Today's conservative is yesterday's communist?
- Mahonri
- Master
- Posts: 3949
- Location: Where you want to be when crap hits the fan, but I'm not telling.
Today's conservative is yesterday's communist?
On another thread (http://ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.ph ... 96#p145096) the comment was made and then denied that today's conservative is yesterday's communist.
Is there evidence for either side?
I tend to agree with it in the general term of linking "conservative" to Republican party following.
Here is a link to a great article on just one of the side effects of the fascistic/communistic TSA formed by Bush and supported by Republicans http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/usn ... nger-goods
REAL ID is another prime example http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/usn ... ers-please
There are tons more, and it seems silly to say that they main streams of BOTH major parties (as well as most minor parties) are not greatly fascistic/communistic. It seems very clear that they are.
Is there evidence for either side?
I tend to agree with it in the general term of linking "conservative" to Republican party following.
Here is a link to a great article on just one of the side effects of the fascistic/communistic TSA formed by Bush and supported by Republicans http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/usn ... nger-goods
REAL ID is another prime example http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/usn ... ers-please
There are tons more, and it seems silly to say that they main streams of BOTH major parties (as well as most minor parties) are not greatly fascistic/communistic. It seems very clear that they are.
- Original_Intent
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 13100
Re: Today's conservative is yesterday's communist?
I think the argument that supports the statement is to read the Communist Manifesto, read the ten steps to convert a capitalist society to communism, and then ask any conservative group you can find which of the principles they support (not divulging that they are the Communist Manifesto, of course.) I think it would be challenging to find many so-called conservative groups that would not support half of the planks or more.
Left/right, Conservative liberal, and labels such as "Fascism" have been so misused, and I would daresay intentionally over used as to be meaningless. Bush's "conservative" wars become Obama's "liberal" wars, even though they are the same wars being fought in the same manner for the same reasons. It is all partisan nonsense.
I am with NGL, who said in another post that is much clearer to look at things from a "God/Satan" perspective. Both the so-called left and the so called right are an admixture of both. It is much easier and I think wiser to look at individual policies and not label them left or right, conservative or liberal - simply try to discern if it is correct principle or incorrect, according to God's unchanging standard.
Left/right, Conservative liberal, and labels such as "Fascism" have been so misused, and I would daresay intentionally over used as to be meaningless. Bush's "conservative" wars become Obama's "liberal" wars, even though they are the same wars being fought in the same manner for the same reasons. It is all partisan nonsense.
I am with NGL, who said in another post that is much clearer to look at things from a "God/Satan" perspective. Both the so-called left and the so called right are an admixture of both. It is much easier and I think wiser to look at individual policies and not label them left or right, conservative or liberal - simply try to discern if it is correct principle or incorrect, according to God's unchanging standard.
- Mahonri
- Master
- Posts: 3949
- Location: Where you want to be when crap hits the fan, but I'm not telling.
Re: Today's conservative is yesterday's communist?
I agree to an extent OI. We just have to make sure there isn't a third or fourth option available. Too often we are only fed two options when both lead to the same result.Original_Intent wrote:I think the argument that supports the statement is to read the Communist Manifesto, read the ten steps to convert a capitalist society to communism, and then ask any conservative group you can find which of the principles they support (not divulging that they are the Communist Manifesto, of course.) I think it would be challenging to find many so-called conservative groups that would not support half of the planks or more.
Left/right, Conservative liberal, and labels such as "Fascism" have been so misused, and I would daresay intentionally over used as to be meaningless. Bush's "conservative" wars become Obama's "liberal" wars, even though they are the same wars being fought in the same manner for the same reasons. It is all partisan nonsense.
I am with NGL, who said in another post that is much clearer to look at things from a "God/Satan" perspective. Both the so-called left and the so called right are an admixture of both. It is much easier and I think wiser to look at individual policies and not label them left or right, conservative or liberal - simply try to discern if it is correct principle or incorrect, according to God's unchanging standard.
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 12983
Re: Today's conservative is yesterday's communist?
Today's pro-family people, if sent back through time to Margaret Sanger's day, would be denounced by Sanger as anti-family.
- Mahonri
- Master
- Posts: 3949
- Location: Where you want to be when crap hits the fan, but I'm not telling.
Re: Today's conservative is yesterday's communist?
Fiannan wrote:Today's pro-family people, if sent back through time to Margaret Sanger's day, would be denounced by Sanger as anti-family.
WOW, that is interesting. Please elaborate.
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 12983
Re: Today's conservative is yesterday's communist?
Okay, I will do my best.Mahonri wrote:Fiannan wrote:Today's pro-family people, if sent back through time to Margaret Sanger's day, would be denounced by Sanger as anti-family.
WOW, that is interesting. Please elaborate.
Today's pro-family movement tends to only focus on being against abortion and being against gay marriage. Here I think is there weakness -- they are AGAINST these two things, but if you ask what they are for they have no true concensus. In fact, even patriotic, LDS people can fall into this trap. But let's focus on the pro-family movement in general.
In the 1920s divorce, even among what passed as the humanists, was seen as quite abhorrent. Yet few, very few, of the pro-family movement would ever support making divorce more difficult to obtain today. They focus on the small minority that would like to enter into a gay marriage and say they will topple western civilization (note: I do not favor gay marriage) while heterosexual divorce is the most severe attack on the family right now.
Today, even among many LDS people, birth control is seen as the norm that you go off of when you have planned out having a kid, and career is seen as a requirement for young women -- almost to the point of idolization. As for men, career also is seen as the most important thing -- while in the 1920s career was seen as a way to provide for your family, not the central aspect of your life that family had to take second place to. It may be hard to realize but birth control before the 1960s was illegal in many states and was seen as selfish. Women did indeed have to work at times, but family came first.
So the average humanist in 1920 was married, had children and never looked forward to a divorce. The average pro-family person today may or may not be married, teaches their daughters that career comes first as well as telling them that two children, someday, is the ideal and will probably change their Facebook profile at least once from married to single.
- Mahonri
- Master
- Posts: 3949
- Location: Where you want to be when crap hits the fan, but I'm not telling.
Re: Today's conservative is yesterday's communist?
very insightful. Thank youFiannan wrote:
Okay, I will do my best.
Today's pro-family movement tends to only focus on being against abortion and being against gay marriage. Here I think is there weakness -- they are AGAINST these two things, but if you ask what they are for they have no true concensus. In fact, even patriotic, LDS people can fall into this trap. But let's focus on the pro-family movement in general.
In the 1920s divorce, even among what passed as the humanists, was seen as quite abhorrent. Yet few, very few, of the pro-family movement would ever support making divorce more difficult to obtain today. They focus on the small minority that would like to enter into a gay marriage and say they will topple western civilization (note: I do not favor gay marriage) while heterosexual divorce is the most severe attack on the family right now.
Today, even among many LDS people, birth control is seen as the norm that you go off of when you have planned out having a kid, and career is seen as a requirement for young women -- almost to the point of idolization. As for men, career also is seen as the most important thing -- while in the 1920s career was seen as a way to provide for your family, not the central aspect of your life that family had to take second place to. It may be hard to realize but birth control before the 1960s was illegal in many states and was seen as selfish. Women did indeed have to work at times, but family came first.
So the average humanist in 1920 was married, had children and never looked forward to a divorce. The average pro-family person today may or may not be married, teaches their daughters that career comes first as well as telling them that two children, someday, is the ideal and will probably change their Facebook profile at least once from married to single.
- Rose Garden
- Don't ask . . .
- Posts: 7031
- Contact:
Re: Today's conservative is yesterday's communist?
I agree. Particularly with the part about women. Obama's campaign site listed that he supported the family. When the details were viewed, he supported government-funded child care, helping women in the workplace, and other such programs that would in fact tear the family apart. "Family" these days is morphing into something that God never intended it to be and it will take all we can do to fight this change and set an example of what a real family is.Fiannan wrote:Okay, I will do my best.Mahonri wrote:Fiannan wrote:Today's pro-family people, if sent back through time to Margaret Sanger's day, would be denounced by Sanger as anti-family.
WOW, that is interesting. Please elaborate.
Today's pro-family movement tends to only focus on being against abortion and being against gay marriage. Here I think is there weakness -- they are AGAINST these two things, but if you ask what they are for they have no true concensus. In fact, even patriotic, LDS people can fall into this trap. But let's focus on the pro-family movement in general.
In the 1920s divorce, even among what passed as the humanists, was seen as quite abhorrent. Yet few, very few, of the pro-family movement would ever support making divorce more difficult to obtain today. They focus on the small minority that would like to enter into a gay marriage and say they will topple western civilization (note: I do not favor gay marriage) while heterosexual divorce is the most severe attack on the family right now.
Today, even among many LDS people, birth control is seen as the norm that you go off of when you have planned out having a kid, and career is seen as a requirement for young women -- almost to the point of idolization. As for men, career also is seen as the most important thing -- while in the 1920s career was seen as a way to provide for your family, not the central aspect of your life that family had to take second place to. It may be hard to realize but birth control before the 1960s was illegal in many states and was seen as selfish. Women did indeed have to work at times, but family came first.
So the average humanist in 1920 was married, had children and never looked forward to a divorce. The average pro-family person today may or may not be married, teaches their daughters that career comes first as well as telling them that two children, someday, is the ideal and will probably change their Facebook profile at least once from married to single.
- ithink
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3210
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Re: Today's conservative is yesterday's communist?
I meant a few things when I said "today's conservative is yesterday's communist". Most have been hit on here. A now deceased patriarch once addressed the congregation thus: "what is the difference between a mormon and a communist?" He answered his own question: "The difference is we believe in god, and they don't".
Almost all Utah is all "conservative". So utah mormons live in a democratic republic, but they never vote for anything but one party? How is that better than communism?
It's political continental drift. So slow you don't notice it until you consult with where you are to where you were. It's called "gradualism" by the elite.
Almost all Utah is all "conservative". So utah mormons live in a democratic republic, but they never vote for anything but one party? How is that better than communism?
It's political continental drift. So slow you don't notice it until you consult with where you are to where you were. It's called "gradualism" by the elite.
- kd7one
- captain of 10
- Posts: 38
- Location: Billings, MT
- Contact:
Re: Today's conservative is yesterday's communist?
One thing I find interesting is that in todays perspective, the 1840 party platform for the Democrats would be considered right wing extremism. Here is where you can find it. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php
- ithink
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3210
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Re: Today's conservative is yesterday's communist?
BINGO! And not just politically, but in virtually every aspect of our culture as well, religion not excluded.kd7one wrote:One thing I find interesting is that in todays perspective, the 1840 party platform for the Democrats would be considered right wing extremism. Here is where you can find it. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php