Traditionalism and Fascism

[ATP]

Whether those first governments were fascist is irrelevant, what's relevant is whether we want to emulate them. The answer is NO.

Those states could not be fascist,becouse it was created by Mussolini after 1915.Use your logic.

And becouse all states was created by families,it means that you are just decided to abadonn entire human heritage.What do you want to be,then,if not human ?
Becouse humanity means families first,not states.We lived 200.000 years as homo sapiens without state - but what create us was family.

 

[LordsFire]

Those states could not be fascist,becouse it was created by Mussolini after 1915.Use your logic.

And becouse all states was created by families,it means that you are just decided to abadonn entire human heritage.What do you want to be,then,if not human ?
Becouse humanity means families first,not states.We lived 200.000 years as homo sapiens without state - but what create us was family.

Part of the reason that leftists, particularly of the 20th century and on, have tried so hard to tear down the family, is to make them more loyal to the state.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

Those states could not be fascist,becouse it was created by Mussolini after 1915.Use your logic.

And becouse all states was created by families,it means that you are just decided to abadonn entire human heritage.What do you want to be,then,if not human ?
Becouse humanity means families first,not states.We lived 200.000 years as homo sapiens without state - but what create us was family.

Part of the disconnect here is that liberals cannot help but project the modern, centralized, bureaucratic, legally positivistic 'state' back onto the past forms of the familial state, when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[ATP]

Part of the disconnect here is that liberals cannot help but project the modern, centralized, bureaucratic, legally positivistic 'state' back onto the past forms of the familial state, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Yes.They either lie,or saw "The Flinstones" and thought,that was reality.

 

[GoldRanger]

Those states could not be fascist,becouse it was created by Mussolini after 1915.Use your logic.

And becouse all states was created by families,it means that you are just decided to abadonn entire human heritage.What do you want to be,then,if not human ?
Becouse humanity means families first,not states.We lived 200.000 years as homo sapiens without state - but what create us was family.

"Abandon human heritage" LOL. Someone did something once, therefore doing it differently in subsequent times is evil.

I'm sorry, I DO NOT want to live either in Mussolini's Italy, nor in ancient China. I want to live in a modern democracy. Your comparisons are ridiculous.

 

[ATP]

"Abandon human heritage" LOL. Someone did something once, therefore doing it differently in subsequent times is evil.

I'm sorry, I DO NOT want to live either in Mussolini's Italy, nor in ancient China. I want to live in a modern democracy. Your comparisons are ridiculous.

Nope.There is no about doing something differently,but roots of all human cyvilisations.Which is family.You could destroy that - but what you get would be New World Order,not modern democracy.

 

[LindyAF]

@LTR

Have to say I don't like my post, which was clearly on topic for the thread it was in even if the subsequent discussion which I did not participate in wasn't, being made the OP of a new thread with this title, especially because 1) as far as I can tell the image I posted no longer displays, so it's now unclear what I posted and 2) it's not clear what speech or ideas on this topic (e.g. considered by some to be "espousing fascism") are considered banned ToS violations.

Given that this apparently spawned two pages of non-meme discussion posts, I understand why this would be pruned to a separate thread, and I assume there was no malice in how it was done or the title chosen, but still I feel these concerns have to be aired.

Edit: Would it be permissible for me to fix the OP and change the title, since I can apparently do that as the OP even of a thread I didn't make?

 

[LTR]

@LTR

Have to say I don't like my post, which was clearly on topic for the thread it was in even if the subsequent discussion which I did not participate in wasn't, being made the OP of a new thread with this title, especially because 1) as far as I can tell the image I posted no longer displays, so it's now unclear what I posted and 2) it's not clear what speech or ideas on this topic (e.g. considered by some to be "espousing fascism") are considered banned ToS violations.

Given that this apparently spawned two pages of non-meme discussion posts, I understand why this would be pruned to a separate thread, and I assume there was no malice in how it was done or the title chosen, but still I feel these concerns have to be aired.

Edit: Would it be permissible for me to fix the OP and change the title, since I can apparently do that as the OP even of a thread I didn't make?

I moved your post back to the original meme thread since it was quoted already.

 

[ShieldWife]

Honestly after a certain point I've got to ask whats even the point of state sanctioned marriage? Like I get it legal protections and all but its not like that even factors into things like child custody or asset divisions much anymore from the looks of it.

Is a minimal increase in tax free income worth it? Would you even care about people who would decide against getting married if wasn't for thr tax breaks?

Edit: Ok, I am failing at this. How do you post a picture directly again?

Because it used to be the most important financial contract in a persons lifetime and the contract needed enforced. All the same reasons we have laws about contracts governing car ownership apply to marraiges.

You could have state enforced contracts without state defined marriage. Any two people, or even more, could enter into a contract of shared property. It doesn’t have to be marriage at all, it could be two brothers who just want shared ownership of their property, but the legal details could be the same.

Let’s be honest here, the laws associated with marriage aren’t actually protecting the sanctity or importance of marriage as an institution. Those laws are undermining them. The marriage laws and their court enforcement allow a wife to cheat on her husband, divorce him, get half of his stuff, get alimony payments for years, and get child support payments for a kid that isn’t his. That helps to destroy marriage more than if there were no laws at all.

Marriage, parenthood, and the family are extremely important. They are the bedrock of any civilization. But they have to come from the ground up, especially in this political climate. There are never going to be any laws coming from the US government that protect or enforce traditional family values, the days of that being possible are over. It is then up to individuals to live virtuously, to put family ahead of materialism, to have children and pass their traditional values on to their children.

In the USA (and other Western European nations) the state will be the enemy of family values until such time as the state collapses.

Is it possible that some day in the future there will be a government here that is truly moral and that does help to encourage family values? Unlikely. There may be better future states, but politicians benefit from people’s vices and not their virtues. Which is why the virtues of a culture: be they family values, courage, honor, kindness, or what ever other qualities that make a people great must come from the people themselves and depending on the nation’s leaders to provide them is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Captain X]

I doubt such contracts would be respected in the same way marriage is, particularly when it comes to medical issues. The real upshot here is that there are just too many things involved with marriage as a state institution to excise it, so it will pretty much just have to be left up to churches to not perform the ceremonies if they don't want to, and that's it. We aren't going to roll back same-sex marriage or nuke marriage as a state institution just to satisfy bigoted religious types.

 

[ParadiseLost]

Given that this apparently spawned two pages of non-meme discussion posts,

Wait, people here aren't just quoting random political memes?

Coulda fooled me.

Let’s be honest here, the laws associated with marriage aren’t actually protecting the sanctity or importance of marriage as an institution. Those laws are undermining them. The marriage laws and their court enforcement allow a wife to cheat on her husband, divorce him, get half of his stuff, get alimony payments for years, and get child support payments for a kid that isn’t his. That helps to destroy marriage more than if there were no laws at all.

As sad as it is, this is basically why I would consider signing a prenup to be pretty much necessary going into any marriage these days.

 

[LindyAF]

Wait, people here are just quoting random political memes?

This whole thread was originally posts in the political meme thread spawned by a meme I posted, then moved here.

The image link in my post which the OP quotes is ironically now broken.

 

[ParadiseLost]

This whole thread was originally posts in the political meme thread spawned by a meme I posted, then moved here.

The image link in my post which the OP quotes is ironically now broken.

Darn it, I meant to say "People here aren't just quoting random political memes?" in reference to the fact that I think a lot of the discussion in this thread is pretty off base.

 

[LindyAF]

Well in the spirit of getting back to memes...

this entire thread

me on the top and right

 

[ParadiseLost]

Well in the spirit of getting back to memes...

this entire thread

me on the top and right

... Is the joke supposed to be that there is no image there?

 

[LindyAF]

... Is the joke supposed to be that there is no image there?

huh, it displays for me

 

[ParadiseLost]

huh, it displays for me

Interestingly enough, I see the image in the quote from you in the first post of this thread...

 

[Abhishekm]

I doubt such contracts would be respected in the same way marriage is, particularly when it comes to medical issues. The real upshot here is that there are just too many things involved with marriage as a state institution to excise it, so it will pretty much just have to be left up to churches to not perform the ceremonies if they don't want to, and that's it. We aren't going to roll back same-sex marriage or nuke marriage as a state institution just to satisfy bigoted religious types.

Cultural separation of the religious ceremony and the state recognized property and rights merger would help. They technically are already but overreach does seem to generally go in the other direction now. That is to say from the state to the faith instead of from faith to state.

That said the state contract is little more than way to qualify for a tax break and easing of inheritance and custody laws as far as I see it. Was anyone really surprised that if government spread around enough incentives people would start taking advantage and loosening their commitment to it?

And really im Indian and all but I and anyone I know doesn't really give a damn about who married who and love marriage is a nice thing people hope for and like seeing stories about. But people are just kinda weirded out by the cheapening of it.

This whole thread was originally posts in the political meme thread spawned by a meme I posted, then moved here.

The image link in my post which the OP quotes is ironically now broken.

Sorry about that derail by the way. Was trying to post an image with the comment as thread tax but draped on how to link direct images instead of site links.