The reason why conservatives oppose communism, is because for them this world is full of sin and specifically created by god to be this. The communist attempt to create a working man utopia, and by even thinking about doing it, in their eyes they become the enemy of god. The builders had a "Humanity fuck yeah" mentality. They wanted the Tower to be a monument of what man can do. Without god. God of course got pissy and in order to stop it, he introduced identity politics. And of course they started to fight each other and abandoned the grand project and went on to live in slavery, feudalism and caste system like God apparently intended.
I dunno why, but something about the Tower story makes me feel addressed.
Huh. The version I was taught in Sunday School was that they wanted to build a tower to God/Heaven. Either way it's another example of the God character being a weak petty bitch using underhanded bullshit against someone stronger.
I'm not sure how it reads as a response to utopianism. At face value it implies that a united humanity is stronger than God, although we're talking about probably the single most insecure character of all time, so him feeling threatened probably shouldn't be read into very much.
Dylan Edwards
Yawn
Jeremiah Cruz
Anti-communism is build and based on these fairytales
Henry Murphy
nigga are you serious?
Hunter Howard
Where were you the last 200 years?
Dominic Bailey
On one way he is sort of right. The church is basically synonymous with reaction and anti-communism. We’ve also seen militant religious fascist movements (like the Legion of Archangel Michael) but not many militant religious communist movements. Christianity is anti-communism
Landon Reyes
That is not entirely true. The liberation theologists are a wacky and nonsensical brand of communists. They are idealists, but they are as much our guys as idealists can possibly get.
Charles Murphy
It's anti-communist because marxist regimes have a long sordid history of blowing up churches killing priests etc. maybe if you got off your hate boner and allowed us to worship God there wouldn't be so much bad blood.
The sin of builders was their pride. Their goal was not to improve their material conditions or promote the development of History but to "make a name" for themselves. It's a story about hubris at best and a warning against utopianism at worst but it most definitely is not an "allegory of communism."
The church establishment in Europe was rabidly anti-communist from the very beginning. This is because they were mostly corrupt and terrified of change (and the USSR.) The Church establishment in Russia was anti-communist because they were part of a larger feudal system. "State atheism" was partly how they helped to marginalize the church after the revolution.The church attacked first. Never forget this. They aligned with the bosses and kings as they oppressed and exploited the working class and waged petty little wars for their own profit and amusement. The western Churches will continue to pay for these sins until they embrace History. Pope Francis has been trying to force his church to take tiny baby steps in that direction but I really don't think that it will take seeing as how unpopular it has apparently made him among the more conservative factions. The problem isn't communism. It's imperialism and greed among the church hierarchies.
Hmm…I wonder why…it’s almost like they were just another arm of the state and extreme reaction
David Hughes
Was the introduction of IDpol really necessary?
Blake Hill
Some interpretations place the blame for the collapse of the tower on idpol itself oddly enough. Some traditions hold that the builders already had many languages but also had one common tongue that they used to communicate. Over time they started to become chauvinistic and began to insist that everyone else speak only their language. which is what drove them all apart.
Kevin Brown
FACTS: - All societies that we have evidence of existing during the time of the Old Testament/Kingdom of Israel were slave owning societies. You cannot apply a double standard and expect the liberal humanist ideal from a society that has not materially advanced to that point. - The Levitical Code only applied to the Jews. The NT references instances of Jesus """breaking""" the sabbath by healing people, Paul says that all food is clean (yes including shellfish), it is written multiple times in both Old and New Testament that animal sacrifices are not necessary anymore, etc. Nowhere is it written that blended cloths are not permitted, haircuts must be in a specific style, etc. in the New. - Contrary to the retard you're citing in your pic, Exodus 21:7-11 actually is providing protection to the female daughter slave:
“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money. - Slavery is preferable to death. Most of Israel's slaves came from other nations that they fought against (for Israelites who voluntarily became slaves to escape debt they were automatically freed after 7 years). Would you prefer to be wiped out entirely or have a chance at a relatively normal life with food, clothing, etc. provided? Some prideful people will undoubtedly say: I choose death! Well what the fuck did you think those people did? They obviously wouldn't surrender to the Israelites so they got their wish and never became slaves in the first place.
Communism is basically secular Christian morality enforced through the power of the state.
Caleb Nelson
are you fucking kidding me, identity politics destroyed the tower of babel?
Andrew Russell
no, communism is a stateless moneyless society, people would be responsible for their own suffering and reconstruction of value would would be far more common. since the state and capitalism represent the objective morality of today, communism would bring the death of god in all its freeing power, and humanity would finally be responsible for its own destiny witth the end of capitalist alienation.
Owen Roberts
how do you enforce the absence of money without a state
Anthony Jenkins
How could you enforce money without a state?
Mason Gray
nobody is proposing that
Carson Cooper
Through a “it’s a state, but e’re not going to call it that.”
i think the thing which needs to be enforced is the presence of money, the abscence of it its just how economy developes without the envolvment of social hierarchy
Justin Diaz
How does money appear without private property?
Xavier Ramirez
how is no money and no private property enforced without a state?
Owen Morris
...
Anthony Campbell
topkek
Jack Martin
With guns.
Angel Torres
So by reproducing the state?
Brody Bailey
No, unless you call anyone with guns "the state".
Hunter Howard
how is access to the guns restricted, or is anyone allowed to take them and use them to enforce Communist doctrine and whatever else.
I was in Sunday School, I read the damn book. ALL the book, not just the parts that are comfy to you. Without the OT, the claim that Jesus is the Messiah and basically God is null and void.
Child abuse in religious institution was performed on an industrial level. It was done by people who knew they would never be caught. The church is still trying to cover it, which is shameful, but it's just a side effect of organised religion.
Jonathan Perry
With language came ardent nationalism. Yes.
Jace Jackson
The book is vague and contradictory, allowing people to interpret it however they like. On the one hand, Jesus says he's not changing any prior laws. On the other his messages directly disagree with said laws.
Good luck putting child sex abuse in context. People's ideas of religious institutions are wildly different from what actually took place. You want to jar people into recognizing this, tell them about the castrato voice type. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castrato This shit went on for centuries and produced what we think of to this day as the stereotypical "angelic voice."
Colton Martin
However people see it fit.
Jose Thompson
Indeed. It's a Hebrew priest's eye-view of a ziggurat.
Christian here, I'm a communist and you can't stop me.
Isaac Stewart
As someone who spent some time as a conservative before moving further right, I just wanted to say that this hypothesis of yours doesn't really have much evidence to rest on, and it highlights the mistakes most enlightenment descended ideologies have in dealing with conservatism, in that it assumes that its a formal ideology with a set of literature, outlined goals, and tenants worthy of adhering to. By your description of conservatism as opposing communism because of the story of the Tower of Babel, I assume you're American and you've had dealings with that curious kind of American Protestantism which takes Sola Scriptura to absurd heights, atomizing and deconstructing itself a thousand times over because of particularly charismatic passages. If you approach Conservatism purely through a superficial analysis wherein it's too similar to liberalism and communism, you end up just assuming they use the Bible in place of Capital and that it has "thinkers" like Reagan or Burke setting policies of the wider movement in much the same sense that Lenin and Marx did. Conservatism is, at its roots, not a movement in the same sense that liberalism is, let alone leftism, yet this doesn't mean its inherently hostile to the ideals of either. Conservatism instead represents the organic wider society, the cultural norms and traditions of that society, so on. Conservatism is not ideological, but rather it rests at the intersection of politics and social life, it opposes radical change not from some ideological tenant that says radical change is bad, but because the people it represents are change averse. Conservatives, however, are not immune to change–nor does this mean that they cannot be revolutionary–but change occurs only within Conservative circles when a new status quo, a new peace is achieved, between the competing dialectics of society. Frequent sources of aggregation to conservatives, especially in America, is federal overreach. The government is not "precise", as they say, it's a hammer instead of a scalpel, but most importantly–and this is the key that leftists should learn from–it can easily be misconstrued as something *foreign*. Conservatives may treat the American identity with some degree of reverence, but there's perhaps an implicit understanding that there are different "Americans" out there, and the Texan may on some level consider a government filled with Californians to be as abhorrent as one run by the Chinese. The critical failure of leftists in America to court Conservatives, and the rise of a kind of Conservative anti-communism, rests in the transformation of leftism from a political movement of the lower classes to intellectual pursuits and avant-garde showmanship. The particular kind of White Conservative in America is an evolution of the disparate European migrants which came to the country, fusing together on a foundation laid by its first WASP citizens, and fundamentally transformed by the cultural conflicts between North and South both before, during, and after the civil war. Leftism, by contrast, had experienced something of a divergence from the wider American Conservative movement in the period between world war I and II; whereas before it a rather rural and utopian character, heavily influenced by the sundry religious movements of the time, increased soviet interference combined with some moderate-yet-critical reforms lead to a leftism that was wholly isolated and separated from the wider American public–it became something *foreign*, something European or Soviet rather than uniquely American, it stood to represent the ascendance of purely ideological values dictated by Moscow in the name of "international solidarity" rather than something the white American public could truly relate to.
As America grew more prosperous and the worst excesses of the capitalist system were curbed by regulation, you had leftism transform even further into a kind of cultural performance art. The overall prosperity of the American people lead to a sort of decadence among the middle class, giving rise to beatniks, the hippie movement, so on–people hoping to achieve a kind of new authenticity and spiritual transformation separate from the "boring homogeneity" of White American culture, they weren't struggling to survive, but instead were struggling to assert their identities and sense of self. Leftism was chosen by beatniks and hippies not because of any ideological appeal, but because it was the great "other" to the United States, some mysterious, dark thing in the distance–I'm sure that had the Nazis won the second world war, you would see an amusing and strange kind of Neo-Fascism in the United States, which would become ascendant almost primarily in universities and take an esoteric and mystical character much like Julius Evola's fascism than anything the Fuhrer would support. Thus Leftism, while becoming ascendant in universities and among the "educated", was cornered off and isolated from the wider American culture, and it didn't take long for these soul-searchers and counter-cultural rebels to not endear themselves to the public. They put on grand displays of taboo breaking, they're effort to assert their identity instead atomized and isolated them from coming to an understanding with the wider American public, and also isolated and undermined the ideals they professed allegiance to. The conservative, White American public, thus found their ideals under assault by a strange and "creativity" kind of beatniks. Where they prized good manners and politeness, the beatniks thrived on boundary breaking and "shocking" statements, where white conservatives adhered to a kind of "moral puritanism" which frowned upon excessive drinking, loose sexual morals, and drug use, hippies adhered to "Free Love" and psychadelic experimentation, and where the white conservative adored the social aspect of faith and religion, hippies experimented with a strange kind of syncretism and beatniks took up a militant sort of Atheism. Even today, IdPol is another iteration of these "educated" types trying to assert their foreignness and "uniqueness" as apart from the wider American public, though it has grown only more noxious and despicable overtime, for whereas the "rebel" of yesteryear would be content with denying God exists, the rebel of today must celebrate the most shocking, blasphemous, and despicable attacks on the Christian religion to be "unique". The "White Hating" of Identity Politics which is practiced by upper-middle-class college educated liberals exists as a sort of social game. The blatant racism of some of these white haters–couched behind intersectional terms and notions of equality–exists as a kind of social signalling, at one moment expressing a kind of classist disgust at the stereotypical white republican: the obese, america-loving idiot that shops at Walmart with all those "poor people", while in the next moment expressing a kind of liberal avant-garde performance, showing that the white-basher is "educated" because they've read obscure, intersectional literature, its a self-trick that the ruling class pulls, liberals that find themselves in ascendance culturally and politically, yet curiously fooling themselves into believing that typical liberal values such as cosmopolitanism and pursuit of the humanities are "revolutionary". In this very thread you can still see this noxious bourgeois signalling–the very first post calls God a "weak, petty bitch" and snears that he's a "character" as though the Bible could be reduced to a fantasy novel. Sure, such idiotic statements may reenforce the speakers' sense of "uniqueness" or self-identity, but they're merely asocial wedges that leave them unpalatable to wider society.
ftfy. We've been doing this for tens of thousands of years. Nothing like a good missionary destroying tens of thousands of civilizations and cultures, no? I could go on for practically forever. Wanna know a funny fact? As the "bathroom debate" rages on, sex-segregated bathrooms were invented in about the 1800s. They're new, and for much of human history, the bathroom was "that field over there." The notion came into being as part of the Victorian "seperate spheres" new social theory. Conservativism is the attempt to violently foist novel social experiments on ancient cultures. Flat-out.
Jackson Phillips
Except they were.
Angel Hernandez
Conservatism IS the wider organic society, it's the cultural status quo made manifest in politics, this strange idea that it is somehow this ideological imperialist force is just ridiculous. It feels like you're critiquing it from a perspective entirely tinged by politics rather than the reality of the situation.
This is just plain old hysterics. Your post is absurd and relates to virtually nothing which I posted.
Your analysis of politics is a spotty thing involving vast leaps in logic and a stubborn refusal to read or address anything I posted in favor of your own strawman of it. No, I never said imperialism never happened, and you do no one favors with these ridiculous exclamations that they destroyed "TENS OF THOUSANDS OF CIVILIZATIONS AND CULTURES" A monarch was not a "conservative", a monarch was just a monarch, and bares little resemblance to self-declared conservatives and wider conservative beliefs today, they were conquerors by virtue of being victorious at conquering, and pretending that the Aztec or Inca or African civilizations destroyed by conquest were somehow any more lacking in qualities you find detestable (namely faith and tradition) is more relatable to red liberalism than any actual kind of Marxism. Conservatives are the peoples and cultures of all countries and all faiths, they are not "uniquely European" and the dutiful Christian soldier doing the conquering was no more or less conservative than the Aztec priest whose nation was being conquered. You don't approach your analysis of history with even the slightest hint of a scientific or unbiased approach, instead it becomes a disgustingly romanticized thing where "ancient" and "proud" civilizations are conquered by witch-burning Europeans. It's a small wonder then that so many Christians, upon being insulted by your unfair analysis and critique, wouldn't trust you as far as they can throw you–especially when factoring in the sheer double-standards you apply to their religion when compared to all others and even your own actions. When Catholic missionaries end the practice of human sacrifice, which took place on a civilization wide scale, you'll ignore it. When they found colleges and actively work to destroy primitive superstitions in favor of more rational modes of thinking (far from popular history, the Church actively tried to stamp out belief in witchcraft and promoted science where it existed) you ignore or undermine these achievements while painting an image of them as savage murderers for forcing people to abandon ancestral beliefs in favor of a hegemonic Catholicism. But where leftists murder priests, rape nuns, and force Catholics in a predominantly and historically Catholic countries to swallow their rosaries, you excuse these vicious crimes against humanity because it either doesn't matter to you, or you transform it into "justice" in some perverse sense. Your hypocrisy and double standards are part of what created the sorry state of the left today, and you'll deny this until your dying day rather than manning up, accepting responsibility, and trying to avoid emotions coloring your political perceptions.
You again confuse conservatism for the parties that claim to represent it and the policies they intend to put into place. Even if we assume that "Conservatism = Conservative Parties", this statement is absurd on its face. Across the western world even moderate left wing parties are losing ground consistently to right wing equivalents, and it's less that people are becoming "less conservative" so much as demographic transition has lead to a clash of different cultures with different values and the establishment of ethno-religious voting blocs acting separate from the interests of the previously ruling majority.
Hmm. What have we here… Okay… Hold on. I think I'm having a bigthink. Well… thanks for admitting it's the destruction of tradition in favor of whatever radical social experiment of the day.
Noah Green
Those guys are always complaining about getting banned and to make us bake the nazi cake.
Jacob Miller
iirc it's a monologue from The West Wing
I may throw that into a DnD setting at some point
Gabriel Sanders
You don't seem to respond to, well, basically anything I posted.
You as well, you have this bizarre view you fail to elaborate that has, thus far, had nothing to do with anything I've actually posted.
In this case it only serves to highlight hypocrisy in wider left-wing movements. They can talk a big game about free choice and free speech, but the second someone chooses anything that tangibly differs from the values of progressivism, it's cracked down on furiously. The "freedom of religion" which we're supposed to cherish is a limited freedom, it's a freedom to choose liberal morality dressed up in white, green, or orange cloth.
"Violent threats" are one of the weakest and most pointless arguments against ideas there are. It becomes a stupid game of either side repeating ad nauseum "no u"; I don't care if gays have felt "threatened" by my side just as they don't care if threatening businesses (violently, even) until they close their doors for daring not to observe their wedding is moral or not. Caring about violent threats assumes there's a benchmark of decency, moral standards we all should at least make an attempt to adhere to, but in our newer and more partisan age, morality and decency are simply things that we accuse the other side of lacking whilst stating our own side monopolizes.
That is probably because your post is incoherent and does not follow the thread of discussion at all.
Evan Ortiz
The Tower of Babel was a construction project of the Babylonian empires that was unfinished and currently lies in ruins not too far from Baghdad it was not gonna be this silly cone shape but rather a layered pyramid like protoskyscraper and a monument to their ingenuity.
The OP is trying to make some rather strange connection between conservative's opposition to communism and the Tower of Babel story. The post gravely misinterprets the story, misinterprets the christian view of the world, and finally misinterprets how conservatives see all these things, so I felt it warranted a response. Thus far, the only responses to my posts–which are perfectly coherent–have been bizarre comments coming from the sidelines, talking about the death of civilizations or just bizarre sentences that don't seem to actually go anywhere.
We don't need to enforce it. It will simply be irrelevant and completely useless to the people. Do you count your sheep using model clay sheep and two jars still?
Alexander Cox
God was the dream of good government, capitalism requires a government but socialism does not. A true socialist collective doesn't care that people speak 50 different languages or have incompatible systems, as everyone has their own needs taken care of conflict is minimal since everyone is armed anyway. Capitalism on the other hand requires a single, modular standard for maximum efficiency. Capitalism cannot have borders, nonstandard currencies (except stock and script), or even incompatible rail/container gauges.
Just look at how the World Trade Center fell. An ideology that was truly incompatible with capitalism, which capitalists had supported in their fight against communism, destroyed it using hijacked airliners. The resulting havoc on the already beleaguered American airlines industry resulted in UAL's 2003 bankruptcy and subsequent pension raid followed by multiple consolidations and mergers that effectively destroyed half of America's airlines. 9/11 also began the end of American imperialism, because it started a totally unwinnable conflict that is resulting in the total destruction of the middle east especially Saudi Arabia as Americans go fully isolationist.
