Christianity

[BigMike]

Democracy is in huge danger today, mostly from what the Left is deceptively terming, "Democratic Socialism," which is really nothing but elitist authoritarianism, a coming together of the radical Left with big business, the legacy media, and global power-brokers to undermine the interests of the ordinary citizen and to diminish his freedoms.

Wow, that is a mind-boggling interpretation of the actual state of affairs.

[Belinda]

Democracy is a guard against elite excesses. I don't know what has happened to democracy in America but I fear.

I quite agree.

It seems that not only the mechanisms of elections but also the very understanding of what a democracy is and how it works has been undermined by thirty years of miseducation in the public schools and media. Democracy is in huge danger today, mostly from what the Left is deceptively terming, "Democratic Socialism," which is really nothing but elitist authoritarianism, a coming together of the radical Left with big business, the legacy media, and global power-brokers to undermine the interests of the ordinary citizen and to diminish his freedoms.

But there seems to be no leftist political party in America at all.

[Immanuel Can]

But there seems to be no leftist political party in America at all.

You mean there's no party that calls itself "Marxist" or "Socialist"? That's true. But this nasty creature "Democratic Socialism"? It's alive and well, unfortunately.

[attofishpi]

A social elite is made up of the most powerful in a society. The most powerful in a society get to tell others how they must behave, pay taxes, have sex, wear clothes, spend their money, fight the elite's battles, and police themselves. Elites also to the extent they can do propaganda also tell lower status people what to believe.

Democrats, you mean? Yes, they want to do all of that, it seems. They have political correctness, tax everything, advocate promiscuity of all kinds, regulate all forms of consumption, start wars, and want private policing. A "check" in every category you list.

Y are you picking on the Democrats re all the above? Re sexual infidelity Trump is right up there. Re not believing in democratic process, Trump is right up there - the next dictator if he had the chance.

In what way do the Democrats advocate "promiscuity of all kinds" ?

[Immanuel Can]

A social elite is made up of the most powerful in a society. The most powerful in a society get to tell others how they must behave, pay taxes, have sex, wear clothes, spend their money, fight the elite's battles, and police themselves. Elites also to the extent they can do propaganda also tell lower status people what to believe.

Democrats, you mean? Yes, they want to do all of that, it seems. They have political correctness, tax everything, advocate promiscuity of all kinds, regulate all forms of consumption, start wars, and want private policing. A "check" in every category you list.

Y are you picking on the Democrats re all the above?

Two good reasons: 1. They did it. 2. They're in power now.

In what way do the Democrats advocate "promiscuity of all kinds" ?

Well, B. said, "have sex." So I assume she was probably only thinking of them having some say about heterosexual sexual activity...but maybe not. Ask her.

[attofishpi]

Democrats, you mean? Yes, they want to do all of that, it seems. They have political correctness, tax everything, advocate promiscuity of all kinds, regulate all forms of consumption, start wars, and want private policing. A "check" in every category you list.

Y are you picking on the Democrats re all the above?

Two good reasons: 1. They did it. 2. They're in power now.

So did the Republicans

In what way do the Democrats advocate "promiscuity of all kinds" ?

Well, B. said, "have sex." So I assume she was probably only thinking of them having some say about heterosexual sexual activity...but maybe not. Ask her.

But you stated it:-

Democrats, you mean? Yes, they want to do all of that, it seems. They have political correctness, tax everything, advocate promiscuity of all kinds, regulate all forms of consumption, start wars, and want private policing. A "check" in every category you list.

..so again, in what way do the Democrats advocate promiscuity of all kinds?

[Immanuel Can]

..so again, in what way do the Democrats advocate promiscuity of all kinds?

Abortion. Fatherlessness. "Pride" month. Gender dysphoria / trans-ism, bisexuality, polyamory...pick something: chances are, they're permissive of it, or shortly will be.

[attofishpi]

..so again, in what way do the Democrats advocate promiscuity of all kinds?

Abortion. Fatherlessness. "Pride" month. Gender dysphoria / trans-ism, bisexuality, polyamory...pick something: chances are, they're permissive of it, or shortly will be.

There it is!! ..the non Christian bigotry of a "Christian" evangelist that fuels hatred!

None of the above necessarily indicates promiscuous behaviour - NOT that it is your business or the governments for that matter.

Why should the government control peoples life choices or sexuality when they do no harm to others?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Democracy is in huge danger today, mostly from what the Left is deceptively terming, "Democratic Socialism," which is really nothing but elitist authoritarianism, a coming together of the radical Left with big business, the legacy media, and global power-brokers to undermine the interests of the ordinary citizen and to diminish his freedoms.

Wow, that is a mind-boggling interpretation of the actual state of affairs.

It really isn't, but the entire situation would have to be carefully examined and carefully and fairly explained. And no one has time for that.

Democracy is not so much the thing in danger as it is the cause of the social and *identity* problems. The real cause of the disunity in the US has to do with demography: the reengineering of the demography of the United Staes. This is an unpopular idea naturally. But I would assert it is one of the major causes of social division. It is numbers within a democracy that determines all things about that democracy. When a given culture loses its 'cultural identity' it is because demographic numbers (original population) has been supplanted. That, of course, is what 'replacement theory' is about: the realization of what, really, is happening and what is effects are and will be.

It becomes necessary, for obvious reason, when a new demographic situation emerges in a national culture for conflicts to arise. For example in how the United States is defined. A 'patriotic view' defends the country, its raison 'd'etre, its *goodness*, etc. But it is quite possible, as a choice, to see the US as bad or evil. For the destruction of the cultures it supplanted (and genocided). For the slavery issue as an engine of tremendous wealth. For the original cultural and racial views of its founders.

Business, to be successful, must side with the majority and certainly not with a minority, because business is only interested in markets. The US, for them is essentially one of the most important markets. Naturally they take their side in the new demographic wave.

Where did 'globalization' originate? It is an extension of the post-WWll division of the world into market- and power-regions. The US designed this project. It culminated in the '90s when the Soviet Union collapsed and there was nothing left to oppose the US plans. Globalization and an inter-connected world was then constructed as everyone knows. Now, the US is to be converted into just one *region* among many. Who controls this? Good question. But it sure isn't *democracy'.

So the question is how and with what lens one examines all of this. Are you *in-pro* or are you opposed? Vast, determinimng powers hardly care!

Domestically, and in the cultural realm, two extremely different *narratives* arise and the narratives go to battle against one another. What is the root cause? A hard question to answer but again I suggest demographics. Inundate any relatively homogenous country you can take as an example and radically change its demography: conflicts will arise. I'd also suggest that it is economic powers, not democratic choice, that is determining America now.

The other element, which is not talked about, is that the definition of the US must include the fact that the US is an empire. That is it manages a world-scale empire. Call it neo-imperialism or what you will. But its business interests, and geo-political interests, that is to say the interests of vast networks of corporations that control these world-scale enterprises, have a range of interests that have nothing, or little, to do with classic American constitutional democracy of a republic sort, and they have deep roots into American government. Or controlling arms is a better metaphor. They cannot be separated. Neither removed.

Is the US a constitutional republic or is it a conglomeration of business interests that require a vast military to defend its holdings?

Unfortunately, this results in a veritable *conflict of identity*. What interests are being defended, whose interests, when the military-political arm is raised? Now, today, in a really weird reversal of fortune, the paramilitary arm of power is turned against those who clamor for, or defend, or wish to protect, the former *identity* of America as a new identity-structure is imposed on it. Who is doing this? For what purposes?

Today, in this climate, obviously it becomes illegal (essentially) to state the clear facts about what is going on. It becomes paramount to control both speech and thought. You must not oppose what *they* (who are they?) are constructing. And obviously to oppose anything requires the ability to speak your mind. In Orwellian fashion then your oppositional speach is not 'free speech' but 'hate speech' or 'anti-democratic speech' or ultra-rightwing rhetorical, etc. etc.

You are really just a Nazi though, aren't you?

To what, and to whom, shall I commit my allegiance? The System is what provides me with everything I have (or do not have depending on where I stand in the economic scale). Should I 'defend the empire' or should I take a stance against it and its essential collusion with the entire government-military apparatus?

[Lacewing]

..so again, in what way do the Democrats advocate promiscuity of all kinds?

Abortion. Fatherlessness. "Pride" month. Gender dysphoria / trans-ism, bisexuality, polyamory...pick something: chances are, they're permissive of it, or shortly will be.

There it is!! ..the non Christian bigotry of a "Christian" evangelist that fuels hatred!

None of the above necessarily indicates promiscuous behaviour - NOT that it is your business or the governments for that matter.

Why should the government control peoples life choices or sexuality when they do no harm to others?

Yep, THERE IT IS! In PLAIN SIGHT like all of the other distorted nonsense that Immanuel Can concocts to engorge his gluttonous hatred with, while projectile-spewing lies from the darkest depths of his own twisted and evil psyche.

Just sayin'!

Good response, atto.

[attofishpi]

Good response, atto.

Well thanks, we might be able to get along after all!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yep, THERE IT IS! In PLAIN SIGHT like all of the other distorted nonsense that Immanuel Can concocts to engorge his gluttonous hatred with, while projectile-spewing lies from the darkest depths of his own twisted and evil psyche.

Except that other conservative metaphysical systems could say, and do, say similar things to what Immanuel Can says (and must say) as an Evangelical Christian.

I am so happy that now we are introducing contemporary issues into the otherwise too-abstract conversation.

What took you-plural so long?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Good response, atto.

Well thanks, we might be able to get along after all!

No, that is not at all likely. Remember: we are in a temporal modality where wide agreements are not possible. Everyone takes up a position with their atomized, subjective stances and fights all comers!

I see at least 40-50 pages of conflict and strife in our immediate future.

[Alexis Jacobi]

None of the above necessarily indicates promiscuous behaviour - NOT that it is your business or the governments for that matter.

Why should the government control peoples life choices or sexuality when they do no harm to others?

The question, the thing that has to be examined and discussed, is then 'social engineering' and the centers of power and influence (extra-governmental if you wish) that have engineered culture in these areas.

It did not just pop out of nowhere. It has roots. These can be discovered, exposed and talked about.

[attofishpi]

Good response, atto.

Well thanks, we might be able to get along after all!

No, that is not at all likely. Remember: we are in a temporal modality where wide agreements are not possible. Everyone takes up a position with their atomized, subjective stances and fights all comers!

I see at least 40-50 pages of conflict and strife in our immediate future.

Well, we will soon be on my number, page 666.

I wonder if we'll keep wandering in the wonderment of the unfathomable nethers of what it is to be human, a sexual beast.