Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NYT supporting Pure Communism

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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
    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

    Comment


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

      Comment


      • #4
        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

        Comment


        • #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.
          Originally posted by MatrixTransform
          where were you before you put yourself last?
          Originally posted by TheNarrator
          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            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.
            Originally posted by MatrixTransform
            where were you before you put yourself last?
            Originally posted by TheNarrator
            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.

            Comment


            • #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.

              Comment


              • #8
                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

                Comment


                • #9
                  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?
                  Originally posted by MatrixTransform
                  where were you before you put yourself last?
                  Originally posted by TheNarrator
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #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.

                    Comment


                    • #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, 06:17 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #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.

                        Comment


                        • #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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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, 11:21 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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, 04:43 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

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X