Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

China

2020-12-05T19:37:05Z

RandomUser34:

{{More citations needed}}

The People's Republic of China (PRC) is a country in East Asia. It is governed by the [[Communist Party of China]], and was established in 1949 following the [[Chinese Civil War]] in which the Communist Party won control over all of mainland China, with the losing [[Kuomintang]] retreating to Taiwan, which the People's Republic claims sovereignty over. China is the world's most populous country and the third-largest by land area. Among leftists it is a controversial topic, with strong support and opposition to China occurring on all sides, as well as further controversy as to the degree to which China truly is socialist.

{| class="wikitable" style="float:right"
|-
! People's Republic of China 
中华人民共和国
|-
| [[File:1024px-CHN orthographic.svg.png|frameless|300x300|center|The People's Republic of China]]
<div style="text-align:center">Land controlled by the People's Republic of China shown in dark green; land claimed but not controlled shown in light green.</div>
|-
|
Flag:[[File:1024px-Flag of the People's Republic of China.svg.png|125x83px|frameless|Flag of the PRC]]State Emblem [[File:800px-National Emblem of the People's Republic of China (2).svg.png|85x92px|frameless|Emblem of the PRC]]
|}

==History==
===Civil war===
====1910-1945====
After the fall of Qing Dynasty in 1911, China was ravaged by foreign influence by Japanese, British and French. On 1921, with patrons from Soviet Union, the communist party of China was founded. The Communist and Nationalist shared a front to restore China to it's past greatness. The united front which was founded in 1924 focused on the internal enemy which were the warlord. After the front proved successful, the nationalist slaughtered communist in 1927. Mao Zhedong differed from the founders in that he thought the true revolutionary force in China, wasn't the proletariat, but rather the peasantry. In 1934 communist in the encircled in their base in Jiangxi. To escape the nationalist they set out on the long march. During the long march of 1934, by criticizing Zhang Guato, Mao in large part rose to power. According to him, the communist were loosing because of bad organization. What was observed during the march was the different culture of Miao had compared to the Han. He promised that different nationalities could form their own nations, or willingly join the PRC. The Hui Muslims were promised to be able to choose their own religion and attend visits to mosques. Because of the war with Japan that started in 1930's, there were multiple attempts for nationalist and communist to cooperate, or at least stop fighting. In 1935 a CPC sent to Guomindang (nationalist) was sent to stop fighting in north east. During the december of 1936, Chiang Kai-shek was kidnapped by his own generals who urged him to cooperate with CPC. In 1937, Marco Polo Bridge incident caused a full scale war with Japan and an united front was formed. During the war Mao showed ability for compromise if it helped the CPC. Various Warlords were convinced to become an ally or join the CPC. Yan Xishan, who was in charge of Shanxi, declared neutrally with CPC on 1939. There was cooperation with American forces, with intelligence sharing and neutrality. A land reform was pursued in 1934 which allowed private farms to peasants. After the bombs on Japan fell the war was declared to have been ended.
====1945-1948====
With the end of war talks between the nationalist and communist began in Chongqing, but the talks proved fruitless. In December of 1945, US arranged second talks with the opposing forces. The talks proved fruitless yet again with communist never trusting the Guomindang in keeping liberated areas for the CPC, and the Guomindang not trusting CPC in recognizing Chiang as the leader of China. Imminently after the war Chiang sent his troops toward north-east China, where the communist troops and bases were. During this time both the CPC and the nationalist prepared for war. In 1945 party congress in Yanan took place in preparation of the upcoming civil war. The central military committee was established with high ranking CPC members having being appointed to leading roles. While nationalist certainly had a larger piece of the land and army, they weren't approved by the general population. Desertions among the soldiers of the nationalist army was common, with men being roped together to not escape. From 1937 to 1949, fifteen million starved because troops used to sell their rations to the peasants. Since a great deal of the army had troops from the warlords, rape and plunder was common. On CPC side, Mao got 200,000 troops from Manchuguo. Those who didn't join the PLA were executed.{{cn}} The CPC also gained a great number of troops from the deserted ones from the nationalist army. Other failure of the nationalist was that they allowed landlords, which were unpopular with the peasantry, to return after the war to their property. The Communists, knowing well how unpopular landlords were among the peasantry, humiliated and executed them. The CPC control over Harbin, area which the Japanese occupation industrialized, proved to be important in their victory, and allowed CPC to build a modern army. With communist evacuated from the area, Yanan fell to the Guomindang in 1947. After this Mao declared the annihilation of the Chiang's regime. After that the Guomindang tried spreading their reach within the country. With most of it's units being sparse, a counter-attack by the communist proved easy. In 1947 the CPC in Ningxia and Gansu were winning against the Muslim warlords. By 1948, Mao was convinced an attack, rather than defense, on the Guangdong was possible. the CPC was winning against the nationalist in north east, and with it overtook Shenyang and moved south.

====1948-1950====
Chiang troops gathered around Xuzhou with the hope of having enough time to counter-act the movement of PLA into the heart of China. With CPC having enlisted POW from the Guomindang troops into PLA, the attack could start instantaneous. Within five days Xuzhou, with it's supplies cut off and heavy rain making it's tank useless, was under CPC's wing with it's general Baitao committing suicide. At this time Mao thought that Beijing, while useless in strategy, would give much prestige. On January of 1949, Fu Zuoyi, who guarded Beijing, was promised that if he allowed the CPC to take Beijing, his war-crimes would be absolved, his fortune kept, and would be allowed to live where he wishes. On January of 1949, he accepted the term and People's liberation army stormed Beijing in. In April of 1949, Zhang Zhizhong, the governor of Xinjiang, joined the CPC. The majority of nationalist forces were defeated, and with it Chiang fled on a plane from Chengdu to Taiwan, which he brutally took over. On first of October, 1949, Mao declared from the forbidden city than the civil war has been won and People's Republic of China was found.

===Sino-Soviet split===
When [[Nikita Khrushchev]] came to power upon [[Stalin]]'s death, [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] began to consider himself the head of the international communist movement as he was the most senior leader. Khrushchev saw otherwise, that he himself was because he led the world's most powerful communist country. The denunciation of Stalin by Khrushchev, as well as the process of [[de-Stalinization]], and on top of this the policy of "peaceful coexistence" with the capitalist world developed Chinese antagonisms with the USSR further. Mao's leadership also began pursuing [[Nuclear weapons|nuclear weapons]] in part to legitimize the claims that the PRC is the leader of the communist world, not the "[[Revisionism|revisionist]]" USSR. The Soviets considered Mao to be a rash and potentially destabilizing force, while Mao likewise thought the Soviets to be unreliable.

In 1959, the USSR offered moral support to the [[Tibet|Tibetan]] people in their uprising against the Chinese. The following year, at the Romanian Communist Party Congress meeting, Mao and Khrushchev openly hurled insults at each other in front of attending delegates, which would be reported across international headlines. In 1962, Mao accused Khrushchev of capitulating to the [[America|Americans]] during the 1962 [[Cuban Missile Crisis]], to which Khrushchev replied that Mao's attitude would lead to nuclear war. The same year, the Soviets backed [[India]], who they also had a good relationship with, against China in the [[Sino-Indian War of 1962]].

The USSR and the PRC nearly went to war in 1968 over a border dispute in Xinjiang. The Soviets even considered carrying out a preemptive strike in the Lop Nur Basin, also in Xinjiang, where the Chinese were preparing to test their first nuclear weapons. The United States however persuaded the Soviets not to do so, for fear of sparking a world war. In the 1970s, the Communist Party of China gave a large amount of support and funding to the [[Khmer Rouge]], which was opposed to Soviet-backed Vietnam and which received approval from [[Mao Zedong]] himself. It is estimated that at least 90% of the foreign aid which was provided to the Khmer Rouge came from [[China]].<ref>{{Cite book|last=Chandler|first=David P.|title=Brother Number One: A Political Biography Of Pol Pot|publisher=Routledge|year=2018|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mTlMDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT77&lpg=PT77&dq=Maha+lout+ploh#v=onepage|isbn=978-0-429-98161-6}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/chinas-aid-emboldens-cambodia |last=Strangio |first=Sebastian |title=China's Aid Emboldens Cambodia |website=Yale Global Online|access-date=2020-04-12}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/the-chinese-communist-partys-relationship-the-khmer-rouge-the-1970s-ideological-victory|title=The Chinese Communist Party's Relationship with the Khmer Rouge in the 1970s: An Ideological Victory and a Strategic Failure|date=2018-12-13|website=Wilson Center|access-date=2019-11-26}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rfa.org/english/news/special/chinacambodia/relation.html|title=China-Cambodia Relations|website=www.rfa.org|access-date=2019-11-26}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/30/cambodian-historians-call-for-china-to-confront-its-own-past/|title=China Is Urged to Confront Its Own History|last=Levin|first=Dan|date=2015-03-30|website=The New York Times|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2019-11-26}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.visiontimes.com/2018/01/28/how-red-china-supported-the-brutal-khmer-rouge.html|title=How Red China Supported the Brutal Khmer Rouge|date=2018-01-28|website=Vision Times|language=en-US|access-date=2019-11-26}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Kiernan|first=Ben|title=The Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power, and Genocide in Cambodia Under the Khmer Rouge, 1975–79|publisher=Yale University Press|year=2008|isbn=978-0300142990}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=54iUDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=By+mid-september+China+was+prepared+to+extend+to+Cambodia+a+total+of+US$1+billion#v=onepage|title=ASEAN Resistance to Sovereignty Violation: Interests, Balancing and the Role of the Vanguard State|last=Laura|first=Southgate|date=2019-05-08|publisher=Policy Press|isbn=978-1-5292-0221-2}}</ref> The Khmer Rouge was removed from power in 1979 when [[Cambodian–Vietnamese War|Vietnam invaded Cambodia]] and quickly destroyed most of the Khmer Rouge's forces. Later on in 1979, when the [[Soviet-Afghan War|Soviets invaded Afghanistan]] to support the communist government there, China allied itself with the US and Pakistan to support the [[Mujahideen|mujahideen]], as it saw Soviet intervention in Afghanistan as an aggressive move to encircle China. Soon after in 1980, when Iraq invaded Iran, beginning the [[Iran-Iraq War]] that would last until 1988, the Soviets allied themselves with the US and French to support Iraq, largely because Iran had crushed the communist Tudeh party and thus the Soviets wanted revenge. To this, China sided with Iran, as did North Korea and Libya.

Throughout this, the Chinese leadership repeatedly pushed for the Soviets to relinquish [[Mongolia]] and "give it back" to China. The Soviets rejected this proposition, as did the Mongolians, who like the Vietnamese feared that China had imperialist ambitions on the country, seeking to exploit its resources and possibly even colonize it just as it had done so in its imperial era.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20200803213207/https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/publication/ACF4CA.pdf The Soviets' Best Friend in Asia: The Mongolian Dimension of the Sino-Soviet Split</ref>

When [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] became the Soviet premier in 1985, he sought to normalize relations with China, starting by recalling some border guards from the Soviet-Chinese border, as well as reopening trade relations. The Chinese leadership was skeptical, however, of Gorbachev's policies of [[Perestroika|perestroika]] and [[Glasnost|glasnost]], believing that economic reforms should take place before political reforms. Regardless, the Chinese government welcomed an official state visit from Gorbachev in late May of 1989, along with the resumption of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. The world press convened in Beijing to record the moment.

The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, posthumously granting Mao's wish — for China to be the world's most powerful state that calls itself communist.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200711033153/https://www.thoughtco.com/the-sino-soviet-split-195455 The Sino-Soviet Split: Russian and Chinese Political Strain in the 1900s]</ref>

===Great Leap Forward===
====The Great Chinese Famine====
[[The Great Chinese Famine]] (1958 till 1961) was caused and its severity compounded by a number of factors:

* Bad weather conditions, floods and droughts at the same time;
* The Four Pests Campaign;
* Peasants transferring to steel production;

* Bureaucratic mismanagement.

Four to five million people lost their lives.<ref>{{safesubst:Cite web| title = Cheng Enfu, A Study of Unnatural Deaths ... S&S 82,2 (April 2018) (1).pdf| work = Google Docs| accessdate = 2019-10-09| url = https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiHMNyN2636l6NM1RtgcipDU1ztNJlup}}</ref><ref>{{safesubst:Cite web| title = Sun Jingxian, Population Change During China's 'Three Years of Hardship' (1959-1961) CCPESR April 2016 (1).pdf| work = Google Docs| accessdate = 2019-10-09| url = https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iLVagufemBYVG4d043mL6XH0auu8V5HE}}</ref> Official government statistics claim that fifteen million people perished as a result of the famine, but the composition of this statistic remains unclear (some suspect that this was an exaggeration and meant to discredit Máo or legitimise Deng Xiaoping’s policy changes), and antisocialists usually insist that between 20 and 100 million innocents died,<ref>{{safesubst:cite web|last=Ball|first=Joseph|title=Did Mao Really Kill Millions in the Great Leap Forward?|url=https://monthlyreview.org/?p=5005|date=2006-09-21}}</ref> a toll that counts millions of hypothetical babies as ‘deaths’.<ref>https://www.reddit.com/comments/9f95t9/_/e5wcr63</ref>

Amartya Sen and John Drèze point out that, while the Chinese famine was devastating, it pales in comparison to the ordinary mortality rates which occur under market economies in an otherwise comparable nation like India:

{{quote|[I]t is important to note that despite the gigantic size of excess mortality in the Chinese famine, the extra mortality in India from regular deprivation in normal times vastly overshadows the former. Comparing India’s death rate of 12 per thousand with China’s of 7 per thousand, and applying that difference to the Indian population of 781 million in 1986, we get an estimate of excess normal mortality in India of 3.9 million per year. This implies that every eight years or so more people die in India because of its higher regular death rate than died in China in the gigantic famine of 1958–61. India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame.|Amartya Sen & John Drèze|<ref>{{safesubst:cite journal|title=Hunger and Public Action|publisher=Harvard University|url=https://scholar.harvard.edu/sen/publications/hunger-and-public-action}}</ref>}}

This comes out to more than one hundred million excess deaths in India alone from 1947 (when India became formally independent) to 1980. As Paul Heideman put it:

{{quote|In other words, though India experienced no concentrated period of starvation which can be easily identified and hung around the neck of a particular ideology, its ordinary conditions for the latter half of the twentieth century, in which an extraordinarily unequal distribution of land obtained, created an excess mortality that, over the long term, dwarfed that of the worst famine of the century.|Paul Heideman|https://jacobinmag.com/2018/08/capitalism-socialism-khmer-rouge-cambodia-china-famine-friedersdorf}}

This demonstrates the effects that capitalism has on a developing nation, but it is all the more troublesome when compared to the [[People's Republic of China#Infrastructure|immense gains made in the People’s Republic of China]].

===Cultural Revolution===
===Market reform===
====1989 Tiananmen Square protests====
Students have been protesting since 1986 for better economic conditions and greater freedom of the press, however those protests were suppressed. They flared up again in April of 1989 after the death of ousted General Secretary Hu Yaobang, who was reform-minded and rather popular with the people. Protests were concentrated in Beijing but occurred in many other places as well, reiterating the goals of previous demonstrations.

The protest movement was supported by the liberal faction of the CPC including high-ranking party members such as Zhao Ziyang, who promised to open the door to liberalization if it had succeeded like in Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, and Yugoslavia. The protest movement, as evidenced by their own accounts, called for political and economic liberalization, rallying around a statue which some say resembles the Statue of Liberty, while otherwise is said to more so resemble the works of Soviet sculptor Vera Mukhina. After the movement had been building in the square for seven weeks, unarmed soldiers were sent in to disperse the protesters, after which many soldiers were beaten to death, torched, and lynched. The New York Times' death count went from 2,600, to 8,000, then to tens of thousands. In reality, it wasn't a massacre of peaceful students, but skirmishes between PLA soldiers and armed detachments from the liberal reformist movement. Nobody was killed inside the square itself, only around 300 (including soldiers) were killed or trampled in smaller clashes in streets outside the square.<ref>[https://www.liberationnews.org/tiananmen-the-massacre-that-wasnt/ Tiananmen: The Massacre that Wasn’t]</ref><ref><[https://medium.com/@leohezhao/notes-for-30th-anniversary-of-tiananmen-incident-f098ef6efbc2 Notes for 30th Anniversary of TianAnMen Incident]</ref> The Chinese Communist Party did not and does not deny the incident and the deaths that occurred, nor did they hide the incident from the public. They held a press conference on national television two days after the incident occurred where they openly admitted the actions that took place, the estimated casualties, and the political motives involved.<ref>https://imgur.com/a/Wqq19Q6</ref> An on-scene Washington Post reporter disavowed his own article for its lies and lack of journalistic integrity, especially regarding the alleged machine-gunning of protesters.<ref>https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_myth_of_tiananmen.php</ref> A protest leader who came from Taiwan admitted that no protesters were killed in the square.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqPI8xlnrwg&feature=youtu.be&t=1374</ref>

A WikiLeaks cable from a US ambassador to the US state department confirmed that no killings or machine-gunnings took place in the square.<ref>https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/89BEIJING18828_a.html</ref>
===China today===

==Politics==

==Economy==
===Market reforms===
A series of market reforms began to be implemented on December 18, 1978 by the reformists of the Communist Party, led by Deng Xiaoping. The Soviet Union, as well as the countries following its model, were seen as a lost cause and so the market reforms were made, intended to open China up more to the capitalist world. The level of market elements to be introduced into the country was set to be greater than that of the Soviet [[New Economic Policy]] of the 1920s, with the rationale being that factors such as technology becoming more complex meaning that capitalist economies must be drawn closer to, as it is difficult to develop such technologies from scratch. The proximity of China and foreign capitalist states meant that China would obtain more products and technologies directly, while also making espionage easier, as opportunities for copying technology are greater and easier. Stealing advanced technology would be insufficient, however, as that would also require establishing advanced factories and infrastructure, with the outputs of such production thus being scarce and inefficient. Orienting the relatively primitive economy towards mass-producing bulk products, through the utilization of comparative advantages, however, enables for the accumulation of capital in order to acquire advanced technology of various sorts in an easier manner than clandestinely. Of course this also needs to be coupled with directed developmental policies concerning the economy, or else the country will just turn into something like Bangladesh.

Though these reforms have indeed enabled China to develop its productive forces, so far in the short term, it is uncertain whether they are sustainable under Chinese state control or whether they will enable the People's Republic to survive the end of capitalism. Government vision does not always translate into success quite as may be hoped, with a socialist example of this being the power structure established in the USSR, which though was supposed to defeat capitalism by the end of the century,<ref>{{cite book|last=Tompson|first=William J.|year=1997|title=Khrushchev: A Political Life|location=New York City|publisher=St. Martin's Press|page=238}}</ref> did not actually evaluate to do so. The scope of the economic reforms that China has carried out are beyond that of the New Economic Policy, which in the Soviet Union was very troublesome to undo in the phase of constructing actual socialism, and which ended up exacerbating a famine that was going on at the time.<ref name="CEE">New Economic Policy. (n.d.) The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia®. (2013). Retrieved September 22 2020 from https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/New+Economic+Policy</ref> Deng Xiaoping's market reforms do seem to have enabled China to outlive the Soviet Union, but it is still uncertain whether they will be able to be undone without catastrophic damage. As capitalism does not tend to be environmentally friendly, it is also uncertain whether the world will be reparable from the effects of climate change<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200922044434/https://time.com/5824295/climate-change-future-possibilities/ What the World Will Look Like in 2050 If We Don’t Cut Carbon Emissions in Half]</ref> by the time China is to actually establish the socialist mode of production.

===Pollution===
Despite having a reputation for being one of the world’s worst polluters, the PRC emits much less carbon dioxide person than the [[United States]] does, even while having a population that is five times greater.<ref>https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/CO2_emissions_per_capita,_2017_(Our_World_in_Data).svg</ref><ref>{{safesubst:cite web|title=CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita)|url=https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/en.atm.co2e.pc|accessdate=2020-01-10}}</ref> (The PRC’s emissions can also be attributed to the fact that most of the West manufactures its goods there; most of its pollution is probably caused by producing things that are exported to the West.) The PRC is nine years ahead of schedule on meeting its Paris agreement climate change goals,<ref>{{safesubst:cite web|last=Vaughan|first=Adam|title=China is on track to meet its climate change goals nine years early|url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/2211366|accessdate=2020-01-10}}</ref> and has met ultra-low power plant emissions in advance of the 2020 goal.<ref>{{safesubst:cite web|title=China meets ultra-low emissions in advance of the 2020 goal|url=https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-11/caos-cm110519.php|accessdate=2020-01-10}}</ref><ref>{{safesubst:cite web|title=China is on track to meet its ultra-low emissions goals for 2020.|url=https://theecologist.org/node/2991669|accessdate=2020-01-10}}</ref>

==Infrastructure==

===Health===
{{quote|Because of its radical commitment to the elimination of poverty and to improving living conditions — a commitment in which Maoist as well as Marxist ideas and ideals played an important part — China did achieve many things that the Indian leadership failed to press for and pursue with any vigor. The elimination of widespread hunger, illiteracy, and ill health falls solidly in this category. When state action operates in the right direction, the results can be quite remarkable, as is illustrated by the social achievements of the pre-reform period.|Amartya Sen|<ref name=Sen>{{safesubst:cite journal|last=Sen|first=Amartya|editors=Klasen, Stephan; Günther, Isabel|title=Perspectives on the Economic and Human Development of India and China|url=https://www.univerlag.uni-goettingen.de/handle/3/isbn-3-938616-63-6|publisher=Harvard University|year=2006|doi=10.17875/gup2006-202}}</ref>}}

Another important comment summarizing the findings of the study is as follows:

{{quote|We argue, in particular, that the accomplishments relating to education, healthcare, land reforms, and social change in the pre-reform period made significantly positive contributions to the achievements of the post-reform period. This is so not only in terms of their role in sustained high life expectancy and related achievements, but also in providing firm support for economic expansion based on market reforms.|Amartya Sen|<ref name=Sen/>}}

Professor Sen states here that the prereform period saw enormous increases in quality of life for the Chinese people, as well as important economic developments, without which the economic expansion following the 1979 market reforms most likely could not have taken place. He notes that during this period, a ‘remarkable reduction in chronic undernourishment took place,’ attributing this to the policies implemented by the people’s republic:

{{quote|The casual processes through which the reduction of undernourishment was achieved involved extensive state action including redistributive policies, nutritional support, and of course health care (since undernourishment is frequently caused by parasitic diseases and other illnesses).|Amartya Sen|<ref name=Sen/>}}

Professor Sen focuses more attention on the remarkable advances in healthcare during this period:

{{quote|China’s achievements in the field of health during the pre-reform period include a dramatic reduction of infant and child mortality and a remarkable expansion of longevity.|Amartya Sen|<ref name=Sen/>}}

It is also noted that the PRC’s life expectancy approximately doubled from approximately 35 years in 1949 to 68 years in 1981 (when the market reforms began to take effect).<ref>{{safesubst:cite journal|last=Hipgrave|first=David|title=Communicable Disease Control in China: From Mao to Now|journal=Journal of Global Health|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484775|year=2011|pages=224–238}}</ref> Another source on public health in the [[short twentieth century]] PRC comes from the journal ''Population Studies'', in a study conducted by researchers from Stanford University and the National Bureau for Economic Research. One important comment is as follows:

{{quote|China’s growth in life expectancy at birth from 35–40 years in 1949 to 65.5 years in 1980 is among the most rapid sustained increases in documented global history.|Babiarz KS, Eggleston K, Miller G, Zhang Q|<ref name=PopulStud>{{safesubst:cite journal|last1=Singer Babiarz|first1=Kimberly|last2=Eggleston|first2=Karen|last3=Miller|first3=Grant|first4=Zhangd|last4=Qiong|title=An exploration of China’s mortality decline under Mao: A provincial analysis, 1950–80|journal=Population Studies|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4331212|date=2014-10-13|pages=39–56|doi=10.1080/00324728.2014.972432}}</ref>}}

This alone goes to show the massive benefits that the revolutionary socialist movement attained. More important information is provided in the study, dealing with hospital and medical resources:

{{quote|Physician and hospital supply grew dramatically under Mao due to a variety of factors (including increases in government financing, the introduction of social insurance for urban public employees, and the launch of China’s Rural Cooperative Medical System in the mid-1950s). Rural Cooperative Medical Schemes (CMS) were vigorously promoted and became widespread in the late 1960s as part of the Cultural Revolution.|Babiarz KS, Eggleston K, Miller G, Zhang Q|<ref name=PopulStud/>}}

They also quote other research which found that the rapid gains in Chinese healthcare can be attributed to the specific policies that the communists implemented:

{{quote|China’s mortality decline between 1953 and 1957, which resembles that of the US between 1900 and 1930, was “primarily due to the unique social organisation of Chinese public health practices.”|Babiarz KS, Eggleston K, Miller G, Zhang Q|<ref name=PopulStud/>}}

Note that China achieved in four years what [[Imperial America]] took three decades to accomplish, due to their differing systems (i.e. planned economics vs. market economics). The study also confirms the immense success of the PRC’s vaccination programs:

{{quote|Systematic efforts to vaccinate the population against polio, measles, diphtheria, whooping cough, scarlet fever, and cholera were rapid and reputedly successful (China nearly eradicated smallpox within the span of only three years, with the last documented cases occurring in Tibet and Yunnan in 1960).|Babiarz KS, Eggleston K, Miller G, Zhang Q|<ref name=PopulStud/>}}

Additional citations for the claims in the above quotes are provided in the original study.

===Education===
Professor Sen notes that the huge improvements (including dramatic increases in literacy) can be attributed primary to the pre-reform period:

{{quote|China’s breakthrough in the field of elementary education had already taken place before the process of economic reform was initiated at the end of the seventies. Census data indicate, for instance, that literacy rates in 1982 for the 15–19 age group were already as high as 96 percent for males and 85 percent for females.|Amartya Sen|<ref name=Sen/>}}

Another study confirms Professor Sen’s analysis of education:

{{quote|China made large strides in primary and secondary education under Mao.|Babiarz KS, Eggleston K, Miller G, Zhang Q|<ref name=PopulStud/>}}

==References==

[[Category:Asia]]
[[Category:East Asia]]
[[Category:China]]
[[Category:PRC]]

Democratic centralism

2020-12-05T19:35:14Z

RandomUser34:

'''Democratic centralism''' is a [[Leninism|Leninist]] democratic practice in which political decisions reached by voting processes are binding upon all members of the party.

== In practice ==

In party meetings, a motion (new policy or amendment, goal, plan or any other kind of political question) is proposed. After a period of debate, a vote is taken. If one vote clearly wins (gaining 60% or above share if two options for example) all participants (the party) are expected to follow that decision, and not continue propagandising or otherwise working against it, aiming to act in unity. If participants still disagree, instead of splitting and forming another party as in [[Representative Democracy]] they are expected to table a motion for discussing the issue again. In the development of [[socialism]] in the Soviet Union and China, it was largely taken up in response to dramatic developments and violence which required faster mechanisms of making decisions. A constellation of practices surround this in order to encourage participation and debate, such as Don't Blame the Speaker. <ref name=criticism>{{cite web|author=Mao Tse Tung|year=1944|url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch15.htm|title=Mao Tse Tung Quotations from Mao Tse Tung 15. Democracy in the Three Main Fields |accessdate=9 August 2002}}</ref>

[[Category:Organization]]

Alienation

2020-12-05T19:34:56Z

RandomUser34:

'''Alienation''' is the process whereby people become foreign to the world they are living in.

The concept of alienation is deeply embedded in all the great [[religion|religions]] and social and political theories of the [[civilisation|civilised epoch]], namely, the idea that some time in the past people lived in harmony, and then there was some kind of rupture which left people feeling like foreigners in the world, but some time in the future this alienation would be overcome and humanity would again live in harmony with itself and Nature.

== Alienation in Hegel ==

== Alienation in Feuerbach ==

== Alienation in Marxism ==

[[Karl Marx]] had a specific understanding of the very sharp experience of alienation which is found in modern [[bourgeois society]]. Marx developed this understanding through his critique of [[Hegel]].

According to Hegel, through their activity, people created a culture which then confronted them as an alien force. But for Hegel human activity was itself but the expression of the [[Spirit]] (or [[Zeitgeist]]) which acted through people.

In the first place, Marx insisted that it was human [[labour]] which created culture and history, not the other way around; in other words spirit was a human product.

<blockquote>“Subjectivity is a characteristic of subjects and personality a characteristic of the person. Instead of considering them to be predicates of their subjects, Hegel makes the predicates independent and then lets them be subsequently and mysteriously converted into their subjects.

“The existence of the predicate is the subject; thus the subject is the existence of subjectivity, etc. Hegel makes the predicates, the object, independent, but independent as separated from their real independence, their subject. Subsequently, and because of this, the real subject appears to be the result; whereas one has to start from the real subject and examine its objectification. The mystical substance becomes the real subject and the real subject appears to be something else, namely a moment of the mystical substance. Precisely because Hegel starts from the predicates of universal determination instead of from the real subject, and because there must be a bearer of this determination, the mystical idea becomes this bearer.” [Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right]</blockquote>

But secondly, practice changes the material world, practice was therefore objective; the labour process was therefore an objectification of human powers. But if the workers related to their product as an expression of their own essence and recognised themselves in their product and were recognised by others in their work, then this was not the basis for alienation; on the contrary, this was the only genuinely human relation.

<blockquote>“Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. Each of us would have in two ways affirmed himself and the other person. 1) In my production I would have objectified my individuality, its specific character, and therefore enjoyed not only an individual manifestation of my life during the activity, but also when looking at the object I would have the individual pleasure of knowing my personality to be objective, visible to the senses and hence a power beyond all doubt. 2) In your enjoyment or use of my product I would have the direct enjoyment both of being conscious of having satisfied a human need by my work, that is, of having objectified man’s essential nature, and of having thus created an object corresponding to the need of another man’s essential nature. ... Our products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our essential nature.” [Comment on James Mill]</blockquote>

In this work, written in 1844, Marx shows how alienation arises from private labour, from commodity production:

<blockquote>“Let us review the various factors as seen in our supposition: My work would be a free manifestation of life, hence an enjoyment of life. Presupposing private property, my work is an alienation of life, for I work in order to live, in order to obtain for myself the means of life. My work is not my life.” [Comment on James Mill]</blockquote>

Marx went on to show that the specific form of labour characteristic of bourgeois society, [[wage labour]], corresponds to the most profound form of alienation. Since wage workers sell their [[labour power]] to earn a living, and the [[capitalist]] owns the labour process, the product of the workers’ labour is in a very real sense alien to the worker. It is not her product but the product of the capitalist. The worker makes a rod for her own back.

Once a product enters the market, no-one has any control of it, and it sets off on a course which appears to be governed by supra-human laws.

<blockquote> “... with commodities. ... it is a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things. In order, therefore, to find an analogy, we must have recourse to the mist-enveloped regions of the religious world. In that world the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men’s hands. This I call the Fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour, so soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities. This Fetishism of commodities has its origin, as the foregoing analysis has already shown, in the peculiar social character of the labour that produces them.” [Capital, Chapter 1]</blockquote>

Alienation, and [[commodity fetishism]], are therefore related to the concept of [[reification]], in which social relations are conceived as relations between things. Alienation can be overcome by restoring the truly human relationship to the labour process, by people working in order to meet people's needs, working as an expression of their own human nature, not just to earn a living.

== Further Reading ==

* ''[[Philosophy of Right (Hegel)|Philosophy of Right]]'' by [[Hegel]] [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/property.htm#PR65]
* ''Hegel's Theory of the Modern State'' by [[Shlomo Avineri]] [https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ot/avineri5.htm]
* ''The Young Hegel'' by [[Lukacs]] [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/youngheg/lukacs35.htm]
* ''Origins of the Concept of Alienation'' by [[Istvan Meszaros]] [https://www.marxists.org/archive/meszaros/works/alien/meszaro1.htm]

== References ==

{{MIAE}}

Class warfare

2020-12-05T19:30:24Z

RandomUser34:

In [[Marxist historiography]], '''class struggle''' is regarded as the primary motor force of history.

== Distinguishing characteristics ==

Distinguishing characteristics of class struggle under [[capitalism]] include:

*[[Labour]] (the [[proletariat]] or workers) includes anyone who earns their livelihood by selling their [[labour-power|labor power]] and being paid a wage or salary for their [[labour time|labor time]]. They have little choice but to work for [[capital]], since they typically have no independent way to survive.

*Capital (the [[bourgeoisie]] or capitalists) includes anyone who gets their income not from labor as much as from the [[surplus value]] they appropriate from the workers who create wealth. The income of the capitalists, therefore, is based on their [[exploitation]] of the workers (proletariat).

*At this stage, production itself becomes a social enterprise.

== Quotes ==

<blockquote>
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another...." [Marx and Engels, Communist Manifesto]
</blockquote>

== See also ==

{{NavPoAV1}}

Bourgeoisie

2020-12-05T19:29:31Z

RandomUser34:

The '''capitalist class''' or '''bourgeoisie''' (from the French term "bourgeois", meaning: from the city) is the ruling [[class]] of the economic and political system of [[capitalism]]. It is characterized by owning large quantities of [[capital]], and [[Wage labour|hiring]] [[proletariat|proletarian]] laborers to produce commodities.

Whereas the proletariat is the subject, exploited, disposed class in capitalist society, the bourgeoisie is the master, exploitative, and possessor class. The bourgeoisie owns the [[means of production]] and the means of living, including, but not limited to: factories, farmland, workshops, offices, and even housing. The proletariat and bourgeoisie stand in direct opposition to one another, and their differences are irreconcilable, resulting in [[class struggle]].

== Origins ==

Historically, the bourgeoisie emerged as artisans and petty tradesman during the late stages of [[feudalism]], and from there clashed with their rivals, the landlords of the estates. Feudal states were often [[physiocracy|physiocratic]], preventing the bourgeois from industrializing (Marx details this hypocritical struggle in his second manuscript of his [[Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts]] of 1844. [22]), as well as [[protectionism|protectionist]], preventing the bourgeois from gaining wealth through [[foreign trade]]. [[Bourgeois revolution|Bourgeois revolutions]] throughout the 18th and 19th centuries in Western Europe and the Americas destroyed most of feudalism, ushering in [[liberal capitalism]].

== See also ==

{{NavClasses}}

Alienation

2020-12-05T19:28:20Z

RandomUser34:

Marxism

2020-12-05T19:23:27Z

RandomUser34:

[[File:anti-duhring.jpg|thumb|254x383px|''Anti-Dühring'' was a foundational text in the development of "worldview Marxism". Visible in the 1939 edition is a portrait of Lenin and the adoption of [[Marxism-Leninism]] as the officially "updated" worldview of Marxism.]]
'''Marxism''' is the name given to a set of ideas, theories, and political ideologies that developed out of the works of Karl Marx. The term itself is difficult to define due to conflicting interpretations. After Marx's death, the term Marxism came to describe a holistic worldview (German: ''Weltanschauung'') that included theories of philosophy, history, politics, economics, and science.

== Etymology ==

Marxism is derived from the name of German philosopher [[Karl Marx]]. The term was popularized by [[Karl Kautsky]] who considered himself an [[Orthodox Marxism|"orthodox" Marxist]] during the dispute between the orthodox and revisionist followers of Marx. Kautsky's revisionist rival [[Eduard Bernstein]] also later adopted use of the term. [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]] did not support the use of the term "Marxism" to describe either Marx's or his views. Engels claimed that the term was being abusively used as a rhetorical qualifier by those attempting to cast themselves as "real" followers of Marx while casting others in different terms, such as "Lassallians". In 1882, Engels claimed that Marx had criticized self-proclaimed "Marxist" [[Paul Lafargue]], by saying that if Lafargue's views were considered "Marxist", then "One thing is certain and that is that I am not a Marxist"<ref>Letter to Bernstein, 1882.</ref>.

== Overview ==
Marxism can roughly be defined as the application of the materialist method to the study of social phenomena. It regards the material conditions and class conflict as driving forces behind historical social development -- Marxism stresses the causal effects of material conditions and class conflict. Marxism primarily focuses on explaining society and history.

It is difficult to establish a precise definition and framing of Marxism can depend on the emphasis preferred by a theoretician on one aspect of the method over another. The complexity of Marx's writings allows for misreadings, misinterpretations, and misplacing emphasis, and enables abuse. Arguably, Marxism as comprehensive world view originated after Marx's death from the efforts of Karl Kautsky, Friedrich Engels, and Georgi Plekhanov. Classical Marxism is based on the writings of [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]].

Marxism is not an ideology. It is strictly a method of social analysis. Scientific socialism is a socialist political ideology based around Marxist theory.

Placing different emphasis on different aspects of Marxist analysis produces different branches of Marxism. Different schools place a greater emphasis on certain aspects of classical Marxism while de-emphasizing or rejecting other aspects of Marxism, sometimes combining Marxist analysis with non-Marxian concepts. Some variants of Marxism primarily focus on one aspect of Marxism as the determining force in social development – such as the mode of production, class, power-relationships or property ownership – while arguing other aspects are less important or current research makes them irrelevant. Despite sharing similar premises, different schools of Marxism might reach contradictory conclusions from each other. For instance, different Marxian economists have contradictory explanations of economic crisis and different predictions for the outcome of such crises. Furthermore, different variants of Marxism apply Marxist analysis to study different aspects of society (e.g. mass culture, economic crises, or sexism).

Marxist understandings of history and of society have been adopted by academics in the disciplines of archaeology and anthropology, media studies, political science, theatre, history, sociology, art history and art theory, cultural studies, education, economics, geography, literary criticism, aesthetics, critical psychology, and philosophy.

Marxist analysis begins with an analysis of material conditions, taking at its starting point the necessary economic activities required by human society to provide for its material needs. The form of economic organization, or mode of production, is understood to be the basis from which the majority of other social phenomena – including social relations, political and legal systems, morality and ideology – arise (or at the least by which they are directly influenced). These social relations base the economic system and the economic system forms the superstructure. As the forces of production, most notably technology, improve, existing forms of social organization become inefficient and stifle further progress. As Karl Marx observed: "At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or_ this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution.

These inefficiencies manifest themselves as social contradictions in society in the form of class struggle. Under the capitalist mode of production, this struggle materializes between the minority (the bourgeoisie) who own the means of production, and the vast majority of the population (the proletariat) who produce goods and services. Taking the idea that social change occurs because of the struggle between different classes within society who are under contradiction against each other, leads the Marxist analysis to the conclusion that capitalism exploits and oppresses the proletariat, which leads to a proletarian revolution.

Capitalism (according to Marxist theory) can no longer sustain the living standards of the population due to its need to compensate for falling rates of profit by driving down wages, cutting social benefits and pursuing military aggression. The socialist system would succeed capitalism as humanity's mode of production through workers' revolution. According to Marxism, especially arising from Crisis theory, Socialism is a historical necessity (but not an inevitability).

In a socialist society private property in the means of production would be superseded by co-operative ownership. A socialist economy would not base production on the creation of private profits, but would instead base production and economic activity on the criteria of satisfying human needs – that is, production would be carried out directly for use. As Engels observed: "Then the capitalist mode of appropriation in which the product enslaves first the producer, and then appropriator, is replaced by the mode of appropriation of the product that is based upon the nature of the modern means of production; upon the one hand, direct social appropriation, as means to the maintenance and extension of production_ on the other, direct individual appropriation, as means of subsistence and of enjoyment."

==Ethics==
The belief that Marxism contains no ethical judgements derives from some comments made by Marx and Engels. In [[The Communist Manifesto]], for instance, morality is listed together with law and religion as "bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests". It is true that for Marx, morality is part of the ideological superstructure of society, is determined by the economic basis, and serves to promote the interests of the ruling class, but it does not follow from this that all morality is to be rejected. What has to be rejected is morality that serves the interests of the ruling class. Once communism has been established and classes have disappeared, however, class morality may be superceded, to what Engels called "a really human morality".

Examples of bourgeoisie morality are:
*Capitalists own the proceeds of their investments
*If someone finds or discovers something first, it belongs to them alone (this is embodied within the notion of [[private property]])
*Individuals and the ego are of greater importance than the collective

== Key Concepts ==
=== Historical Materialism ===
{{hatnote| See also: [[Historical materialism]]}}
=== The Law of Value ===
{{hatnote| See also: [[Law of value]]}}
=== Revolution and Dictatorship ===
{{hatnote| See also: [[Dictatorship of the Proletariat]]}}
=== Communism ===
{{hatnote| See also: [[Communism]]}}

Communism, in Marxism, is the supposed "end goal" of history. It is supposed to come after [[socialism]], when the world is all socialist and opposition to such is virtually gone. It is a stateless, classless, moneyless society.

Karl Marx wrote little about communism himself, since he believed that it would be rather pointless to speculate about something that would pretty much be determined by the material conditions of a time way after his, which would be nigh impossible to predict accurately. He considered it idealist to seriously theorize as to how communism will be like, as this would more or less impose what are merely one's ideas as to how communism will be like onto something that is largely determined by material conditions; in absence of actual evidence of such since once again, the material conditions of communism's time are speculative since the future hasn't happened yet, thus cannot really be studied scientifically. Nonetheless, there are a couple of occasions where Marx does write about it, for instance in the [[Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844]]. Therein he describes it as "the riddle of history solved" and as the resolution of various conflicts that have existed throughout all previous history: the conflicts between man and nature, between man and man, between freedom and necessity, and between individual and species.

There is also mention of communism in [[The German Ideology]], where Marx suggests that in a communist society, the division of labor would not force people into narrow occupational roles. One could, as Marx writes, "hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, breed cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I like, without ever becoming a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critic". In the same passage, Marx claims that the split between the particular interests of the individual and the common interest of society would disappear under communism. This is in line with his earlier remarks about communism resolving such conflicts as that between man and man, and between the individual and the species, which is a notion crucial to Marx's vision of communism. Marx immediately goes on to say that it is out of this very contradiction between the interest of the individual and the community that the state develops as an independent entity. The overcoming of this contradiction in consequence delegitimizes the state, which thus [[withering away of the state|withers away]] in time.<ref>''Marx, A Very Short Introduction'' by Peter Singer, Chapter 9</ref>

== Development ==
Marxism, as a system of thought, has undergone significant changes since Marx's early writings. In the last years of Marx's life the foundations were laid for a Marxism as a "worldview", specifically with the publication of ''Anti-Dühring'' by Friedrich Engels in 1877.<ref>Heinrich, Michael. An Introduction to Karl Marx's Capital, p4, 2004.</ref> In the following years this system of thought would become Orthodox Marxism which, aside from certain revisionist trends, would remain the "official" Marxism until the creation of the Soviet Union, at which point Leninist interpretation(s) would dominate Marxist ideological trends. The rise of Leninism, however, would also lead to criticism and innumerable alternative schools of thought within Marxism.
===Classical Marxism: 1840s to 1880s===
{{hatnote| See also: [[Classical Marxism]]}}
This period can be said to begin with Marx's early writings. In an 1843 letter, Marx outlined his attitude to philosophy, politics, and history:
<blockquote>"On the other hand, '''it is precisely the advantage of the new trend that we do not dogmatically anticipate the world, but only want to find the new world through criticism of the old one.''' Hitherto philosophers have had the solution of all riddles lying in their writing-desks, and the stupid, exoteric world had only to open its mouth for the roast pigeons of absolute knowledge to fly into it. Now philosophy has become mundane, and the most striking proof of this is that philosophical consciousness itself has been drawn into the torment of the struggle, not only externally but also internally. But, if constructing the future and settling everything for all times are not our affair, '''it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists,''' ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be. Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves."<ref>Marx, Karl. [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09.htm Letter to Arnold Ruge, September 1843].</ref>
</blockquote>

Marx's system of thought would always remain ''critical'' in nature. Although he did give indications of how society would develop, he did not put forward grand schemes or plans for a futuristic society. In his 1881 notes on Adolph Wagner's ''General or Theoretical Economics'', Marx wrote that he never established a "socialist system".<ref>Marx, Karl. [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/01/wagner.htm Notes on Wagner, 1881].</ref>

[[Engels]] on his role in the development of Marxism:
<blockquote>I cannot deny that both before and during my forty years' collaboration with Marx I had a certain independent share in laying the foundations of the theory, but the greater part of its leading basic principles belongs to Marx ... Marx was a genius; we others were at best talented. Without him the theory would not be by far what it is today. It therefore rightly bears his name. <ref>Jackson, T.A. [https://www.marxists.org/archive/jackson-ta/pamphlets/engels.htm A Great Socialist, 1935].</ref>
</blockquote>

Despite his modesty, Engels' later writings such as [[Anti-Dühring]] helped lay the foundation for a reframing of Marxist ideas. This reframing or re-interpretation would transform Marx's theories into a comprehensive system of thought. This new ideology would later be called "worldview Marxism". <ref>Heinrich, Michael. Ibid.</ref>

===Orthodox Marxism: 1880s to 1910s===
{{hatnote| See also: [[Orthodox Marxism]]}}
After Karl Marx's death, the followers of his ideas would begin to systematize his thought and reduce it to a series of doctrines that could be easily explained to adherents of the growing socialist movement. It was during this time that Marxist ideas became ''Marxism''. As early as 1896, [[Karl Kautsky]] would describe Marx's ideas as ''Marxism'' and describe himself and other socialists as "we Marxists".<ref>Kautsky, Karl. [https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1896/histmat/hm1.htm The Aims and the Limitations of the Materialist Conception of History, part 1, 1896].</ref> This signalled the transformation of Marx's ideas into a coherent and all-encompassing worldview that included fields such as philosophy, history, economics, and politics.

By the end of the 1890s, the Marxist [[Revisionism|revisionist]] [[Eduard Bernstein]] would write confidently of ''Marxism'' as a singular and coherent theory.
<blockquote>"No one will deny that the most important element in the foundation of '''Marxism''', the fundamental law so to say which penetrates the whole system, is its specific philosophy of history which bears the name of the materialist interpretation of history. With it '''Marxism''' stands or falls in principle; according to the measure in which it suffers limitations will the position of the other elements towards one another be affected in sympathy."<ref>Bernstein, Eduard. [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bernstein/works/1899/evsoc/ch01.htm Evolutionary Socialism, ch.1, 1899].</ref>
</blockquote>

Not only was Marxism now a coherent worldview with it's own philosophy and theory of history, but also presented as a kind of ''science'' which could be divided into parts that were "pure" and "applied":

<blockquote>"Everything in the Marxist characterisation of bourgeois society and its evolution which is unconditioned – that is, everything whose validity is free from national and local peculiarities – would accordingly belong to the domain of '''pure science'''; but everything that refers to temporary and local special phenomena and conjectures, all special forms of development, would on the other hand belong to '''applied science'''."<ref>Bernstein, Eduard. Ibid.</ref>
</blockquote>

Nonetheless, this period of Marxist thought would later come under criticism for its reliance on overly "mechanical" and "theoretical" (i.e. non-practical) interpretations of Marxist thought, resulting in an alleged neglect of important problems regarding not only philosophy but also political issues.

In ''Marxism and Philosophy'', Karl Korsch wrote:
<blockquote>"The so-called orthodox Marxism of this period (now a mere vulgar-Marxism) appears largely as an attempt by theoreticians, weighed down by tradition, to maintain the theory of social revolution which formed the first version of Marxism, in the shape of pure-theory. This theory was wholly abstract and had no practical consequences - it merely sought to reject the new reformist theories, in which the real character of the historical movement was then expressed as un-Marxist. This is precisely why, in a new revolutionary period, it was the orthodox Marxists of the Second International who were inevitably the least able to cope with such questions as the relation between the State and proletarian revolution."<ref>Korsch, Karl. [https://www.marxists.org/archive/korsch/1923/marxism-philosophy.htm Marxism and Philosphy, 1923].</ref>
</blockquote>

===Leninism: 1910s to 1920s ===
{{hatnote| See also: [[Leninism]]}}
[[Vladimir Lenin]], the leader of the Russian Bolsheviks, would advance even further the idea of Marxism as a ''weltanschauung'', or worldview. 
In a 1913 article, Lenin wrote:
<blockquote>"The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true. It is comprehensive and harmonious, and provides men with an integral world outlook irreconcilable with any form of superstition, reaction, or defence of bourgeois oppression. It is the legitimate successor to the best that man produced in the nineteenth century, as represented by German philosophy, English political economy and French socialism."<ref>Lenin, Vladimir. [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism, 1913].</ref>
</blockquote>
Lenin's ability to simplify Marxism into easily understood "doctrines" would prove to be of great use during the early growth of Leninist parties following the Russian Revolution. After his death, both [[Trotskyism|Trotskyist]] and [[Marxism-Leninism|Marxist-Leninist]] parties would later rely on his formulations in defining and framing Marxism as an ideology.

===Western Marxism and Marxism-Leninism: 1920s to 1980s===
=== Marxist Humanism ===
{{hatnote| See also: [[Marxist Humanism]]}}
=== Neo-Marxism ===
{{hatnote| See also: [[Neo-Marxism]]}}
=== Analytical Marxism ===
{{hatnote| See also: [[Analytical Marxism]]}}
A new school of thought within Marxism developed during the 1970s and 1980s. This school attempted to re-interpret core Marxist ideas by applying mathematical and analytical tools to the basic theses of Marxist theory. This school of thought can be said to begin with G.A. Cohen's work ''Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defense'', first published in 1978. In this work Cohen mounts a defense of Marx's theory largely based on "old fashioned historical materialism" in which "history is, fundamentally, the growth of human productive power."<ref>Cohen, G.A. ''Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defense'', p X, 2000.</ref>

In the introduction written for the new edition of the book in 2000, Cohen wrote:
<blockquote>"In each sense of 'analytical', to be analytical is to be opposed to a form of thinking traditionally thought integral to Marxism: analytical thinking, in the broad sense of 'analytical', is opposed to so-called 'dialectical' thinking, and analytical thinking, in the narrow sense of 'analytical', is opposed to what might be called 'holistic' thinking. The fateful operation that created analytical Marxism was the rejection of the claim that Marxism possesses valuable intellectual methods of its own. Rejection of that claim enabled an appropriation of a rich mainstream methodology that Marxism, to its detriment, had shunned."<ref>Cohen, G.A. Ibid. p XVII, 2000.</ref>
</blockquote>
John Roemer, another prominent member of the analytical school of thought, considered that typical Marxist theory relied on overly teleological concepts and a lack of explanation for "mechanisms" by which phenomena occur.

In a 1985 article, Roemer wrote:
<blockquote>"In Marxian social science, dialectics is often used to justify a lazy kind of teleological reasoning. 
[...] 
"What Marxists must provide are explanations of ''mechanisms'', at the micro level, or the phenomena they claim come about for teleological reasons."<ref>Roemer, John E. 'Rational Choice' Marxism: Some Issues of Method and Substance, 1985.</ref>
</blockquote>

== References ==
[[Category:Tendencies]]
[[Category:Karl Marx]]
[[Category:Marxism]]
[[Category:Materialism]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Leftism]]
[[Category:Communism]]

Democratic centralism

2020-12-05T19:22:51Z

RandomUser34:

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

2020-12-05T19:21:41Z

RandomUser34: correcting inaccuracies

{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; margin: 0px 0px 0px 20px;"
! colspan="2" | Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик
|-
| colspan="2" |[[File:800px-Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (orthographic projection).svg.png|frameless|300x300|center|The Soviet Union]] <div style="text-align:center">Map of the USSR</div>
|-
| style="width:50%; border:none; text-align:center; vertical-align:bottom; padding-top: 5px;" |[[File:Ussrflag.jpg|125x63px|frameless|Flag of the Soviet Union]]
| style="width:50%; border:none; text-align:center; vertical-align:bottom; padding-top: 5px;" | [[File:State Emblem of the Soviet Union.svg.png|85x88px|frameless|Emblem of the Soviet Union]]
|-
| style="width:50%; border:none; text-align:center;" | Flag
| style="width:50%; border:none; text-align:center;" | State Emblem
|}
The '''Union of Soviet Socialist Republics''' ('''USSR'''; or in Russian "СССР"), also known as the '''Soviet Union''', was a [[Marxism-Leninism|Marxist-Leninist]] state on the Eurasian continent that existed between 1922 and 1991. It was governed as a single-party state by the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]] with Moscow as its capital.

==History==

===Russian Revolution===
The RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) emerged out of the [[Russian Revolution of 1917]], with [[Bolshevism|Bolshevik]] revolutionary [[Vladimir Lenin]] as its first president. The new government created a constitution establishing itself as a Socialist republic.

===Red vs. White Civil War===
In 1918, following the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks, a civil war between the Bolsheviks (or ‘Reds’) and the remaining monarchists (the ‘Whites’), along with various disgruntled social democrats and liberals such as their rival faction, the Mensheviks, tore apart the RSFSR. Despite support from the capitalist Western Powers, the Whites were ultimately defeated in 1920.

During the war, the Bolsheviks militarily intervened in Ukraine, which was under the control of anarcho-communists (led by [[Nestor Makhno]]) and Ukrainian ultranationalists. The anarchists made a treaty with the Bolsheviks in 1920, but the Bolsheviks refused to publicly acknowledge it, leading to the arrest of Nestor Makhno and his delegation upon confronting the Bolsheviks.

===New Economic Policy===
The New Economic Policy was part of what historian Brinton called the thermidor after the French Revolution's Thermidorian Reaction. It involved a variety of concessions to the backward strata of Soviet society, including the restoration of obstacles to divorce, laws against homosexuality, and the abolition of the age of consent laws.<ref>{{safesubst:cite book|last=Brinton|first=C.|title=The Anatomy of Revolution|year=1965|pages=225–226}}</ref> Economically, it meant that industrial state owner enterprises gained autonomy in its policies while in rural areas individual private initiative and enterprise was allowed to dominate economic conduct.

In 1928 the NEP ended when the Soviet government implemented the first Five Year Plan. This became known as central planning or a command economy, which lasted until circa 1991 when the economy had reached a critical point in the [[Crisis|crisis of the absolute over-accumulation of capital]].

===Socialism in one country===
In spite of an arguably overpowered bureaucracy and some of the reactionary concessions, the Soviets made extensive achievements which vastly improved life for hundreds of millions of people. These achievements were the result of the [[planned economy]] (built primarily during the 1930s). Even reactionaries<ref>{{cite book|last=Losurdo |first=Domenico |chapter=1 |chapterurl=https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WS8cCjXDgdJaXFrkW9b1ldY3xlwiPPQ89AwZo53Amlk |title=Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend |url=https://docs.google.com/document/d/18K7U3g_ZsHwasqAS_BiokoWg5A0vXAsCkwYoO_xw93A |location=|publisher=|year= |page= |pageurl= |isbn= |oclc= |text=}}</ref> have been unable to deny this;<ref>{{cite book|last1=Downey |first1=Town |last2=Smith |first2=Nigel |chapter=6 |chapterurl=https://books.google.com/books?id=vYIqpmIgYZ4C&pg=PA37 |title=Russia and the USSR 1900–1995 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vYIqpmIgYZ4C |location=Great Clarendon Street |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1996 |page=43 |pageurl=https://books.google.com/books?id=vYIqpmIgYZ4C&pg=PA43 |isbn=0-19-917248-X |oclc= |text=}}</ref> as antisocialist propagandist Nick Eberstadt admitted:

{{quote|[[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]]’s results were incontestable. This is a point those of us in the West often overlook. Stalin inherited a country that was the primary casualty of World War I, and bequeathed to his successors a super-power. It is but a single measure of the success of the ‘Leader’, and his understanding of the endurance of his nation, that between 1940 and 1953, a period marked by an immensely destructive world war costing perhaps twenty million Soviet lives and a series of purges claiming perhaps not many less, the USSR doubled its production of coal and steel, tripled its output of cement and industrial goods, and increased its pool of skilled labor by a factor of ten. These rates of growth were geometrically higher than in the less devastated and Terror-free West.|Nick Eberstadt|<ref name=Eberstadt>{{safesubst:cite journal|last=Eberstadt|first=Nick|title=The Health Crisis in the USSR*|url=https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/35/6/1384/660149|journal=International Journal of Epidemiology|volume=35|issue=6|date=2006-12-04|pages=1384–1394|doi=10.1093/ije/dyl238}}</ref>}}

The claim that the Soviets purged ‘perhaps not many less’ than twenty-million people, however, is obvious nonsense:

{{quote|The Stalinist regime was consequently responsible for about a million purposeful killings, and through its criminal neglect and irresponsibility it was probably responsible for the premature deaths of about another two million more victims amongst the repressed population, i.e. in the camps, colonies, prisons, exile, in transit and in the POW camps for Germans. These are clearly much lower figures than those for whom Hitler’s regime was responsible.|Stephen Wheatcroft|<ref>{{safesubst:cite journal|last=Wheatcroft|first=Stephen|title=The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45|journal=Europe-Asia Studies|url=http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-German_Soviet.pdf|publisher=University of Glasgow|volume=48|number=8|year=1996|pages=1319–1353}}</ref>}}

The Stalin administration was thus responsible for about three million deaths, and even that is only if one includes Fascist POWs, victims of an unintentional but tragic famine (Wheatcroft’s own research proves that it was unintentional), and gulag prisoners. The purges of the late 1930s are a black mark on the USSR’s legacy; this much cannot be denied. That being said, they have been the subject of decades-worth of unjustified and intolerable distortions and exaggerations by bourgeois academics, necessitating a thorough reply. While Westerners are often treated to numbers ranging from 20 to 50 million, the true figures (while worrisome enough in their own right) are nowhere near that high. According to Professor J. Arch Getty:

{{quote|From 1921 to […] 1953, around 800,000 people were sentenced to death and shot, 85 percent of them in the years of the Great Terror of 1937–1938. From 1934 to Stalin’s death, more than a million perished in the gulag camps.|J. Arch Getty|<ref name=Future/>}}

To these figures must be added an important qualification: contrary to popular opinion, the vast majority of gulag inmates were not innocent political prisoners. Professor Getty notes that those convicted of ‘counterrevolutionary crimes’ made up between 12 and 33 percent (depending on the year) of the gulag population, with the rest having been convicted of ordinary crimes. He also rejects the common claim that non-Russian nationalities were disproportionately targeted. To quote from his article in the ''American Historical Review'', concerning the gulag inmates in particular:

{{quote|The long-awaited archival evidence on repression in the period of the Great Purges shows that the levels of arrests, political prisoners, executions, and general camp populations tend to confirm the orders of magnitude indicated by those labeled as "revisionists" and mocked by those proposing high estimates. […] Inferences that the terror fell particularly hard on non-Russian nationalities are not borne out by camp population data from the 1930s. The frequent assertion that most of the camp prisoners were "political" also appears not to be true.|J. Arch Getty|<ref name=Getty>{{safesubst:cite journal|last1=Getty|first1=J. Arch|last2=Rittersporn|first2=Gábor|last3=Zemskov|first3=Viktor|title=Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years|journal=The American Historical Review|url=http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/GTY-Penal_System.pdf|publisher=Oxford University Press|volume=98|number=4|year=1993|pages=1017–1049|doi=10.2307/2166597|jstor=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2166597}}</ref>}}

According to this research, alleged counterrevolutionaries never made up more than a third of the gulag population (and generally much less, around 12%). This is backed-up by a CIA report on the topic, which found that as many as 95% of camp prisoners were non-political in camps that they investigated.<ref>{{safesubst:cite web|title=Forced Labor Camps in the USSR|url=https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80T00246A032000400001-1.pdf|date=1957-02-11|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200120215158/https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80T00246A032000400001-1.pdf|archivedate=2020-01-20}}</ref> The majority of camp prisoners were thus genuine criminals, convicted of rape, murder, theft, and similar. In addition, the gulag camps were not death camps like those of the [[Third Reich]]; they were prisons, albeit harsh ones. Even noted antisocialist scholars (such as those who worked on the infamous ''[[Black Book of Communism]]'') have admitted this. To quote again from Professor Getty:

{{quote|Stalin’s camps were different from Hitler’s. Tens of thousands of prisoners were released every year upon completion of their sentences. We now know that before World War II more inmates escaped annually from the Soviet camps than died there. […] Werth, a well-regarded French specialist on the Soviet Union whose sections in the ''Black Book'' on the Soviet Communists are sober and damning, told ''Le Monde'', “Death camps did not exist in the Soviet Union.”|J. Arch Getty|<ref name=Future>{{safesubst:Cite web| last = Getty| first = J. Arch| title = The Future Did Not Work| work = The Atlantic| accessdate = 2019-10-09| date = 2000-03-01| url = https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/03/the-future-did-not-work/378081/}}</ref>}}

It must also be noted that, contrary to the popular conception of the USSR as a place of ‘total terror’ (to quote Hannah Arendt), the majority of the population did not feel threatened by the purges. Referring to the time of the Great Purge, Professor<ref>{{safesubst:cite web|title=Dr. Robert Thurston|url=https://miamioh.edu/cas/academics/departments/history/about/faculty/emeriti-faculty/thurston/index.html|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200118140600/http://miamioh.edu/cas/academics/departments/history/about/faculty/emeriti-faculty/thurston/index.html|archivedate=2020-10-18}}</ref> Thurston notes that the Great Purge was an exceptional occurrence, which cannot be used to characterize the USSR pre-1953 as a whole:

{{quote|I will not simply imply but will state outright that the ''Ezhovshchina'' (Great Purge) was an aberration. Torture was uncommon until August 1937, when it became the norm; it ended abruptly with Beria’s rise to head of the [[NKVD]] in late 1938. Mass arrests followed the same pattern. […] A campaign for more regular, fair, and systemic judicial procedures that began in 1933–1934 was interrupted and overwhelmed by the Terror in 1937. It resumed in the spring of 1938, more strongly and effectively than before. Thus more than one trend was broken by the ''Ezhovshchina'', only to reappear after it.|Robert Thurston|<ref name=Life>{{safesubst:cite journal|last=Thurston|first=Robert|title=Life and Terror in Stalin’s Russia, 1934–1941|publisher=Yale University Press|year=1996|jstor=https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bw0h}}</ref>}}

He also points out that some arrests which took place during the Great Purge were based on previously ignored (yet arguably still legitimate) crimes against the Soviet state, such as fighting with the reactionary forces during the Civil War:

{{quote|People were suddenly arrested in 1937 for things that had happened many years earlier but had been ignored since, for example, serving in a White army.|Robert Thurston|<ref name=Life/>}}

The question arises: why arrest former White Army soldiers, among others? The answer lies in the general fear of counterrevolution which pervaded the party at this time. According to Professor<ref>{{safesubst:cite web|title=Professor James Harris|url=https://ahc.leeds.ac.uk/history/staff/64/professor-james-harris|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200119044120/https://ahc.leeds.ac.uk/history/staff/64/professor-james-harris|archivedate=2020-01-19}}</ref> James Harris:

{{quote|By the mid–1930s, the rise of the Nazis in Germany and the militarists in Japan, both stridently anti-communist, posed a very real threat to the USSR. War was then on the horizon, and [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] felt he had no choice but to take preemptive action against what he saw as a potential fifth column — a group that would undermine the larger collective.|James Harris|<ref>{{safesubst:cite web|last=Harris|first=James|title=Historian James Harris Says Russian Archives Show We’ve Misunderstood Stalin|publisher=History News Network|url=https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/163498|accessdate=2020-01-03}}</ref>}}

Bear in mind that since the moment of its founding (still a recent event, at this time), Soviet Eurasia had been invaded by multiple capitalist powers<ref>{{safesubst:cite web|last=Budanovic|first=Nikola|title=The Day That The USA Invaded Russia And Fought The Red Army|url=https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-i/the-day-that-the-usa-invaded-russia-and-fought-with-the-red-army-x.html|date=2016-11-17|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200119044116/https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-i/the-day-that-the-usa-invaded-russia-and-fought-with-the-red-army-x.html|archivedate=2020-01-19}}</ref> (including the [[United States]]) in the early 1920s, and had also been subject to espionage and internal sabotage. Combined with the looming threat of war with an increasingly powerful Third Reich, it is hardly surprising that these factors came together to form an atmosphere of paranoia, which lent itself to the sort of violent excess seen during the Purge. This coincides with Professor Thurston’s interpretation of the events, from his book ''Life and Terror in Stalin’s Russia'':

{{quote|[B]etween 1934 and 1936 police and court practice relaxed significantly. Then a series of events, together with the tense international situation and memories of real enemy activity during the savage Russian Civil War, combined to push leaders and people into a hysterical hunt for perceived ‘wreckers.’ After late 1938, however, the police and courts became dramatically milder.|Robert Thurston|<ref name=Life/>}}

This general atmosphere of fear (not of the purges, but of external and internal enemies) is most likely why the majority of the Soviet people seemed to support the government’s actions during the Purge period:

{{quote|The various reactions to arrest cataloged above suggest that general fear did not exist in the USSR at any time in the late 1930s. […] People who remained at liberty often felt that some event in the backgrounds of the detained individuals justified their arrests. The sense that anyone could be next, the underpinning of theoretical systems of terror, rarely appears.|Robert Thurston|<ref>{{safesubst:cite journal|last=Thurston|first=Robert|title=Fear and Belief in the USSR’s “Great Terror”: Response to Arrest, 1935-1939|journal=Slavic Review|publisher=Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies|year=1986|volume=45|issue=2|pages=213–34|doi=10.2307/2499175}}</ref>}}

===World War II===
''Main Article: [[World War II]]''

===Gorbachev-era reforms===
In 1987, Gorbachev passed a law that decentralized much of the economy and expanded market activity, however was not by itself a restoration of capitalism. Nowhere within the law were capitalist relations of production legalized.
{{quote|The Basic Provisions stress that the economy shall continue to be planned and managed as "a unified national economic complex" as the principal means for carrying out the Party's economic policies. These policies are to be embodied in a 15-year plan that sets goals and priorities and outlines a program for implementing them. This plan, which is to contain specific targets for the 15- year period, is to be the basis for detailed formulation of the plan for the initial 5-year period, with a breakdown by years. Per the current procedure, this plan will be worked out by Gosplan and sent down to republic Councils of Ministers and to ministries. These bodies, in turn, send "initial planning data" to firms, on the basis of which the latter work out and ratify their own 5-year and annual plans. Plans are reviewed annually and revised if required. Proposals for revisions are submitted to Gosplan, which reviews them, revises the 5-year plan if necessary, and submits a report to the Council of Ministers and to the Central Committee, along with the draft state budget.
 
The firms receive: (1) "non-binding control figures" that specify the value of output, profit, foreign currency receipts, and major indicators of scientific and technical progress and social development; (2) a mandatory bill of state orders for output that "ensure meeting society's priority needs"; (3) limits, which include rationed goods and centralized investment allocations; (4) long-term economic normatives based on a list approved by the Council of Ministers regulating, among other things, growth of total wages, payments for capital and labor, and the allocation of profits among various kinds of taxes and reserve funds set up by ministries and enterprises. Three major funds are the bonus fund, the social development fund, and the fund for financing research and development and investment.
 
Clearly, the state intends to determine the rate and direction of the bulk of investment. To what extent will depend on how state centralized investment is defined. The state also intends to determine the directions of economic development and to enforce programs of scientific-technical progress that are worked out from the top.|Gertrude E. Schroeder|"Anatomy of Gorbachev's Economic Reform" in ''Milestones in Glasnost and Perestroyka: The Economy'', pp. 205-206}}

The 1987 reforms were still somewhat "moderate" compared to Yugoslavia's system, and clearly didn't go nearly as far as Deng's reforms.

One of the reasons used to justify Perestroika was because the USSR had problems with shortages beforehand. The continued existence of shortages are evidence the reforms didn't work and instead made the situation far worse than it had been before. Shortages clearly weren't an unknown phenomenon in socialist economies during the 20th century. It's something bourgeois economists usually focus on when criticizing socialism, hence the two-volume Economics of Shortage by János Kornai. Not coincidentally, Kornai's text had a lot of influence among Chinese reformers and he personally worked to convince them to enact market reforms at the 1985 Bashan conference, whereas Kornai's influence on Soviet reformers (at least those who advised Gorbachev) was a lot more limited. Furthermore, shortages are not proof of capitalist restoration. Marxists frequently argue that capitalism displays a very different problem: a crisis of overproduction caused by the purchasing power of workers declining amid an ever greater abundance of goods flooding the market.

===Collapse and dissolution===
{{hatnote|Main article: [[Collapse of the USSR]]}}
In the 1980s, [[Imperial America]] expanded its arms chase, terrorizing the Soviets into catching up, a process made more stressful by the struggle in the Afghan war. Antisocialist officials also pressured banks and other businesses, and even the Swedish state, into ignoring the Soviet Union.<ref>{{safesubst:cite web|last=Krehbiel|first=Paul|title=The Demise of the Soviet Union: The Secret War that Helped Destroy Soviet Socialism, 1981–1991|url=http://ouleft.org/wp-content/uploads/RR-PAUL-SECRETWAR.pdf|accessdate=2020-03-13}}</ref> Gorbachev introduced new reforms to both the economy and politics, which worsened the condition of the workers by increasing wealth inequality — though it never reached the same rate as it had in capitalist countries, e.g. the U.S. — as well as breadlines, and allowed more critical opinions to be voiced politically. But heads of newspapers were now in fact being replaced or pushed towards a more right-wing view by that same government, meaning such policies did not actually result in more discourse. Nonetheless it became a more and more accepted view to advocate for regulated or even free markets, which then led to the rising popularity of Yeltsin. He criticized the Soviet elite and advocated for market reforms, promising less waiting lines and a decrease in inequality. In April 1990 Yeltsin became the chairman of the Russian parliament. The direction the country was taking triggered a [[1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt|coup attempt in August 1991]], but which failed as Yeltsin called for a strike against it. While according to a referendum from 1991 most people did not want a complete dissolution of the Soviet republics, this is exactly what happened until the end of 1991: Parts of the government were simply dismantled, the party lost its power, and eventually republics started declaring independence — the union, in a sense, was falling apart.

After the Soviet Union’s discontinuation, living standards decreased dramatically and to this day many former citizens of it regret its fall, as many polls show, though the results sometimes strongly vary among some of the former republics.<ref>{{safesubst:cite web|title=People who lived under communism more convinced ordinary people did not benefit from societal changes|url=https://www.pewresearch.org/global/?p=44546|date=2019-10-09}}</ref>

==Politics==
Modern evidence suggests that the masses did indeed support the Stalin administration, which likewise encouraged mass participation from the working people:

{{quote|Stalin, the press, and the Stakhanovite movement all regularly encouraged ordinary people to criticize those in authority. […] If the citizenry was supposed to be terrorized and stop thinking, why encourage criticism and input from below on a large scale? […] my evidence suggests that widespread fear did not exist in the case at hand [the ‘Great Terror’ period].|Robert Thurston|<ref>{{safesubst:cite journal|last=Thurston|first=Robert|title=On Desk-Bound Parochialism, Commonsense Perspectives, and Lousy Evidence: A Reply to Robert Conquest|journal=Slavic Review|publisher=Cambridge University Press|volume=45|number=2|year=1986|pages=238–244|doi=10.2307/2499177|jstor=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2499177}}</ref>}}

These states were not entirely non-participatory as some have suggested; the working masses did have a genuine voice in political affairs.<ref name=vincesherman>{{safesubst:cite web|author=vincesherman|title=The Trade Unions & Actually Existing Socialism: A Point of Comparison for the American Worker|url=https://return2source.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/the-trade-unions-actually-existing-socialism-a-point-of-comparison-for-the-american-worker/amp|date=2013-02-19|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180920140818/https://return2source.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/the-trade-unions-actually-existing-socialism-a-point-of-comparison-for-the-american-worker/amp|archivedate=2018-09-20}}</ref> Professor Thurston states that ‘at the lower levels of society, in day-to-day affairs and the implementation of policy, [the Soviet system] was participatory.’ He notes that workers were frequently encouraged to take part in decision making:

{{quote|The regime regularly urged its people to criticize local conditions and their leaders, at least below a certain exalted level. For example, in March 1937 Stalin emphasized the importance of the party’s ‘ties to the masses.’ To maintain them, it was necessary ‘to listen carefully to the voice of the masses, to the voice of rank and file members of the party, to the voice of so-called “little people,” to the voice of ordinary folk.’|Robert Thurston|<ref name=Reassessing>{{safesubst:cite book|last=Thurston|first=Robert|title=Reassessing the History of Soviet Workers: Opportunities to Criticize and Participate in Decision-Making, 1935–1941|journal=International Council for Central and East European Studies|url=https://www.docdroid.net/t9gG4jQ/thurston-robert-reassessing-the-history-of-soviet-workers-opportunities-to-criticize-and-participate-in-decision-making.pdf|pages=160–188}}</ref>}}

While there were limits to criticism, Professor Thurston notes that ‘such bounds allowed a great deal that was deeply significant to workers, including some aspects of production norms, pay rates and classifications, safety on the job, housing, and treatment by managers.’ The workers had a voice in various official bodies, and they generally had their demands met:

{{quote|The Commissariat of Justice also heard and responded to workers’ appeals. In August 1935 the Saratov city prosecutor reported that of 118 cases regarding pay recently handled by his office, 90, or 73.6 percent, had been resolved in favor of workers.|Robert Thurston|<ref name=Reassessing/>}}

Workers also took part in direct oversight of managers:

{{quote|Workers participated by the hundreds of thousands in special inspectorates, commissions, and brigades which checked the work of managers and institutions. These agencies sometimes wielded significant power.|Robert Thurston|<ref name=Reassessing/>}}

The rights of Soviet workers were often noted in later accounts of the pre-1953 era:

{{quote|One émigré recalled that his stepmother, a factory worker, ‘often scolded the boss,’ and also complained about living conditions, but was never arrested. John Scott, an American employed for years in the late 1930s as a welder in Magnitogorsk, attended a meeting at a Moscow factory in 1940 where workers were able to ‘criticize the plant director, make suggestions as to how to increase production, increase quality, and lower costs.’|Robert Thurston|<ref name=Reassessing/>}}

Professor Thurston makes the following observation:

{{quote|Far from basing its rule on the negative means of coercion, the Soviet regime in the late 1930s fostered a limited but positive political role for the populace. […] Earlier concepts of the Soviet state require rethinking: the workers who ousted managers, achieved the imprisonment of their targets, and won reinstatement at factories did so through organizations which constituted part of the state apparatus and wielded state powers.|Robert Thurston|<ref name=Reassessing/>}}

These facts are all the more impressive when we recall the dismal state of workers’ rights in the market economies at this time:

{{quote|This occurred at a time when American workers in particular were struggling for basic union recognition, which even when won did not provide much formal influence at the work place.|Robert Thurston|<ref name=Reassessing/>}}

Professor Thurston also states:

{{quote|Stalin did not intend to terrorize the country and did not need to rule by fear. Memoirs and interviews with Soviet people indicate that many more believed in Stalin’s quest to eliminate internal enemies than were frightened by it.|Robert Thurston|<ref name=Life/>}}

Perhaps one of his most interesting statements (indeed, one of the most statements from any bourgeois historian dealing with the Stalin administration) and perhaps the most succinct summary of this issue is the following:

{{quote|There was never a long period of Stalinism without a serious foreign threat, major internal dislocation, or both, which makes identifying its true nature impossible.|Robert Thurston|<ref name=Life/>}}

This relates to how the Soviet government reacted to the genuine material conditions faced by the Soviet Union, rather than simply following its own whims and desires. Working people did not only have the right to take part in decision-making at the workplace; they also had a voice in national policy decisions. Professor Kawamoto (Hitotsubashi University) states that the USSR had ‘a more democratic face than what is usually imagined, especially among Western people.’ As they put it:

{{quote|The Soviet regime was democratic in its own sense of the word. [P]articipation through sending letters and attending discussions gave self-government a certain reality and helped to legitimize the Soviet regime. Therefore, listening to the people was an important obligation for the authorities. [T]he government encouraged people to send letters to the authorities and actively used the all-people’s discussions.|Kazuko Kawamoto|<ref name=Kawamoto>{{safesubst:cite journal|last=Kawamoto|first=Kazuko|title=Rethinking Soviet Democracy|journal=Japanese Political Science Review|url=https://researchmap.jp/read0148263/?lang=english}}</ref>}}

It is also noted that Soviet citizens ‘believed that they were entitled to demand policy changes, and the draft writers, including specialists, officials, and deputies, felt obliged to respond to those demands.’ The process of gathering public opinion was intensive enough that it often slowed down the process of legislation:

{{quote|Regarding the process of creating the Principles, direct participation worked largely as expected in the ideology of Soviet democracy, although it took many years.|Kazuko Kawamoto|<ref name=Kawamoto/>}}

As Professor Kawamoto says, ‘the reason why it took so long was deeply rooted in the ideas of Soviet democracy.’

In addition to the aforementioned means of popular participation, Soviet officials also traveled throughout the nation to gather information on popular opinion. Using the development of Soviet family law as an example, Professor Kawamoto states:

{{quote|The draft makers were not only passive recipients of letters but also traveled throughout the Soviet Union to listen to the people. When the work in the Commissions of Legislative Proposals was reaching its end, members of the subcommittee and officials working for them visited several union republics from April to June 1962 to research the practice of family law and collect opinions on important standards in the draft of the Principles… After these research trips, the commission finished the draft and presented it to the Central Committee of the Party in July.|Kazuko Kawamoto|<ref name=Kawamoto/>}}

While Soviet democracy was not without its flaws (as mentioned, the process was often rather slow, and there were limits on the extent of criticism), it would be highly inaccurate to describe the USSR as a ‘totalitarian’ society, with no democratic structures; on the contrary, the USSR did practice its own form of democracy, and it did so rather effectively.

===Scope of authority===
The government's authority over cities was uncontested throughout its existence, bar areas which were under foreign occupation during the Great Patriotic War. There were however cases of villages being seized by the Basmachi movement in Central Asia, which was in essence defeated in 1931, with its remnants extinguished in Kirghizia by 1934. In the Baltics there were the "Forest Brothers", who were anti-Soviet resistance forces that were pretty much defeated by Stalin's death. There were also some anti-collectivization rebellions.<ref>[https://b-ok.cc/book/831235/8b358a Peasant Rebels under Stalin]</ref>

==Political Economy of the Soviet Union==

===Wage Labour===

In capitalist theories of the Soviet Union labour-power is considered a commodity in the Soviet Union, bought and sold on a labour-market.

===Commodity Production===

In capitalist theories of the Soviet Union, commodity production is regarded to have had a generalised character, with inputs and outputs being commodities. Labour-power was sold to and bought by individual state enterprises, the means of production were sold between individual enterprises, and outputs, capital and consumer goods, were likewise sold to a market of consumers.

===Competition of Capitals===

In capitalist theories of the Soviet Union there is some debate about the existence of the competition of capitals. Tony Cliff and Raya Dunayevskaya claim that the law of value operated nonetheless due to international trade. [[Paresh Chattopadhyay]] disagrees, arguing that the law of value couldn't exist under such conditions and maintains that enterprises were reciprocally independent and were 'competitive' in the Marxist sense by confronting each other through the exchange of commodities.

=== Accusations of imperialism ===

The USSR has been accused of [[imperialism]] by Left Communists, Trotskyists, and Hoxhaists.

=== Non-mode of production ===
Some Marxists provide an alternative theory of the nature of the political economy of the Soviet Union. The theory was first formulated by [[Hillel Ticktin]].

== Economy ==
{{hatnote|Main article: [[economics of the Soviet Union]]}}

With the exceptional periods of the 1910s and the 1990s, the Soviet Union was a [[planned economy]]. It achieved massively positive economic results until the 1970s, when revisionist policies and the [[Cold War]] began to cause a stagnation.

=== Prerevolutionary background ===
In 1917, Russia was a backwards, semicapitalist and feudal society. They had only recently abolished the manor system, and replaced it with the most brutal and primitive form of capitalism. The nation was dreadfully underdeveloped, with no sign of improving in the future, and what little growth did occur led to massive inequalities. According to a Professor of Economic History at Oxford University:

{{quote|Not only were the bases of Imperial advance narrow, but the process of growth gave rise to such inequitable changes in income distribution that revolution was hardly a surprise. Real wages for urban workers were static in the late Imperial period despite a significant increase in output per worker[.] The revolution was also a peasant revolt, and the interests of the peasants were different[.] As in the cities, there was no gain in real wages.|Robert C. Allen|<ref name=Allen>{{safesubst:cite journal|last=Allen|first=Robert|title=A Reassessment of the Soviet Industrial Revolution|url=https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.507.8966&rep=rep1&type=pdf|journal=Comparative Economic Studies|publisher=Oxford University|volume=47|issue=2|year=2005|pages=315–332|doi=10.1057/palgrave.ces.8100101|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200119044114/https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.507.8966&rep=rep1&type=pdf|archivedate=2020-01-19}}</ref>}}

The University of Warwick corroborates these observations:

{{quote|Agriculture had reached North American levels of productivity by 1913 and wheat prices collapsed after 1914. The expansion of the railroads had run its course and there was no prospect of protected light industry becoming internationally competitive. The appropriate comparators for the prospects for Russian capitalism in the twentieth century are not Japan but Argentina or even India. Moreover, Russian capitalist development had brought little if any benefit to the urban and rural working class, intensifying the class conflicts that erupted in Revolution.|Simon Clarke|<ref name=Farm>{{safesubst:cite web|last=Clarke|first=Simon|title=Reviewed Work: Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution|journal=Labour / Le Travail|url=https://homepages.warwick.ac.uk/~syrbe/pubs/FarmtoFactory.pdf|publisher=Princeton University Press|volume=55|year=2005|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200118140746/https://homepages.warwick.ac.uk/~syrbe/pubs/FarmtoFactory.pdf|pages=300–302|jstor=https://www.jstor.org/stable/25149595|archivedate=2020-01-18}}</ref>}}

=== Revolutionary period ===
With the 1917 revolution (and after the bloody civil war, with its policy of [[war communism]]), the Soviet economy began to grow rapidly.<ref>{{safesubst:cite journal|last=Allen|first=Robert|title=The Standard of Living in the Soviet Union, 1928–1940|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/standard-of-living-in-the-soviet-union-19281940/2922A641CA53F7BF592ECDDAF3316070|journal=The Journal of Economic History|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=1998|date_published=2009-03-03|doi=10.1017/S0022050700021732}}</ref> The New Economic Policy (which nationalized large-scale industry and redistributed land, while allowing for the private sale of agricultural surplus) succeeded in transforming Russia from a semicapitalist existence into a developing state capitalist society, laying the groundwork for a [[planned economy]].

{{quote|Following War Communism, the New Economic Policy (NEP) sought to develop the Russian economy within a quasi-capitalist framework.|Simon Clarke|<ref name=Farm/>}}

Economic circumstances came to require the transition to a planned economy:

{{quote|However, the institutional and structural barriers to Russian economic development were now compounded by the unfavorable circumstances of the world economy, so that there was no prospect of export-led development, while low domestic incomes provided only a limited market for domestic industry. Without a state coordinated investment program, the Soviet economy would be caught in the low-income trap typical of the underdeveloped world.|Simon Clarke|<ref name=Farm/>}}

In 1928 (after they selected the new head of the Communist Party), the [[RSFSR]] instituted a fully planned economy, and the first Five Year Plan was enacted. This resulted in rapid economic growth:

{{quote|Soviet GDP increased rapidly with the start of the first Five Year Plan in 1928. […] The expansion of heavy industry and the use of output targets and soft-budgets to direct firms were appropriate to the conditions of the 1930s, they were adopted quickly, and they led to rapid growth of investment and consumption.|Robert C. Allen|<ref name=Allen/>}}

Bourgeois economists often alleged that this rapid growth came at the cost of per-capita consumption and living standards. However, more recent research has shown this to be false:

{{quote|There has been no debate that ‘collective consumption’ (principally education and health services) rose sharply, but the standard view was that private consumption declined. Recent research, however, calls that conclusion into question. […] While investment certainly increased rapidly, recent research shows that the standard of living also increased briskly. […] Calories are the most basic dimension of the standard of living, and their consumption was higher in the late 1930s than in the 1920s. […] There has been no debate that ‘collective consumption’ (principally education and health services) rose sharply, but the standard view was that private consumption declined. Recent research, however, calls that conclusion into question. […] Consumption per head rose about one quarter between 1928 and the late 1930s.|Robert C. Allen|<ref name=Allen/>}}

Calorie consumption rose rapidly during this period:

{{quote|Calories are the most basic dimension of the standard of living, and their consumption was higher in the late 1930s than in the 1920s. […] In 1895-1910, calorie availability was only 2100 per day, which is very low by modern standards. By the late 1920s, calorie availability advanced to 2500. […] By the late 1930s, the recovery of agriculture increased calorie availability to 2900 per day, a significant increase over the late 1920s. The food situation during the Second World War was severe, but by 1970 calorie consumption rose to 3400, which was on a par with western Europe.|Robert C. Allen|<ref name=Allen/>}}

Overall, the development of the Soviet economy during the interbellum period was extremely impressive:

{{quote|The Soviet economy performed well. […] Planning led to high rates of capital accumulation, rapid GDP growth, and rising per capita consumption even in the 1930s. […] The expansion of heavy industry and the use of output targets and soft-budgets to direct firms were appropriate to the conditions of the 1930s, they were adopted quickly, and they led to rapid growth of investment and consumption.|Robert C. Allen|<ref name=Allen/>}}

The USSR’s growth during the interbellum period exceeded that of the market economies:

{{quote|The USSR led the non-OECD countries and, indeed, achieved a growth rate in this period that exceeded the OECD catch-up regression as well as the OECD average.|Robert C. Allen|<ref name=Allen/>}}

This success is also attributed specifically to the revolution and the planned economy:

{{quote|This success would not have occurred without the 1917 revolution or the planned development of state owned industry.|Robert C. Allen|<ref name=Allen/>}}

The benefits of the planned economy become obvious upon closer study:

{{quote|A capitalist economy would not have created the industrial jobs required to employ the surplus labour, since capitalists would only employ labour so long as the marginal product of labour exceeded the wage. State-sponsored industrialization faced no such constraints, since enterprises were encouraged to expand employment in line with the demands of the plan.|Simon Clarke|<ref name=Farm/>}}

Economic growth was also aided by the liberation of women, and the resulting control over the birth rate, as well as women's participation in the workforce:

{{quote|The rapid growth in per capita income was contingent not just on the rapid expansion of GDP but also on the slow growth of the population. This was primarily due to a rapid fertility transition rather than a rise in mortality from collectivization, political repression, or the Second World War. Falling birth rates were primarily due to the education and employment of women outside the home. These policies, in turn, were the results of enlightenment ideology in its communist variant.|Robert C. Allen|<ref name=Allen/>}}

Reviews of Allen’s work have backed up his statements:

{{quote|Allen shows that the Stalinist strategy worked, in strictly economic terms, until around 1970. […] Allen’s book convincingly establishes the superiority of a planned over a capitalist economy in conditions of labour surplus (which is the condition of most of the world most of the time).|Simon Clarke|<ref name=Farm/>}}

Other studies have backed-up the findings that the USSR’s living standards rose rapidly:

{{quote|Remarkably large and rapid improvements in child height, adult stature and infant mortality were recorded from approximately 1945 to 1970. […] Both Western and Soviet estimates of GNP growth in the Soviet Union indicate that GNP per capita grew in every decade in the postwar era, at times far surpassing the growth rates of the developed western economies. […] The conventional measures of GNP growth and household consumption indicate a long, uninterrupted upward climb in the Soviet standard of living from 1928 to 1985; even Western estimates of these measures support this view, albeit at a slower rate of growth than the Soviet measures.|Williams College|<ref name=Brainerd>{{safesubst:cite web|last=Brainerd|first=Elizabeth|title=Reassessing the Standard of Living in the Soviet Union: An Analysis Using Archival and Anthropometric Data|url=https://web.williams.edu/Economics/brainerd/papers/ussr_july08.pdf|publisher=Williams College|year=2008|doi=10.2139/ssrn.906590|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150318181223/http://web.williams.edu/Economics/brainerd/papers/ussr_july08.pdf|archivedate=2015-03-18|accessdate=2020-03-20}}</ref>}}

As early as 1917, forest conservation became one of Bolshevism’s duties.<ref>{{safesubst:cite book|last=Lenin|first=Vladimir|chapter=8|title=The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/tasks/ch08.htm#v24zz99h-071-GUESS|year=1917}}</ref> With one minor exception, the Politburo consistently rejected the drive toward hyperindustrialism in the forest: Moscow capitulated only briefly to the industrialists in 1929, and in the 1930s and 1940s it set aside larger tracts of the RSFSR’s most valuable forests as preserves, off-limits to industrial exploitation.<ref>{{safesubst:cite journal|last=Brain|first=Stephen|title=Stalin’s Environmentalism|url=https://drive.google.com/file/d/13QiQYmG65Vlr7ncIJI44ynMIWwOzWOWR|journal=The Russian Review|publisher=Wiley on behalf of The Editors and Board of Trustees of the Russian Review|year=2010|month=January|volume=69|number=1|pages=93–118}}</ref>

=== Cold War ===
While the Soviet economy outperformed the market economies in numerous ways, the introduction of market reforms and other revisionist policies after 1953 may have contributed to the system’s deceleration and delayed the increase of living standards:

{{quote|Three different measures of population health show a consistent and large improvement between approximately 1945 and 1969: child height, adult height and infant mortality all improved significantly during this period. These three biological measures of the standard of living also corroborate the evidence of some deterioration in living conditions beginning around 1970, when infant and adult mortality were rising and child and adult height stopped increasing and in some regions began to decline.|Williams College|<ref name=Brainerd/>}}

Economic growth also began to slow around this time:

{{quote|After the Second World War, the Soviet economy resumed rapid growth. By 1970, the growth rate was sagging, and per capita output was static by 1985.|Simon Clarke|<ref name=Farm/>}}

The [[Cold War]] was another factor which contributed to slowing growth rates:

{{quote|The Cold War was an additional factor that lowered Soviet growth after 1968. The creation of high tech weaponry required a disproportionate allocation of R & D personnel and resources to the military. Innovation in civilian machinery and products declined accordingly. Half of the decreased in the growth rate of per capita GDP was due to the decline in productivity growth, and that decrease provides an upper bound to the impact of the arms race with the United States.|Simon Clarke|<ref name=Farm/>}}

Despite the delayed growth rates, food consumption remained at acceptable levels. By 1976 the average caloric intake of the Soviet population was 3,330.<ref>{{safesubst:cite book| publisher = Springer| isbn = 978-1-349-10349-2| last = Birman| first = Igor| title = Personal Consumption in the USSR and the USA| date = 1989-06-18| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=_hexCwAAQBAJ|page=36|pageurl=https://books.google.com/books?id=_hexCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA36}}</ref> Similarly, a 1983 report confirmed that Soviets and U.S. citizens ate about the same amount of food quotidianly, but the Soviet diet may have be more eutrophic; they put the daily caloric intake at 3,280.<ref>{{safesubst:cite web|title=STRENGTH‐DIET|url=https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP84B00274R000300150009-5.pdf|date=1983-01-08|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200224040849/https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP84B00274R000300150009-5.pdf|archivedate=2020-02-24}}</ref> <ref>{{safesubst:cite web|title=The Nutrient Content of the Soviet Food Supply|url=https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000498133.pdf|year=1984|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200203193608/https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000498133.pdf|archivedate=2020-02-03}}</ref> Dr. Kenneth Gray, the White House’s top expert on Soviet agriculture, confirmed in his testimony to the Joint Economic Committee of Congress that ‘the food shortages in the USSR are occurring at fairly respectable levels of consumption.’<ref name=Medley>{{safesubst:cite web|last=Medley|first=Joseph| accessdate = 2019-10-09| title = Soviet Agriculture: A Critique of the Myths Constructed by Western Critics|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110611145106/http://www.usm.maine.edu/eco/joe/works/Soviet.html}}</ref>

While the USSR did become a major importer of grain by the 1980s,<ref name=Medley/> they intended these imports strictly for feeding livestock, since it takes between seven and fourteen pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. They thereby increased their consumption of meat and dairy.<ref>{{safesubst:cite book |last=Syzmański |first=Albert |authorlink= |chapter=5 |title=Human Rights in the Soviet Union |url=https://archive.org/stream/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion |location=London |publisher=Zed Books Ltd. |year=1984 |section=Imports |page=132 |pageurl=https://archive.org/stream/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion#page/n74/mode/1up |isbn=0 086232 018 6 |oclc=}}</ref> Per capita meat consumption in the USSR doubled from the 1960s to the 1980s and exceeded such nations as the [[Kingdom of Norway]], Italy, Greece, the [[Kingdom of Spain]],<ref name=HRSU72>{{safesubst:cite book |last=Syzmański |first=Albert |authorlink= |chapter=5 |title=Human Rights in the Soviet Union |url=https://archive.org/stream/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion |location=London |publisher=Zed Books Ltd. |year=1984 |section=Living Standards|pages=128–9 |pageurl=https://archive.org/stream/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion#page/n72/mode/1up |isbn=0 086232 018 6 |oclc=}}</ref> [[Japan]], and the [[State of Israel]]. Milk production increased almost sixty percent in two decades, to the point when during the 1980s the USSR became by far the world’s largest milk-producing country. According to the 1982 [[CIA]] report on the Soviet economy, ‘The Soviet Union remains basically self-sufficient with respect to food.’<ref>{{safesubst:cite book| publisher = Transaction Publishers| isbn = 978-1-4128-3909-9| last1 = Hoffmann| first1 = Erik P.| last2 = Laird| first2 = Robbin Frederick| title = The Soviet Polity in the Modern Era| page = 431|pageurl=https://books.google.com/books?id=63_obglArrMC&pg=PA431}}</ref> These were the accomplishments of an agrarian labour force that decreased from 42% in 1960 to 20% in 1980, working in a country where over 90% of the land is either too arid or too frigid for farming.<ref>{{safesubst:cite news| issn = 0882-7729| title = Soviet farming: more success than failure?| work = Christian Science Monitor| accessdate = 2019-10-09| date = 1982-12-13| url = https://www.csmonitor.com/1982/1213/121323.html}}</ref>

Although Vladimir Lenin would inspire many ecosocialists in the U.S.S.R.,<ref>{{safesubst:Cite news| title = Lenin’s Eco-Warriors - The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/opinion/lenin-environment-siberia.html| accessdate = 2019-10-09| date = 2017-08-15|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170815005108/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/opinion/lenin-environment-siberia.html|archivedate=2017-08-15}}</ref> and Moscow initiated history’s first state-directed effort to reverse artificially induced climate change,<ref>{{safesubst:cite journal|last=Brain|first=Stephen|title=The Great Stalin Plan for the Transformation of Nature|journal=Environmental History|publisher=Forest History Society and American Society for Environmental History|year=2010|month=October|volume=15|number=4|page=671|JSTOR=https://www.jstor.org/stable/25764488}}</ref> the immense pressure to compete with antisocialist régimes meant that pollution and irresponsible use of the environment would become very significant issues in later decades.<ref>{{safesubst:cite book|last=Szymański|first=Albert|chapter=5|title=Is the Red Flag Flying?|url=https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-6/red-flag.pdf|location=London|publisher=Zed Press|year=1979|page=83|pageurl=https://archive.org/stream/IsTheRedFlagFlying#page/n45/mode/1up|ISBN=0 905762 35 5}}</ref> <ref>{{safesubst:Cite web| title = Environmental Policy and Law in the USSR| accessdate = 2019-10-09| url = https://elr.info/sites/default/files/articles/17.10068.htm}}</ref> For example, a series of dry years in the 1970s (particularly 1974–1975) and low flows between 1982 and 1986 contributed to the Aral Sea’s desiccation, but overconsumption of the water for irrigation was another factor. Starting in the 1960s, the Soviets proposed a large-scale project to redirect part of the flow of the Ob basin’s rivers to Central Asia over a gigantic canal system; replenishing the Aral Sea was considered as one of the project’s main goals.<ref>{{safesubst:Cite book| publisher = Cambridge University Press| isbn = 978-1-139-42941-2| last = Glantz| first = Michael| title = Creeping Environmental Problems and Sustainable Development in the Aral Sea Basin| date = 1999-05-13|pageurl = https://books.google.com/books?id=2YXnBxZg7c4C&pg=PA174| page = 174}}</ref> It was only due to its staggering costs and the negative public opinion in the R.S.F.S.R. that the federal authorities unfortunately relinquished the project by 1986. (The worst effects of the sea’s desiccation manifested '''after''' the short twentieth century:<ref>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/file:AralSea1989_2014.jpg</ref> when a market economy was well in place.) The discontinuation of many Soviet industries also lead to a temporary reduction in CO₂ emissions in the Eastern world;<ref>{{safesubst:cite journal|last1=Schierhorn|first1=Florian|last2=Kastner|first2=Thomas|last3=Kuemmerle|first3=Tobias|last4=Meyfroidt|first4=Patrick|last5=Kurganova|first5=Irina|last6=V Prishchepov|first6=Alexander|last7=Erb|first7=Karl-Heinz|last8=A Houghton|first8=Richard|last9=Müller|first9=Daniel|title=Large greenhouse gas savings due to changes in the post-Soviet food systems|journal=Environmental Research Letters|url=https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab1cf1|publisher=IOP Publishing Ltd|date=2019-06-21|volume=14|number=6}}</ref> United Nations data from 1990 indicate that the Soviet Union was emitting 13.5 tons of CO₂ per capita (lower than antisocialist states such as Australia (17.2), Canada (16.2), and Imperial America (19.1)).<ref>{{safesubst:cite web|title=Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), metric tons of CO2 per capita (CDIAC)|url=http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Data.aspx|publisher=United Nations Statistics Division and United States Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC)|accessdate=2020-02-11}}</ref>

In summary:

{{quote|Compared with the later period it is justifiable to talk of the indisputable advantages of the command over the market economy in Russian conditions. […] [T]hese advantages are evident even in comparison with the degenerate mid-1980s version of the command economy, which was very different from the classical model. […] The USSR economy also exceeded the main capitalist countries in this period in terms of a number of indicators of economic efficiency. […] [T]he fading of the rate of economic growth which began at the end of the 1950s was not an inevitable consequence of the faults of command economy as an economic system but was the result of its gradual dismantling and the incompetent actions of the political and economic leadership in this period.|G.I. Khanin|<ref>{{safesubst:cite journal|last=Khanin|first=G.I.|title=The 1950s: The Triumph of the Soviet Economy|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3594504|journal=Europe-Asia Studies|publisher=Taylor & Francis, Ltd.|volume=55|number=8|year=2003|pages=1187–1211|ISSN=0966-8136|DOI=10.1080/0966813032000141088}}</ref>}}

== Infrastructure ==

=== Health ===
The USSR placed importance on the health of its people, and alongside quality food products, provided health care as a constitutional right. 
''ARTICLE 120. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to maintenance in old age and also in case of sickness or loss of capacity to work. This right is ensured by the extensive development of social insurance of workers and employees at state expense, free medical service for the working people and the provision of a wide network of health resorts for the use of the working people.'' - (Soviet Constitution of 1936 Chapter 10: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF CITIZENS)</ref>[https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.html#chap10]</ref>
 
''- Article 41: Citizens of the USSR have the right to rest and leisure. This right is ensured by the establishment of a working week not exceeding 41 hours, for workers and other employees, a shorter working day in a number of trades and industries, and shorter hours for night work; by the provision of paid annual holidays, weekly days of rest, extension of the network of cultural, educational, and health-building institutions, and the development on a mass scale of sport, physical culture, and camping and tourism; by the provision of neighborhood recreational facilities, and of other opportunities for rational use of free time. The length of collective farmers' working and leisure time is established by their collective farms.

- Article 42: Citizens of the USSR have the right to health protection. This right is ensured by free, qualified medical care provided by state health institutions; by extension of the network of therapeutic and health-building institutions; by the development and improvement of safety and hygiene in industry; by carrying out broad prophylactic measures; by measures to improve the environment; by special care for the health of the rising generation, including prohibition of child labour, excluding the work done by children as part of the school curriculum; and by developing research to prevent and reduce the incidence of disease and ensure citizens a long and active life.'' - (Soviet Constitution of 1977, Part II. The State And The Individual; Chapter 7: The Basic Rights, Freedoms, And Duties Of Citizens Of The USSR) </ref>[https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.html#chap07 ''CONSTITUTION (FUNDAMENTAL LAW) OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS: Part II, Chapter 7'']</ref>

Health conditions in Imperial Russia had been deplorable; it was among the unhealthiest nations in Europe, if not Earth in general:

{{quote|Without doubt the Soviet Union was one of the most underdeveloped European countries at the time of the October Revolution. In terms of life-expectancy it lagged behind the other industrialized countries of Europe by a gap of about 15 years.|University of Munich|<ref name=Dinkel>{{safesubst:cite journal|last=Dinkel|first=Reiner|title=Declining Life Expectancy in a Highly Developed Nation: Paradox or Statistical Artifact?|url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-95874-8_22|journal=Paradoxical Effects of Social Behavior|publisher=Physica-Verlag HD|year=1986|pages=311–321|doi=10.1007/978-3-642-95874-8_22|ISBN=978-3-7908-0350-1}}</ref>}}

However, after the October Revolution, healthcare conditions began to improve rapidly.<ref>{{safesubst:Cite book
|author=Howard M. Leichter
|authorlink=
|chapter=7
|editor=|editors=
|title=A Comparative Approach to Policy Analysis: Health Care Policy in Four Nations
|url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cfI6AAAAIAAJ
|archiveurl=https://wp.me/pa7b25-X
|archivedate=27/July/2018
|edition=
|location=New York
|publisher=Cambridge University Press
|year=1979
|volume=
|section=
|page=200
|pageurl=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cfI6AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA200
|isbn=0-521-22648
|oclc=
|text=In this hospital great pains were taken to keep surgical areas antiseptic and patient areas clean. The patients could enjoy fresh air and relaxation in an outdoor garden. In general, the patients, who included persons of varied ethnic and social backgrounds, were getting good medical attention. […] As the two literary descriptions suggest, the quality of medical care has improved substantially under communist rule.}}</ref> By the end of the interbellum period, healthcare standards (measured by life expectancy and mortality rates) were superior to those of Western Europe and the USA:

{{quote|One of the most striking advances of socialism has been and was generally seen to be the improvement in public health provision for the population as a whole. In accordance with this assumption mortality-rates in the Soviet Union declined rapidly in the first two decades after World War II. In 1965 life-expectancy for men and women in all parts of the Soviet Union, which still included vast underdeveloped regions with unfavorable living conditions, were as high or even higher than in the United States. Such a development fits perfectly into the picture of emerging industrial development and generally improving conditions of living.|University of Munich|<ref name=Dinkel/>}}

Even reactionary intellectuals were forced to acknowledge these achievements; according to Nick Eberstadt (an antisocialist think-tank adviser), healthcare standards in the Soviet Union during the interbellum period surpassed those of the USA and Western Europe:

{{quote|Over much of this century the nation in the vanguard of the revolution in health was the Soviet Union. In 1897 Imperial Russia offered its people a life expectancy of perhaps thirty years. In European Russia, from what we can make out, infant mortality (that is, death in the first year) claimed about one child in four, and in Russia’s Asian hinterlands the toll was probably closer to one in three. Yet by the late 1950s the average Soviet citizen could expect to live 68.7 years: longer than his American counterpart, who had begun the century with a seventeen-year lead. By 1960 the Soviet infant mortality rate, higher than any in Europe as late as the Twenties, was lower than that of Italy, Austria, or East Germany, and seemed sure to undercut such nations as Belgium and West Germany any year.|Nick Eberstadt|<ref name=Eberstadt/>}}

He even notes that these achievements made planned economics seem nearly indefatigable:

{{quote|In the face of these and other equally impressive material accomplishments, Soviet claims about the superiority of their “socialist” system, its relevance to the poor countries, and the inevitability of its triumph over the capitalist order were not easily refuted.|Nick Eberstadt|<ref name=Eberstadt/>}}

While health conditions did start to decline after the introduction of revisionist policies in the mid-1960s, this was likely caused mostly by the substance abuse, lopsided age demographics due to WWII, and the disparities in mortality rates between the European and Asian regions of the union rather than actual deficiencies in the healthcare system.<ref>{{safesubst:cite web|last=Cockshott|first=Paul|title=Economic Factors in Soviet Collapse|url=https://invidio.us/embed/EE-kCZnlGZU|accessdate=2020-03-26}}</ref> Either way, the planned economy’s healthcare achievements remain unimpeachable.

In January of 1960, news of a smallpox epidemic reached Moscow, which immediately mobilized all the resources of its hospitals, clinics, police departments and the KGB to search for and contain probable carriers. For example, they interrupted university lectures to quarantine one hundred fifty students, and searched elsewhere for other contacts until they establish an entire chain, interrupting trains and flights to quarantine potentially infected people. They placed a total of 9,342 people under quarantine. The Soviets prevented the spread of smallpox by vaccinating all of Moscow’s and Moscow Region’s residents of all ages. Within only a week, they successfully vaccinated more then 9.5 million people, an unprecedented case in history. By mobilizing law enforcement, epidemiologists, and all medics, they successfully defeated the virus in only 19 days, concluding on February 3, 1960. In total, they found only forty-five Moscow residents suffering from smallpox, only three of whom died.<ref>{{safesubst:cite web|last=Egorov|first=Boris|title=How the USSR defeated a smallpox epidemic in a matter of 19 days|url=https://www.rbth.com/history/331857|date=2020-03-19|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200321031034/https://www.rbth.com/history/331857-how-ussr-defeated-black-smallpox|archivedate=2020-03-21}}</ref>

===Education===
Already in 1919, despite the lackluster economic conditions, the Bolsheviki improved education substantially:

{{quote|Thousands of new schools have been opened in all parts of Russia and the Soviet Government seems to have done more for the education of the Russian people in a year and a half than Czardom did in 50 years. […] The achievements of the department of education under Lunacharsky have been very great. Not only have all the Russian classics been reprinted in editions of three and five million copies and sold at a low price to the people, but thousands of new schools for men, women, and children have been opened in all parts of Russia. Furthermore, workingmen’s and soldiers’ clubs have been organized in many of the palaces of yesteryear, where the people are instructed by means of moving pictures and lectures. In the art galleries one meets classes of working men and women being instructed in the beauties of the pictures. The children’s schools have been entirely reorganized, and an attempt is being made to give every child a good dinner at school every day. Furthermore, very remarkable schools have been opened for defective and over-nervous children. On the theory that genius and insanity are closely allied, these children are taught from the first to compose music, paint pictures, sculpt and write poetry, and it is asserted that some valuable results have been achieved, not only in the way of productions but also in the way of restoring the nervous systems of the children.|William C. Bullitt|<ref>{{safesubst:cite book|last=Kominsky|first=Morris|IV|title=The Hoaxers: Plain Liars, Fancy Liars, and Damned Liars|url=https://archive.org/stream/TheHoaxers|edition=|location=Boston|publisher=Branden Press, Inc.|year=1970|id=8283-1288-5|volume=I|page=256|pageurl=https://archive.org/stream/TheHoaxers#page/n250/mode/1up}}</ref>}}

Corporal punishment, common in Imperial Russia, became illegal and increasingly rare.<ref>{{safesubst:cite book|last1=Gould|first1=Laurie|last2=Pate|first2=Matthew|chapter=1|editor=Graeme R. Newman|title=Corporal Punishment around the World|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Uf-1r3SVVrYC|location=Santa Barbara|publisher=Praeger|year=2012|page=26|pageurl=https://books.google.com/books?id=Uf-1r3SVVrYC&pg=PA26|ISBN=978-0-313-39131-6|LCCN=2012017133}}</ref> Education continued to improve from the 1920s to the 1960s, and various nonsocialist observers, including Western government officials, have attested to the high quality of Soviet education, noting the diverse range of subjects, support for students, and complexity compared to U.S. education.<ref>{{safesubst:cite book|last=Kominsky|first=Morris|IV|title=The Hoaxers: Plain Liars, Fancy Liars, and Damned Liars|url=https://archive.org/stream/TheHoaxers|edition=|location=Boston|publisher=Branden Press, Inc.|year=1970|id=8283-1288-5|volume=I|pages=294–303|pageurl=https://archive.org/stream/TheHoaxers#page/n288/mode/1up}}</ref>

{{quote|In common with primary and secondary education, all higher education is free, and students in higher education who maintain a ‘B’ average also receive a stipend. Such stipends vary according to the year of study, the subject studied, the type of school and the student’s progress; no stipend is paid for a year that must be repeated. In the mid-1970s university students received 40–60 roubles a month and technical school students 30–45 roubles. Admission to higher education is by examinations for specific institutions; there are no IQ tests or general aptitude tests in the USSR. Students who fail one institution’s entrance exam can reapply in future years or apply to other institutions. Advantages are given to higher education applicants with work experience, for example, quotas, extra points on examinations, special tutorial programmes. In 1967, 30% of admissions to higher education were of people who had been working full time. In general, Soviets are actively encouraged to continue with formal education throughout their lives. Indeed, the Soviets have one of the highest rates of attendance at institutions of higher education in the world.|Albert Szymański|<ref>{{safesubst:cite book|last=Syzmański|first=Albert|chapter=5 |title=Human Rights in the Soviet Union |url=https://archive.org/stream/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion|location=London |publisher=Zed Books Ltd.|year=1984|page=137|pageurl=https://archive.org/stream/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion#page/n76/mode/1up |isbn=0 086232 018 6}}</ref>}}

==Environment==
===Environmentalism===
The USSR produced so little plastic that it was essential non-existent, and the plastic that was produced was made to last. Most bottles were made of glass, with old ones sent to factories to be sanitized and reused, with broken glass either swept up to be melted down or otherwise disposed of. Metal and paper waste was treated just like in wartime, similar to the US scrap collection system during World War II, resulting in minimal metal and paper waste. Littering was fined and weekly cleanup volunteers helped reduce trash in public places.

Widespread availability and use of public transport meant less CO2 produced as well. Cars also tended to have 4-6 cylinders meaning they used less gas, with trucks using diesel fuel which requires less refinement and is thus cheaper, while also using less energy from power plants.

The focus on nuclear power further reduced CO2 emissions, with nuclear power gradually coming to supersede coal-based power. Windmills were also used in areas for water pumps and flour production.
And furthermore Stalin, for one, had a series of ecological programs which replanted thousands of square kilometers of forests cut down or destroyed in preparation for and during World War II - [[The Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature]] (1948-1953). In all these ways, the Soviets sought to reduce the ecological effects of their rapid and massive industrialization necessary to survive their early years as a nation.

The Russian Federation, on the other hand, shirked environmental maintenance work which was regularly done in the USSR. The current system is to cut down a section of forest, dig a deep pit, dump waste in the pit, light it on fire, and then bury it while the methane and other fuel continue to let the fire burn under ground; leaking into the air and nearby villages. This has caused and still causes large protests, especially since this is a significant step down from the more efficient trash sorting and processing system present in the Soviet Union.

===The Aral Sea===
Aral Sea has been slowly drying up for a while naturally. If no humans effect it this would take a few millenia to eliminate. Obviously human impact has sped up this process. In the 1960s, Soviet researchers predicted the complete evaporation of the body of water, and a river used to irrigate farmland had the excess water siphoned into the lake and would have been rerouted to continue to do so. This was, however, expensive, and during the privatizations (and subsequent economic catastrophe) of the 1980s, that came with the rise of Gorbachev, the plan was abandoned. After Kazakhstan seceded, high-intensity cotton farming practices and infrastructure mismanagement - most water running through irrigation to the farms evaporated on the way there - accelerated the shrinkage. Most of the former Aral Sea is a desert. The destruction of the Aral Sea is a product of resource mismanagement both during the Soviet Union and after, with the latter being exemplified by Yeltsin's capitalist shock therapy which largely disregarded environmental sustainability rather than simple ignorance of impact.

===Radioactive dumping===
There is only one lake with high radiation levels as a result of radioactive dumping, Lake Karachay, but that was because radiation wasn't understood nearly as well at the time. Similarly, radioactive dumping by Soviets has occurred in the Barents and Kara Seas, however this was not a phenomenon unique to the USSR.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200609083923/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste Ocean disposal of radioactive waste]</ref>

==Railways==

From 1927 to 1941, the USSR expanded their freight rail network to be 20x larger than before, surpassing the US. From 1965 to 1980, the USSR build 639km of track a year (or about 1.5km a day).

==References==

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:USSR]]

Battle of Gettysburg

2018-07-09T21:33:21Z

RandomUser34:

In 1884, meridian time personnel met
in Washington to change Earth time.
First words said was that only 1 day
could be used on Earth to not change
the 1 day bible. So they applied the 1
day and ignored the other 3 days.
The bible time was wrong then and it
proved wrong today. This a major lie
has so much evil feed from it's wrong.
No man on Earth has no belly-button,
it proves every believer on Earth a liar.

Children will be blessed for
Killing Of Educated Adults
Who Ignore 4 Simultaneous
Days Same Earth Rotation.
Practicing Evil ONEness -
Upon Earth Of Quadrants.
Evil Adult Crime VS Youth.
Supports Lie Of Integration.
1 Educated Are Most Dumb.
Not 1 Human Except Dead 1.
Man Is Paired, 2 Half 4 Self.
1 of God Is Only 1/4 Of God.
Bible A Lie & Word Is Lies.
Navel Connects 4 Corner 4s.
God Is Born Of A Mother –
She Left Belly B. Signature.
Every Priest Has Ma Sign
But Lies To Honor Queers.
Belly B. Proves 4 Corners.

Your dirty lying teachers
use only the midnight to
midnight 1 day (ignoring
3 other days) Time to not
foul (already wrong) bible
time. Lie that corrupts earth
you educated stupid fools.

GoBelly-Button Logic Works.

When Do Teenagers Die?
Adults Eat Teenagers Alive,
No Record Of Their Death.
Father Son Image, Not Gods.
Every Man Born Of Woman.

Belly-Button Is the Signature
Of Your Personal Creator -
I Believe Her Name Mama.

Pastor Told His Flock That
God Created All Of Them -
Truth Was That They All had
Mama Made Belly Buttons,
Church Was Full Of Liars.

Earth Has 4 Days In Same 24 Hrs., 1 Day God Was Wrong.
Einstein Was ONEist Brain.

Try My Belly-Button Logic.

No God Knows About 4 Days, It Is Evil To Ignore 4 Days,

Does Your Teacher Know ?

Fraudulent ONEness of religious
academia has retarded your opposite
rationale brain to a half brain slave.
YOU IGNORE 3 OF 4 DAYS -
FORCE 4 DAYS ON EARTH,
THEY ALREADY EXIST.
4 HORSEMEN HAVE 4 DAYS
IN ONLY 1 EARTH ROTATION.
4 ANGLES STOOD ON 4 CORNERS.
4 CORNERS ROTATE TO 16 CORNERS
WHICH EQUAL TO 4 CORNER DAYS.
TEACHERS ARE EVIL LIARS - THE
ONEness OF GOD IS STILLness DEATH.
YOU WERE ONEness RETARD ON THE
EARTH OPPOSITES ALL YOUR LIFE.
LOVE OF GOD IS HATE OF CHILDREN.
SUPPORT TIMECUBE OR BE CURSED.
EARTH HAS 4 CORNER
SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY
TIME CUBE
WITHIN SINGLE ROTATION.
4 CORNER DAYS PROVES 1
DAY 1 GOD IS TAUGHT EVIL.
IGNORANCE OF TIMECUBE4
SIMPLE MATH IS RETARDATION
AND EVIL EDUCATION DAMNATION.
CUBELESS AMERICANS DESERVE -
AND SHALL BE EXTERMINATED.
******************************************************************************
The ONLY Official Site
For Gene Ray/TimeCube.
Need Help - Donate to Timecube/Gene Ray at PayPal

******************************************************************************
I am a Knower of 4 corner
simultaneous 24 hour Days
that occur within a single
4 corner rotation of Earth.
*********************************************************************

God guise for Queer
scam, enslaves 4 Day
cube brain as ONEist.
Vilify teachers - for
Queers swindle Tithe
from 1 Day Retarded
***********************************************************************

Till You KNOW 4 Simultaneous Days
Rotate In Same 24 Hours Of Earth
You Don't Deserve To Live On Earth

Americans are actually RETARDED from

Religious Academia taught ONEism -upon

an Earth of opposite poles, covered by Mama

Hole and Papa Pole pulsating opposite sexes.

The ONEist educated with their flawed 1 eye

perspective (opposite eyes overlay) Cyclops

mentality, inflicts static non pulsating logos

as a fictitious queer same sex transformation.

**********************************

It Is The Absolute Verifiable Truth & Proven Fact
That Your Belly-Button Signature Ties
To Viviparous Mama.

**********************************

Life is pulsing opposite mirror Pairs,

Death is ONEness of Godism.

****************************************************************************************

ONE - DOES NOT EXIST,

EXCEPT IN DEATH STATE.
ONE IS A DEMONIC RELIGIOUS LIE.
*************************************
Until you can tear and burn the bible to
escape the EVIL ONE, it will be impossible
for your educated stupid brain to know that
4 different corner harmonic 24 hour Days
rotate simultaneously within a single 4
quadrant rotation of a squared equator
and cubed Earth. The Solar system, the
Universe, the Earth and all humans are
composed of + 0 - antipodes, and equal
to nothing if added as a ONE or Entity.
All Creation occurs between Opposites.
Academic ONEism destroys +0- brain.
If you would acknowledge
simple existing math proof
that 4 harmonic corner days
rotate simultaneously around
squared equator and cubed
Earth, proving 4 Days, Not
1Day,1Self,1Earth or 1God
that exists only as anti-side.
This page you see - cannot
exist without its anti-side
existence, as +0- antipodes.
Add +0- as One = nothing.
**********************************************************************
Seek Awesome Lectures,
MY WISDOM DEBUNKS GODS OF
ALL RELIGIONS AND ACADEMIA.

We have a Major Problem,
Creation is Cubic Opposites,
2 Major Corners & 2 Minor.
Mom/Dad & Son/Daughter,
NOT taught Evil ONEism,
which VOIDS Families.
******************************************************************************************
Seek Wisdom of Cubic Life
Intelligence - or you die evil.
****************************************************************************************
Evil God Believers refuse to
acknowledge 4 corner Days
rotating simultaneously around
4 quadrant created Earth -
in only 1 rotation, voiding the
Oneism Evil 1 Day 1 God.
You worship Satanic impostor
guised by educators as 1 god.

No 1 God equals 4 - 24 hour
Days Rotating Simultaneously
within 1- 24 hour Rotation of
4 quadrant created Earth.
Ignoring 4 Corner Earth Days
will Destroy Evil Humanity.
I am organizing Children to
join "Cubic Army of 4 Days"
to convert Evil 1 Day Adults
to 4 Day mentality existence,
to serve perpetual humanity.

"Nothing on Earth more Evil
than a human educated as 1,
when composed of opposites
that cancel out as an entity."
In fact, man is the only 1 Evil,
and will soon erase himself by
ignoring Cubic 4 Day Creation.
If a Man cannot tear a page
from the bible and burn it -
then he cannot be a scientist,
or participate in Symposium -
to measure Cubing of Earth
with Cubic intelligence wiser
than any man or god known.
Educators have destroyed the
human analytical brain to a
single perspective, in spite of
all creation within Universe
being based upon opposites,
binaries & antipodes, including
Sun/Earth binary relative to the

human male/female binary. No
ancient insignificant dead 1 Jew
godism can match or exceed the
enormity of the Sun/Earth
Binary. His heart is not big
enough for sharing with the
vastness of created opposites.
1 has no heart beat or breath,
constituting death of opposites.
God in Human form has human

limits as body controls activity.
You are taught Evil, You act
Evil, You are the Evil on Earth.
Only your comprehending the
Divinity of Cubic Creation will
your soul be saved from your
created hell on Earth - induced
by your ignoring the existing
4 corner harmonic simultaneous
4 Days rotating in a single cycle
of the Earth sphere. Religious/
Academic Pedants cannot allow
4 Days that contradict 1Day 1God.
Educators destroy your brain,
but you don't know, so why care?

Creation ocurrs via opposites,
but Religious/Academia pedants
suppress it teaching Satanic One.

After 30 years of research, I now
possess the Order of Harmonic
Antipodal Cubic Divinity Life -
too large for physical form, but
Binary Spirit of the masculinity
Sun & feminity Earth Antipodes.
ONEism is demonic Death Math.
I have so much to teach you, but
you ignore me you evil asses.
You will recognize 4 corner Days
or incur Easter Island Ending.

Never a Genius knew Math
to achieve my Cubic Wisdom.
Cubic thought Reigns as the
Highest Intelligence possible
on the planet Earth. One 96
hour rotating Cube within a
single rotation of Earth -- is
an Ineffable Transcendence.
Bible and Science falsify 1
corner day for the Cubic 4
corner Days rotating daily.
A single god is not possible
in our 4 Day Cubic Science,
that equates Cubic Divinity.
Everybody is both stupid and
evil for ignoring the 4 days.
Cube Divinity transcends all
knowledge, Humans can't
escape 4 corner Cubic Life.
Fools worship mechanics of
language - while they wallow
in fictitious & deceitful word.
Exact science based on Cubics,
not on theories. Wisdom is
Cubic testing of knowledge.
Academia is progression of
Ignorance. No god equals
Simultaneous 4 Day Creation.
Humans ignore their 4 corner
stages of life metamorphosis.
This site is a collection of data
for a coming book - peruse it.
No human has 2 hands as they
are opposites, like plus and
minus, that cancel as entity.
Academia destroys your brain,
your ability to think opposite.
The eyes of the flounder fish
were relocated, why were yours

relocated? Your opposite eyes
were moved to 1 corner to overlay
for single perspective, but that
corrupts your Opposite Brain.
*****************************

KNOW CUBE, OR HELL.
Education and Religion
severely diminishes your
intelligence and mentality,
instituting ONEness Evil,
You are educated stupid -
and you have no inkling to
just how EVIL you think.

Seek in haste to attend a
lecture by Dr. Gene Ray,
Cubic and Wisest Human -
His Wisdom is Awesome.
*************************************
For Cumming, GA 30041 Lecture,
email: oray612959@earthlink.net
*******************************************
Both Cubic Thinkers and SnotBrains were
born with opposite brains, capable of math
analysis to know most everything. The
Religious/Academic Oneness Brotherhood
destroys the Brain's ability to think opposite
of singularity trash taught. Such reduced
Brain intelligence begets the student a
tag of SnotBrain android - encapable of
comprehending absolute proof of 4 Days
rotating simultaneously within a single
rotation of Earth. Cubics comprehend it.
You are a Cubic Thinker, or SnotBrain.
You SnotBrains will know
hell for ignoring TimeCube.
I do not promote or suggest
anyone killing you, but you
are unfit to live on Earth.
Binary Life Force is more
Powerful than ONE God -
especially the ole dead Jew,
for which you've denounced
your own mother and father.
1 side brain can't reason
without the opposite side.
Americans are so dumb,
educated stupid and evil,
they have snot for brain.
Believers have snot brain.
Educated have snot brain.
God worship only needs
a snot brain, but it takes
Opposite Brain Analysis
to know Harmonic Life.
The masculinity Sun and
femininity Earth - form
a Binary of Harmonic
Opposites at Center of
Universe - Greater than
either Sun or the Earth,
debunking all fictitious
Oneism Gods taught by
religious/academic Word
Animals. The invention of
fictitious WORD inflicts
humans as Word Animals
- the dumbest and most
Educated stupid and Evil
animal to inhabit Earth
and the Universe. Watch
for Giant Erasor as there
is a great danger of the
human Word Animal being
self-erased. You cannot
comprehend the actual 4

simultaneous days in single
rotation of Earth, as 1 day
1 God ONEism blocks the
ability to think opposite of
the ONEism crap taught.
Education destroys brain.

Dr. Gene Ray, Cubic and Wisest Human
**********************************

Gene Ray interview by Lionel on Air America Radio,
The Lionel Show - 10am, Friday, August 3, 2007

Creation is the Harmonics of Opposites -
Opposites are the Harmonics of Creation.
God entity is queer sex, or no opposite sex.
God Oners must ban all sex with Opposites.
Trinity of males degrade female opposites.
Sex okay for atheist, but not God Oneists.
Opposite hemispheres equate planets to a
Giant Brain, that has 4 faces, but no limbs.
Adults create baby, baby evolves to adult.
No 1 God can create a planet of opposites,
which equate to a zero value existence, and
cancels to nothing as an entity in death.
**********************************
"Cubic Time" - Cubes
Earth, Life and Truth
TIME CUBE (corner = vertical edge)
Word God is Bad Math
MATH SHOWN HERE IS
FAR SUPERIOR TO GOD
AND CHRISTIANITY. USE
IT TO SAVE HUMANITY.

HONOR THE 4 DAYS

OR YOU SHOULD DIE.
Earth has 4 days simultaneously each rotation. You erroneously measure time from 1 corner. Earth body 4 corner time equals 4 leg mobility. Your ignorance of Harmonic Cube is demonic.
Dr Gene Ray is the
Greatest Philosopher,
and is the Greatest
Mathematician.
www.TheWisestHuman.com
********************************************
Here is a cube manufactured from metal, in similar likeness to Time Cube
Cubic Harmonics
Only Cubic Harmonics can save
humanity. Cubic Harmonics
will pacify all religions.

96-hour Cubic Day
debunks 1-day unnatural god.
96-hour Cubic Day
debunks 1-day as witchcraft.

96-hour day willdisprove disunity
god. Academians are teaching -
pseudoscience.

Worshipping a Word God
will destroy the USA.
********************************************************

WARNING ...

Ignore Cubic Math at your
own peril, and of humanity.

You have a god like brain -
parallel opposite & analytical,
wasted if you believe in ONE.

Dr Gene Ray, Cubic and Wisest Human (at left). Nature's Harmonic Simultaneous 4-Day 4-Corner Time Cube (right). Image by R. Janczarski
(Dr Gene Ray, Cubic and Wisest Human, depicted in image above)

The primary purpose for
Education is not Subject
matter, but subservience
to accept any crap taught
without opposing thought,
destroying opposite brain
to be submissive android.
You're taught to be stupid.

Dr. Gene Ray, Cubic & Wisest Human

NO GOD EQUATES
SIMULTANEOUS
4 DAY CREATION,
in 1 Earth rotation.

Cubic Creation of 4 corner
separate simultaneous 24
hour Days within 1 Earth
rotation - transcends and
contradicts the 1 Day
rotation/1 God Creation
of Christianity - and all
ONEism / Singularity
religions - proving them
to constitute Evil on Earth
for the parallel Opposites.

Hey - got a death threat
from Temporal Phoenix
last night, saying that the
big ole boys that make the
world go round, are going
to wipe me off the Earth.
They can't allow the Time
Cube Principle to continue.

Democrat Party

2018-07-09T21:32:08Z

RandomUser34:

Liberal myths

2018-07-09T21:31:22Z

RandomUser34:

Liberal denial

2018-07-09T21:30:37Z

RandomUser34:

User talk:1990'sguy

2018-07-09T21:29:43Z

RandomUser34: /* Hi there */ new section

{{welcome}}

Thanks for adding your edits, hopefully you'll become a regular contributor. If I can help you out with anything let me know. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 19:45, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

:Thank you! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:49, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

Account promoted to skip the Captcha requirement. Thanks for your enlightening edits to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].

Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:37, 28 July 2016 (EDT)

:Thank you! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:45, 28 July 2016 (EDT)
::Congratulations and welcome. You should be aware that people who edit at both CP and WP with the same user name are sometimes harrassed at WP as a result. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:11, 29 July 2016 (EDT)
:::Thank you for the welcome and thanks for the heads up! I've already received some heat on Wikipedia for taking some unpopular positions and opposing the bias there, so it will be nothing new for me. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:36, 29 July 2016 (EDT)

----
I saw your helpful addition to the article on Murder of Seth Rich, so I thought I would visit your talk page. How long have you lasted on the WickedPedia? I would be surprised that you would last long there, as I have found the WickedPedia incredibly intolerant and censorious, a pseudo-aristocracy with dominating bullies, biased enough for me to consider it a candidate for the Big T award (T in the Calvinist TULIP); i.e, total depravity! LOL I don't think you can do much on Wikipedia without being part of a group of old boys or buddies who work together. ([[User:Thunkful2|Thunkful2]] ([[User talk:Thunkful2|talk]]) 19:26, 23 August 2016 (EDT))

:Did you mean my Wikipedia talk page? I have been editing Wikipedia for almost three years already. A big reason why I've lasted so long there is because many of the topics I edit are not particularly controversial. However, you are completely right in your description of Wikipedia. I have seen firsthand the massive (and very visible) intolerance and bias Wikipedia has against conservatives, Christians, and anything that contradicts secular and humanistic (pseudo)"scientific knowledge". I could probably write a book about all my criticisms of Wikipedia. I have been able to do some good work (I was able to bring the article "Electoral history of Ronald Reagan" to official "Good Article" status, and I created a few articles), but on other articles, like the Murder of Seth Rich, we cannot have much confidence on the quality and neutrality of those articles. I do applaud you, Thunkful2, for your excellent work on "Murder of Seth Rich". It's awesome that at least one person can accurately present this story! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:35, 23 August 2016 (EDT)

----
I meant right here, this talk page -- I visited it after seeing your good edit. No, I haven't gone to your talk page on the WickedPedia. Thanks for the complement. ([[User:Thunkful2|Thunkful2]] ([[User talk:Thunkful2|talk]]) 10:45, 24 August 2016 (EDT))

:OK, got it. And thanks for your complement. :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:50, 24 August 2016 (EDT)

== References from Wikipedia ==

While it's not really plagiarism to copy a reference from WP, it just want to point out that you probably shouldn't do so unless you have read that source, and believe that it supports what is being said. If you are reading the books you are referencing, that's fine--I just can't tell. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:33, 8 September 2016 (EDT)
:Oh, that's a good point. I actually did not read those books, I just wanted to cite something so I wouldn't be adding unsourced info to the article. Should I remove those references anyway? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:36, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

::It is a good idea to find references to support unsourced statements, but it is a little deceptive to cite something you haven't read. To be entirely beyond reproach, removal probably would be best. At this point though, I honestly don't know if I'd bother. In my opinion, it's up to you. No one else has said anything, so it might be okay to leave them, I'm just not sure. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:51, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

:::OK. I will do my own research and find other sources that I can use instead. However, it's getting late, so I will deal with that tomorrow. Thanks for your help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:58, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

== Account promoted ==

Your account has been promoted to include blocking and overnight editing capability. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:30, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

:Congratulations! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:57, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

::Well done! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] ([[User talk:AlanE|talk]]) 01:06, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

:::Thanks all! I really appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:21, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

::::Excellent! you did good keeping an eye on that vandal yesterday. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 14:52, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

:::::Thanks, Progressingamerica, I appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

==Reading the WSJ==
Re: [[Christoph Blocher]]

Typically, when I want to read a WSJ article that requires subscriber sign in is to Google the headline and access the web page from a search engine instead of directly. Most of the time this requires a clean browser tab, sometimes it needs to be done in a different browser. Rarely, it requires a cookie clearing. Just thought that information may be of help. This even works with articles that are years old.

As a last resort, see if its in the internet archive.(though, most articles I don't want that bad to keep trying) But they're all good procedures to know. Sometimes works for other news sites too, besides WSJ. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 00:00, 10 October 2016 (EDT)

:Thanks for the tip! That's what I will do. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:32, 10 October 2016 (EDT)

== Account promoted ==

Your account has been promoted to include upload and rollback features. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:26, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
:Thanks! I really appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:36, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
::Congratulations! Keep it up! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:31, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
:::Thanks David! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:43, 13 October 2016 (EDT)

== Move and unlock requests ==

You can post your move and unlock requests to [[User talk:Karajou]]. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:30, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
:Thanks for the tip! It's getting late, so I will do that tomorrow. I appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:37, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
::You don't actually need any privileges to do a move. You can cut-and-paste from one lemma to another. For purposes of copyright law, the edit summaries must make it clear where the incoming material comes from. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 00:54, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

== Karajou blocked a user who expressed views supporting the Presidential candidate who is not a sexual preditor. ==

People should not be judged in race on alleged sexuality. A proper critique of Karajou would be asking him about blocking a user who expressed views supporting the Presidential candidate who is not a sexual preditor.--[[User:Rodgerr|Rodgerr]] ([[User talk:Rodgerr|talk]]) 19:04, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

:If you think you have been judged unfairly, you could have just emailed Karajou or webmaster@conservapedia.com (see [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Member Accounts]]). However, more than once, you decided to take the low route, calling him filthy, immature words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&diff=1283494&oldid=1283491]. See [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. And why in the world did you do this? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Coal_burning&curid=140922&diff=1283484&oldid=1283423] (for someone who apparently abhors Trump for the tape, your words seem just as bad) That, honestly, is shameful. I will note that the "Bringreaganback" account clearly violated [[Conservapedia:90/10 rule]]. Considering all this, it's quite clear you deserved the block. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:12, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

== Mainpageleft ==

In response to your good question about entries on [[Template:Mainpageleft|Mainpageleft]], currently there are about 112 featured entries there, which are "reshuffled" periodically. Do you have any suggestions about how that "team" of entries be improved, with respect to insight, influence, popularity, interest level, educational value, etc.? It's a terrific mix of topics now but there is always room for improvement, particularly as the issues and interest in certain topics by the public inevitably shifts over time. Thanks much for any suggestions you may have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:46, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

:An example: "[[Underrated Sports Stars]]" is a solid entry, but should probably be replaced on [[Template:Mainpageleft|Mainpageleft]]. Do you have any favored, influential, insightful, potentially or already popular entry that you like, which you would recommend to replace it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:55, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

::I do have a few suggestions. [[Murder of Seth Rich]] is probably the best suggestion, as it is very detailed and well sourced. Also, the Wikipedia article of the murder has been the victim of leftist bias (two times, within a month, editors have tried to delete the article, and with that failing, the article appears to have been stripped of much detail) which our article covers well. Other suggestions that I have are the [[Ark Encounter]] (a popular and influential attraction, and one that has been the victim of atheist and evolutionary bias, which the article covers), and [[Larry McDonald]] (a true patriot who stayed true to his principles, and his article actually covers the theories on his possible survival). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:22, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

== Account promoted again ==

Congratulations, your account has been promoted again, so that you can edit protected articles, and protect and unprotect articles. Very well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:05, 10 November 2016 (EST)
:Wow! Thank you very much, Mr. Schlafly! I really appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:19, 10 November 2016 (EST)
::Congratulations! I've had some problems with the "protect" privilege, but I hope it works for you! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 01:35, 12 November 2016 (EST)
:::Thanks! I hope so too! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:15, 12 November 2016 (EST)
::::Congratulations on yet another promotion. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:46, 12 November 2016 (EST)
:::::Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:46, 12 November 2016 (EST)

==Can't edit article==
Hi again, 1990'sguy, it's Ambassador. Is there any reason I can't edit the article on the [[Big Bang]]? To keep atheists from changing it, I suppose. If you have access to it, you might want to add the point about the Big Bang, due to planets and moons spinning backwards, contradicting the law of Conservation of angular momentum. Find out about it [http://www.creationwiki.org/Three_planets_and_several_moons_revolve_backwards_(Talk.Origins) here]. Thanks! [[User:Ambassador|Ambassador]] ([[User talk:Ambassador|talk]]) 19:56, 22 November 2016 (EST)
:Yes, the article is protected probably because of atheist/secularist/liberal vandalism. Unfortunately, I cannot edit it myself as I do not have full admin capabilities. I recommend asking an admin ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&username=&group=sysop&limit=100 list]) to unlock the article or add the information you want added. Or, you can go to [[Talk:Main Page|the main talk page]] and add your request there, where more people can see it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:08, 22 November 2016 (EST)

== Thank you! ==

Hello there, and thank you for editing the article on [[Islam and Christianity]]. --[[User:SWAJCAHL&S|SWAJCAHL&S]] ([[User talk:SWAJCAHL&S|talk]]) 09:13, 23 November 2016 (EST)
:No problem, and thank you for creating it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:14, 23 November 2016 (EST)

::And also thank you, for your help - and tips! - on [[Jared Kushner]]. I'll try to remember the ref's and cat's in the future. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ([[User talk:Ed Poor|talk]]) 21:49, 23 November 2016 (EST)
:::Sounds great and you're welcome! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:05, 23 November 2016 (EST)

== Geocentric page ==

I added a bit on the talk page a while ago. [[User:PeterIceHockey|PeterIceHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterIceHockey|talk]]) 17:15, 3 December 2016 (EST)
:Do you mean on the section "Ptolemy's view of a stationary earth"? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:13, 3 December 2016 (EST)
::Sorry for the late reply but yes. It doesn't seemed to have created a new heading so I will add that now. [[User:PeterIceHockey|PeterIceHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterIceHockey|talk]]) 17:11, 5 December 2016 (EST)
:::I removed it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:21, 5 December 2016 (EST)

== This is a simple misunderstanding. Please be reasonable. ==

This is [[User:Amorrow]]. I had to dirty myself by creating a sockpuppet because you cut off every last channel of communication. The issues:
# SSN of dead people are release by the government of the USA. I made it clear that my father is dead. His name was William Knight Morrow. You can find his name and SSN, for instance, at [http://sortedbybirthdate.com/pages/19311104.html this page]. It is public, not private.
# You could have removed that link and let it go at that. I do not require notification of such actions. I do not care about that link very much. I put it there simply as a convenience.
Is the matter resolved? If so, then please unblock me or let me know here what remains unresolved.--[[User:Amorrow2|Amorrow2]] ([[User talk:Amorrow2|talk]]) 20:44, 3 December 2016 (EST)

:I am discussing the issue on [[User talk:DavidB4]]. You are welcome to join in. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:48, 3 December 2016 (EST)
::You are unblocked. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:46, 3 December 2016 (EST)

==Pitch hitting==

Thanks for the ref [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=1293435]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:34, 18 December 2016 (EST)
:You're welcome. Always happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:15, 18 December 2016 (EST)

==Trump==
You're not telling me it's just a coincidence, are you? [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:44, 23 December 2016 (EST)

:Seriously? It is extremely unlikely that this passage, which is about the Second Coming of Christ, has anything to do with Donald Trump. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:46, 23 December 2016 (EST)
::Dang :( Thought I'd had my first ever conservative insight. Must be the morphine. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:56, 23 December 2016 (EST)
:::I think this has more to do with biblical [[hermeneutics]] than conservatism. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:00, 23 December 2016 (EST)

== Merry Christmas ==

[[Image:Merry Christmas.gif|cebter|260px]]
{{clear}}
Thank you for all your contributions to Conservaoedia as far your web article content.

Merry Christmas! And have a happy New Year's Day. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:37, 24 December 2016 (EST)

:Thank you very much, Conservative, and the same to you as well! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:43, 24 December 2016 (EST)

== [[St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre]] ==

I suggest doing the redirect in the opposite direction for two reasons. First, it preserves the history and visits to the pre-existing entry. Second, it leaves intact the "Saint" spelled out, which is a stronger and more effective title than the secularized abbreviation. I'd be happy to change the direction of the redirect, if you agree. Regardless, thanks for your efforts!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:01, 27 December 2016 (EST)

:Yes please, Mr. Schlafly, that would be great if you would move it. Just as long as the article shows up as being created by me on the "New Pages" feed. I didn't know that this article already existed, but I worked hard on it and I think that my article is of higher quality by any objective measure. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:39, 28 December 2016 (EST)

==European immigration==
I was thinking of doing an article on the [[European immigration]] problem (don't want to call 'European immigration crisis', yet). Americans are woefully ignorant of what's happening in Europe, and we're looking at doing perhaps the biggest change in Immigration law since 1952. In Europe, whole new political parties have been spawned because of the establishment parties failure to deal with the problems. In 20 years, the German mi!itary may be majority Muslim which would impact the future of the NATO alliance. Better get started now in educating the American public on changing demographics and how this may affect America's role as a Superpower, assuming it still is by then.

Would you care to collaborate? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 01:39, 29 December 2016 (EST)

:Of course, I'll be happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:39, 29 December 2016 (EST)
::Do you think we should add a subsection under UK about Brexit and to what extent that was motivated by immigration? Also, I'd like to include something about the Schengen Agreement. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 16:46, 29 December 2016 (EST)
:::Both of those are great ideas. The "freedom of movement" EU policy played a large part in the referendum and its aftermath. People are tired of unlimited immigration.
:::As for the Schengen area, people can go anywhere they want in Europe without worrying about border security (and before, it was quite tough crossing the border I've heard). The agreement is an essential part of the EU plan to reach full political unification. It really has nothing to do with economics. Also, criminals and terrorists can easily cross the border. The recent Berlin attacker was caught in Italy. He crossed at least two borders without being caught. Imagine if he tried doing that without the agreement. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:53, 29 December 2016 (EST)
:::::Same as most of suspects in 1200 reported sexual assault cases New Years Eve in Cologne. Something like only 7 or 22 arrests have ever been made, while most of the other identified suspects are reported to have fled the country.[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 17:06, 29 December 2016 (EST)

== Father's SSN ==

I created [[Social Security Death Index]]. After I add some ref's, I hope that we can revisit the notion of me declaring what my father's SSN is.

Just to mention where I got this idea from, it is from the web site anusha.com . Sloan has lived an erratic and at times immoral life, but he is just below the level of genius in raw talent. I refer to him as an "accidental adventurer". Please see thermo4thermo.org/sam_sloan.html for some of his life-adventures.
I am not promoting his lifestyle, but he is my publisher for my upcoming book. His web site is a mess. It has about 3000 pages but just a mess of cross-references. The home page is very, very long. You can look at pages like www.anusha.com/pafc147.htm . He also has pages like www.anusha.com/uncles-p.htm . His memory is almost perfect. Near Total Recall. Anyway, I hope we can engage in dialog about my father's SSN.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 22:11, 3 January 2017 (EST)
==Hate crime==
Dear 1990'sguy, I am not trying to get into an edit war with you, but I believe that you are misreading the hate crime laws. They do not address "hate speech," just violence or other criminal acts against target groups that receive a lot of hate. I suggest that you do further research, and I hope that you will come to the same conclusion. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 20:31, 7 January 2017 (EST)
:For clarification, are you telling me that hate crime laws do not cover "hate speech"? Regardless, I think we should mention that slowly (but steadily) speaking out for biblical Christian principles (opposition to homosexual marriage, saying Islam is a false religion, etc.) is being seen as "hate speech" and vulnerable to being criminalized. See this recent story[https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/simon-turpin/2016/01/08/northern-ireland-pastor-not-guilty-criticising-islam/] and please note the recent attempts to censor Christian sermons in Houston (I don't know if other cities did the same). Censorship of Christian and conservative opinions is growing, and I could a few (but probably unrelated to hate crimes) examples. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:09, 7 January 2017 (EST)
::Also, while you can keep you additions, would you please restore the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hate_crime&curid=3861&diff=1298155&oldid=1298153 material you deleted in this edit] (particularly those three completely deleted paragraphs)? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:11, 7 January 2017 (EST)
:::Thank you for fixing the dead link and finding an additional source. You are exactly right. Hate crime and hate speech are completely different. All Conservatives disapprove of speech codes, "safe spaces policy" and political correctness. The First Amendment is clear that regulation of speech must be neutral as to the message. The person(s) who wrote the [[Hate crime]] article years ago got a bit tangled up. Liberals want hate speech codes, and Conservatives oppose them. Both Liberals and Conservatives have voted to enact true hate crime laws to protect religious freedom and to address hate violence on the basis of race. Some Conservatives argue that the list of hate targets in those laws should not include "sexual orientation," but that argument does not belong in a section discussing protecting religion.
:::I took out the two paragraphs because they were repetitive, out-of-place and not germaine. Why not add them to [[Hate speech]]? Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 21:39, 7 January 2017 (EST)
::::Thank you for clarifying and for moving the content. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:00, 7 January 2017 (EST)
:::::You are welcome. Our discussion here was a bit time delayed. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 22:02, 7 January 2017 (EST)
If you want to include the legislative history, it should explain which bill that was finally adopted that is being discussed and how the bill that was adopted differs from the earlier bills. The people that worked on this article years ago were obviously opposed to a series of bills and were making arguments on why a bill would be bad. Their narative is out of date. We have a number of state and federal hate crime laws on the books and we need to describe what exists, give facts and statistics about how the laws work, and include some commentary on whether the law has been applied fairly. If you want to expand the history section beyond the two sentences that I have explaining how the federal law expanded the role of the FBI, please do so. But the fact that certain people sponsored bills that did not pass before a bill did pass is not helpful unless you explain what changes were made or how the early efforts illumniates our understanding of the bill that passed. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:50, 13 January 2017 (EST)
:If these proposed bills became law, we should definitely include this (even if we word it differently). We should do this in order to inform the public about leftist laws and to show that they didn't always exist. Unfortunately, I am quite busy right now, so I cannot do anything about this at the moment. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:49, 13 January 2017 (EST)
:::1990sguy, these bills did '''not''' become law. A similar bill later became law. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 01:10, 14 January 2017 (EST)
::Not to sidetrack your guys discussion, but let me point out (cause the media hasn't) we have just witnessed something very rare and unusual in the US. Traditionally, because of state sovereignty, the states prosecute murder cases and federal government's role is restricted, for most of our history, to capital cases in the US military. In the 20th century federal crimes like murdering the president, or terrorism on federal property causing death ([[Timothy McVeigh]]), were added. This guy, [http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/us/dylann-roof-death-penalty-explainer/ Dylann Roof], has just been sentenced to death for violating peoples civil rights with a hate crime enhancement, and ''not for murder''. The federal government does not have the legal authority to try this as a murder case. In fact, Roof probably never will be tried for murder cause the State of South Carolina isn't gonna spend the time and money to do it after the feds are done. In my lifetime, I think this is only the fourth case like this I ever heard of, tho I'm sure there's been a few others. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 22:37, 13 January 2017 (EST)
:::Rob, this happened a lot in the 1960s. Civil rights workers would go South and were murdered and either the murder was not prosecuted or a local jury would acquit the accused. The FBI would then investigate and the US DOJ would successfully prosecute for civil rights violations in Federal Court. The question is whether there is enough of a commerce clause basis to allow for the passage of such federal crimes, and the courts have upheld them on the grounds that if the federal government did not prevent such intimidation, people would not feel safe crossing state lines. Also, many states have suspended or abolished the death penalty, while it remains available in federal court. State "sovereignty" is very limited and not ''actual'' sovereignty in the legal sense. To me, this is a more interesting aspect of the Hate crime article than whether or not the definition should be expanded to include "gender identity." [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 01:08, 14 January 2017 (EST)
::::I'm not sure it happened "a lot". There was the 'Mississippi Burning' case, where the local cops and others were charged with civil rights violations, but no one served more than a six year sentence. This is why "hate crime" legislation was added later, cause sentences were too light for a "civil rights violation resulting in death". The problem in those days were all-white juries exonerating murder cases, so the feds invented a way they could prosecute killers. One guy was convicted in a state trial [http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/price&bowers/killen.htm 40 years later in 2005 of manslaughter,] but he wasn't the trigger man. No one has ever been charged with the actual killings.
::::Then there was Salt Lake City case of a civil rights violation resulting in death in 1978, but Utah was never part of the Confederacy, was not put under federal scrutiny in the Voting Rights Act, nor has a history of all-white jurries exonersting whites accused of murdering blacks.

::::In the 1990s, Brian Beckwith was convicted of violating Medgar Evers civil rights by killing him in the 1970s.

::::In the 90s Timothy McVeigh was the first person executed by the federal government since, like 1956. But this was a terrorism charge resulting in death, not a civil rights violation, AFAIK. ([https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3azq6b/eli5how_timothy_mcveigh_only_got_convicted_of_8/ McVeigh was only charged with 8 counts of murder, although 168 were killed]). Since McVeigh, there's been maybe one or two other cases of people executed by the federal government.
::::Bottomline, the federal hate crime enhancement was added cause, while the feds proved they could get a conviction where the state failed to act, the penalty was too low. Since its inception, it's hard to find a single case that the law was used for what it was designed for. There is no evidence whatsoever that South Carolina would not prosecute Dylann Roos, or an all-white jury would have exonerated him if the feds failed to intrude. South Carolina has lost its right to govern itself, its sovereignty. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 06:32, 14 January 2017 (EST)
:::::If this is true, then it definitely should be added. It would give yet another ignored example of massive governmental expansion and movement towards socialism. JDano, if the 2009 proposal did not become law, then what did the actual law consist of? If the bill that was listed on the article did not become law, then there is no point in including it. However, a legislative history of successful bills would be good. However, I am still quite busy, so I will not attempt to do anything about this at the moment. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:49, 14 January 2017 (EST)

==Contest==
I will provide the details you seek when i get some time. You were in the top 5. --Jpatt 10:19, 16 January 2017 (EST)
:Thank you for the reply Jpatt! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:40, 16 January 2017 (EST)

== discuession ==

I am continuing the discussion on my talk page.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 10:39, 22 January 2017 (EST)

==Question==
What would be the best word to describe Eurosceptic's opponents? Eurocentric? Pan European? Some other? I don't like globalist in this context. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 12:42, 28 January 2017 (EST)
:I would say either "Europeanists," "Europhiles," or "Euro-Federalists" are the best. They either seem to be the most used terms. Of those three, I would personally opt for the first. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:00, 28 January 2017 (EST)

== Ban editing ==

Hi, I've noticed you sometimes change blocks by other admins to increase the time or make in infinite. I appreciate your intentions, but just thought I would point out a couple things. Firstly, the blocking admin generally has the final say over the block they have imposed. For example, if a person want to dispute the ban, they are to go to the blocking admin, and that admin decides whether to revoke the ban or not (as can be seen [[Conservapedia:Quick_reference#If_you_get_blocked|here]]). Since you are not revoking a block, it's probably not as big of an issue, but it still seems to be proper etiquette. Of course, full admins have authority over assistants such as you and I, so they have the right to direct revise of revoke blocks we make. 
Secondly, While it makes good sense to block those people forever, it doesn't really work that way. A ban applies to the username, and the IP from which they edited if the option is selected--nothing more. Vandals almost always use servers to redirect their connection, however, so that their true IP is never seen by CP. This means that when we block those users, we are really just blocking the server they were using. This is a good thing too, but the problem is that these servers are usually assigned new IPs periodically, so the block no longer applies--now the blocked IP is unassigned. Since most people in the western world still use IPv4, there are not that many spare IP addresses, so the IP is soon assigned to someone else. Now some innocent person is using an IP which for all eternity has been blocked on CP. They probably will never even know, but if we set infinite blocks enough, the chances of that happening regularly increase continuously. I know some people here do use infinite block regularly, but in my opinion its a logistical problem. This is why I almost always set a time limit, or block only the username infinitely, and leave the IP unblocked (which I prefer not to do).
Thanks for your ongoing efforts! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:05, 31 January 2017 (EST)
:Yikes, I should have thought of that. The thought of indefinitely blocking innocent people from CP certainly is not a good thing. If you haven't reverted by block change, feel free to undo it. I'm too busy right now to do it myself. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:11, 31 January 2017 (EST)

::The chances of that happening from a couple blocks are pretty low, but it can add up. Anyway, no harm done. I just thought I'd mention it. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:24, 31 January 2017 (EST)

== expand ==

[[Gainful employment]]. Yes. I dare you to.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 08:32, 4 February 2017 (EST)
:Why? What's the purpose of you messaging me? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:25, 4 February 2017 (EST)

==[[Abortion]] article==
It's open for you to make your suggested additions. As to the Leif Ericson image, what needs to happen is a new image uploaded in its place. I'll try to find one later. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 13:18, 6 February 2017 (EST)
:New Leif image uploaded and added to article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 12:56, 7 February 2017 (EST)
::Thank you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:02, 7 February 2017 (EST)

== Addiction article and TAR ==

Hello again, Regarding the [[Addiction]] article and specifically its categories, I agree with JDano. Let me attempt to explain: 

"TAR" is short for [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] a former user and assistant SysOp here at Conservapedia. People have differing opinions of him, but mine is that he did offer some valuable contributions, but also did not understand and did not learn the rules of CP. Among some other issues, he tended to add many "See also" links to articles which were not sufficiently relevant and did the same with categories. Thus, when editors refer to "TAR" they are usually talking about this debris, which should not exist. TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR) has since stopped editing here, and his account has been deleted. However, some of the links and categories he inserted still exists, and make things look messy. For this reason, a number of editors (including myself) try to clean up these issues and restore a little more order. The guide page [[Conservapedia:How to create and maintain high-quality articles]] was the direct result of TAR's methods. 
Regarding the categories specifically, it's best to maintain a "tree" structure. A page should not connect to categories which also contain subcategories it links to. Also, it should link only to categories which contain it, not categories which the page topic can contain. In other words, a page "drug" should be in the category "medicines" but not in a category "antibiotics". 
I hope this clarifies a bit. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:42, 13 February 2017 (EST)

:Please allow me to apologize for my impatience with the "addiction" article. You accidentally stepped into the remains of a hornets' nest. TAR added lots of utterly irrelevant see-also's and categories, in what can only be described as an attempt to turn this wiki into survivalist-pedia, or perhaps James-Wesley-Rawles-pedia. He offended a huge number of people with his implications that we were all supposed to stockpile bullets, batteries, and other survivalist stuff (I could look it up but it's too nauseating) and move to a "redoubt" in Idaho or similar place while we wait for the apocalypse. We were also all supposed to be into some kind of crackpot Indian alternative medicine. (I think it was called "ayurvedic" or something like that; once again too nauseating.) The whole wiki was in an enormous uproar for a few months. (And Cons, who really doesn't subscribe to that stuff, nevertheless stirred up the pot by pretending to be in email contact with the guy.)
:So if you see suspicious see-also's or categories, especially with codewords like "nanny state" or "gun-grabbing", be aware this might be detritus from TAR. I support the second amendment, but I don't support putting all this survivalist garbage into an article on fire hydrants.
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:36, 13 February 2017 (EST)
::It has taken a huge amount of work to undo TAR's damage. I suppose that you think that there is a bias against any change he had made, and there is probably some truth to that. He did not understand that our categories have a tree structure. Instead, he thought of categories as a word association test. Putting in excess categories and excessive red links makes Conservapedia less appealing to users and lowers our google search engine rankings. In theory, every article could be in every category, because there is some plausible connection between any two subjects. If we had a separate article on "Drug Addiction" then it could have categories like [[:Category:Illegal Drugs]] or [[:Category:Drugs]]. The problem is that [[:Category:Illegal Drugs]] is a subcategory of [[:Category:Drugs]] ''breaking up the category tree with an infinite loop.'' Here the Addiction article is on a much higher level that discusses video games, etc. So, it is not useful to a high school student looking for information about illegal drugs, in my opinion. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 05:46, 13 February 2017 (EST)

:::Thank you all for your explanations. Considering these things, I will try not to get in the way next time this clean up occurs. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:13, 13 February 2017 (EST)
== Thanks! ==

You helped make [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/conservapedia.com THIS] happen.

I have never seen a non-profit website go from below 100,000 rank to nearly a 50,000 Alexa ranking in about a year. And Andy payed zero dollars for internet marketing services during this period.

And there is no sign of a nearing web traffic plateau. My guess is that Trump supporters/Trump era and the resulting political waves significantly explains the boost in traffic.

Trump supporters seem very loyal so the traffic boost could be long lasting. It also seems like there is a reawakening of right-wing politics/nationalism that will be long lasting. And right-wing populism and "[[best of the public]]" go together like peanut butter and jelly. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:30, 13 February 2017 (EST)

:You're welcome, and thank ''you'' for all your edits! I'm happy to help improve the quality of Conservapedia. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:56, 13 February 2017 (EST)
==Quick project==
Dear Guy:
Our state articles list the members of Congress from each state, but they have not be updated for 2016. If five editors could update 10 states each, we would be done quickly. Could you please take a look at [[Conservapedia:Community Portal#Political directory]]? Thanks in advance, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 16:13, 15 February 2017 (EST)

Thank you for your help with the project and with People's Party. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:02, 21 February 2017 (EST)

== Tip ==

Thanks for your terrific work. One tip: the licensing information should be expressly included in the uploads. I added it here: [[File:EU_member_states.png]]. Thanks again for your edits and uploads.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:27, 7 March 2017 (EST)
:Thank you for the tip. I will remember to add the information next time. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:34, 7 March 2017 (EST)

==[[Template:Book]]==
Try working on it now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 10:48, 11 March 2017 (EST)

== Questions ==

A few months ago, you told me to ask you any questions I had, so here goes:
*When recategorizing the massive and messy [Category:Authors] by nationality, I found two authors, [[Theo Hobson]] and [[Carl Sagan]], whom I could not recategorize as [Category:American Authors]. Could you change them for me?
*When fixing the [[Francois Rabelais]] cedilla mess, I set up a redirect. Has anyone ever made a loop out of redirects? If so, what happened? I'm scared to try it.
*Lastly, where is my attention now best sent - expanding the author articles, improving our coverage of science and mathematics, or maybe tackling another recat job, like [Category:Music]?

:1) Concerning [[Theo Hobson]] and [[Carl Sagan]], those articles are protected, and as an assistant sysop, I do not have the ability to edit them. I recommend asking someone like [[User:Karajou]] or CP's owner, [[User:Aschlafly]] to either unlock the articles to allow you to fix the category or to have them change the cat themselves. I've made many similar requests to them and they will be happy to help.

:2) I have not heard of someone doing that before. I personally don't think anything bad would happen if someone did try it, as you can still access the actual redirect page to remove the loop.

:3) Honestly, all three choices are great. If I were you, I would probably choose to expand the articles already created so that the average reader would find them more interesting and worthwhile, rather than just seeing a stub. After that, I would personally move on to work on another category, so that CP is better-organized. Then after that, I would do math and science, which is (as far as I can tell) on a different theme than your other work. This is my personal preference, but if you would prefer doing it in a different order feel free! You have been very helpful to CP, and I appreciate your work. Keep it up! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:20, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

::Hi, just a quick note: A redirect loop shouldn't be a problem. I think the user is only redirected once, so after that they see the second redirect page. Redirect loops, double redirects, and dead redirects should all be avoided when possible. Thanks for your contributions! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:23, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

:::You are entirely correct, DavidB4; I just tried a loop with soda and pop (and removed it). Typing one would give you the page for the other, and an option to redirect. I'll proceed to expand the author pages now. Feel free to removed this section to abridge the talk page.--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 15:58, 15 March 2017 (EDT)

== Could you please write this article? ==

Could you please write this important article: [[Atheism and ethics]]?

I may ask another writer or tow to contribute to it also. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:07, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

:Yes, I think I will be able to find some time to do it. Unfortunately, I have other things on my to-do list (even for CP), but this article is important, and I will try to find time to help. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:10, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

::OK. Thanks. I think [[User:Pokeria1]] will be assisting you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:55, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

=== Sources to help you write an article ===

*[https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/04/ethics-for-atheists/# Would human life be sacred in an atheist world?]

*[http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_more_immoral.html Atheism Doesn't Lead to Immoral Behavior - Or Does It?]

*[http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheism_determinism_morality.html Does Atheism (Determinism) Negatively Impact Morality?]

*[http://apologetics-notes.comereason.org/2015/03/atheism-ethics-and-immorality.html Atheism, Ethics, and Immorality]

*[https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2016/01/good-nothing-make-atheist-ethics-better-christian/ Being Good “For Nothing” — Does That Make Atheist Ethics Better Than Christian?]

*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/questions-on-atheism-ethics-and-marital-conflict Questions on Atheism, Ethics, and Marital Conflict]

*[http://creation.com/atheism#atheism-and-ethics Atheism and ethics]

Secular sources:

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H5 Secular Morality]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H4 The Moral Evaluation of Religion]

Additional sources:

*[http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/God-naturalism-morality.pdf God, Naturalism, and the Foundations of Morality] by Paul Copan
*[http://www.equip.org/articles/atheists-and-the-quest-for-objective-morality/ Atheists and the Quest for Objective Morality] by Chad Meister
*[http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-amorality-of-atheism The amorality of atheim] by Rob Smith
*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-we-be-good-without-godCan Can we be good without God?] by William Lane Craig]
*[http://creation.com/atheism#atheism-and-ethics Atheism and ethics and morality] by Ken Ammi
*[http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec06/AtheisticExplanations.html Atheist explanations of morality and common sense]
*[http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2015/09/does_being_an_atheist_interfer.html Does being an atheist interfere with being moral?] by Lydia McGrew
*[http://americanvision.org/2742/nietzsche-slaps-down-dawkins-on-the-illusion-of-atheist-morality/ Nietzsche slaps down Dawkins on the illusion of atheist morality] by Dr. Joel McDurmon

== quick note ==

Would you be interested in email communication with me? My email is userconservative135@gmail.com

Please let me know if you are interested. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:54, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

:Yes, that would be great! I've been thinking for some time of setting up a CP email address account, and I'll do that within the next couple of days. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:29, 18 March 2017 (EDT)
::OK. That sounds good. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:02, 19 March 2017 (EDT)
:::Here it is: 1990sguysdg@gmail.com --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:46, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
I just sent you an email. Let me know if you got it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:10, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
::I wrote another response to your email. Please check your email box. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:05, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
:::I got your latest email and responded to it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:41, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

== If you are interested, another article that needs to be created ==

If you are interested, another article that needs to be created: [[Secular ethics]]

Sources about this topic:

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics Secular ethics]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H5 Secular Morality]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H4 The Moral Evaluation of Religion]

Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:11, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

=== A couple more article suggestions related to atheism and morality ===

Also, here are a few more articles that need to be written about atheism and morality:

*[[Evolutionary ethics]], Wikipedia has an article on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics

*[[Ethical naturalism]], Wikipedia has an article on it at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism

*[[Ethical subjectivism]], Wikipedia has an article on this subject at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_subjectivism

Thanks for your assistance on the [[Atheism and ethics]] article. It was much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:21, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

== The Project I invited you to participate in plus ==

Here is the project I invited you to participate in:

*[[Conservapedia:Atheism Project]]

It should be easy to find relevant online material in order to create some of the articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:19, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
:Thank you, Conservative, for your suggestions. I will begin on some of these soon. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:53, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
::I sent you an email. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:57, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

== Blocking user "reformed" ==

Well, I've got to say that vandalizing the user page of someone with block authority is '''really''' stupid.

But I take issue with your claim that he was an "obvious sock". As one who has been blocked a number of times on completely bogus socking charges, I take that stuff seriously. (The blocking was generally done by someone (now deceased) who had "checkuser" privileges and therefore had good tools for detecting socks, but did not understand how internet addresses work.)

It is not at all obvious to me, as one who has a lot of experience at CP, that he was a sock. He was a vandal, and you should block him for that.

Oh, dear. Now I see that there's a big storm of this stuff going on. And, yes, these guys, or at least some of them, are probably socks of each other. And at least one of them is using the name "obvioussock", just to taunt you. And one says he used to be a washing machine in his previous life.

My goodness! I think you are being trolled! :-) :-) And no, I had nothing to do with this. Just block them. It will blow over soon.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:54, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

:Thank you for your message. :) Due to the fact that "reformed" was created right after I blocked two users and vandalized my user page, I assumed that it was a clear sock of one or both of them. However, as it was not clear to you and possibly others, I changed the block settings to just include vandalism. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:06, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

==Screw up==
Sorry, I'm working with a tablet, and it's a piece of garbage. I didn't intentionally remove your comments. Sorry. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]] 15:31, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
:Assuming you're referring to those at [[Talk:Main Page]], apology accepted. It can happen to the best of us. They were other user's edits, however. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:33, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

For your reverts yesterday on my userpage, saw the sock puppet master was not finished with his trolling. [[User:YortKeldher|YortKeldher]] ([[User talk:YortKeldher|talk]]) 07:37, 26 March 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:54, 26 March 2017 (EDT)

== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination ==

Thank you for your improvements to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination]]. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 16:13, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:30, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

== small request ==

I sent you a message at the last place we communicated. Can you please read that message? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:59, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
:I sent you the information I promised. It is located at the place we last communicated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:36, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
::Sent you message. Please check place we last communicated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
:::I sent you a quick note to the place we last communicated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:51, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
::::Could you please go to the place we last communicated? It is regarding another matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

==Photo size==
With a large photo, there is much more word wrap in the table of contents, which makes it even longer. We need a wide table of contents. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 19:08, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
:I've checked and double-checked, and I see no way how the larger-sized photo does anything to the table of contents. And I'm using a standard Google Chrome, 100% zoom screen. Could it be your search engine/zoom? I don't see any reason why the larger image is a problem in any way. I think it looks better, regardless. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:06, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
:::On Firefox the TOC is longer due to word wrap. You can get other pictures to help fill the space, but the space will be shorter if the TOC is wider. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:19, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
I am getting a lot of 500 errors. I will wait for you to finish, and then I will go back and apply my changes. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:07, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
:I have done my changes. But please, when making those changes, please do ''not'' revert changes I have made, particularly changes that I have already reverted you multiple times. I'm tired of these disputes. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:09, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

== IRC ==

Hello, 
After some discussion (on [[User_talk:DavidB4#Conservapedia_IRC_channel|my talk page]] and [[User_talk:Aschlafly#IRC|Andy's]]) it has been decided that I start an [[Internet Relay Chat]] channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009. It is now registered and somewhat set up. I don't know if you use IRC or are interested in doing so, but anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel. Unfortunately, IRC accounts are deleted after 30 days of being unused, so unless you plan on using the IRC at least once a month, there is probably not much point in registering. In any case, feel free to try it out--if you account gets deleted, we can always make another one later. If you are interested, please let me know! 
The IRC channel is: #conservapedia @irc.accessIRC.net 
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else, also! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:33, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

:Thank you for your response. I have never used or really even heard of IRC prior before now (or, more accurately, before you and Andy started talking about it). What is the purpose of IRC? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:47, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

::It is perhaps the oldest form of instant messaging. It is basically a chat room, where people can join and idle or actively chat. Visitors can ask members questions, and members can collaborate. There is even file sharing, if that would be useful. I'm going to be writing a how-to-use guide to explain the actual usage better. 
::Most people use software clients, which they install (or run portably, which a whole different story), but web clients are also available, such as [https://kiwiirc.com/client?settings=7c7240c62a5d4861a8ad0ba697929f39 this one]. With the web client, you can just pick a name and connect, without installing anything. Also, since IRC has been around so long, software for it is compatible with almost anything. All desktop and most mobile operating systems support it. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:55, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

:::Thanks for the info! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:24, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

== Re: Vandal ==

Already took care of that and left a note for [[User talk:Teapublican|Teapublican]] on his talk page. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 00:09, 20 April 2017 (EDT)
:Thank you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:08, 20 April 2017 (EDT)

== Recent item on maintalk -- congratulations! ==

Sorry, I just couldn't resist making fun of you there. I immediately recognized the Breitbart article, as one that I had seen shortly before. And then I saw that it was you. No hard feelings, I hope. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:22, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
:None at all. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:37, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

::Congratulations! The [[March for Science]] article is a ''really good article''. And you made it so. (Well, with a little prodding from me.) It sets out, straightforwardly, what was going on, and it doesn't descend into namecalling. I realize that you probably have very strong disagreements with what most of those people were doing, but you kept it professional.

::Really good articles, especially on potential "hot button" issues of politics, aren't all that common. Now maybe I will make another attempt to return the [[Pussy Riot]] article to the good state it was in back when I expanded it in 2014, before it got messed up with the implication that anyone who opposes murderous thug tyrant Vladimir Putin must be a "leftist", "elitist", or "social justice warrior". For which I was blocked, in blatant violation of the rules of this site. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:25, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

:::Thank you for the compliment! Unfortunately, the router I'm using blocked the "Pussy Riot" article because of the first word in the title, so I cannot comment on that at all. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

::::How sad. I have created the redirect [[Nadezhda Tolokonnikova]] in case that helps. But it probably won't. You had no trouble typing the "P" word above, so I guess it's a problem of your router not going to a page with that word in the title. Maybe I should have named the page with its Cyrillc letters: "Пусси Райот". Well, you're not missing anything of cosmic importance. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:42, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

:::::The redirect actually did work. Thanks! The article does not appear to have a high quality (at least in the aesthetic sense), so changes would probably be beneficial, but if you're going to make changes, I would like to remind you to be cautious and not to contradict CP's POV. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:17, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

:::In case you forgot, Sam <s>(and how fast it appears that happens with you)</s>, it was ''you'' who violated the rules of this site by putting a liberal POV into that article (among others, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/SamHB per your history]) in the first place, then insistently readding it after your edit was reverted and you were warned about violating CP policy and about starting fights with other editors. You really should take the advice you're being given here and not continue violating CP policy. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 21:59, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

A few things:
*Today is my 9th anniversary at Conservapedia!
*I can assure everyone that I am very familiar with, and well versed in, the rules, commandments, guidelines, customs, and habits of CP. I am also familiar with the many, many, many discussions of these points that have taken place over the years.
*@Northwest: this is the expected response.
*@1990's guy: this is ''not'' the response I expected. I'm chagrined that you think the article is of low quality. Especially since you know how to write high quality articles.
I'm serious. I was proud of that article as originally written/expanded by me. I thought it laid out the facts accurately, and avoided name-calling and such. Exactly like the March for Science article. Please look at the article (preferably the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pussy_Riot&oldid=1328015] version, before name-calling got put in) and fix it up as you see fit. The name-calling consisted, among other things, of saying that those people around the world who took an interest in the case were "elitists" and "social justice warriors on the left". The latter term is straight out of Huffington Post and their ilk. It is a term of bleeding hearts in America, and not used widely elsewhere. In any case, one doesn't need to be an SJW to oppose murderous thug tyrant Vladimir Putin. In fact, given the recent falling out between President Trump and Putin, the accepted orthodoxy here at CP might be swinging away from support for the murderous thug. I hope so.

Please improve the article.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:28, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

:My problem is not with content; it is with organization, layout, aesthetics, etc. There are no subsections, which at least show the reader how the article is organized; it is just many paragraphs. Such articles do not appeal to the reader. IMO, it feels like reading a textbook. If it is just a few paragraphs, it is fine, but thus article has ten paragraphs. Adding a few headers and possibly an image would be beneficial (and I realized just as I wrote this that the March for Science article is approaching that length as well, so I probably either should just keep my mouth shut or add headers there as well). I did not mean to insult or degrade your work, and I apologize for giving that impression. BTW, happy 9th anniversary! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:46, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

:Sam - by your response, you're only proving what I said about your tactics and your history here right. You claim to be "very familiar with, and well versed in, the rules, commandments, guidelines, customs, and habits of CP", but you only pay lip service to them here while your actions on CP over the years (and even now) are showing that you simply choose to disregard them for the sake of pushing liberal POV on this site and to start fights with those who don't share your viewpoint. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 18:08, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

== Bill Nye ==

Could you please contact me by email at sam4557@gmail.com? I think we can make a really good article out of this. I have a number of criticisms of his behavior--my opinion of him has gone down a whole lot over the last few weeks, and I think I have some insights about this that I'd like to bounce off of you. I know that you and I disagree totally about evolution and creationism, but we can put together a good article stating the facts. We can stay away from the name-calling that so many articles contain, and avoid things like "so-and-so falsely believes that ..."

This is ''not'' about Pussy Riot, ''not'' about Conservapedia politics, and ''not'' about you-know-who. I just want to bounce some ideas off of you about Bill Nye and see if we can put together a really nice article.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:00, 4 May 2017 (EDT)

== Expanded article, footnote did not support genocide/racist abortions adequately ==

I greatly expanded this article [[Abortion and eugenics]]. The footnote in the liberal article was not supporting or at the very least inadequately supporting racist/genocidal abortion policies of [[Margaret Sanger]], etc.

Specifically, I skimmed the article as far as the footnoted article and it did not appear to strongly support such a big claim like abortion/genocide, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:26, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

==Something isn't right here==
... Ohhh I know what it is. ''Margaret Thatcher'' is on the list of liberals. ''Margaret. Thatcher.'' The bastion of conservatism. A favourite of Reagan. How in the ''world'' did she make the liberal list? [[User:Koidevelopment|Vive]] [[User talk:Koidevelopment|Liberté!]] 09:14, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:Wasn't me who added her. She was not as conservative as people think she is, as she did vote in favor of legalizing abortion and homosexuality. But, that said, it would probably be better without mentioning her, to avoid people focusing on her mention in the article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:24, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

::She might not have been a perfect conservative, but I still think she probably doesn't belong on that list. Of course, if you go back 80 years and read writings and speeches from liberals of the day, they sound downright conservative now. Still, she did defend liberty and much of conservatism. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:18, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::Lady Thatcher's criticism of Simon Callow's performance in ''Amadeaus'' made her homophobic, I thought. Being homophobic wouldn't preclude one from being liberal however, [[Bill Moyers]] and Louis Black for example. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']] 15:31, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
I assume that adding the liberalism template to the [[Episcopal Church]] article was improper? I would like to know what the proper usage of this template is for future reference. TEC is one of, if not the most liberal Christian denomination in the US these days, sadly. I do apologize for this improper usage, as I am a new editor. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 15:00, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:Hello Anglican! I removed the template because I thought the article was outside the scope of the "liberal" template. What I mean is that the template links to liberal traits, but not necessarily to liberal organizations. I think the category is good for the article, but not template. I hope this helps! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:11, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
::That makes sense. Thank you for your patience. It's sad what has happened to the Episcopal Church in recent years. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 15:14, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::You're welcome, and I agree. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:18, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

== User: Karajou sent me and others an email saying he didn't like CP's article on liberalism. So... ==

User: Karajou sent me and others an email saying he didn't like CP's article on [[liberalism]].

The article needs major improvements.

I am not going to work on it due to time restraints. I spent a lot of time improving the [[liberal]] article.

I would use the same approach used with the liberal article. Clearly delineate liberalism from socialism/fascism because they are very substantially different (for example, Sweden vs. Communist China vs. Nazi Germany). But mention how the gap between the ideologies has narrowed in the United States. I don't keep up with European politics to know the situation there as far as the gap other than knowing that China has become more capitalistic. European countries commonly have more major political parties in a country so the situation is more difficult to keep tabs on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:33, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

:I posted the below information on RobS' talk page and thought I would share it with you also. You can go to RobS' talk page to see his response to me.

::I would work on the liberalism article. But also create 2-3 sub-articles: [[American liberalism]] and [[Western liberalism]] and [[European liberalism]]. The [[American liberalism]] article is just a one sentence stub article.

::I suggest a [[Western liberalism]] article due to the Canadians, Australia, NZ, and South Africa. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::Since the Brits and Canadians have the most influence in the Anglosphere on the USA, you might want to create a [[British liberalism]] article and a [[Canadian liberalism]] article too.

:::Its too bad all this wasn't done before given that CP is a political website. I was largely focused on [[atheism]] which is a dying ideology. This had an indirect relation to liberalism given the prominence of the [[secular left]] on liberal/leftist politics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:17, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

== Re: American liberalism ==

I copied and pasted some of the [[liberal]] article into the [[American liberalism]] article.

Generally speaking, ideally you want the material in the section for main article linking to a sub-article to have substantially different content. In this case, you want the [[American liberalism]] article to have different content than the "American liberalism" section of the [[liberal]] article.

So if you want to reword and/or add material to the [[American liberalism]] article the would be excellent. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:17, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

== Opinion on renaming an article ==

I wanted your opinion on an idea of mines to rename one of our articles on Conservapedia before taking it to an admin or someone with the ability to actually change the name of a page.

The current page [[Exodus of Israel]], I think, should be renamed to [[The Exodus]], where [[Exodus of Israel]] should simply be a redirect to that page. Not many users would think of typing 'Exodus of Israel' to get to a page on 'The Exodus', and 'The Exodus' is just much simpler. As it is, [[The Exodus]] is currently a redirect to [[Exodus of Israel]]. I think it should be the other way around. Your thoughts?[[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 13:34, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
:No, I think it is better the way it is. My main reason is that having titles along the lines of "The...." does not sound encyclopedic. The current name, I believe, is more high quality for that reason. Now, it is true that many users might not think of typing "Exodus of Israel," but if they type "[[Exodus]]," they'll run into the disambiguation page and find the actual article. Also, I'm not sure that many people would think of typing "The Exodus." To sum it up, I think the current title is better and give the article a more encyclopedic feel, but you're welcome to ask another editor what they think. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:59, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for the thoughts. Wikipedia currently uses 'The Exodus', and I find that it simply looks better, as a title, then 'Exodus of Israel'. Secondly, I also consider it more likely for someone to type in 'The Exodus' then 'Exodus of Israel'.[[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 15:59, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
:Once again, if you want to ask another editor for their opinion, like DavidB4, feel free to do so. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:20, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for your opinion. One thing though, do you know who can get this template locked?

At this point, all relevant pages have been created, and therefore this template no longer will ever need any more editing as it is complete. So the best thing to do is to get it locked to avoid any vandalism problems in the future. Just to note, before I came on, it was already locked, even though it still had many problems. Now that the template is fixed, the best thing to do is to get it locked. [[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 20:57, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
:I recommend asking [[User:Aschlafly]] or [[User:Karajou]]. They have protection powers. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:15, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
==Block length==
Thanks for your alert blocks. But one year is a long time for a block. IP addresses often change in a shorter period. You might consider 3 months as a better block duration in many cases.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:25, 17 May 2017 (EDT)
:OK. I'll see to that. Should I change the blocks I just did? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:26, 17 May 2017 (EDT)
::I just went ahead and changed them. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:41, 17 May 2017 (EDT)

== Congratulations on Donald Trump accomplishments ==

Hey, I just checked Google. While that movie award comes up first when "Donald Trump achievements," is Googled, and you are the first result after, you get nice results with certain other phrases:
*Donald Trump accomplishments - third link, no box
*Trump achievements - first link, no box
*Trump accomplishments - fourth link, no box
*Donald Trump achievements and failures - fourth link, no box
While Conservative's essays come up first when their exact titles are Googled, bear in mind that these phrases are Googled more frequently.
Congratulations on the publicity, 1990sguy!--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 08:07, 25 May 2017 (EST)

:Great job, it is well deserved! - -[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])
::Thanks, Nathan and DavidB, I appreciate it! It seems I chose the right article to create, in terms of gaining page views. For a while, when one searched the exact title of my article, that silly award was not at the top of the article, and in its place was a box with a picture of Trump linking to my article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:24, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
== Can you chat briefly? ==

Can we chat briefly? Can you please go to place I sent you messages before? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:16, 3 June 2017 (EDT)
== Here is the the article ==

*[[Liberal vs. libertarian]]

Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:54, 3 June 2017 (EDT)

== It's been great ==

You've been helpful since I you first welcomed me here - me, someone who had never used wikitext or HTML in his life and never believed in a young Earth. You've really made me consider that viewpoint, and you've done it with a brilliant personal appeal, far better than User:Conservative ever has.--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 16:34, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

==Europe's childless leaders==
Where do you think [http://dcwhispers.com/rather-odd-troubling-fact-european-leaders/ we can squeeze this in] [[European migrant crisis]]? In the Intro or elsewhere? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 02:13, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
:I think that would be a good idea. We could also, possibly, add it to the [[European Union]] article, and maybe [[Globalism]] or [[Liberal]], as these leaders advocate for left-wing globalist policies. Are you able to find other sources that note this fact? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:53, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
::I think this also illustrates liberal European values. They support mass immigration of peoples who do not share their culture while they themselves have no children. They are committing national/cultural suicide. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:15, 9 June 2017 (EDT)

== The reason I removed Ted Nugent from Notable Texans ==

Because Ted Nugent is actually from Michigan. Sorry that I forgot to add an explanation. ([[User:King Conservative|King Conservative]] ([[User talk:King Conservative|talk]]) 13:37, 17 June 2017 (EDT)King Conservative)
:I removed him from the list. Thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:16, 17 June 2017 (EDT)

==Template tweak==

Hi, guy! Thanks for the {{tl|See also}} in [[Neil Gorsuch]]. That template works better. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:53, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome, always happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:58, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
==Nasty edit summaries==
Dear 1990sguy: Please stop writing inflammatory edit summaries. There is no need to make false personal attacks on other editors. As for Breitbart, each reference is evaluated individually on its own merits. If it is news reporting, I welcome it. However, some references are clearly opinion-editorial pieces that criticize other news stories instead of offering any independent news gathering. Some authors there are editorial-opinion writers rather than news reporters. Also, when I check a source and see photos of immodestly dressed women with "wardrobe malfunction" captions or women wearing tight T-shirts imprinted with "no silicone", I am less inclined to use those sources, given our family-friendly approach. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 15:31, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:Conservapedia has no requirement that only news reporter sources can be used for mews sources. For example, many excellent conservative editorial pieces link to a news story or quote a news story while providing excellent commentary.

:The mainstream press. which is very liberal, have a lot more reporters and they still have some foreign bureaus if I am not mistaken. Then you have Fox which only has a fraction of the combined viewership of ABC, CBS, and NBC.

:To be overly reliant on news sources merely from websites who have reporters is not a good policy.

:Yes, there are conservative news organizations such as CNS News. But I don't think we should limit ourselves to merely using conservative news organizations as far as news sources.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:54, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

::I agree with Conservative on this. We can use conservative news sources, even if the articles appear to be editorializing. This is a conservative encyclopedia, after all. Why should we adopt editing policies that give liberal MSM sources an unfair advantage? How then can we differentiate ourselves from Wikipedia? I am not opposed to citing MSM sources (I do it myself), but we should give precedence to conservative sources, which do not have leftist bias. Yes, Breitbart has silly ads, but I care more about the content of the article than the ads. There are many Breitbart writers who support conservative, Christian pro-family policies. Are there any at CNN or the NYT?

::JDano, yes, my edit summaries were inflammatory. I probably should have acted cooler when dealing with you, and for that, I apologize. Your behavior, constantly reverting and adding changes that I genuinely believe to contain leftist bias without going to the talk page until you've been reverted several times, is not constructive. I do believe your changes are undermining our status as a conservative alternative to Wikipedia. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 02:50, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

== re: JDano and you getting "horse throwing" mad ==

In the recent edit changes, I saw you use all caps in your description of your edit. It was for the [[Travel ban]] article.

This tells me that you are starting to get "horse throwing" mad.

If it becomes necessary, you can impose a [[Conservapedia:Topic bans|Conservapedia:Topic ban]] to JDano since you have blocking rights. You can make it applicable to certain articles or certain article categories. Probably a certain article would be best as a shot across his bow.

If JDano also has blocking rights, you can get Karajou/Aschlafly to impose such a ban. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:29, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:P.S. I don't know if you are correct in this matter. And I don't have time to mediate. I am just offering you a suggestion since I have experienced JDano being unreasonable at times. Also, the majority of Conservapedians/Republicans/conservatives are more fans of Trump than Lindsey Graham. JDano appears to be in the Graham camp. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:37, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
::Please see my comment in the section immediately above. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 02:51, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

== JDano has a topical ban imposed on him for the "travel ban" article. ==

I just posted this message to JDano's talk page:

"You are not allowed to edit the [[travel ban]] article anymore. I am imposing a [[Conservapedia:Topic bans|Conservapedia:Topic ban]] on you for this article.

By the way, Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in terms of its Muslim population. The travel ban of the Trump administration does not include Indonesia."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:13, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

== JDano has a topical ban imposed on him for the fake news article ==

I posted this on JDano's talk page:

"The [[fake news]] article was locked/protected. It seems as if the root cause of the page being locked was an edit war involving yourself.

You are no longer allowed to edit the fake news article. I am imposing a Conservapedia topic ban on you for this article. See: [[Conservapedia:Topic bans|Conservapedia:Topic ban]]

I hope additional topic bans are not imposed on you by people with block rights." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:23, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

== Socks of JamesWilson ==

Socks of this clown should receive five year bans. He is a malicious provocateur, and he singlehandedly destroyed another website as well as leading dozens of people off this site. Show this schlemiel no mercy. --[[User:RonaldB|RonaldB]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 14:16, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:I don't see why we should be giving long blocks to this guy. He's clearly using multiple ip addresses. These addresses will probably get passed to one or more people who have no intention of vandalizing CP. DavidB4 explained by long blocks are not a good idea on my talk page: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:1990%27sguy&diff=1304184&oldid=1303142] However, I will not challenge your lengthening of that block or any other. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:20, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
::Maybe you do have a point because he has created a few different accounts in the past day or so. All I'm saying is that lightening up on him isn't going to work. My late friend George let this guy off easy, and he destroyed an entire community. I've had plenty of experience with this guy in the past to know his MO, and he's fanatically obsessed with Taylor Swift and "avenging" others because they "ruined" his articles. --[[User:RonaldB|RonaldB]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 14:28, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:::That's fair. This guy is clearly bad news. Regardless of what block lengths we give him (and I can see some sense in making them longer), we should try not to accidently prevent innocent people from viewing CP. Thanks for your help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:30, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
::::How do we know that this editor is a "sock" of JamesWilson? Has anyone checked the IP user logs? The Taylor Swift connection could be a false-flag operation. If George and James got into an edit-war on a different website, that would not be relevant here. Let's judge each editor separately until they can be linked by evidence. Are all of the problem users created in the past few days created from the same or very similar IP addresses? Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 15:27, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::He put "Sad case!- James Wilson" in the edit summary of all of his vandalism, and it was the same stuff he's always done. If he says it's him, I'm just gonna assume it's him. Dont give this guy the benefit of the doubt. He's had plenty enough breaks here and elsewhere. --[[User:RonaldB|RonaldB]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 16:03, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::@JDano: Yes, I think it clearly is JamesWilson. His vandalism is very repetitive -- he even vandalizes the user pages of the same users. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:52, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
*FYI, even if an account is blocked indefinitely, the autoblock on the IPs is only for twenty-four hours. If the IP block was for as long as the account's block, checkusers wouldn't have to put separate blocks on persistent vandals' IP addresses. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 18:26, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
==Articles==
Since I've written a few articles on Christianity, please feel free to edit them to conform to the views of Conservapedia if necessary. Admittedly, writing about Christianity as a Jew can be a bit difficult at times. --[[User:RonaldB|Ronald]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 14:35, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
:I have not seen any factual problems with the articles you created. However, I do recommend that you add categories of the religion you are writing about to those articles. For example, that you add "Category:Christianity" to [[Secular Christianity]] and "Category:Judaism" to [[Secular Judaism]]. The people who practice these are not Jews (religiously speaking) or Christians, but the articles are relevant to those religions.

:Also, I recommend that you add at least one source to the articles you create. Adding sources to articles is Commandment #2 in [[Conservapedia:Commandments]], and it makes the articles better for readers. They know where you are getting your information from, and they can read further if they are interested. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:51, 6 July 2017 (EDT)

== Changing my username ==

I don't know if Andy saw my request on his talk page. Did he skip it or didn't see it? --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 9:18, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
:I don't know. Sometimes he does that, but when I message him again he usually replies. I recommend commenting again, letting him know how much you want your username changed, and asking him to respond. I think we will do it, but only if you absolutely want it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:49, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
::I read [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Inquiry|the back and forth]] with the guy you probably were referring to on Andy's page. Andy seemed pretty reluctant to change the RonaldB's name for most of the discussion.. Is the process of changing someone's username complex or difficult to do, or did he just want to make sure that the guy wasn't being wishy-washy about the change? I was a little sheepish about asking him again because I don't want to seem annoying. --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 5:07, 11 July 2017 (EDT)
:::I think CP admins generally prefer simply creating a new account. The user who made the other request was not the original person using the account. The original person let him take over the account. I can see why Andy wanted him to create a new account. I recommend you politely letting him know how much you want your username changed, and why, and asking him to respond, regardless of his answer. I think that would be a good move on your part. It would show how serious you are with this request. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:06, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

== Re: Trump ==

I think Donald Trump is going to get stuck with the blame for the economic bubble created by the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHwtkIpgAnA]

In addition, TrumpCare probably will not work because it is keeping the "precondition clause" of ObamaCare due to its popularity. People will often not buy health insurance until they are sick. So the health care system will not be viable. Car insurance companies could not be profitable if people could buy their car insurance after their car accident in order to replace their car. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:00, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

:You are probably right on both of those things. The first point would be the fault of the Obama Administration, and the second by the establishment GOP Congress. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:05, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

Got it, thanks for letting me know. --[[User:OneTrueConservative|OneTrueConservative]] ([[User talk:OneTrueConservative|talk]]) 00:12, 12 July 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 00:21, 12 July 2017 (EDT)
== Expansion of right-wing material on the internet ==

*[https://www.axios.com/the-partisan-explosion-of-digital-news-2279022772.html The recent explosion of right-wing news sites]

*[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3dy7vb/why-the-right-is-dominating-youtube Why the Right Is Dominating YouTube] - Vice News

*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HndA5MoxK08 Why the Right is Dominating YouTube (A Response to Vice)]

*[https://www.nctv.nl/binaries/psychological-effects-of-right-wing-and-islamic-extremist-internet-videos_tcm31-30177.pdf Psychological effects of right-wing and Islamic extremist videos] - Netherlands and German report

I know Twitter bans and shadow bans right-wingers.

I haven't looked at the latter two items, but right-wingers gaining momentum on the internet is an interesting development. With nationalism gaining ground in Europe and 21st century [[desecularization]] occurring, the trend is bound to continue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

===Scriptural Geology===
Scriptural Geologists published in the USA as well. CRSQ published my review of David Lord "Geognosy" (that has other citations as well). [my magazines are in
storage but the year was 2000-2004.] Another recent CRSQ review was Gordon's 1878 book that mentioned USA Scriptural Geologist Martyn Payne.
:Thanks, Snoopy2, for your addition! I noted this fact, briefly in the article, in "The scriptural geologists" section. I knew that most of the Scriptural Geologists were British, and I did not have the time or knowledge of them to go into much more detail. Thanks for your help! Please remember to sign your posts in the future. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:06, 31 July 2017 (EDT)

== important message for you ==

I sent you an important message to the last place we communicated.

I also have some good news for you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:10, 13 July 2017 (EDT)

== BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!! ==

BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!!

== Block duration ==

Thanks for your great blocks but they should generally not exceed 6 months in duration. By then the IP address is typically being used by someone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:27, 27 July 2017 (EDT)
:OK. I will keep that in mind. I will change this vandal's block. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:46, 27 July 2017 (EDT)

== "Denkmal der Schande" ==

Björn Höcke nannte das Holocaust-Mahnmal ein "Denkmal der Schande". Zudem sprach er von einer "dämlichen Bewältigungspolitik" und forderte eine "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad". Hinterher behauptete Höcke, er hätte den Holocaust als Schande bezeichnet. Wenn man sich nun seine Rede genau anschaut, kann er nur das Denkmal als Schande bezeichnet haben. Höcke hat offen NS-Gedankengut offenbart und dies auch gewollt. Er ist ein Agent des BRD-Systems, die zum Ziel haben, die AfD unwählbar zu machen. Dasselbe haben sie schon mit der NPD gemacht (in den 90er Jahren). Ich find's ja auch schade, dass die AfD unterwandert wurde und nicht mehr wählbar ist. Auch ich habe große Hoffnungen in sie gesetzt. Aber spätestens seit dem letzten Parteitag ist sie unwählbar, die Neo-Nazis gewannen die Oberhand, Gauland wurde Spitzenkandidat. Solange Petry keine neue Partei gründet, müssen Rechtschaffene bei der Bundestagswahl das geringste Übel wählen (z.B. die Freien Wähler oder die BüSo). Aber die AfD ist klar von NS-Agenten unterwandert und ich schrieb noch mehr in den Artikel, also lassen Sie mich zumindest Höckes Rede einfügen, dann kann sich jeder selber ein Bild machen. MfG --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 10:16, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
:Grüetzi Elessar, CP ist ein Englisher website, so es ist besser wann wir in English schreiben. Ich denke dass die meisten leute heir sprechen kein Deutsch. Danke. Wass ich sage ist sehr kontrovers in Deutschland, aber, Ich probiere ein klares und gutes antwort zum geben:

:First off, many political parties have their crazy members. I know that UKIP explicitly disavows racism, but it has had some members who have said some silly things. I definitely do ''not'' believe the GOP in the U.S. is racist, but David Duke considers himself a Republican (and every other Republican disavows him). Even the Swiss People's Party in my country (I am also a U.S. citizen) has some members who have said racist things. Just because parties have members like this does not necessarily mean that the entire party is racist or whatever. In the case of Höcke's speech, Petry (the party leader, as you know) condemned what he said, or at least criticized him.

:Second, I know the mindset that the German have today. They are still ashamed for what they did during World War II, and they are still focused on trying to make restitution. Personally, I think it is good that they have repented, but they miss the fact that there are two extremes: one extreme is what the Nazis did, the other is being so ashamed bad things one did that they essentially hate their country. We see this with liberals in the United States. I think the German mindset is too far in the second extreme -- and no, I am anywhere close to being a racist or Nazi. Patriotism and nationalism can be very good things, as long as they are handled correctly and are not an excuse to persecute others. The German people, I think, are trying to extinguish them, and they have accused people, even those in the middle of those two extremes, as being Nazis.

:Let me also make clear that I have not read much about Björn Höcke's speech, other than what you provided and what his English Wikipedia article states, so I cannot comment on his entire speech and his entire character. He may very well be what you say he is. However, what I read about his speech and about him actually seems reasonable. Many peoples all over the world have done many evil things -- slavery in the U.S. and the other European colonies, the Islamic slave trade, religious persecution in Rome and the communist nations, the several genocides in history, etc. However, it is not constructive for cultures to focus on these events. It is good to remember them and repent of them, but not to obsess about them. There is much more to German history than World War II, just as there is more to U.S. history than slavery. Why can't we build monuments celebrating the positive things about our cultures and our people? It is cultural suicide not to do so. While we should not forget the bad events, we should focus on the good events and remain proud as a people in order to remain strong. This seems to me what Höcke is getting at. Am I wrong?

:Reading his Wikipedia article, I came accross this quote: "Die Syrer, die zu uns kommen, haben immer noch Syrien. Wenn wir – durch die Syrer – unser Deutschland verloren haben, dann haben wir keine Heimat mehr." I can see how in Germany this is very controversial, but I think in most other countries, this is quite reasonable. It may not be a bad thing if Syrians come, but it would mean that the German people would be in danger of disappearing, at least in a cultural sense. If someone values this (as most people of all ethnicies and nationalities do -- just ask the Poles or Hungarians), they will strongly oppose immigration.

:Am I wrong in what I am saying? Am I misrepresenting Höcke? I would appreciate some dialogue. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:18, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

::No, you aren't wrong and I too was never questioning that the "eternal fault" (electing Hitler/WW2) which is propagated by German liberals is bullshit. I only mean that Höcke was not only saying that, but he also clearly favorized the Holocaust by calling for an "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad" and calling the Holocaust monument a "Denkmal der Schande". This speech was much criticized by Jewish organizations in Germany and Höcke was forbidden to visit Concentration Camp Memorials. He's not a single exemption, but there are unfortunately already lots of neo-Nazis or neo-Nazi sympathizers in the AfD who are all defending Höcke's speech, including Spitzenkandidat Alexander Gauland. Party leader Petry was forced by them not to participate. These (real) neo-Nazis are system agents who are overrunning the AfD like they did decades ago with the NPD in order to make these parties uneligible by conservative voters. But of course many liberals call all ''real'' conservatives "neo-Nazis" which there is nonsense. But Höcke is really a neo-Nazi and anti-semite and should be excluded together with his inner-party defenders. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 14:05, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

:::I don't understand how the "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad" shows that Höcke is a neo-Nazi. It seems to be saying that German policy on these matters needs to change, which I also think is reasonable. The culture of shame in Germany must end -- when will Egypt build a monument mourning the Islamic slave trade, and when will Turkey build a monument mourning the Armenian Genocide? That's what I think he is saying. Am I wrong? Please explain.

:::While I am a strong supporter of Israel, I do think that many Jewish organizations in Europe and the United States are politically left-wing -- unlike the current Israeli government. The fact that they opposed Höcke's speech is unsurprising, even if he is not a neo-Nazi. Most European/American Jews support the ruling establishment's views on who is extreme and who is "moderate." And besides, Jewish organizations have their own interests. It's reasonable for them to defend monuments mourning a genocide of their own people, regardless of whether having such a monument, or at least the mindset behind it, is a good thing or not.

:::It seems to me that you are making a jump from noting what Höcke is saying to calling him a neo-Nazi. A lot of what he is saying seems reasonable, even if it is better that he watches what he says more closely, and I don't see how these comments make them neo-Nazis (I do see, however, how such comments are far outside the current German mainstream, and that they make such parties less attractive to moderate Germans). It seems to me that Höcke is a nationalist who is angry at the culture of shame in his country, which is probably the reason why it is being flooded with immigrants and weakened by the EU. Many conservatives said silly things (that sounded extremely racist) about Obama when he was U.S. President, even though those people would have voted for conservative blacks (Ben Carson, Allen West, Herman Cain) or Hispanics (Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz) in a heartbeat. Could it be that this is what Höcke is doing?

:::My last thing I want to say in this comment is not related to the above. I would like to remind you that CP is a family-friendly encyclopedia, and I think this policy also applies to talk pages. I request that you thus refrain from spelling out cuss words when making comments. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:35, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

::::Sorry about the term "b***" but I'm as angry as you about the "eternal fault" dogma. And you are completely right with most (including the Jews being too liberal in Europe), but in my opinion the quote "erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad" is like he wanted to say "The Holocaust was nothing bad" or "not so bad" or so. Like it would be Holocaust relativation. Maybe Höcke really didn't mean anything bad in his speech but then he's simply uncaring of what he says because he damages his party with such unclear statements. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 16:34, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

:::::As we disagree on his speech (even though I do think your last comment was very reasonable), I chose to move the info to another place in the article and re-word it. If you have any problems with how I re-worded it, we can discuss that as well. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:05, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

::::::Björn Höcke said in whole this: "Wir Deutschen – und ich rede jetzt nicht von euch Patrioten, die sich hier heute versammelt haben – wir Deutschen, also unser Volk, sind das einzige Volk der Welt, das sich ein Denkmal der Schande in das Herz seiner Hauptstadt gepflanzt hat." This means, not German patriots but the other Germans (liberals e.g.) have founded the Holocaust monument which he calls a Denkmal der Schande. Which means, according to him true German patriots wouldn't have built the Holocaust monument, which can be interpreted as he's pro-Holocaust. The same interpretation is open in his other quote "Wir brauchen eine erinnerungspolitische Wende um 180 Grad". Maybe he didn't want to relativate the Holocaust but he should watch out what he says, especially if his party wants to enter a coalition. A coalition with establishment parties wouldn't be bad as long as the AfD maintains its goals and gets many of them into a government program. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 01:37, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

:::::::I can see now how people think the speech was sympathizing with Nazis -- the Holocaust and WWII is a touchy topic, especially for Germans. However, I still see how what he is saying is reasonable. Turkey, for example, is not going to build a monument for the Armenian Genocide anytime soon, Russia is not going to build a monument for the many Baltic peoples they killed during WWII, and Japan is not going to build any monument for the millions of people they killed, including concentration camp prisoners.

:::::::I do know that there are two AfD factions: one that has a goal of becoming a coalition party, and the other that wants to remain an anti-establishment party. Höcke is clearly part of the latter, while Petry is in the former. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:31, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

::::::::The AfD can remain an anti-establishment party and anyway be part of a government coalition, like the Austrian [[FPÖ]] which also seeks being part in coalitions (and already is in two states) and remains loyal to all of its positions. --[[User:Elessar|Elessar]] ([[User talk:Elessar|talk]]) 14:09, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

:::::::::Fair enough, but you get the point: there are two factions in the party on the best way foreward for the party. One of them support coalition agreements and the other side is less pragmatic in this regard. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:23, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

==Brexit==
Hi - not sure why you changed my edits on the BREXIT page - I tried to provide an accurate account of what is happening and what is being reported by many news outlets --unsigned comment by HORSEMAN
:Hello "HORSEMAN", I removed the info about the potential referendums because this was just speculation that died down. I also thought that some of your wording (such as the "full complexity and impacts of BREXIT become apparent" and by removing the mention of the EU being obstructionist) seemed to insert a left-of-center bias into the article. CP is a conservative encyclopedia, and we align firmly with Brexit and Euroskepticism. However, I will see if I can re-add some of your wording. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:31, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
::Another problem is that for the part about the proposed payments and EU citizen rights, you did not provide sources. The existing info already had a source, and you changed the info while keeping the source. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:35, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
:::Hi Again, would this link suffice http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-2001_en.htm It is the definitive statement from the EU negotiating team and sets out the negotiating agenda. Thanks Horseman
::::You can definitely cite the source, but do you also have third party sources as well? I see nothing in the EU source about the monetary amount of the settlement. We prefer sources with conservative editorial stances. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:57, 10 August 2017 (EDT)
:::::Is this syitable, I don't pay for Telegraph articles so only have this link. Thanks Horseman
::::::The Telegraph is one of numerous conservative news organizations. Besides, their non-commentary articles are free for viewing. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:13, 10 August 2017 (EDT)

==[[Margaret Sanger]] revision that you undid==
Hi 1990'sguy,

Is there a way to reword what I wrote in such a way that it could be considered "encyclopedic"?

Thanks,
[[User:Bluedogdemocrat|Bluedogdemocrat]] ([[User talk:Bluedogdemocrat|talk]]) 22:59, 18 August 2017 (EDT)
:You could write "Planned Parenthood eventually expanded to support the form of murder known as abortion." Something like that. We should keep the wording encyclopedic, as this is not a blog or anything like that. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:05, 18 August 2017 (EDT)

== Re: Block of TimJim ==

Sorry about that, I wasn't aware you had already blocked TimJim when I blocked him, so I reset the block length back to that of your original block. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 22:45, 19 August 2017 (EDT)

== Article move request ==

Hi I'd be happy to move those articles you are requesting, but as you know, I cannot avoid the creation of redirects. Let me know if you want this, but hopefully you can get it done the right way. It's also probably easier to ask for a move than a delete. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:43, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
:I appreciate your offer, David, but I think it would be better if I keep it simple for Andy, rather than explain that the articles were moved and that he only has to delete the redirect -- having one person do it is more simple. Thanks anyway! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:46, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
::Agreed...okay. I didn't want to cut in and disrupt things, but just thought I'd offer. Cheers! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:49, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
:::I do appreciate your offer, David. Thanks! It looks like Andy just moved the articles. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:50, 21 August 2017 (EDT)

==Contact==
You can email me at wirepaladin36@gmail.com [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 11:22, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

==snoopy2==
1990s guy, I just want to verify u could read the Theistic ev. entry and 1994 film clip on my user talk. any comments?
:I could watch it, but would you please explain what it's about in a little more detail? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:55, 11 December 2017 (EST)

== Maybe I was too pessimistic. Good news ==

'''Why [[Democrats]] Should Be''' Losing Sleep Over Generation Z.[https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2017/08/11/why-democrats-should-be-losing-sleep-over-generation-z/]

Bye for now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:47, 5 September 2017 (EDT)
:Thanks for the article. Bye for now. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:48, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

== File comparison tool ==

Did Cons ever get back to you with the comparison tool? I'm curious about it, and whether it does a good job of checking for copied content. The problems that it appears to solve are different from the problems of comparison tools used in software development. I'm curious about whether it uses line hashing, sentence hashing, word group hashing, and things like that. I'd like to try it out, and not just at CP. In fact, probably not at all for CP; I'm not interested in who plagiarizes what at CP, though, when I am, I use other techniques to catch people. I'm just curious as to whether those other techniques have been automated.

It's puzzling that Cons deleted the screenshot, as though he ''wants'' people to believe he's a liar, though I don't think he is.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:57, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
:I can assure you that the tool exists. I have not tried it yet and thus cannot answer your question. I have no reason to try it as JDano's essays were deleted, so I recommend that you ask Conservative directly these things. Maybe he will share it with you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:23, 12 September 2017 (EDT)

::Great!! I'm still very much interested in it. Is it a "cloud app"? Is it a downloadable app that I can run locally on my own computer? Can you send me a URL?
::By the way, the standard wiki comparison of your last edit to the [[Guy Verhofstadt]] article, just as a random example, shows how bad text comparers can be. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 17:40, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
:::You are going to have to ask Conservative for the details of the tool -- he told me not to give it away to anyone, and while I personally have no problem with sharing it with you, I shouldn't go against what he said. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:43, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
::::Well, this is really weird. Cons seems to be trying to censor the internet itself, hiding the location of this tool. And he seems to think that only you can be trusted with it. He said "I will share this tool with 1990sguy [...] so he can evaluate your [JDano's] efforts in an objective way." I of course took this as a challenge. A Google search for "similar page checker tool" gets a number of hits. Ignoring the ones that cost a lot of money, and those that attempt to check a given page against the entire internet, narrowed it down to a few. This one: [https://www.duplichecker.com/similar-page-checker.php] seems to be the right thing. It's a "cloud app" rather than an installable program, but I can put up with that. It has the same appearance—color and layout—as the screenshot that Cons posted and removed. I ran it on the versions of this page before and after your recent reply to me, and it said they were 100% the same. I'm not particularly happy about that, but the additional text was only about 0.3 percent of the total, so I suppose I can accept that. Then I ran it on versions that differ in length by 10% (the 100K version and the 110K version.) It said they were 98% similar. Not good. But I still might find it to be a useful tool. There are pages not relating to JDano that could benefit from such an analysis.

::::I will probably check in with Cons on this, once he stays away from CP for 10 days.

::::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:39, 13 September 2017 (EDT)

==Getting help==
I am trying to fix the stuff on the Corporate bullies page. Am still learning my way around on how to use things. Think I am starting to get it though. The Georgia 2016 stuff has a lot of info and I am in the process of editing it, though it's going to take a while (at least 20 or more minutes. I'm trying though. (BTW, if I wasn't supposed to edit here, sorry. I don't know how to reply to your remark otherwise.) [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 22:31, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
:It's OK to edit here. I recommend that you read CP's guidelines, and probably more importantly, that you read [[Help:How to edit a website like Conservapedia]]. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:34, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

==Fabulous block and reverts==

Fabulous block and reverts this afternoon!!!! Well done!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 18:51, 21 September 2017 (EDT)
:Thanks, Andy! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:52, 21 September 2017 (EDT)

== re: JohnZ ==

User: JohnZ fails to recognize that my interest to be a referee to protect a marginal online sparring partner (whose greatest achievement was his dogged stubbornness to ignore facts/evidence) was largely protected by his edits to main space articles and my desire for an online sparring partner.

His rudeness to other editors and his desire to barely skate by with his main space edits certainly did not help matters. In addition, given the [[decline of the atheist movement]] and it now being a hopeless cause destined to ever increasing irrelevance, my desire for an atheist online sparring partner is non-existent at this point given my current/future priorities.

If he wants to create two quality, well-sourced original articles of at least 2,00 words on these topics [[Anti-religious Soviet Union propaganda]] and [[Christian persecution in communist China]] to restore his other editing privileges, that is what is required.

He would also have to pledge to refrain from hurling insults to other editors (idiot, etc.). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:01, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

:Hopefully he'll do it. We've given him these opportunities before and he rejected them. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:18, 3 November 2017 (EDT)
::I made a minor adjustment to his requirements for fully restoring his editing privileges in case someone creates articles on those subjects.

::Secondly, ardent secular leftists generally always double down regardless of any contrary facts/evidence presented to them. Of course, you never know what is going to happen. The Apostle Paul went from being one of Christianity's chief opponents to being its greatest champion. He will just need to be open minded.

::It is very widely recognized that there is and has been religious persecution in communist China and that there was anti-religious propaganda in the former Soviet Union. So I am giving him ample opportunity to show that he is not a close-minded individual given to hurling insults. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:31, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

I would say no to this for a couple reasons. The first is his blatant disrespect of everyone here, and he has shown that multiple times. The gist of it is a pretense of superiority over us, as if it is mandatory that we listen to him; he stated a short time ago that some of us are idiots for not engaging him in conversation. Which I might add is his kind of conversation.

The second reason is that he's a leftist brand of liberal from Great Britain, which means we cannot change his way of thinking whatsoever. Unfortunately for someone who is that close-minded he is going to go into lock-step with every other like-minded individual in his country, which would mean the loss of the United Kingdom as a political entity within a few years time. In his case, he is more concerned with picking a fight with the users of a small American conservative website then he is with what he and his kind are allowing to happen in Britain, namely the Islamic takeover. As a leftist, he probably feels he can get along with them in the name of diversity and multiculturalism, but when all is said and done he will either be forced on his hands and knees with his butt high in the air, or he'll have his head chopped off.

Unfortunately, some people think they're so better than others that they've blinded themselves to what they're actually doing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 04:35, 4 November 2017 (EDT)
:Karajou, if you look at my comment to his talk page, you will see that I am giving him an opportunity to show that he can be open-minded and reasonable by writing on two topics related to atheistic communism persecution of Christians/religious (namely [[Christian persecution in communist China]] and [[Anti-religious propaganda in the Soviet Union]]) via two quality articles of at least 2,000 words.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:38, 4 November 2017 (EDT)

== Anti-Christian bias in Wikipedia ==

Hello 1990'sguy. Am I being hypersensitive or is Wikipedia's anti-Christian bias increasing? For example, the recent dispute about content at Answers in Genesis.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnswers_in_Genesis&type=revision&diff=810473662&oldid=810471171] I see also that User:Synthetic Woolly Mammoth[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Synthetic_Woolly_Mammoth] has just been blocked, allegedly for being a sockpuppet of Biscuittin, but more likely because he has been speaking up in support of some Christian editors. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 05:27, 20 November 2017 (EST)
:I know another editor who has extensively edited topics related to Christianity and atheism on WP, and he told me that the ati-Christian bias on the site was much worse back around 2012. The militant atheists don't have as much power as they did back then. However, the anti-Christian bias obviously is still very bad, especially on YEC topics, which I have been dealing with for years already. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:20, 20 November 2017 (EST)

== Block length ==

Thanks for your alert block of new user "CPishilarious", but I'm going to change the block duration from 2 years to 1 month. Long blocks are disfavored on wikis because they block the IP address as well as the user. The IP address could be a library or other general access IP address, or the user could move or be a college student, or the user could have a change of heart. But thanks again for your quick action.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:11, 20 November 2017 (EST)
:OK, and you're welcome. I have seen blocked vandals come back with their same accounts after their blocks expire, so I wanted to protect against that. But I will shorten blocks like these in the future. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:54, 21 November 2017 (EST)
::Thanks so much for your alert block this morning, but again the block duration is too long. Another user could be trying to use that same IP address within a few months, or the user himself could have a change of heart. I'll shorten it to 4 months. Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:25, 4 December 2017 (EST)
:::Andy, it feels like I'm the only editor you're messaging about block length, ''even though my blocks are much shorter than most other editors.'' For example, just yesterday, I blocked two accounts for six months for having a silly username and for (relatively) non-serious vandalism, but shortly later, DMorris reset the blocks for 5 years. See here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Bernieman][http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Hillary_clinton] If you're going (for good reason) to message me for my blocks, please do the same for the other editors who prefer even longer blocks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:33, 4 December 2017 (EST)
:::But yes, I will still shorten my blocks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:36, 4 December 2017 (EST)

== Suggested article ==

Here is an article suggestion:

*[[Donald Trump and evangelicals]]

I think there would be public interest in such an article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:20, 9 December 2017 (EST)
:Thanks. If I get time, I will start this article. I will add it to my list of articles to create. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:16, 9 December 2017 (EST)

== Two things ==

For one, why do you not have email enabled? Secondly, consider longer blocks for these obviously malicious accounts. You can block an account for infinity and the autoblock on the IP still only lasts 24 hours. There is no reason for these sleeper accounts to come back to life three months later. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 16:19, 13 December 2017 (EST)

:In his defense, he was doing longer blocks until [[User_talk:1990'sguy#Block_length|Andy started asking him not too]], then [[User_talk:1990'sguy#Block_length_2|reminded him again]]. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:25, 13 December 2017 (EST)

::Yes, for crying out loud, why am I the only one being criticized for my block lengths? If I make my block lengths long, Andy posts on my talk page, and if I make my block lengths shorter, DMorris posts on my talk page.

::DMorris, please talk to Andy about this. I will continue making my blocks on the shorter side until your differing opinions are sorted out.

::About my email, I have my email address posted on my user page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:46, 13 December 2017 (EST)

== Articles of the year: 2017 - your article is being featured on the main page (left side) ==

*[[Donald Trump achievements]]

*[[European migrant crisis]]

*[[Atheists and genetic mutations]]

Keep up the good work.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
:Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:12, 24 December 2017 (EST)

== Nationalism v Globalism ==

I went ahead and added a link to the Gardner article on the Nationalism v Globalism article for you. I figured since we were referencing it, it would be good to see the original article too.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 23:52, 7 January 2018 (EST)
:Thanks! I already saw and added it to other articles where I mentioned Gardner. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:53, 7 January 2018 (EST)

==Homeschooling==
I deleted the paragraph on Texas requirements (which I originally added) since it was duplicative of the information I added from HSLDA (which covers all 50 states) regarding state requirements. I left the New Hampshire one since it involved a court imposing its will on a family in violation of state law.

I'm glad you liked my original work, but after finding something better and covering more than just one state, I amended my original work. Though after your comments, I revised it to explain that another state court (Texas) made homeschooling far easier than before. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 17:22, 29 January 2018 (EST)

:Thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:27, 29 January 2018 (EST)

==Deep State==
I will agree with your removal of the word "theory", but I did add the phrase "(or are believed to control)" because there are many conservative Christians who are not totally convinced that the deep state really exists. I believe my edits will be a happy medium between those who hold to the deep state view and those who do not. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 15:11, 30 January 2018 (EST)
:I kept most of your "is believed/considered" wording (except for the first sentence, which is unnecessary as the first sentence already makes clear that "deep state" is a term and not necessarily reality. I found most of your other changes to be too wordy and unnecessary, so I reverted some of it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:04, 30 January 2018 (EST)
::I looked at your revisions and all you did was revert to your original article, with a few minor edits to try to convince me that you really took my suggestions into consideration. Basically what you did to the article is like putting wood filler and new paint on a house with termite rot. I've dealt with folks like you over on "the other site", who think that once they write an article, it's perfect and can't accept any changes to it. I'm not going to waste time with this one any more; clearly you're trying to espouse tinfoil hat conspiracy theory under the guise of "Christian conservatism". [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 09:22, 31 January 2018 (EST)
:::Much of your changes involved inserting parenthetical notes, which I think made the article more bloated than it had to be. The "or are believed to control" phrase in the first sentence was simply unnecessary and overemphasized your disbelief in the deep state. The part about Wall Street was cited to a good research article, so I don't think we need the "is believed" language for that. But I will still see if I can incorporate more of your edits.
:::About the existence of the deep state, it and the drive for one-world government are things that should be common and uncontroversial knowledge -- but people (both supporters and detractors) "conspiracize" these things and that's how accusations of me wearing a tinfoil hat come about. Look at the evidence -- most of our society (except theologically conservative Christians, most of them probably being premillennialist) accept the Idea of Progress, adopted during the Enlightenment Era. They believe that humanity is progressing for the better, and that this will lead to a one-world utopia with world peace and freedom for humanity (read Kant, for example). Thus, they believe that national identity, subsidiarity, and national sovereignty are growing useless and antiquated and actually are impediments to this utopia. This flows into their policies -- advancing international organizations, taking away national sovereignty, etc. As for the deep state, just look at the whole DOJ/FBI stuff going on right now, or the fact that Republicans and Democrats hire administration personnel from the same group of organizations -- CFR, Trilateral, etc.
:::The garbage that there is some secret conspiracy by liberals to take over the world, that their motives are malevolent, that they want to do evil, that this is a short-term project, and that the Illuminati is involved with all this -- this is all garbage perfectly fit for "the other site". In reality, the drive for a one-world utopia is one of the fundamental philosophical views in our culture, and liberals openly see it as natural/normal/benign (and they're in it for the long haul). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:04, 31 January 2018 (EST)

== Suggested Name Change for [[Christmas and Easter Catholic]] ==
I propose changing this to "Christmas and Easter Christian", since the phenomenon of persons attending church on those days is by no means limited to Catholics. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 16:17, 30 January 2018 (EST)
:I disagree. I recommend that a separate article entitled "Christmas and Easter Christian" be created -- C&E Catholicism is a notable concept on its own right, enough to have its own article. I think an article on C&E Christianity in general would be a good addition. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:07, 30 January 2018 (EST)
::What's the difference? Both are the same phenomenon -- "so-called" Christian believers who attend only during those two holidays (or weddings and funerals). The current article is fine, it just needs to be revised to not pick on one branch of Christianity. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 09:17, 31 January 2018 (EST)
:::I've heard Roman Catholics specifically mentioned much more than other Christians when hearing about this "phenomenon." But I will ask another editor of his opinion on this. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:32, 31 January 2018 (EST)

==Campaign promises==
Hello,

The thought occurred to me that Wikipedia does not normally catalog campaign promises.(It never has, that I have seen) Elections there follow a formula of "what did they actually do after getting elected" and election results - which is both boring and completely useless, because we have a big problem with people running for office one way and then governing another way. This leaves a glaring hole of accountability with all of our politicians and it also offers us an opportunity to distinguish ourselves from Wikipedia. What do you think about this? I made a few changes [[Bruce Rauner|here]] as an example start. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 15:00, 4 February 2018 (EST)
:I think your suggestion is a great idea -- we have too many politicians who make really great promises during election campaigns, but they later act like they never even made those promises. When Rauner and his GOP primary opponent (Jeanne Ives) sat down with the ''Chicago Tribune'' editorial board a few days ago, Rauner said that he never promised he would veto a major pro-abortion bill that he ultimately signed (he actually explicitly promised he would multiple times).[http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/30/jeanne-ives-crushes-gop-gov-bruce-rauner-illinois-candidates-meet-first-time/][http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/31/conservative-jeanne-ives-rips-il-gov-bruce-rauner-abortion-flip-flop/]
:I can also think of Sen. Thom Tillis of NC who campaigned against amnesty in 2014 and is now advocating for a "conservative" amnesty bill (though it's inferior to the Goodlatte bill).
:I support your suggestion. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:11, 4 February 2018 (EST)

== FPÖ ==

Hi, I just wanted to ask you why you have removed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Freedom_Party_of_Austria&diff=1403167&oldid=1403166 my entry] on the article of the Freedom Party of Austria. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreisky%E2%80%93Peter%E2%80%93Wiesenthal_affair Kreisky–Peter–Wiesenthal affair] is an important event in the history of this party that should not be discreeted.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 09:41, 7 February 2018 (EST)
:First off, the info was inserted right in the middle of a paragraph discussing the FPO's ideological development and alliance with the SPO. Your info was out of place.
:Second, the info was unduly wordy. I am sick of seeing the media and leftists do everything in their power to tie right-wing conservative parties like the FPO to Nazi Germany, such as by unduly emphasizing those aspects of the parties and calling them "far-right", "extreme right", "ultra-right", etc. By American conservative standards, these parties are actually quite moderate, and for those of us who realize that Nazism is a vastly overrated threat (placed alongside climate change by the Left), such parties have clearly moved away from their pasts.
:I don't want our articles to accept the left-wing narratives of these right-wing populist parties. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:50, 7 February 2018 (EST)
::Well, all the informations I have put in the article were confirmed with trustworthy sources. [[Simon Wiesenthal]] who accused the FPÖ leader Friedrich Peter of being part in a unit which committed massacres against jews, was himself a Conservative. Wiesenthal supported the (at that time very conservative) Austrian People's Party. So it is not easy to label his accusations as "left-wing narratives". I am also pretty sure that the Conservative government of Israel does not spread "left-wing propaganda" if they criticize the party for its charged history. Instead of simply removing facts from the article, you might emphasize how the FPÖ moved away from its past.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 10:01, 7 February 2018 (EST)
:::Israel is a Jewish state, so issues related to the Holocaust are sensitive to them. But as much as I support Israel and its right-wing government, Israel's position toward the FPO is irrational, and they are unduly obsessed with Nazism like Western Europe is. Israel's opinion on the FPO means very little because of the context -- it's easy to offend Israel on matters like this.
:::About Wiesenthal, I don't know anything about him, but him supporting the OVP does not mean much to me. If the party were "very conservative", why did it support the EU, Maastricht Treaty, Schengen Agreement, etc.
:::And yes, these are the narratives promoted by the Left, the establishment, and the media. These are the same people who were comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler during the election campaign and who tried to smear Breitbart News as anti-Semite (despite loads of evidence to the contrary), among many other cases. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:17, 7 February 2018 (EST)
::::Just because these "narratives" are promoted by the Left it does not mean that they are wrong. I can ensure you that Simon Wiesenthal was never a supporter of left-wing policies. As I already told you it would be better to emphasize the current measures by Strache to reappraise the controversial history of this party instead of denying it.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 11:20, 8 February 2018 (EST)
:::::They're wrong -- they overemphasize every small and petty incident related to parties like the FPO that allude to Nazi Germany. Their point in doing so is to make it seem like that if we elect these people/parties into power (including Donald Trump), we'll be repeating 1933 all over again and will usher in the end of freedom in Europe -- never mind that Germany is still enforcing the Nazi ban on homeschooling, or that many Western European countries have free speech restrictions even on topics like Islam and homosexuality, or etc. Conservapedia will not go along with the media -- we acknowledge that parties like the FPO are conservative and/or right-wing (not "far-right" or "neo-Nazi") and the best choice in order to protect/expand freedom and protect European culture/patriotism. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:58, 8 February 2018 (EST)

== request ==

Can you create this article: [[Donald Trump's major achievements]]? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:39, 9 February 2018 (EST)
:This seems like a good idea, and I will do it. I won't do it immediately, since I have a lot of other things to do, but I will create it soon. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:54, 9 February 2018 (EST)
::OK. Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:18, 9 February 2018 (EST)

I'm very sorry about the article. If it make you feel like a advertisement. However, everything that is state is true. Thank you for your understanding. Pleased assist by make any corrections. That you think is necessary. When your time is most convenient.

Your brother in Christ,
Luke
:Thanks for your message, but the article I deleted is not acceptable for Conservapedia. There is nothing I can do to change that, unless you receive coverage from good sources (Breitbart, Fox, etc.). I'm keeping the other article for now, since it's one I can imagine keeping, but I'm discussing it with other editors to see what to ultimately do about it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:00, 21 February 2018 (EST)

Could you add some categories to my page please? [[User:Willow Smith|Willow Smith]] ([[User talk:Willow Smith|talk]]) 11:26, 22 February 2018 (EST)

==Response to your complaints==
From what appears EVERY time someone creates a new page or edits an existing one:

"Please note that all contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here."

If the real rule is "any contributions by Conservapedia administrators -- no matter how good, bad, or ugly they may be -- are fixed for all time and never to be altered", then make that the rule. But don't invite someone to improve things, then complain because they do. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 10:26, 6 March 2018 (EST)
:Your bolding does not improve things. Also, nobody reverted your turning pages into redirects -- it's just a good idea to let people know before making major unilateral changes. If your complaint is that I'm messaging you about these things, then you have no real complaint at all. If you make edits here, you (like I was, and still am to an extent) are bound to be messaged about these things, which other editors do with the intention of improving others' editing. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:37, 6 March 2018 (EST)

::Additionally, administrators and editors alike must watch the activity of others, especially newer editors. A few people have the hobby of trying to vandalize CP in any way possible, so excuse us if we sound cynical or obstinate, but some "new users" are actually just the same vandals as always. Since we don't really know you yet, we do our best to assume good intent, but can't afford to ignore what seems to be odd behavior.
::I'm sure you'll do fine, if you just listen to the recommendations of others and keep improving content. Thank you for your efforts, and for understanding! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:16, 6 March 2018 (EST)

==Thank you for the intro==
Just wanted to say thank you for the welcome! PS--Do you know what an eagle does when a storm approaches? [[User:Bcarlin|Bcarlin]] ([[User talk:Bcarlin|talk]]) 20:34, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

== Double standard article is now unprotected ==
1990sguy, I unprotected the [[Double standard]] article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 04:16, 3 April 2018 (EDT)
:Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:43, 3 April 2018 (EDT)

== Regarding the Whale article ==

Hello,
I would like to know what caused you to revert my edits to the Whale article, and what I could do in the future to avoid this.--[[User:Cetacean|Cetacean]] ([[User talk:Cetacean|talk]]) 23:23, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
:First off, I did not revert everything -- not even close. I reverted what appeared to be unnecessary wordiness on your part, along with your insertion of evolutionist-favored terms ("evolutionary biologists" instead of "evolutionists"--believe it or not, but people who believe in a young Earth can be evolutionary biologists too). If you keep your wording as concise as possible and if you choose your wording while keeping in mind that this is a conservative-Christian encyclopedia (thus, using terms favored by conservatives and Christians), then you won't be reverted. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:10, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
::OK, thanks for letting me know. I'll keep that in mind. I think I was correct about Darwin's views, though - could I reinstate that part?--[[User:Cetacean|Cetacean]] ([[User talk:Cetacean|talk]]) 23:23, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
:::Fine, but only if you change that part. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:27, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
::::Done. Thank you!--[[User:Cetacean|Cetacean]] ([[User talk:Cetacean|talk]]) 23:40, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
== Thanks for your edits ==

Thanks for cleaning up the edits to [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]]. I was planning to do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:13, 24 April 2018 (EDT)
:You're welcome, happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:15, 24 April 2018 (EDT)

== Ummm... how? ==

Ok... if not supernatural then how is evolution a folklore genre? I don't understand... Do you go to your doctor... Do you believe in evidence based medicine? If so, are you aware that many medicines and treatment methods are derived from experiment on animals... In your viewpoint why? If animals are COMPLETELY unrelated to us IN ANY WAY... then what is the point of experimenting and more importantly, why do those experiments help us develop pills and treatment of diseases? Why do the animals most close to us suffer from related diseases? Why do chimps suffer from HIV and not cockroaches? Just coincidence that our nearest relative is the one who suffers from problems more close to us? --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 00:01, 25 April 2018 (EDT)

== Things for you to note ==

Ok... thanks... I feel like there are a couple of things you have to know about potholer54... First, he DOES NOT discuss the political regulations on climate change (https://youtu.be/MTJQPyTVtNA?t=10) in other words, he maintains that political part of the debate (whether conservative or not) is NOT his business. Also, he has criticized leftists for blowing up the effects of climate change (he has frequently said that science does not support earth being destroyed by climate change since in history there have been higher CO2 levels)... these are the reasons why I felt that my wording was correct, but I will not start arguing. Do as you wish. I only ask that if you modify my article please try expanding it (there are enough stubs and short articles here), and cite sources. Even if the sources would not be considered legitimate (by other's standards), citing the sources makes the article look good. I see too many articles, where the writer goes on and on without citing a single source.

About evolution. I do NOT agree with everything here. But I understand your mission. And I understand that people here feel differently and it is NOT my mission to undermine your work. I simply add and create pages which I think Conservapedia lacks, and I try to write from neutral point of view (more experienced people can edit it to sound more conservative, I do not want to seem like a troll).

I did as you commanded. I know the wiki that shall not be named is not welcome here, but I wanted people to have another way to contact me. Anyways, it is removed
--[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 19:09, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
:Responded on your talk page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:26, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

1)Yes... there are several instances of him trying to take the politics out of it... I'll send them later

2)When you say he "criticizes skepticism" as opposed to "denialism" the reader may have the impression that potholer is against being skeptical when in fact he is against what he considers to be denialsim... He is pro free speech, he welcomes questions, I have even spoken with him at length months ago. That is why I wrote what I wrote.

3)That's ok. While my interests change very unpredictably and rapidly, recently I am more interested in history, pseudohistory and archaeology, pseudoarchaeology articles.

4)I understand... I will obey. But just for curiosity, can I know where does that rule originate from? I have read the Guidelines and the Commandments and I did not see any mention of the site which calls itself that which it thinks Conservapedia is not? I do obey, and I respect, but just for interest, where is that rule documented and what is the purpose (since you seem to tolerate other anti-Conservapedia wikis like Lieberapedia) --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 20:48, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

:Responded again on your talk page. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:31, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

::OK... Is there a way for me to add images (illustrations) to my articles? How do I do that and what is CP policy on that? Are google images, wiki images ok? --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 21:43, 26 April 2018 (EDT)
:::You can post requests at [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]]. User:DavidB4 usually uploads the requests. If the image has a license that allows us to use it, we can upload it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:53, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

== Blocked me ==

Hey...
1)I thought that the ban meant that I was actually banned, meaning the site would prevent me from editing, so when I saw that I could edit, I thought it was ok... I did not know that you meant I should stay away from those topics. I simply thought the article used to many words, so I made it simple and more encyclopedic.

2)Your addition to my article is also written, don't get me wrong, a little too simply. I understand that editors here do not accept the scientific consensus on evolution, but at least you can write it more encyclopedically, like you state that scientists say that humans turned from dumb to intelligent and turned to farmers... That sounds like something a 12 year old would write... Can't you make it sound more scientific. I mean, disagree with it, but at least a)represent it correctly b)write it in a grown-up manner...

3)Why did you delete my "Gay Nazis" article... From what I understand, that is pseudo historical and Hitler hated gays and persecuted them?

By the way, thanks for a reasonable block time... I thought I might be blocked for another two years without a chance to explain myself --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 18:26, 27 April 2018 (EDT)
:1) Topic bans mean you're not allowed to edit a topic, not that you don't have the ability to do so. Besides, regardless of your apparent misunderstanding, you removed content that you disagreed with, something I told you repeatedly not to do.
:2) Disapproving of my wording isn't a good reason to remove the entire thing, especially considering that it is one of the few examples in the article that secularists hate. Besides, we're supposed to give reasonably simple explanations when writing (see [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]]). My explanation is what the "scientific/historical consensus" essentially holds, and if that's the case, there's no reason to make it read like it was copied out of a prestigious journal. But regardless, I will see if there's any wording that I could change.
:3) It cited two explicitly left-wing sources that use this example to advocate for social-leftist policies and to criticize modern American conservatives. Surely there must be more apolitical sources out there about this? Also, regardless, it's good not to confuse Adolf Hitler's opposition to homosexuality (and the policies that came out of that) with homosexuality's presence in the Nazi Party. What I mean is that some high-ranking people in the Nazi Party, who helped found and build up the party (most notably Ernst Röhm), were homosexuals, and it's more complicated than "Nazis hated homosexuals."
:4) You're welcome. But also a warning: if you don't improve (and I hope you do improve), I will progressively increase the block lengths. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:55, 27 April 2018 (EDT)

::Ok, fine... But out of curiosity, does everyone on this site share your views on evolution, black holes, relativity, atheists etc? Is this site representative of Conservative (and/or Christian) values in general or a very specific type of sense? Do mainstream conservatives reference this site as an authority? And also, is there a rule (formal) where this has to be YEC or strictly Christian? Or is it an unspoken rule? Or does it depend on editors? I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes, I am genuinely interested. One more thing, you told me that I could NOT become an admin/sysop because there were very few, yet you clearly have more authority than me. You block and unblock me at will... How can I get that authority? Thanks! --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 23:39, 27 April 2018 (EDT)
:::No, not everyone shares CP's views on these issues -- in fact, we've had some liberals and atheists edit CP on relatively good terms. However, most editors here (including myself, though I'm agnostic on the relativity info and opposed to the CBP) share the vast majority of CP's stated views. As the owner of CP, Andy obviously has the right to choose what it says.
:::CP is representative of, for lack of a better term, what I would call "full conservatism", rather than cafeteria conservatism, where people pick and choose what parts of conservatism they support and what they don't. There are many people (especially in Europe, but also here) who say they are conservative but share many views and even many underlying presuppositions of the globalist Left. CP is pretty consistent with our support for limited/small government and staying true to the values of the founding fathers.
:::It really depends on who you mean when you say "mainstream conservative" -- that's a slippery term that can mean different things.
:::I'm not an admin -- I'm technically an assistant admin, since I have many but not all sysop rights. Even getting those took a while, and it's all at Andy's discretion. If you become a good editor who respects CP's perspective and does not challenge them in any way, you'll probably get some rights eventually. But you were just blocked twice, and you're still having problems learning how to edit CP without undermining its perspective -- I don't think you should count on being promoted anytime soon -- focus on other things here for now. CP has a significantly stricter sysop policy than "the other website", and for good reason -- we're the target of parodists and other people who regularly seek to vandalize and undermine us, and we want to ensure that we don't have to deal with a parodist sysop or anything like that. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 00:09, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

== Sorry ==

Sorry, you'll have to explain that more... What do I not do? --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 15:58, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

== Left Wing Sources ==

Hi... I do not usually look at the political leanings... I cite sources which I am SURE state something that is verifiable... Though, SPLC might be left leaning, I am SURE they can get Richard Spencer's birth date right... So I cited as a source for his birth date... The RWW, was a YOUTUBE video, that is the one I found first, I don't cite them to support left leaning politics, just facts that are verifiable by ANY honest person... I repeat SPLC might be left, but I am sure they can get a BIRTH DATE correctly! So that is what I cited, but do as you please! --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 16:22, 28 April 2018 (EDT)
:Surely, there are better sources that give Spencer's birthdate than SPLC. Also, those sources are not merely "left-leaning" (that designation more properly belongs to something like "The Atlantic") -- they are far-left partisan interest groups. They have no business being here. As a conservative encyclopedia, it makes sense to predominantly rely on conservative sources (or, at least, apolitical sources). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:27, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

== Arguing With You ==

Lol.. You are trying to get me to argue about evolution... but the problem is that if I do that I (and ONLY I, ie NOT both of us) will get blocked... It's kinda dirty that you on one hand basically provoke me to argument and if I do respond to your arguments you have the authority to block me... Assuming, this time you really were interested and WILL NOT block me for simply RESPONDING TO WHAT YOU TOLD ME... It is my humble opinion, based on what you have said here, you do not understand what The Theory of Evolution actually is... You seem to think that evolution says that monkeys turned human and that macro evolution means that a new organism appears over time, although macro evolution is THE SAME as micro evolution only on a larger time scale (yes as simple as that)... You have made it clear NOT to correct these errors (ERRORS) so I respect conservapedia rules... I respect what you told me and I keep away from stuff that we disagree on and keep contributing what I can in good faith...

Last time we got into this argument, I pointed out a really good and simple thing... I told you how we can see the familial pattern and the animals closer to us suffer more ailments like us... I also pointed out that experiments on animals closer to us help us find treatment, this was a good point to think about... Instead you chose to ignore it... So I did NOT want to get blocked, so I simply let it go (again, respecting your opinions)... Yet you show NONE of this respect calling 200 years of research "junk science" simply because you have been unable to process this information... @Karajou is YEC too and he thinks that evolution is fake, but he does not push it, and he is not calling me out on "believing" (or understanding, as I prefer) evolution... He simply keeps what he believes to himself... I can respect that!

I am ready to respond if you have questions... But only if I am guaranteed not to get blocked like last time (after I RESPONDED to QUESTIONS addressed to me FOR 2 years)! --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 20:40, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

:On a side note, I happen to know of a CP user who openly created a RW account. They were immediately interrogated on evolution as well.
:To the main issue, though, microevolution is not the same as macroevolution. You should really do some research on the subject. There is a significant difference between a change in fur length, and a change in species. That and other issues I disagree with you aside, I don't think you will or should get blocked simply for stating your opinion. As long as you continue to respect our polices regarding mainspace articles, you should be safe. (I don't know the details of the block, but I suspect there was more going on than just an angry response to your opposing opinion.)
:Anyway, I'm cutting in on this conversation, and I should really just let 1990'sguy speak for himself. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:00, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

::@Kingdamian1: I am '''not''' trying to argue with you about evolution. First off, I explicitly tried to end the discussion on Andy's talk page because I didn't want to use it arguing about political positions. Also, I was more focused on your political positions. We all know what you believe on evolution. I was tempted to ask clarifying questions about your ''political'' views, but I thought it wasn't worth it.
::Also, I actually don't care whether you believe in evolution. What I care about is the fact that you are apparently unable to put away your bias when editing CP. Your edits on the [[Potholer54]], [[Pseudohistory]], and [[Macroevolution]] inserted pro-evolution bias into CP (and keep in mind that your first edit after joining was creating a debate page on evolution where the first sentence insulted CP). As I noted elsewhere, you inserted bias on other topics in your edits. I don't care about your personal views on any of this (there are several CP users who believe in evolution) -- the fact that you are struggling to make your editing compatible with CP's point of view is a problem. Hopefully, you're learning.
::Claiming that I'm "''unable to process this information''" on evolution shows how little you actually know about me, and it's not a good strategy for staying on this site. I've thought a lot about this issue, and its strengthened my belief that the Bible is authoritative in all it says and that science affirms it as true (rather than Ephesians 6:14).
::DavidB4's comment above is correct, and to clarify to him, Kingdamian1 was blocked (by Karajou and me) for more than simply giving an opposing opinion. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:18, 30 April 2018 (EDT)
I CLEARLY have it on my page that I am a LIBERTARIAN... according to Conservapedia, that is what you would consider conservative, you keep telling me I admitted I was NOT conservative, where Conservapedia COUNTS Libertarianism as conservative... About evolution, I do NOT think you do not think about the subject, I think you look at it FROM A SINGLE point of view. I suspect that your view about evolution comes from strictly YEC... The first of your many mistakes, is saying that evolution=atheism, when in fact, OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of religious people agree with evolution. If you really are honest and interest in BOTH sides and NOT JUST ONE... there are MANY videos you can watch...

I have these 2 videos I usually recommend as they are NOT boring and fun and also explain things in easy to understand terms...
If you are truly interested in BOTH sides, try to seat through these two videos. Watch them in order (1st and then 2nd) as one is kind of answering the rebuttal that followed (the rebuttal you may have in mind when watching the first one)... If you can sit through both of them calmly without getting agitated (They are NOT boring and easy to understand, filled with humor), please, get back to me and tell me (after watching BOTH completely) how has your view changed about what evolution actually is!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ilMYc5xdQ

--[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 23:59, 30 April 2018 (EDT)
:KingDamian, you are bringing back an argument that has been refuted again and again and again. I've seen the videos you posted, and all it does is once more post an assumption that we must accept evolution as true based upon the word of a scientist who said so. So I'm going to ask you once, and I expect a straight up or down YES or NO answer, and it's based on the horse line at the end of video 2: DID YOU PHYSICALLY SEE THE ''EOHIPPUS'' CHANGE INTO THE ''EQUUS''? Keep in mind that I will not accept as an answer anyone pointing to the fossils themselves and saying we must assume a change took place. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 00:21, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

::Hi... No I have not seen it... But do you realize that if I had that would be THE SINGLE MOST POTENT evidence against evolution? Do you realize that? If I had actually observed the change that would be the single best evidence against evolution NOT for it... AGAINST IT! Do I make myself clear? --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 00:26, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
:::And there you go. You haven't seen it happen. And neither has every single scientist who ever lived; they didn't see it happen either. And we have to sit here and take their word - and your's, I might add - that evolution did take place because they eyeballed a bunch of fossils and ''said'' a change took place? We have to ''assume'' the change happened because these guys put these fossils in a nice little line-up? This website will not accept evolution based on hearsay evidence; we will call evolution what it actually is - JUNK SCIENCE; and we will post direct evidence that contradicts what these supporters say about it. Do I make myself clear? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 00:49, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

I am not here to argue... I like CP... I think you are worthy of a response, so please don't block me, Brian. Evolution has not been observed? Did you watch it from beginning to end? Evolution Has been observed... What you asked me was if we had observed a SPECIFIC species change over millions of years with my eyes... no I have not. But I have not observed ancient English evolve into modern english either, i have not observed Latin change into Italian either... and you have not observed George Washington s life... so according to your logic, all of this must be junk science too Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
:No, evolution has not been observed; you are arguing, and you have been arguing since day one, when you know full well where we stand on the subject. It's stopping now. And I'm not going to stand for someone who demands we look at pretty pictures just to get us to believe in an assumption; we might as well assume a monkey evolved from a living room wall because Little Billy drew one on it with his crayons. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 07:18, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
::I agree with Karajou and DavidB4 (on his own talk page). Kingdamian1, your comments show you think I'm some "low-information" person who lives in a bubble who will immediately change my mind once I'm "enlightened" (emphasis on the scare quotes) -- your assumption is complete BS (it shows you have no clue who I am). I tried to end a discussion on Andy's talk page and you brought it up again on my talk page (and I didn't even have to be present for it to heat up). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:32, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
:::Also, I just saw [http://www.psypost.org/2018/04/scientific-reasoning-ability-not-predict-acceptance-evolution-among-religious-individuals-study-finds-51082 this study published in a scientific journal] (by evolutionists, with an evolutionist perspective) that admits that there's no correlation between one's level of education or intelligence and their acceptance of evolution. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:21, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
::::Here's a link to an article responding to the "You don't understand real evolution" argument: [https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/09/24/do-we-have-misconceptions-about-evolution/] AiG Also has many articles on the many "proofs" of Evolution that have been used ad Nauseum to attack creationism, such as this one about bacteria: [https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/antibiotic-resistance/is-antibiotic-resistance-proof-of-evolution/] Here's and article explaining why the changes that are actually observed are not even really "evolution": [https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/is-natural-selection-the-same-thing-as-evolution/] And here's a comprehensive list of some of the most common attacks against Creationist assertions: [http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims_(Talk.Origins)]

::::The thing is, Creationists are very well aware of the weapons used against them by Evolutionists and one of the biggest mistakes evolutionists make is assuming that Evolutionists know some critical piece of information that is a "knockout punch" to Creationism, when in reality, Creationists are very well aware of these assertions and have written many articles responding to them. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 23:55, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

One more thing. As Frank Turek, one of the foremost Christian apologists, says "Science doesn't say anything, scientists do." Whenever anyone says "Science says that..." what it should really be is "based on their interpretations of certain observations, scientists conclude..." When people say "Science says..." they are committing the fallacy of reification. A detailed explanation can be found here: [https://answersingenesis.org/logic/the-fallacy-of-reification/] Despite KingDamian1's claims that he is "not trolling" he has carried a rather rude and condescending tone typical of those who attack Creationism. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 13:16, 21 May 2018 (EDT)

:As User:Kingdamian1 is a new user, I feel like he/she should given another chance, rather than indeffed. After all, he/she seems really interested in improving Conservapedia and creating articles here, as evidenced from his/her multiple comments even on Wikipedia, requesting his unblock and his/her desire to change. Would there be any objections to me unblocking him/her, with him/her understanding that he/she is topic-banned from any science-related articles (since this seems to be the reason other editors are upset with him/her)? I hope this helps. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 04:07, 23 May 2018 (EDT)
::We gave him a chance, and he had more than NPOV problems (which were in and of themselves annoying, since it was my role to check his articles). I was really annoyed at his expectation that he could be instantly promoted to adminship status (and his apparent desperation at it, since he messaged several editors several times about it), when it is very hard and takes a long time even to become an assistant admin. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:35, 23 May 2018 (EDT)

== Question ==

How do you ping someone? (i responded to you on my talk page) [[User:Qw23|Qw23]] ([[User talk:Qw23|talk]]) 17:21, 8 May 2018 (EDT)
:I don't think CP has a ping option. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:23, 8 May 2018 (EDT)

== Hi ==

I'm new to this project and I do need help with this sentence:
{{Quote|[[Mike Pompeo]] and the Trump administration helped secure the release of Kim Dong Chul, Kim Hak Song and Tony Kim from North Korea.{{cite news|author=Andrew O'Reilly|coauthors=Elizabeth Llorente|title=Trump administration finds success in bringing home detained Americans|url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/09/trump-administration-finds-success-in-bringing-home-detained-americans.html|work=[[Associated Press (AP)|Associated Press]]|publisher=[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]|date=9 May 2018}} The three men described their “deep appreciation” for the Trump administration for help freeing them.{{Cite news|last=Dorell|first=Oren|title='God Bless America': Freed American prisoners thankful after being released from North Korea|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/05/09/north-korea-kim-jong-un-free-3-american-citizens/582094002/|publisher=[[USA Today]]|date=9 May 2018|accessdate=10 May 2018|quote=We thank God, and all our families and friends who prayed for us and for our return}}</ref>}}

I believe it should go under [[Donald Trump achievements: Foreign policy]] but for 2018, which section do you believe it fits best under? Also, how do sources work here? --[[User:MaddieJ|MaddieJ]] ([[User talk:MaddieJ|talk]]) 15:14, 11 May 2018 (EDT)
:I already added this to the article, but I will look through your sources to see if more can be added. References could be surrounded by ref tags, like this : <code><nowiki><ref>[citation]</ref></nowiki></code> --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:29, 11 May 2018 (EDT)
::Hi [[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] I just want to let you know I'm glad I'm learning how to edit here. I just recently added the ISIS statements on [[Justin Trudeau]] and also mentioned [[Maxime Waters]] on this edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=2017_left-wing_violence&diff=prev&oldid=1422057]. I will allow you to monitor me if any edit I do is good or bad, and I will message you if I need anything. Regards.
--[[User:MaddieJ|MaddieJ]] ([[User talk:MaddieJ|talk]]) 10:03, 15 May 2018 (EDT)
:OK, thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:01, 15 May 2018 (EDT)

== A Message for that British Troll ==

Just in case (s)he makes another sock account, (s)he should know that campaign finance laws are unfair and D'Souza was directly targeted because of his unpopular opinions. Also, in the case of Roy Moore, there is only accusations and hearsay. That troll must also ignore the things that Leftist politicians did:

Bill Clinton: raped, molested and abused several women.

Hillary Clinton: Deflected responsibility for Bengazi, kept emails on her own private servers illegally, and covered up her husband's illicit affairs.

And I'm sure you could name more. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 09:21, 24 June 2018 (EDT)

== Conservapedia's Opinion on Joseph McCarthy ==

Hello,
I noticed that you reverted my edit to the Joseph McCarthy page. I made the edit to align with the views expressed in a news story I saw in the main page that described McCarthy as "two of a kind" with Robert Mueller. I feel that Conservapedia should be consistent, so I would appreciate it if the news story was removed/replaced, or the McCarthy article was changed.--[[User:Cetacean|Cetacean]] ([[User talk:Cetacean|talk]]) 18:35, 16 May 2018 (EDT)
:I added sources from a reliable conservative source backing up the article. Besides, the sentence as it is now is more neutrally-worded than your wording (I think even the person who posted the news blurb could agree with it). Bottom line: the article is fine, but it's not worth fighting what is a good analogy (considering that we have many leftist readers who hate McCarthy) on the news feed. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:48, 16 May 2018 (EDT)

== About draft ==

I just replied to your email. Its for here, not for Wikipedia. --MaddieJ 14:45, 18 May 2018 (EDT)

== [[Brian and Ed Krassenstein]] ==

I created the article [[Brian and Ed Krassenstein]]. If you would like to do improvements and better grammar to it, feel free to do so. --[[User:MaddieJ|MaddieJ]] ([[User talk:MaddieJ|talk]]) 14:38, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

== Barack Obama's achievements ==

See: [[Essay: President Barack Obama's achievements]]

It required a lot less work than your article [[Donald Trump achievements]]. :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:59, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

:Ha! And the little that Obama actually did is being wiped away by President Trump right as we speak! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:22, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

== Hi there ==

In 1884, meridian time personnel met
in Washington to change Earth time.
First words said was that only 1 day
could be used on Earth to not change
the 1 day bible. So they applied the 1
day and ignored the other 3 days.
The bible time was wrong then and it
proved wrong today. This a major lie
has so much evil feed from it's wrong.
No man on Earth has no belly-button,
it proves every believer on Earth a liar.

Children will be blessed for
Killing Of Educated Adults
Who Ignore 4 Simultaneous
Days Same Earth Rotation.
Practicing Evil ONEness -
Upon Earth Of Quadrants.
Evil Adult Crime VS Youth.
Supports Lie Of Integration.
1 Educated Are Most Dumb.
Not 1 Human Except Dead 1.
Man Is Paired, 2 Half 4 Self.
1 of God Is Only 1/4 Of God.
Bible A Lie & Word Is Lies.
Navel Connects 4 Corner 4s.
God Is Born Of A Mother –
She Left Belly B. Signature.
Every Priest Has Ma Sign
But Lies To Honor Queers.
Belly B. Proves 4 Corners.

Your dirty lying teachers
use only the midnight to
midnight 1 day (ignoring
3 other days) Time to not
foul (already wrong) bible
time. Lie that corrupts earth
you educated stupid fools.

GoBelly-Button Logic Works.

When Do Teenagers Die?
Adults Eat Teenagers Alive,
No Record Of Their Death.
Father Son Image, Not Gods.
Every Man Born Of Woman.

Belly-Button Is the Signature
Of Your Personal Creator -
I Believe Her Name Mama.

Pastor Told His Flock That
God Created All Of Them -
Truth Was That They All had
Mama Made Belly Buttons,
Church Was Full Of Liars.

Earth Has 4 Days In Same 24 Hrs., 1 Day God Was Wrong.
Einstein Was ONEist Brain.

Try My Belly-Button Logic.

No God Knows About 4 Days, It Is Evil To Ignore 4 Days,

Does Your Teacher Know ?

Fraudulent ONEness of religious
academia has retarded your opposite
rationale brain to a half brain slave.
YOU IGNORE 3 OF 4 DAYS -
FORCE 4 DAYS ON EARTH,
THEY ALREADY EXIST.
4 HORSEMEN HAVE 4 DAYS
IN ONLY 1 EARTH ROTATION.
4 ANGLES STOOD ON 4 CORNERS.
4 CORNERS ROTATE TO 16 CORNERS
WHICH EQUAL TO 4 CORNER DAYS.
TEACHERS ARE EVIL LIARS - THE
ONEness OF GOD IS STILLness DEATH.
YOU WERE ONEness RETARD ON THE
EARTH OPPOSITES ALL YOUR LIFE.
LOVE OF GOD IS HATE OF CHILDREN.
SUPPORT TIMECUBE OR BE CURSED.
EARTH HAS 4 CORNER
SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY
TIME CUBE
WITHIN SINGLE ROTATION.
4 CORNER DAYS PROVES 1
DAY 1 GOD IS TAUGHT EVIL.
IGNORANCE OF TIMECUBE4
SIMPLE MATH IS RETARDATION
AND EVIL EDUCATION DAMNATION.
CUBELESS AMERICANS DESERVE -
AND SHALL BE EXTERMINATED.
******************************************************************************
The ONLY Official Site
For Gene Ray/TimeCube.
Need Help - Donate to Timecube/Gene Ray at PayPal

******************************************************************************
I am a Knower of 4 corner
simultaneous 24 hour Days
that occur within a single
4 corner rotation of Earth.
*********************************************************************

God guise for Queer
scam, enslaves 4 Day
cube brain as ONEist.
Vilify teachers - for
Queers swindle Tithe
from 1 Day Retarded
***********************************************************************

Till You KNOW 4 Simultaneous Days
Rotate In Same 24 Hours Of Earth
You Don't Deserve To Live On Earth

Americans are actually RETARDED from

Religious Academia taught ONEism -upon

an Earth of opposite poles, covered by Mama

Hole and Papa Pole pulsating opposite sexes.

The ONEist educated with their flawed 1 eye

perspective (opposite eyes overlay) Cyclops

mentality, inflicts static non pulsating logos

as a fictitious queer same sex transformation.

**********************************

It Is The Absolute Verifiable Truth & Proven Fact
That Your Belly-Button Signature Ties
To Viviparous Mama.

**********************************

Life is pulsing opposite mirror Pairs,

Death is ONEness of Godism.

****************************************************************************************

ONE - DOES NOT EXIST,

EXCEPT IN DEATH STATE.
ONE IS A DEMONIC RELIGIOUS LIE.
*************************************
Until you can tear and burn the bible to
escape the EVIL ONE, it will be impossible
for your educated stupid brain to know that
4 different corner harmonic 24 hour Days
rotate simultaneously within a single 4
quadrant rotation of a squared equator
and cubed Earth. The Solar system, the
Universe, the Earth and all humans are
composed of + 0 - antipodes, and equal
to nothing if added as a ONE or Entity.
All Creation occurs between Opposites.
Academic ONEism destroys +0- brain.
If you would acknowledge
simple existing math proof
that 4 harmonic corner days
rotate simultaneously around
squared equator and cubed
Earth, proving 4 Days, Not
1Day,1Self,1Earth or 1God
that exists only as anti-side.
This page you see - cannot
exist without its anti-side
existence, as +0- antipodes.
Add +0- as One = nothing.
**********************************************************************
Seek Awesome Lectures,
MY WISDOM DEBUNKS GODS OF
ALL RELIGIONS AND ACADEMIA.

We have a Major Problem,
Creation is Cubic Opposites,
2 Major Corners & 2 Minor.
Mom/Dad & Son/Daughter,
NOT taught Evil ONEism,
which VOIDS Families.
******************************************************************************************
Seek Wisdom of Cubic Life
Intelligence - or you die evil.
****************************************************************************************
Evil God Believers refuse to
acknowledge 4 corner Days
rotating simultaneously around
4 quadrant created Earth -
in only 1 rotation, voiding the
Oneism Evil 1 Day 1 God.
You worship Satanic impostor
guised by educators as 1 god.

No 1 God equals 4 - 24 hour
Days Rotating Simultaneously
within 1- 24 hour Rotation of
4 quadrant created Earth.
Ignoring 4 Corner Earth Days
will Destroy Evil Humanity.
I am organizing Children to
join "Cubic Army of 4 Days"
to convert Evil 1 Day Adults
to 4 Day mentality existence,
to serve perpetual humanity.

"Nothing on Earth more Evil
than a human educated as 1,
when composed of opposites
that cancel out as an entity."
In fact, man is the only 1 Evil,
and will soon erase himself by
ignoring Cubic 4 Day Creation.
If a Man cannot tear a page
from the bible and burn it -
then he cannot be a scientist,
or participate in Symposium -
to measure Cubing of Earth
with Cubic intelligence wiser
than any man or god known.
Educators have destroyed the
human analytical brain to a
single perspective, in spite of
all creation within Universe
being based upon opposites,
binaries & antipodes, including
Sun/Earth binary relative to the

human male/female binary. No
ancient insignificant dead 1 Jew
godism can match or exceed the
enormity of the Sun/Earth
Binary. His heart is not big
enough for sharing with the
vastness of created opposites.
1 has no heart beat or breath,
constituting death of opposites.
God in Human form has human

limits as body controls activity.
You are taught Evil, You act
Evil, You are the Evil on Earth.
Only your comprehending the
Divinity of Cubic Creation will
your soul be saved from your
created hell on Earth - induced
by your ignoring the existing
4 corner harmonic simultaneous
4 Days rotating in a single cycle
of the Earth sphere. Religious/
Academic Pedants cannot allow
4 Days that contradict 1Day 1God.
Educators destroy your brain,
but you don't know, so why care?

Creation ocurrs via opposites,
but Religious/Academia pedants
suppress it teaching Satanic One.

After 30 years of research, I now
possess the Order of Harmonic
Antipodal Cubic Divinity Life -
too large for physical form, but
Binary Spirit of the masculinity
Sun & feminity Earth Antipodes.
ONEism is demonic Death Math.
I have so much to teach you, but
you ignore me you evil asses.
You will recognize 4 corner Days
or incur Easter Island Ending.

Never a Genius knew Math
to achieve my Cubic Wisdom.
Cubic thought Reigns as the
Highest Intelligence possible
on the planet Earth. One 96
hour rotating Cube within a
single rotation of Earth -- is
an Ineffable Transcendence.
Bible and Science falsify 1
corner day for the Cubic 4
corner Days rotating daily.
A single god is not possible
in our 4 Day Cubic Science,
that equates Cubic Divinity.
Everybody is both stupid and
evil for ignoring the 4 days.
Cube Divinity transcends all
knowledge, Humans can't
escape 4 corner Cubic Life.
Fools worship mechanics of
language - while they wallow
in fictitious & deceitful word.
Exact science based on Cubics,
not on theories. Wisdom is
Cubic testing of knowledge.
Academia is progression of
Ignorance. No god equals
Simultaneous 4 Day Creation.
Humans ignore their 4 corner
stages of life metamorphosis.
This site is a collection of data
for a coming book - peruse it.
No human has 2 hands as they
are opposites, like plus and
minus, that cancel as entity.
Academia destroys your brain,
your ability to think opposite.
The eyes of the flounder fish
were relocated, why were yours

relocated? Your opposite eyes
were moved to 1 corner to overlay
for single perspective, but that
corrupts your Opposite Brain.
*****************************

KNOW CUBE, OR HELL.
Education and Religion
severely diminishes your
intelligence and mentality,
instituting ONEness Evil,
You are educated stupid -
and you have no inkling to
just how EVIL you think.

Seek in haste to attend a
lecture by Dr. Gene Ray,
Cubic and Wisest Human -
His Wisdom is Awesome.
*************************************
For Cumming, GA 30041 Lecture,
email: oray612959@earthlink.net
*******************************************
Both Cubic Thinkers and SnotBrains were
born with opposite brains, capable of math
analysis to know most everything. The
Religious/Academic Oneness Brotherhood
destroys the Brain's ability to think opposite
of singularity trash taught. Such reduced
Brain intelligence begets the student a
tag of SnotBrain android - encapable of
comprehending absolute proof of 4 Days
rotating simultaneously within a single
rotation of Earth. Cubics comprehend it.
You are a Cubic Thinker, or SnotBrain.
You SnotBrains will know
hell for ignoring TimeCube.
I do not promote or suggest
anyone killing you, but you
are unfit to live on Earth.
Binary Life Force is more
Powerful than ONE God -
especially the ole dead Jew,
for which you've denounced
your own mother and father.
1 side brain can't reason
without the opposite side.
Americans are so dumb,
educated stupid and evil,
they have snot for brain.
Believers have snot brain.
Educated have snot brain.
God worship only needs
a snot brain, but it takes
Opposite Brain Analysis
to know Harmonic Life.
The masculinity Sun and
femininity Earth - form
a Binary of Harmonic
Opposites at Center of
Universe - Greater than
either Sun or the Earth,
debunking all fictitious
Oneism Gods taught by
religious/academic Word
Animals. The invention of
fictitious WORD inflicts
humans as Word Animals
- the dumbest and most
Educated stupid and Evil
animal to inhabit Earth
and the Universe. Watch
for Giant Erasor as there
is a great danger of the
human Word Animal being
self-erased. You cannot
comprehend the actual 4

simultaneous days in single
rotation of Earth, as 1 day
1 God ONEism blocks the
ability to think opposite of
the ONEism crap taught.
Education destroys brain.

Dr. Gene Ray, Cubic and Wisest Human
**********************************

Gene Ray interview by Lionel on Air America Radio,
The Lionel Show - 10am, Friday, August 3, 2007

Creation is the Harmonics of Opposites -
Opposites are the Harmonics of Creation.
God entity is queer sex, or no opposite sex.
God Oners must ban all sex with Opposites.
Trinity of males degrade female opposites.
Sex okay for atheist, but not God Oneists.
Opposite hemispheres equate planets to a
Giant Brain, that has 4 faces, but no limbs.
Adults create baby, baby evolves to adult.
No 1 God can create a planet of opposites,
which equate to a zero value existence, and
cancels to nothing as an entity in death.
**********************************
"Cubic Time" - Cubes
Earth, Life and Truth
TIME CUBE (corner = vertical edge)
Word God is Bad Math
MATH SHOWN HERE IS
FAR SUPERIOR TO GOD
AND CHRISTIANITY. USE
IT TO SAVE HUMANITY.

HONOR THE 4 DAYS

OR YOU SHOULD DIE.
Earth has 4 days simultaneously each rotation. You erroneously measure time from 1 corner. Earth body 4 corner time equals 4 leg mobility. Your ignorance of Harmonic Cube is demonic.
Dr Gene Ray is the
Greatest Philosopher,
and is the Greatest
Mathematician.
www.TheWisestHuman.com
********************************************
Here is a cube manufactured from metal, in similar likeness to Time Cube
Cubic Harmonics
Only Cubic Harmonics can save
humanity. Cubic Harmonics
will pacify all religions.

96-hour Cubic Day
debunks 1-day unnatural god.
96-hour Cubic Day
debunks 1-day as witchcraft.

96-hour day willdisprove disunity
god. Academians are teaching -
pseudoscience.

Worshipping a Word God
will destroy the USA.
********************************************************

WARNING ...

Ignore Cubic Math at your
own peril, and of humanity.

You have a god like brain -
parallel opposite & analytical,
wasted if you believe in ONE.

Dr Gene Ray, Cubic and Wisest Human (at left). Nature's Harmonic Simultaneous 4-Day 4-Corner Time Cube (right). Image by R. Janczarski
(Dr Gene Ray, Cubic and Wisest Human, depicted in image above)

The primary purpose for
Education is not Subject
matter, but subservience
to accept any crap taught
without opposing thought,
destroying opposite brain
to be submissive android.
You're taught to be stupid.

Dr. Gene Ray, Cubic & Wisest Human

NO GOD EQUATES
SIMULTANEOUS
4 DAY CREATION,
in 1 Earth rotation.

Cubic Creation of 4 corner
separate simultaneous 24
hour Days within 1 Earth
rotation - transcends and
contradicts the 1 Day
rotation/1 God Creation
of Christianity - and all
ONEism / Singularity
religions - proving them
to constitute Evil on Earth
for the parallel Opposites.

Hey - got a death threat
from Temporal Phoenix
last night, saying that the
big ole boys that make the
world go round, are going
to wipe me off the Earth.
They can't allow the Time
Cube Principle to continue.

Benefits of capitalism

2018-07-09T21:28:44Z

RandomUser34: