Me: Communism has killed 94 million people...

[irosie91]

`
`
"a total of 205,000,000 killed directly or indirectly because of capitalism." - Source

'directly' of "INDIRECTLY" -----can climb up to any number in the universe-----it all depends on S as -S approaches
obscene quantities of sophistry



YOur link seems to be an attack on a source of inflated numbers.

 

[Correll]

1. Your No True Scotsman Fallacy is noted, laughed at and dismissed.

I would expect no less from a kool-aid drinking puppet like you. But I dare not laugh at or dismiss the RW white populist threat your ilk presents to all of mankind. For me to do so would be foolhardy indeed. History has shown that White capitalists and White socialists have never lost sight of their Whiteness.. Neither idelogy has been a friend to the global majority loosely known as people of color...including the Jews. Muder and exploitation has almost always been
the rule when whiteness goes abroad seeking whom it shall devour.

. Your attempt to equate Imperialism and Capitalism and Communism

ATTEMPT?The deed is done...not by my hand but by the emissaries of whiteness. Putin and Trump understand that... And in your heart...you do too.

2b. So I take it that you are also, not ready to give up on communism either?

I am an idealists...a believer in equality for all American citizens. I believe in having universal health care and a decent standard of living for every American. Ideally I want peace and happiness for all...no matter the cost. Does using the word " all" make me a socialist? If so what would I be if i used the word "I" or "for myself
Instead..?

Your racism and crazy talk it noted and held against you, you crazy racist.


Your desire for communism despite it's blood soaked history is utterly insane and vile.

 

[Correll]

read the words, "and followers of the ideology have killed tens of millions"

Christians?

Look dummy just because someone is a commy or anarchist or white supremacist doesn't mean they support killing people.

This "killed millions!!!" rhetoric is crazy.

Stalin killed a lot of people because he was a ruthless autocrat in a long line of ruthless Russian autocrats going way back to Czars, not specifically because he was a communist.

Chinese are commies, cubans are commies though you don't see that there.

Especially as the examples of communism going really bad, seem to be very numerous compared to those times it does NOT.

Well lets see- countries that actually call themselves Communist now:
North Korea- yeah- really bad.
China- second largest economy in the world.
Vietnam- one of the fastest growing economies in the world.
Cuba- mediocre economy

The only one of these that are comparable to the Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot is NK.

If Communism always means absolute dictatorships that kill their citizens- why isn't that happening in China and Vietnam?

That has to be one of the most absurd standards of proof I have every heard.


To define reality by what politicians say about themselves.



LOL!!!


That you would try such a tact shows that you know you are on very, very weak ground.

 

[irosie91]

Invested in infrastructure. Athens we know certainly did, Egypt it was mostly the government that overseen the construction of the pyramids and this was also true in the Inca, Maya empires and Rome built roads. .
China invested greatly into exploration and science
etc

Baghdad Iraq as a central to maintaining scientific records in the 7th and 8th centuries during the muslim "empire".

Baghdad ----in the 7th and 8th centuries ---harbored the
Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian scholars of THE WORLD----it was ruled by muslim kings. Back then---
literary accomplishments were ATTRIBUTED TO THE KING or his coutiers In fact-----it is not even clear that the authorship of "the psalms of david"------is entirely king david

 

[Correll]

I agree.

The Oceans of Murdered People is the Truth about Communism.

Semantic games do not change nor hide, nor soften that.

Then stop fucking playing them.
That's exactly why I corrected the bullshit semantics in the OP in the first place.

To verify that we are on the same page,


we agree that Communism is a terrible idea that have led to the deaths of tens of millions and the oppression of billions and should never be considered as a viable solution for anything?

Nope. We agree on none of that. As in zero.

You can go back to my first post to see why that is.

Again, here's a photo of the only communism I know about directly ----

​

Notice everybody's working. That's typical. Whatever they produce is communally-owned. At the end of the day they'll all eat in a common dining hall and retire to their communal houses where nobody owns personal property beyond their own clothes. Everything is done as a collective.

And again, these people have literally never killed anybody. Never wore any country's uniform, never fought in anybody's war. Ever. In five hundred years.

What's the latter got to do with the former? NOTHING. Now do the math.

Again --- what's the point of discussing a term if you're going to just ignore its definition?

Got it. You're not convinced that communism is a bad idea.

Thank's for being honest.

You're welcom'e. It's what I do here. That's why I showed up to put out this flaming bucket of shit that was the logical train wreck of the OP. I have no doubt it had to do with some combination of mental chemicals.

I mean, you're truthful about your position., THat's a rarity on the Left.


Now, a reasonable person, would look at Communism's track record and say, that's not something we want to play around with.


You managed to find one small example that you think has gone well, and you want to ignore the odds.


Hell, I know a guy that smoked a lot and lived to be old. You've convinced me that that is proof that smoking is good for me.

(yes, some hyperbole there, but the point is valid)

 

[Correll]

read the words, "and followers of the ideology have killed tens of millions"

Christians?

Look dummy just because someone is a commy or anarchist or white supremacist doesn't mean they support killing people.

This "killed millions!!!" rhetoric is crazy.

Stalin killed a lot of people because he was a ruthless autocrat in a long line of ruthless Russian autocrats going way back to Czars, not specifically because he was a communist.

Chinese are commies, cubans are commies though you don't see that there.

Especially as the examples of communism going really bad, seem to be very numerous compared to those times it does NOT.

Well lets see- countries that actually call themselves Communist now:
North Korea- yeah- really bad.
China- second largest economy in the world.
Vietnam- one of the fastest growing economies in the world.
Cuba- mediocre economy

The only one of these that are comparable to the Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot is NK.

If Communism always means absolute dictatorships that kill their citizens- why isn't that happening in China and Vietnam?

China and Vietnam abandoned the communist economic model.....it only took them 70 million murdered innocent men, women and children to realize it didn't work.....

Normal people? They knew communism was stupid......unlike you guys.

LOL- sorry chump- both countries are still communist countries. Both still controlled by the Communist Parties. Both still spewing the rhetoric of Communism.

Hint: What what politicians DO, not what they SAY.

 

[JQPublic1]

1. Your No True Scotsman Fallacy is noted, laughed at and dismissed.

I would expect no less from a kool-aid drinking puppet like you. But I dare not laugh at or dismiss the RW white populist threat your ilk presents to all of mankind. For me to do so would be foolhardy indeed. History has shown that White capitalists and White socialists have never lost sight of their Whiteness.. Neither idelogy has been a friend to the global majority loosely known as people of color...including the Jews. Muder and exploitation has almost always been
the rule when whiteness goes abroad seeking whom it shall devour.

. Your attempt to equate Imperialism and Capitalism and Communism

ATTEMPT?The deed is done...not by my hand but by the emissaries of whiteness. Putin and Trump understand that... And in your heart...you do too.

2b. So I take it that you are also, not ready to give up on communism either?

I am an idealists...a believer in equality for all American citizens. I believe in having universal health care and a decent standard of living for every American. Ideally I want peace and happiness for all...no matter the cost. Does using the word " all" make me a socialist? If so what would I be if i used the word "I" or "for myself
Instead..?

No, what makes you a socialist is "no matter what the cost". So tell me where do I go, the gulag to be worked to death, left on a farm growing food for you and left to starve to death or just outright slaughtered?

I've already revealed my Christian inclinations.
Nothing in the teachings of Jesus gives me or anyone else the authority to use force to compell people to love one another or to attain social well being for all. Violence and force is associated with people who are either criminals, oppressors ot both. You and millions of White males wear your whitness like a badge of superiority regardless of what political lable, liberal or conservative, you associate yourselves with. Social conditioning designed to maintain that perspective is subliminally inculcated into each of us starting in infancy.

So calling me a communist or socialist is just part of your strategy to defend Whiteness. But know this. If Jesus was/is a communist. Politically, I'm whatever He is.

 

[The Derp]

No one is here defending Communism, you're just trying to ascribe it to your political opponents because you recognize the hideousness of your own positions and seek to drag everyone down to your level.

 

[Pogo]

Then stop fucking playing them.
That's exactly why I corrected the bullshit semantics in the OP in the first place.

To verify that we are on the same page,


we agree that Communism is a terrible idea that have led to the deaths of tens of millions and the oppression of billions and should never be considered as a viable solution for anything?

Nope. We agree on none of that. As in zero.

You can go back to my first post to see why that is.

Again, here's a photo of the only communism I know about directly ----

​

Notice everybody's working. That's typical. Whatever they produce is communally-owned. At the end of the day they'll all eat in a common dining hall and retire to their communal houses where nobody owns personal property beyond their own clothes. Everything is done as a collective.

And again, these people have literally never killed anybody. Never wore any country's uniform, never fought in anybody's war. Ever. In five hundred years.

What's the latter got to do with the former? NOTHING. Now do the math.

Again --- what's the point of discussing a term if you're going to just ignore its definition?

Got it. You're not convinced that communism is a bad idea.

Thank's for being honest.

You're welcom'e. It's what I do here. That's why I showed up to put out this flaming bucket of shit that was the logical train wreck of the OP. I have no doubt it had to do with some combination of mental chemicals.

I mean, you're truthful about your position., THat's a rarity on the Left.

Wouldn't know, I'm a Liberal, not a 'left'.

Honesty in discussion is the Prime Directive. So I corrected the OP, who seems to have a floating term with no definition, and gave him one. Then I presented an example of a communism practice that shreds his theory. And here we are.

Now, a reasonable person, would look at Communism's track record and say, that's not something we want to play around with.

Depending crucially on what one means by "communism's track record". And that goes right back to definition.

Say, why do you capitalize "communism"? It's not a proper name.

You managed to find one small example that you think has gone well, and you want to ignore the odds.

I didn't "manage to find" -- I didn't even need to look. That example happened to fall into my lap (long ago) by accident. Once there I simply observed how they do things. And how it worked for them and still does. I'd have to say as a group they are the most self-confident well-adjusted people I've ever met. And when some of them (mostly male) leave their commune and venture out into our world of individual-centered, personal commodity fetish, they virtually always return. This is all from aggregate experience, meaning personal interaction with hundreds of them in dozens of places.

Anyway it's there to underscore the point that "communisim" is one system among many of how wealth works in a social group, be that a religious sect, a nation or an intentional commune. It has nothing to do with that group's attitude toward external or internal aggression. What the OP is going for here is a grand Association Fallacy based on his cherrypicked histories --- histories that are so cherrypicked on the basis of also being authoritarian examples, which is not related.

Such a fallacy is of course invalid for an argument, however if one persists in going down that road, then here's a group that not only practices communism as a basic way of life but they also practice absolute pacifism. So either way that OP ship is sunk.

Not sure what we mean by "odds" here. My example has been operating its communal system since the sixteenth century. Is there a "chance" that they'll wake up tomorrow and suddenly decide it's time to invade Kansas and kill everybody? Sure, it's "possible" .....

Hell, I know a guy that smoked a lot and lived to be old. You've convinced me that that is proof that smoking is good for me.

He would be the exception that proves the rule exists. Actually it's the same Association Fallacy, trying to connect two unconnected events and pretending one causes the other, ignoring the possibility that one happened in spite of the other.

Nat King Cole smoked a lot because he actually believed --- such was the prevailing view of the time --- that it gave him that velvet singing voice. It killed him in his forties.

(yes, some hyperbole there, but the point is valid)

Nope. False comparison.

My example above is not an exception to the rule -- it's the rule itself. They've been using that system for five hundred years. Over and over, consistently over multiple generations in multiple places. That's way before Karl Marx was a glimmer of a glimmer in his great-grandaddy's eye.

Again, one system among many. You may prefer it, you may not. But it certainly has nothing to do with violence or killing. I believe the stat for this group over its five hundred years is either, one murder and two suicides, or else it was the other way around but it was a total of three. In five hundred years. That would seem to undermine the OP titles claim by a minimum of 93,999,998. Those three deaths would be the exceptions to the rule.

 

[westwall]

What "services" do you think those ancient societies "provided"?

They say in Ghengis Khan's reign a virgin with a bag of gold could walk untrammelled from end to end of his territory.

Indeed that was true. But that was because there were no thieves. They had either been killed, or had renounced their ways. No "service" was rendered. The Mongol Empire was well disciplined, and busy. Keeping people busy is the best way to keep them out of mischief.

 

[westwall]

Invested in infrastructure. Athens we know certainly did, Egypt it was mostly the government that overseen the construction of the pyramids and this was also true in the Inca, Maya empires and Rome built roads. .
China invested greatly into exploration and science
etc

Baghdad Iraq as a central to maintaining scientific records in the 7th and 8th centuries during the muslim "empire".

They built buildings for THEMSELVES. The only public buildings were the temples to the Gods that you so hate. The only society that actually did build a substantial public support structure was the Romans. They built baths, roads (that were for the movement of their armies, the fact that they made it easier for merchants to travel was a bonus) temples to their multitudinous Gods, a outstanding aqueduct system to bring fresh water to their cities and the Coliseum... Never forget the Coliseum. You see, dear child, when autocratic governments build nice buildings for the "people", they also demand sacrifice.

You willing to be the next entertainment in the Coliseum?

 

[irosie91]

Invested in infrastructure. Athens we know certainly did, Egypt it was mostly the government that overseen the construction of the pyramids and this was also true in the Inca, Maya empires and Rome built roads. .
China invested greatly into exploration and science
etc

Baghdad Iraq as a central to maintaining scientific records in the 7th and 8th centuries during the muslim "empire".

They built buildings for THEMSELVES. The only public buildings were the temples to the Gods that you so hate. The only society that actually did build a substantial public support structure was the Romans. They built baths, roads (that were for the movement of their armies, the fact that they made it easier for merchants to travel was a bonus) temples to their multitudinous Gods, a outstanding aqueduct system to bring fresh water to their cities and the Coliseum... Never forget the Coliseum. You see, dear child, when autocratic governments build nice buildings for the "people", they also demand sacrifice.

You willing to be the next entertainment in the Coliseum?

to think----the romans INHERITED the great Greek plays-----and they best they could do for public entertainment was feed live humans to lions and-----get other humans to kill each other -----YAAAAAYYY OLAY!!!!!! -------I have read that whilst watching lions eat people-----the populace munched on crispy roasted chick peas YUM!!!!!!

 

[Syriusly]

Invested in infrastructure. Athens we know certainly did, Egypt it was mostly the government that overseen the construction of the pyramids and this was also true in the Inca, Maya empires and Rome built roads. .
China invested greatly into exploration and science
etc

Baghdad Iraq as a central to maintaining scientific records in the 7th and 8th centuries during the muslim "empire".

They built buildings for THEMSELVES. The only public buildings were the temples to the Gods that you so hate. The only society that actually did build a substantial public support structure was the Romans. They built baths, roads (that were for the movement of their armies, the fact that they made it easier for merchants to travel was a bonus) temples to their multitudinous Gods, a outstanding aqueduct system to bring fresh water to their cities and the Coliseum... Never forget the Coliseum. You see, dear child, when autocratic governments build nice buildings for the "people", they also demand sacrifice.

You willing to be the next entertainment in the Coliseum?

to think----the romans INHERITED the great Greek plays-----and they best they could do for public entertainment was feed live humans to lions and-----get other humans to kill each other -----YAAAAAYYY OLAY!!!!!! -------I have read that whilst watching lions eat people-----the populace munched on crispy roasted chick peas YUM!!!!!!

Well actually the Romans did all sorts of spectacles for entertainment- plays of course, sporting events such as chariot races, lots of animal baiting, and of course gladiators.

 

[Pogo]

1. Your No True Scotsman Fallacy is noted, laughed at and dismissed.

I would expect no less from a kool-aid drinking puppet like you. But I dare not laugh at or dismiss the RW white populist threat your ilk presents to all of mankind. For me to do so would be foolhardy indeed. History has shown that White capitalists and White socialists have never lost sight of their Whiteness.. Neither idelogy has been a friend to the global majority loosely known as people of color...including the Jews. Muder and exploitation has almost always been
the rule when whiteness goes abroad seeking whom it shall devour.

. Your attempt to equate Imperialism and Capitalism and Communism

ATTEMPT?The deed is done...not by my hand but by the emissaries of whiteness. Putin and Trump understand that... And in your heart...you do too.

2b. So I take it that you are also, not ready to give up on communism either?

I am an idealists...a believer in equality for all American citizens. I believe in having universal health care and a decent standard of living for every American. Ideally I want peace and happiness for all...no matter the cost. Does using the word " all" make me a socialist? If so what would I be if i used the word "I" or "for myself
Instead..?

No, what makes you a socialist is "no matter what the cost". So tell me where do I go, the gulag to be worked to death, left on a farm growing food for you and left to starve to death or just outright slaughtered?

I've already revealed my Christian inclinations.
Nothing in the teachings of Jesus gives me or anyone else the authority to use force to compell people to love one another or to attain social well being for all. Violence and force is associated with people who are either criminals, oppressors ot both. You and millions of White males wear your whitness like a badge of superiority regardless of what political lable, liberal or conservative, you associate yourselves with. Social conditioning designed to maintain that perspective is subliminally inculcated into each of us starting in infancy.

So calling me a communist or socialist is just part of your strategy to defend Whiteness. But know this. If Jesus was/is a communist. Politically, I'm whatever He is.

In fact within memory -- early-mid 1960s -- racists and other conservatives opposing civil rights, including the Klan, were denigrating Martin Luther King as a "communist". They, like the OP, were simply tossing a word-grenade dressed up for them by Joe McCarthy, oblivious to actual definitions of their own terms. It's supposed to be assumed as a negative, and "you don't need to know why, it just is". They played the same game with "Liberal" .

Such was the narrow mindset -- common 'prevailing wisdom' was not to be questioned. It was to be swallowed whole without hesitation and whoever hesitated was a traitor. Exactly the same dance going on right now with football players and the national anthem.

That is in fact why just a couple of years later the sentiment/meme of the time "Question Authority" came out. Because questioning the conventional was a radical idea. It was "subversive". And it truly was, because you can't run a nation of robots if those robots are going to start questioning things and examining the fact that they are robots. And then voilà, "The Sixties", with its counterculture and radical ideas that maybe the government wasn't in the right place with its military escapades and maybe the old puritan moralities weren't so healthy and maybe the 'standard' materialist path wasn't all there is and maybe the various authoritarians enforcing conformity, and racism, had their heads up their ass.

The existence of the OP tells us there still walk among us even now those who haven't figured out that Joe McCarthy and his entire ilk right down to the Orange Maniac are lying sacks-of-shit demagogues whose only interest is in manipulating mob mentality for their own personal gain. And who haven't figured out that it's not only their capability but their responsibility to question them.

That's why he's still using "communist" as a word-bomb. He's still stuck in the McCarthy daze and he doesn't dare question why he is where he is.

 

[westwall]

Invested in infrastructure. Athens we know certainly did, Egypt it was mostly the government that overseen the construction of the pyramids and this was also true in the Inca, Maya empires and Rome built roads. .
China invested greatly into exploration and science
etc

Baghdad Iraq as a central to maintaining scientific records in the 7th and 8th centuries during the muslim "empire".

They built buildings for THEMSELVES. The only public buildings were the temples to the Gods that you so hate. The only society that actually did build a substantial public support structure was the Romans. They built baths, roads (that were for the movement of their armies, the fact that they made it easier for merchants to travel was a bonus) temples to their multitudinous Gods, a outstanding aqueduct system to bring fresh water to their cities and the Coliseum... Never forget the Coliseum. You see, dear child, when autocratic governments build nice buildings for the "people", they also demand sacrifice.

You willing to be the next entertainment in the Coliseum?

to think----the romans INHERITED the great Greek plays-----and they best they could do for public entertainment was feed live humans to lions and-----get other humans to kill each other -----YAAAAAYYY OLAY!!!!!! -------I have read that whilst watching lions eat people-----the populace munched on crispy roasted chick peas YUM!!!!!!

Well actually the Romans did all sorts of spectacles for entertainment- plays of course, sporting events such as chariot races, lots of animal baiting, and of course gladiators.

Chariot races were incredibly violent. The plays were reserved for the elite, and were usually performed in their palaces. There were the exception when a play would be performed, but they were rare. Animal battles were likewise incredibly violent and led the the deaths of thousands.

Notice the common denominator?

 

[Syriusly]

Invested in infrastructure. Athens we know certainly did, Egypt it was mostly the government that overseen the construction of the pyramids and this was also true in the Inca, Maya empires and Rome built roads. .
China invested greatly into exploration and science
etc

Baghdad Iraq as a central to maintaining scientific records in the 7th and 8th centuries during the muslim "empire".

They built buildings for THEMSELVES. The only public buildings were the temples to the Gods that you so hate. The only society that actually did build a substantial public support structure was the Romans. They built baths, roads (that were for the movement of their armies, the fact that they made it easier for merchants to travel was a bonus) temples to their multitudinous Gods, a outstanding aqueduct system to bring fresh water to their cities and the Coliseum... Never forget the Coliseum. You see, dear child, when autocratic governments build nice buildings for the "people", they also demand sacrifice.

You willing to be the next entertainment in the Coliseum?

to think----the romans INHERITED the great Greek plays-----and they best they could do for public entertainment was feed live humans to lions and-----get other humans to kill each other -----YAAAAAYYY OLAY!!!!!! -------I have read that whilst watching lions eat people-----the populace munched on crispy roasted chick peas YUM!!!!!!

Well actually the Romans did all sorts of spectacles for entertainment- plays of course, sporting events such as chariot races, lots of animal baiting, and of course gladiators.

Chariot races were incredibly violent. The plays were reserved for the elite, and were usually performed in their palaces. There were the exception when a play would be performed, but they were rare. Animal battles were likewise incredibly violent and led the the deaths of thousands.

Notice the common denominator?

Oh the Roman elite knew that the commoners loved blood spectacles.

 

[westwall]

Invested in infrastructure. Athens we know certainly did, Egypt it was mostly the government that overseen the construction of the pyramids and this was also true in the Inca, Maya empires and Rome built roads. .
China invested greatly into exploration and science
etc

Baghdad Iraq as a central to maintaining scientific records in the 7th and 8th centuries during the muslim "empire".

They built buildings for THEMSELVES. The only public buildings were the temples to the Gods that you so hate. The only society that actually did build a substantial public support structure was the Romans. They built baths, roads (that were for the movement of their armies, the fact that they made it easier for merchants to travel was a bonus) temples to their multitudinous Gods, a outstanding aqueduct system to bring fresh water to their cities and the Coliseum... Never forget the Coliseum. You see, dear child, when autocratic governments build nice buildings for the "people", they also demand sacrifice.

You willing to be the next entertainment in the Coliseum?

to think----the romans INHERITED the great Greek plays-----and they best they could do for public entertainment was feed live humans to lions and-----get other humans to kill each other -----YAAAAAYYY OLAY!!!!!! -------I have read that whilst watching lions eat people-----the populace munched on crispy roasted chick peas YUM!!!!!!

Well actually the Romans did all sorts of spectacles for entertainment- plays of course, sporting events such as chariot races, lots of animal baiting, and of course gladiators.

Chariot races were incredibly violent. The plays were reserved for the elite, and were usually performed in their palaces. There were the exception when a play would be performed, but they were rare. Animal battles were likewise incredibly violent and led the the deaths of thousands.

Notice the common denominator?

Oh the Roman elite knew that the commoners loved blood spectacles.

Of course they did. And, like the Roman elite of old, our modern Senate and House members likewise know that they can rob cheat and steal so long as they keep the mob quiet with the modern day equivalent of bread and circuses (TV and modern sports). Same people, just a different time.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Darn! I thougt I was a Christian saying and doing the things Jesus would do. But I guess you could confuse real Christian behavior with Communism...YOU evil money worshipping konservatives have even labeled the Pope a Communist. Satan Is your master.

Jesus would beat people in the street to silence conservative views the way you Stalinists do? Burning cars and businesses to crush civil rights is "real Christian behavior?"

You follow Marx, not Christ. You model your life after Pol Pot, not Mother Teresa.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Invested in infrastructure. Athens we know certainly did, Egypt it was mostly the government that overseen the construction of the pyramids and this was also true in the Inca, Maya empires and Rome built roads. .
China invested greatly into exploration and science
etc

Baghdad Iraq as a central to maintaining scientific records in the 7th and 8th centuries during the muslim "empire".

Athens used SLAVES to build their infrastructure, Egypt used SLAVES to build the pyramids. The Inca used SLAVES to build their cities. Rome used SLAVES to build their roads.

There is a common theme to what you seek, Matthew. There is a common theme to what the Stalinist democrats are after.

 

[Uncensored2008]

1. Your No True Scotsman Fallacy is noted, laughed at and dismissed.

I would expect no less from a kool-aid drinking puppet like you. But I dare not laugh at or dismiss the RW white populist threat your ilk presents to all of mankind. For me to do so would be foolhardy indeed. History has shown that White capitalists and White socialists have never lost sight of their Whiteness.. Neither idelogy has been a friend to the global majority loosely known as people of color...including the Jews. Muder and exploitation has almost always been
the rule when whiteness goes abroad seeking whom it shall devour.

. Your attempt to equate Imperialism and Capitalism and Communism

ATTEMPT?The deed is done...not by my hand but by the emissaries of whiteness. Putin and Trump understand that... And in your heart...you do too.

2b. So I take it that you are also, not ready to give up on communism either?

I am an idealists...a believer in equality for all American citizens. I believe in having universal health care and a decent standard of living for every American. Ideally I want peace and happiness for all...no matter the cost. Does using the word " all" make me a socialist? If so what would I be if i used the word "I" or "for myself
Instead..?

Your racism and crazy talk it noted and held against you, you crazy racist.


Your desire for communism despite it's blood soaked history is utterly insane and vile.

Like all leftists, he believes he will be a master and get revenge against his betters.

Leftists are stupid, no question about it; BUT the driving motivator is the lust for vengeance against those who are smarter and more ambitious. Leftists like JQ seethe with rage at those who do better, who have more, who know more. It is what drives him to seek to end this nation.