of course there are manylinks abour your nic
but they do not deal with what perspires from your writings !

8. Based on the drug commercials, the two most rampant medical problems in America are not enough sex (see #1) and not enough sleep.

And don’t forget the hemorrhoids. All Americans have hemorrhoids…

I did my best to keep it down on your level so you’d understand.

To 141. Marie Claude

First would you stop calling me robot… robo, robotech, robotech master…. but not robot… I know english isn’t your first lang so I’m telling you your doing it wrong. As for drawing… I’m sure you can easily find my name sake with a simple search.

This is factually incorrect.

Thomas Muentzer, who the GDR communist party rehabilitated as a protocommunist, was unequivocally denounced by Luther. Moreover, to refer to a 17th century theologian an being amenable to the economic theories of a 19th century radical is an historical anachronism.

No European nation has ever actually established classically liberal society where the sacred rights of the individual (life, liberty, private property honestly earned – pursuit of happiness) were secured by just government power. While John Locke’s political thinking pointed in this direction, it was Thomas Jefferson and our other Founding Fathers who actually pulled it off – and now it is being unraveled by the so-called “Liberals” – they are really Marxists &/or Fascists.

““To understand “social justice,” we must contrast it with the earlier view of justice against which it was conceived — one that arose as a revolt against political absolutism. With a government (e.g., a monarchy) that is granted absolute power, it is impossible to speak of any injustice on its part. If it can do anything, it can’t do anything “wrong.” Justice as a political/legal term can begin only when limitations are placed upon the sovereign, i.e., when men define what is unjust for government to do. The historical realization traces from the Roman senate to Magna Carta to the U.S. Constitution to the 19th century. It was now a matter of “justice” that government not arrest citizens arbitrarily, sanction their bondage by others, persecute them for their religion or speech, seize their property, or prevent their travel. This culmination of centuries of ideas and struggles became known as liberalism. And it was precisely in opposition to this liberalism — not feudalism or theocracy or the ancien régime, much less 20th century fascism — that Karl Marx formed and detailed the popular concept of “social justice,”

“”The history of all existing society,” he and Engels declared, “is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf … oppressor and oppressed, stood in sharp opposition to each other.” They were quite right to note the political castes and resulting clashes of the pre-liberal era. The expositors of liberalism (Spencer, Maine) saw their ethic, by establishing the political equality of all (e.g., the abolition of slavery, serfdom, and inequality of rights), as moving mankind from a “society of status” to a “society of contract.” Alas, Marx the Prophet could not accept that the classless millenium had arrived before he did. Thus, he revealed to a benighted humanity that liberalism was in fact merely another stage of History’s class struggle — “capitalism” — with its own combatants: the “proletariat” and the “bourgeoisie.” The former were manual laborers, the latter professionals and business owners. Marx’s “classes” were not political castes but occupations.”

“The imperative of economic equality also generates a striking opposition between “social justice” and its liberal rival. The equality of the latter, we’ve noted, is the equality of all individuals in the eyes of the law — the protection of the political rights of each man, irrespective of “class” (or any assigned collective identity, hence the blindfold of Justice personified). However, this political equality, also noted, spawns the difference in “class” between Smith and Jones. All this echoes Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek’s observation that if “we treat them equally [politically], the result must be inequality in their actual [i.e., economic] position.” The irresistable conclusion is that “the only way to place them in an equal [economic] position would be to treat them differently [politically]” — precisely the conclusion that the advocates of “social justice” themselves have always reached…. Hayek had continued, “Equality before the law and material equality are, therefore, not only different, but in conflict with each other…”

“The People’s State of Marx … will not content itself with administering and governing the masses politically, as all governments do today. It will also administer the masses economically, concentrating in the hands of the State the production and division of wealth, the cultivation of land, the establishment and development of factories, the organization and direction of commerce, and finally the application of capital to production by the only banker — the State. All that will demand an immense knowledge and many heads “overflowing with brains” in this government. It will be the reign of scientific intelligence, the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant, and elitist of all regimes. There will be a new class, a new hierarchy of real and counterfeit scientists and scholars, and the world will be divided into a minority ruling in the name of knowledge, and an immense ignorant majority. And then, woe unto the mass of ignorant ones!”

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guides/Z-Social%20Justice-Code%20for%20Communism.htm

“Briton for the Britons” is the essence of the concept of the sovereign liberal nation state. It is a concept which precedes the development of socalist thought. It was socialist thought which first considered the ethnic state to be illegitimate and all of you prattling on about the evils of “group identity” are echoing the Marxist critique of the classical liberal order, little though you know it.

It was in Italy. And Italy to some extent protected their Jews. The French went out of their way to send them to Germany.

What do the Jews have to do with any of this?

Really? Perhaps you can cite some “classical liberals” to that effect. I already cited John Stuart Mill on this thread.

For over two hundred years the Big Idea of classical liberalism was the self-determination of peoples, the idea that “a people”, usually defined in terms of language, race, and religion, should have their own polity. It was never about “individuals”, a category which classical liberalism never even acknowledged. The breakng up of multi-ethnic authoritarian states, aka the great empires of the 18th and 19th centuries, was the biggest goal of the classical liberals. They would see the modern US and Europe as regressing,