The Failure of Progressivism

HEAR, HEAR!

I aam basically a political moderate, though if pressed I will lean more towards conservatism due to my observations about Liberal Consensus and how it most definitely clashes with Christianity. Idealists propose that the world needs unity and consensus and that the old autocratic "white privileged" ways of entitlement and exclusivity are or should be dead. What ends up happening, however, is best expressed in an old lyric by the British Rock Band The Who:
Meet The New Boss....Same As The Old BossAnd I am not a conspiracy theorist in any serious sense of the definition....yet I will state it here and it will be verified laterWe are in the early stages of a War. We did not start this war, though our adversaries wwould accuse us of provoking it simply by refusing to join them. I agree with Hyroglyphix when he defends the moderately Conservative values...Trump notwithstanding.My motto, among others, has been that You Must Stand For Something Or You Will Fall For Anything (& Everything)The US has been engaged in a Stealth War with China for many years, and it ramped up during the Trade Wars and the emergence (mysteriously) of COVID-19. America need not be dominant and selfish as we were in the past, but we sure are not going to roll over and allow a global consensus of nations, led by Chinas Communist Party vs our own Way Of Life....steer this world in their general direction. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

There are no easy solutions. I feel, however, that the other extreme will eliminate the voice of the working class in America from forging its own destiny. Yes, many of the white populists are racist., Yes, many feel threatened by intelligent women of color who advocate Globalist ideals. Many of us are comfortable with traditional values which helped our parents and provide a stable view of life for us.Yes, we are guilty of exclusivity and entitlement. We fear the idea of an inclusive globalistic consensus. We fear being the minority who no longer have a powerful voice.Personally, I believe that all races and cultures should have opportunity to advance, but I am most definitely against sacrificing my security (real or imagined) and essentially favoring reparations in order to provide greater equality and opportunity for the planet. But then I ask myself WWJD? And I'm not sure.

I think what he is subtly trying to do is to consider Oikophobia in the context of Jim Crow. ringo is rather clever sometimes.

I figured that this topic was more appropriate for the direction that you and I are heading in this ongoing series of arguments. Putting Jesus aside for the moment....I DID look into Marxism. I looked into Karl Marx himself, as well as several notable figures that had arisen since Marx died.For now, lets see what Wikipedia says about each of them,. keeping in mind that this whole Left vs Right discussion will have propoganda on either side of the divide. OK, thats about what I figured that Marxism was. It does not take a genius to understand that whole philosophy. I will argue, as does Hyro, that that entire system is antithetical to the system that we have here in the United States. I further argue that Marx himself has been quoted as saying that he wants to dethrone "God" and to replace Capitalism. Of course, you well know that I would staunchly oppose both objectives, and if that makes me a "rightwing nut, so be it. I do approve of some liberally derived policies such as social security, medicare, and Obamacare. I am quite obviously opposed to throwing God away, as Marx indirectly suggested.

quote:

---

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.[242]

---

I also am firmly opposed to the idea that Socialism is on the path towards Communism. Do you think that it is?

Lets leave Jesus out of this topic. We obviously disagree as toi His nature and whether or not He was bigger than the character in the book. (He Was and IS)Lets discuss Saul Alinsky
Lets discuss why Britain is such a pacifist regarding the invasion of Radical Islam.

I disagree. The book was a written response to human encounters with God...not an origin of human mythos[/b]. But then again, why would I expect anyone of you to agree with me?I cant convince you that I am not making it up any more than I can convince you that they were not making it up. Perhaps God Himself will try to convince you some day, but at that point you will become fully responsible for you r decisions.Which leads us into other argumens. jars Socratic teachers and critical thinkers convinced him that religion was relative to culture and that there is no essential absolute. You also fall for that deception. I dunno if we can blame Marx of Alinsky for that one, however. I think that where we disagree is in the area of critical thought processes, and if so, I wont blame you for being as you are.

So how do you know that its God? How do you know whether or not you even know God? And I realize you will reason your way out of this. You will say several things.
1) Phat, the fact is that I am a believer. I belong to an established club. (In other words, you said the prayers, believed the rituals, etc.) But tell me...when you pray with the people, or by yourself, how do you know that you are talking to God, whethere He is the Creator of all seen and unseen beyond all cultural refereence and mythos, and that you are able to converse with Him due to the humanity of Jesus? Or do you honestly say that you dont know? Because I do.Now I am under no illusion that I fully know GOD> I believe that through Jesus Christ I have the right God. I suppose that in the strict definition of the word "know" that I have no external independent evidence, though as a believer I feel that the fruit in the lives of others is confirmation. You may well argue that this only proves groupthink and confirmation bias, but you have never actually seen the supernatural (or what you would call an unexplained event.) and if you have, you approached it logically, rationally, and critically, throwing it away if it remained unexplained. And yes, I am assuming a lot and saying things about you that I dont fully know. But thats how I roll...I wont simply let you framee a topic...I too have input.Anyway, to sum it up--I feel that by claiming not to know, you are shortchanging yourself.You will of course counter that by "making up" the God we market, we are lying to ourselves. But I can honestly say that I do not knowingly make up God. He made me.

I was just arguing about why you are not a believer. Based on your own criteria, there is no way that you would ever believe without evidence.What mystifies me is why you claim to be a believeer. About all that you believe in is the club rules and guidelines. You have no God in which to believe. Unless I can get you to admit that you believe without evidence. It is not on us to prove anything to you. It is on you to claim why you are a believer when there is no evidence.Thats what you try and do...to challenege anyone of any faith to refute your position. But your position...and you...stand alone.I will admit that I believe without objective eevidence (all I have is internal) and have no problem with it. It works for me and I work for Him.(or try to do so)Im just challenging what the whole definition of being a believer actually is. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Two Documentaries which I watched made a fairly solid case for why Wessztern culture(Judeeo Christian Heritage) is being challenged, overturned, changed, and diluted through relativism and through teachings which disagree with the core values which arguably made us who we are today.
Values such as the family, the church, and the courts.