CDZ Why is the rest of the world a $hithole?

[Crepitus]

Of course I am also excepting most of Europe (for the time being), Canada and Oceania. Why does the rest of the world want to leave their homes and move here? Please don't give me situation-specific excuses (e.g., war in Syria) or stale rationalizations like colonialism. The fact of the matter is that we are witnessing one of the greatest migrations in human history, which portends changes equivalent to the European settlement of North America.

Are the Four Horsemen permanent residents of the rest of the world? How much longer can we keep them at bay? Does the bounty of our success also contain the seeds of our destruction?

Obviously you've never been to West Virginia.

Or parts of Kentucky, Virgina, south Carolina and Tennessee.

 

[Tehon]

It is absolutely the fault of evil capitalism. Whenever a Latin American country, or any country for that matter, attempts to reorganize there socioeconomic reality in a way that threatens US capital penetration in the country, the US acts to prevent it.

This is exactly the argument made by Latin American dictators to keep their people in bondage.

And ignorance is that which keeps the American people in bondage.

The U.S. government's own historical record, as revealed through declassification of relevant documentation over the years, justifies the Latin American dictators and my assertions.

The only thing that justifies yours is the blinders imposed by a lifetime indoctrination of American idealism.

 

[Tehon]

Sound familiar?

Sounds ridiculous.

It is simple economics really. The people coming here are, as they always have, simply looking for a better opportunity.

A line edit would be less painful than a simple dismissal. Can you speak at all to why, rather than attempt to in some form "fix" their native economies, refugees flood north in their millions to the so-called First World? If your answer is "because the evil post imperialist First World Western powers oppressed them into economic dissolution" then I am calling knee jerk Marxian "we must overcome" ideologue response.

I am no stranger to the Third World plight. I first went on a mission trip with the Church as teen back in the mid-80's. Not much has changed in those places, economically, since. Why is that? Are you implying that certain peoples in certain places are doomed to an eternity of wallowing in Third World hell? Can they never be capable of fixing their homelands? Should they even try? Or, in your opinion, is it all the fault of evil capitalism?

It is absolutely the fault of evil capitalism. Whenever a Latin American country,cor any country for that matter, attempts to reorganize there socioeconomic reality in a way that threatens US capital penetration in the country, the US acts to prevent it. The list is long, I will provide it if you wish.

What ideological reason drives people away from their families and homes at the risk of their life and life savings?

Thanks.

Those who disseminate the ideologies plant the seeds of their eventual exodus. The ideology is one born both out of a need for revenge against the West, and out of the inculcated idea that those people can only fail, unless they run away to the north to the shining palace on the Hill that is America, where all of their dreams can come true. What better way for Third World authoritarians to excise and expel the subversive or rebel segments of their citizenry?

What you're also missing, in solely blaming Evil America, is the driving "economic" ideology of narco-terrorism, and the exportation of radical Islam. Human mules make perfect economic and ideological missionaries for export and seeding of narcotics and the sex-trafficking trade. Harbingers of radicalized Islam also see and find great value in using their peoples as ideology "bombs" against the West, in exporting their form of cultural warfare, and as we have seen in the plethora of recent and near recent terror attacks, their export business is booming and their radical ideology is taking hold across the West.

I will cede that we the US of A have meddled to the sometimes detrimental effect of Third World peoples through their government. I can also illustrate how US military advisors have risked life and limb for nearly sixty years to do their damnedest to actually help such peoples in such places. US Administrations come and go every 4-8 years, and the policies of each are hacked up in their intent by mid-term elections, House and Senate Majorities, endless political infighting and the great antithesis to aiding the Third World, which is the UN and WHO.

Finally, you can also thank sincerely your inspirational Marx for deriving the ideologies which drove the French Revolution into a "sleeker" easier to swallow intellectual form, disseminated over many evenings to young Lenin who in turn founded an Empire which would in the future force the hands of US military advisors, intelligence agencies and Executive administrations into militarizing their efforts to aid Third World nations as a necessary evil to repelling Russian, Cuban and Chinese subversive military units operating within the same borders. Cause and Effect.

So which ideology was the cause, which one the effect? Virus and anti-virus? American Constitutional Economic Theory, or Marxist-Leninist ideology?

Immediately following the Bolshevik revolution the Bolsheviks negotiated a treaty to exit WWI. They were immediately invaded by the West. You tell me which is the virus.

The Russians had every right, based solely on American ideals, to organize their society however they saw fit.

 

[jwoodie]

Immediately following the Bolshevik revolution the Bolsheviks negotiated a treaty to exit WWI. They were immediately invaded by the West. You tell me which is the virus.

The Russians had every right, based solely on American ideals, to organize their society however they saw fit.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^The view through pink-tinted glasses^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Reality:

The elections to the Russian Constituent Assembly took place in November 1917. The Bolsheviks gained 24% of the vote. When it became clear that the Bolsheviks had little support outside of the industrialized areas of Saint Petersburg and Moscow, they simply barred non-Bolsheviks from membership in the soviets. (Wikipedia)

Like the Nazis later did in Germany, the minority Bolsheviks seized control of the Russian government through violence and intimidation and went on to establish a reign of terror over the Russian people.

 

[MarathonMike]

Sound familiar?

Sounds ridiculous.

It is simple economics really. The people coming here are, as they always have, simply looking for a better opportunity.

A line edit would be less painful than a simple dismissal. Can you speak at all to why, rather than attempt to in some form "fix" their native economies, refugees flood north in their millions to the so-called First World? If your answer is "because the evil post imperialist First World Western powers oppressed them into economic dissolution" then I am calling knee jerk Marxian "we must overcome" ideologue response.

I am no stranger to the Third World plight. I first went on a mission trip with the Church as teen back in the mid-80's. Not much has changed in those places, economically, since. Why is that? Are you implying that certain peoples in certain places are doomed to an eternity of wallowing in Third World hell? Can they never be capable of fixing their homelands? Should they even try? Or, in your opinion, is it all the fault of evil capitalism?

It is absolutely the fault of evil capitalism. Whenever a Latin American country, or any country for that matter, attempts to reorganize there socioeconomic reality in a way that threatens US capital penetration in the country, the US acts to prevent it. The list is long, I will provide it if you wish.

What ideological reason drives people away from their families and homes at the risk of their life and life savings?

So America screwed up Venezuela? Or all those African countries with their people eating dirt cakes? Or all those f*d up Muslim countries stuck in the 1400s because of their f*d up religion/government?
No sir, incorrectamundo.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

In a word "culture".

Multiculturalist have foisted one of the most destructive ideas upon the western world, namely that no culture is better than any other. Only profoundly stupid people should believe this, yet the notion has taken such root in the left that such silly relativism defines it.

The shitholes of the world are shitholes because of their cultural values. They cling to centuries old social mores instead of modernizing. They rely on rigid gender roles instead of valuing women. They are superstitious instead of scientific. They ask few questions and too readily accept answers. They do not innovate, they do not value education and they blame others for their own failures.

Not all cultures are the same. Some embrace values that lead to success while others do not.

 

[Tehon]

Immediately following the Bolshevik revolution the Bolsheviks negotiated a treaty to exit WWI. They were immediately invaded by the West. You tell me which is the virus.

The Russians had every right, based solely on American ideals, to organize their society however they saw fit.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^The view through pink-tinted glasses^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Reality:

The elections to the Russian Constituent Assembly took place in November 1917. The Bolsheviks gained 24% of the vote. When it became clear that the Bolsheviks had little support outside of the industrialized areas of Saint Petersburg and Moscow, they simply barred non-Bolsheviks from membership in the soviets. (Wikipedia)

Like the Nazis later did in Germany, the minority Bolsheviks seized control of the Russian government through violence and intimidation and went on to establish a reign of terror over the Russian people.

The power struggle that took place in 1917 over the constituent assembly had no relevance to the Western intervention in 1918 and wasn't even used as a pretext for the intervention.

The point is that the Russians had every right to determine their own path. The West challenged that right and was shown to be the virus that necessitated the newly developing society to build the anti virus to defend against the constant attacks. The Cuban missile crisis is another good example of this relationship.

 

[MarathonMike]

Of course I am also excepting most of Europe (for the time being), Canada and Oceania. Why does the rest of the world want to leave their homes and move here? Please don't give me situation-specific excuses (e.g., war in Syria) or stale rationalizations like colonialism. The fact of the matter is that we are witnessing one of the greatest migrations in human history, which portends changes equivalent to the European settlement of North America.

Are the Four Horsemen permanent residents of the rest of the world? How much longer can we keep them at bay? Does the bounty of our success also contain the seeds of our destruction?

Obviously you've never been to West Virginia.

Or parts of Kentucky, Virgina, south Carolina and Tennessee.

Our resources are not limitless as the Left would have us believe. Sure let them all in, there's plenty of tax money to take care of all of them, right?

 

[jwoodie]

The power struggle that took place in 1917 over the constituent assembly had no relevance to the Western intervention in 1918 and wasn't even used as a pretext for the intervention.

The point is that the Russians had every right to determine their own path. The West challenged that right and was shown to be the virus that necessitated the newly developing society to build the anti virus to defend against the constant attacks. The Cuban missile crisis is another good example of this relationship.

No facts, no logic, just conclusionary statements.

 

[Crepitus]

Of course I am also excepting most of Europe (for the time being), Canada and Oceania. Why does the rest of the world want to leave their homes and move here? Please don't give me situation-specific excuses (e.g., war in Syria) or stale rationalizations like colonialism. The fact of the matter is that we are witnessing one of the greatest migrations in human history, which portends changes equivalent to the European settlement of North America.

Are the Four Horsemen permanent residents of the rest of the world? How much longer can we keep them at bay? Does the bounty of our success also contain the seeds of our destruction?

Obviously you've never been to West Virginia.

Or parts of Kentucky, Virgina, south Carolina and Tennessee.

Our resources are not limitless as the Left would have us believe. Sure let them all in, there's plenty of tax money to take care of all of them, right?

Attempted deflection noted and dismissed.

 

[night_son]

Sound familiar?

Sounds ridiculous.

It is simple economics really. The people coming here are, as they always have, simply looking for a better opportunity.

A line edit would be less painful than a simple dismissal. Can you speak at all to why, rather than attempt to in some form "fix" their native economies, refugees flood north in their millions to the so-called First World? If your answer is "because the evil post imperialist First World Western powers oppressed them into economic dissolution" then I am calling knee jerk Marxian "we must overcome" ideologue response.

I am no stranger to the Third World plight. I first went on a mission trip with the Church as teen back in the mid-80's. Not much has changed in those places, economically, since. Why is that? Are you implying that certain peoples in certain places are doomed to an eternity of wallowing in Third World hell? Can they never be capable of fixing their homelands? Should they even try? Or, in your opinion, is it all the fault of evil capitalism?

It is absolutely the fault of evil capitalism. Whenever a Latin American country,cor any country for that matter, attempts to reorganize there socioeconomic reality in a way that threatens US capital penetration in the country, the US acts to prevent it. The list is long, I will provide it if you wish.

What ideological reason drives people away from their families and homes at the risk of their life and life savings?

Thanks.

Those who disseminate the ideologies plant the seeds of their eventual exodus. The ideology is one born both out of a need for revenge against the West, and out of the inculcated idea that those people can only fail, unless they run away to the north to the shining palace on the Hill that is America, where all of their dreams can come true. What better way for Third World authoritarians to excise and expel the subversive or rebel segments of their citizenry?

What you're also missing, in solely blaming Evil America, is the driving "economic" ideology of narco-terrorism, and the exportation of radical Islam. Human mules make perfect economic and ideological missionaries for export and seeding of narcotics and the sex-trafficking trade. Harbingers of radicalized Islam also see and find great value in using their peoples as ideology "bombs" against the West, in exporting their form of cultural warfare, and as we have seen in the plethora of recent and near recent terror attacks, their export business is booming and their radical ideology is taking hold across the West.

I will cede that we the US of A have meddled to the sometimes detrimental effect of Third World peoples through their government. I can also illustrate how US military advisors have risked life and limb for nearly sixty years to do their damnedest to actually help such peoples in such places. US Administrations come and go every 4-8 years, and the policies of each are hacked up in their intent by mid-term elections, House and Senate Majorities, endless political infighting and the great antithesis to aiding the Third World, which is the UN and WHO.

Finally, you can also thank sincerely your inspirational Marx for deriving the ideologies which drove the French Revolution into a "sleeker" easier to swallow intellectual form, disseminated over many evenings to young Lenin who in turn founded an Empire which would in the future force the hands of US military advisors, intelligence agencies and Executive administrations into militarizing their efforts to aid Third World nations as a necessary evil to repelling Russian, Cuban and Chinese subversive military units operating within the same borders. Cause and Effect.

So which ideology was the cause, which one the effect? Virus and anti-virus? American Constitutional Economic Theory, or Marxist-Leninist ideology?

Immediately following the Bolshevik revolution the Bolsheviks negotiated a treaty to exit WWI. They were immediately invaded by the West. You tell me which is the virus.

The Russians had every right, based solely on American ideals, to organize their society however they saw fit.

And the West had every right to stamp out Bolshevism with prejudice, based on the ideology from which Lenin derived Bolshevism. You argue in favor of the same political philosophies which led to the 1889 French Revolution--during which by the way, revolutionary loyalists were murdered by their own party members same as the so-called enemy Royalists and supporters of the Church and nobility. Once again, under Lenin, loyal communist revolutionaries--many of whom had fought for Lenin, were slaughtered at his command along with anti-revolutionaries. And on and on the pile of Marxist derived philosophical mass-murder bones continued and continues to grow through Cambodia, North Vietnam and on, and on.

What should have happened immediately post WWII is, is the bomb should have been used to bring Stalinist Russia to her knees, had we been able to manufacture enough of them--although the mere threat, post Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have been sufficient to achieving the task. Afterward, we should have installed a constitutional democracy in Russia post Soviet downfall, when the Russian people were starved for the same freedom from years of world war oppression as we Americans. The great historical mistake on our part was to dance with one devil in order to crush another, smaller one.

Hegelian, and Voltarian derived, atheist dominated, Marxist led ideologies are indeed the most lethal ideological viruses to ever infect the human mind--your mind, apparently--included. Or perhaps, you are simply roleplaying the part. Belief is very difficult to achieve in the willingness of so obviously and intelligent individual such as yourself, in a political and religious--ethos really--which tends to not only murder the very working class it promises to liberate, but also tens of thousands and more of its own fanatic adherents. Marxism is the Russian Roulette of human political ideologies. No one can stop you or anyone else from spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger. What we can and shall always prevent, however, is the rise of Marxism or its derivative ideologies to the forefront of American governing politics. Whatever the cost, and for all of our future generations.

 

[Tehon]

The power struggle that took place in 1917 over the constituent assembly had no relevance to the Western intervention in 1918 and wasn't even used as a pretext for the intervention.

The point is that the Russians had every right to determine their own path. The West challenged that right and was shown to be the virus that necessitated the newly developing society to build the anti virus to defend against the constant attacks. The Cuban missile crisis is another good example of this relationship.

No facts, no logic, just conclusionary statements.

What exactly are you disputing?

The West invaded Russia. That is part of the historical record.
Battle of Tulgas - Wikipedia

 

[Tehon]

Sounds ridiculous.

It is simple economics really. The people coming here are, as they always have, simply looking for a better opportunity.

A line edit would be less painful than a simple dismissal. Can you speak at all to why, rather than attempt to in some form "fix" their native economies, refugees flood north in their millions to the so-called First World? If your answer is "because the evil post imperialist First World Western powers oppressed them into economic dissolution" then I am calling knee jerk Marxian "we must overcome" ideologue response.

I am no stranger to the Third World plight. I first went on a mission trip with the Church as teen back in the mid-80's. Not much has changed in those places, economically, since. Why is that? Are you implying that certain peoples in certain places are doomed to an eternity of wallowing in Third World hell? Can they never be capable of fixing their homelands? Should they even try? Or, in your opinion, is it all the fault of evil capitalism?

It is absolutely the fault of evil capitalism. Whenever a Latin American country,cor any country for that matter, attempts to reorganize there socioeconomic reality in a way that threatens US capital penetration in the country, the US acts to prevent it. The list is long, I will provide it if you wish.

What ideological reason drives people away from their families and homes at the risk of their life and life savings?

Thanks.

Those who disseminate the ideologies plant the seeds of their eventual exodus. The ideology is one born both out of a need for revenge against the West, and out of the inculcated idea that those people can only fail, unless they run away to the north to the shining palace on the Hill that is America, where all of their dreams can come true. What better way for Third World authoritarians to excise and expel the subversive or rebel segments of their citizenry?

What you're also missing, in solely blaming Evil America, is the driving "economic" ideology of narco-terrorism, and the exportation of radical Islam. Human mules make perfect economic and ideological missionaries for export and seeding of narcotics and the sex-trafficking trade. Harbingers of radicalized Islam also see and find great value in using their peoples as ideology "bombs" against the West, in exporting their form of cultural warfare, and as we have seen in the plethora of recent and near recent terror attacks, their export business is booming and their radical ideology is taking hold across the West.

I will cede that we the US of A have meddled to the sometimes detrimental effect of Third World peoples through their government. I can also illustrate how US military advisors have risked life and limb for nearly sixty years to do their damnedest to actually help such peoples in such places. US Administrations come and go every 4-8 years, and the policies of each are hacked up in their intent by mid-term elections, House and Senate Majorities, endless political infighting and the great antithesis to aiding the Third World, which is the UN and WHO.

Finally, you can also thank sincerely your inspirational Marx for deriving the ideologies which drove the French Revolution into a "sleeker" easier to swallow intellectual form, disseminated over many evenings to young Lenin who in turn founded an Empire which would in the future force the hands of US military advisors, intelligence agencies and Executive administrations into militarizing their efforts to aid Third World nations as a necessary evil to repelling Russian, Cuban and Chinese subversive military units operating within the same borders. Cause and Effect.

So which ideology was the cause, which one the effect? Virus and anti-virus? American Constitutional Economic Theory, or Marxist-Leninist ideology?

Immediately following the Bolshevik revolution the Bolsheviks negotiated a treaty to exit WWI. They were immediately invaded by the West. You tell me which is the virus.

The Russians had every right, based solely on American ideals, to organize their society however they saw fit.

And the West had every right to stamp out Bolshevism with prejudice, based on the ideology from which Lenin derived Bolshevism. You argue in favor of the same political philosophies which led to the 1889 French Revolution--during which by the way, revolutionary loyalists were murdered by their own party members same as the so-called enemy Royalists and supporters of the Church and nobility. Once again, under Lenin, loyal communist revolutionaries--many of whom had fought for Lenin, were slaughtered at his command along with anti-revolutionaries. And on and on the pile of Marxist derived philosophical mass-murder bones continued and continues to grow through Cambodia, North Vietnam and on, and on.

What should have happened immediately post WWII is, is the bomb should have been used to bring Stalinist Russia to her knees, had we been able to manufacture enough of them--although the mere threat, post Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have been sufficient to achieving the task. Afterward, we should have installed a constitutional democracy in Russia post Soviet downfall, when the Russian people were starved for the same freedom from years of world war oppression as we Americans. The great historical mistake on our part was to dance with one devil in order to crush another, smaller one.

Hegelian, and Voltarian derived, atheist dominated, Marxist led ideologies are indeed the most lethal ideological viruses to ever infect the human mind--your mind, apparently--included. Or perhaps, you are simply roleplaying the part. Belief is very difficult to achieve in the willingness of so obviously and intelligent individual such as yourself, in a political and religious--ethos really--which tends to not only murder the very working class it promises to liberate, but also tens of thousands and more of its own fanatic adherents. Marxism is the Russian Roulette of human political ideologies. No one can stop you or anyone else from spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger. What we can and shall always prevent, however, is the rise of Marxism or its derivative ideologies to the forefront of American governing politics. Whatever the cost, and for all of our future generations.

No, the West has no right to stamp it out. The reorganization of a particular society is a right reserved for the people in the given society. That is an ideal expressed in our own declaration of independence. A people that express that ideal and use it for their own justification have no right to deny it to others.

Is Marx's idea dangerous? Of course it is, it's revolutionary. But that alone does not negate the specifics of the idea. All revolutionary ideas are fraught with danger. If you want to discuss the dangers of it then we have to get beyond platitudes and discuss the idea in the particular.

As for Lenin, we can say he was overly ambitious and that certainly led to a lot of needless suffering. At the end of this post I will leave a quote from Marx that puts my assertion into perspective.

You claim Lenin, and by implication Marx, was responsible for the deaths of his comrades in the Russian Civil War, but let's put the civil war into the proper perspective. The War was premeditated by social upheaval. In context no different than the American Civil War which pitted brother against brother. Do we say that the American Civil War was not a necessary battle in the fight for social justice? Should we have condemned the slaves to continued abuses by the southern states because the idea of emancipation was a dangerous upheaval of social norms in those States?

5. Development of the Productive Forces as a Material Premise of Communism]
This “alienation” (to use a term which will be comprehensible to the philosophers) can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. For it to become an “intolerable” power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity “propertyless,” and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development. And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the “propertyless” mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones. Without this, (1) communism could only exist as a local event; (2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and (3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism. Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples “all at once” and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism. Moreover, the mass of propertyless workers – the utterly precarious position of labour – power on a mass scale cut off from capital or from even a limited satisfaction and, therefore, no longer merely temporarily deprived of work itself as a secure source of life – presupposes the world market through competition. The proletariat can thus only exist world-historically, just as communism, its activity, can only have a “world-historical” existence. World-historical existence of individuals means existence of individuals which is directly linked up with world history.

Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.
The German Ideology

 

[night_son]

A line edit would be less painful than a simple dismissal. Can you speak at all to why, rather than attempt to in some form "fix" their native economies, refugees flood north in their millions to the so-called First World? If your answer is "because the evil post imperialist First World Western powers oppressed them into economic dissolution" then I am calling knee jerk Marxian "we must overcome" ideologue response.

I am no stranger to the Third World plight. I first went on a mission trip with the Church as teen back in the mid-80's. Not much has changed in those places, economically, since. Why is that? Are you implying that certain peoples in certain places are doomed to an eternity of wallowing in Third World hell? Can they never be capable of fixing their homelands? Should they even try? Or, in your opinion, is it all the fault of evil capitalism?

It is absolutely the fault of evil capitalism. Whenever a Latin American country,cor any country for that matter, attempts to reorganize there socioeconomic reality in a way that threatens US capital penetration in the country, the US acts to prevent it. The list is long, I will provide it if you wish.

What ideological reason drives people away from their families and homes at the risk of their life and life savings?

Thanks.

Those who disseminate the ideologies plant the seeds of their eventual exodus. The ideology is one born both out of a need for revenge against the West, and out of the inculcated idea that those people can only fail, unless they run away to the north to the shining palace on the Hill that is America, where all of their dreams can come true. What better way for Third World authoritarians to excise and expel the subversive or rebel segments of their citizenry?

What you're also missing, in solely blaming Evil America, is the driving "economic" ideology of narco-terrorism, and the exportation of radical Islam. Human mules make perfect economic and ideological missionaries for export and seeding of narcotics and the sex-trafficking trade. Harbingers of radicalized Islam also see and find great value in using their peoples as ideology "bombs" against the West, in exporting their form of cultural warfare, and as we have seen in the plethora of recent and near recent terror attacks, their export business is booming and their radical ideology is taking hold across the West.

I will cede that we the US of A have meddled to the sometimes detrimental effect of Third World peoples through their government. I can also illustrate how US military advisors have risked life and limb for nearly sixty years to do their damnedest to actually help such peoples in such places. US Administrations come and go every 4-8 years, and the policies of each are hacked up in their intent by mid-term elections, House and Senate Majorities, endless political infighting and the great antithesis to aiding the Third World, which is the UN and WHO.

Finally, you can also thank sincerely your inspirational Marx for deriving the ideologies which drove the French Revolution into a "sleeker" easier to swallow intellectual form, disseminated over many evenings to young Lenin who in turn founded an Empire which would in the future force the hands of US military advisors, intelligence agencies and Executive administrations into militarizing their efforts to aid Third World nations as a necessary evil to repelling Russian, Cuban and Chinese subversive military units operating within the same borders. Cause and Effect.

So which ideology was the cause, which one the effect? Virus and anti-virus? American Constitutional Economic Theory, or Marxist-Leninist ideology?

Immediately following the Bolshevik revolution the Bolsheviks negotiated a treaty to exit WWI. They were immediately invaded by the West. You tell me which is the virus.

The Russians had every right, based solely on American ideals, to organize their society however they saw fit.

And the West had every right to stamp out Bolshevism with prejudice, based on the ideology from which Lenin derived Bolshevism. You argue in favor of the same political philosophies which led to the 1889 French Revolution--during which by the way, revolutionary loyalists were murdered by their own party members same as the so-called enemy Royalists and supporters of the Church and nobility. Once again, under Lenin, loyal communist revolutionaries--many of whom had fought for Lenin, were slaughtered at his command along with anti-revolutionaries. And on and on the pile of Marxist derived philosophical mass-murder bones continued and continues to grow through Cambodia, North Vietnam and on, and on.

What should have happened immediately post WWII is, is the bomb should have been used to bring Stalinist Russia to her knees, had we been able to manufacture enough of them--although the mere threat, post Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have been sufficient to achieving the task. Afterward, we should have installed a constitutional democracy in Russia post Soviet downfall, when the Russian people were starved for the same freedom from years of world war oppression as we Americans. The great historical mistake on our part was to dance with one devil in order to crush another, smaller one.

Hegelian, and Voltarian derived, atheist dominated, Marxist led ideologies are indeed the most lethal ideological viruses to ever infect the human mind--your mind, apparently--included. Or perhaps, you are simply roleplaying the part. Belief is very difficult to achieve in the willingness of so obviously and intelligent individual such as yourself, in a political and religious--ethos really--which tends to not only murder the very working class it promises to liberate, but also tens of thousands and more of its own fanatic adherents. Marxism is the Russian Roulette of human political ideologies. No one can stop you or anyone else from spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger. What we can and shall always prevent, however, is the rise of Marxism or its derivative ideologies to the forefront of American governing politics. Whatever the cost, and for all of our future generations.

No, the West has no right to stamp it out. The reorganization of a particular society is a right reserved for the people in the given society. That is an ideal expressed in our own declaration of independence. A people that express that ideal and use it for their own justification have no right to deny it to others.

Is Marx's idea dangerous? Of course it is, it's revolutionary. But that alone does not negate the specifics of the idea. All revolutionary ideas are fraught with danger. If you want to discuss the dangers of it then we have to get beyond platitudes and discuss the idea in the particular.

As for Lenin, we can say he was overly ambitious and that certainly led to a lot of needless suffering. At the end of this post I will leave a quote from Marx that puts my assertion into perspective.

You claim Lenin, and by implication Marx, was responsible for the deaths of his comrades in the Russian Civil War, but let's put the civil war into the proper perspective. The War was premeditated by social upheaval. In context no different than the American Civil War which pitted brother against brother. Do we say that the American Civil War was not a necessary battle in the fight for social justice? Should we have condemned the slaves to continued abuses by the southern states because the idea of emancipation was a dangerous upheaval of social norms in those States?

5. Development of the Productive Forces as a Material Premise of Communism]
This “alienation” (to use a term which will be comprehensible to the philosophers) can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. For it to become an “intolerable” power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity “propertyless,” and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development. And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the “propertyless” mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones. Without this, (1) communism could only exist as a local event; (2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and (3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism. Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples “all at once” and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism. Moreover, the mass of propertyless workers – the utterly precarious position of labour – power on a mass scale cut off from capital or from even a limited satisfaction and, therefore, no longer merely temporarily deprived of work itself as a secure source of life – presupposes the world market through competition. The proletariat can thus only exist world-historically, just as communism, its activity, can only have a “world-historical” existence. World-historical existence of individuals means existence of individuals which is directly linked up with world history.

Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.
The German Ideology

You're glossing over the democide or murder by their own government of tens of millions of citizens who died under Marxism realized as real world political practice, as "suffering".

 

[jwoodie]

What exactly are you disputing?

Your view that the U.S. is the root of all evil in the world.

 

[Tilly]

Of course I am also excepting most of Europe (for the time being), Canada and Oceania. Why does the rest of the world want to leave their homes and move here? Please don't give me situation-specific excuses (e.g., war in Syria) or stale rationalizations like colonialism. The fact of the matter is that we are witnessing one of the greatest migrations in human history, which portends changes equivalent to the European settlement of North America.

Are the Four Horsemen permanent residents of the rest of the world? How much longer can we keep them at bay? Does the bounty of our success also contain the seeds of our destruction?

Everyone from the average American to Cerberus itself believes in the omnipotence of weaponized uranium and the resulting godlike mushroom cloud after its atom splitting use. However, what deep and thorough students of our human history already know on the tip of their intellectual tongues, even if they have yet to fully allow the realization to click, is that ideology--and the dissemination thereof into the minds of millions of common folk, is the most deadly weapon of mass destruction ever fabricated by the human intellect. Even a nuclear warhead can be disarmed or left to decay, until it is nothing more than a massive birdhouse--not at all unlike the empty human skull. In both cases, the roosting bird could care less what his new nest used to be capable of.

Your Four Horseman have merged into one demigod: ideology. Currently, in our world today as ever down through the Ages, what's going on around us is neither the result of nuclear weapon proliferation, nor amassing "Orc" armies, nor even collapsing economies. Ideology is the driving force behind it all, and the confluence of Ideologies born in the minds of philosophers these last three or four centuries has combined into a super narrative of anti-Western cultural ethos possessed of such terrifying impetus, it is indeed capable of forcing our world as we know it, in the global balance we were born into, right over the line and into a new Anti-Western civilization Age.

As I mentioned above, one can disarm a nuclear bomb or shutdown a nuclear power plant. One can petition his government to fund relief efforts to improve a foreign economy. One can even kill the mind recently swallowed whole by a radical ideology. What one cannot do, however hard he tries, is kill the ideology itself. And that is the battle we Americans and other Western nations are now engaged in, and man, is it ever a fight for our very lives and the lives of our future generations.

Ideology is pushing southern native peoples around the world north into invading armies who then mass flood attack our southernmost borders. It is a worldwide war of culture by attrition of immigration and cultural replacement. What makes this concept so difficult to combat or even understand is, is it's not just one identifiable ideology in play here; no--it is a combination of many, and those national leaders and organizations which should be on "our side" either aren't or are just as confused as the rest of the world's deep thinkers.

The power of the words: refugee and historical atrocity is so great that it has allowed for the men and women who lead us to, in politically correctness lead self-martyrization of the histories of the nations they govern--plan for their own cultural destruction in the face of mass guilt over such historical phantoms as Imperialism, Colonialism, Global Christian Proselytization, and the Holocaust.

Guilt for the historical woes of Western civilizations committed on the rest of the undeveloped world is acting as a vehicle for the ideologies driving the cultural invasion of the West. We common folk sure as hell are not asking our leaders for the resettlement of millions of drastically culturally different peoples into our generational neighborhoods and communities. Nevertheless and against our will and out of national historical guilt, our elected leaders are allowing this culture war to be lost. All in the name of apologizing for the so-called sins of our Western ancestors. Sound familiar?

Feel better now?

He took the time to respond to your question.
Why so rude (in the CDZ) ?

 

[Tehon]

It is absolutely the fault of evil capitalism. Whenever a Latin American country,cor any country for that matter, attempts to reorganize there socioeconomic reality in a way that threatens US capital penetration in the country, the US acts to prevent it. The list is long, I will provide it if you wish.

What ideological reason drives people away from their families and homes at the risk of their life and life savings?

Thanks.

Those who disseminate the ideologies plant the seeds of their eventual exodus. The ideology is one born both out of a need for revenge against the West, and out of the inculcated idea that those people can only fail, unless they run away to the north to the shining palace on the Hill that is America, where all of their dreams can come true. What better way for Third World authoritarians to excise and expel the subversive or rebel segments of their citizenry?

What you're also missing, in solely blaming Evil America, is the driving "economic" ideology of narco-terrorism, and the exportation of radical Islam. Human mules make perfect economic and ideological missionaries for export and seeding of narcotics and the sex-trafficking trade. Harbingers of radicalized Islam also see and find great value in using their peoples as ideology "bombs" against the West, in exporting their form of cultural warfare, and as we have seen in the plethora of recent and near recent terror attacks, their export business is booming and their radical ideology is taking hold across the West.

I will cede that we the US of A have meddled to the sometimes detrimental effect of Third World peoples through their government. I can also illustrate how US military advisors have risked life and limb for nearly sixty years to do their damnedest to actually help such peoples in such places. US Administrations come and go every 4-8 years, and the policies of each are hacked up in their intent by mid-term elections, House and Senate Majorities, endless political infighting and the great antithesis to aiding the Third World, which is the UN and WHO.

Finally, you can also thank sincerely your inspirational Marx for deriving the ideologies which drove the French Revolution into a "sleeker" easier to swallow intellectual form, disseminated over many evenings to young Lenin who in turn founded an Empire which would in the future force the hands of US military advisors, intelligence agencies and Executive administrations into militarizing their efforts to aid Third World nations as a necessary evil to repelling Russian, Cuban and Chinese subversive military units operating within the same borders. Cause and Effect.

So which ideology was the cause, which one the effect? Virus and anti-virus? American Constitutional Economic Theory, or Marxist-Leninist ideology?

Immediately following the Bolshevik revolution the Bolsheviks negotiated a treaty to exit WWI. They were immediately invaded by the West. You tell me which is the virus.

The Russians had every right, based solely on American ideals, to organize their society however they saw fit.

And the West had every right to stamp out Bolshevism with prejudice, based on the ideology from which Lenin derived Bolshevism. You argue in favor of the same political philosophies which led to the 1889 French Revolution--during which by the way, revolutionary loyalists were murdered by their own party members same as the so-called enemy Royalists and supporters of the Church and nobility. Once again, under Lenin, loyal communist revolutionaries--many of whom had fought for Lenin, were slaughtered at his command along with anti-revolutionaries. And on and on the pile of Marxist derived philosophical mass-murder bones continued and continues to grow through Cambodia, North Vietnam and on, and on.

What should have happened immediately post WWII is, is the bomb should have been used to bring Stalinist Russia to her knees, had we been able to manufacture enough of them--although the mere threat, post Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have been sufficient to achieving the task. Afterward, we should have installed a constitutional democracy in Russia post Soviet downfall, when the Russian people were starved for the same freedom from years of world war oppression as we Americans. The great historical mistake on our part was to dance with one devil in order to crush another, smaller one.

Hegelian, and Voltarian derived, atheist dominated, Marxist led ideologies are indeed the most lethal ideological viruses to ever infect the human mind--your mind, apparently--included. Or perhaps, you are simply roleplaying the part. Belief is very difficult to achieve in the willingness of so obviously and intelligent individual such as yourself, in a political and religious--ethos really--which tends to not only murder the very working class it promises to liberate, but also tens of thousands and more of its own fanatic adherents. Marxism is the Russian Roulette of human political ideologies. No one can stop you or anyone else from spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger. What we can and shall always prevent, however, is the rise of Marxism or its derivative ideologies to the forefront of American governing politics. Whatever the cost, and for all of our future generations.

No, the West has no right to stamp it out. The reorganization of a particular society is a right reserved for the people in the given society. That is an ideal expressed in our own declaration of independence. A people that express that ideal and use it for their own justification have no right to deny it to others.

Is Marx's idea dangerous? Of course it is, it's revolutionary. But that alone does not negate the specifics of the idea. All revolutionary ideas are fraught with danger. If you want to discuss the dangers of it then we have to get beyond platitudes and discuss the idea in the particular.

As for Lenin, we can say he was overly ambitious and that certainly led to a lot of needless suffering. At the end of this post I will leave a quote from Marx that puts my assertion into perspective.

You claim Lenin, and by implication Marx, was responsible for the deaths of his comrades in the Russian Civil War, but let's put the civil war into the proper perspective. The War was premeditated by social upheaval. In context no different than the American Civil War which pitted brother against brother. Do we say that the American Civil War was not a necessary battle in the fight for social justice? Should we have condemned the slaves to continued abuses by the southern states because the idea of emancipation was a dangerous upheaval of social norms in those States?

5. Development of the Productive Forces as a Material Premise of Communism]
This “alienation” (to use a term which will be comprehensible to the philosophers) can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. For it to become an “intolerable” power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity “propertyless,” and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development. And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the “propertyless” mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones. Without this, (1) communism could only exist as a local event; (2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and (3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism. Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples “all at once” and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism. Moreover, the mass of propertyless workers – the utterly precarious position of labour – power on a mass scale cut off from capital or from even a limited satisfaction and, therefore, no longer merely temporarily deprived of work itself as a secure source of life – presupposes the world market through competition. The proletariat can thus only exist world-historically, just as communism, its activity, can only have a “world-historical” existence. World-historical existence of individuals means existence of individuals which is directly linked up with world history.

Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.
The German Ideology

You're glossing over the democide or murder by their own government of tens of millions of citizens who died under Marxism realized as real world political practice, as "suffering".

I don't believe I am glossing over anything nor do I believe the Soviet Union was a realization of Marxism.

Your solution would have been to drop as many nuclear warheads on them as necessary to bring them to their knees. Your concern for Russian citizens is duly noted.

 

[Tehon]

What exactly are you disputing?

Your view that the U.S. is the root of all evil in the world.

I can't help you then. I think you are mischaracterizing my position.

 

[jwoodie]

I think you are mischaracterizing my position.

How so? (Please be specific.)

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Of course I am also excepting most of Europe (for the time being), Canada and Oceania. Why does the rest of the world want to leave their homes and move here? Please don't give me situation-specific excuses (e.g., war in Syria) or stale rationalizations like colonialism. The fact of the matter is that we are witnessing one of the greatest migrations in human history, which portends changes equivalent to the European settlement of North America.

Are the Four Horsemen permanent residents of the rest of the world? How much longer can we keep them at bay? Does the bounty of our success also contain the seeds of our destruction?

Ok to understand the reasons: It takes bribes to the Crooked Officials to start any business. You have to deal with your suppliers who deliver good products in good shape. There is a lot of locals who will expect price breaks. If you look at the theft rate you just about have to live in your place of business. You have a large area of labor to pick to work in. Crime is not punished as much here. You can live cheap if you group rent. You can send money home from here to your real home. The jobs here pay better then at home. Its a good place to hide from the law back home. And the last is that this is where the Leader of the gang has told you to be and drugs are sold here at a better price than back home.