Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: NYT supporting Pure Communism

  1. #1

    NYT supporting Pure Communism

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/03/...ate-communism/

    I should have spotted it years ago. After all, I lived through the Cold War. But, I didn't.

    Not that long ago, I started reading thelibertydaily.com. It is an imitation of the Drudge Report, except much more anti-liberal. When they have a photo of a Rino, they Photoshop the word RINO on his forehead in red. And, they use the word Commie to describe the hard left.

    At first, I was offended. Than, I started thinking. Yes, it was Communism Obama was trying to implement. The government confiscating whatever it doesn't like. Like the use of coal for generating electricity. Like summarily confiscating nearly 250 million of acres under unlegislated government regulations, pretending to save the environment.

    Also, the purges of government employees who do not toe the line. Communism.

    The above article as stated in the link reports the NYT trying to push communism on gullible people who don't know what it's like.

    Alll this threat to kill those who support Trump, pure Communism. The current political battle is between Communism and freedom.

    Early in Obama's time in office there was an article that quoted Putin telling Obama not to do it, that his country had tried it and it didn't work. I didn't fully understand what he meant. Now, I do.

    On the other hand, because I know that Total Collapse is coming soon to a nation near you, I realized it really doesn't matter. Plus I am old. And, plus I live in another nation. It may be my GTHO program which saves me until my old age gets me.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by polite_disagreement View Post
    Silly article.
    First he complains that "that history and legacy turn out to be very selectively explored".
    However the selectivity isn't the problem, the problem is that someone doesn't explore only Stalin and the Holodomor and the GuLag.

    Not that they weren't real, but reducing the knowledge of the Soviet experiment to this eliminates all understanding of why the ideology of Lenin and Stalin once ruled 1/6 of the world. That is something not even Stalin could have pushed through, not even with 10 KGBs to help him.

    It helps to know what they stood against, all the ancient regimes of the world, which have as much, if not more, blood on their hands than the Russkies.
    Robert here mocks the quote "being a member of the secret police as a morally complex issue". Well, at least there's a secret policeman with a conscience.
    There were less scruples over the 'Manifest Destiny' of the American Indian. Or Gitmo. No morally complex issues there.

    And the this li'l nuggett: "The theory of Communism—the elevation of the collective over the individual and of government dictates above free, private decision-making—is the fundamental cause of all of its evils." That is not the theory of communism. And every place there are two or three gathered, the collective emerges as something in addition to and very often above the individual. WHo thinks we have a place with no government dictates above free, private decision making? Who thinks any country will survive more than a few days in there were no government dictates above free, private decision making? Talk about utopianism.

    The crux of the argument is this: "We have plenty of reasons to think that individual rights and private interests are actually essential to a free and prosperous society."
    This is important for some, as long as companies are persons, and the can have a society were some can be prosperous, and so free.
    The are deadly afraid that The Farmed shoud get a whiff of the possibility of alternative arrangements, hence all these propaganda efforts as soon as someone says "communism".

    What you say about divorced men sabotaging men's rights goes as much for modern working people and the rights of working people.
    This is another field where most people are thoroughly blue-pilled.


    Also, the purges of government employees who do not toe the line. Communism.
    Yeah, evil commies like Elizabeth I, Bismarck, all the olde governments ... never purging those who didn't toe the line ...

    So you 'lived through the cold war', eh ...? Survivor, like? What did you do, patrol radars in Alaska?

    M

  3. #3
    When I saw the name on your posting, I had a good idea what was there. I was not disappointed. Please carry on.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by polite_disagreement View Post
    When I saw the name on your posting, I had a good idea what was there. I was not disappointed. Please carry on.
    If you have a point, you're welcome to make it.

    M

  5. #5
    i hate to point this out but if you were to go to univeristy in todays age.
    or if you were to make a dating app profile and look at the 18-29 year old range people.

    you would find that

    #1 universities TEACH communisism
    #2 the youth is swallowing it up like crazy
    #3 the youth is pushing it and believes in it..without understanding it.
    Quote Originally Posted by MatrixTransform View Post
    where were you before you put yourself last?
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNarrator View Post
    Everywhere I travel, tiny life. Single-serving sugar, single-serving cream, single pat of butter. The microwave Cordon Bleu hobby kit. Shampoo-conditioner combos, sample-packaged mouthwash, tiny bars of soap. The people I meet on each flight? They're single-serving friends.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by polite_disagreement View Post
    When I saw the name on your posting, I had a good idea what was there. I was not disappointed. Please carry on.
    he has many good points i felt.
    Quote Originally Posted by MatrixTransform View Post
    where were you before you put yourself last?
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNarrator View Post
    Everywhere I travel, tiny life. Single-serving sugar, single-serving cream, single pat of butter. The microwave Cordon Bleu hobby kit. Shampoo-conditioner combos, sample-packaged mouthwash, tiny bars of soap. The people I meet on each flight? They're single-serving friends.

  7. #7
    "Communism" wasn't mentioned until the Bolsheviks had taken power.

    The word Bolshevik means literally, "more" or "bolshe."

    More food, more resources, more money, etc that's what they promised the Russian masses for overthrowing their king.

    Of course none of the "more" materialized after Lenin and his cronies named themselves, "rulers for life."

    America had its "Manifest Destiny."

    Russia had its Cossaks, Chechens and Ukranians.

    Israel had its Phillestines, Cananites and Amalekites.

    Every modern country sits atop the rubble of its native inhabitants.

    Sure, let's talk about the "moral complexity" of Gitmo.

    It's slightly less morally complex than traditional wars, where they shoot tangos instead of capturing them.

    "Individual, private decision-making" rarely survives contact with "government" except when that government is FOUNDED on a mandate of "individual, private decision-making."

    Yes it's kind of a paradox.

    Create a govt that protects you from govt.

    But it worked well for 200 years, heck for the first 100 years we didn't even have income tax.

    in before "wah wah wah but indians but slavery but women."

    The crypto-jew bag of agit prop, sowing discord everywhere it goes, applies to every tribe on earth except themselves.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by dubs View Post
    "Communism" wasn't mentioned until the Bolsheviks had taken power.
    Not a history buff, then ...?
    Lenin did Communism since he began studying politics in the early 1890ies.

    The word Bolshevik means literally, "more" or "bolshe."
    And this refers to the "majority party" (bolsheviki) as opposed to the "minority party" (mensheviki), although the latter were actually the majority.
    A PR move.

    More food, more resources, more money, etc that's what they promised the Russian masses for overthrowing their king.
    Yes. Why else would they do it?
    Under the Czasr, just as many people starved to death as under Stalin - and more than once.

    Of course none of the "more" materialized
    Of course it did. The USSR was industrialized in one generation. Standards of living rose.

    after Lenin and his cronies named themselves, "rulers for life."
    Not much use for the short-lived Lenin.

    Israel had its Phillestines, Cananites and Amalekites.
    And Palestinians.

    Every modern country sits atop the rubble of its native inhabitants.
    Yes.

    Sure, let's talk about the "moral complexity" of Gitmo.
    It's slightly less morally complex than traditional wars, where they shoot tangos instead of capturing them.
    Nah. Bush's legal teams did some clever legal contortionism acts to find a loophole where they could imprison civilians on suspicion and hold them outside the rules of due process, etc. That alone is complex enough, although it's not very moral.
    Perhaps killing tangos is par for the course for US troops, but elsewhere the concept of a POW is well recognized. They even have rules for their treatment.
    Except in Gitmo.

    "Individual, private decision-making" rarely survives contact with "government" except when that government is FOUNDED on a mandate of "individual, private decision-making."
    Nah. Even there private decision making does not trump government decision making.

    before "wah wah wah but indians "
    "Wah wah wah but indians" what? Were they not robbed, displaced, killed?

    The crypto-jew bag of agit prop, sowing discord everywhere it goes, applies to every tribe on earth except themselves.
    Pls tell me you're not an anti-semite.

    M

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    Pls tell me you're not an anti-semite.

    M
    zionist semite or just regular semite? lol who do you think is the problem>? jihadist muslims or just normal muslims?
    Quote Originally Posted by MatrixTransform View Post
    where were you before you put yourself last?
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNarrator View Post
    Everywhere I travel, tiny life. Single-serving sugar, single-serving cream, single pat of butter. The microwave Cordon Bleu hobby kit. Shampoo-conditioner combos, sample-packaged mouthwash, tiny bars of soap. The people I meet on each flight? They're single-serving friends.

  10. #10
    The point is, nobody offered Russian citizens "communism."

    The Bolsheviks seized power in a coup d'etat in the middle of a war.

    For all the intellectualist bravado, your hero Lenin was a dictator and Stalin was more of the same.

    Now maybe that had something to do with how serfs were treated in Imperial Russia.

    Maybe that's the real lesson here, "Don't let the proles get too hungry."

    In 1917 the world was quickly industrializing, it would have taken more effort NOT to "go with the flow" and stick with horse and buggy.

    Anyway, the point here doesn't imply my support for royalism or anything like that.

    The point is that you could have put any group of people in charge of Russia in 1917 and arrive at the same place in 1943.

    To a certain degree, the ebb and flow of empire is like a tide, you can't create a tide and neither can you do anything about it, it "just is."

    When the human population was small, about 1-3 million people, there was a place for "chieftains" and other autocrats.

    As humanity became more populous, you couldn't hire enough palace guards to keep them in line.

    King after king lost his head trying to hold the throne.

    So we developed the idea of an "aristocracy" that was like 100 kings, dukes and knights so you had a much broader base of power.

    Eventually we developed "Democracy" and "Republic" to further broaden the power base to Senators and rich merchant class.

    Tired now, write more later.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •