Who are Antifa? A very interesting and balanced article.

Originally posted by Artol
I have heard similar accounts, I guess what is always strange to me is how many things get conflated into the left. I guess from my POV, a lot of the things you said should be done are left wing, I suspect you would greatly benefit from left wing policies (of the kind that our parents generation were the beneficiaries of), yet there is a fundamental dislike of anything that is called left. It's similar in the US as a whole, a lot of actual left ideas are pretty popular, but there's just no way that establishment Democrats and Republicans are ever going to deliver. It's the same with Trump, I can see some of his appeal, much of the populism of his campaign would fit perfectly in a moderate leftists playbook, yet once he got into office he did not deliver on these promises, and if anything continued the looting of the American people by the wealthiest that has been going on under Obama, under Bush Jr., under Clinton...

I don't disagree with all left wing policies. I am in heavy disagreement when it comes to things like immigration. And when it comes to the direction they are trying to send our culture in I disagree heavily.

I disagree with republicans on things like abortion and also the religious bullshit.

Though to be fair I was sent to catholic school for grammar school and high school so I might have a skewed vision. And the high school was all boys so you can just imagine what that was like.

They did force me to drink the symbolic blood of their deity tho. Just saying. That happened.

Originally posted by Scribble
That is true, I suppose; it would be a 'level playing field' if everyone started at the same point when it began, but that obviously wasn't the case. However, I think it gives us the best shot at equality of opportunity that we have right now.

My stance would generally be one of anti-globalism; a sensible re-evaluation of actual civic nationalism. I think that we can do without all of these immensely wealthy foreign bodies that own so much of the UK, especially London. Localism is also something I tend to gravitate towards: if companies want to come in and be a part of local communities, then they should pay taxes directly to the local areas and get involved with building up independent businesses and culture in the area. I highly dislike multinational corporations owning so much of areas that they give nothing back to; McDonald's, for example, does nothing to an area it invades other than to make its residents less healthy.

I imagine you come from a different perspective — I'd love to hear your own views, as I'm aware there are many other ways to tackle this issue.

@Surtur: Yeah, the catholic ritual of "mass" is disgusting, imo, and I say that as someone who holds a very strong belief in the Christian God. It's not something that the Bible teaches either, just like so many other things that roman catholics believe.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
But none of this is anti socialism.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
@Surtur: Yeah, the catholic ritual of "mass" is disgusting, imo, and I say that as someone who holds a very strong belief in the Christian God. It's not something that the Bible teaches either, just like so many other things that roman catholics believe.

Sorry, I know this is quite far from the topic... just thought I'd throw my 2 pennies in.

Originally posted by Scribble
That is true, I suppose; it would be a 'level playing field' if everyone started at the same point when it began, but that obviously wasn't the case. However, I think it gives us the best shot at equality of opportunity that we have right now.

My stance would generally be one of anti-globalism; a sensible re-evaluation of actual civic nationalism. I think that we can do without all of these immensely wealthy foreign bodies that own so much of the UK, especially London. Localism is also something I tend to gravitate towards: if companies want to come in and be a part of local communities, then they should pay taxes directly to the local areas and get involved with building up independent businesses and culture in the area. I highly dislike multinational corporations owning so much of areas that they give nothing back to; McDonald's, for example, does nothing to an area it invades other than to make its residents less healthy.

I imagine you come from a different perspective — I'd love to hear your own views, as I'm aware there are many other ways to tackle this issue.

Yeah, I mean even if it had been level at the beginning, anyone born later, or even those unlucky at the start would have quickly become the losers of the system without much real chance of equality. I guess I'm not quite sure which system particularly you mean, if you mean the neo-liberal capitalism we see now, I'd say no, there's not a good chance we have equality of opportunity ever, if you talk about the classical capitalism of the 19th century I'd also disagree, if we are talking about the social democratic welfare states of Scandinavia and continental Europe in the 60s and 70s I think that's much closer, but still nowhere near the optimum for equality of opportunity.

I do think we actually agree on a lot of things, I think when you say globalism you perhaps mean the neo-liberal "free-trade" (IMF, World Bank, WTO defined) global order we have now, and I would completely agree that is toxic. I don't think a cooperative globalism is a bad idea generally though, there are good aspects that have come from being connected globally. Civic nationalism I don't really know what you mean, if you mean the kind of meaning people received in the past from their communities and their jobs and perhaps to some degree their nation I would even agree, although I find nationalism generally somewhat unseemly I do think that the more local you get the more of a bond you are creating, and as long as that doesn't lead to the oppression or othering of other groups it's not a bad thing. Ultimately I think the country you are born into shouldn't be a main source of pride and a connection to the human beings of other countries is more valuable. But things like trust in your community, a desire to help out, things like that are great, and also something that I believe has been destroyed by neo-liberalism. Your corporation critique I'm on board with.

Again though, like I said the main thing I see as important is rolling back the Friedman economic changes. He characterized them as the following deregulation, privatization and destruction of the welfare state. And I think we should do the opposite, go back to the regulation, national assets and welfare state we had (and actually go further to come closer to the optimum of a free and equal society)

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
@Surtur: Yeah, the catholic ritual of "mass" is disgusting, imo, and I say that as someone who holds a very strong belief in the Christian God. It's not something that the Bible teaches either, just like so many other things that roman catholics believe.

I mean okay the communion wafer isn't that bad and the wine was meh. Though adults forcing children to drink alcohol is...suspect in itself. It was just a sip.

The thing is it's so boring. It's like an hour long and it always felt like 8 hours. They never talk about interesting stuff from the bible. One time this dude summoned bears to eat some teenagers. Nobody talked about that during a mass, and I'd remember that shit.

Originally posted by Scribble
Yes, it is. It requires a free market. Socialism in its core stands in opposition to free markets. I agree with social policies, but they need a capitalist free market to actually work.

There are forms market socialism, markets are certainly not a concept tied to capitalism. And free markets are a miss, all markets are defined by the rules we give them, so by their nature not free.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

^Word

Anyways tho, I'm anti fascism as are most. What I would say is normal non-violent anti-fascists should try to avoid identifying as Antifa.

Originally posted by Scribble
Yes, it is. It requires a free market. Socialism in its core stands in opposition to free markets. I agree with social policies, but they need a capitalist free market to actually work.

Originally posted by Artol
Yeah, I mean even if it had been level at the beginning, anyone born later, or even those unlucky at the start would have quickly become the losers of the system without much real chance of equality. I guess I'm not quite sure which system particularly you mean, if you mean the neo-liberal capitalism we see now, I'd say no, there's not a good chance we have equality of opportunity ever, if you talk about the classical capitalism of the 19th century I'd also disagree, if we are talking about the social democratic welfare states of Scandinavia and continental Europe in the 60s and 70s I think that's much closer, but still nowhere near the optimum for equality of opportunity.

I do think we actually agree on a lot of things, I think when you say globalism you perhaps mean the neo-liberal "free-trade" (IMF, World Bank, WTO defined) global order we have now, and I would completely agree that is toxic. I don't think a cooperative globalism is a bad idea generally though, there are good aspects that have come from being connected globally. Civic nationalism I don't really know what you mean, if you mean the kind of meaning people received in the past from their communities and their jobs and perhaps to some degree their nation I would even agree, although I find nationalism generally somewhat unseemly I do think that the more local you get the more of a bond you are creating, and as long as that doesn't lead to the oppression or othering of other groups it's not a bad thing. Ultimately I think the country you are born into shouldn't be a main source of pride and a connection to the human beings of other countries is more valuable. But things like trust in your community, a desire to help out, things like that are great, and also something that I believe has been destroyed by neo-liberalism. Your corporation critique I'm on board with.

Again though, like I said the main thing I see as important is rolling back the Friedman economic changes. He characterized them as the following deregulation, privatization and destruction of the welfare state. And I think we should do the opposite, go back to the regulation, national assets and welfare state we had (and actually go further to come closer to the optimum of a free and equal society)

I certainly include that kind of globalism, yeah. I think that way leads to Corporatocracy. Hell, we're already kind of there, with how much power multinations wield on both the national and global scale. But I'm also not a fan of organisations such as the EU and the UN, and their attempts at centralising world power. I think that's a dangerous route to go down. I can't remember who said it now, perhaps Nietzsche, but the idea is that city-states are the perfect form of distinct community, and that Empires are an increasingly corrupt form of that. I take that stance but with nations: I think a nation is a perfectly-sized body of land and culture to work with, and that the inhabitants should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. "Civic nationalism" is just used as a term to define it against the abhorrent ethnic nationalism, making the nation about its inhabitants regardless of race. Idk, I could maybe go into it more but I'm already getting unwieldy here, haha. I just feel that neoliberalism has swept away a lot of national identity, and that combined with mass immigration and a focus on consumerism, this leads to anomie and atomisation. No shared religion, no shared national identity (regardless of race), no shared culture due to lack of integration and tolerance; it can only lead to chaos, ultimately.

I mostly agree with you about reverting to earlier social policies. That said, I'm still mixed on the long-lasting effects of a welfare state. I think there have to be limits — I don't think people who are able to work should be allowed to sit around and do nothing, but I also don't think that anyone should have to pay for healthcare unless they want. Welfare is a mixed but necessary bag, I think it needs to be constantly tested to make sure it's working in its intended manner, and without putting the country in debt.

Originally posted by Scribble
As a Christian I also find many of the rituals and additional beliefs of Catholicism objectionable. I see their veneration of the Virgin Mary to be borderline idolatry.

Amen. 👆

I could go on and on and on about things that RC's do that are in direct contradiction to the Bible. The way they put Mary (who, btw, wasn't still a virgin when she died, the bible indicates she had other children after she had Jesus contrary to what RC's think) on a pedestal and pray to her as if she's a goddess is just one of the things they do that bothers me. She was a very blessed woman of course but she was not equal to Christ. Yet RC's pray to her even more than they do to Jesus, Himself. Their purgatory belief is also unscriptural. There is only Heaven and Hell; there is no "purgatory" according to the Bible.

Their "churches" are filled with idols, they teach that you are saved by faith PLUS good works (the Bible makes it clear that we're saved only by grace thru faith in what Christ did for us, not thru our own good works), they teach you have to go to a confession booth to confess your sins to a priest to get God to forgive you but that practice is found nowhere in scripture. You can ask God directly to forgive you, you don't have to go thru another person. There are many, many other things but it would take up way too much of my time to list them all.

For the record, I have nothing against roman catholics (although I DO NOT trust the Pope and other high-ranking leaders in the RC church), I just don't like Roman Catholicism.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
actually Marxism and socialism have no problem with the market at all they are built on a fair days wage for a fair days work.

Originally posted by Scribble
I've read Marx. His view on markets is incredibly dim. I'm just not a fan of Marxist thought at all. I try to take a non-Marxist approach to social(ist) ideas: Marx was crazy and bitter, a sad, lazy man with dreams of grandeur. The damage he has done to rhetoric is largely unforgivable, and the fact that he is considered a 'philosopher' is a travesty.

Oh, Artol, I should also mention that my current ideas are still highly nascent and unformed. I've been building them slowly over the past three or so years, testing them against people, so I'm sure there'll be inconsistencies and faults within them yet. I mostly react to the culture around me and try to process it best I can through different perspectives, to see what feels correct and rational.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Amen. 👆

I could go on and on and on about things that RC's do that are in direct contradiction to the Bible. The way they put Mary (who, btw, wasn't still a virgin when she died, the bible indicates she had other children after she had Jesus contrary to what RC's think) on a pedestal and pray to her as if she's a goddess is just one of the things they do that bothers me. She was a very blessed woman of course but she was not equal to Christ. Yet RC's pray to her even more than they do to Jesus, Himself. Their purgatory belief is also unscriptural. There is only Heaven and Hell; there is no "purgatory" according to the Bible.

Their "churches" are filled with idols, they teach that you are saved by faith PLUS good works (the Bible makes it clear that we're saved only by grace thru faith in what Christ did for us, not thru our own good works), they teach you have to go to a confession booth to ask a priest to get God to forgive you for your sins but that practice is found nowhere in scripture. You can ask God directly to forgive you, you don't have to go thru another person. There are many, many other things but it would take up way too much of my time to list them all.

For the record, I have nothing against roman catholics (although I DO NOT trust the Pope and other high-ranking leaders in the RC church), I just don't like Roman Catholicism.

In terms of actual churches, I prefer a nice simple Protestant church (or an Anglican church, like we have in the UK). Worship is not about how much gold you have, or how heavy you are with your prayers.

I'm not so sure about your view on Faith and Works, however, I've been reading Romans recently and Paul seems conflicted on the issue. From what I make of it, true Faith in God has to be backed up *by* acts, but one needs Faith as well, for Works without Faith are still Godless. Either way, it's complex, for me. For example, I don't think a serial killer who believes in God is going to heaven, just because he has faith.

Originally posted by Surtur
And the high school was all boys so you can just imagine what that was like.

Many gay experiences?

@Scribble: I do believe that good works naturally flow from people who've been truly saved but the works themselves are not what saves you. Earning your way to Heaven thru works is not what scripture teaches. (at least not if you're reading the actual HOLY Bible aka The King James version which is hopefully what u r reading). People who're truly saved WANT to do good works because they know that it is the right thing to do, not because they think it'll earn God's approval.

They know that Christ's sacrifice on the cross fully paid the price for our sins (both future and past). The danger with believing in a works salvation or even faith + works is that you can easily become filled with pride over it and God hates that.

You should put your faith in Jesus Christ alone. Anything else and you're basically thinking that Christ's sacrifice wasn't enough. The Bible (again, this is if u r reading a KJV, not sure about the other versions but I wouldn"t trust them if I were you) says that Salvation is a free gift to those who truly want it. Of course, like any gift, you are free to turn it down if you like but if you genuinely accept it then you are forever saved. Nothing you do, no matter how bad, will ever make you lose your salvation. You will find that this will give you lasting peace of mind. You will still want to do good works but it will then be for the right reasons, not because you think it'll save you.

Remember, it is a free gift. If it was hard or you had to work for it then it wouldn't truly be a gift would it? When someone gives you something and they expect something in return it's not really a gift is it?

At least you're actually reading your Bible pretty regularly though. I salute you for that. That is something I need to get in habit of doing a lot more often. Get so caught up in worldly things that I never get around to making time for it. Usually the only time I really get around to reading it is when I'm sitting on the toilet lol. And even then, usually only read about one chapter. At this rate, Judgment Day will be here long before I finish.

It's just that some books have such incredibly boring parts it makes me want to sleep. Trying to read the book of Numbers currently. Jesus, it's so boring... not like Genesis, Exodus, or any of the Gospels or, of course, Revelation. Loved all those. Leviticus had a lot of really boring parts as well.

Oh yeah, in regards to your part about you not believing serial killers are saved just by believing: why not? Anyone who is genuinely sincere in asking God for forgiveness can be saved. Of course I'm not saying they don't deserve the death penalty for murdering someone in cold blood and I'm all for the death penalty 100%. But in regards to their eternal salvation then yes, I absolutely believe they can be saved if they're truly sincere in asking forgiveness. Saved from Hellfire, not saved from being punished by man for killing another innocent human being.