It was twenty-five years ago America defeated communism and any ideas of socialism with it. Yet, here we are today with a serious Democratic candidate arguing, successfully, for socialism in America. Isn't that rather amazing? I find this relieving as opposed to the rather constant pessimism hereabouts about the human spirit/condition/nature.

Times are changing for America, possibly for the better?

EDIT: Wow, I must be high. I first wrote 16. Had to revise that to 25. I guess I can't do math. Haha. — Question

I find it sad that some Americans have failed to learn from the Soviet experiment with socialism and communism. Alas, I think it's safe to say that Bernie Sanders stands virtually no chance to win against Hillary, or in the general election. This flirtation with socialism is a one-time event.

The USSR began from a very long tradition of authoritarian, sometimes savage, Czarist autocracy and the Communists continued the fine tradition. Did the United States "defeat" the USSR, leading up to it's collapse in 1989-1990, or did it collapse from within? I'm not sure.

Sanders may be a socialist, but he isn't proposing socialism as the theme of his highly unlikely (but not impossible yet) administration. Without a socialist movement--a party, experienced party personnel, a program, a history--there can be no socialist reform, and there is no socialist movement, personnel, program, or history.

Sanders is proposing certain democratic reforms--all to the good. But let's not go overboard on what he would wish to do or be able to do.

I would like to see a successful socialist movement, party, personnel, program, and history. Small groups of dedicated people have worked on trying to build such a movement over the last century and more, everybody from the early anarchists, the IWW, Socialist Party, SWP, Socialist Labor, New Union Party, CP-USA, and so on. I worked on one of these efforts for a couple of decades, on and off, and it is very tough going.

It isn't that socialist organizers get hostile responses, they don't get ANY response.

Bernie's ideas would be center left in Canada, in fact they pretty much coincide with Justin Trudeau's. The socialism implied here is quite compatible with a vibrant capitalism. Unfortunately, Hillary is right that you can't implement single payer Medicare without willing partners in the states and given the enormous lobbying efforts of the insurance and drug companies. The real task of the moment is to re-shape the supreme court.

Yes, the SCOTUS is key, and it needs a couple more liberal judges, at least. By "liberal" i mean, understanding that the constitution was framed in 1776, the founders addressed the situation as they saw it in 1776 (figuratively speaking), and 200+ years later, possibly -- just possibly -- new circumstances abolish old certainties. By "liberal" I mean taking the position that corporations are not persons with rights to behave as they wish; that individuals and organizations who control a great deal of money shouldn't be able to sped any amount of money as they see fit on political campaigns. And so on...

The SCOTUS is key because we can't count on the bowels of congress moving in an orderly fashion in the next few terms, as long as the far right maintains enough strength in office. (People should not be predicting the demise of the Republican Party. It isn't going anywhere in the near future. Alas, alas O...)

Democrats and Republicans both have behaved in such a way to demoralize the active voting citizenry, so fewer and fewer people are participating in elections. That doesn't favor liberals, usually. The POTUS and SCOTUS are thus the bulwark holding back the corrosive reactionaries.

Yes, the SCOTUS is key, and it needs a couple more liberal judges, at least. By "liberal" i mean, understanding that the constitution was framed in 1776, the founders addressed the situation as they saw it in 1776 (figuratively speaking), and 200+ years later, possibly -- just possibly -- new circumstances abolish old certainties. By "liberal" I mean taking the position that corporations are not persons with rights to behave as they wish; that individuals and organizations who control a great deal of money shouldn't be able to sped any amount of money as they see fit on political campaigns. And so on... — Bitter Crank

Traditions should not be abolished for foolish reasons. What reasons do we have to put in "liberal" judges?

Why are all these topics on this board? Mainstream American politics is not philosophy, even political philosophy.

Because we don't live in 1776 anymore and it turns out that almost every idea rich white people had were bad ideas that should be shredded and thrown into a nuclear waste dump?

Didn't the OP place it under the "Politics and Current Affairs" section?

Because we don't live in 1776 anymore and it turns out that almost every idea rich white people had were bad ideas that should be shredded and thrown into a nuclear waste dump? — discoii

I hear this childish remark all the time: we don't live in 1776, or we don't live in the Middle Ages anymore, etc. etc. Of course. But what does this have to do with our conservative tradition, which is what made us great in the first place? You know, without those rich white people that you hate, you wouldn't even have the nuclear waste dump to throw their ideas into. Where has the respect gone in today's world?

People somehow think this is a shut-down answer. It has been a progressive meme for far too long, and it's absolutely stupid. Just because we're not in 1776 doesn't mean I should stop using Newton's laws when designing a house! In fact, quite the contrary, I should use them, because they are working and they have a great track record. So does religion, so do our traditional values, which by the way, were endorsed by 90%+ thinkers in history, including atheists, very important.

Why do you think that virtually all the major religions have promoted the same values? (for example, all religions see homosexual sex as immoral and damaging to the one who engages in it... yes, even Buddhism, and progressives have been very annoyed when Dalai Lama has stated this). Why has Epicurus, Lucretius, and the atheists promoted virtually the same values as the religious people across the whole world? You know why? Because those values work, and those values make our societies work. Without virtue, nothing, all the stars and the galaxies of this universe, all the plants, the animals and the beautiful people, all is as nothing!

Here's the thing: America has almost never been 'great' for brown people or most poor white people. So, the benefits that you received have almost all gone to you and no one else. I'd advise you drop the entire notion of America being great. America was built on the back of slaves, and today it is profiting off the back of world-slavery. People living in it are unhealthy, in debt, and distracted by nonsense. How is that great? The fact is that it isn't all that great. There are greater places. I don't respect lies.

As for scientific advances, you can't just stroll on down and give all credit to rich white people. These advances came from thousands of years of effort from people globally, and didn't require divine right rule, slavery, or any of that other nonsense to come into fruition.

Here's the thing: America has almost never been 'great' for brown people or most poor white people. So, the benefits that you received have almost all gone to you and no one else. I'd advise you drop the entire notion of America being great. America was built on the back of slaves, and today it is profiting off the back of world-slavery. People living in it are unhealthy, in debt, and distracted by nonsense. How is that great? The fact is that it isn't all that great. There are greater places I don't respect lies. — discoii

Yes it has. There's many brown, black, Asian and all other colors and races that have done well in America. The period of slavery was an unfortuante period in history, but you cannot keep blaming that forever from now on for the condition of people. Slavery has ended. And some people have done amazingly well. There's many black millionaires in the US, people of color, people who have worked really hard to do something great for themselves and for their communities. There are many black people today who aren't doing well - that is true. But that to a large degree is the result of the environment they have grown in, combined with the wrong choices that they have made.

As for scientific advances, you can't just stroll on down and give all credit to rich white people. These advances came from thousands of years of effort from people globally, and didn't require divine right rule, slavery, or any of that other nonsense to come into fruition. — discoii

Well these advances did come from rich people, full stop. Only rich (not white, but rich - we've had some amazing geniuses coming from other parts of the world, especially China, India and the Middle East) people have ever had the time to be thinkers and scientists. Everyone else has been pre-occupied with the jobs of daily life, and this isn't something bad - the world can't be full of scientists and nothing else. So you should at least be thankful for these people, and realise that a large part of the good that you share in today is due to rich people. Sure, rich people have also done a lot of harm to the lower social classes, but that doesn't mean there was no good.

People living in it are unhealthy, in debt, and distracted by nonsense. How is that great? The fact is that it isn't all that great. There are greater places. I don't respect lies. — discoii

Yes it is not great anymore because it has lost virtue, and by losing virtue it has lost everything worth having. That's why people need a MORAL education first and foremost... they need to learn about the sins of gluttony for example, then they will no longer spend their money on food that makes them fat. They need to learn discipline, courage, integrity... then America will indeed be great again!

"Conservatives" have no monopoly on legal traditions. There are, side by side, liberal traditions and conservative traditions. Conservative courts are as likely to abolish someone's preferred traditional interpretation as liberal courts are.

Conservatives" have no monopoly on legal traditions. There are, side by side, liberal traditions and conservative traditions. Conservative courts are as likely to abolish someone's preferred traditional interpretation as liberal courts are. — Bitter Crank

There is no progressive tradition (at least not until the socialists like Marx). Such a thing does not exist. Liberal is a conservative word, applied to conservatives like John Locke, who thought that people should have individual freedoms for themselves. Of course this does not mean that traditions are not valuable and should not be kept, but rather that people should not be punished by law for disagreeing with them.

At the moment I can't decide which one of you is more annoying in this so-far brief discussion

it turns out that almost every idea rich white people had were bad ideas — discoii

There is no progressive tradition. Such a thing does not exist. — Agustino

These are not creditable views. Are you two conspiring to correct the errors of our ways by burning the library down?

Where did liberte, egalite, fraternite originate, if not from the poor of Europe, or the anarchic tribes of Africa, America, Arabia, and Asia? We would not have even the proposition egalite if it weren't for poor people. In fact, it seems like all America got was liberte, if that, and of course, fraternite among the likes of Vanderbilt and Carnegie. Was the American constitution (the good parts) itself not drawn, in a huge part, from the Iroquois? What did the 'Founding Fathers' (genocidal psychopaths, the lot of them) contribute to humanity? While they were drawing up this constitution to preserve their own prolonged power, they were applying the opposite principles in digging mass graves for the continent that they were consciously trying to empty out, so that their Empire of Liberty may stand. When the Haitians revolted, they intervened to try to stop Blacks from being free. Let's look at the first Black president of Mexico, who was assassinated: he immediately freed all the slaves! The pedophile Thomas Jefferson was still raping a 14 year old black slave. These are not the actions of brilliant, virtuous individuals. Rather, they were just articulate versions of Donald Trump and other political figures we see on television today: freedom leaves their mouths as they pass another New Jim Crow law. All their idiotic ideas must be repealed legally. Even the slave-freeing amendment puts in a loophole so that these assholes can keep using slave labor from prison labor. Then, as you know as well as I, these assholes then passed the Jim Crow laws, effectively extending slavery until the present.

I repeat: no good political ideas that came out of the rich white men that founded the United States are there as ways to advance humanity as a whole, but these good ideas, free speech, religious freedom, originated from poor and oppressed peoples--not those assholes. The ideas that did come from them was to couple these ideas of freedom and liberty with slavery and imperialism--the paradoxical oppression that lingers and stays with us until this very day. Once again, the proof is in the pudding: America has been at war since its founding the the present, no hiccups, only strongarming and war-mongering. America is a nation of brutes as leaders... well-dressed brutes, to be sure, but blood drenches from their shiny shoes.

Once again, for the last 500 years of human history, the least trustworthy and the most brutal of all people were rich white men. Ideas that advanced humanity, brought humanity forward, were found among the poor and downtrodden, who conspired against them. They slowly incorporated these ideas, filtering out the good parts, and keeping them in name in legal form, while slowly forming an apparatus around them so that these human tendencies towards freedom can be controlled.

And I should be thankful for Newton, Leibniz, Wittgenstein, Hume? What of all the poor and dead thinkers, probably better thinkers--who knows?--whose potential was stifled through the hierarchy? What of these poor and dead thinkers that influenced the likes of Rousseau, Voltaire, and even the lord-sage of American 18-19th century political philosophy Thomas Paine? These poor don't get the credit, but these rich assholes didn't just come up with ideas about equality among humans out of a vacuum. Nor was it their intention to ever follow through with it.

We have a tendency to assign credit to these men, but the fact is that they drew from the work of others. Oh, these are great men, they say. They are brilliant men, one of a kind! Well, to hell with that, the mere existence of great men in oppressive societies means the stifling of millions of other great humans. I will take their ideas, and be rid of their names and association, because we are still living the rich white male hierarchy, and this sort of credit-giving continues the narrative that we are supposed to live, after systematic white-washing over generations.

Where did liberte, egalite, fraternite originate, if not from the poor of Europe, or the anarchic tribes of Africa, America, Arabia, and Asia? — discoii

From the French Revolution, which by the way, for your information, was not started by the poor people. It was started by people like Georges Danton and Maximillien Robespierre (who by the way was the first to use the words liberte egalite fraternite) who came from well-to-do, respectable families - not wealthy, but nevertheless well-off, noble families. Robespierre's grandfather for example was a well-known lawyer at the time. So let's see how virtuous Robespierre was... yeah, he ordered people to be killed by the guillotine ...

We would not have even the proposition egalite if it weren't for poor people. — discoii

Nope, political philosophy, including the idea of equality, originated in the writings of rich people.

Vanderbilt and Carnegie — discoii

What does the Vanderbilt/Carnegie family own in the US today? :) They're not even in the billionaire list :) ...

These are not the actions of brilliant, virtuous individuals. — discoii

A leader has good and bad parts. People aren't perfect. Many of those leaders (including the Founding Fathers) were certainly much better than any of the modern leaders including Bush, Obama, Clinton, etc. This is after we include their defects in the analysis.

I repeat: no good political ideas that came out of the rich white men that founded the United States are there as ways to advance humanity as a whole, but these good ideas, free speech, religious freedom, originated from poor and oppressed peoples--not those assholes. — discoii

This is just historically false. Sorry to have to put it this bluntly. I understand that you may be upset, but it's just not true.

Once again, for the last 500 years of human history, the least trustworthy and the most brutal of all people were rich white men. Ideas that advanced humanity, brought humanity forward, were found among the poor and downtrodden, who conspired against them. They slowly incorporated these ideas, filtering out the good parts, and keeping them in name in legal form, while slowly forming an apparatus around them so that these human tendencies towards freedom can be controlled. — discoii

This is very socialistic, but I DOUBT even BC will agree with you, and we all know his motto is "workers of the world, unite!" :P ....

Again, this is simply untrue. The poor generally did not have the time to think and develop ideas. It's just the way things were. But most poor people through history have been respectful towards the rich, and have been grateful for what they had. Progressives like to throw stones at the rich, but if it wasn't for the rich, they wouldn't have anything they have today. They would still be playing with bows and arrows...

And I should be thankful for Newton, Leibniz, Wittgenstein, Hume? What of all the poor and dead thinkers, probably better thinkers--who knows?--whose potential was stifled through the hierarchy? — discoii

Yes, you should be thankful to those thinkers. The poor and dead thinkers that you want have never existed. Poor people work to get food, they don't have time to think. They were out there ploughing the fields, they didn't have time to sit down, learn to read and write, study philosophy, and develop ideas... You think the rich have a hatred for the poor or something. But this is not true...

There is nothing bad with this though. Being poor is not the worst thing that can happen. Lacking virtue is worse than lacking money.

What does the Vanderbilt/Carnegie family own in the US today? :) They're not even in the billionaire list :) ... — Agustino

It didn't disappear.

Your question is simple, but the answer is complex -- I'll just scratch at it. There is a lot of information out there about who earned the big piles of money, and how that fortune has flowed over the decades.

Even when there aren't any rich heirs, many of the rich people left behind large land holdings, urban real estate, and so forth that passed into the hands of the state, the church, universities, and so on. Frequently these properties have been preserved as state parks, museums, schools, etc. In New York, for instance, the Empire State Building was built on land owned by the Astor Family. (John Jacob Astor, et al) A couple of early New York City (hey -- New Amsterdam!) families still own quite a few parcels of land on which big buildings sit.

What happened to all their money?

Many of the very rich men of the late 19th early 20th century set up foundations into which a substantial portion of their filthy lucre was poured, then the income from the funds directed to be used for philanthropic, benevolent purposes. Ford Foundation is a good example. Over the generations since the death of the Original Accumulator, the fortunes have been diluted -- spread out over an ever larger number of heirs.

Rockefeller: (oil - Standard Oil) a large amount of Rockefeller went into buying the land for, and building Rockefeller Center. It was a huge outlay. Begum in 1929, about, it didn't make any money at all for the first 15 years. Now it is quite profitable. The rest of the money? Willed to successive generations of, reducing each descendent's share. Quite a bit of it went into the Rockefeller Foundation and The Rockefeller University (a graduate medicine research institution) and Rockefeller Hospital.

Vanderbilt: Their fortune was made in railroads like the New York Central -- now merged into some multiply successive corporation. However, they made a lot. The Vanderbilt's farm was the 146,000 acre Biltmore estate in North Carolina. They bought and built a lot of real estate. Some of it is still kicking around. The rest of the money? Willed to successive generations of, reducing each descendent's share.

Carnegie: (railroads, coal, shipping, and steel) Proportionately, Carnegie was richer than Bill Gates. He decided to give away his fortune when he retired and discovered it was difficult to give it away fast enough -- income kept coming in. Carnie funded all sorts of institutions -- the endowment still does -- like libraries in small towns across the country (2,508 libraries around the English speaking world); Carnegie Mellon University is a descendent. Numerous churches and colleges were beneficiaries. Carnegie Hall in NYC; Carnegie Library and Carnegie Museum of Pittsburgh; Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland; Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C.--contributing to, among other things, hybrid corn, radar, the technology that led to Pyrex® glass, and novel techniques to control genes called RNA interference; 2 of the big telescopes in Chile are Carnegie Institution beneficiaries; Carnegie Foundation in The Hague; The Carnegie Dunfermline Trust, Scotland; Carnegie Hero Fund Commission; The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (TIAA-CREF, professors retirement fund was started by this foundation; TIAA is now worth about $350,000,000,000--not from Carnegie, of course; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Carnegie Corporation of New York -- set up to distribute philanthropic funds. The United Kingdom Trust; Carnegie Council for Ethics on International Affairs;

Here are some large foundations:

1.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (WA)
$44,320,862,806 (Microsoft)

2.
Ford Foundation (NY)
12,400,460,000 (cars)

3.
J. Paul Getty Trust (CA)
11,982,862,131 (oil)

4.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (NJ)
10,501,370,521

5.
Lilly Endowment Inc. (IN)
9,995,102,248 (pharmaceuticals)

6.
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (CA)
9,042,503,000 (technology)

7.
W. K. Kellogg Foundation (MI)
8,621,183,526 (breakfast foods)

8.
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation (CA)
7,084,903,284 (technology)

9.
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (CA)
6,559,384,939

10.
Bloomberg Philanthropies (NY)
6,550,282,874 (business data)

Once again, for the last 500 years of human history, the least trustworthy and the most brutal of all people were rich white men — discoii

Been reading Chomsky lately?

Look, I'm well aware of the historical bloody mess we've left behind us, but Discoii, there are no human societies on earth who have not left a bloody mess behind them. I am not claiming that bloody messes are a necessary companion of civilization's triumphant progress. You've read Guns, Germs, and Steel -- there are reasons why the white devils in the Middle East flourished as they moved west out of the ME and into Europe. They happened to have material advantages granted by geography, botany, and their predecessors who domesticated wheat.

Was the American constitution (the good parts) itself not drawn, in a huge part, from the Iroquois? — discoii

Well, no -- I don't think it was. Franklin was aware of the Iroquois political arrangements, and the Iroquois were aware of us, and there was some communication between the two. Do you think the founding genocidalistas would have looked to the people they were busy killing for political ideas? Seems unlikely. I think they probably looked to their own political documents (like the Magna Carta) for inspiration. There were many features of the matrilineal Iroquois that were quite dissimilar to Anglo-American political experience. Yes, the Iroquois had cooperative political institutions, but cooperative political institutions have been invented in many places and times all over the world.

Where did liberte, egalite, fraternite originate, if not from the poor of Europe, or the anarchic tribes of Africa, America, Arabia, and Asia? — discoii

Arabia! Africa? Asia? Surely you jest. It isn't racist or imperialist, or any number of nameable and unnameable sins to locate the 1700's leading proponents of Liberté, égalité, & fraternité in Paris rather than Timbuktu.

The Declaration of independence was written in 1776 (you know this, I know). The Constitution was wrapped up in 1788, after the clunky Articles of Confederation. The French Revolution ran from 1789 - 1799. We had finished the foundation work before the French blew up.

Once again, for the last 500 years of human history, the least trustworthy and the most brutal of all people were rich white men. Ideas that advanced humanity, brought humanity forward, were found among the poor and downtrodden, who conspired against them. They slowly incorporated these ideas, filtering out the good parts, and keeping them in name in legal form, while slowly forming an apparatus around them so that these human tendencies towards freedom can be controlled. — discoii

Locating the heart of brutality in white men (setting aside "rich" for now) seems quite racist. I'm surprised you would say such a thing. All men are brothers, all men are bastards, and their sisters are all bitches. We are all alike in our capacities for goodness and vileness, and whatever has been done in one corner of the world has been done in the other corners as well. You don't want to fall into the trap of supposing "the superior virtue of the oppressed" (Bertrand Russell--another privileged white male).

Well, yes: there has to be a relationship between the lives of ordinary people and the ideas of thinkers, writers, leaders. Take the civil rights, peace, gay liberation, union organizing, and women's equality movements: All of these movements had leaders, writers, organizers, thinkers... who developed and promulgated ideas. If they weren't picked up by the masses and put into practice, and if the masses' practices were not reflected in the thinking of leaders, the whole thing would be a sterile exercise.

Ordinary women, ordinary blacks, ordinary gays, ordinary working people, ordinary students both initiated, resonated to, and responded with the ideas that leaders, writers, thinkers, and organizers worked with. There has to be a continuous interplay between the rank and file and the leadership. An eloquent educated speaker may call for the right of blacks to vote in Alabama, but it is rather ordinary people who are going to walk into the polling sites. Academics may lay out why gay people should be free from discrimination, but it is ordinary gay men going about their gay business that forces the issue on the public. Housewives who don't read philosophy were the women who got jobs in mostly male factories and learned to operate machinery and tools. It is striking workers, not labor theorists, who are going to get canned.

Both sides are needed: the small coterie of idea mongers and the large rank and file of riff raff who shake the foundations by their choices made en masse.

We have a tendency to assign credit to these men, but the fact is that they drew from the work of others. Oh, these are great men, they say. They are brilliant men, one of a kind! Well, to hell with that, the mere existence of great men in oppressive societies means the stifling of millions of other great humans. I will take their ideas, and be rid of their names and association, because we are still living the rich white male hierarchy, and this sort of credit-giving continues the narrative that we are supposed to live, after systematic white-washing over generations. — discoii

For god's sake, of course they drew from the work of others. Culture is one big plagiarism racket, don't you know. Endless borrowing cum theft.

We can't help it that some of the people who have good ideas also have the considerable wherewithal it takes to get their ideas down on paper, published, reviewed favorably, and passed into the general stream of culture. You know what, I'm sure all three of us -- Discoli, Bittercrank, and Agustino have all had great ideas every now and then, but it wasn't within our power to get it down on paper, published, reviewed favorably, and passed into the cultural stream.

Some hot-shot go-getter who may not be as smart but is glib and can type fast will have the same idea (or more likely, steal it from us) and will become famous. Not rich if he steals my ideas -- I never think of good money making schemes, and have never recognized one when I saw it. But I've had good ideas. So have you two.

And sometimes, hate to admit it, people get their books written because they work harder at it than my esteemed self does, and maybe they don't even lead a life of quiet desperation, like me. SOBs.

the mere existence of great men in oppressive societies means the stifling of millions of other great humans. — discoii

I see you've surmised that life really sucks. Quite right, it does. Sucky sucky sucky life. And I've spent decades stewing over it, like you are here. Keep stewing -- it's a necessary process. Just don't let it twist you too far out of shape. Twisted sisters aren't much good for anything.

Yeah, my bad, I was in the unfiltered list and didn't realize.

Twisted sisters aren't much good for anything. — Bitter Crank

They have great hair though!

I find it sad that some Americans have failed to learn from the Soviet experiment with socialism and communism. — Agustino

Lots of men and women in the West are fervent supporters of bloodstained setups. Christians, for example. Nor is it unknown for decent, compassionate types to support whole civilisations steeped in blood. Liberals and conservatives, among others. Modern capitalist nations are the fruit of a history of slavery, genocide, violence and exploitation every bit as abhorrent as Mao's China or Stalin's Soviet Union. Capitalism, too, was forged in blood and tears; it is just that it has survived long enough to forget about much of this horror, which is not the case with Stalinism and Maoism. — Terry Eagleton

That's an excerpt from chapter 2 of his book Why Marx Was Right. I recommend reading the whole chapter, as it's of particular relevance, given some of your comments.

I should use them, because they are working and they have a great track record. So does religion... — Agustino

Ha!

From the French Revolution, which by the way, for your information, was not started by the poor people. It was started by people like Georges Danton and Maximillien Robespierre (who by the way was the first to use the words liberte egalite fraternite) who came from well-to-do, respectable families - not wealthy, but nevertheless well-off, noble families. Robespierre's grandfather for example was a well-known lawyer at the time. — Agustino

No, Danton's first appearance in the Revolution was as president of the Cordeliers club. He became president in 1790. The Storming of the Bastille, widely accepted as marking the beginning of the French Revolution, occurred on July 14th 1789, and before that there was The Day of Tiles on June 10th 1788, which was followed by grain riots from March through April of 1789, and then there was the Reveillon Riots in April 1789. Members of the Third Estate were representatives of the common people, who revolted against unpopular tax, among other things, set by the Ancien Regime. Robespierre gained prominence as an outspoken advocate of the poor. So, you're wrong. The revolution was started by the poor, who were reacting to their treatment by the Ancien Regime, and was carried through with the aid of people such as Danton and Robspierre.

It's true. Without religion there would be no morality in society. Philosophy works, but it works only for those who are very intelligent, and have a tremendous amount of free time to study and think. But the common people need to be taught morality by an institution which can guide them in their daily lives... they don't have time to study and to think, they're too busy with the affairs of life. And there's nothing wrong with this. But these people need moral principles and rules which will enable them to live a good life, a reasonable life, a life worth living. Leaving these people in the dark is not only stupid, it is extremely immoral and wrong. All the communists, because this is what communism is at heart, are the first people in history who have sought to systematically undermine religion, marginalise the historical moral values of people, and promote immorality and personal irresponsibility and disobedience among the masses. And in today's Western society, the communists have completely taken over the media, the education system, Hollywood, and our culture. This is a fact.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3338867/Universities-dominated-Left-wing-hate-mobs-Professor-says-free-speech-stifled-challenging-views-shouted-down.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10565264/Left-wing-thinking-still-prevails-in-schools.html
http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo1/kline.php
http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/the-reason-why-hollywood-actors-are-predominantly-leftwing
etc. etc.

This is outrageous! Our moral values are undermined, day after day, and people are living worse lives, and suffering much more day after day. And everyday the media and Hollywood only advertises immorality - it is true. You cannot argue with this. And this is inadmissible - it has destroyed the lives of millions upon millions of people. Good men and women have to stand up - because the communists have for too long made communism sound and look cool. It is cool to cheat on your wife - it is cool to shag as many people as possible before marriage. We have to make conservatism cool again, so that people can stop being deceived by what looks attractive but is rotten at the core. If we don't, then we will not have a society anymore - Europe and the US will not exist anymore in 50 years. What I am saying here is the truth - look at the Roman Empire - the beginning of immorality was the beginning of collapse. An immoral society cannot exist. A society that isn't built around personal responsibility, family values, loving other people, and living a life of courage and integrity cannot survive. And religion is essential in doing that. It cannot be done without mobilising the strength of religion - the only force in history which has ever succeeded to teach people morals.

I am blessed to have had the free time required to study philosophy and study the entire history of human thought. And I have a responsibility to society because of this, to share the fruits of my investigations, and to be a light-bearer to the world. You may not feel the pressure of this responsability Sapientia. But I do. I cannot abandon these people in the darkness. I cannot abandon a man like this:

http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-open-marriage-taught-one-man-about-feminism.html

A man who is suffering greatly, and who feels like he has to suffer like this - that it is just that his wife do something like this to him, and that it is just for him to bear under it. I am here to protect these people, who cannot protect themselves, because of their low self-esteem, because they are financially dependent, or any other reason. I am here to make sure that these people recieve the human dignity and respect that all human beings deserve, regardless of race, color, religious views, etc. We have to stand up to this communist propaganda and reclaim our historical values, which have allowed human civilization to become what it is today. And people have been decieved by the media for the following reason: it is only the communists who have been interested in joining the media and joining politics. Good men and women have thought that they don't need to get involved to combat the radicals - after all, they were radicals, no one was going to believe them. But this, as Plato put it in his Republic - is how what is harmful befalls society - when good men become apathetic to what is happening in the polis.

People have to understand that these Hollywood values are values which were NEVER agreed to in the whole history of human thought - not by believers, not by atheists, not by anyone. I mean we have universities in the Western world, where left-wing hate mobs drive out anyone who speaks about religious or conservative values. We have universities where 50% or more of student leaders are LGBT. There is nothing wrong with some student leaders being LGBT, BUT, how is it possible that in universities where 85% of the student population is heterosexual, there are so many homosexual/lgbt leaders? I tell you how it is possible - the heterosexuals are no longer interested in politics. But the progressives militantly send their people into politics. The same with good men and women generally. Hollywood is producing left-wing propaganda because good men have been driven out, by force, out of their acting careers, by progressive extremists. It is seen as un-cool in Western society to express admiration and respect for moral values. No, if you don't bow down your head to the immorality and social anarchy promoted by the communists, you are labeled as backwards, and oppressive. If you think women should respect their bodies, you are labelled as a mysoginist. If you think that babies should be protected in their mother's womb, you're labeled as oppressive, and against woman healthcare.

These that I wrote about here - these are the real problems of the future. Not global warming. Not the rich becoming richer. But these. These are single-handedly the culprits of the evil we see in society, and of the suffering that people go through. This is why, you have women in this world, who waste their lives in promiscuity till they are in their 30s, and their bodies can no longer handle it, and they have no one to care about them, they have no one to love them, they have no one to be there for them, to care for them. This is an utterly sad and evil society, which poisons its people, and then leaves them to die in misery, at best stuffed with some prozac. And instead of fighting the root cause of the problem, the communists look to provide free pay to these women when they can no longer work. Or they want to give them free mental healthcare - the type of mental healthcare which, after they have ruined themselves, tells them "oh don't worry honey, you did your best, you just didn't find the right people, etc. etc.". This is not mental healthcare, this is humiliation and perpetuation of misery. Even psychology is controlled by left-wing extremists. As if providing free pay or free healthcare can somehow undo the violence that mis-education has done to them. You have to understand Sapientia, that people in the US, and in Europe too (although things in Europe always happen after they happen in the US, we will notice them in 15 years time), are starting to see through this marxist propaganda. They are starting to realise how they have been decieved to ruin their lives. To care about their careers, and not about their moral values. To care about money, and not about forming loving relationships with those around them. And this is why people are so angry.

Donald Trump is right. We have to stop being politically correct - this is exactly what the Marxists want us to do. To be politically correct, so they can keep destroying society. Good men and women need to get involved in politics, to get involved in culture, and to speak out against vice and immorality, and for virtue - the future of our society rests on our shoulders.

You are quite predictable, Agustino. No matter how many great things you claim of religion - some of which have some truth in them, some of which are exaggerated, one-sided, misleading, or even just plainly false - your claim that religion has a great track record is preposterous given it's exceedingly long track record of horror, backwardness and oppression. Hence my reaction.

You are quite predictable, Agustino. No matter how many great things you claim of religion - some of which have some truth in them, some of which are exaggerated, one-sided, misleading, or even just plainly false - your claim that religion has a great track record is preposterous given it's exceedingly long track record of horror, backwardness and oppression. Hence my reaction. — Sapientia

What is this track record of horror, backwardness and oppression? 100 years of inquisition? What about the track record of secularism then? What about 100 years of communism? Count the number of people brutalised by the state, and this will make the Church seem as a small child!

I didn't claim that secularism has a great track record.

Good, so despite the bad in religion, it is still the best option for society that we have, which is what I meant to say all along.

No, it isn't. It's redundant and often counter-productive. If you feel you need religion to determine what's right and wrong, then that's worrying.

And the separation of Church and State was relatively recent in history. The dominant role of the Church has a much longer history, and one which includes far more atrocities in the name of religion than the inquisition, so no, those committed in the name of Communism don't pale in comparison - they don't even compare. I think you need to read up on history, or read without blinkers.

No, it isn't. It's redundant and often counter-productive. If you feel you need religion to determine what's right and wrong, then that's worrying. — Sapientia

I don't, but most people do. It is silly if you think that most people have the time and the intelligence required to discover moral right and wrong alone and by themselves without guidance. You don't expect people to discover Newton's laws of motion by themselves, why do you expect them to discover morality by themselves?? If science deserves to be taught in schools, then morality deserves to be taught EVEN MORE! So this progressive meme: "hurr hurr, we don't need religion to determine moral right and wrong, hurr hurr" is nothing but nonsense. It's like saying you don't need science textbooks to know and understand Newton's laws of motion. Yes you do!

And the separation of Church and State was relatively recent in history. The dominant role of the Church has a much longer history, and one which includes far more atrocities in the name of religion than the inquisition, so no, those committed in the name of Communism don't pale in comparison - they don't even compare. — Sapientia

Yes they do pale in comparison. You should be aware that without the Church, we wouldn't even have the society we do today. Single-handedly, the Church has probably been one of the most unifying forces in history. All the atrocities you cite (which by the way are mostly during the Inquisition, and are otherwise much fewer than you imagine) are mere footnotes to the good that the church has done.

I don't, but most people do. It is silly if you think that most people have the time and the intelligence required to discover moral right and wrong alone and by themselves without guidance. You don't expect people to discover Newton's laws of motion by themselves, why do you expect them to discover morality by themselves?? — Agustino

Funny. We all have a conscience, and even young children demonstrate moral judgement and understanding. It stems primarily from empathy, not some Biblical text. You won't discover empathy from studying planetary motion.