Originally Posted by Odin

When I was in my Neo-Pagan phase in high school I was interested in Nordic Neopaganism unti I discovered, to my horror, that most of them seem to be RWers and virulent racists.

From whom the nonracist Asatruar are working very hard to dissociate themselves, but let's face it, it's a faith the racist types are drawn to.

And a lot of the nonracist ones are conservatives, to be sure.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

So my only alternative if I'm an atheist is to side with the European PC left? Oh, come on! Faith and belief in God just doesn't matter to me nor to anyone I know.

Not at all. While atheism is a central part of the left wing litany, it does not necessarily entail leftism on its own. As TGB stated above, there is a fair amount of atheism and agnosticism among libertarians, particularly the Ayn Rand variety. The difference is that the libertarian merely wants freedom, both for those who believe and those who don't, whereas the leftist wants to destroy religion for political reasons.

My primary point, however, was simply that atheism is a faith-based point of view. I use the standard definition here: an atheist is someone who says "there is no God", an agnostic is someone who says "I don't know".

I'm kind of surprised that you of all people, who after all is freed from blindfolds in so many areas, should cling to old religious superstitions. Well, never mind. I guess faith in some supreme being is existentially important to some people.

As above...the absolute certainty that there is no God is a faith-based belief. And it is existentially important to those believe in it, because if they're wrong, it could be bad news for them. That's part of the reason why they're so hostile and tenacious about it.

My personal beliefs are a result of experience, study and reflection, not merely a set of views that were handed to me by someone else. I've examined the evidence, and concluded that what the Bible says is true. I believe in free thought, free inquiry, the free flow of ideas. I think people should examine everything for themselves and draw their own conclusions, not take what they're told, either by a preacher or a militant atheist, and accept it because of social pressure to do so.

The left has underway an activist exercise in groupthink, social pressure and conditioning, the goal of which is to make it socially unacceptable to be anything other than an atheist, and where they can, to make religious expression illegal. They do this for political as well as hedonistic reasons, and the primary mechanisms are the media and the educational system. It is not freedom they're after, it's the eradication of religion. The two are not the same thing.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

As above...the absolute certainty that there is no God is a faith-based belief. And it is existentially important to those believe in it, because if they're wrong, it could be bad news for them.

Why would it be "bad news" for them?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Not at all. While atheism is a central part of the left wing litany, it does not necessarily entail leftism on its own. As TGB stated above, there is a fair amount of atheism and agnosticism among libertarians, particularly the Ayn Rand variety. The difference is that the libertarian merely wants freedom, both for those who believe and those who don't, whereas the leftist wants to destroy religion for political reasons.

My primary point, however, was simply that atheism is a faith-based point of view. I use the standard definition here: an atheist is someone who says "there is no God", an agnostic is someone who says "I don't know".

As above...the absolute certainty that there is no God is a faith-based belief. And it is existentially important to those believe in it, because if they're wrong, it could be bad news for them. That's part of the reason why they're so hostile and tenacious about it.

My personal beliefs are a result of experience, study and reflection, not merely a set of views that were handed to me by someone else. I've examined the evidence, and concluded that what the Bible says is true. I believe in free thought, free inquiry, the free flow of ideas. I think people should examine everything for themselves and draw their own conclusions, not take what they're told, either by a preacher or a militant atheist, and accept it because of social pressure to do so.

The left has underway an activist exercise in groupthink, social pressure and conditioning, the goal of which is to make it socially unacceptable to be anything other than an atheist, and where they can, to make religious expression illegal. They do this for political as well as hedonistic reasons, and the primary mechanisms are the media and the educational system. It is not freedom they're after, it's the eradication of religion. The two are not the same thing.

There is plenty of leftist groups that are faith-based. Jewish groups try to heed the call of "Tikkum Olum", or healing of the world, whereas Christian groups want to emulate Jesus by giving to the poor and creating a just world. Moreover, plenty of economic conservatives are nonreligious.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

My personal beliefs are a result of experience, study and reflection, not merely a set of views that were handed to me by someone else. I've examined the evidence, and concluded that what the Bible says is true. I believe in free thought, free inquiry, the free flow of ideas. I think people should examine everything for themselves and draw their own conclusions, not take what they're told, either by a preacher or a militant atheist, and accept it because of social pressure to do so.

So if someone disagrees with your interpretation of what the Bible means, I assume that's okay -- in the spirit of "free inquiry."

The left has underway an activist exercise in groupthink, social pressure and conditioning, the goal of which is to make it socially unacceptable to be anything other than an atheist, and where they can, to make religious expression illegal. They do this for political as well as hedonistic reasons, and the primary mechanisms are the media and the educational system. It is not freedom they're after, it's the eradication of religion. The two are not the same thing.

Oh, not at all. There are plenty of us on the religious left who are all for religious expression but not a theology that is harmful to the human spirit.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

So if someone disagrees with your interpretation of what the Bible means, I assume that's okay -- in the spirit of "free inquiry."

Everyone should make up their own mind about what they believe. They may be wrong, but they have a right to be wrong. And a society that does not make room for that kind of divergence in views is flawed.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Everyone should make up their own mind about what they believe. They may be wrong, but they have a right to be wrong. And a society that does not make room for that kind of divergence in views is flawed.

Of course people should make up their own minds, based upon as much evidence as they can gather.

As far as the Bible goes, I've studied it on my own and in groups, and I learned much more by discussing it with other people (ordained clergy and laypeople alike). Every time I hear Scripture it's different for me. There is much beauty and truth in it (also some harshness and self-serving tribal nonsense as seen through a few thousand years of human history -- but it can still be read for what it is -- an attempt by one particular group of people to understand God).

You continue to paint with too broad a brush when you speak of the left. Recall that many of us may be economic leftists but civil libertarians. I am all for free inquiry that is backed up by scientific evidence and independent verification. You can't do it as a solo act, JPT.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Not at all. While atheism is a central part of the left wing litany, it does not necessarily entail leftism on its own. As TGB stated above, there is a fair amount of atheism and agnosticism among libertarians, particularly the Ayn Rand variety. The difference is that the libertarian merely wants freedom, both for those who believe and those who don't, whereas the leftist wants to destroy religion for political reasons.

Uh.... NO!

There are left-wing Christians, believers in Liberation Theology, who believe profoundly that the mission of a genuine Christian is to establish a just social order just as Jesus taught. They cite chapter and verse from the Bible -- both Testaments -- as evidence that God and His Only-Begotten Son demand an equitable social order. I suggest that you re-read the Sermon on the Mount and examine whether crony capitalism and monopoly power are compatible with the Teachings of Jesus. They embrace poverty despite their social origins and their ability to find soft lives in oppressive societies.

My primary point, however, was simply that atheism is a faith-based point of view. I use the standard definition here: an atheist is someone who says "there is no God", an agnostic is someone who says "I don't know".

Are people irreligious because they find gaping holes in the logic of religion? Religion of all kinds is either pre-scientific or (if you wish to discuss $cientology, pseudo-scientific). Is it because they find the well-honed conscience more reliable than revelation or, worse, divination? The Carthaginians were as resolute in their faith in Baal and the Aztecs were as resolute in their belief in Quetzalcoatl -- both gods demanding human sacrifices -- as believers in more benign religions (let us say Buddhism). If you believe only in the authority of custom and tradition, then what defense do you have of religions that mandate human sacrifices?

Some people are irreligious because they want nothing to get in the way of their heartless actions. That is a different matter altogether.

As above...the absolute certainty that there is no God is a faith-based belief. And it is existentially important to those believe in it, because if they're wrong, it could be bad news for them. That's part of the reason why they're so hostile and tenacious about it.

This contains the fallacious argument ad baculum -- an appeal to fear of consequences.

If I believe in God, then I believe in Him as a better entity than I -- presumably a forgiving and merciful entity. Failing to believe in a just God is no worse than failing to believe in my existence. But if you have ever read The Inferno, surely you can think of far worse places to end up than the realm of the Noble Pagans. I can imagine far worse for such types as Nazis who cast infants directly into furnaces when they ran out of Zyklon-B.

My personal beliefs are a result of experience, study and reflection, not merely a set of views that were handed to me by someone else. I've examined the evidence, and concluded that what the Bible says is true. I believe in free thought, free inquiry, the free flow of ideas. I think people should examine everything for themselves and draw their own conclusions, not take what they're told, either by a preacher or a militant atheist, and accept it because of social pressure to do so.

Oh really? The absurd longevity of some of the Patriarchs? The chronology of Genesis? A literal world-encompassing Flood? Miracles?

The left has underway an activist exercise in groupthink, social pressure and conditioning, the goal of which is to make it socially unacceptable to be anything other than an atheist, and where they can, to make religious expression illegal. They do this for political as well as hedonistic reasons, and the primary mechanisms are the media and the educational system. It is not freedom they're after, it's the eradication of religion. The two are not the same thing.

The only Leftists who have tried to marginalize or even outlaw religion are the Marxist-Leninists. I encourage rigid, conventional religion for persons of limited intellect because I want them to fear God more than to fear the legal process, largely because such people either can't easily discern right from wrong or trivialize the chance of getting caught. Lunatics? They can pervert anything, including religion, so keep them away from religion.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

So my only alternative if I'm an atheist is to side with the European PC left? Oh, come on! Faith and belief in God just doesn't matter to me nor to anyone I know.

I'm kind of surprised that you of all people, who after all is freed from blindfolds in so many areas, should cling to old religious superstitions. Well, never mind. I guess faith in some supreme being is existentially important to some people.

It's either something important or it just comes natural to most folks.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

While there is always propaganda inherent in the use of language by totalitarian regimes, the Nazis were not insincere in calling themselves "National Socialists":

Simply put, the Nazis, Fascists and other similar movements had no concern at all for the interests of private businesses and corporations, and viewed unbridled capitalism as a destructive, exploitative force. They believed, at a minimum, in state control of vital industries, and more often outright state ownership.

Where they diverged most sharply from the Marxists/communists/socialists was in their nationalism, as opposed to the internationalism of those groups. Economic policy was a secondary consideration, and they were more than willing to appropriate the economic views of the far left. Thus the name:

National Socialism.

It is an accurate, descriptive term for what they believed in, although their ideological reasons for the"socialist" part of it were different from those of the pure left.

In my study of history, it is clear that fascism varies quite a bit among the various regimes and parties. Most of the posts here probably had some things correct about it.

Originally, national socialism had a certain accuracy as a name. It grew out of conditions in late 19th century Europe, a time when the state was increasingly used to protect and support the big business and big farms within the nation, in order to boost national power; and the two were becoming linked. It was a time of growing collectivism, both on the right and the left. High tariffs, increasing concentration of corporate power, trusts protected by the state, greater union strength and power, increasing economic regulation, and increasing nationalism and racism, were all part of this trend. The Nazi Party in Germany and the Fascist party in Italy were outgrowths of this historical trend.

But as fascism developed, it took on its own characteristics. Nationalism and racism got more virulent, and became the principle interest and preoccupation of fascists, both before but especially after the bloodbath of the Great War. Such nationalism leads directly to increasing militarism and warlike aims. Brower is right that fascism promotes the cultural kitsch of each particular nation or race. Fascism originally appealed to socialism and workers interests, but this was subordinated to the nationalist interest. Once in power, these aims were ditched. The only "socialism" was big private industries dedicated to the warlike aims of the state, which provided jobs through beating plowshares into swords for the coming battle. Fascism was corporatist in Italy, and in fact used that name. It is corporatist, but demands that the corporations be part of the nationalist agenda. It is not so much like today's corporatism, which is international and cares hardly at all about nations, or the interests of the nations it inhabits. To the extent that the state and corporations merge or at least cooperate in order to boost national power, that is fascist, and it still happens to some extent in the USA. Wikipedia is wrong to identify fascism as spiritual, although it might be romantic, emotional or religious. Some fascists regimes, like Spain's, supported and boosted the Church as a prop to state authority and tradition. Fascism needs people to revere authority rather than question it. It is anti-democratic and anti-individualist, submerging the person into the state and the race. But the Nazis in particular were materialists who used Darwin's theories as a prop for their version of eugenics and the survival of the fittest races in the struggle for existence. They also used Nietzsche's elitist concepts of will to power and the superman, but these were gross distortions of his actual philosophy. The Nazis reduced people of the wrong group to things, useful as subjects in medical experiments and as items for sale.

Fascism in any form is very incoherent. It is inherently irrational, and is a type of extreme social conservatism that boosts the power of my group against other groups. It is really useless in the end to make it into some kind of definite ideology, or a political or economic theory; it is primarily based on primitive instincts, such as the need for feelings of belonging to a group that gains its self-esteem through hating other groups.

Republicans under Bush came closer to being fascists, in my opinion, than any other American politicians in history; though they were far from going the whole way. Bush and especially Cheney was anti-democratic, seeking to boost the power of the president and suspend constitutional rights, using national enemies as an excuse. They were also appointed to power by the Court, which they themselves had created; which is a typical fascist trend. Republicans are now actively engaged in reducing democracy by trying to disqualify more people from voting. They were certainly militarists, and had warlike aims of American imperialism. They were social conservatives, especially promoting religious prejudice. They were corporatists, seeking to boost the power of big corporations (though mainly through deceptive "free-market" policies), which could take over the running of the country; though this is still far from the total merger with the state that happens under many of the fascist regimes. Unless they nominate Ron Paul, I doubt future Republicans would be much different than the Bush/Reagan mold, despite what they may say.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The summary of all of the above, and previous posts I made, is that atheism, political correctness, environmentalism and so forth form the religion of the far left. And it is no less a religion than any other religion. Which merely reiterates what I said before: that all of this is a result of the dominance of the political left in Europe vs. a slightly weaker position in the U.S.

I could probably be described as far left, but I am not an atheist, and I don't support political correctness. So two out of your three tenets of far-left religion, I disagree with. I expect that's true of many on the far left.

The far-left is not a religion, but a political ideology. It looks for solutions that solve current problems and help to realize ideals of progress for all. It proposes that activities be done that promote justice and spread power more widely among the people. Power to the People!

Back on topic?

Over the last 20-30 years a new form of government has emerged in some of the world's most advanced nations: a mediacracy. Mediacracy has intermittently ruled Italy, where Silvio Berlusconi, a media magnate, has used his media power to get into and maintain power. It could be argued that it has become important in the US through Fox News, although I see Fox News as a tool of the Republican Party, not the other way around. But now, for the first time, I am realizing that it is most powerful in Britain, where Murdoch enjoys power that William Randolph Hearst never dreamed of. He has evidently frequently bribed the police to get information on people of interest to him. He has helped orchestrate both of the last two major shifts in UK politics--to Labor in the early 1990s and to the Tories last year. And virtually every power is terrified of him.

Believe it or not, I think the UK is now entering a 4T over this issue, because the revelations about what the Murdoch chain has been doing could lead to a gigantic prosecution involving most of the leadership of his papers. If, that is, the government has the guts to do it. This would be a big victory for civic virtue, and I am rooting for it to happen.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Back on topic?

Over the last 20-30 years a new form of government has emerged in some of the world's most advanced nations: a mediacracy. Mediacracy has intermittently ruled Italy, where Silvio Berlusconi, a media magnate, has used his media power to get into and maintain power. It could be argued that it has become important in the US through Fox News, although I see Fox News as a tool of the Republican Party, not the other way around. But now, for the first time, I am realizing that it is most powerful in Britain, where Murdoch enjoys power that William Randolph Hearst never dreamed of. He has evidently frequently bribed the police to get information on people of interest to him. He has helped orchestrate both of the last two major shifts in UK politics--to Labor in the early 1990s and to the Tories last year. And virtually every power is terrified of him.

Believe it or not, I think the UK is now entering a 4T over this issue, because the revelations about what the Murdoch chain has been doing could lead to a gigantic prosecution involving most of the leadership of his papers. If, that is, the government has the guts to do it. This would be a big victory for civic virtue, and I am rooting for it to happen.

Shades of William Randolph Hearst! But I notice in both cases you cited - and Hearst's, IIRC --- whosoever lives by the media, goes down by the media. Namely, scandals.

Anything who thinks that Murdoch's thugs are not doing the same crap over here is fooling themselves.

Originally Posted by Odin

Anything who thinks that Murdoch's thugs are not doing the same crap over here is fooling themselves.

Examples? The ones I can think of are Breitbart and that Millennial creep who works for him, the one who brought down ACORN.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Examples? The ones I can think of are Breitbart and that Millennial creep who works for him, the one who brought down ACORN.

Is Breitbart associated with Fox? I forget...

I thought he freelanced. I'm sure he appears on Fox as a guest.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Fascism was corporatist in Italy, and in fact used that name. It is corporatist, but demands that the corporations be part of the nationalist agenda. It is not so much like today's corporatism, which is international and cares hardly at all about nations, or the interests of the nations it inhabits. To the extent that the state and corporations merge or at least cooperate in order to boost national power, that is fascist, and it still happens to some extent in the USA.

No small wonder. Corporatism has nothing to do with corporations. The term refers to society as a body with different trades and institutions as its organs and was an important idea among some late 19th century socialist/progressive thinkers, among them Ferdinand Tönnies and Emile Dürkheim (ever heard of them?). Corporatism was also a prominent concept among trade unionists and syndicalists. The fascist term "corporatism" derives directly from these 19th century roots.

Wasn't it Alex Jones by the way, who, stumbling upon the fascist usage of corporatism, got into his deluded head it had something to do with corporations and the New World Order and therefore these entities, like the "secret shadow government" of the US who wants big money and bankers to rule the world, were somehow fascist and nazi? Gimme a break...

Looks like North London has riots of its own now.

http://news.yahoo.com/fires-looting-...WJiOQ--;_ylv=3

Police battled to restore order Sunday as rioters went on the rampage in north London, torching police cars, vans, a bus and buildings amid widespread looting.
The unrest, which broke out in Tottenham just before sunset Saturday, followed a protest over the fatal shooting of a man during an apparent exchange of gunfire with police officers.
The patrol cars and the double-decker bus were set ablaze as hundreds ran amok outside the police station on Tottenham High Road. There was concern that the unrest was being fueled by inflammatory posts on Twitter.
Under a hail of missiles, riot officers and mounted police battled to regain control of the streets as fire crews rushed to tackle the burning building.
Rioters kicked in windows on the High Road as shops were looted, with people seen pushing away shopping trolleys full of stolen goods.
The trouble spread to surrounding residential streets, where vans were also torched.
Central London has seen student and trade union protests turn ugly in recent months but this outbreak of rioting is the worst seen in years in the suburbs.
The unrest followed a peaceful march to the police station in Tottenham in protest over the shooting dead of a minicab passenger by police on Thursday in an apparent exchange of gunfire.
Mark Duggan, 29, a father-of-four, died at the scene.
An officer may have had a lucky escape in the incident -- a police radio was found to have a bullet lodged in it.
Police said that two patrol cars were torched as they were pelted with bottles, one of them being pushed into the middle of the High Road before being set ablaze.
Riot squad officers were then deployed to try to keep people back from the police station before the bus was torched and the shop set alight.
Local resident David Akinsanya told BBC television he was feeling "unsafe".
"It's really bad," he said. "There seems to be a lot of anger in Tottenham tonight."
Tottenham is an ethnically-diverse urban area best known for its English Premier League football club Tottenham Hotspur.
Spurs beat Spain's Athletic Bilbao 2-1 in a friendly earlier in the evening.
One eyewitness said very few people around the High Road were obvious fans, with most not wearing football colours and masking their identity with hoods.
Saturday's unrest occurred following a protest march to the police station from Broadwater Farm, a 1960s public housing estate in Tottenham.
The estate is notorious in Britain for the 1985 riot which saw Police Constable Keith Blakelock hacked to death in some of the worst urban rioting in Britain in the past 30 years.
David Lammy, the member of parliament for Tottenham, appealed for calm Sunday.
"Those who remember the destructive conflicts of the past will be determined not to go back to them," he said.
"We already have one grieving family in our community and further violence will not heal that pain. True justice can only follow a thorough investigation of the facts.
"The Tottenham community and Mark Duggan's family and friends need to understand what happened on Thursday evening when Mark lost his life. To understand those facts, we must have calm."
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), which investigates all police shootings -- regular British police officers do not carry guns -- said that specialist firearms officers stopped a minicab on Thursday to carry out a pre-planned arrest.
They were accompanied by officers from Trident, the unit focused on tackling gun crime in the black community.
"Shots were fired and a 29-year-old man, who was a passenger in the cab, died at the scene," the IPCC said.
It is believed that a firearms officer fired two shots. A non-police issue handgun was also recovered at the scene.
"An officer's radio which appears to have a bullet lodged in it has also been recovered."
IPCC Commissioner Rachel Cerfontyne appealed for witnesses.
"Fatal shootings by the police are extremely rare and understandably raise significant community concerns," she said.
"I fully recognise how distressing and disturbing this must be for the family and the local community."
A spokesman for London Mayor Boris Johnson said: "Where there are real concerns in the community it is right that there is a proper investigation.
"The incident which led to the violent scenes in Tottenham this evening are the subject of an IPCC inquiry.
"Violence and destruction of property will do nothing to facilitate this investigation and we urge those involved to respect the rule of law."

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Looks like North London has riots of its own now.

http://news.yahoo.com/fires-looting-...WJiOQ--;_ylv=3

Marc Duggan was gunned down after shooting a tailing policeman in the chest. The rioting was then carried out by his gangster friends and relations. Of course, Swedish media are silent about Duggan being a criminal but emphasizes him being a "father of four" instead, almost making it sound like the riots last night were the police's fault. Nauseating, but business as usual at the mass media "Ministry of Truth".

The Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti....html?ITO=1490

Live like a punk, die like a punk.

The Daily Hate Mail? LOL!!!

Originally Posted by Odin

The Daily Hate Mail? LOL!!!

I never read it, so I wouldn't know. No reason to doubt the article in any case. The story has been seen a thousand times before.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

I never read it, so I wouldn't know. No reason to doubt the article in any case. The story has been seen a thousand times before.

I never read it either, but I'm guessing it has far more prestige than say DU. And this is the problem with talk radio or sites like 'redstate' or DU. THey become such a circlejerk that they all dismiss other forms of press except the ones they want to hear.

One can't help but be concerned that more of this will spread around the globe as the economic crisis deepens.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

I never read it either, but I'm guessing it has far more prestige than say DU. And this is the problem with talk radio or sites like 'redstate' or DU. THey become such a circlejerk that they all dismiss other forms of press except the ones they want to hear.

One can't help but be concerned that more of this will spread around the globe as the economic crisis deepens.

Thing is I know the monolithic Swedish press. From long and painful experience, I'm aware of all their tricks of suppressing relevant parts of a story, their half truths and full lies which are spouted daily. I can smell a tainted story from miles away. That's what happened here, so I simply decided to see what foreign papers were writing in comparison. I know next nothing about the British press though. Pardon, but what does "DU" stand for?

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Thing is I know the monolithic Swedish press. From long and painful experience, I'm aware of all their tricks of suppressing relevant parts of a story, their half truths and full lies which are spouted daily. I can smell a tainted story from miles away. That's what happened here, so I simply decided to see what international press was writing in comparison. I know next nothing about the British press though. Pardon, but what does "DU" stand for?

Democratic underground. It's sort of a partial crossover from another thread dealing with Odin over a similar event (youths running amok) though nowhere near as serious as London close by where I live:
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...778#post385778