I asked ChatGPT what Ron is talking about.  Here's the response:

Short answer: The commenter is mixing biblical Hebrew and classical Greek words to criticize modern “liberal” compromise and to praise an older, religiously framed idea of liberty (freedom from bondage). He contrasts false liberality with pure liberty and invoke Alfredo Rocco’s fascist formulation as the prompt for that polemic.

The writer is responding to Rocco’s famous line about liberalism and fascism by arguing from a religious-linguistic frame: he calls some modern liberals nadiyb (pejoratively), accuses them of keciyl (foolishness), and insists that true freedom is the biblical/Greek idea of release or manumission rather than state‑enforced equality. The tone is moral and theological: the commenter treats political categories as moral/spiritual conditions rather than neutral policy labels.

Glossary (words the commenter used):
- Nadiyb / nâdîyb — a Hebrew word meaning noble, generous, princely; as a noun it can mean a grandee or (in some contexts) a tyrant or notable person.
- Keciyl / kᵊsîl — Hebrew for fool or foolish/complacent person; used in biblical wisdom literature to mean a stupid or senseless person.
- Chophshiy / chophshîy — Hebrew adjective meaning free or liberty (freedom from bondage, tax, or care) — the commenter’s “ancient Chophshiy Liberty” refers to this biblical sense of exemption and manumission.
- Drowr / deror — Hebrew noun meaning liberty, release, free run (used in contexts like the Jubilee proclamation of liberty).
- Brakah / berakah — Hebrew berakah (blessing); in some lexica it’s also translated as liberal or present; the commenter’s “Brakah liberality” likely invokes blessing/generosity as a moral ideal.
- Eleutheria / Apeleutheros — Greek eleutheria = liberty/freedom; apeleutheros = a freedman or one set free — the commenter borrows classical Greek to emphasize civic or personal freedom as an ancient ideal.
(Each gloss above is drawn from standard lexica and Strong’s concordance entries.)

About the Rocco quote:
Alfredo Rocco’s sentence appears in The Political Doctrine of Fascism and is widely quoted as a succinct contrast between liberal individualism and fascist collectivism. Rocco was an Italian jurist and later a member of the National Fascist Party; his essay was part of 1920s Italian fascist intellectual literature.

How to read the commenter:
He is not doing neutral philology but using ancient-language terms as moral weapons: Nadiyb and Brakah are set against Drowr/Chophshiy/Eleutheria to claim a purer, God‑aligned liberty and to reject both socialist/fascist coercion and what they see as corrupt modern liberal permissiveness. That rhetorical move mixes theology, classical language, and political polemic rather than offering a systematic political theory.

Dream on, Reston.  Some of the richest politicians are 'progressive' liberals who, once in office, raked in millions — for what?  Apparently they have become the most savvy investors Wall Street has ever seen.  Nancy Pelosi is one of the biggest hypocrites ever, with AOC now a millionaire after only a few short years in Congress.  Elizabeth Warren, too, also making millions while spreading the 'eat the rich' rhetoric.  Face it, the poor are kept poor for their votes for empty promises and to promote class warfare — all while the government reps laugh their way to the bank.

Our 'right' to be free is not earned, but I will agree that to move from dependence to independence requires taking responsibility and is the distinction between a child and an adult.

🤣 LOL, Waffler, you are exactly who Braun is talking about!

We can never avoid the consequences of breaking the laws of nature and of "nature's God."

Prescient words indeed as we witness the election of an avowed Marxist as the mayor of NYC — the financial capital of the US, if not the world.  He was elected predominantly by recent immigrants (legal and illegal perhaps).  It can't happen here?  God help us...

Islam is essentially a theocracy (i.e. sharia law), so absolutely incompatible with the American republican form of government.

The quote is attributed to Marx without a source, so, rather than argue with a straw man, we need only refer to Marx's confirmed writings like Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto (with Engels). 

There are some intelligent responses above, like the post from Tony, Victoria.  But in my mind, the cure for the ills of imperialism (like czarist Russia and British colonial feudalism) was not the implementation of Marx's and Engels' statist ideology but through Liberty under a republican form of government as was proffered by the Founding Fathers of America.

Early pilgrims attempted a form of communism that failed so drastically, they had to get rid of it or risk starvation.  America flourished whenever liberty and the Golden Rule were the ideal.  Rules for a 'civilized' society must not violate the laws of nature (and of nature's God, as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence).  Indeed the Catholic and Protestant church's departure from their Christian ideals resulted in the oppression of many nations, but the laws of nature cannot be broken without consequence. 

'Capitalism' is a loaded word that does not fully take into account the causes of the oppression for which 'capitalism' is supposedly the cause.  Servitude of any kind is in opposition to Liberty.  Remember that in a monarchy or a communist state, all the land, roads, deer, businesses are owned by the state/monarch, and all are but tenants paying tribute — that may have been called 'capitalism' by Marxists, but it is not what private enterprise would call capitalism. 

Highly-regulated commerce and a fiat money system are the true causes of poverty and servitude today — fundamental planks of the Communist Manifesto.  If history is any guide, implementing the planks of the Communist Manifesto transforms every nation into a slave state that eventually succumbs under its own weight. 

Built upon false premises, Marxism is a hopelessly flawed ideal that only a sound education can recognize as a cliff from which not to jump.

Exactly!

Interesting, Ron... what the hell are you talking about?  Inquiring minds want to know. ;-)

According to Bertrand Russell's 'golden rules,' today's 'liberals' are liberal no more, breaking most of the 'commandments.'  Progressive liberals have 'progressed' far beyond the classical meaning of liberalism (as was understood by fascists like Alfredo Rocco in his day). 

My 'disdain' is for the hypocritical 'liberals' who are not liberal at all but embrace the authoritarian aspects of progressive liberalism that is in fact nothing more than socialism disguised.  Supremacy of the state is NOT liberal, and socialism in all its forms places the State as supreme and the individual subject to it.

I will say that I believed marijuana should have been decriminalized, even the use of cocaine and heroin.  But test cities like Seattle and SF have shown that also removing the penalties for the crimes that drug users commit is a bridge too far.  Scenes from Philly with drugged out zombies taking over entire neigborhoods are ghastly.  Small businesses aren't even allowed to keep their storefronts free from squatters.  This was not the intent of decriminalizing drug use.

I agree with you, Terry, but look what the State has done now with legalized drugs — the drugs are more dangerous than ever with entire populations of users living in tents on sidewalks and underpasses, zombies walking the streets defecating all over the public spaces.  Letting out non-violent drug offenders has been extended to not even prosecuting theft and violent crimes. 

Sex education has turned into indoctrinating children into choosing their gender and genital mutilation encouraged by the State.  Euthanasia while understandable for the terminally ill in pain, but now MAID service (Medical Assistance in Dying) is being prescribed for 'ailments' such as poverty and depression, even for the young.  The suicidal may now request MAID with the support of the medical community — calling the suicide hotline may end up helping to make an appointment!  

The Boy Scouts used to prevent homosexual Scoutmasters for fear of grooming young boys — now those fears have come to fruition once the guardrails came off, even girls who identify as boys may join. 

It seems every good idea turns into a racket — look at how far left the liberals have gone.  Conservatism has good reasons for its stand to stick to the fundamentals.

I attended public school in 3 different states, also Catholic school and prep school.  The Department of Education had not yet been formed, so public school was not quite as indoctrinated as it has since become. 

Black kids were bussed in to our 'white' neighborhood an hour away, making the local kids the minority in their own town.  We were taught even then that the whites were racist, and I felt so guilty, I wished I was black and started emulating them.  My mother would get angry, "Stop talking black!"  Young minds are so malleable. 

The classes ended up being segregated anyway with a corner for some students to read and study on their own while the rest of the class was 'catching up.'  There was constant hostility of the bussed in kids towards the locals — I came to recognize this f-u chip on their shoulder throughout my life.  The racism was towards the whites constantly, and this continues to this day, it appears to be cultural. 

In private schools, race played no role.  All were expected to be respectful, to excel, and to be prepared to go to college (which in those days was not like it is now).  Obviously, the better education was that which my family paid for — same for health care, better service if you are willing to pay above and beyond the 'basic' services.  You get what you pay for. 

It should be noted that each private school offered scholarships to those without financial means, but of course those students were expected to maintain good grades and civic discipline as were all students.  Students could be expelled! 

Government support for private schools was always an ideal of the founders like Jefferson and Adams, but every good idea eventually turns into a racket when government financing comes into play.  The power of the educator becomes very enticing since the children are easily molded by them.  Politics can't help but to take advantage. 

Today, the education system has been coopted by a statist creed, producing drones with just enough education to support the apparatus of the state.  I found old notebooks from my great grandmother, and 8 year-olds knew more back then than high school graduates today!  This is not an accident.  If you want to get an education, go and get it, spend time in libraries, and even today, ChatGPT and YouTube can teach you anything you want to learn from elementary level to a Ph.D or a trade.  The opportunities for learning have never been better, and it hardly costs a nickel.  Just do it! ;-)

That's a keeper!

Not really, the quote is factual. The Snopes spin tries to make it sound like Clinton did not really mean it...  She did and does!

I like Bastiat's take: "every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all."  Should we as a people help uplift the poor? Yes.  Should we pass on that responsibility to the government? No.  Individual charity has always FAR surpassed government assistance.  However, "non-profit" orgs formed by the likes of the Clintons, for example, do little to help anyone but those that are paid employees and contractors of those foundations — same with government bureaucracies. 

Should families relegated to the ghettos of Chicago and Detroit be kept as perpetual dependents for generations while their children get substandard 'free' education?  When welfare becomes a racket, it serves only to buy votes from the poor souls suckered into dependency.  Reston likely grew up in a time before the system became so corrupted.  Socialism eventually fails when there are more takers than contributors, so it starts out well, but eventually collapses under its own weight.

Reston, please realize that your family's welfare payments were all borrowed on the backs of future generations — and the bill comes due.  Do people benefit financially from government redistribution, yes, but at what cost to the rest of us?  If people are in need of insurance, then all who want that protection should have the option of joining voluntarily.  But if all expect to collect, the venture eventually goes bankrupt.  Never-ending money printing eventually leads to WAR as nations collapse and need to raid the coffers of their weaker neighbors.  It is a CON!

Some good points, David, but capitalism is not the problem but rather the solution.  Before the Civil War, there were 'free' states and 'slave' states.  The free states practiced 'capitalism' while the slave states did not (more of a form of communism for the slaves).  It was capitalism that freed the slaves. ;-)

Humankind has been competing for territory since the beginning of time — that will never go away.  In the wild, tigers can only hold the territory they can patrol and must often fight interlopers to keep that territory.  I agree that humans should not possess more land than they can use, and in the free American states, for the first time in recent history, a man could own land free and clear of liens and encumbrances. 

However, the old British system crept back in whereby landowners were required to pay taxes on their land, otherwise 'title' to it could be taken away.  I won't go into the long history of land patents and their use, but ever since the Bureau of Land Management stopped managing land patents, their use was essentially replaced with state-issued certificates of title.  Americans lost their right to hold land in allodium — again, this is not capitalism, it's more like serfdom.

Let's stop using this term 'capitalism' coined by the Marxists.  What we are talking about is Commerce which requires a trading medium of intrinsic value used in a free market.  This is also referred to as private enterprise.  Commerce was to be regulated by the commercial law jurisdiction while the common law jurisdiction was for the common man, his property, his labor, his own production — the common man is not to be regulated like a corporation, and a corporation is not to be treated as a 'person.'

This blurring of the lines can be traced directly to the use of commercial paper as the nation's trading medium (i.e. currency) with a private monopoly on its use — possession of gold was declared illegal and was required by law to be converted into interest-bearing debt-instruments forever.  Since we are no longer trading with lawful specie but rather commercial paper, we enter into the commercial jurisdiction that regulates its use and all property held as collateral for it.  As a result we don't actually 'buy' anything except the equitable interest of the property — the property is still held by its true owners which is why they may tax it, license for its use, and confiscate it if the rules are not followed.  This is not capitalism!  This is a form of serfdom or feudalism which the Americans threw off in 1776.

Americans still have the right to our sovereignty as declared in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Constitution.  The corruption is not well known because it is not taught anymore.  Know the truth, and the truth will make you free.

I think you will find the richest individuals in the world got that way through government contracts and monopolistic financial corporations.  In the game of Monopoly, the banker is always the last man standing — he just lets us play his game while everything ends up back in the box...

Socialism in its purest form is NOT what life is all about — certainly not mine, anyway.  With socialists, it's either their way or no way, liberty be damned.  Apparently, there is no compassion without socialism...  I know socialists are usually atheists, but really, have you no shame whatsoever to lay claim to compassion as the socialists' way? 

Laying claim to what is not yours is hardly compassionate.  Dictating to others from cradle to grave is not compassion.  What the socialists are saying is that THEY are compassionate while those that dare to extend charity to those they wish are not.  Sheesh, how arrogant and ungrateful can you get! 

Plus you can't force people under a socialist regime to be compassionate any more than you can force Christians to love their neighbor as is their creed.  And therein lies the rub — indeed compassion is integral for a civilized people, but how to inspire it?  Compassion cannot be legislated — that only becomes theft.  Better to live by the Golden Rule for its own sake than to be ruled 'for your own good.'  The laws of nature cannot be broken, so we best get to living in harmony with them or else some bright bloke will sucker us into the false promises of socialism where we will then find ourselves conned out of everything.

Just like the US, Canada started creating currency by issuing bonds to be 'bought' by private banks in 1913.  There were no taxes on labor up until that point.  There is in fact a difference between the Bank of Canada and the Federal Reserve.  In the US, the US Treasury is not permitted to issue bank notes as currency, they instead work-around by creating Treasury Bonds and allow the Fed to 'buy' them with currency they create of of nothing — thus the currency is issued with interest-bearing debt.

However, the Bank of Canada is authorized to create all the money the government needs interest-free and debt-free, the only 'tax' being inflation.  Instead, the Canadian government 'borrows' from the private banks that also create the money out of nothing (i.e. monetizing debt), and interest is due.  Canadians are kept in the dark just like Americans, and generations have now passed not knowing how things really worked when both the US and Canada were among the most prosperous nations in the world. 

Working for over six months in a year to pay taxes is nothing short of servitude!  This is the same old British colonial system -- even indentured servants got a better return...

Ron, I don't know what the heck you are talking about, but it sounds very interesting...

Thus began the long, slippery slope towards statism.  Even Madison couldn't stop it, just as he couldn't stop the formation of another central bank... The Constitution is just a piece of paper if there is no way to enforce the rules and limits of government power explicitly agreed upon.

How things have changed!  Illegal immigrants are given EBT cards, free hotel accommodations, Medicare, driver's licenses, and even registered to vote!

I do love this excerpt from Franklin years before the American Revolution.  Whenever someone says real socialism hasn't been tried, they have merely ignored history.  All the empty promises of socialism have been tried many, many times.  These lofty dreams do not take into account human nature — particularly free will.  Sure, it is pretty cool to design a city, but ask the citizens how well it actually works, only to discover they have no say in the process.

This sort of thing has been going on in America since Plymouth Rock.  Communism was tried initially, but for all the same reasons failed miserably resulting in starving people.  Without a personal incentive to work hard, the actual 'workers' become resentful of those they have to take care of who are not even in their own family. Ask those that escaped the USSR how well this works! 

Unfortunately, the social engineers who come up with these plans (that ultimately serve them BTW) target an uneducated youth that has not yet had to shoulder the responsibilities of life.  Untold millions have been murdered with 'out with the old, in with the new' by red guards and brown shirts.  The poor are encouraged to join the military to get food and shelter.  This is the oldest trick in the book for would-be Caesar's, czars (same thing), and ruling aristocracies in all their forms.

The power is with the People.  And when they are tired of being serfs on their own land, they will do something about it — or until the middle class stops paying for it.