Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: NYT supporting Pure Communism

  1. #11
    More to the point.. what mainstream media outlet does NOT implicitly or explicitly endorse communism?

    Fox News... not so sure about that... they seem kowtowed into silence.

    Dubs.. the Bolsheviks story is so damned buried its virtually unknown to the entire western population. Power is achieved by promising protection.. or threatening then offering protection.. from Kings to Politicians.. only the words used in the sophistry propaganda have changed. The language has changed a bit, but methods are exactly the same... create hysteria.. promise a solution.. get into power and subjugate anyone who points out your promises have failed to come to fruition.

    Take the Trump victory in the white house. Trump is entirely pro-capitalism.. and fairly anti-socialist. He has been called a misogynist, Russian stooge, closet Nazi, racist and homophobic. The narrative keeps tossing up mud trying to make anything stick.. however even if little does its simply the sheer volume of mud slinging that will fan the flames of riotous hysteria. The goal is to cause chaos, blame Trump, and offer the salvation of democratic progressive socialist leadership for 'your protection'.

    If Trump gets taken down.. before his term.. then its game over for any capitalist candidate. Trump is undoubtedly either the first of many.. or the last for quite some time... Capitalist minded president. And then there will be next to none in he world. Socialist censorship will be applied to the Internet, most likely via regulations on ISP companies... and the concept of voluntary market will be purged from history as the great evil that leads to fascism... or something like that.

    The socialist utopian dream is so close... just a few more laws.. a few more low IQ immigrants.. a few more street riots away from cementing the equality dream for good.

    America stands alone here. Her great wealth is over-extended. Her rugged individualism has been all but replaced by appeals to emotion... "Hatred is bad"

    Is hatred bad? Am I not allowed to hate murders.. because 'hate is bad'? Am I not allowed to hate liars, thieves, pedophiles, rapists... because 'hate is bad'.

    And by what fucking utopian standard is "hate" going to be erased in all humans in the future? Are we going to lobotomize the 'hate' out of you?

    Hate is not immoral.. it exists as our reaction to immorality. The problem everyone fears about Hate is that they don't have a moral standard to guide it with. They know they are easily manipulated into using Hate for the benefit of evil people. They fear their own hate, or being portrayed as 'hateful'.

    And that is how you can manipulate hundreds of millions of people.. that is your control mechanism. You shame people for hating anything.. good or evil.. you remove moral standards and then offer them a 'cure' in the form of offloading their morals to something else. The 'race' of the 'collective' or the 'greater good' or 'for the poor' or any number of sophist illusions that offer you freedom from thought and moral accountability.

    History may rhyme.. but this time we have bigger guns and much, much more people to die. Disrupt the food production... see what happens... hell just look at Venezuela. The don't have enough food to feed their population, after formerly having an effective capitalist system to support a larger population. So.. more people to starve.. more people to riot... more people to die at the hands of their socialist Utopian ELECTED leadership.

    Socialist think they are taming the 'inequality' of capitalism... offering 'protection'.. when all along they are doing is setting themselves for a much bigger fall.

    Anyways.. I digress. Beware of saviors offering protections from Capitalism... because they come in two flavors.. and both end with most everyone you know starving or being stacked up in neat piles of mass graves.
    Last edited by Iggy; 08-17-2017 at 07:17 PM.

  2. #12
    Yeah well that's humanity.

    Shit flinging apes.

    If you're poor or stand to gain from affirmative action, you vote D.

    If you're rich or stand to pay more taxes, you vote R.

    Both of those people will try to convince you that it's about "doing what's right" or "best interest of humanity" or some shit.

    But it's all just feudalism.

    Just people want their benefits, their free Obamaphone, their tax break, whatever it is.

    There aren't "new" battles, they've been raging for eons.

    Ultimately tho, the rich have to take lesson from the Romanov family.

    You have to negotiate with the proles and come to some kind of power-sharing.

    You can't just say, "no, I'm king and that's that."

    Then you have a civil war and they behead you.

    Compromise. Power sharing.

    Having competent politicians.

    Get the peasants on your side.

    Coalition building.

    That's smart.

    In the long run, much smarter than saving money on taxes and having a shooting war to keep it.

    Money isn't worth that much unless you have neighbors who don't want to kill you.

    Most important thing is peace, or rather, social harmony.

    Without that you have nothing.

  3. #13
    The amazing thing about Capitalism is you don't really need kings. You need service providers, probably multiple forms of insurance, but you don't need kings or a state.

    For every need there is an opportunity for a voluntary solution. Especial in today's age, where communication (and reputation) is broad and robust, why do we keep clinging onto the idea that a centralized monopoly of violence is even needed?

    Nobody can hold the ring of power and not be corrupted by it, that is history's ultimate lesson. Less state power = less unnecessary suffering. Make every person a king, of themselves, the ultimate minority is yourself, the one.

    But no.. we've made victim-hood a form of power that is constantly exploiting the masses... and we've abandoned universal morality for the sake of borrowing the future earnings of our youth.

    Without universal morality, there will always be moral cover for using force to gain resources involuntarily.

    People are deeply complex, flawed and amazing, however humans are terrible at managing themselves.. why the hell do we think there are humans that are better at managing others. I don't see any historical proof... all we seem to do is project our concepts of 'moral good' onto each other and avoid any personal responsibility as much as possible.

    Humans can have morals.. so they are accountable when they don't use them. Say what you want about religions.. at least in this regard pretty much of them them are based of some level of personal accountability to something higher than themselves.

    Societies that remove personal accountability don't fare well. Charity was also a concept that seems to be only tough as a virtue by some of the religions. Now we just expect the state to fix it all, with next to zero accountability for those who sabotage themselves and others.

    Harmony comes from shared values, which comes from a shared set of moral standards, which is taught (not innate) from human to human. That process is being slowly.. and recently more rapidly.. replaced with Nihilism and state indoctrination.

    The best state in history is still the worst solution, because it cannot be controlled. The ring of power always corrupts, but it pretends to unite and protect.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
    The amazing thing about Capitalism is you don't really need kings. You need service providers, probably multiple forms of insurance, but you don't need kings or a state.
    Oh, I don't know ... looking at world history, wherever you look, you will see a group of people, sitting on some natural resource of some kind; and you will see one sub-group who somehow ends up controlling that resource "for the good of all". The mechanism for doing that is, as often as not, to apply the right to private property in the form of laws to protect that monopoly status. And then you hire people to be the enforcers. And that is the state.
    In feudal times, land was the greatest resource, but land was useless without people to work the land. And that is why the landowners invented serfdom.
    I always wondered about the US prison system ... run by private corporations that hire out convicts as cheap labour ... said corporations lobbying politicians to make laws stricter, producing more convicts ... the overrepresentation of black people in the prison system ... how is this not a return of slavery, under a different cloak? That's what the BLM should worry about, not statues of Lee.

    For every need there is an opportunity for a voluntary solution. Especial in today's age, where communication (and reputation) is broad and robust, why do we keep clinging onto the idea that a centralized monopoly of violence is even needed?
    Apart from the need cited above, I think the general idea is that "legal violence" is just that, regulated by law; which private bloodfeuds seldom are.

    Nobody can hold the ring of power and not be corrupted by it, that is history's ultimate lesson. Less state power = less unnecessary suffering. Make every person a king, of themselves, the ultimate minority is yourself, the one.
    To be beholden to no man would require people to own their own means of production, though

    But no.. we've made victim-hood a form of power that is constantly exploiting the masses...
    ?

    and we've abandoned universal morality
    On the contrary, morality is becoming more and more universal, and reduced to one single formula: Taking Care Of Number One.

    for the sake of borrowing the future earnings of our youth
    True dat.

    Without universal morality, there will always be moral cover for using force
    That works just fine _with_ universal morality, too; just look at what the religions have done.

    to gain resources involuntarily.
    Ooooh, that sounds nice. Like finding a winning lottery ticket on the sidewalk.
    Somebody sneaking money into your pockets while you are looking the other way.

    People are deeply complex, flawed and amazing, however humans are terrible at managing themselves..
    why the hell do we think there are humans that are better at managing others. I don't see any historical proof...
    No one is better, but we all can think of some who were definitely worse.

    all we seem to do is project our concepts of 'moral good' onto each other and avoid any personal responsibility as much as possible.
    Yes ...
    This goes with the saying that people only do evil if they believe it's good; and you're saying that deep down, even these people suspect that all is not well.

    Humans can have morals.. so they are accountable when they don't use them.
    Yes. Sadly, few people use this knowledge to self-regulate _before_ going into action.

    Say what you want about religions.. at least in this regard pretty much of them them are based of some level of personal accountability to something higher than themselves.
    Part of the complexity of humans. There is the basic question of whether this higher something exists in the first place. Then there are the examples of things going wrong even if you have, and sometimes because you have, a belief in higher authority. But the idea of being personally accountable to a being that could see through the entirety of your very existence has been a great psychological scaffold for erecting some fine-tuned consciousness and conscience. This character schooling is one of religion's important contributions to culture.

    Societies that remove personal accountability don't fare well.
    Or abandon accountability in general.
    Wherever there is no care for consequences, there will be consequences.

    Charity was also a concept that seems to be only tough as a virtue by some of the religions.
    Considering that many religions make the world being a vale of tears one of their selling points, I hesitate to give them much cred for this.
    The best societies strive to eliminate the _need_ for charity. Like you said above: "Make every person a king, of themselves ...".

    Now we just expect the state to fix it all, with next to zero accountability for those who sabotage themselves and others.
    Would you really want a lot of other people to scrutinize your lifestyle choices in order to see if they care to approve?
    Which 10 fellow citizens would you like to be your overseers?

    Harmony comes from shared values, which comes from a shared set of moral standards, which is taught (not innate) from human to human.
    Since you use a musical metaphor: if we are the individual musicians in an orchestra, the shared values is the music we play from the sheet.
    Having a conductor to be in charge of "the performance of the whole" isn't a bad idea in itself; but how do you do that when the reeds and the brass and the strings all want to play their own little tune, like in a modern, "globalized", "multifaceted" ... and "vibrant" ... culture?

    That process is being slowly.. and recently more rapidly.. replaced with Nihilism and state indoctrination.
    Well, nihilism is also a moral standard; it certainly springs from the same root as any other moral endeavour.
    I'd also posit that a common education has done a lot for widespread sharing and "harmonizing" of moral values.

    The best state in history is still the worst solution, because it cannot be controlled.
    The worst solution is still a solution; easy to see when you compare any good state with some of the really awful ones, or even the failed.

    The ring of power always corrupts, but it pretends to unite and protect.
    Societies seek stability, and this leads to stagnation, making them gradually less and less adapted to their times.
    The US was built on very sound principles, as states go, but this has been overgrown - there haven't been enough shake-ups
    to enable a return to "first principles".

    M
    Last edited by Manalysis; 08-18-2017 at 12:21 PM.

  5. #15
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    7,535
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
    The amazing thing about Capitalism is you don't really need kings. You need service providers, probably multiple forms of insurance, but you don't need kings or a state.

    For every need there is an opportunity for a voluntary solution. Especial in today's age, where communication (and reputation) is broad and robust, why do we keep clinging onto the idea that a centralized monopoly of violence is even needed?

    Nobody can hold the ring of power and not be corrupted by it, that is history's ultimate lesson. Less state power = less unnecessary suffering. Make every person a king, of themselves, the ultimate minority is yourself, the one.

    But no.. we've made victim-hood a form of power that is constantly exploiting the masses... and we've abandoned universal morality for the sake of borrowing the future earnings of our youth.

    Without universal morality, there will always be moral cover for using force to gain resources involuntarily.

    People are deeply complex, flawed and amazing, however humans are terrible at managing themselves.. why the hell do we think there are humans that are better at managing others. I don't see any historical proof... all we seem to do is project our concepts of 'moral good' onto each other and avoid any personal responsibility as much as possible.

    Humans can have morals.. so they are accountable when they don't use them. Say what you want about religions.. at least in this regard pretty much of them them are based of some level of personal accountability to something higher than themselves.

    Societies that remove personal accountability don't fare well. Charity was also a concept that seems to be only tough as a virtue by some of the religions. Now we just expect the state to fix it all, with next to zero accountability for those who sabotage themselves and others.

    Harmony comes from shared values, which comes from a shared set of moral standards, which is taught (not innate) from human to human. That process is being slowly.. and recently more rapidly.. replaced with Nihilism and state indoctrination.

    The best state in history is still the worst solution, because it cannot be controlled. The ring of power always corrupts, but it pretends to unite and protect.

    With victimhood, in the consumer state, comes aggregated power. Victims can "stick together" and thus drive trends up or down. And they know it. That is why the whole boycott thing is able to have any traction whatsoever. When group A feels victimized by group B-- instead of striking out at group B directly, they strike out at the places that group B shops / works or otherwise needs to utilize for some aspect of their (modern) "urban survival". When enough of them attack those elements, they in turn put pressure on either the group B members themselves, or else additional vectors involved in group B's "survival" (or comfort) stack. At some point this becomes essentially a coordinated pipeline and game of attack / appease that all the players know how to utilize and exploit. Sooner or later it becomes woven into the political fabric and a ready go-to tactic for even petty concerns and issues. Eventually it becomes a reasonably effective method of control because, like it or not, people have to utilize the various vendors, services and suppliers in order to function (or feel comfortable) in modern society.

    The one point which may be relevant here-- although sad to offer-- is that I don't think as many members of group B are inclined or as well-versed in working that "victimhood" circle-jerk system to the same level of effect and benefit as the folks in group A. So there is potentially an avenue of latent power and control-- in the form of "reverse leverage"-- which could be explored and perhaps exploited for better effect. But in the doing, the group B participants would be acknowledging that their own strategies-- at least the ones that they typically turn to in defense-- are largely ineffective at countering the tactics of group A. But this does not mean that group B has no other options, just simply that the ones they have employed to-date are not particularly effective against the strategies and tactics of group A.
    Last edited by mr_e; 08-19-2017 at 05:43 AM.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

Posting Permissions

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