| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > Vast Right Wing Paranoia |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 12 2004, 01:50 PM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Rants & Replies > Vast Right-wing Paranoia Posted by: Matthew Dec 25 2003, 01:59 PM Anyone who keeps up with politics notices that Hillary Clinton once referred to a "vast right-wing conspiracy" against her husband. While I am not certain that there is a conspiracy among political conservatives..I do think that there may be somewhat of a vast-right wing paranoia. I was reminded of this when I read the Letter to the Editor that IBF was writing up. The person who cried persecution made the remark that we seem to becoming more and more a "socialist" nation. I think that many conservatives, especially those whose convictions are more Evangelical or conservative, tend to think that there is a secular conspiracy in society. Some of them tend to think that there's a conspiracy by Communists to take over America and persecute Christians. I can attest to this with a few anecdotes in my own life. One time I was riding home with my family and my mother made the accusation that the United Nations was controlled by Communists. I thought that was questionable so I challenged her to back up her claim. I asked her "Mom..how do you know that?!" Instead of backing her up claim..she got defensive and hysterical "Go ahead and support the Communists!!!" she ended up yelling at me. My dad then jumped to my defense and told her that I was only asking a question. My mother then replied that I was being snide with her. My dad and sister both replied simultaneously "No he didn't!". My mother apologized but I was already thinking she was a bit of a paranoid old bitty. When my mother heard that a teacher gave extra credit to some students to attend and support an anti-war rally, my mother then exclaimed "Those teachers- they're all a bunch of Communists!" It seems that everyone in her mind who is not a Bible-believing Christian is a rabid Christian-killing, Bible-burning, God-hating Communist whose purpose in life is not only to turn America into a Communist nation but also to persecute Christians. Anyone have any anecdotes to support that Christians are paranoid that Communists are trying to take over? Matthew Posted by: I Broke Free Dec 25 2003, 03:13 PM QUOTE (Matthew @ Dec 25 2003, 04:59 PM) One time I was riding home with my family and my mother made the accusation that the United Nations was controlled by Communists. I thought that was questionable so I challenged her to back up her claim. I asked her "Mom..how do you know that?!" Instead of backing her up claim..she got defensive and hysterical "Go ahead and support the Communists!!!" she ended up yelling at me. My dad then jumped to my defense and told her that I was only asking a question. My mother then replied that I was being snide with her. My dad and sister both replied simultaneously "No he didn't!". My mother apologized but I was already thinking she was a bit of a paranoid old bitty. Deja vu! Are you sure you weren't in the car with MY mother? Posted by: michelle Dec 25 2003, 04:44 PM Some Christians actually are communists lol Posted by: Matthew Dec 25 2003, 08:12 PM QUOTE Some Christians actually are communists lol If my understanding is correct, the early Christian Church is said to have practiced a very socialist way of living. The Church redistributed the wealth, all believers shared their possessions and it they all had to conform to a certain creed, way of life, behavior. Everything my mother told me that Communism was about. Some Christians are so-thoroughly anti-Communist, that you'd think they'd believe that captialism was invented by Christians. I don't like adhering to ideas without knowing who proposed the ideas and the works that the ideas are proposed in. So..I learned that Adam Smith "invented" capitalism in his book The Wealth of Nations and that he was a freethinker, not a Christian. My mother is a strong capitalist only because of her upbringing and she doesn't know who Smith was or what he wrote. She is extremely ignorant and doesn't really care..as long conservative Christians who are self-proclaimed capitalists are in control of the government. The sad thing is that my mother would never question her beliefs. I have actually wondered if communism or socialism might be better or ideal systems just as I have wondered if perhaps my deism is just a delusion and perhaps agnosticism or atheism is a more rational alternative. I constantly second-guess and question my convictions and conclusions and would be willing to change my beliefs upon further study. Matthew Posted by: Matthew Dec 25 2003, 08:14 PM QUOTE Deja vu! Are you sure you weren't in the car with MY mother? Are you sure you're not a long lost brother or distantly related cousin of mine? Matthew Posted by: michelle Dec 25 2003, 08:31 PM when I said that some Christians are communists I was thinking about the ones who like the SHARING idea because they dont want to EARN their own. You know, living off others kind of thing. Posted by: chefranden Dec 25 2003, 09:05 PM QUOTE (michelle @ Dec 25 2003, 08:31 PM) when I said that some Christians are communists I was thinking about the ones who like the SHARING idea because they dont want to EARN their own. You know, living off others kind of thing. Michell, You have communism mixed up with capitalism I think. Communism is from each according to his/her ablity to each according to his/her need, and has never actually been tried. Captalism: I pay you as little as possible to make me as much as possible while I play golf with a polititian to convince him to tax you and buy the $5 hammer you made for me for $700. Thanks everso my dear. I hope you don't get sick, 'cause I'll have to replace you. But don't worry there are lots more where you came from. Posted by: Lokmer Dec 25 2003, 11:30 PM It is, I think, a germaine time to point out that there is a vast difference between capitalism as posited by Smith and coporate capitalism as practiced in the current climate. Corporate capitalism is concerned with enrichment of capital only, and operates (or can and sometimes does) without a basis in real wealth or economy - it's economy by fiat. Classical capitalism, on the other hand, is concerned with the production of goods, the balance of the economic culture, and with the philosophical assumption that corporations operate only at the sufferance of society. Smith's capitalism was highly ethical, in the same way as was Marx's socialism. Gates, Gehtty, Rockafeller, have the same relation to capitalism as Stalin, Kruschev, and Castro do to communism. They have taken a system that could work well and perverted it into a plutocracy with no relation to any reality but the reality that they create. -Lokmer Posted by: Tocis Dec 26 2003, 01:19 AM QUOTE (Matthew @ Dec 25 2003, 01:59 PM) I think that many conservatives, especially those whose convictions are more Evangelical or conservative, tend to think that there is a secular conspiracy in society. Some of them tend to think that there's a conspiracy by Communists to take over America and persecute Christians. Anyone have any anecdotes to support that Christians are paranoid that Communists are trying to take over? Well, I recently experienced paranoia aimed at the other side of the political spectrum. Some few weeks ago in alt.religion.christian (or was it alt.talk.creationism?) someone made the usual claim about Canada having started organized persecution of christians. I replied that while I hope that Fundies have to worry now, I doubt that any christian who remembers the message of christ (Love your neighbor, you know) probably would have anything to fear. What I got back from two people, for about 20 exchanges of postings back and forth, was the ludicrous accusation that as I am a German I surely am a Nazi pig, and that the antichrist will come from Germany. By and large I asked with the fitting sarcasm whether that's all they can think up with their three fundie brain cells... Must have really made them mad that not every German will fall into shameful silence when others regurgitate the horror that ended almost two generations ago... Oh, while we are at it: These posters also were a wonderful example of the fundie refusal to take in any information that has not been certified to be 100 % fundie in-the-box thinking, even if it's just about spelling...: (Quoting one typical exchange - warning, foul language ahead) Fundie "Go shout Sig Hail you antichrist nazi pig" Me "At least get your spelling right, will you? It's Sieg Heil" Fundie "F*ck off you Sig Hail shouting antichrist nazi pig" In the meantime they gave up. Looks to me that they ran out of memorized insults, or that their feeble fundie brains overloaded from having to stick to the same task for so long Posted by: chefranden Dec 26 2003, 08:10 AM Right on Lokmer! Ignorance has to be the reason that working class people will keep voting for politicians (mostly republicans, but many if not most democrats as well) that will keep sticking sharp objects in the anus of the people and getting away with it. But then most of us think of ourselves as consumers, not citizens. "It's about shopping stupid!" Posted by: AggieNostic Dec 26 2003, 12:41 PM Right-wing John Birchers see black helicopters behind every U.N. mission. Left-wing Hillary Clinton sees a vast conspiracy behind the "attacks" on herself or her husband. Equal-opportunity nutballs. Having spent time on both sides of the political aisle ... and being the recipient of hundreds of solicitations, I've learned to accept that conspiracy-mongering goes with the territory. Both "parties" need boogyman in order to raise money; and nothing is more effective than a solicitation letter asking a person to donate ... or else (fill in the blank for what would happen to us if ____ were in power, etc.). Posted by: AggieNostic Dec 26 2003, 12:46 PM Many of the people who had a hand in the founding of the United Nations were communist sympathizers or even communist themselves. And, once upon a time, there was a heavy concentration (in the U.N.) of nations that advocated collectivist goals. But, that's not the case today. Sure, Cuba and North Korea are still communist. But, we've come a long way since 1945. Organizations like the John Birch society once thrived on writing about communist plots and conspiracies. After the Cold War ended, they were like a boat without a sail. Yet, they still have their die-hard followers who see something sinister behind anything done in cooperation with other nations. Posted by: AggieNostic Dec 26 2003, 01:00 PM QUOTE (chefranden @ Dec 26 2003, 12:05 AM) Communism is from each according to his/her ablity to each according to his/her need, and has never actually been tried. I rank that right up there with the Christian who says the pious advocates of slavery were not really Christian even though everything we know about what they did and said tell us otherwise. Every generation seems to give birth to a few idealists who condemn the previous proponents of communism as "not being real communists" or "not really implementing true communism" or "having gone terribly astray" or some other lame excuse. I wouldn't care except that communism is not a victimless ideology. Millions have been killed in its name (justified because it was for benevolent ends). I would just as soon see it become extinct, along with Christianity. Of course, that does automatically make me a knee-jerk supporter of naked capitalism either. I think the New Democrat approach of trying to balance the collective good with the profit motive is the best kind of economic system we can hope to devise. And, to tilt too far in either direction (i.e. to ignore the collective good completely ... or to abolish the profit motive completely) would create very undesirable circumstances in the long run. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674076087/ Posted by: nightbreeze Dec 26 2003, 01:12 PM Tocis, You should remind those xtians that by and larger the christian churches in Nazi Germany cooperated with the regime. Rare were the Bonhoffers and the Niemollers. Funny how they try to rewrite history. They do that here in the US to with regards to slavery. Posted by: Matthew Dec 26 2003, 01:15 PM QUOTE It is, I think, a germaine time to point out that there is a vast difference between capitalism as posited by Smith and coporate capitalism as practiced in the current climate. Corporate capitalism is concerned with enrichment of capital only, and operates (or can and sometimes does) without a basis in real wealth or economy - it's economy by fiat. Classical capitalism, on the other hand, is concerned with the production of goods, the balance of the economic culture, and with the philosophical assumption that corporations operate only at the sufferance of society. Smith's capitalism was highly ethical, in the same way as was Marx's socialism. Gates, Gehtty, Rockafeller, have the same relation to capitalism as Stalin, Kruschev, and Castro do to communism. They have taken a system that could work well and perverted it into a plutocracy with no relation to any reality but the reality that they create Lokmer, I appreciate the post. I thought that there might have been some modifications to the original theory worked out by Smith..but I hadn't really thought of the difference between capitalism advocated by Smith ( "classical capitalism") and the coporate capitalism that exists today. I thought for some time that perhaps a cogent argument from Communists today is that Stalin, Castro, and Kruschev might have abused Communism. People can point to the former Soviet Union and trimphantly exclaim "Look how the Soviet Union fell apart! That's proof that Communism doesn't work!" However Communist apologists can merely argue "Well..they abused Communism, that's not the way it was suppose to work," or perhaps "Communism wasn't operating under the ideal conditions back then or in the Soviet Union. It was implemented the wrong way, at the wrong time, in the wrong place". And since we don't see a Communist system that I am aware of that is suppose to be operating ideally to the apologists' satisfaction, it's hard to point to an example in practice as the failure of the system. Right now..we can only study theoretical flaws that are argued to exist in theory from critics of Communism. I appreciate you pointing out the difference that I hadn't considered. I wasn't aware that folks like Rockafeller actually abused capitalism and turned it into something it wasn't suppose to be. But I have made a start in trying to educate myself on economics and it will take a while for me to get acquainted with economics. But it's a good start! Matthew Posted by: sexkitten Dec 26 2003, 01:18 PM QUOTE (chefranden @ Dec 26 2003, 08:10 AM) But then most of us think of ourselves as consumers, not citizens. "It's about shopping stupid!" "I, ass." How's that for a political slogan? Posted by: chefranden Dec 26 2003, 03:14 PM QUOTE (Matthew @ Dec 26 2003, 01:15 PM) ...I thought for some time that perhaps a cogent argument from Communists today is that Stalin, Castro, and Kruschev might have abused Communism. People can point to the former Soviet Union and trimphantly exclaim "Look how the Soviet Union fell apart! That's proof that Communism doesn't work!" However Communist apologists can merely argue "Well..they abused Communism, that's not the way it was suppose to work,"... I appreciate you pointing out the difference that I hadn't considered. I wasn't aware that folks like Rockafeller actually abused capitalism and turned it into something it wasn't suppose to be. But I have made a start in trying to educate myself on economics and it will take a while for me to get acquainted with economics. But it's a good start! Matthew, I think that if you compare Stalinism and the Russian Imperial government you would find little difference except in name changes. The aristocracy was replaced by the party which had equally corrupt privileges based on rank which was inheritable by children. The estates with their surfs were replaced buy the collectives under the control of privileged party members instead of a privileged baron or count. The secret police of the Tsar was replaced with the secret police of Stalin. The all powerful emperor was replaced by the all powerful Stalin or dictator. The centrally controlled Tsarist economy was replaced by the centrally controlled Stalinist economy. Forced industrialization started by Peter the Great continued under Stalin. The development of Siberia under Peter with the forced labor of political prisoners, continued under Stalin. The ineffective Duma, continued in it's ineffectiveness under Stalin. The mass slaughter of soviet citizens mirrored that of Tsar Ivan, whom Stalin admired greatly. I could go on, but you get the idea. What failed was the Russian Imperial system as it continued under the name of communism. And this is what was exported to places like Cuba and North Korea. Communism made a good boogy man though because it helped capitalist to keep the union movement in check until it could be rendered ineffective as it is today. Communism hasn't been tried yet, and I don't think it will be. I think the socialism like it is practiced in Norway and Sweden would be the most humane government possible, within my present knowledge. Corporate Capitalism is bankrupt and will eventually collapse with great destruction because it is in large measure based on speculation rather than real production. To learn more check out these books, by the conservative David C. Korten. http://www.davidkorten.org/ Posted by: nightbreeze Dec 26 2003, 03:53 PM My thoughts: I think capitalism is the best system. Its based in freedom. However, I hate it when a CEO runs a company into the ground and then votes himself a big pay raise, all the while thinking that he's John Galt. Thats not how capitalism is supposed to work. I don't think much of communism. I'm not a joiner, nor do I have great love for my fellow man. I want more control ove my income, the yield of my labor, not less. Posted by: Matthew Dec 26 2003, 06:00 PM QUOTE I think capitalism is the best system. Its based in freedom. However, I hate it when a CEO runs a company into the ground and then votes himself a big pay raise, all the while thinking that he's John Galt. Thats not how capitalism is supposed to work. I have to agree. I think to some extent that classical capitalism may be the only moral economic system in the world because it's the only system that I am aware of that is based on the economic primacy of man's nature rights and his freedom to engage in a free-market enterprise. I am no Objectivist and I don't agree with everything that Rand said, but I do think that collectivism and statism, in general, are inconsistent with a free exercise of reason. Matthew Posted by: pitchu Dec 26 2003, 08:16 PM QUOTE (Matthew @ Dec 26 2003, 06:00 PM) I am no Objectivist Matthew, I was. For about five years, or long enough to be persuaded to campaign for Goldwater. Only, we original ones would never have dreamed of calling ourselves Objectivists. Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden made it very clear that we were to refer to ourselves as "students of Objectivism" (probably something on the order of Scientologists not calling themselves "clears" until all the old tapes had been thoroughly erased). Yes, I, along with twenty ot thirty others, used to sit dutifully in a charmless rented room, taking copious notes on the breathtaking insights emanating from the speakers on the old reel-to-reel. In some ways, this was harder to cast off than xianity, because of the shining aura of idealism and anti-humility it provided. I could say a lot on this topic, but I don't want to send yet another thread spiralling into the stratosphere. If you want to start a new thread, let me know. Posted by: Smedley Dec 27 2003, 08:21 AM Two things. One.) The Communists ARE trying to take over the U.S., and everywhere else. It is their stated goal. They have openly told everyone so. They're just not very close to doing so, they're not behind every anti war rally and less than "business-friendly" legislative proposal, and no, that's not one behind that tree over there. Two.) Chefranden's excellent depiction of capitalism at it's worst reminded me of a joke comparing the two as practiced. I read it long ago in a 60's era copy of MAD Magazine. It's cheesy, but makes a point: What's the difference between Capitalism and Communism? Under Capitalism, man exploits man. Under Communism, it's the other way around. Just my two cents. Smed Posted by: Lokmer Dec 27 2003, 09:26 AM Of course the Communists are/were trying to take over. So are the Libertarians (like we have a chance in hell). The group right now that represents the greatest danger (and the true source of the "vast right-wing conspiracy") are the theonomists/reconstructionists, more commonly known as the religious right. They, like the Communist party did in the 40s/50s, have stated goals and are very easy to learn about. Their founding thinker was R.J. Rushdooney, Jay Grimstead, Rev Sun Young Moon, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and Jerry Fallwell are the current leaders, all with different but coninciding adgendas. The lovely part about it is that, at the moment, they are actually in control in a nominal sense. This kind of "conspiracy" is far different from the masonic satanic human sacrifice boogeyman that we're all familiar with from our days in the church. It's not secret, it's even particularly conscious. The leaders, on the whole, don't even like each other. But they all buy into an idealism and recognize who their allies are. The most dangerous kind of political movement is one motivated by untempered coercive idealism without regard for segments of society that may disagree. Like fascism and communism before them, the theonomists are interested primarily in conformity to their version of God's laws and a reawakening of manifest destiny. And much of this movement originates because of the right-wing paranoia about the end of the world, the antichrist, the communists, et.al. (read Rushdooney and see what I mean). On another note, my central difficulty with Objectivism is again that it is an idealism that does not concern itself (despite its protestations) chiefly with reality. It reduces people to economic components rather than dealing with humanity as a phenomenon, and its biggest weakness is in the fact that its progenitors (like Rand), while had some interesting ideas, knew their own positions only and were not interested in learning the opposing or complimenting epistomologies to make their philosophy stronger. I think it shows well that people like Robert Heinlein (who also campaigned hard for Goldwater), who agreed with many of the libertarian goals of objectivism, nevertheless took great offense when he was compared to Ayn Rand. He considered himself (and rightly so) a more mature and realistic thinker - interested in thinking rather than in following an ideology. In short, I think you'll find that idealism is simply another word for religion, although idealism does not necessarily need a god to do to the mind what religion does. People of good conscience can disagree, and it is out of the dialogue between minds that wisdom comes. My central difficulty with our current culture is that the vast majority of people confuse horse sense with reasoning, and care more about being correct than about truly grokking something. -Lokmer Posted by: chefranden Dec 27 2003, 11:43 AM QUOTE (Smedley @ Dec 27 2003, 08:21 AM) Two things. One.) The Communists ARE trying to take over the U.S., and everywhere else. It is their stated goal. They have openly told everyone so. They're just not very close to doing so, they're not behind every anti war rally and less than "business-friendly" legislative proposal, and no, that's not one behind that tree over there. Oh Smedley, I see that you have a typo. Here let me fix it for you. The Christians ARE trying to take over the U.S., and everywhere else. It is their stated goal. They have openly told everyone so. They're just not very close to doing so, they're not behind every anti war rally and less than "business-friendly" legislative proposal, and no, that's not one behind that tree over there. Are you any relation to Smedley Buttler? Chef Posted by: Tocis Dec 27 2003, 02:16 PM QUOTE (nightbreeze @ Dec 26 2003, 01:12 PM) Tocis, You should remind those xtians that by and larger the christian churches in Nazi Germany cooperated with the regime. Rare were the Bonhoffers and the Niemollers. Funny how they try to rewrite history. They do that here in the US to with regards to slavery. Indeed. The "Deutsche Christen" (German Christians) went so far as to bless the artillery guns before they were shipped to the Soviet frontier. A bizarre (even for fundie christian points of view) combination of christianity and the Nazi ideology. There's nothing that's too insane for some people to do. Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com) © Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com) |