Tucker Carlson: What is destroying rural America?

[susano]

Thanks for the tip, I'll definitely check it out.

For a broad history, which isn't pro-bolshevik, as most of the histories are, I'd suggest Richard Pipes' The Russian Revolution.

One more for you and seriously alarming:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/15...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

[r3volution 3.0]

One more for you and seriously alarming:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/15...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

From the description:

Ryszard Legutko lived and suffered under communism for decades—and he fought with the Polish ant-communist movement to abolish it. Having lived for two decades under a liberal democracy, however, he has discovered that these two political systems have a lot more in common than one might think. They both stem from the same historical roots in early modernity

That's certainly true; one need only look at the way that American/British historians treat the history of communism to see where sympathies lie.

And then there are terms like "industrial democracy."

What does that mean I wonder...

[susano]

Ah, that reminds me, there's an interesting book called Former People, about the life (or otherwise) of the old aristocracy post-revolution. It's built around excerpts of the diaries of members of several important families (or families which were important before being declared non-people). History in general is often unsavory, the story of conquest and what follows, but I have never read anything as shockingly inhuman as what I've read about the bolshevik revolution, or the French.

Thank you and I'll get that, too.

I've only read a tiny bit, online, about the French revolution. Surprisingly, IIRC, one of the best pieces was the Wikipedia entry on Marie Antointette which I followed some of the hyperlinks on. I'd have to say it was an orgy of blood and our commie poster here should know they turned on each other, as well, chopping heads like ISIS.

[PRB]

There seems to be some confusion; allow me to clarify:

1. You endorse an ideology fit only for chimpanzees, which has a huge amount of blood and misery on its hands.

you're thinking capitalism

[r3volution 3.0]

Thank you and I'll get that, too.

I've only read a tiny bit, online, about the French revolution. Surprisingly, IIRC, one of the best pieces was the Wikipedia entry on Marie Antointette which I followed some of the hyperlinks on. I'd have to say it was an orgy of blood and our commie poster here should know they turned on each other, as well, chopping heads like ISIS.

Try The French Revolution: A Study In Democracy, by Nesta Webster

The bolsheviks and every other 19th/20th century revolutionary socialist group was intimately familiar with the French revolution.

The jacobins, the French revolutionary socialists, were their heroes.

This article may also be of interest:

https://mises.org/library/messianic-...nt-reformation

[r3volution 3.0]

you're thinking capitalism

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[susano]

From the description:



That's certainly true; one need only look at the way that American/British historians treat the history of communism to see where sympathies lie.

And then there are terms like "industrial democracy."

What does that mean I wonder...

I'm just reading that book now. I'll need to read it twice. I had, on my own, observed the similarities of the two systems but he breaks it all down into the ways and whys and it's a lot to absorb. I wish I were better versed in history (and had a better memory!) because there are always references to subjects I know next to nothing about like modernism and the Enlightenment (which he is also critical of).

I don't know much and much of what I do know instinctual and I know that all forms of liberlism leads to spiritual and moral degradation. Michael Savage is right. It's a mental disorder (with it's roots in the spiritual).

[susano]

Try The French Revolution: A Study In Democracy, by Nesta Webster

The bolsheviks and every other 19th/20th century revolutionary socialist group was intimately familiar with the French revolution.

The jacobins, the French revolutionary socialists, were their heroes.

This article may also be of interest:

https://mises.org/library/messianic-...nt-reformation

Thanks, again, and yes, I did read about the Jacobins and Robospierre. Harrowing sh*t.

I've seen claims that the French revolution was inspired by Freemasons. I don't recall if it came up in the info I read on the actual history but I'm guessing that's accurate. There seems to be a strong connection between communism and Freemasonry, particularly the French variety.

[r3volution 3.0]

Thanks, again, and yes, I did read about the Jacobins and Robospierre. Harrowing sh*t.

I've seen claims that the French revolution was inspired by Freemasons. I don't recall if it came up in the info I read on the actual history but I'm guessing that's accurate. There seems to be a strong connection between communism and Freemasonry, particularly the French variety.

That's debatable, Webster sort of takes that position, which may or may not be correct. Several of them were probably not only freemasons, but of lodges associated with the old German Illuminati; but that's speculative and doesn't really matter at the end of the day. There were several factions in 1789. One was that of the Duke of Orleans, close blood relative of the King, who was trying to stage a simple palace coup d'etat, as had occurred hundreds of times in various European countries for centuries. He wanted to get rid of Louis XVI, who was perceived as something of a weak King, and take the throne himself. The Duke literally paid cash to many of the early rioters in Paris - paid them to riot. But the Duke opened Pandora's box, created a lot of chaos, which opened the door to the second group, the anarchists/communists. This was a motley group, consisting of both organized communist revolutionaries like Robespierre and his associates, on the one hand, and also psychotics recently released from the nuthouse (literally) like the Marquis de Sade (from which we get the term sadism). When they organized their attacks on the city authorities, Louis XVI blinked, not wanting to shoot his own subjects, though he could and should have shot these ones. And the rest is history.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm just reading that book now. I'll need to read it twice. I had, on my own, observed the similarities of the two systems but he breaks it all down into the ways and whys and it's a lot to absorb. I wish I were better versed in history (and had a better memory!) because there are always references to subjects I know next to nothing about like modernism and the Enlightenment (which he is also critical of).

I don't know much and much of what I do know instinctual and I know that all forms of liberlism leads to spiritual and moral degradation. Michael Savage is right. It's a mental disorder (with it's roots in the spiritual).

I tend to think the other way: that spiritual and moral degradation and vapidity leads to liberalism.

Either way, it tends to prove the point, once again, that only a morally, spiritually, mentally and ethnically healthy society can remain free and enlightened.

The history of the Jacobins is eye popping, and even worse, how similar our current situation is to what was then.

All it will take is a modern day Robespierre to light these $#@!s off and have then start another "Reign of Terror".

[susano]

Try The French Revolution: A Study In Democracy, by Nesta Webster

The bolsheviks and every other 19th/20th century revolutionary socialist group was intimately familiar with the French revolution.

The jacobins, the French revolutionary socialists, were their heroes.

This article may also be of interest:

https://mises.org/library/messianic-...nt-reformation

Opened the book, picked one random page (268), started reading and three heads on pikes brought into the Assembly.

Looks like a great read. Gonna buy a hard copy.

[Anti Federalist]

That's debatable, Webster sort of takes that position, which may or may not be correct. Several of them were probably not only freemasons, but of lodges associated with the old German Illuminati; but that's speculative and doesn't really matter at the end of the day. There were several factions in 1789. One was that of the Duke of Orleans, close blood relative of the King, who was trying to stage a simple palace coup d'etat, as had occurred hundreds of times in various European countries for centuries. He wanted to get rid of Louis XVI, who was perceived as something of a weak King, and take the throne himself. The Duke literally paid cash to many of the early rioters in Paris - paid them to riot. But the Duke opened Pandora's box, created a lot of chaos, which opened the door to the second group, the anarchists/communists. This was a motley group, consisting of both organized communist revolutionaries like Robespierre and his associates, on the one hand, and also psychotics recently released from the nuthouse (literally) like the Marquis de Sade (from which we get the term sadism). When they organized their attacks on the city authorities, Louis XVI blinked, not wanting to shoot his own subjects, though he could and should have shot these ones. And the rest is history.

Imagine that...where have I heard of that before?

[r3volution 3.0]

Opened the book, picked one random page (268), started reading and three heads on pikes brought into the Assembly.

Looks like a great read. Gonna buy a hard copy.

I'd also recommend Simon Schama's Citizens.

It's not as interesting as Webster's, but it provides useful historical context about the French revolution.

If you're not very familiar with figures like Voltaire or Rousseau or their influence, this will be helpful.

[r3volution 3.0]

Imagine that...where have I heard of that before?

Nothing new under the sun..

[susano]

That's debatable, Webster sort of takes that position, which may or may not be correct. Several of them were probably not only freemasons, but of lodges associated with the old German Illuminati; but that's speculative and doesn't really matter at the end of the day. There were several factions in 1789. One was that of the Duke of Orleans, close blood relative of the King, who was trying to stage a simple palace coup d'etat, as had occurred hundreds of times in various European countries for centuries. He wanted to get rid of Louis XVI, who was perceived as something of a weak King, and take the throne himself. The Duke literally paid cash to many of the early rioters in Paris - paid them to riot. But the Duke opened Pandora's box, created a lot of chaos, which opened the door to the second group, the anarchists/communists. This was a motley group, consisting of both organized communist revolutionaries like Robespierre and his associates, on the one hand, and also psychotics recently released from the nuthouse (literally) like the Marquis de Sade (from which we get the term sadism). When they organized their attacks on the city authorities, Louis XVI blinked, not wanting to shoot his own subjects, though he could and should have shot these ones. And the rest is history.

So interesting and I do remember reading about the Duke (but had forgotten until you reminded me) and the other factions/communists/anarchists/degenerates. I never knew the Marquis de Sade was was there, too! Somewhere, I have his book, Justine. Very old and got it my mothers friend who bought it as a curiosity of infamy. 40 years ago, I read some of it but could not read on because it was that horrible. I kept it, though, out of historical significance. It has to be one of the best examples of twisted liberal degeneracy and frightening cruelty ever written. More alarming is that exactly where liberals are taking human sexuality, RIGHT NOW.

[susano]

I tend to think the other way: that spiritual and moral degradation and vapidity leads to liberalism.

Either way, it tends to prove the point, once again, that only a morally, spiritually, mentally and ethnically healthy society can remain free and enlightened.

The history of the Jacobins is eye popping, and even worse, how similar our current situation is to what was then.

All it will take is a modern day Robespierre to light these $#@!s off and have then start another "Reign of Terror".

Chicken or egg and, you're right, it's hard to say but undeniably so. Having come of age in the liberal, anything goes 70s, I never even dreamed this was the ONLY trajectory and it took years of like experience and maturity to understand the magnitude of the evil that was unleashed.

I often wonder how western culture gets it's spiritual foundation back and I don't how that will play out but believe it will out of sheer revulsion at what's been unleased.

[r3volution 3.0]

That's not Louis XVI (of France), that's Charles I (of England) - the first victim of the revolution.

...which is older than you think.

[susano]

Imagine that...where have I heard of that before?

Soros

It seems that Soros believes he was anointed by God. “I fancied myself as some kind of god ...” he once wrote. “If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble.”

When asked by Britain’s Independent newspaper to elaborate on that passage, Soros said, “It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.”

"I am something unnatural. I’m very comfortable with my public persona because it is one I have created for myself. It represents what I like to be as distinct from what I really am. You know, in my personal capacity I’m not actually a selfless philanthropic person. I’ve very much self-centered."

“Next to my fantasies about being God, I also have very strong fantasies of being mad”

In his book, “Soros on Soros,” he says: “I do not accept the rules imposed by others.... And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.”

50%

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...ld4-story.html




In his poem Human Pride, Marx admits that his aim is not to improve the world, reform or revolutionize it, but simply to ruin it and enjoy it being ruined:

With disdain I will throw my gauntlet full in the face of the world,
And see the collapse of this pygmy giant whose fall will not stifle my ardor.
Then will I wander godlike and victorious through the ruins of the world
And, giving my words an active force, I will feel equal to the Creator.

[r3volution 3.0]

So interesting and I do remember reading about the Duke (but had forgotten until you reminded me) and the other factions/communists/anarchists/degenerates. I never knew the Marquis de Sade was was there, too! Somewhere, I have his book, Justine. Very old and got it my mothers friend who bought it as a curiosity of infamy. 40 years ago, I read some of it but could not read on because it was that horrible. I kept it, though, out of historical significance. It has to be one of the best examples of twisted liberal degeneracy and frightening cruelty ever written. More alarming is that exactly where liberals are taking human sexuality, RIGHT NOW.

If there's to be a single list of problems in our culture, the Marquis de Sade is right at the tippy top.

I mean, think about it this way; they had to invent a new word to describe how deranged this son of a bitch was.

[susano]

I'd also recommend Simon Schama's Citizens.

It's not as interesting as Webster's, but it provides useful historical context about the French revolution.

If you're not very familiar with figures like Voltaire or Rousseau or their influence, this will be helpful.

Thank you so much for all of the recommendations. I've saved each at Amazon and will order all of them. I'm gonna have to tear myself away from the computer to read them.

I read history and always absorb the greater story and big picture but remembering all of the details is difficult and they're important for making connections and providing foundation.

[susano]

If there's to be a single list of problems in our culture, the Marquis de Sade is right at the tippy top.

I mean, think about it this way; they had to invent a new word to describe how deranged this son of a bitch was.

I'm surprised it's not required reading in our Marxist universities. If not yet, it probably will be - and as something exciting to explore for the mush brains.

[susano]

That's not Louis XVI (of France), that's Charles I (of England) - the first victim of the revolution.

...which is older than you think.

Define "the revolution" as you're speaking of it here. My thought is it's Lucifer and the fallen angels (speaking of going way back).

[susano]

anti-semitic much?

:shrug:

It is what it is.

[susano]

So what? if i share their ideology I have to be blamed for their failure, right?

Why have you chosen to adopt that ideology? What do you find appealing about it?

[r3volution 3.0]

Define "the revolution" as you're speaking of it here. My thought is it's Lucifer and the fallen angels (speaking of going way back).

Well, thoughts of Lucifer are not misplaced.

In 1649 some English traitors (roundheads), after some years of civil war, hanged their good and rightful king, King Charles I.

Said the King from the scaffold:

"For the people. And truly I desire their Liberty and Freedom as much as any Body whomsoever. But I must tell you, That their Liberty and Freedom, consists in having of Government; those Laws, by which their Life and their goods may be most their own. It is not for having share in government (Sir) that is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things, and therefore until they do that, I mean, that you do put the people in that liberty as I say, certainly they will never enjoy themselves. Sirs, It was for this that now I Am come here. If I would have given way to an Arbitrary way, for to have all Laws changed according to the power of the Sword, I needed not to have come here; and therefore, I tell you, (and I pray God it be not laid to your charge) That I Am the Martyr of the People."

Charles I, January 30, 1649

And that was the start of the revolution.

This English example affected everyplace in Europe, including ultimately France.

[susano]

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

[r3volution 3.0]

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

That seems a fitting illustration.

[Anti Federalist]

Well, thoughts of Lucifer are not misplaced.

In 1649 some English traitors (roundheads), after some years of civil war, hanged their good and rightful king, King Charles I.

Said the King from the scaffold:



Charles I, January 30, 1649

And that was the start of the revolution.

This English example affected everyplace in Europe, including ultimately France.

One of the many reasons that prompted the men in Boston to do what they did.

[r3volution 3.0]

One of the many reasons that prompted the men in Boston to do what they did.

Bang their cousins, and regret that Swedes arrived here first?

[susano]

Sorokin predicted in the 1930s that values would continue to be undermined, would become more and more influenced by relativistic thinking, would lose their binding power, and would be "ground to dust."[36] Distinctions between right and wrong, true and false, beautiful and ugly, and positive and negative would more and more disappear in the opaque and chaotic world of crumbling Sensate culture, he claimed. His predictions have proven accurate. Not only are huge numbers of people incapable of telling right from wrong, but so, too, are elected officials, judges, journalists, and even many clergymen. A quick glance at modern art, modern musical fare, movies, and television programming also shows that the borderlines between the beautiful and the ugly, the positive and the negative, have been erased.

Sorokin asserted that man himself, in the declining modern world, would become more materialistic and less spiritually minded. Science, he said, would seek to strip life of its sacred character, and humankind would become increasingly debased and sensual. Most people would "sink still deeper into the muck of the sociocultural sewers" and would be "progressively destructive rather than constructive, representing in their totality a museum of sociocultural pathology rather than the imperishable values of the Kingdom of God." The ancient place of true religion in society would tend to be replaced by pseudo-religions.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...=firefox-b-1-d