1911Forum banner

1 - 20 of 51 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,472 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Since the topic of communism has flared up recently, I thought that I would post a pretty good article on both commies AND guns. After all, it is a gun forum.

Paladin, et al: Please keep posts relevant to only what is contained in the article. (Hint: GWB, RR, JMc is not mentioned one time in the text).

Also, after reading, ask yourself what establishment/culture in America espouses the 'free love, musical partners' lifestyle?

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/p/poe/03/poe111003.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
Just in case any readers failed to get the point, what former President Clinton said was that the system of "radical… individual freedom" passed down to us by our Founding Fathers was no longer working. It had been designed for a situation in which people were raised in "coherent families, in coherent communities." But now that these structures were breaking down – as in public housing projects inhabited largely by single-parent families on welfare – violence and disorder were on the rise. In such circumstances, said Clinton, we can no longer afford the kind of "radical freedom" bequeathed to us by our forefathers. We must "move to limit" freedom.
Right. Standard leftist MO. Create the problem in the first place, then provide the "solution" to it.

The solution isnt to do away with the changes from stable tradition, that the leftists pushed for in the first place, and go back to what has worked for thousands of years. The solution is always more control and even more radical destabilizing change.

Nice Post.

PS Nice sig too Forstr. Whenever these guys show their true ideological colors like that we have to highlight it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,472 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly…
This man was our President. He thinks Americans were given rights, as opposed to what the framers said, which was that they are GOD GIVEN rights. The BOR is there simply to keep the govt from trampling them.

...And a few more...

"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all." [Vladimir Lenin, as quoted in Not by Politics Alone]
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." [President Bill Clinton, 'USA Today' March 11, 1993: Page 2A]
BTW, the answer to the question I asked in the first post is 'Hollywood'. But wait...I forgot...there are no commies in Hollywood.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
Mus said:
Right. Standard leftist MO. Create the problem in the first place, then provide the "solution" to it.

I'm not trying to be depressing here; but something I've thought about for a long time, that's related to this:

Communism is the most perfect antidote to human existence ever devised. Yet it may also be an invincible and unstoppable political ideology.

It's not new; but a repackaged version of something that's been with us for a while; but beaten back by revolutions in human advancement. Its latest incarnations (Marx and Fabian) are merely refinements of tribal collectivism (zog killed deer; but it belongs to whole tribe).

"But weren't communist countries defeated? The cold war's over". All I saw happen in the 80s and 90s is that communist became a dirty word so communists started calling themselves capitalists. Most confusing, and generally distracts from the real issues.

"Why is communism invincible?" Well, assume communist policies lower the standard of living, leaving people less able to fend for themselves. Then consider too that communism promises them the purest (perceived) path to relief, through both a demonization of anyone who isn't poor, and action against same. This is basically a deathspin where humanity fights misery by inflicting misery upon humanity.

Or in layman terms (for the stage we're at), Communism causes poverty which causes communism.

I do not see how it can be beaten.


Battler.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
Battler said:
Or in layman terms (for the stage we're at), Communism causes poverty which causes communism.

I do not see how it can be beaten.
Well I think at some point it reaches a level where the situation becomes intolerable and there is a backlash against the harsh conditions. Freedom is reestablished and then the society gradually starts taking its freedoms for granted and it starts all over again.

There have always been historical cycles like this. The only thing remaining to be seen is if external forces are required to get a system to pull out of a down cycle. Since the entire world is one big system now it could go badly for our species if that is the case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
Originally posted by Battler ...Or in layman terms (for the stage we're at), Communism causes poverty which causes communism.

I do not see how it can be beaten....
"Communism will never work because people will always want...*stuff*!" -- Frank Zappa
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
Mus said:
Well I think at some point it reaches a level where the situation becomes intolerable and there is a backlash against the harsh conditions. Freedom is reestablished and then the society gradually starts taking its freedoms for granted and it starts all over again.

There have always been historical cycles like this. The only thing remaining to be seen is if external forces are required to get a system to pull out of a down cycle. Since the entire world is one big system now it could go badly for our species if that is the case.
What are we calling complete cycles here? What were the backlashes?

Even the worst oppression in history has been limited. Sure, they could kill people; but any given ruler/leadership was limited by technology - they didn't have the technology or communications (or control over education) to really tighten their grip.

Also, past oppressive situations didn't have the "purity" of modern marxism. You could oppose the king, because he was the king, and you could hate him because he was living better than you were. It's significantly harder to oppose "the collective will" or "the starving children", particularly at our levels of (self-perpetuating) indoctrination.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,086 Posts
If you really want something to think about, consider how much "It had been designed for a situation in which people were raised in "coherent families,..." sounds like something which might be said by those on the "conservative" side of the fence. Is this just the logical result of that whole line of thought? People cannot be trusted to act responsibly if they are not raised in a nucleur (sp?) family with a mother and a father? I don't believe it but I've heard this basic premise of our society coming apart due to this from the Republicans. Now the Democrats are chiming in on the same theme. Stay safe, Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
Battler said:
Also, past oppressive situations didn't have the "purity" of modern marxism. You could oppose the king, because he was the king, and you could hate him because he was living better than you were. It's significantly harder to oppose "the collective will" or "the starving children", particularly at our levels of (self-perpetuating) indoctrination.
You dont oppose the "collective will" or "the starving children" because those are just foils used by the ruling elites. The bottom line is communism requires an elite aristocracy just like every other system. Opposition would target them and strip away the lies they use to confuse the issue just the way a king used to use divine will as a foil to justify his tyranny.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
Gary W Trott said:
If you really want something to think about, consider how much "It had been designed for a situation in which people were raised in "coherent families,..." sounds like something which might be said by those on the "conservative" side of the fence. Is this just the logical result of that whole line of thought? People cannot be trusted to act responsibly if they are not raised in a nucleur (sp?) family with a mother and a father? I don't believe it but I've heard this basic premise of our society coming apart due to this from the Republicans. Now the Democrats are chiming in on the same theme.
The most important difference is that the conservative side of the issue uses it to (rightfully in my opinion) stress the importance of the traditional family. The left uses the disintegration of the family, under their very policies, as an excuse to seize liberties from people.

I dont believe that a person cant be trusted to act responsibly if they arent from a nuclear family. I just realize the undeniable truth that a mother and father is more successful than other setups for producing healthy well adjusted children. These traditional arrangements have been used for so long because they work, not because our ancestors didnt know any better the way the left claims.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,472 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Gary W Trott said:
People cannot be trusted to act responsibly if they are not raised in a nucleur (sp?) family with a mother and a father? I don't believe it but I've heard this basic premise of our society coming apart due to this from the Republicans. Now the Democrats are chiming in on the same theme. Stay safe, Gary
No matter who says it, there is a lot of truth in that statement. Certainly, there are millions of people in the world who did not grow up with a mother and father, who are still God-fearing, law-abiding citizens. But I believe common sense would tell us that someone who is not brought up with maternal and paternal influences, is vulnerable to fall victim to various character flaws (that often times result in a life of crime, etc.)

As for the cycle of socio-political schemes, Alexander Tyler, writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic, said:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

I realize that this is somewhat of an "apples to oranges" comparison, primarily because we don't live in a democracy, but rather a representative republic (the main difference being in the rule of law). But it is very insightful, nonetheless. And it would be hard for anyone to argue that THE law (Const) isn't being eroded drastically. Something to think about...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
Mus said:
You dont oppose the "collective will" or "the starving children" because those are just foils used by the ruling elites. The bottom line is communism requires an elite aristocracy just like every other system. Opposition would target them and strip away the lies they use to confuse the issue just the way a king used to use divine will as a foil to justify his tyranny.
This is the point where some academic would tell us that perfect communism is achieved when we don't need money or force or elites and we all hold hands and sing kumbaya. . . .

(But I'm dodging the question).

We could demonize the aristocrats as the communism demonizes the successful/enterprising person. Say we get rid of those aristocrats.

Then what?

You still have poor people, or people who want to work a little bit less, and/or feel they are owed the product of the labors of those who work a little bit more. That those aristocrats appeared was merely an implementation detail of a large number of people believing they are owed the unearned, and having been given ratinoalizations to not think of themselves as the thieving animals they've become (from Marx).

Yeah, you can target the aristocrat. But without assaulting the moral basis of communism, what does that get you? When the aristocrat is on the end of a rope, what do you do when the "proletariat" turns to you and says: "Okay, we've won. Now where's my free stuff"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
Battler said:
Yeah, you can target the aristocrat. But without assaulting the moral basis of communism, what does that get you?
I guess I misunderstood your question then. Because I think the moral basis of communism is eminently assailable. I thought you were saying that communism was so much different in regard to who is in control and the tools they use to maintain it. It isnt. There is still an upper class of elites. And there are still lies that they use to justify their abuse.

Battler said:
When the aristocrat is on the end of a rope, what do you do when the "proletariat" turns to you and says: "Okay, we've won. Now where's my free stuff"?
I dont think a revolution against communism is possible unless the revolutionaries have already grasped the fact that there is no such thing.

That is probably the central issue. How to get people to realize that truth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,472 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Battler, sounds like you've read Atlas Shrugged...good boy.

Gary, I agree with Mus on the con v. lib 'nuclear family' issue. Conservatives decry the deterioration of the family, and seek to make laws prohibiting things such as gay marriage and partial birth abortion. The left might complain about it, but then they turn around and seek to stop any legislation to correct the situation. It makes you wonder where their motivations lie, in making such statements (and that's why I think Mus was right).

(Off topic, but related) It's like the war: Clinton said all the same stuff about Iraq as GW did, but nobody raised a stink until GW got in there and actually put troops on the ground.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
I caution against ascribing too much of this mess to these "Elites". Most of the front-men (hollywood types) are hollow-headed and stupid, and are just along for the ride and being trendy.

IMHO most who are VISIBLE or PROMINENT in the communist movement (organized or semi-organized) are generally a stink following a big steaming #%[email protected] around, not the #%[email protected] itself.

No, I talk not of some dark cabal of secret planners who don't go on TV; but the stupid every-day perpetuators of their bulls**t. (Teachers).

But communism's raw strength (indestructibility) as a philosophy/political system lies in the "positive-feedback" characteristics of it in practice, that it is the easiest/closest desparate short-term solution to the problems that it causes.

Hungry? Ransack!! Things getting worse? Ransack some more!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
Im certainly not talking about media figures when I say elite. Im talking about people in actual control of assets and organizations.

Battler said:
But communism's raw strength (indestructibility) as a philosophy/political system lies in the "positive-feedback" characteristics of it in practice, that it is the easiest/closest desparate short-term solution to the problems that it causes.

Hungry? Ransack!! Things getting worse? Ransack some more!!
That only works when there are capitalists/producers around to rob/use for crutches. We can see that happening now in Hong Kong. Communists believe that they can achieve success in the US because of our wealth. Its their desperate gamble that they can make communism work (as it never has before) before that wealth runs out (or before they kill the golden goose so to speak) as it has in other countries they have tried it in. I predict that it will not work, but that it will just take longer to run its course.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,472 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Battler said:
I caution against ascribing too much of this mess to these "Elites". Most of the front-men (hollywood types) are hollow-headed and stupid, and are just along for the ride and being trendy.
Hollow-headed and stupid, yes, but influential all the same. Look at this country's obsession with these people, and the way they are emulated. Specifically with respect to the breakdown of the family, they are leading the charge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
Forstr said:
Hollow-headed and stupid, yes, but influential all the same. Look at this country's obsession with these people, and the way they are emulated. Specifically with respect to the breakdown of the family, they are leading the charge.
But his point is they are just propaganda tools. I realize that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
I see what you're getting at - through their propganda, they're trying to cause some mayhem, a "problem to solve".

I'll tell you what - do you guys watch daytime TV (Oprah/Phil)? It'd scare you. . . .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,472 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Isn't indoctrination a necessary step in the realization of the "dream"? To me, anything that helps bring communism or socialism to fruition is as evil as the next thing.
 
1 - 20 of 51 Posts
Top