Comments by "c. j. macq" (@cjmacq-vg8um) on "Exposing the Secret Christian Group Seeking Political Power" video.

it all falls in line with the prosperity gospel. financial "success," wealth and power are rewards from god. it goes all the way back over 6000 years to the "divine-right-of-kings." a belief john locke obliterated in 1690 in his First Treatise of Government. the capitalists used smith's "wealth of nations" to keep the lie alive as did the industrialist of the gilded age and the fascists in the 20th century calling it "social-darwinism." (stalin and mao were both fascists by the way, regardless of what they called themselves.) the philosophy goes - anyone with the cunning and ambition to obtain wealth and power deserves to rule because their achievement was a demonstration of natural superiority or ordained by god. the elite use this rationale even today. i heard oprah winfrey say, on air, during one of her shows that god chose her to become rich because she was so much wiser and deserving than others. this is extreme narcissism and megalomania; a mental disease that seems to inflict ALL the elite. they all believe they're superior to the rest of humanity and in fact THE OPPOSITE is true. capitalism allows the most predatory, the most devious and unethical, thus the least deserving, to prosper. when was the last time you heard of anyone getting rich from generosity or compassion?
46
it all falls in line with the prosperity gospel. financial "success," wealth and power are rewards from god. it goes all the way back over 6000 years to the "divine-right-of-kings." a belief john locke obliterated in 1690 in his First Treatise of Government. the capitalists used smith's "wealth of nations" to keep the lie alive as did the industrialist of the gilded age and the fascists in the 20th century calling it "social-darwinism." (stalin and mao were both fascists by the way, regardless of what they called themselves.) the philosophy goes - anyone with the cunning and ambition to obtain wealth and power deserves to rule because their achievement was a demonstration of natural superiority or ordained by god. the elite use this rationale even today. i heard oprah winfrey say, on air, during one of her shows that god chose to her to become rich because she was so much wiser and deserving than others. this is extreme narcissism and megalomania; a mental disease that seems to inflict ALL the elite. they all believe they're superior to the rest of humanity and in fact THE OPPOSITE is true. capitalism allows the most predatory, the most devious and unethical, thus the least deserving, to prosper. when was the last time you heard of anyone getting rich from generosity or compassion?
14
the constitution was originally designed as a conservative document. to appease the wealthy who wrote it. if it wasn't for the "anti-federalists" like Jefferson, samual adams and Patrick henry there wouldn't even be a bill of rights. the founding fathers, as a whole, actually feared democracy and majority rule. so, the elite in general and the GOP are right in step with the belief's of the original framers. this where they claim a "strict" interpretation of the constitution. of course what they mean is a pro-elitist, conservative interpretation. where the left prefer a more liberal, human rights oriented interpretation. but you're right, the elite on the right seem more willing to do whatever takes, violate any law, overstep any ethical boundaries to obtain and hold power.
13
… and I might add that The Buddha, Socrates and Jesus were all anti-elitists and anti-materialists as well. they despised wealth and greed and the corruption they inspire.
9
yep, jesus was a socialist pure and simple. this all falls in line with the prosperity gospel. financial "success," wealth and power are rewards from god. it goes all the way back over 6000 years to the "divine-right-of-kings." a belief john locke obliterated in 1690 in his First Treatise of Government. the capitalists used smith's "wealth of nations" to keep the lie alive as did the industrialist of the gilded age and the fascists in the 20th century calling it "social-darwinism." (stalin and mao were both fascists by the way, regardless of what they called themselves.) the philosophy goes - anyone with the cunning and ambition to obtain wealth and power deserves to rule because their achievement was a demonstration of natural superiority or ordained by god. the elite use this rationale even today. i heard oprah winfrey say, on air, during one of her shows that god chose to her to become rich because she was so much wiser and deserving than others. this is extreme narcissism and megalomania; a mental disease that seems to inflict ALL the elite. they all believe they're superior to the rest of humanity and in fact THE OPPOSITE is true. capitalism allows the most predatory, the most devious and unethical, thus the least deserving, to prosper. when was the last time you heard of anyone getting rich from generosity or compassion?
8
it all falls in line with the prosperity gospel. financial "success," wealth and power are rewards from god. it goes all the way back over 6000 years to the "divine-right-of-kings." a belief john locke obliterated in 1690 in his First Treatise of Government. the capitalists used smith's "wealth of nations" to keep the lie alive as did the industrialist of the gilded age and the fascists in the 20th century calling it "social-darwinism." (stalin and mao were both fascists by the way, regardless of what they called themselves.) the philosophy goes - anyone with the cunning and ambition to obtain wealth and power deserves to rule because their achievement was a demonstration of natural superiority or ordained by god. the elite use this rationale even today. i heard oprah winfrey say, on air, during one of her shows that god chose to her to become rich because she was so much wiser and deserving than others. this is extreme narcissism and megalomania; a mental disease that seems to inflict ALL the elite. they all believe they're superior to the rest of humanity and in fact THE OPPOSITE is true. capitalism allows the most predatory, the most devious and unethical, thus the least deserving, to prosper. when was the last time you heard of anyone getting rich from generosity or compassion?
6
@bw s … you get no argument from me. personally i'm tired of the attacks on Christianity and religion in general. jesus was no fascist and you can't blame him for the elite who corrupted and misrepresented his message in his name. the same can be said for adam smith and karl marx. the crimes committed in their names is not a reflection of their original intent. THE ELITE CORRUPT EVERYTHING to their advantage. the sad part is the people who believe these corruptions and follow the LIARS! especially, when all they have to do is READ the truth for themselves. the early Christians were communal sects living for the mutual benefit of their society. Christians were involved in the abolitionist movement, the early labor movements, the civil rights and anti-war movements. i'm not a Christian, per se, myself, but i'm a follower of jesus, as I am the buddha and Socrates who all advocated the same thing. LOVE EACH OTHER! I have the deepest respect for my Christian brothers and sisters who follow this principle.
6
@aragon1253 … yes, disloyalty. that's how the elite perceive it. how dare they ask for a livable wage, medical care or an education? they should be happy with the scraps we allow them to have. asking for more income than what your employer is willing to pay is a sign of unappreciation for what they're already paying you. the employee is expected to sacrifice ALL for the good of the company. anything else is declared as disloyal and a betrayal to the company - and the BOSS!
5
@IndiaAniya25 … "the Founders only wanted freedom for themselves." excellent point. I look at it like this - the very same people were in power following the American revolution as before it. only without british oversight. I think your closing question can be reworded to ask - is a truly classless society possible? can a society be based upon inclusive, mutual benefit rather than exclusive, selective privilege? I say - YES! but it requires real devotion and lifetime dedication. in other words, YOU must be willing to sacrifice and change yourself. how can you expect the whole world to change but not be willing to change yourself? I founded a unique and innovative philosophy called equalism designed specifically to achieve these goals. I can send you some links explaining equalism further. are you interested?.
5
@kirstinstrand6292 yes, "a perpetual source of idiots." that funny. I grew up in a pretty conservative, religious home. we went to church every sunday and prayed at every meal. but my parents were kind of odd in that they eventually allowed us kids to decide for ourselves whether to carry on these activities. as for me, Christianity, as it was taught to me, never struck me as true; and even rather hypocritical. i'll bet that 90% of the atheists today grew up with at least some religious background. i wonder what it is that allows some of us to recognize the hypocrisy while others remain oblivious to it? to this day I follow jesus, but i'm not a Christian. I recognized a link between the teachings of the Buddha, Socrates and Jesus, and others, that I've committed my life to. I have no animosity towards Christians or the followers of any other religion who reject the fascism that's being embraced that corrupts the true intent of these religions. in other words, there are GOOD Christians in the world who truly embrace compassion and love and it isn't fair to group them all as mindless, unempathetic automatons. also, there are some very cruel and predatory atheists in the world as well. they aren't all about rainbows and candy canes.
4
@kat64470 … nope. i saw her say this out right and/or elude to this belief on TV on several occasions. I only used her as an example. she's not the only elitist to posses such twisted beliefs about themselves. they ALL do to one degree or another. I only singled out winfrey to demonstrate, when it comes right down to it, the liberal elite are no different than the conservative elite. elitism warps one's sense of reality and creates a fantasy bubble around them. its the only way they can rationalize their own opulent lifestyles and privilege.
3
oh, and by the way, I was never a regular oprah viewer. I would catch her saying this nonsense as I channel surfed. so, for me to catch her saying this as often as I did only suggests she probably said it even more often than I saw. but you know what the audience would do whenever she uttered this absurdity? they'd all applaud in agreement. NOW THERE'S THE REAL INSANITY RIGHT THERE.
3
@kirstinstrand6292 … I could talk about this all day. I find it enjoyable, exhilarating. and enlightening. but i'll make just one final comment. you're more than welcome to respond if you wish. personally, I don't believe in god at all. i'm not spiritual in any sense of the word. I have both my feet planted firmly on the ground and my attention directed strictly on earthly matters. but if someone wishes to believe in god - what the hell do i care? it ain't none of my business. as long as they don't use their belief's as an excuse to oppress others they're entitled to believe whatever they want. when I say i'm a follower of jesus i'm referring to his social teachings. it was the golden rule that was essentially the link I found in buddha, Socrates and jesus and I founded a philosophy called equalism based upon that link. I see jesus as a REVOLUTIONARY not a religious figure at all. and his revolution was based upon LOVE, cooperation and a denunciation of greed and materialism. this is what I've dedicated my life to. SOCIAL JUSTICE, HUMAN UNITY and PERSONAL INTEGRITY. and these things can be pursued and achieved regardless of and while maintaining our petty, individual differences. every comment I write, pretty much every thought I have is a reflection of this equalism philosophy. ALL non-predators are welcome to join the equalism movement, religious, atheist, conservative liberal. just leave your hate at the door and come on in!
2
@allenesoracco6839 … thanks. you're very kind. I like you too.
1
@staceystrukel1917 … you're right; to a point. our founding fathers were ALL elitists (they were all rich) but some of them had more respect for democracy than others. Hamilton represented those who wanted an aristocracy or a very strong centralized "LEADER" to head the govt. while Jefferson represented those who desired a more egalitarian approach. Madison, the main architect of the constitution, worked out somewhat of a compromise. but that so-called compromise was quickly corrupted as the elite maneuvered through the states and the courts to solidify elitist control of this country. and after 250 years the result has led up to trump, a criminal, billionaire, taking over the govt, totally disregarding and violating the constitution and doing as he please. lastly, business regulation is for the PROTECTION of the people against elitist abuses of labor, consumers and the environment. they equalize society, at least to some extent, and, generally speaking, bring the U. S. closer to true democracy. the elite despise regulation because it interferes with their profits and absolute authority over society.
1
@robinfantley6782 … I apologize but I don't understand your comment.
1
@antifazisbonifaz6964 ... i'm not sure I understand your comment. are you saying being predatory and amoral are acceptable if it accomplishes an ethical end? this is like saying "fight fire with fire" and "the end justifies the means." I disagree with both concepts. you don't fight fascism with fascism. you don't respond to trickery and fraud with more trickery and fraud. you don't lower yourself to the level of your adversaries. that makes you no better than they. did I interpret your comment correctly?
1
@antifazisbonifaz6964 … thanks. I think you can disregard my last response to you. I still support my last response 100% but it doesn't apply to what you wrote.
1
@antifazisbonifaz6964 … your English is a hell of a lot better than my Spanish. i'll tell you that. I think you're confusing ambition and cunning, with valor and courage. what your describing is "ruthlessness." and there's no honor in being ruthless. but otherwise I totally agree with you.
1
@antifazisbonifaz6964 I definitely agree with you about trump, putin or Xi. their all spineless little weasels. but there are violent warriors and non-violent warriors. khan, cortez and napoleon were all warmongers and tyrants. they slaughtered people in pursuit of their own glory. then there's the non-violent warriors like Gandhi and martain luther king. these people fight for what's right but leave no trails of blood in their wake. yes, in a sense the world needs warriors but it depends on what their fighting for and trying to achieve. it may sound like a contradiction but its not - FIGHTING for peace, justice and human rights is always a noble cause.
1
@antifazisbonifaz6964 .. it was a pleasure "talking" to you. you take care my friend. if you see me on another thread on another video don't hesitate to say "hi!"
1