Because I'm not 'woke'

[MisterBeale]

No, but when someone says that Socialism is the best thing over capitalism, that is a lie....

Don't confuse economic systems with government types.

I would gladly take voluntary socialism over state capitalism any day.

OTH? I prefer the free market over state directed communism as well.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Don't confuse economic systems with government types.

I would gladly take voluntary socialism over state capitalism any day.

OTH? I prefer the free market over state directed communism as well.

There is no such thing as voluntary socialism as soon some people dont want to work, then others, then the government comes in with a point of a gun and you have communism. Always ends that way as history has always shown us..

 

[MisterBeale]

But you are a Prog. And they seem to promote violence and mayhem. Which technically means they are monsters. No different then the issues in the Deep South with segregation and other things. We can make things better, but there is no perfection. And that is what you are looking for. China has no time for that.

Don't label me, and I won't label you, O.K.?

I believe in the non-aggression principle.

 

[MisterBeale]

There is no such thing as voluntary socialism as soon some people dont want to work, then others, then the government comes in with a point of a gun and you have communism. Always ends that way as history has always shown us..

Of course there is voluntary socialism.

If I listed examples. . . it would send you into a tizzy of denial. . . and you would object, saying. . yeah, but. . but. . but, THAT'S NOT SOCIALISM.

Ever since the founding of New Harmony and Owenism, Americans have tinkered with it and perfected it. Americans, upon observing how the Native Americans did it, know how to do it.

You have been propagandized and brainwashed by the oligarchy, thinking that the only way it is done is through the state, and it can work no other way.

You either carry your weight in the mutual society, have a valid and legitimate reason not to be doing so and be drawing on the resources of the community, or? YOU ARE OUT.

The following is an example. . . but I lived in a living co-op when I was in college, small farmers participate in farmers co-ops to support each other, there are energy co-ops, and credit unions, all sorts of ways to help each other out that don't depend on the corporate structure. People over profits man. People over profits. And it is all voluntary participation.




No different than the basic tenets of socialism. Your problem, is you believe that socialism is defined as GOVERNMENT COERCION. The very first experiments in socialism were VOLUNTARY.

Owenism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Of course there is voluntary socialism.

If I listed examples. . . it would send you into a tizzy of denial. . . and you would object, saying. . yeah, but. . but. . but, THAT'S NOT SOCIALISM.

Ever since the founding of New Harmony and Owenism, Americans have tinkered with it and perfected it. Americans, upon observing how the Native Americans did it, know how to do it.

You have been propagandized and brainwashed by the oligarchy, thinking that the only way it is done is through the state, and it can work no other way.

You either carry your weight in the mutual society, have a valid and legitimate reason not to be doing so and be drawing on the resources of the community, or? YOU ARE OUT.

The following is an example. . . but I lived in a living co-op when I was in college, small farmers participate in farmers co-ops to support each other, there are energy co-ops, and credit unions, all sorts of ways to help each other out that don't depend on the corporate structure. People over profits man. People over profits. And it is all voluntary participation.




No different than the basic tenets of socialism. Your problem, is you believe that socialism is defined as GOVERNMENT COERCION. The very first experiments in socialism were VOLUNTARY.

Owenism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

YOU ARE OUT.

How so?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Of course there is voluntary socialism.

If I listed examples. . . it would send you into a tizzy of denial. . . and you would object, saying. . yeah, but. . but. . but, THAT'S NOT SOCIALISM.

Ever since the founding of New Harmony and Owenism, Americans have tinkered with it and perfected it. Americans, upon observing how the Native Americans did it, know how to do it.

You have been propagandized and brainwashed by the oligarchy, thinking that the only way it is done is through the state, and it can work no other way.

You either carry your weight in the mutual society, have a valid and legitimate reason not to be doing so and be drawing on the resources of the community, or? YOU ARE OUT.

The following is an example. . . but I lived in a living co-op when I was in college, small farmers participate in farmers co-ops to support each other, there are energy co-ops, and credit unions, all sorts of ways to help each other out that don't depend on the corporate structure. People over profits man. People over profits. And it is all voluntary participation.




No different than the basic tenets of socialism. Your problem, is you believe that socialism is defined as GOVERNMENT COERCION. The very first experiments in socialism were VOLUNTARY.

Owenism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

When they first arrived, the Pilgrims suffered under a communal system that is now called socialism. They were the original European socialists, and they imported that system to North America. But like all socialist nations to follow, the Pilgrims’ economy collapsed under its own weight.

How The Pilgrims Switched From Socialism To Capitalism​

freedomwire.com/pilgrims-were-socialists/

 

[MisterBeale]

How so?

Join medi-share and try not paying your bills, and see what happens.

Join a co-op and if you have the capital and resources, but refuse to pay your dues, see what happens to your membership.

 

[MisterBeale]

When they first arrived, the Pilgrims suffered under a communal system that is now called socialism. They were the original European socialists, and they imported that system to North America. But like all socialist nations to follow, the Pilgrims’ economy collapsed under its own weight.

How The Pilgrims Switched From Socialism To Capitalism​

freedomwire.com/pilgrims-were-socialists/

I agree with that.

That is the same reason Josiah Warren, a staunch supporter of socialism, became disillusioned with Owen's New Community, which he scathingly called it, "COMMUNISM," when Marx was still in diapers.

"He considered Owen's experiment "communism," which he rejected in no uncertain terms, but he developed a warm and lasting respect for Robert Owen and his sons. One of his earliest writings, published in The March of Mind in 1827, attests to this, as do later writings."

Josiah Warren - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Josiah said, they were all idealists, and no one wanted to work. Under this paradigm, society could not work. He and Lysander Spooner, the guy that sued the government monopoly over the Post Office, along with Benjamin Tucker, would later developed the ideals of mutualism and individualism, which would later become the tenets of the American co-operative movement.


These are the ORIGINAL CONSERVATIVES. They make Buckley look like a socialist.

Think about it, just for a second. What did Reagan say?

These men were of that mind, and even MORE radical than even Thomas Jefferson. They viewed Jefferson and Adams as authoritarian. . . and Hamilton? fuggadabout.

Violence for them, was not the answer. They all opposed the civil war, while at the same time, they were abolitionists.

Again, you are confusing, government, with economics. Government distorts the economy, regardless of the type of economic system it chooses. It decides on the winners and the losers.

Look at this so called "pandemic." The billionaires and anyone connected to the consortium are making out like bandits, while everyone that runs a small business is getting hammered.

Men Against the State: The Expositers of Individualist Anarchism in America, 1827-1908 | Mises Institute

America was home to the first full-blown movement of individualist anarchists in the 19th and early 20th century. The author of this book on the topic adds the

mises.org

Men against the State : the expositors of individualist anarchism in America, 1827-1908 : Martin, James Joseph, 1916- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Paper cover edition ... incorporating minor changes--p. [ii]

archive.org

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because I'm not 'woke'

Because you’re ignorant as to what it actually means.

 

[frigidweirdo]

View attachment 550383

Enjoy your day off, (if you work)

Because you enjoy a bit of genocide.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'll preface this by saying I'm 100% open to corrections. I've just started my major in history not too long ago, and my independent studies have mostly focused on states outside of Europe. I'd love to learn more from this discussion.

The discovery of the New World was indeed inevitable, just as the discovery of most things are inevitable. Discoveries are rarely the result of great people, because great people are an aspect of all times; more often than not, they come as a natural consequence of the natural, perpetual curiosity (and greed) of people, paired with the technological capability to make those discoveries.

You study history.

Have you studied Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov ne' Lenin?

I ask because you represent one of the major objective of Lenin in the establishment of a Marxist revolution. Lenin held that the key to sparking a revolution is to demonize the heroes of a nation and pervert it's history in a way to turn popular opinion against that nation.

What you exhibit here is exactly that program, which has been pushed by the public indoctrination centers for decades using Marxist revolutionaries such as Howard Zinn to corrupt and pervert young minds with a fabricated anti-American script.

With that being said, my understanding is that the discovery of New World directly and immediately led to three negative consequences for the natives: disease, slaughter, and the proselytization of the survivors. I understand the disease was the bulk of that, and while it's the "fault" of those conquistadors and the settlers that followed, it wasn't their intention. But I would argue that's irrelevant to this discussion, and will assume it's as such for the remaining portion of my argument, for this reason: I am not judging the quality of people, but the positive or negative consequences of a set of actions.

Though disease killed the bulk of the natives, what followed for many survivors was either literal death at the hands of the new worlders (a slaughter which would last for centuries), or cultural death due to proselytization.

Even if we are to disregard the effects on the natives themselves, I believe it was the discovery of the New World and its colonization that led to the economic necessity that drove the triangular trade, spurring the enslavement of countless Africans.

You demonstrate the deep ignorance that only is found among those indoctrinated Marxists of public education.

First you speak of "Conquistadors," sadly those who fed you a corrupted perversion of history failed to note that the lack of immunity was specific to the North Eastern tribes. Disease such as small pox had very little impact on the central American Indians. The Aztecs for instance were not particularly affected by the diseases of Europe. The Conquistadors had little to nothing to do with the infections that plagued North America two centuries later.

Your Marxist masters also failed to teach you that the Arabs had been running African slaves for 500 years before the discovery of the New World. The two events had utterly nothing to do with each other. Arabs continue to run slave markets today - as do the Communist Chinese.

I'm sure I missed some negative consequences, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some positive consequences. My knowledge is rather surface level.

With all due respect, you have no knowledge.

You merely regurgitate anti-American propaganda that is nearly devoid of any hint of fact.

Also, I'd like to know why you think the New World was better discovered pre-Enlightenment. While the Enlightenment wasn't really a coherent movement, my understanding is that it was a general trend towards more respect for human life (and the reaction to that newfound respect). This manifested as individualism (liberty and tolerance) and the rejection of traditional Christian theology (and in some rare cases, Christianity itself). Wouldn't the former cause more people to challenge the actions in the New World, and the latter discourage some forms of proselytization? Though it could also be said that even mid-Enlightenment they didn't hesitate to take quite abhorrent actions in the New World, so maybe not.

More falsehood and perversion of history.

The enlightenment was driven by two factors, the rise of trade with the mercantile class, which altered the feudal structure (which is nearly identical to Marxism) of the State, i.e. King as owner of the means of production into a budding market system of Capitalism where free men trade goods independent of lords and masters.

The second factor was Protestantism, the fervent Christianity that teaches man is directly accountable to god, irrespective of Kings, Chairmen, or Presidents for Life. Christianity, that is Protestantism, was the foundation of the enlightenment and the concept of individual liberty.

Not usually, no.

I don't consider myself "woke." Also, when did I say anything about recognizing or not recognizing the achievements of Columbus? We should definitely recognize them, and we should definitely note them. Where did you get that?

My High School was in the rural area of one of the most republican states in the country. My teachers were very open to having respectful discussions about their ideals, which sort of counteracts the whole idea that they attempted to indoctrinate. I very rarely agreed with either my liberal or conservative (your terms, not mine) teachers.

Also, I don't really "hate" western culture or even the US. I'm not a big fan of the US or western culture, but I certainly prefer them over any other culture on the planet, and they'll be a good stepping stone to greater improvement in the future.

As for what grade I'm in, I'm in my sophomore year of university.

Why not?

Oh? What'd I do that people haven't been doing for the past hundred years?

Someone's allergic to respectful discussion.

That's a really interesting view, and I certainly respect that. It's all a matter of perspective.

You are not the first Marxist to grace this board. Most of what you profess is well known to most of us.

I have an Sc.D. and a great deal of general knowledge. What indoctrination, and yes, you are indoctrinated, depends on is a lack of perspective, a lack of vision of the larger reality. You are manipulated by forces you do not grasp, forces who are hostile to individualism and liberty.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Because you’re ignorant as to what it actually means.

Ohhh, do please enlighten us, Saul?

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's nice Italian-american holiday

It's a lot more than that.

The attack on Columbus is an attack on the idea that America is a good nation. The propaganda that yumegari recites essentially postulates that since Europeans "took the land" from the Asiatic people we call "Indians" that America is fundamentally corrupt and not worthy of adoration.

Disregards the fact that when the Asians migrated from Siberia, America was already inhabited by a black race similar to Australian Aborigines or Samoans. And that the Asiatics engaged in a total genocide of those original people. But we don't talk about this, because it doesn't promote the "hate America" agenda of Academia and the Marxists.

 

[yumegari]

You study history.

Have you studied Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov ne' Lenin?

I have, I read a very thorough biography on him.

I ask because you represent one of the major objective of Lenin in the establishment of a Marxist revolution. Lenin held that the key to sparking a revolution is to demonize the heroes of a nation and pervert it's history in a way to turn popular opinion against that nation.

What you exhibit here is exactly that program, which has been pushed by the public indoctrination centers for decades using Marxist revolutionaries such as Howard Zinn to corrupt and pervert young minds with a fabricated anti-American script.

Did I demonize Columbus? Where did I demonize Columbus? I said he should be thoroughly taught, but that he didn't do anything worth celebrating. I said nothing about his quality as a person, nor anything about the monument of his achievement.

You demonstrate the deep ignorance that only is found among those indoctrinated Marxists of public education.

First you speak of "Conquistadors," sadly those who fed you a corrupted perversion of history failed to note that the lack of immunity was specific to the North Eastern tribes. Disease such as small pox had very little impact on the central American Indians. The Aztecs for instance were not particularly affected by the diseases of Europe. The Conquistadors had little to nothing to do with the infections that plagued North America two centuries later.

I'll need some sources on this.

Your Marxist masters also failed to teach you that the Arabs had been running African slaves for 500 years before the discovery of the New World. The two events had utterly nothing to do with each other. Arabs continue to run slave markets today - as do the Communist Chinese.

They pretty thoroughly taught that, actually. There was a huge focus on Arab slavery in multiple classes. Why do you think they don't teach that?

With all due respect, you have no knowledge.

You merely regurgitate anti-American propaganda that is nearly devoid of any hint of fact.

Alright, so I'm indoctrinated. I'm a sheep. I also happen to be open to what others perceive as the truth. Now instead of spending a whole post telling me how indoctrinated I am by the evil child-eating socialists, why not spend a post using facts and reasoning to counter what I'm saying? I mean, I said I'm open to changing my mind, so I don't see why that wouldn't be productive.

More falsehood and perversion of history.

The enlightenment was driven by two factors, the rise of trade with the mercantile class, which altered the feudal structure (which is nearly identical to Marxism) of the State, i.e. King as owner of the means of production into a budding market system of Capitalism where free men trade goods independent of lords and masters.

The second factor was Protestantism, the fervent Christianity that teaches man is directly accountable to god, irrespective of Kings, Chairmen, or Presidents for Life. Christianity, that is Protestantism, was the foundation of the enlightenment and the concept of individual liberty.

Did I say anything about what drove the Enlightenment? How is what I said false, or a perversion of history?

I described what the Enlightenment was, the ideals which were a mainstay of the movement.

Yes, the Protestant reformation was the beginning of the general Enlightenment. But movements don't come out of nowhere. Movements are driven by sentiments that precede those movements. Much of Europe was tired of established religion, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, and that's why they were so open to the rejection of this institution, and the establishment of new ones.

What followed was an anarchy of ideals, as people scrambled to make sense of everything as they gradually understood this sentiment, and put it into words. Out of this birthed a million Protestant sects (exaggeration, yes, don't murder me), and out of Protestantism birthed the Enlightenment. But the Enlightenment followed that trend of rejection and took it further. For some philosophers, it included a rejection of religion that layed the foundation for much of our modern philosophy. I didn't say that was the main element of the Enlightenment, however, the main elements were as follows: individualism and the rejection of traditional Christian theology.

You are not the first Marxist to grace this board. Most of what you profess is well known to most of us.

I have an Sc.D. and a great deal of general knowledge. What indoctrination, and yes, you are indoctrinated, depends on is a lack of perspective, a lack of vision of the larger reality. You are manipulated by forces you do not grasp, forces who are hostile to individualism and liberty.

I don't profess anything. I never did. I made a statement, and I justified that statement. I did so respectfully and open-mindedly. I expressed my openness to changing my mind (which I have done time and time again). There is nothing more you can ask for.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So you think facts are dependent upon the political affiliation of who tells them to you?

If a communist tells you 2+2=4? Then it has to be a lie huh?

The Communists always demand that I say 2+2 = 5 AND believe it.

Unreality is a major tool of the left.

 

[yumegari]

It's a lot more than that.

The attack on Columbus is an attack on the idea that America is a good nation. The propaganda that yumegari recites essentially postulates that since Europeans "took the land" from the Asiatic people we call "Indians" that America is fundamentally corrupt and not worthy of adoration.

I never said anything about America being fundamentally corrupt and not worthy of adoration, did I?

Disregards the fact that when the Asians migrated from Siberia, America was already inhabited by a black race similar to Australian Aborigines or Samoans. And that the Asiatics engaged in a total genocide of those original people. But we don't talk about this, because it doesn't promote the "hate America" agenda of Academia and the Marxists.

We don't? There was a pretty thorough exploration of the theories surrounding early American migration. And one of those theories included the absolute genocide of those already there. Nobody softened anything up, nobody hid any details.

 

[yumegari]

But the Enlightenment followed that trend of rejection and took it further. For some philosophers, it included a rejection of religion that layed the foundation for much of our modern philosophy.

Also, I want to make something clear. My wording here is a bit iffy and interpretive, so I'm going to expand upon this a bit.

The foundations of much of our modern philosophy is found in Christianity, and many (not all) of the Enlightenment philosophers which influenced our modern philosophy were Christians.

What I'm saying here is that although our modern philosophy is heavily influenced by those of Christian philosophers, many aspects are defined by the entire rejection of religion as an institution, which followed as a result of some Enlightenment philosophy.

 

[MisterBeale]

The Communists always demand that I say 2+2 = 5 AND believe it.

Unreality is a major tool of the left.

You shouldn't make unqualified statements, it makes you, an otherwise generally intelligent person, look ignorant.

 

[Meathead]

I have, I read a very thorough biography on him.

Did I demonize Columbus? Where did I demonize Columbus? I said he should be thoroughly taught, but that he didn't do anything worth celebrating. I said nothing about his quality as a person, nor anything about the monument of his achievement.

I'll need some sources on this.

They pretty thoroughly taught that, actually. There was a huge focus on Arab slavery in multiple classes. Why do you think they don't teach that?

Alright, so I'm indoctrinated. I'm a sheep. I also happen to be open to what others perceive as the truth. Now instead of spending a whole post telling me how indoctrinated I am by the evil child-eating socialists, why not spend a post using facts and reasoning to counter what I'm saying? I mean, I said I'm open to changing my mind, so I don't see why that wouldn't be productive.

Did I say anything about what drove the Enlightenment? How is what I said false, or a perversion of history?

I described what the Enlightenment was, the ideals which were a mainstay of the movement.

Yes, the Protestant reformation was the beginning of the general Enlightenment. But movements don't come out of nowhere. Movements are driven by sentiments that precede those movements. Much of Europe was tired of established religion, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, and that's why they were so open to the rejection of this institution, and the establishment of new ones.

What followed was an anarchy of ideals, as people scrambled to make sense of everything as they gradually understood this sentiment, and put it into words. Out of this birthed a million Protestant sects (exaggeration, yes, don't murder me), and out of Protestantism birthed the Enlightenment. But the Enlightenment followed that trend of rejection and took it further. For some philosophers, it included a rejection of religion that layed the foundation for much of our modern philosophy. I didn't say that was the main element of the Enlightenment, however, the main elements were as follows: individualism and the rejection of traditional Christian theology.

I don't profess anything. I never did. I made a statement, and I justified that statement. I did so respectfully and open-mindedly. I expressed my openness to changing my mind (which I have done time and time again). There is nothing more you can ask for.

You need a safe space dear. USMB may not be the place for you.

 

[yumegari]

You need a safe space dear. USMB may not be the place for you.

Oh? Why do I need a safe space? Aren't safe spaces void of alternative opinions? I'm actively seeking out alternative opinions right now, calmly and respectfully. Where do you get this?