domingo, 26 de agosto de 2012

How to convert from Atheism to Christianism

A comment in this blog inspired me to answer the question: How do you get to the stage where you believe that the Bible is the literal truth of God?

> I don't get how one goes from "I believe in God" to "I believe in the
> bible." It seems there is no reason for this beyond tradition, tradition
> that could easily change in another culture.

I think that the transition is part of a larger process of becoming a Christian. First one needs to take the steps out of the imoral secular world into partial Christianity, and I think that it goes like this for people in our western modern world:

1> First you will hear in the imoral secular world the rules to be a happy and successful person (or at least it was like that in my High Scholl in Brazil): Drink a lot, have sex with as many women as possible, be rich, use drugs, etc. So you attempt to follow those things and figure out that you are not the happy winner like they promissed that you would be, but instead you are miserable. Those things at most make you dizzy, make you forget, but in the end they don't satisfy and you need an each time stronger dose to feel something.

2> You are aware that conservative Christians do offer a whole alternative world view, way to be and in general a whole and completely different approach to what is the correct way of being and what brings happyness.

3> The holy spirit touches you

So with those 3 things in place you decide that the imoral secularism is not for you and you definetively need to try something different. But not just anything different: You make the first step into a conservative Christian church (I recommend any Church which believes seriously that the Bible is the literal truth from God). At this point you start joining the service, talk to people that, go to bible study meetings, make friends, etc. In the beginning it might be a little shocking as people there actually believe everything from the Bible, even parts which you rationally rule out as impossible. But if they are well versed in the scriptures they will tell you that it is normal that for unbelievers the scripture is madness:

1 Corinthians 1:18

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

So asome time (I'd say 6 months is enough) of participating in a conservative Church and studying the Bible will be enough to convince a person that:

1> There is no true morality outside christianism. Secularists are imoral, ruthless and mean, and they don't care about the damage they do when they attack other people. I am yet to see real, reliably, care about what people feal outside christianism.

2> That so many wonderful people can be found in the Church.

3> That the word of God is wonderful: The more you read of it the more you get convinced that everything in it is good, that everything in it points to the great plan of what God wants for your life and that everything in it is true. That there is nothing objectionable about it and that you are actually prepared to live by its rules as you know them very well and that it fits perfectly for the human soul. Even if you sometimes wish for something different from what the Bible says it is good, the truth is that God makes those things out of reach for our best.

And add to that some more work of the Holy Spirit and done! You just made the entire process right from Atheism towards conservative Christianity in 6 months! Or at least that's how it worked for me =) And I think that that's how it went for a lot of other people too. I was not very successful in the modern western model of how to be: Didn't have luck with women and neither did I ever use drugs. But I know of a very high profile case: A Brazilian rock-star (Rodolfo Abrantes) which was the extreme example of the well succeeded modern western: He had all of it: Drugs, sex and rock&roll. But he similarly concluded that he was miserable and that the modern secularist western world is a huge lie and he dropped it all for Christ.

quarta-feira, 22 de agosto de 2012

Calculation of the price in taxes of public transport

In my last post I stated how much cheaper public transport is, but then Suburbanist claimed that this is because we are getting subsidised by people that don't use it. So I decided to calculate exactly how much we are getting from each tax payer:

> Originally Posted by Suburbanist
> (2) Even if you paid nothing for your annual transportation card, that would obviously not cover the costs
> of the service, which would then have to be paid by taxes collected on all people. Somebody is paying
> taxes to fund your heavy use of the transportation system if it is "so cheap".

I could not find the raw data for Wroclaw.... but, I found good data from a city relatively similar in size and public transport: Poznan. And guess what? It has a decent operational profit in public transportation!

http://www.mpk.poznan.pl/images/stories/o_mpk/raporty/raport-roczny-2011.pdf

MPK Poznan has 19 lines of light rail, and +/-40 of buses and it had an income of 370 million zl in 2011 which generated a profit of 16 million zl. It even had to pay 3,7 million zl in income tax because of the profits! So it had a final profit of 12 million zl in 2011.

It is true that this ignores 275 million zl in investments (Actually Poland only pays half of this sum, EU pays the other half) made as lost funds by the government to buy new trams, new buses and build new right of way and do modernization works, but nevertheless we can't ignore that MPK Poznan has operational profit =)

 And when it comes to passenger long distance rail, PKP Intercity was also profitable in 2011, although it does not do regional rail, only long distance (stops are every 50km aprox.). Again, of course this ignores the 5 billion in investments made in the railway infra-structure as a whole (includes both rail line modernization and station rebuilding). Of those 5 billion, the EU pays 2,5 billion, the government pays 1,8 billions and the PLK (Railway lines company) pays 0,7 billions.

 So the total cost for city rail investments (140 million zl) + general railway investment (but this covers cargo too!!) 1,8 billion zl total aprox + operational deficit for regional rail of the region (aprox. 100 million zl, varies per region) = 2 billion zl. If we imagine that 20 million people are working from a total population of 37 millions (excluding children, unemployed, redired people, etc), the cost per tax payer is 100 zl per year

 Oh, yes, we are destroying the wallets of people that don't use public transportation because we are taking from them 100 zl per year =D

terça-feira, 21 de agosto de 2012

The value of urban and intercity rail investment

I live in Poland, and here we have a great and dense network of regional rail and the city has more then 25 lines of light rail + lot's of bus lines, including night buses, express buses and in nearly all major avenues there is either an exclusive light rail or an exclusive bus pair of lanes.

As a result I don't own a car at all, because it is absolutely unnecessary. I can go anywhere I want in the country fast and cheap on public transport, and in the process I save huge amounts of money. The cost of 1 year of subscription to the entire public transportation system of my city, including all light rail, buses, night buses, express buses and even the bus to the airport is 1000zl=300dollars. That's amazingly cheap. For the intercity transportation, and I travel reasonably often, I once tried to calculate how much I expend, but the amount was so low that I gave up. I would say that I expend a maximum of 2000zl=600dollars in intercity transportation.

So 900 dollars for transportation all around the country ... how much would I have to pay if I had to do this in a car? Parking near my work alone would cost more then that, as it costs 400zl per month=4800zl per year=1500 dollars. Not to mention Highway fees, gas, insurance, car devaluation, speeding/parking tickets, car maintenance, etc, etc =D How much would it be per year? Maybe 9.000 dollars? A factor of 10x more expensive then I currently pay...

So here we are: People in the USA apparently are extremely rich (or filled with debts) so that they can waste lots and lots of money in car transportation. I am poor, so I prefer to save 8.000 dollars each year that would otherwise be wasted. I save them into investment assets which in turn give me income for my vacations while I do nothing.

And exactly the same can be applied for the society as a whole: Societies that invest into public transportation and into intercity railways indeed have to collect taxes and make investments in the infra-structure. But each citizen in turn receives a much, much bigger amount of money in return simply because he doesn't need to go around by car so much and saves this money. Societies that don't invest into urban and intercity rail essentially force their citizens to waste lots of money for transportation.

In the USA people are forced to use cars for everything because there is no other choice, while in Europe people can choose: Those that prefer to go by cars can do so, and those that prefer to save money and use the public transport can just as well do that and won't loose much at all.

segunda-feira, 20 de agosto de 2012

Afinando a minha crítica ao Libertarianismo

Verifiquei que a minha crítica ao Libertarianismo pode ser mau-entendida, então eu escrevi um texto explicando melhor a coisa:

> Gostei do seu comentario. Bem conservador. Pelo que entendi, vce axa que o
> pt ainda tem jeito, nao esta de todo perdido. E a patrulha ideologica feita
> sobre os servidores publicos? E a partidarizacao do servico publico?

Não, eu somente acho que a crítica as PPPs como colocada no artigo
original está completamente errada. Mas não confunda isso com uma
defesa do PT. O PT é podre, corruptor e socialista. O PT não tem
jeito, de forma alguma. Essas críticas que você coloca são corretas e esse é o jeito de criticar o PT! Realmente eles fazem patrulha ideológica e partidarização. Só critiquei a crítica errada ao PT, nunca critiquei as críticas certas. Eu acho que a minha crítica deve ser entendida do seguinte modo:

Vamos supor que estamos andando na rua e nos deparamos com Satanás e
começa a dizer que devemos todos ir junto com ele para o inferno. Daí
o nosso colega que escreveu o artigo começa um imenso discurso dizendo
que o sapato do Satanás está desamarrado. Que isso é sinal de azar e
por isso e somente por isso não devemos ir com ele! Oras, OK, ele está
certo de que não devemos ir com Satanás, mas o motivo que ele aponta,
a crítica que ele faz a Satanás é descabida. Temos que expor Satanás
por ele ser malvado e desejar o pior para nós... Não por algum outro
detalhe estranho e possivelmente falso... do mesmo modo o meu desejo é
expor que o PT é um partido totalitário de carater radical
esquerdista. Mas não quero fazer isso com argumentos falsos baseados
em teorias duvidosas e improvadas. Vou ao fundo da coisa: O PT é
maligno e anti-cristão. E pronto.

Até posso aceitar críticas estranhas contra o PT com o intuíto de que
elas ajudam a derruba-lo. Mas o problema é que e se começarmos a
acreditar nessas críticas estranhas? Vamos coloca-las em prática
depois do PT cair? Isso seria um desastre... a população não vai
gostar de ficarmos brincando de testar idéias economicas improvadas
.... vai nos catapultar do poder e ficar mais ainda agarrada ao PT. É
por isso que acho que devemos fazer as críticas corretas. Apontar as
soluções corretas.

As soluções do Libertarianismo ao serem implementadas na vida real vão
gerar um imenso descontentamento das camadas mais pobres. Quem está
acostumado com saúde e escola pública de graça e derepente tem que
pagar por isso não vai gostar nada da idéia. Quem por ter menor
capacidade intelectual acabar relevado a miséria no capitalismo
selvagem não vai simplesmente achar que o libertarianismo está certo:
 Oh, ok, sou miserável pois sou incompetente como dizem os neoliberias. É muito, 1 milhão de
vezes melhor acreditar na versão do marxismo dos fatos: Sou miserável
pois os burgueses me exploram, então vou me juntar aos sem-terra e
invadir uma fazenda. E como estamos numa democracia e a maioria é que
decide ... sinceramente não vejo nenhuma possibilidade dos pobres
votarem nos libertários.

Mas os pobres votam sim e em números muito grandes aqui na Polônia no
partido conservador "Verdade e Justiça"! Temos até apoio dos
sindicatos "Solidariedade". E por que? Oras, pois nós oferecemos a
versão boa de ajuda governamental aos pobres: O "Verdade e Justiça" e
os sindicatos "Solidariedade" estão comprometidos com uma ajuda
solidária que o estado fornece aos pobres. Não é por que somos
marxistas. Não somos! Mas é porque nós somos cristãos solidários.
Jesus ensina a repartir com os pobres e a Bíblia ensina que tudo
pertence a Deus. Assim o Estado também pertence a Deus e deve se
comportar de maneira cristã. E a solução cristã para o problema da
miséria é a solução da solidariedade: Não apenas assistencialismo, mas
também cursos educacionais profissionalizantes. Em fim a ajuda
completa para a pessoa sair do desemprego com dignidade. Não
simplesmente ignorar o problema dos pobres como o Libertarianismo faz
e largar eles para a indoutrinação marxista dos militantes de
esquerda.

E é por isso que acho Conservadorismo é o correto e critico o Libertarianismo.

Mas, mais uma vez não encarem ser contra o Libertarianismo como ser a
favor do PT. Há 3 ideologias principais no mundo: Conservadorismo
(direita), Libertária (liberal em assuntos economicos e sociais) e
Esquerdista (esquerda). Então há dois grupos distintos que se opõem a
esquerda.

As PPPs e o libertarianismo

Prezados amigos, recentemente recebi o seguinte artigo: As parcerias público-privadas - a porta de entrada para o socialismo e ele me inspirou a escrever uma crítica do mesmo para mostrar os diversos erros graves que ele contém, assim como para mostrar parte das diferenças entre o conservadorismo e o libertarianismo:

-Nota do IMB
Escândalos como o da Construtora Delta, da Camargo Corrêa e da Gautama, além de obras públicas malfeitas -- como as do metrô de São Paulo, que desabaram no início de 2007 --, são meros sintomas de um arranjo político-econômico que premia aquelas empresas que têm fortes conexões com o estado.

Esse primeiro parágrafo do artigo chega ao cúmulo do absurdo. A parte privada da PPP da linha 4 do Metrô foi a compra de trêns e a administração e gerência da linha. Não foi a construção dos túneis e estação em si. Esses foram feitos por licitação como qualquer outra obra pública. O problema do túnel que desabou não tem nada a ver com PPP e ainda lembro que qualquer grande obra especialmente embaixo de um rio tem um grande risco e acidentes ocorrem em outras privadas também. Falar que o modelo de negócios PPP, que nem é o modelo da obra mencionada, é a causa do acidente é ridículo.

Tal arranjo político-econômico, conhecido tecnicamente como parcerias público-privadas, nada mais é do que um arranjo corporativista no qual estado e grandes empresas se aliam para, sob o manto de estarem fazendo obras, extorquir os cidadãos e dividir entre si o butim, dando em troca algo que lembra um pouco, com muita boa vontade, um serviço de infraestrutura.
Este arranjo é excelente para ambos os lados: os políticos ganham o crédito pela obra, recebem "agrados" das empresas que ganharam a licitação e, como consequência, garantem uma reeleição; e as empreiteiras contratadas ganham obras que serão pagas com o dinheiro do contribuinte -- logo, sem qualquer zelo e critério, pois ninguém gasta o dinheiro dos outros com parcimônia --, o que faz com que os lucros sejam garantidos, a necessidade de qualidade, nula, e as chances de superfaturamento, uma certeza.

As empresas não são escolhidas por terem amigos no poder. É um processo de concorrência. Qualquer empresa pode ganhar, basta apresentar o menor preço. E dizer que a L4 "lembra com muita boa vontade um serviço de infra-estrutura" é mais um erro grotesco do artigo. A L4 é uma infra-estrutura de transporte de primeira categoria. Já utilizei pessoalmente e conheço a área ferroviária e posso atestar que utiliza tecnologias de ponta e oferece um serviço excelente e de 1o mundo.
  

Na outra ponta do arranjo está o cidadão desamparado, obrigado a sustentar a farra e sem qualquer voz ativa neste arranjo que está sendo financiado com o seu suado dinheiro.

farra? Construir linhas de metrô é prioridade do povo de São Paulo como um todo... pode perguntar a qualquer pessoa que leva 2 horas para ir para o trabalho em São Paulo. Todas grandes metropoles do mundo investem no mesmo sentido, como Tokio, Nova Iorque, Paris, Londres, Cidade do México, etc. Pois uma grande e densa aglomeração urbana não pode ser sustentada somente com obras rodoviárias. Pela própria natureza do adensamento é necessário construir Metrô para transportar as pessoas rapidamente entre suas casas e seus locais de trabalho e recreação.

Por não estarem sujeitas a um ambiente concorrencial de livre mercado, empresas e empresários não precisam se preocupar em mostrar resultados.  Vale mais fazer lobby e subornar políticos para ganhar licitações do que prestar um bom serviço no mercado.  E é justamente por não estarem sujeitas à disciplina do livre mercado que os problemas surgem -- e são muito sérios.
São dois os principais problema de uma parceria público-privada: o monopólio garantido pelo estado e a ausência de propriedade privada. 

Mas isso é mais um absurdo. Coisas como linhas de metrô, canalizações de água, fios elétricos, ruas, calçadas, ferrovias, etc, são *monopólios naturais*. A pessoa não pode usar outra rua para sair da sua casa. Não é factível termos uma guerra com milhares de empresas diferentes cada uma com postes diferentes tentando vender eletricidade. Não podemos ter milhares de linhas de metrô paralelas e próximas somente para ter concorrência. E o mesmo nas rodovias, somente com uma obra de grande desperdício que é ter duas rodovias paralelas e próximas que se pode obter concorrência. Quem escreveu esse artigo nunca ouviu falar desse conceito básico no mundo das políticas públicas que é o "monopólio natural"? Esse conceito é básico e não é possível privatizar monopólios naturais pois isso leva a uma situação de monopolio em que o dono privado pode cobrar qualquer preço e ainda fazer um serviço porco pois eles é dono e que se danem os outros que tiveram o azar de não ter outra escolha a não ser comprar do monopolista.

Acho que já basta por aqui para ver que o artigo apresenta uma visão muito estranha da realidade. Ele vai contra o que é feito no mundo inteiro no sentido de políticas públicas. Ele claramente vai no vies ideológico de defender a privatização total, citando até possibilidades ridículas como uma empresa privada querer fazer uma obra de metrô por expontanea vontade de investir, coisa que nunca ocorreu no mundo inteiro. Eu desafio que alguém me mostre 1 exemplo sequer de total privatização. Eu gostaria de ver esse local aonde há dezenas de canos de esgoto embaixo de cada rua, cada 1 de uma empresa diferente. Oras, até nos EUA as Interstate foram todinhas construídas com dinheiro público. Não foram nem PPPs.

Eu acho justamente o contrário do artigo: PPP não tem nada a ver com socialismo, e a utopia do socialismo não é PPP não senhor, é o estatismo total e absoluto vide Cuba.  Para mim o principal mau do socialismo é ir contra tudo que está provado que da certo há séculos para impor a visão de utopia deles.

Mas se o socialismo é estranho, esse artigo também apoia uma utopia estranha. A utopia da anarquia ao desejar um mundo sem governo. Eu comprendo que com o domínio do socialismo na política no Brasil e nos EUA muitas pessoas vejam que o governo é o mau absoluto e precisa ser eliminado. Mas isso é inverter o problema! O problema não é o governo, pois temos governos desde antes do cristianismo e durante pelo menos 1500 dos 2000 anos de cristianismo o governo viveu em paz e harmonia com os cristãos. O problema é o PT estar no governo do Brasil. O problema é o Obama estar no governo nos EUA.

Oras, na roma antiga era o governo quem construia as estradas, aquedutos, muralhas e fossas para proteger os cidadão das guerras, etc. E quando os cristãos assumiram o poder não mudaram nada disso. Por que? Simplesmente pois não é uma boa idéia mudar isso. Ser conservador é continuar o que dá certo e qualquer um em São Paulo sabe que Metrô da certo. Se os cristãos do ano 400 não achavam que o governo devia sair do negócio de construir estradas, se Jesus já dizia que pagar impostos é correto, eu acho que eles tinham razão! É por isso que sou conservador tradicionalista: Sigo os passos que deram certo das gerações anteriores.

Então é por esses e muitos outros argumentos que eu vejo o libertarianismo como um erro de análise errada da situação. O Brasil já tentou o liberalismo econômico radical e foi terrível. O Collor foi o grande liberal econômico brasileiro. Ele destruiu a industria brasileira, gerou um desemprego imenso. Sucateou as ferrovias. O Collor e o liberalismo econômico radical foi um fracasso total e pior ainda: Um fracasso que trouxe o socialismo ao poder. Ao poder apontar para o fracasso do liberalismo o PT tornou o marxismo a ideologia dominante no Brasil. Podemos ver que o liberalismo radical nunca estabeleceu nenhum governo durador no mundo inteiro. Pois não funciona!

O conservadorismo real e tradicionalista funciona! Pois não somos radicais em termos economicos, mas sim seguimos uma economia moderada e balanceada fundamentada em elementos que reconhecidamente funcionam. O conservadorismo não leva ao caos econômico. O liberalismo radical e o comunismo levam ao caos econômico e é por isso que o PT apesar de toda sua retórica muito pouco faz de comunismo econômico. O PT até concedeu estradas a iniciativa privada! Mas isso não é o fim da ideologia como muitos creêm. Se não atacam com força na área econômica, pois eles reconhecem que o modelo cubano é um fracasso, o PT por outro lado ataca com uma ferocidade incrível a alma do brasileiro. Eles atacam as leis morais que regem a sociedade e querem trocar as leis cristãs baseadas na Bíblia por sua versão perversa e satânica de como as pessoas devem pensar e agir. O PT sabe que isso é o mais importante. Não é uma guerra por dinheiro, é uma guerra por corações e almas! Lógico que eles também se apropriam de dinheiro, mas a questão é que o ponto principal não é esse.

Saindo das obras públicas e indo para outras áreas. Muitos libertários veêm o problema das escolas e universidades públicas da área de humanas realizarem indoutrinação marxista, mas eles dão a solução errada. Dizem que a solução é fechar as escolas públicas. Mas o problema não é esse! Não é elas serem públicas o problema. O problema é elas fazerem indoutrinação marxista. Na Polônia as escolas públicas são maioria absoluta e .... pasmem! As escolas públicas fazem ensino religioso cristão! Nada de multicultiralismo nem de secularismo nem de outras ideologias perversas dos séculos 19 e 20. Elas seguem a tradição milenar de escolas cristãs e nada mais sensato de que se o estado tiver escolas, que elas também sejam cristãs.

E por essas e outras que eu não sou libertário: Sou conservador.

Não me levem a mal, eu compreendo que libertários e conservadores podem ser aliados contra o socialismo, mas estou amplamente convencido de que o libertarianismo não é o caminho correto e eu gostaria de convencer os libertários a mudarem para o caminho da verdade =)

E aproveito a deixa para mostrar alguns exemplos de movimentos conservadorer no Brasil:

*O Instituto Plínio Correa de Oliveira - Da linha do Tradição, Família e Propriedade. É bem interessante mas me parece ser anti-ecumenico, demasiadamente voltado a apenas o Catolicismo. Como sou presbiteriano e ecumenico fico de fora
*Integralismo - Bastante interessante, mas não estou convencido de que é o ideal conservador

Na Polônia a coisa é mais fácil, há um partido conservador que defende toda a verdade de maneira ampla, corajosa e cristã. Sem excessos e sem se comprometer nem 1cm com a dupla maligna: liberalismo e socialismo. O partido "Verdade e Justiça". E melhor ainda: tem grande apoio da população (tem em torno de 35% do parlamento) e até já foi governo na Polônia de 2007 a 2009! E duplamente melhor ainda: A grande maioria dos sindicatos apoia o "Verdade e Justiça". Isso mesmo, sindicado não é necessáriamente sinônimo de socialismo. Aqui na Polônia os sindicatos "Solidariedade" lutam a favor do conservadorismo cristão e contra o liberalismo e o socialismo, coisa que pode parecer impossível para quem só conhece os sindicatos marxistas do Brasil.

sexta-feira, 17 de agosto de 2012

The ideologies in the world

In my last post I have started some discussion about the evilness of the left and my despise for the center-right, but I lot of the basic definitions went simply missing. I know them pretty well, but many others might not, so communication will be greatly facilitated if we all understand the same basic concepts. With this in mind I intend to define all the most relevant ideologies and also political positions in our contemporary world. Not only that, but I am also building a world map showing the stance of the governing political party of each country. I think that this will be fundamental tools to help us learn about far-away lands which are hardly ever mentioned and to guide which countries we should support and which ones oppose. So, let's start!

The map (click to enlarge it):



The ideologies:

Far-left, the Communists
Characteristics: Marxism, Socialism, Authoritarian, Anti-religion
This one is pretty easy to define. Everyone has already hard of them. Communists believe in utopical socialism and they are working towards their goal of stablishing a totalitarian government in which everyone is brain-washed/coerced/forced into believing in their ideology. Their main focus is that all material goods should be distributed equaly, but nowadays they no longer believe in the viability of this so this policy is not taken into actual practice. Until a better environment for the equalitarian distribution of goods comes, communits kill time by persecuting christians and political opponents. Marxist states are not supporters of traditional morality, but they rarely go into the wierd and inversed morality of liberal socialists, because that is inherently self-destructive, and communists wand to keep in power for as long as possible. Communists usually have good relations with "Authoritarian Centrists", but may also sometimes cooperate with "Liberal Socialists", "Centrists" and islamists.

I classified the following countries as obvious hardcore marxists with a single-party system: China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, North Korea

But there are also pseudo-democratic countries where the opposition is  heavily supressed which were classified as such: Angola, Congo (both of them), Eritreia, Ethiopia and Cambodja

And also countries which are largely democratic, but in which the left makes severe attacks to the freedom of the press and of the opposition: Equador (which cracks down on the opposition since the election of the leftist Correa in 2007), Venezuela and Bolivia ("Movimento ao Socialismo", from Evo Morales).

Far-left political parties in Brazil: PSOL, PCdoB, PCB, PSTU, PCO

Far-left parties in Poland: None that I am aware of

Liberal Socialists and Social Democrats
Characteristics: Marxism, Socialism, Socially Liberal, Secularism
Liberal Socialists are a lighter version of Marxism. They also believe in a the value of financial equality and dislike religion, but they accept democracy, and this is a key element which differentiates them from authoritarian leftists. One the other hand it is true that world wide the Liberal Socialists are involved in supressing political enemies and we have very recently seen that even in the United States the Liberal Socialists use political power to crack down on those that disagree with them, effectively persecuting conservatives when the Democrat mayors told the Chick-fil-A company to get out of their cities for being against gay marriage. But let's go back to our definition: Liberal Socialists above all are interrested in promoting they own distorted values. They are in favor of gay rights and laws to ban people from speaking against homossexuality (so called homophoby laws). They are progressively changing their views towards ever more depravated ones, so it is hard to make a definition which won't change. But when it comes to Liberal Socialists and disgusting, repulsive, anti-natural ideals which go against everything every sane person though before: well, don't be surprised! That's what they are. Liberal Socialists are also strictly anti-white racists. They promote racial quotas which discriminate against whites and call this "social justice" or "historical obrigation" to hide their hideous racist agenda. In other places like France and England they promoted massive waves of uncontrolled immigration from Africa and Islamic countries which essentially transformed those countries in shitholes. So in a certain sense Liberal Socialists are even worse and more destructive then the far-left. The far-left just wants to steal all your money and property and jail and eventually kill you. The general left wants to destroy your entire culture, honor, morale and spirit.

Liberal Socialist governments can be found currently in this countries: Brazil (Partido dos Trabalhadores), Uruguay, Peru, Argentina (FpV - Frente para la Victoria), France (Socialist Party), Niger (Parti Nigérien pour la Démocratie et le Socialisme-Tarayya), etc

The ligher version of Liberal Socialism is called "Social Democracy", and it is essentially identical to the Liberal Socialism, just that lighter, a little bit less enthusiastic. It avoids talking about it's hideous belieths to avoid loosing the middle class vote upon which they also depend, but in their voting record we can see that they are just a sub-type of Liberal Socialism.

Countries governed by "Social Democrat" parties are:  Portugal, Romania ("Partidul Social Democrat", but the president is conservative), Austria, Slovakia, Croatia, Dominican Republic, India, etc.

And besides those two, there is yet a third group of people inside this grouping: The greens. Exactly. Green parties are nothing more then watermellon politics: Green on the outside, red on the inside. The Green parties devotion to the nature is trully pagan and religious in nature. Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of conservationist efforts, am against all kinds of abuse (both of people and animals) and think we should work against polution and excessive destruction of the nature, as instructed in the Bible that humans are responsible to take care of the planet. We are supperiors to animals but should not use this as an excuse for cruelty. Having said that, the green left goes far beyond this. They hate humans and would rather have us all dead. Think about how the green left makes laws that punish hitting a dog with years in jail, while killing people via infanticide is for them a good thing. How they fight against killing insects but don't give a s*** for people dying on the streets murdered every single day.

Liberal Socialist political parties in Brazil: PT, PDT, PPS, PSB, etc

Liberal Socialist parties in Poland: Ruch Palikot, Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej

Centrists
Characteristics: whatever gets them ellected!
A funny group are the centrists. They are characterized by forming very large, "big tent", catch-all political parties which have no coherent ideology. On a superficial analysys many people might favor centrist parties as they won't be so much given to ideological excesses. But in reality almost always if someone is not into politics for ideology, he is for money. So centrist parties are the champions of corruption, and the most avid stealers of public money.

Countries currently rulled by centrist parties are: Indonesia, Lybia, Ukraine

Centrist political parties in Brazil: PMDB

Authoritarian Centrist
Characteristics: Authoritarian, Secularism, Nacionalism
This group catches the group of countries with centrist dictatorships. I also consider the so called "Arab Socialism" which dominated many arab countries in the 20th century to be a kind of Authoritarian Centrism as it does not in reality posses any kind of similarity with other kinds of socialism such as communism, social democracy and the Liberal Socialists. Considering that the other major alternative in the middle east is radical islamism, I think it is a petty the support of the USA for overthroing arab socialist governments such as those of Saddam in Irak, Assad in Syria, Mubarak in Egypt, etc, as Christians were better off living under an authoritarian, but secular, regime then they will be under radical islamist rule.

Countries with a perpetual president and a centrist, nationalist government: Belarus, Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, Turcomenistan, Camoroon, etc.

Arab Socialist countries currently are: Argelia and Syria

Classic Liberal
Characteristics: Minimal government, laissez-faire Capitalism, Privatization, Socially liberal
This group is also called "neoliberal" by its detractors in Latin America and "neoconservative" in the USA.

Classic Liberal parties in Brazil: Democratas

Classic Liberal parties in Poland: PO, although it is not 100% faithful to the classic liberalism and is close to centrism nowadays


Center Right and Christian Democrats
Characteristics: Moderately socially liberal, Moderate about the government size
I must confess I don't fully understand this group. They claim to be Christians usually and often even conservative, but they completely surrender to the socially liberalism of the left. This is surrendering exactly to the core of the leftist strategy to destroy our spirit. This group often likes to speak generic bravatos anti-left, like the recent "Multicultiralism is dead" from Angela Merkel, but when it comes to actually making something to make those words real they run faster then one can say "neoconservative". An interresting characteristic of the Center-Right is that when it is present, very often truly Conservative parties will be missing and vice-versa. Because they absorve the space on the right. In this sense I despise the Center-Right deeply. It is completely innefective and blocks and fights against the really effective groupings. Very often the Center-Right allies against Conservative parties and this shows their real nature as a 5th column inside the right wing to make us weaker. For this and many other reasons I strongly despise the center-right and think it should be put our of its misery so that trully conservative parties can come and establish a strong contrast with the Liberal Socialists and Classic Liberals and mark our position.

Countries ruled by the center-right: Germany (CDU), England (Conservative Party), Ireland, Chile, etc

Center-Right parties in Brazil: PP, PSC

Center-Right parties in Poland: none

Conservatives
Characteristics: Socially Conservative, Moderate about the government size, Nacionalism
This is what I believe to be the ideal agrupation. It defends everything just and fair in the world. The Bible is very clear: 1 Peter 2:13-14
13> "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority,
14> or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right."


Therefore the government is here to punish bad deeds and reward good deeds. That's why murder, stealing, cruelty, infanticide (abortion of which is a sub-type), sodomy must be punished. And that's where the Classic Liberals go wrong. They disregard the notion that the government ought to make moral judgements, but if the main reason for it existing at all is to punish the bad and reward the good, how can it do that without defining what is good and bad? And how can this be defined correctly except through Christianism? That's why I consider Classic Liberals to be wrong here and reality shows how Classic Liberal governments usually last shortly and are quickly overthrown by the socialists which then claim that they are rich people exploting the poor. Conservatives on the other hand have the right tools to defeat the left: We know what is right and what is wrong and we strongly afirm this. This puts a check against the left in the moral field. And Conservatives are not afraid of a moderate amount of government to help the poor with health, education, transport and other things. And this stops the left from using those things as a trap to attract poor people to their side.

Countries ruled by conservative parties: Thailand, Spain (Partido Popular), Italy (Il Popolo della Libertà), Lithuania

Conservative parties in Brazil: none

Conservative parties in Poland: PiS

Far-right
Characteristics: Socially Conservative, Moderate about the government size, Nacionalism, Authoritarian
The far-right is very similar to the Conservatives, but it is much radical in all positions. In particular the far-right in Europe is strongly attached to old territorial disputes and still demands changes in borders for old reasons while Conservatives have largely already given up on that. Those demands are very counter productive as they waste energy in fights between countries and makes ground for the left to counter-attack.

Countries ruled by the far-right in the world today: None, although political Islamism is de facto the far-right of the islamic world. But I considered it desirved a separate entry.


Islamism

Well, I think that enough has been said about what is political islamism. I'd say that everyone should know by now what it is and I will therefore skip this part.


Countries ruled by sunni islamists: Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Egypt (Muslim Brotherhood), Malasia, etc

Countries ruled by shia islamists: Iran and Irak

quarta-feira, 1 de agosto de 2012

Chick-fil-A controversy

This is now for some time in the top headlines in the USA and an interresting case to show the totalitarism and cruelty of the left:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/chick-fil-a-companies-gay-marriage_n_1721682.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/whats_wrong_with_big_city_mayors.html

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/letters_to_the_editor/x521647174/Maroney-No-free-speech-for-Chick-fil-A-owner

Basically the owner of a fried chicken restaurant said in an meeting with a Christian group that he is against gay marriage. And there were loud protests, boycott calls, calls by gays to make kiss parties in the shop, etc. After that the mayors of Chicago, San Francisco and Boston, among others, denied his network the right to built in their cities, claiming he is against "Chicago values", and therefore should get out of their city.

That's why I gradually moved out of conciliatory positions into more anti-left positions, and that's why I strongly despise the center-right. The left is not into conciliation. They are merely being progressive. First they propose a little change here (say, civil unions, parades, lgbt day). Then advance a little more (allowed in the military service, gay marriage, laws against homophobic speach, schools teaching that it is correct). And then next thing you now they are already at "bye, bye, get out of _my_ city" & jail and public punishment to anyone that disagrees. They are are already past the stage that Hitler was circa 1933 calling for boycott of jewish shops (and we, the good hard-working people are the jews this time). And what does the center-right do to stop them? Nothing. At most they progressively conciliate with the next crazy and satanic idea that the left cames up with and in the long run it makes no difference. At best they slow them down a little bit.

That's why I am for the Russian solution. Stop them while they are small, before the cancer is too large to kill and we descend into total totalitarism. Ban gay parades. Ban gay propaganda! Anything short of that is sure doom in the long run.

And for our polish friends, the political spektrum in Poland is something like this:

Far-Right: League of Polish Families
Right: PiS
Center-right: PO
Center: PSL
Center-left: SLD
Far-left: Palikot

And to help out, in case anyone doubts that the bible condems homossexuality, here are some references:

1 Coríntios 6:9

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

Source: http://www.bibliaonline.com.br/niv/1co/6

Original greek:

9 ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι βασιλείαν Θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσι; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται

Source: http://el.wikisource.org/wiki/Προς_Κορινθίους_Α#6

"effeminate" is translated from greek "μαλακοὶ ", which means weak, effeminate, coward

"men who have sex with men" is translated from greek "ἀρσενοκοῖται" which cannot be found in texts older then this one. Either Paul was the creator of the word or it was informal or otherwise not used in texts which survived. It unites the roots arrhen (man, male) and koite (bed, bedroom, cohabitation), and can be translated to "men that sleep with other men", clearly meaning homossexualism.

Read also about it here: http://www.galaxie.com/article/11293

1 Timóteo 1:9-10

9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,

10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers  - and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

Levítico 20:13

13"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Levítico 18:22-30

22 "'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

23 "'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

24 "'Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled.

25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.

26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things,

27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled.

28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

29 "'Everyone who does any of these detestable things —such persons must be cut off from their people.

30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.'" 

Source: http://www.bibliaonline.com.br/niv/lv/18

Romanos 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.

27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Source: http://www.bibliaonline.com.br/niv/rm/1

And I also deeply recommend reading this:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/early-teachings-on-homosexuality

And always interresting is a book written by one of the ancient Christians about persecution:
Tertullians's Apology
Source: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Tertullian's_Apology_(Thelwall_translation)