Mao More Than Ever

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think you guys need to do your part by not falling for the likes of Rod Dreher. His career is built on trying to get you worked up and believing a cultural movement of some kind; promoted by him, is needed right now to save us.

While last I checked he’s no longer Catholic, there’s been no shortage of in house culture warriors in the last 30 years telling us we’re under seige. Fr. Corapi, Fr. Mckloskey, and Maciel played a lot of people like a fiddle and they never learn.

Yeah, there’s some looney stuff happening right now but it’s nothing like Mao’s China.
 
Last edited:
Edmundus1581 said:
So, I’m done with “listening”, “compromise”, etc.

Apart from anything else, it’s exhausting, dispiriting and a waste of time.
Click to expand...
Great post (I didn’t quote the entire post). The observation about the parties shifting further to the Left every time they “listen” or “compromise” is very thought-provoking and seems to be accurate to me.

I have to agree with you about being done with “listening” and “compromise.”

I am, like many Americans, still working. Many Americans in my generation are still working in their 60s with no real hope of retiring until we are at least 67, possibly older if they change the age at which we are eligible to receive maximum Social Security payments. And if that sounds “greedy” or “materialistic,” think again! I have contributed to that Social Security system since I was a teenager, and I have a RIGHT to get back the money that the federal government has been so kind (dripping with sarcasm) to save for me!

(BTW, I do understand the good of a Social Security system–during the Depression, people had NOTHING, no safety net, and their prospects for old age were pretty grim. Glad to have a safety net, but I do want it to be fair. And I do have other retirement plans and investments, so if I suddenly decided to retire, I could.)

Anyway, still working means that I am still getting up around 5 a.m., and because of short staffing in medical laboratories all over the U.S., I generally work very hard all day with short breaks and lunches, and I often have at least an hour of overtime. I am also called in to work an extra shift at least once every pay period.

And when I come home, my husband is still working (he works every day until around 5:30 p.m.), and so i’m the menu planner, shopper, chef, the busser, and the dishwasher!

And I play piano for several churches and choirs/groups in our area, and I’m also half of duo (I play, she sings)–and that takes up some time and earn a little (but just a little) extra money.

And every other day, we take a hot, homemade supper to my parents-in-law and spend an hour or so chatting with them–the rest of the family wants to forget about them because my MIL has Alzheimers and is essentially a grown-up sized infant.

MY POINT–I don’t have time or energy to attend rallies, marches, demonstrations, protests, etc. and listen to/read slogans and mantras that have no more substance than a marshmallow Peep, and are just as bad for us in large quantities!

They need to stop all this show stuff and start working through the established government channels–

–contact their representatives especially at the local level (in our city, that’s our city council)

– sign up regularly to speak at the weekly city council meetings

– research their claims and test their conclusions

–write regular pieces for the local newspapers

–ask the local television and radio stations for the opportunity to be a regular guest

–continue the above until results are achieved, even if it takes years
 
Hello Wingedhussar, I think you might be a little imprecise here. “The American Right” has gotten plenty in return in deregulation, careers made in a war on drugs, a war on terror, welfare reform, blocking of universal healthcare, setbacks to affirmative action etc etc. What is more likely is that you have gotten nothing in return because the culture warrior schtick was always just a way to stir up the base for money and votes.

If it does “get a way from them” this time I have no doubt it will be people in the same boat on each side lashing out while the people stirring the pot remain unscathed.
 
RuthAnne said:
Anarchists don’t use violence to achieve their goals. We are peaceful and believe the only appropriate use of force is defense.
Click to expand...
An anarchist is a proponent of anarchy. Are you sure you know what this term means? No, it doesn’t mean that you’d like to live in freedom without any rules or government interference.

Anarchy is a word derived from Greek: an + arche. The prefix ‘an’ just means no or not. The word ‘arche’ means…

Origin.

Anarchy is the denial of any and all origins. That is to say, the complete wiping out of the past, the elimination of any reminder of roots. Destruction of all traces. If that’s not violence, then what is.
 
Last edited:
Roguish said:
No, it doesn’t mean that you’d like to live in freedom without any rules or government interference.
Click to expand...
I’ve been an anarchist for decades. Yes, I know what anarchy is and we believe in rules and in government.
 
JimG said:
I grew up in a civil society. Now it’s like living in China during the Great Leap Forward. Now if you call 911 when being attacked
Click to expand...
You must be talking from a white perspective. It was civil for you.
 
Hello Roguish, it’s been over 100 years since anarchist has acquired a second and now primary meaning:

Anarchists- people of any number of political persuasions who basically live like everyone else but dont like the establishment, dont vote, and think this makes them better than everyone else.

There is zero chance of turning back the clock to when the word meant what it meant.
 
Roguish said:
Anarchy is a word derived from Greek: an + arche. The prefix ‘an’ just means no or not . The word ‘arche’ means…
Click to expand...
While -arche did mean origin in Greek, it came to mean rule of or government: hence monarchy, patriarchy, etc.

It has been used in various ways, such as linked with Communism around the 1920s, and proponents of various political views call themselves anarchists.
RuthAnne said:
Anarchists don’t use violence to achieve their goals. We are peaceful and believe the only appropriate use of force is defense.
Click to expand...
RuthAnne said:
I’ve been an anarchist for decades. Yes, I know what anarchy is and we believe in rules and in government
Click to expand...
The very meaning of the word anarchy is without government. I am sure that there are some people who call themselves anarchists who do believe in government, but as a long-time anarchist, you ought to be aware of the usual meaning of the word and of the various manifestations of its use in political philosophy and action.

And there are plenty of anarchists who have used violence towards the furtherance of their ends.
 
Last edited:
I must disagree with you. First, let me clarify that I am speaking of generally-used definitions rather than those used by adherents to your particular political philosophy who happen to call themselves anarchists.

-Archy as a root refers to rule by or government: monarchy, matriarchy, eparchy, etc. ETA: Anarchy is therefore generally understood to mean without government or absence of rule.

A state may have many governments, it is true, but a government must use some degree of force or it is just a utopian mirage. Government decides upon and enforces the rules by which a group of people live.

A state is a territory which is banded together and has a single government over the whole. This does not mean there are no other governments, for example, the state of the United States has local states, and within those local states, there are county/parish or city governments, and within counties, there can be town governments as well.

Not all governments govern what are called states, but all states need a government.

There can be no government without some enforcement measure(s), if only the power to expel someone whose desired end for that government is harmful to others within the group.
 
Last edited:
I think you missed my point. I didn’t say that government didn’t use force. I said participation in the state government was by force, i.e. involuntary.
 
Yes, you are right.

Anyway, my main point is that you are using a specialized vocabulary from a particular political philosophy which happens to call itself anarchist while believing in government to refute things which people are saying about anarchy in general using the general definition of the word. That sort of argumentation just leads to… anarchy (absence of order or chaos).
 
meltzerboy2 said:
Well, look at it this way. Would you be willing to admit that fairness, if not freedom, has been denied to certain groups of people, in particular African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, Asians, women, the disabled, and LGBT at least in the past?
Click to expand...
"In the past - yes, I would agree. I would also add Italians, and Irish; and in the 1920’s in Oregon we had the KKK burning crosses - at Catholic institutions, as well as the 1922 law requirig all children to attend public schools - a bill sponsored by the Grand Masonic Lodge of Oregon - the purpose being to shut down all Catholic schools.

And the issue comes down to “So what?” We - blacks, Latinos, Japanese, Vietnamese, and anyone and everyone else who has been discriminated against in the past have a choice. We can act positively to the opportunities which are available (to all, by the way), or we can revert to victimhood ideology, blaming issues of 20, 50, 100 or more years ago and believing that “White supremacy” and “White privilege” is the source of our woes and choosing to do nothing.

Laws have been enacted to provide priority to minorities and many have benefited from them. Others have not, but I have an extremely strong suspicion that it is due to choices people make, rather than what happened to someone" great grandparents, or that the current people suffered from microaggresions.

I am not ignorant of racism; I have seen more than I care to count over my lifetime. There is no law however that will ever change people’s hearts. Not Mao. but Marxist ideology in general has a radically different view of human nature than does Christianity, and in it is Marxist ideology (and what appears to be some Maoist tactics or repeated history) that is at the root of much of the public positioning of the liberal to ultra liberal Left. Racism and tribalism seem rooted in the human psyche, and is evident world-wide if one is willing to look. And that is not to justify it; but breaking it down is not going to be accomplished by those on the streets throwing Molotov cocktails, smashing windows, looting stores, and/or toppling statues.

Compromise is necessary; but there is an element of people afoot who will not compromise if for no other reason than that compromise takes an initial act - listening to the other side. Or sides. When one has deeply held beliefs as to human nature, particularly where those beliefs are founded on ideology and not facts, it is nigh impossible to dialogue as to how to rectify social and economic factors which are negatively impacting significant parts of a group or groups.
 
Again, you are using the word in a way related to a rather rare and particular way of thinking. Generally people think of anarchy as a lack of government or order, chaos and not its opposite.

If your intent is to communicate with others, then you need to understand and consider those with whom you wish to communicate.
 
Just google Anarchist schools of thought then. It’s not @RuthAnne’s fault that you’re ignorant of a philosophy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top