Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Jadentopian Order wrote:If the courts find fraud, the courts find fraud. Right now though, all this looks like is the conservative answer to Russiagate. The President is currently kicking and screaming, looking weaker and honestly more pathetic than any other President. Worse than Nixon.

This isn't up to the courts, this is up to the People, the States, and their legislatures.

Narland wrote:This isn't up to the courts, this is up to the People, the States, and their legislatures.

And the people just voted for Joe Biden

Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:And the people just voted for Joe Biden

No the People did not. The People were robbed by liars, cheaters, and fraudsters who stole free and fair elections for Biden. He is not the President of United States, yet. Right now he is only the president of unamerican scum no better than nazis, fascists, and communists that have stolen elections in the past.

Miri Islands

Narland wrote:No the People did not. The People were robbed by liars, cheaters, and fraudsters who stole free and fair elections for Biden. He is not the President of United States, yet. Right now he is only the president of unamerican scum no better than nazis, fascists, and communists that have stolen elections in the past.

Yes, the Democrats who lost important House and Senate races just accidentally forgot to also cheat those races. There was no mass-fraud, there was no grand conspiracy. You lost, that is that. The majority of the country is laughing at the President right now.

Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:Yes, the Democrats who lost important House and Senate races just accidentally forgot to also cheat those races. There was no mass-fraud, there was no grand conspiracy. You lost, that is that. The majority of the country is laughing at the President right now.

They cheated, it is clear from the "software" glitches in machines covering over 30 States, dead voters voting straight party lines, and mail fraud . That Democrats will not be satisfied with free and fair elections as long as there is dissenting opinion and reasonable discourse contrary to their bigotry and prejudice is obvious. Every single perp needs duly convicted. If it were up to me it would be a treasonable offence.

I am not going to idly sit by and watch a 2nd Presidential election stolen during my lifetime. The irreparable harm that Leftists did to the blacks of this country with LBJ's disastrous "War on Poverty" by herding them into their Socialist welfare plantations, denying their children fathers, and creating a permanent underclass without hope for the future because they were made utterly dependent upon their Leftist failed policy after failed policy is just so they could have a voting block is unconscionable. The number of my cousins who died in Viet-Nam because it was a globalist guns and butter game (not to mention all the minorities that were sent to die by a scoundrel who didn't have the guts to win a war that he profiteered from. And with Biden it will be global conflict business profiteering as usual. Biden is worse than LBJ, becaude LBJ knew he was a racist bastard and said so. Biden hides the fact he has been a racist prig, a corporate lackey, and a corrupt globalist (before his mind became enfeebled).

Narland wrote:They cheated, it is clear from the "software" glitches in machines covering over 30 States. They will not be satisfied with free and fair elections as long as their is dissenting opinion and reasonable discourse contrary to their bigotry and prejudice.

Then it'll be found in the courts, but right now, Trump lost.

Auxorii, Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:Then it'll be found in the courts, but right now, Trump lost.

Again, its not up to the courts, its up the the People, the States, their legislators and their US delegates. We shall see.

But I am done ranting. Had to vent. Now is the time to roll up my sleeves and start to work fighting the Leftist traitors in this country through every lawful means necessary.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Don't worry guys... That Libertarian moment will come, 2024 right? Right?

Skaveria wrote:Don't worry guys... That Libertarian moment will come, 2024 right? Right?

If half of America cannot stand what Libertarian gains Trump (a media mogul) made, what chance does a lone Libertarian have against the Leftist lies, slander and perpetual character assassination techniques? As powerful as Trump is, they are not afraid of him, and they certianly will have no qualms cancelling any Libertarian who gains their ire.

Trump was good at fighting slander, while his tweets are sometimes cringy it is an effective tool to counter his opponets

Jadentopian Order wrote:Yes, the Democrats who lost important House and Senate races just accidentally forgot to also cheat those races. There was no mass-fraud, there was no grand conspiracy. You lost, that is that. The majority of the country is laughing at the President right now.

I see your point. It would make sense to commit voter fraud to make the election look like a “blue wave.” That way, Democrats would be in control of both Congress and the Presidency and appear to have a mandate for their agenda. However, this election does not appear to be a “blue wave” of any sort.

Auxorii, Jadentopian Order

Sore winners and sore losers are both pretty bad.

Auxorii, Rateria

Sup lads, I have finally returned from my hiatus.

Vichtander, Rateria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

It does mean “red secret”, but the name is intended to be similar to how other neuter compound nouns are constructed, along with taking off the deverbal suffix “-nis”. It didn’t sound as good as “Rotesgeheimnis”. Too many syllables.

Edit: I do speak the language btw, I’m not just making this up lol

Will Trump concede before thanksgiving?

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Suzi Island wrote:Will Trump concede before thanksgiving?

No I think he's going to take this to the bitter end as he should given the shady circumstances

Narland, Auxorii

The States Of Balloon wrote:two hunna fiddy nine

Looking back at your dispatches made me realize that the whole Lewdhomenism thing happened four years ago. I feel old.

Miri Islands wrote:No I think he's going to take this to the bitter end as he should given the shady circumstances

Biden declaring himself president elect before any state legislature has certified votes? Nothing shady here. Move along, citizen. Your concern has been noted to the Ministry of Truth. Re-Education volunteers will be sent to your door for a mostly-peaceful orientation adjustment.

Miri Islands

Narland wrote:Biden declaring himself president elect before any state legislature has certified votes? Nothing shady here. Move along, citizen. Your concern has been noted to the Ministry of Truth. Re-Education volunteers will be sent to your door for a mostly-peaceful orientation adjustment.

If the situation was truely hopeless the propaganda wouldn't be necessary

Narland

Miri Islands wrote:If the situation was truely hopeless the propaganda wouldn't be necessary

It is possible that enough precincts' votes will be disqualified for fraud across the nation such that no candidate will get 270. We may have an Article I Section 5 Contested Election. Each State Delegation in Congress gets one vote. There is one more GOP majority States' delegations than there are Democratic Party majority State's delegations. 26 to 25 (51 including the fake state of DC),

Narland wrote:It is possible that enough precincts' votes will be disqualified for fraud across the nation such that no candidate will get 270. We may have an Article I Section 5 Contested Election. Each State Delegation in Congress gets one vote. There is one more GOP majority States' delegations than there are Democratic Party majority State's delegations. 26 to 25 (51 including the fake state of DC),

Safe harbor deadline, it's Trump's nuclear option. I'm hoping the results are changed in enough states to avoid this though

Narland

Let's take an objective look at the situation. Republicans will hold the Senate and made huge gains in the house, Biden will be a lame duck, especially with so much Republican obstruction, and as morally disgusting as Kamala Harris is, her presence as VP will, albeit temporarily, take some of the wind out of the sails of the cultural Marxists. Oregon drug decriminalization is a huge symbolic victory for Libertarianism. As disappointed as I was in Jo Jorgensen's performance, she did get above one percent, as did Gary the last two elections, with 2016 being VERY high at 3.36. The country is trending towards liberty. Trump would've smashed Bernie into submission. The only reason Biden did so well is because he's a literal dead person. With how aggressive the Democrats are being towards Trump supporters even after "winning," with the creation of black lists, the liberty movement will coalesce into a formidable opposition. The liberty and nationalist wings of the Republican party will be forced to unite, as they actually have a figure to unite against. This election was a net win for liberty.

Oh and the Lincoln project will be disbanded, dirty RINOs.

Vichtander

Skaveria wrote:Trump would've smashed Bernie into submission.

Sorry, but Sanders would’ve destroyed Trump in an election. He was the only candidate outside of Tulsi Gabbard that actually made sense for the DNC to nominate - they only didn’t because he would’ve tried to clean out all the corruption within the Democrat Party - something which can’t happen.

Rateria, Jadentopian Order

Auxorii wrote:Sorry, but Sanders would’ve destroyed Trump in an election. He was the only candidate outside of Tulsi Gabbard that actually made sense for the DNC to nominate - they only didn’t because he would’ve tried to clean out all the corruption within the Democrat Party - something which can’t happen.

Florida voted for a $15 minimum wage, and other red states did similar things by passing left-leaning ballot measures, I think Bernie would’ve won by more than Biden.

Otherwise, I think this is the GOP’s best case tbh. Get to discard Trump to a lame duck centrist who wants to work with you. Trump throws one last tantrum that you can ride out to use as ammo against the dems, and you can come back in a year or two with a new field of candidates who aren’t renegades who don’t care about the party.

Auxorii, Rateria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I don’t see how libertarians uniting with authoritarians is at all beneficial to libertarianism, especially in a time when libertarians should be presenting themselves as a serious option and not just another unprincipled gang of corrupt bastards.

Individualist>Nationalist>>>>Globalist

Individualists+Nationalists>Globalists

Auxorii wrote:Sorry, but Sanders would’ve destroyed Trump in an election. He was the only candidate outside of Tulsi Gabbard that actually made sense for the DNC to nominate - they only didn’t because he would’ve tried to clean out all the corruption within the Democrat Party - something which can’t happen.

The only reason Biden did well is because he could harken back to "normalcy" and he was perceived as a moderate. While Sanders could've gotten a bigger youth turnout, he would've had even less success with moderate Democrats and minorities, especially Latinos. He's an open radical in comparison to every other American politician. The populism could've turned Trump votes in 2016, but not in 2020.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I don’t see how libertarians uniting with authoritarians is at all beneficial to libertarianism, especially in a time when libertarians should be presenting themselves as a serious option and not just another unprincipled gang of corrupt bastards.

Libertarians need to form a coalition with progressives. Issues such as military intervention, auditing the fed, unwarrented surveillance, overturning Citizens United and getting rid of crony-capitalism, term limits and so on. I think at that point the real policy debates can begin.

Skaveria wrote:The only reason Biden did well is because he could harken back to "normalcy" and he was perceived as a moderate. While Sanders could've gotten a bigger youth turnout, he would've had even less success with moderate Democrats and minorities, especially Latinos. He's an open radical in comparison to every other American politician. The populism could've turned Trump votes in 2016, but not in 2020.

Fair argument - but there is really no way of knowing. I would say the polls demonstrate Bernie would’ve won handily in 2020, but yeah, who cares what polls say...

Rateria

Skaveria wrote:The only reason Biden did well is because he could harken back to "normalcy" and he was perceived as a moderate. While Sanders could've gotten a bigger youth turnout, he would've had even less success with moderate Democrats and minorities, especially Latinos. He's an open radical in comparison to every other American politician. The populism could've turned Trump votes in 2016, but not in 2020.

Have to disagree honestly. Love or hate him, Sanders is one of the best organizers in US politics. He turned a grassroots protest candidacy into a movement that’s been fairly successful. If the dems will coalesce around a senile 5th place finisher with the most milquetoast centrist policy of the whole field, they can coalesce around Bernie.

Auxorii, Rateria

Auxorii wrote:Libertarians need to form a coalition with progressives. Issues such as military intervention, auditing the fed, unwarrented surveillance, overturning Citizens United and getting rid of crony-capitalism, term limits and so on. I think at that point the real policy debates can begin.

You know what the Citizens United case was about don't you? A ruling in the opposite direction in that case would have been far, *far*, more damaging to liberty than what the majority opinion held. Durring the oral argument Justice Alito asked if it was the governments position that the government could ban books that expressed campaign advocacy and the Obama DOJ's position was yes, they could ban books. The whole case started over a non-profit that made a film critical of Hillary Clinton. You may not like the consequence of the Courts opinion in Citizens United, but the governments position was *way* too far in the opposite direction.

As for Bernie, I do not think he would have won against Trump. Bernie is insanely radical. Older voters who were turned off by Trumps character would have been even more turned off by his radicalism and likely returned to the GOP. He wouldn't have the same "return to normalcy" appeal that Biden campaigned on either.

Narland, Auxorii, Rateria

The United States Of Patriots wrote:You know what the Citizens United case was about don't you? A ruling in the opposite direction in that case would have been far, *far*, more damaging to liberty than what the majority opinion held. Durring the oral argument Justice Alito asked if it was the governments position that the government could ban books that expressed campaign advocacy and the Obama DOJ's position was yes, they could ban books. The whole case started over a non-profit that made a film critical of Hillary Clinton. You may not like the consequence of the Courts opinion in Citizens United, but the governments position was *way* too far in the opposite direction.

I didn’t know that - regardless, libertarians & progressives should unite to fight crony capitalism (amongst other issues), including for federally funded elections.

Narland, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Auxorii wrote:I didn’t know that - regardless, libertarians & progressives should unite to fight crony capitalism (amongst other issues), including for federally funded elections.

I am fine with allying with any movement in order to fight corruption and limit government. I do have, though, a creeping suspicion that progressives are not as eager to limit government as I am. Though perhaps on interventionism and NSA issue we have common ground.

As a registered Republican I try to get local Republicans that are liberty minded into office. A new tea party movement is needed in my mind. The first tea party movement had accomplishments but they were limited. We did get 3 good senators into office, and 3 is better than 0. But 3 hardly beats 100. A new "tea party 2.0" movement, would need to synthesize some of the good aspects of the Trump movement but with a more philosophical grounding. I think this is an achievable goal, but we need to be organized. We also need to be more focused on local politics than the previous tea party movement was. Of course many in the media and on the left, but I repeat myself, already have preconceived notions about the Tea Party movement. Most all of which are completely unfounded. Nevertheless a rebranding might be needed. And with a rebranding, a more solid foundation of limited government ideals. What does Libertatem think about this idea? and what would you have a "Tea Party 2.0" focus on?

As for names, perhaps the "1776 project", just for Nikole Hannah Jones

Narland, Auxorii, Rateria

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Nationalism < Most of the super scary things nationalist are concerned with when they refer to “globalism”

I'm not anti semetic or anything but is anyone else just concerned with all these je- i mean globalists in the government?

Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:I'm not anti semetic or anything but is anyone else just concerned with all these je- i mean globalists in the government?

Nah man, just the tax collectors >:)

Auxorii

Yeah man nationalists hate the jéws lol!! How racist to care about your country and people lol why can't they be woke like me BLM!

The New Icelandic Commonwealth wrote:Yeah man nationalists hate the jéws lol!! How racist to care about your country and people lol why can't they be woke like me BLM!

I’ll take strawmen for 500, Alex

Auxorii, Vichtander, Rateria

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Nationalism < Most of the super scary things nationalist are concerned with when they refer to “globalism”

The end goal of Globalism is a world government, the antithesis of liberty. There IS a cabal of corporatists, bankers, and government officials that leech off of the populace, yes, a lot of them are Jewish, but they aren't like that BECAUSE they're Jewish. They just happen to ALSO be Jewish.

Narland, The New Icelandic Commonwealth, Miri Islands

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:You an anarchist?

Yes

Narland, The Lamia

While I'll always advocate for Anarchy, to me there seems to be a clear hierarchy of state organizations.

Anarchy>Confederal>Federal>Nationalist>Globalist

Since the first two aren't happening any time soon, that leaves me allied with the next two to defeat the last.

Jadentopian Order wrote:Alex

F

Rotgeheim, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Jadentopian Order

Auxorii wrote:I didn’t know that - regardless, libertarians & progressives should unite to fight crony capitalism (amongst other issues), including for federally funded elections.

It would be nice to see progressivists repudiate the crony capitalism they have espoused throughout the 18th and 20th centuries, but I am not holding my breath.

Auxorii

Skaveria wrote:While I'll always advocate for Anarchy, to me there seems to be a clear hierarchy of state organizations.

Anarchy>Confederal>Federal>Nationalist>Globalist

Since the first two aren't happening any time soon, that leaves me allied with the next two to defeat the last.

Anarcho-Primitivsm>Anarcho-Tribalism>Anarcho-Capitalism>Confederal>Federal>Nationalist>Globalist

Vichtander wrote:Anarcho-Primitivsm>Anarcho-Tribalism>Anarcho-Capitalism>Confederal>Federal>Nationalist>Globalist

Anarcho-Primitivism? Cringe. Division of labor? Good.

This post was made by the agricultural revolution gang.

Shallowell, Auxorii, Rateria

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Anarcho-Primitivism? Cringe. Division of labor? Good.

This post was made by the agricultural revolution gang.

Whatever you do, don’t open any incoming packages from a man named Ted Kaczynski.

Vichtander

Christian anarchism >

Happy Veteran's Day for those in US. Hug a veteran and buy one dinner.

Auxorii wrote:Christian anarchism >

The only French Philosopher of my lifetime that I actually wanted to meet was Jacques Ellul. Unfortunately, I was prevented when in France. :( His books are well worth reading.

Narland wrote:The only French Philosopher of my lifetime that I actually wanted to meet was Jacques Ellul. Unfortunately, I was prevented when in France. :( His books are well worth reading.

I will certainly give them a look

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Anarcho-Primitivism? Cringe. Division of labor? Good.

This post was made by the agricultural revolution gang.

Man put seeds in ground instead of eating? Maybe hunt more? Big spear? -post by hunter-gatherer gang #ganggang #atlatlsquad

Vichtander, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

At what point would open resistance to the federal government become necessary and just? What's your line in the sand?

Rateria

Narland wrote:It would be nice to see progressivists repudiate the crony capitalism they have espoused throughout the 18th and 20th centuries, but I am not holding my breath.

wtf based 1800s progs?????

Post self-deleted by The United States Of Patriots.

The States Of Balloon wrote:wtf based 1800s progs?????

every single blasted banking, corporate, and business reforms shoved down our throats in the 20th century that has destroyed the ability of the average family (or individual entrepreneur) to be our own bankers, our our own underwriters, and export brokers. What haven't progressivists fubarred in what used to be a free country of free and open markets? The strangulation mentality of bureaucrats and corporatists that assume the entrepreneur needs them (and must use them by law) is reprehensible. The very concept of the corporation is based on the Marxist notion that all businesses must be creature of the state whose property is held in joint certificate. Let's not forget the too big to fail banksterism of hilary, obama and biden.

historians looking back at COVID will.see the disease itself as a mere blip in terms of pandemics, but the response (mass lockdowns, mask mandates) will be scrutnized as letting panic and not reason win

Narland, The Lamia, Miri Islands

Narland wrote: The very concept of the corporation is based on the Marxist notion that all businesses must be creature of the state whose property is held in joint certificate.

Ok this is just wrong. Corporations have history way before Marx was even in diapers. Hell, there were damn shareholders in the East India Company. You can’t just slap Marxist on something unsavory and call it a day.

Auxorii, Vichtander, Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:Ok this is just wrong. Corporations have history way before Marx was even in diapers. Hell, there were damn shareholders in the East India Company. You can’t just slap Marxist on something unsavory and call it a day.

Marxism is when thing I don’t like, obviously.

Auxorii, Vichtander, Jadentopian Order

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Jadentopian Order wrote:Ok this is just wrong. Corporations have history way before Marx was even in diapers. Hell, there were damn shareholders in the East India Company. You can’t just slap Marxist on something unsavory and call it a day.

Sure I can. Every Progressivist innovation (including corporatism) has been to further Marxian stupidity. You notice most of our founding fathers despised East India Company. They despised chartered corporations so much they made NO provision for them in the US constitution. Most states they were illegal unless specifically authorized by a State legislature for such a time as they could then be sold off. The State has no business in the business of the US citizen. Period. The quicker we get away from the Progressives and their psychotic need to control each and every individual through the apparatchik of the state, the better each and every individual in the country will be.

Auxorii

Rateria wrote:Marxism is when thing I don’t like, obviously.

Marx was such a hater of humanity that what he espoused blows up in people's faces like clockwork and depending on scale with tens, thousands, and millions of lives destroyed or otherwise irreparably marred. I cannot believe that Marx was that that stupid -- that morally bankrupt, yes, that ethically challenged, yes, that intellectually disingenuous, yes. That stupid, no. He was obviously a masochist that wasn't happy unless he could make the people around him miserable enough to destroy everything around them. His master stroke of genius was getting people to blame others instead of themselves for buying into the absurdity that he proposed.

I was able to help get a young student transfer to New St Andrews. woot! One more bright mind ready to rebuild Civilization from the ground up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9rnSZY6psI

I need to get off my computer because over the past hour I have completely lost it

Auxorii

Jadentopian Order wrote: before Marx was even in diapers.

I'm drunk posting but could you imagine that return on investment of you paid Marx's mom to have an abortion. The GDP growth if Marxism never existed would be staggering

Miri Islands wrote:I'm drunk posting but could you imagine that return on investment of you paid Marx's mom to have an abortion. The GDP growth if Marxism never existed would be staggering

No

According to ZeroHedge, 80% of hotels in NYC are on verge of defaulting. That's stunning

Miri Islands wrote:I'm drunk posting but could you imagine that return on investment of you paid Marx's mom to have an abortion. The GDP growth if Marxism never existed would be staggering

Marxism was coming regardless of Marx himself. The groundwork had already been laid by French philosophers. If Marx hadn't been born, it just would've been someone else.

Personally I give Marx a little more of the benefit of the doubt. There were still kings and czars when he was writing, and he had no way of knowing how his ideology would be used for destruction. He was also technically right about one thing. Capitalism will inevitably fade away in a post-scarce society.

What he got wrong was the degree of post-scarcity it'd have to be. True post-scarcity means that everyone has access to "thing-making machines" something that can convert oxygen into carbon products or some other star-trek-esque machine. Thing-making machines that can also make other thing-making machines, widely dispersed throughout society would eliminate markets and the need for trade.

Considering Capitalism drives hyper-innovation, you could make a perfectly sound accelerationist case for Anarcho-Capitalism just to eventually wind up at post-scarcity, then Marxism. At which point, your economic theory doesn't matter, because there's no economy.

Shallowell, Miri Islands

Narland wrote:Sure I can. Every Progressivist innovation (including corporatism) has been to further Marxian stupidity. You notice most of our founding fathers despised East India Company. They despised chartered corporations so much they made NO provision for them in the US constitution. Most states they were illegal unless specifically authorized by a State legislature for such a time as they could then be sold off. The State has no business in the business of the US citizen. Period. The quicker we get away from the Progressives and their psychotic need to control each and every individual through the apparatchik of the state, the better each and every individual in the country will be.

I see your point about how the lines of state and private entity intertwining being bad. However, I don’t know where you get the idea that Marx supported corporate personhood from. Am I misinterpreting you?

Narland wrote:Marx was such a hater of humanity that what he espoused blows up in people's faces like clockwork and depending on scale with tens, thousands, and millions of lives destroyed or otherwise irreparably marred. I cannot believe that Marx was that that stupid -- that morally bankrupt, yes, that ethically challenged, yes, that intellectually disingenuous, yes. That stupid, no. He was obviously a masochist that wasn't happy unless he could make the people around him miserable enough to destroy everything around them. His master stroke of genius was getting people to blame others instead of themselves for buying into the absurdity that he proposed.

What makes you think he hated humanity? I have my doubts when it comes to that. Can you argue that almost every attempt to implement his ideology have been corrupted from his original goals and caused the deaths of millions? Sure. People willingly relinquishing power once they’ve gained it rarely happens. The Bolsheviks certainly didn’t establish a stateless, classless, moneyless society. It was an oppressive dumpster fire of a government that went full circle, and I’m sure we both agree on this. I’m not going to get into the whole “It wasn’t real communism” thing because that’s a whole can of worms that often goes nowhere. I don’t think Marx wanted humanity to suffer for his sick entertainment. He thought industrial capitalism was dehumanizing and oppressive. We certainly have not seen a worldwide communist society envisioned by Marx, and it may not even be possible.

For the record, I’m not trying to idolize Marx in any way. I want to learn more about his ideology though, so I can get an idea of how it actually affected the world instead of relying entirely on other people’s words. I don’t see how you reached the conclusion of Progressivism being a deliberate gateway to Marxism. Could you help me understand where you’re coming from?

Vichtander, Jadentopian Order

Rateria wrote:I don’t see how you reached the conclusion of Progressivism being a deliberate gateway to Marxism. Could you help me understand where you’re coming from?

The Progressive party of the 40s was a philosophical descendent of the Labor party of the teens, which was a literal direct descendent of the Socialist party of the 1890s. It's the reason American socialists call themselves "Progressives." There's a historical precedent there.

Narland

Skaveria wrote:The Progressive party of the 40s was a philosophical descendent of the Labor party of the teens, which was a literal direct descendent of the Socialist party of the 1890s. It's the reason American socialists call themselves "Progressives." There's a historical precedent there.

I’m not finding too much on that from a quick search. In all fairness, I didn’t look too deeply. The closest things I found were the Bull Moose Party and another party that only existed for the 1924 Presidential Election. When I hear “Progressive,” I think of Theodore Roosevelt and such.

Miri Islands wrote:I'm drunk posting but could you imagine that return on investment of you paid Marx's mom to have an abortion. The GDP growth if Marxism never existed would be staggering

Unfortunately, Marx was just the messenger. If sci-fi novellas are any indication, the haters of humanity would have found another probably more abstruse and difficult to decipher self-important buffoon to transmit the message. The furthered obfuscated inarticulables would be even more difficult to dissuade self-deluded narcissists of foistering their inhumanity upon their fellow human beings, and instead of 100s of millions murdered by statists, it would be billions.

Skaveria wrote:At what point would open resistance to the federal government become necessary and just? What's your line in the sand?

The point for most of the community in this part of Idaho was refusing to submit to the Obamacare "tax." Only a damn fool would confuse paying money to an insurance underwriter for actual treatment by a physician.

Rateria wrote:I see your point about how the lines of

state and private entity intertwining being bad. However, I don’t know where you get the idea that Marx supported corporate personhood from. Am I misinterpreting you?

Marx supported communal living, spoke of the workers in corporate -- never the individual worker on his own creating his own production. Marx believed that the State was an outcome of class struggle. Everything about Marx is unintentionally corporatism. What is a corporation but an artificial person that owns everything so the proles, er workers can share everything in common? Johnny officeworker doesn't even own the desk that he sits at. Rizzie the Riveter on the assembly-line doesn't even own her riveter -- why should they, as the State must own all the means of production Corporatism facilitates this -- all corporations are creatures of the State in which they are incorporated. Free enterprise (workers/creators/owners having first right to owning their own means of production) is the antithesis of this. All the means of production (dat Kapital) resides in the state -- thus making the state the most Corporatist of all organizations (and ironically the most Capitalist of all the organization). Even the idiotic labor theory of value robs the individual of his craft and excellence for amorphous "workers" who are mere cogs in a mathematical formula. Marxism is amenable to Progressivist Corporatism. Lenin and International Socialists had a problem with corporatism it because command economy planning commissions via Politburo directives is the corporate state to them. But not so for the Syndicalists, Progressivists, Fabians, and of course the Fascists, and National Socialists -- the worker must comply with no owning his own means of production but must "own them in common with everyone else each alike -- stupid-speak for imposing the tragedy of the commons upon the very person of each individual. Progressives have shoved this hot piece of simmer down our throats (Progressive Corporatism) from every extra-constitutional act passed since 1913, to-big to fail banksterism, forcing businessmen and enterpreneurs to incorporate their business (which again if we were a free country would return back to being no business of the state), forcing me as a businessmen to have to use the banksters to conduct any business that requires a financial instrument, ad naseum. I was a kid in the 60s but I remember the government agents coming into Idaho forcing each and every adult businessmen to either incorporate or else be shut down. LBJ fascists.

Rateria wrote:What makes you think he hated humanity? I have my doubts when it comes to that. Can you argue that almost every attempt to implement his ideology have been corrupted from his original goals and caused the deaths of millions? Sure. People willingly relinquishing power once they’ve gained it rarely happens. The Bolsheviks certainly didn’t establish a stateless, classless, moneyless society. It was an oppressive dumpster fire of a government that went full circle, and I’m sure we both agree on this. I’m not going to get into the whole “It wasn’t real communism” thing because that’s a whole can of worms that often goes nowhere. I don’t think Marx wanted humanity to suffer for his sick entertainment. He thought industrial capitalism was dehumanizing and oppressive. We certainly have not seen a worldwide communist society envisioned by Marx, and it may not even be possible.

Any in depth biography that goes into his personal life. He was a bully, constantly looking for a fight, insisted on dueling, was imprisoned for instigating fights, starved his children, refused to pay his maid a wage (although she received room and board), left his wife and three surviving children at a poor house, refused to go out and get a job to support the children he had, was unfaithful to his wife; was incredibly anti-Semitic racist, vitriolic against slurcaster to his rivals, he created such discontent and tumult wherever he went that he ended up a pariah (nobody wanted him living within their borders), and was a general all-around butt-head -- and those biographers were liberal. I haven't read any biographies about him since grade school (1960s), but I doubt any recent biographies would skimp on the moral stupidity of this cad. He was a lazy bum who screamed for the very revolutionary change that would destroy what others had built, but what he himself was too intellectually disingenuous to invest in.

Rateria wrote:For the record, I’m not trying to idolize Marx in any way. I want to learn more about his ideology though, so I can get an idea of how it actually affected the world instead of relying entirely on other people’s words. I don’t see how you reached the conclusion of Progressivism being a deliberate gateway to Marxism. Could you help me understand where you’re coming from?
Find me a man who doesn't want to work for a living, wants to blame everyone else for their dreams not coming to fruition, and thinks that prejudice, bigrotry, hate, and race-baiting is a good political motivator, and I will show you a petty tyrant unfit to be called a decent human being. Certainly unfit for any position of political power. Progressives are Marxists, they just use Fabian tactics to lie, cheat, and steal their way there.

Corporations aren’t bad necessarily it’s just that some use lobbying to stifle their competition with burdensome regulations and high taxes. A truly free market would be rid of most regulations and taxes but keep corporations

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Suzi Island wrote:Corporations aren’t bad necessarily it’s just that some use lobbying to stifle their competition with burdensome regulations and high taxes. A truly free market would be rid of most regulations and taxes but keep corporations
By definition all corporations must be creatures of the state, and they must comply with the policies of that state. A lawful business should not have to comport to either. Lawfully providing a product or service in mutually beneficent voluntary contractual obligation needs no permission from a state. The state that wrongfully uses its regulatory agency to force the businessman to beg permission to do what is their God-given right to pursue is evil. The regulatory agency of the state that does anything beyond stopping force or fraud can not but perpetrate coercion and fraud unlawfully against its citizens --which is what we have had throughout the 20th century with Progressives and what hey have done to destroy our businesses by forces us to turn them into state mandated corporations. Like the poor sap that was sent to Nam because of the draft to fight in a dirty war to enrich the guns an butter lobbyists, the businessman/enterpreneur of today is the poor sap sent to Corporatism because of Progressivist laws to work in a dirty economy to enrich the holders of the fiat currency through the bankster empire that forces us to use their instruments.

Entrepreneurs and businessmen aren't necessarily evil but corporations by their very structure are. The best thing a man (or woman) can do is earn a living to the best of their ability in providing a product or service. As long as the markets are free and open, there is no need for any state to mandate corporatism. The state mandates corporatism because it is one step closer to authoritarianism/totalitarianism than when it recognizes the right of people to the right to their own freedom of association.

Vichtander

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:God is most gay

Priests are pedophiles

The correlation between the decline in Christian and the increase in the living conditions of the average person is because of causation

Jesus was a bastard and Joseph was a cuck

You definitely seem like a guy who’s got it all figured out.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Every time I hear people say things along the lines of "its time to heal as a nation" I cringe. It wasn't the right burning down cities, it wasn't the right making everything tribal, it wasn't the right starting never ending probes, investigations, and hearings over things with either shady or completely fabricated evidence, it was never the right trying to get people fired for Twitter posts. It was the left, it was always the left trying everything in their power to delegitimize the president at every turn and make those who supported the president fear for their careers and family. AND NOW they just want us to "heal". Spare me, it's disingenuous nonsense from people who lack self awareness. To me it just sounds like they want us to give up and go to the gulag without a fight

The United States Of Patriots, Skaveria

Miri Islands wrote:Every time I hear people say things along the lines of "its time to heal as a nation" I cringe. It wasn't the right burning down cities, it wasn't the right making everything tribal, it wasn't the right starting never ending probes, investigations, and hearings over things with either shady or completely fabricated evidence, it was never the right trying to get people fired for Twitter posts. It was the left, it was always the left trying everything in their power to delegitimize the president at every turn and make those who supported the president fear for their careers and family. AND NOW they just want us to "heal". Spare me, it's disingenuous nonsense from people who lack self awareness. To me it just sounds like they want us to give up and go to the gulag without a fight

I’m not condoning the actions of Democrats or Antifa types, but the far right certainly isn’t innocent. Marching with torches and saying “Jews will not replace us!” doesn’t sound very inclusive and non-tribal to me. I’m not saying you’re one of those people, but the fact is that far-right violence is more prevalent than some would like to think. I understand your cynicism towards recent Democrat rhetoric, because you don’t appreciate being called names by people who seem to all of a sudden act like they’re a unifying force. You consider it hypocritical and blatantly disingenuous.

Here’s a thing I found about right-wing attacks in the US being more serious and deadly than left-wing ones, if you’re interested: https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states

Rateria wrote:I’m not condoning the actions of Democrats or Antifa types, but the far right certainly isn’t innocent. Marching with torches and saying “Jews will not replace us!” doesn’t sound very inclusive and non-tribal to me. I’m not saying you’re one of those people, but the fact is that far-right violence is more prevalent than some would like to think. I understand your cynicism towards recent Democrat rhetoric, because you don’t appreciate being called names by people who seem to all of a sudden act like they’re a unifying force. You consider it hypocritical and blatantly disingenuous.

Here’s a thing I found about right-wing attacks in the US being more serious and deadly than left-wing ones, if you’re interested: https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states

They conflate right-wing with anti-government, which, fair enough I suppose, but to me there's a qualitative distinction between Big Igloo Boys and the KKK, which are mentioned literally back to back as if the two are in any way similar.

Maybe I'm too close to the issue, but that 57% number would probably go down quite a bit if there were two separate categories there. This type of conflation hurts people.

I remember right after George Floyd, there was a BLM protest in my city, the people I was with started freaking out and pointing at their phones saying "There's Nazis in trucks in town and they have guns!" They were just Big Luau advocates, Hawaiian shirts, AR-15s and all. They were probably just there to defend property, they may have even been on the side of the protesters, some have been.

Narland, Rateria, Miri Islands

Rateria I can't take your source seriously when it says things like "peaceful protests after the death of George Floyd", "antifa is a decentralized group that sometimes commits vandalism" "incel movement" (this always makes me laugh). It does correctly state that the left targets are mostly against property but by their own definition this is terrorism but not once do they mention the endless riots, destruction of property and beating innocent people in the streets in the name of anti fascism as left wing terrorism. They only mention deaths attributed to these actions and if you count all the attacks in left wing riots as just random assaults they get a small number and are "less of a threat". When a death does occur they brush it off as counter protesting neonazis and white nationalists. This is an incredibly bias source and you should be embarrassed for using it

Narland, The New Icelandic Commonwealth

Miri Islands wrote:Rateria I can't take your source seriously when it says things like "peaceful protests after the death of George Floyd", "antifa is a decentralized group that sometimes commits vandalism" "incel movement" (this always makes me laugh). It does correctly state that the left targets are mostly against property but by their own definition this is terrorism but not once do they mention the endless riots, destruction of property and beating innocent people in the streets in the name of anti fascism as left wing terrorism. They only mention deaths attributed to these actions and if you count all the attacks in left wing riots as just random assaults they get a small number and are "less of a threat". When a death does occur they brush it off as counter protesting neonazis and white nationalists. This is an incredibly bias source and you should be embarrassed for using it

What source do you suggest then? Also, I recall the majority of protests after Floyd’s death being peaceful. Of course, destroying small businesses in the name of racial justice is flat-out counterproductive and only serves to make such a cause look worse. I’m just trying to find the truth. Everyone is going to spin it one way or another. I’d like to see your own sources for my own enlightenment. I’m sorry the source appears to be of insufficient quality. What makes it less than credible in your eyes? Maybe you see something I didn’t.

Here’s a brief thing saying that 93% of the protests are peaceful. Take from it what you will. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-united-states-is-in-crisis-report-tracks-thousands-of-summer-protests-most-nonviolent/2020/09/03/b43c359a-edec-11ea-99a1-71343d03bc29_story.html

Skaveria wrote:They conflate right-wing with anti-government, which, fair enough I suppose, but to me there's a qualitative distinction between Big Igloo Boys and the KKK, which are mentioned literally back to back as if the two are in any way similar.

Maybe I'm too close to the issue, but that 57% number would probably go down quite a bit if there were two separate categories there. This type of conflation hurts people.

I remember right after George Floyd, there was a BLM protest in my city, the people I was with started freaking out and pointing at their phones saying "There's Nazis in trucks in town and they have guns!" They were just Big Luau advocates, Hawaiian shirts, AR-15s and all. They were probably just there to defend property, they may have even been on the side of the protesters, some have been.

I’m not sure if the 57% number would go down. The report I found separates ethnonationist violence from right-wing violence, from the last thing I checked.

As for Boogaloo people being conflated with white supremacists, that annoys me a bit too. Some of them are, but most of them disavow white supremacy and consider it nonsense. This is based on my experience with them, anyway. I’ve seen people call them a pro-Trump movement, which seems pretty false to me. Calling everyone a white supremacist is stupid, I agree.

Narland, Auxorii, Vichtander

The 93% of the time Ted Bundy wasn't killing people. He was a mostly peaceful person.

Miri Islands

The United States Of Patriots wrote:The 93% of the time Ted Bundy wasn't killing people. He was a mostly peaceful person.

The left is absolutely terrible at policing the radicals in their own side. The response from the leftwing media to antifa has been nothing but obfuscation or outright defense, look at Don Lemon's coverage for proof of the latter. For one group of people to say that the country "needs to heal and come together" while also saying that the radicals going around on there side violently attacking people are just "an idea" or suggest that they are secretly white supremacists doing it to make BLM look bad has absolutely no leg to stand on.

"Republicans are evil, nazi, white supremacist, misogynist, anti-trans, bigoted, clingers to their guns and religion.

Why won't they come together with us?"

Narland, Auxorii, Rateria

The United States Of Patriots wrote:The 93% of the time Ted Bundy wasn't killing people. He was a mostly peaceful person.

Unfair analogy. Ted Bundy is a single person guilty of 100% of what he does.

Rateria

The United States Of Patriots wrote:The left is absolutely terrible at policing the radicals in their own side. The response from the leftwing media to antifa has been nothing but obfuscation or outright defense, look at Don Lemon's coverage for proof of the latter. For one group of people to say that the country "needs to heal and come together" while also saying that the radicals going around on there side violently attacking people are just "an idea" or suggest that they are secretly white supremacists doing it to make BLM look bad has absolutely no leg to stand on.

"Republicans are evil, nazi, white supremacist, misogynist, anti-trans, bigoted, clingers to their guns and religion.

Why won't they come together with us?"

As I’ve alluded to before, insulting people isn’t a good way to win them over. If I called you names and then asked you to be my friend, you would understandably refuse. My whole stance on antifa is that being anti-fascist is good, but calling everyone a fascist and attacking small business owners isn’t very helpful. Also, calling yourself “anti bad guy” doesn’t automatically make you a good person.

Narland, The United States Of Patriots, Ankerland

Rateria do we need to have the "mostly peaceful protests" montage? Just because a group of 20 people chanting black lives matter didn't devolve into riots doesn't make the burned cities and less destroyed by leftist terrorism

Narland

Auxorii wrote:Unfair analogy. Ted Bundy is a single person guilty of 100% of what he does.

If one is already lumping all George Floyd "protests" together in order to claim that they are mostly peaceful, without differentiation between the riots and the peaceful protests, the analogy makes sense, for the point that is being made. Which is that it doesn't matter what the 93% of the time is when we are talking about the incredibly inexcusable 7% of the time.

Either we separate the riots from the protests. Or lump them together in order to claim that the riots are an insignificant amount of the protesting. Doing both doesn't make sense.

7% of any protest devolving into complete lawlessness is damning. And the scope of the damage caused both in monetary terms and life is immense.

Narland, Vichtander

Miri Islands wrote:Rateria do we need to have the "mostly peaceful protests" montage? Just because a group of 20 people chanting black lives matter didn't devolve into riots doesn't make the burned cities and less destroyed by leftist terrorism

My favorite still from CNN is of a field reporter standing in front of a building engulfed with flames while the chyron underneath him read "Fiery but mostly peaceful protest after police shooting"

Miencraft, Narland, Miri Islands

Miri Islands wrote:Rateria do we need to have the "mostly peaceful protests" montage? Just because a group of 20 people chanting black lives matter didn't devolve into riots doesn't make the burned cities and less destroyed by leftist terrorism

You seem to act like I deny any violence is happening. Of course it’s happening. Almost every movement ever has had violence attached to it, but that doesn’t make it right. Attacking bystanders and other innocent people is obviously bad, no matter the cause. Should we condemn an entire movement or group because of a minority of actors though? I don’t think that’s what you’re suggesting.

The United States Of Patriots wrote:If one is already lumping all George Floyd "protests" together in order to claim that they are mostly peaceful, without differentiation between the riots and the peaceful protests, the analogy makes sense, for the point that is being made. Which is that it doesn't matter what the 93% of the time is when we are talking about the incredibly inexcusable 7% of the time.

Either we separate the riots from the protests. Or lump them together in order to claim that the riots are an insignificant amount of the protesting. Doing both doesn't make sense.

7% of any protest devolving into complete lawlessness is damning. And the scope of the damage caused both in monetary terms and life is immense.

What do you suggest doing then? I’m genuinely wondering and not trying to be condescending, even though it might come off that way via text. I will say there are definitely people excusing rioting, but I am not one of those. The perception of a movement or organization as violent can often work against its goals, so it’s stupid to riot in the name of justice.

Rateria wrote:... Should we condemn an entire movement or group because of a minority of actors though?...
Yes, absolutely. Any movement based on evil (politics of envy, lies, theft, hate-mongering or the like) cannot help but create bad actors, and should be thoroughly repudiated. Any movement based on respect and moral certitude will blanketly condemn reprehensible behaviour in their midst -- every single time because it is the right thing to do. One must needs be repudiate from without because it will not be done from within, the other will be lauded from without because it does so from within.

The Leftists of the US have been (and still are) on the wrong side of history every step of the way on their march to Marxist Utopia. They have lied, cheated, stolen, and murdered their political malice on the People since Dredd v Scott, and will not be satisfied until everyone who disagrees with them are on their welfare state plantations or silenced in their gulags. The right-wing wants to live in a free-country where everyone is treated fairly and left alone to live their lives unmolested. The left-wing cannot abide anyone daring to live without them and their despotic input. When the left gets angry they burn, pillage, rape, murder, and terrorize. When the right gets angry we go to work, go to church, live our lives, rant a bit, and engage in our hobbies to relieve our stress. If someone does something untoward to someone else we call them out for their failure.

Rateria wrote:The perception of a movement or organization as violent can often work against its goals, so it’s stupid to riot in the name of justice.
Not if the goal is to subvert justice in the name of justice -- which is what Marxists, Fascists, and other Socialists routinely do. Justice to them is not getting what one deserves. Justice to them is forcing everyone into a position where they can only have according to their (perceived by the arrogant narcissists) need, and all their labor is confiscated according to what (the self-same arrogant narcissists perceive) is justly due to others.

Miri Islands

Rateria wrote:

What do you suggest doing then? I’m genuinely wondering and not trying to be condescending, even though it might come off that way via text. I will say there are definitely people excusing rioting, but I am not one of those. The perception of a movement or organization as violent can often work against its goals, so it’s stupid to riot in the name of justice.

Separate the protests from the rioting

Rateria, Ankerland, Miri Islands

Narland wrote:Yes, absolutely. Any movement based on evil (politics of envy, lies, theft, hate-mongering or the like) cannot help but create bad actors, and should be thoroughly repudiated. Any movement based on respect and moral certitude will blanketly condemn reprehensible behaviour in their midst -- every single time because it is the right thing to do. One must needs be repudiate from without because it will not be done from within, the other will be lauded from without because it does so from within.

While the two are heavily interlinked, I think it is a mistake to view the Black Lives Matter movement as being synonymous with the Black Lives Matter (TM) organization.

Rateria, Ankerland

Narland wrote:Yes, absolutely. Any movement based on evil (politics of envy, lies, theft, hate-mongering or the like) cannot help but create bad actors, and should be thoroughly repudiated. Any movement based on respect and moral certitude will blanketly condemn reprehensible behaviour in their midst -- every single time because it is the right thing to do. One must needs be repudiate from without because it will not be done from within, the other will be lauded from without because it does so from within.

So Black Lives Matter is based on evil? I wouldn’t call a movement based on fighting racism evil, but I don’t think that’s what you’re saying. You yourself have condemned racism multiple times. You criticized LBJ earlier for sending a lot of young black men to their deaths via the Vietnam War, if I remember correctly. From what I’m getting, you consider fighting racism to be good, but this specific movement to be bad.

Narland wrote:

The Leftists of the US have been (and still are) on the wrong side of history every step of the way on their march to Marxist Utopia. They have lied, cheated, stolen, and murdered their political malice on the People since Dredd v Scott, and will not be satisfied until everyone who disagrees with them are on their welfare state plantations or silenced in their gulags.

What do leftists have to do with Dred Scott’s ruling? I don’t quite see the relationship here.

Narland wrote: The right-wing wants to live in a free-country where everyone is treated fairly and left alone to live their lives unmolested. The left-wing cannot abide anyone daring to live without them and their despotic input. When the left gets angry they burn, pillage, rape, murder, and terrorize. When the right gets angry we go to work, go to church, live our lives, rant a bit, and engage in our hobbies to relieve our stress. If someone does something untoward to someone else we call them out for their failure.

While I’m sure you personally want to be left alone and live by your vision of freedom, I wouldn’t say all right-wingers want what you want and act peacefully. As I’ve pointed out before, the US has had plenty of right-wing violence within the past few decades or so, and that fatalities from these incidents exceed those of left-wing ones. The El Paso Shooting, Tree of Life Synagogue Shooting, Unite the Right Rally, and Oklahoma City Bombing certainly aren’t instances of peaceful right-wing activities. I mention these with the caveat that this does not mean that all right-leaning people are violent, and that not all right-wingers are unhinged racists and anti-Semites.

Auxorii, Ankerland

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.