the war was not only about the protection of slavery against northern assaultsbut also about “certain radical and irreconcilable differences of nationable character” between North and South.”
The threat to traditional gender roles posed by Northern urban liberalism was one of the reasons the Southern states seceded from the Union:
“For a range of nonfictional southern spokesmen as well, civilization itself rested on appropriate gender roles and relations. While the slave South was maintaining the proper order of things, the North and sometimes the rest of the Western world, was not. In his 1856 graduation address to the Virginia Military Institute, George Rumbough explained that free society was foolish to question the natural, divinely ordained order of things. Listing the dangerous “isms” he saw to the north, Rumbough included women’s rights, Bloomerism, and Free-Loveism, along with socialism, atheism, and abolitionism. The North’s distorted ideas about slavery were not only tied up with its misguided ideas about religion, liberty, and government, but also with its foolish misconceptions of manhood and womanhood. Rumbough contrasted the South, “where woman, the most powerful, the purest, noblest element of society, is considered as an object of love,” with the North, “where woman “is viewed as an object of distrust, and far from beautifying, transcends the boundaries of modesty and decency, and sighs for an MD suffix or the transcendent reputation of a philanthropic lecturer.” One of many advantages of basing a society on slavery rather than free labor, according to Rumbough and others, was that the institution safeguarded hierarchies of gender as well as of race.
Southern fears about gender proprieties illustrate how urgent the sectional conflict could become when it appeared to enter the realm of the home and family. One Virginia farmer, writing to a local newspaper in 1854, expressed just such fears. Responding to rumors that a female preacher had been plying her trade in the area, the farmer expressed disbelief then sharp anxiety. “Some hundreds are right uneasy about their wives,” he wrote. “They are afraid that some of them women’s rights folks, from the N., are traveling among us, and that some wives are encouraging them.” Even an antislavery fanatic would be more acceptable than a feminist, though the letter-writer. “One would spoil our negroes, but the other would spoil our wives and sweethearts, and either, would be made a bad piece of property.”Perhaps intending that his readers should take the loaded word “insurrection” with a grain of salt (the word was strongly associated with slave revolts in the antebellum South) the farmer concluded: “It is feared that there will be an insurrection among the women, and that they will begin to chew tobacco and drink whiskey.” Likewise, the North Carolina congressman David Outlaw recoiled at the apparent immorality of the society he encountered in Washington, D.C. In Outlaw’s eyes, it was the behavior of northern women there that caused moral deterioration. “There is a boldness,” he wrote to his wife, “a brazenfacedness about Northern city women, as well as a looseness of morals which I hoped may never be introduced south.” In this way white southerners who worried about such matters sectionalized anxieties about moral decline, projecting those anxieties onto their image of the North.”
The great Southern fire-eater William Lowndes Yancey once put it this way:
“That same spirit which would turn everything into gold … has invaded the sphere of woman. Yancey contended that northern men had desexed women, had “brushed the down from her cheek, and raised the stiff beard in lieu. Materialism in the north condemned women as worthless in their vocation as mothers and thrust them into the workplace. Horribly, northern society had led women to believe “that the rights of man are also woman’s rights, and that the editorial chair – the medical – the legal and clerical professions should be filled by her, as well as by men.” Northern women had mounted the speaker’s platform and joined in “public harangues,” and some wore “Bloomers,” ready “for bestriding a fence or a saddle as utility shall demand.”
Here is George Fitzhugh who was the antebellum South’s most radical anti-liberal reactionary political theorist in Sociology for the South, or, The Failure of Free Society :
“Nothing in the signs of the times exhibits in stronger relief the fact, that free society is in a state “of dissolution and thaw, “of demoralization and transition, than the stir about woman’s rights. And yet it is time to work …
The people of our Northern States, who hold that domestic slavery is unjust and iniquitous, are consistent in their attempts to modify or abolish the marriage relation. Marriages, in many places there, are contracted with as little formality as jumping over a broom, and are dissolved with equal facility by courts and legislatures. It is proposed by many to grant divorces at all times, when the parties mutually consent. The Socialists suggest that the relation should be abolished, private family establishments broken up, and women and children converted into joint stock. The ladies are promoting these movements by womens right’s conventions. The prospects of these agitators are quite hopeful, because they have no conservative South to oppose them. It is their own affair, and we will not interfere with its regulation.
We shall deplore the day when marriage and Christianity are abolished anywhere, but will not interfere in the social and domestic matters of other people. …”
Here is George Fitzhugh again in Cannibals All!, or Slaves Without Masters who could easily be commenting on our present culture war:
“Why have you Bloomer’s and Women’s Right’s men, and strong-minded women, and Mormons, and anti-renters, and “vote myself a farm” men, Millerites, and Spiritual Rappers, and Shakers, and Widow Wakemanites, and Agrarians, and Grahamites, and a thousand other superstitious and infidel isms at the North ? Why is there faith in nothing, speculation about everything? Why is this unsettled, half demented state of the human man mind co-extensive in time and space, with free society? …
All modern philosophy converges to a single point – the overthrow of all government, the substitution of the untrammelled “Sovereignty of the Individual,” for the Sovereignty of Society, and the inauguration of anarchy. First domestic slavery, next religious institutions, then separate property, then political government, and, finally, family government and family relations, are to be swept away. This is the distinctly avowed programme of all able abolitionists and socialists; and towards this end the doctrines and the practices of the weakest and most timid among them tend. Proudhon, and the French socialists generally, avow this purpose in France, and Stephen Pearl Andrews re-echoes it from America. The more numerous and timid class are represented by Mr. Greeley and the Tribune, who would not “at once rush,” like French revolutionists, “with the explosive force of escapement, point blank to the bull’s eye of its final destiny,” but would inaugurate social conditions, that would gradually bring about that result. Mr. Greeley does not propose to do away at once with marriage, religion, private property, political government and parental authority, but adopts the philosophy and the practices of Fourier, which promise gradually to purify human nature, and fit it, in a few generations, for that social millennium, into which the bolder and more consistent Andrews urges society at once to plunge.
… The other and bolder party, feel themselves “called” as special instruments, to give at once the coup de grace to the old world, and to usher in the new golden age, of free love and free lands, of free women and free negroes, of free children and free men. …
The Socialists promise that when society is wholly disintegrated and dissolved, by inculcating good principles and “singing fraternity over it,” all men will co-operate, love, and help one another.
They place men in positions of equality, rivalry, and antagonism, which must result in extreme selfishness of conduct, and yet propose this system as a cure for selfishness. To us their reasonings seem absurd. Yet the doctrines so prevalent with Abolitionists and Socialists, of Free Love and Free Lands, Free Churches, Free Women and Free Negroes – of No-Marriage, No-Religion, No-Private Property, No-Law and No-Government, are legitimate deductions, if not obvious corollaries from the leading and distinctive axiom of political economy – Laissez Faire, or let alone. …
They hold that all men, women, and negroes, and smart children, are equals, and entitled to equal rights. The widows and free negroes begin to vote in some of those States, and they will have to let all colors and sexes and ages vote soon, or give up the glorious principles of human equality and universal emancipation.
The experiment which they will make, we fear, is absurd in theory, and the symptoms of approaching anarchy and agrarianism among them, leave no doubt that its practical operation will be no better than its theory. Anti-rentism, “vote-myself-a-farm” ism, and all the other isms, are but the spattering drops that precede a social deluge.”
The conflict has always been there and existed long before “fascism.”
Fitzhugh called abolitionism just one of the “splattering drops that precede a social deluge” and predicted that liberals would not stop there but that the logic of their philosophy would eventually end up destroying religion, marriage, the family and eventually dissolve the entire social fabric. He would not be shocked by “trans” and would recognize the delusional belief that a person can change their sex on a whim like trying on a new pair of pants as nothing more than the latest extreme corollary of the same underlying worldview.
“Fascism” is just another name for normality, a return to that is what scare the enemy the most since a return to normality mean that they completely lose control
@Confederate using the word fascism is just too off putting for normal people and normal people have always made up the majority of any political movement. The clowns dressing up in 1930s era German attire and meeting up to throw Roman salutes is even worse. I do not disagree with your comment only know that certain words have been tainted beyond repair
Today, this cohort seeks to appeal to “real America” by delegitimizing the voters of cosmopolitan, urban centers. …”
In a great many cases it is exactly the opposite, and has been for decades — geographically small urban and suburban ‘blue’ areas with high population densities dominate election results in states where vast rural regions are entirely ‘red’ — this phenomenon is dramatic in states like Oregon and Washington, as simply looking at a map of election results by county shows — but other states are similar (even California to some extent).
For example: link — The Portland metropolitan area – joined by the college communities of Corvallis and Eugene and a handful of other localities — continue to dominate politics in Oregon.
I forget to mention Jennifer Rubin is a Jewish neocon.
One of the vilest, most evil of Jewish neocons. She is ALWAYS in my top 3 worst of the worst.
Eah, ANYTHING presented as fact by the Establishment Media is a lie, defined as either an absolute falsehood (gender is what someone subjectively believes) or one where they withhold information a reasonable nonpartisan person would need to make an informed judgment about the veracity of the claim (failing to reveal the Russian Collusion theory against Trump originated in Hillary Clinton’s campaign-as did the claim Obama was not born in the U. S.).
So the correct rule is that ANYTHING they report is in reality exactly the opposite. But you are always a perceptive commenter, so I present this observation for any new commenters joining us dissidenters from the Regime here at OD.
“GOP’s Threat To The American Idea Is Nothing New”
Blatant party propaganda.
Anyone with the slightest sense can see that.
“where woman, the most powerful, the purest, noblest element of society, is considered as an object of love”
It should be noted that this attitude was a form of proto-feminism, with its origin in romantic era nonsense, and not at all in line with traditional Western or Christian ideas of the female sex. Christianity traditionally taught that females are impure and morally deficient when compared to men. Romantic era Anglos inverted this teaching and created a paganized goddess simp cult around females, which led directly to feminism. Obviously, if females are “purest and noblest,” then patriarchy makes no sense at all. Why should morally inferior men rule over the morally purest and noblest females?
This shows the danger in purely reactionary critiques that fail to understand and address root problems. An example relevant to recent postings here would be the anti-anti-Whiteness rhetoric of Republican influencers, which fails to address the fundamental issues of racial differences and incompatibility, thus dooming itself to failure (even worse, ultimately reinforcing anti-Whiteness by offering a weak and easily refuted resistance). Or conservatives complaining that the socialist Demoncrats are ruining their traditional culture while they chug 64oz high fructose corn syrup big gulps and watch Jewish sportsball shows every weekend, as another example.
Your point is intriguing but is it true. Did Christianity really get it correct. Does not reason suggest that women would be least impure and prone to infidelity given the investment she would make in the outcome of pregnancy. Might women truly be the more pure in their sexual behavior and the most modest given their assessment of risk. Does not Traditional Society proves that point. Maybe the real problem today is that contemporary women desire to absolve themselves of the feminine virtues and seek to absorb the masculine ones which creates a distortion in their minds which surfaces as aberrant behavior.
My sense of why Patriarchy is the ground of solid society is that the mind of men is different then the womens. Her nature makes her more inclusive of broad facts but less focused on particular meaning. Men think politically in superior ways because he focuses on particularities of meaning and can contextualize the impact on a longer time scale. Women in the other hand think communally and focuses on the immediate. This is why the masculine realm is society and the woman’s is the home. The masculine evades emotions and rather searches for true understanding and the feminine utilizes emotions in immediate decision making. Both contribute but each excels within its particular realm.
Jews and communists desperately try to understand new movement with purpose to find a way to derail it. Are they Nazis or Kremlin followers or Confederates or Christians or something else ?
Now Donald genius comes in play. He united so many different people into MAGA that it is impossible to limit this huge group with some common denominator and after that use classic techniques for sect destruction.
In Eastern Europe we using similar methodic and building opposition on solely anti communism platform. This makes huge anti communist alliance possible and takes away possibility to divide movement into infighting groups and drive movement into self destruction.
Jews and communists seem to be pretty helpless to fight this new methodology.
Re: “building opposition on solely anti communism platform (…) takes away possibility to divide”:
Opposing socialism is what the Talmudic capitalist elites really WANT you to do! Popular opposition to socialism IS division. It indicates that a people is divided against itself, that the vast majority of a nation have been misled to turn against their own interest!
“This new methodology” would be just another divide-and-rule contrivance. It is unnatural, and in the long run if not the short run it will fail. Right-wing populism is mere reformism, a temporary step backwards in the forward (toward its dead end) march of imperialism.
Neo-con Rubin, 100% loyal to the apartheid regime of Jew bigotry in Zionist occupied Palestine, is calling the American people “racist.”
Now that is what they call “chutzpah!”
Jews like Jennifer do a lot to keep anti-Semitism alive and well.
Their usual tricks don;t have the same sting as it once did so the jews are trying new strategies to scare the masses.
MAGA worked for Jews and so did the Confederates. Both got screwed
Yes, of course, 6v6 – our Southern Confederate forefathers were getting their butts shot off for Nathan’s hot-dogs, Manischewitz vineyards, and the establishment of Israel.
Even our Confederate flag, the cross of St. Andrew, has a bit of the dreidel to it. Just those stars – those stars that lackt just one point shy of 6.
A small detail that, I am sure, will not ever trouble your Northern mind.
Indeed, you are amazingly well-informed.
Keep it up, for, at this rate, you’ll no doubt soon realize that Leif Eriksen was really a Zionist agent, as was Alfred the Great.
The kyke is defending the Catholics. You know Mike Flynn is a Christian nationalist, and Milo, and Ali Alexander, and Steve Bannon and Faith Goldy? You that know right?
How many Lutheran generals are out there doing what Flynn is doing? How many Lutheran generals are there period?
Here a few quotes from the Flynn article——-
Flynn is “one of the most dangerous individuals in America today,” said Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a historian and expert on authoritarianism and fascism who wrote the book “Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present.”
“He is spearheading the attack on our democracy, which is coming from many quarters, and he is affiliated with many of these sectors, from the military to Christian nationalism to election denial to extremist groups,” she said. “All of this comes together to present a very live threat. And he’s at the center.”
…and with all the trouble Flynn has been for Trump and “our democracy” the Army managed to promote his brother. How did that happen?
Something smells funny.
If the Roman Catholic political alliance with the Jews is broken, the Jews will be in trouble because they won’t have the numbers in Congress, the State Houses or City Government.
Look for a lot more Jew worry about their Catholic allies.
Prior to the Civil War cotton was the number one export.
And heavily taxed, with almost all revenue going to the North.
‘Civil War’ was primarily a tax rebellion, as was 1776.
The Puritan / Dissenter Protestant heritage of the Northern states was the primary reason for the Civil War. Let’s not forget the Scots-Irish in their backward mountain districts were not especially inclined towards the Confederate cause. If you want to talk about the so-called “legacy of Calvinism” you have to tell the whole story. The Declaration of Independence is a kind of juvenile / hysterical effort, its peculiarities and extravagances suggesting the hand of Tom Paine, but one can trace the provenance of the ideas through Algernon Sidney back to the Jesuit theologian Molina. Enlightenment concepts of the state were repackaged from scholasticism. Of course that’s all irrelevant to for this filthy Jewess “Jennifer Rubin” and her vision of America, that it is a platform / base for her people to dominate the world with the gentiles being the cattle and the dogs.
Actually, Dear Miss Jennifer, you are the one who is the threat to ‘The American Idea’, not least of which you seem to know so little about it.
Or could it be that you are in with the usurpers who advanced the symbol of Emma Lazarus, along with The Scofield Bible, ‘The Federal Reserve’, and ‘The Immigration Act?
No, I think Ye had best keep quiet, lest Ye give thyself away…
“Fitzhugh … predicted that … the logic of [liberals’] philosophy would eventually end up destroying religion, marriage, the family and eventually dissolve the entire social fabric.”
Hmm. Religion, marriage, family. You seem to have left something off the list: private property. It’s right there, in Fitzhugh’s passages you’ve presented.
Why is that? Why didn’t you mention that? Hint: Because you’re a communist. I’m not the only one here who’s mentioned that. No, you don’t call for communism or socialism by name. You call for free higher education and free medical care. You say you advocate “social democracy.” Translation: You’re a communist. It is Southern communists who destroyed this country. It’s the South that installed the New Deal. All the rest of it–Civil Rights, feminism, even homosexual rights and “trans”–is a sideshow. If the clock were somehow instantly turned back on those things, the fundamental distress of the country would remain. That distress is communism.
In a hurry to get to work?
Work? What’s that?
My normie job is consuming more and more of my time
I also share your disgust with communism. In my religion any Catholic that votes for, supports, gives donations to, much less fights for communism is ex-communicated and is damned. By traditional standards.
I am confused however. Are you saying Hunter Wallace is a communist?
This website is complicated. It is hard to figure out.
John thinks anyone who supports things like basic healthcare and a minimum wage is a communist.
Okay. I like him. I do believe in giving people the basic necessities of life if they can not provide for themselves. Mexico has universal health care that my family supports. We are not communists.
Laws are made for the common good/society as a whole. My religion has often condemned individualism as a mortal sin.
This website is getting more and more interesting just as I am fading.
As you travel the world, have more experience, and study accurate (I hope) history, economic and social, perhaps you will change your mind, not about God I hope, but about the “evil” of socialism, and the “virtue” of selfishness and the pursuit of gain.
What’s that supposed to mean, Merthyr? As I “travel the world, have more experience, etc.,” I might come to your view. Fine—as you yourself travel the world, have more experience, etc., maybe you’ll come to mine.
Try not to waste others’ time. That’s how selfishness is defined.
Yes, I’m saying our host is a communist, CRA, though the term I prefer is rupturist. The flourishing of the Aryan is dependent on his having three rights: the right not to spend, the right not to associate, and the right not to be silenced. Any law or scheme of law inconsistent with even one of those is tyranny.
By the right not to spend, I mean the right not to engage in exchange or donation. I am not speaking of a right “not to be taxed” or any such thing. Governance in itself is not objectionable. Taxation is part of governance. It’s the essence of courts, police, the military, and, maybe, infrastructure that can’t be arranged privately.
If the individual is not being forced to spend, not being forced to engage in exchange or donation, he is integral. Law that recognizes that right is integrism, which is my coinage. If his right not to spend is being violated, he is ruptured. That’s why I call law under which that right is not protected rupturism. All the other terms—socialism, communism, social democracy, welfare state—are meaningless. The essence is rupturism, the lack of a right not to spend.
Of the three rights, it will be noticed, only one, the right not to be silenced, is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, in which it’s called freedom of speech.
Oh. I cannot refute what you have written. I wish to learn more but I leave in a few hours and will not return for a month or so. Economics is a weak point i have.
I am suspicious of populism. I know there was a French king who charged his subjects 5% taxes and confessed that it was too high. That amount seems like heaven to modern man. Modern republics tax way too much.
I know that socialism, equality, liberalism, and communism were strongly condemned as mortal sins by my religion in the 19th century. As we know a liberal 150 years ago would be considered a right wing extremist by today’s standards.
I suspect your comment is very strong and I regret that we might not be able to explore this more fully. I have a few hours so feel free to comment.
I’ll address, Cristina, the comments you directed to our host:
“I do believe in giving people the basic necessities of life if they can not provide for themselves.”
You are free to give them whatever you want.
“Mexico has universal health care that my family supports. We are not communists.”
If you support that, then you are rupturists, which, as I have said, is my term for so-called communists, socialists, etc. I find all those terms—communism, socialism—meaningless, as I said above. Actually, they’re worse than meaningless; they’re false. There’s nothing “communal” or “social” about violating someone’s right not to spend. Our laws permit it, by mob action (elections). All you have to do to violate someone’s right not to spend is cobble together a majority—Fifty Percent plus one—and it’s done. To that, I object. It’s why I never vote. I have no intention of sanctioning, by my participation in it, a system that permits that.
Translation: I consider the U.S. Constitution a rag.
“Laws are made for the common good/society as a whole.”
That’s another phrase—“the common good”—that strikes me as meaningless. There’s nothing good, for anyone, in law that permits violation of the three rights of which I’ve spoken. Would you overthrow freedom of speech for “the common good”? Would you suggest a vote on what persons should be permitted to say or to hear from others? I doubt it.
“My religion has often condemned individualism as a mortal sin.”
Individualism is another meaningless word. If you defend someone’s right to speak his mind, are you advocating individualism? I doubt you’d characterize it that way. You’re saying that that person—that individual—deserves to be protected, has a right not to be silenced. Moreover, you’re saying EVERY individual deserves that protection. That’s not “individualism.” That’s the basics of social sense. I apply it not only to a right not to be silenced but to a right not to associate and a right not to spend.
“The right not to spend” is a peculiar expression. To spend what? Personal wealth? Jesus pointed to Caesar’s image on the coin, and said give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. Personal private property is real and natural, but it is limited, especially on a small planet crowded with billions of souls. There is no such right to barn up or hoard up more than is needed while others lack and suffer.
To spend oneself. To make use of one’s energies.
People like Mr. B of Philadelphia who use communism as an epithet are leery of collective action between strangers, fearing they will be deprived of all material fruits of their individual labors. Others who cite capitalism as the source of all evil in the modern world are unsure of their capacity for self-sufficiency based on individual effort, so they support a society that requires forced sharing of wealth and income through government programs administered by people like them.
Since all people are in reality comfortable acting alone at times and sharing burdens at other times, and all wealth producing activities require both individual initiative and cooperative efforts, in the real world both capitalism and collectivism (another name for communism or socialism) will be used to achieve personal and social goals. So a “mixed” economy combining elements of capitalist creativity and collectivist sharing will come into existence within every society.
Well I have been taught that we should take care of the needy. That does not of course mean that the State can steal from the rich. The law that states that “thou shall not steal” includes government as well as individuals.
So giving people the basic necessities of life I agree with. Anything else not so much.
A society that has billionaires while people lack basic medicine, food etc. would be an abomination. Do not such societies exist?
“taught that we should take care of the needy”:
The difference is whether the state should do it, instead of private and Catholic church charities, the monastic system, etc.
There will always be a place for private giving, but it is the proper role of the state (socialist) to take FULL responsibility for the care of the needy, to the point that there are none at all!
Germany for example is the richest and most productive country in Europe, with the highest average IQ of any nation, yet it has more than half a million homeless people. German cities have thousands of needy people on the street or in homeless shelters. When the “church” was in charge of charity, in feudalism, the needy were just as numerous. Jesus saying “The poor you always have with you” was never an excuse for ignoring the problem.
Your post is meaningless, Chloupek. Remarkably so. I haven’t said anything one way or the other about collective action, as you call it. Taking a vote whether to violate someone’s right not to spend is not collective action.
I’ll add that I pointed out, in my very first sentence, that I don’t really use the word communist, except as shorthand. I expressly said I prefer another term.
Re: “end up destroying…private property”:
Socialism takes back, de-privatises and nationalises all common wealth, everything that naturally belongs to ALL of the people in a nation, including the “commanding heights” of national economy – all of the large-scale industry, transportation, banking, health care, education, etc. But it protects, does not destroy or take away, personal private property, private property as such. The vast majority of people will have more, not less, wealth and freedom, health and happiness; only a small elite and upper middle class have less (unearned) wealth and freedom (to exploit and dominate).
No, Dear John, Mr. Griffin is not a communist.
He’s a Dixiecrat – that’s the word you lack.
Yes, Mr. Griffin’s a Dixiecrat from the 1940s – one who believes in race and a fair deal for the small man, so that localities can thrive.
I’m a Dixiecrat, too.
If Bernie Sanders ran against Donald Trump, I would have to flip a coin to see for whom I would vote, being that I agree/disagree with both men about equally.
Well, that’s fine, Mertens. Our host is free to be a Dixiecrat as much as he wants—but if he wants to be a Dixiecrat, he’ll kindly stop putting Fitzhugh in my face and then pretending Fitzhugh didn’t use the words “private property.”
You read something into my comment that was never there. I don’t have extreme views on economics. Fitzhugh was also highly critical of free market capitalism in Cannibals All.
Why did you leave out “private property”? It’s right there, in Fitzhugh’s list of things he thinks imperiled, yet you left it out when you ostensibly restated his list.
I’ve just been real busy lately. It didn’t even occur to me.
This particularly noxious she-tapir really does love to flap itz fugly liva-lipped mouth against Southerners & Whites in the most offensive & provocative way possible.
As (((they))) say:
Rubin is not my countrywoman.
I know a lot of pro-White Southerners like to combine Confederate and “Nazi” symbols together, like placing the SS runes on a Rebel flag (I seriously doubt that HW approves of such practices). But I don’t think the Confederate government would have been a supporter of the NSDAP, they would have strongly preferred the old Prussian monarchy and Bavaria’s House of Wittlesbach instead. And during WWII the “Nazis” attempted to vilify America using anti-Klan imagery.
As far as Jennifer Rubin is concerned why should we care what that ghastly, lamprey-faced jewess has to say? She has long since been outed as just another gentile-hating Israel Firster.
Excellent Hunter.This great information helps us understand that the things we are living through now have been a long time in the making.That’s why your work is so important,you provide that history which the Jews wish to deny us.They want us to believe that all this evil was inevitable and destined.May God our Father deliver us from the horror we are living under.God bless you.