BLM: We Might Go Into a Full-Blown Civil War

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
47,758
Reaction score
9,997
Points
2,030
I think a civil war is good. Because it is the only way that we could get rid of all the negroes, latinos, faggots, coloreds, lgbtq and secure a white heterosexual cis majority. In 20 years there will be a minority-majority and in 50 years whites will be 5-10% of the USA. Now is time for civil war which is good because the whites will win and clean america of the filth.
" I think a civil war is good. Because it is the only way that we could get rid of all the negroes, latinos, faggots, coloreds, lgbtq and secure a white heterosexual cis majority."

Mort, civil war is NOT a good thing!
I think it was something like 600,000 lost their lives in the last American CW.
Also I'm not sure a lot of people would class you as 'white', (no offence) cos you look a bit Asian to me.
The great thing about the USA is its racial diversity. Its all this different 'in put' that makes a country strong.
It would be a boring world if we were all the same and not good for the gene pool.

This thread is just another attempt to make a legitimate protest movement, look a threat to US national security.
The OP might as well have interviewed Kermit to find his take on civil war.

Anyways I thought you live in Serbia?
Yeah but diverse means that there are no whites. I read in a school in new york, some whites joined a black majority school only a few whites and they felt as if "diversity" is threatened. to me thats not true diversity. the whites must defend themselfes. The communists do want the civil war, they threaten violence. Whites should not back down. Anyways, I agree that it would be bad, and I went over the top with what I said.
And what have the "communists" to do with it? Where did you see them in America ???
You didn't know?

BLM is at its' roots, a Marxist organization.



WHAT IS "Marxist" in them. Marx wrote about the exploitation of man by man. THESE mercenaries have not put forward ANY economic demand ... Except for looting...
Patrisse Cullors, co-founder of BLM, described herself and her cohorts as "trained Marxists", so perhaps you should go ask HER what's Marxist about them. My feeling is that, when someone tells you what they are, you should consider believing them.
 

Oz and the Orchestra

Platinum Member
Joined
May 25, 2020
Messages
1,277
Reaction score
660
Points
903
Location
Lake District England
I think a civil war is good. Because it is the only way that we could get rid of all the negroes, latinos, faggots, coloreds, lgbtq and secure a white heterosexual cis majority. In 20 years there will be a minority-majority and in 50 years whites will be 5-10% of the USA. Now is time for civil war which is good because the whites will win and clean america of the filth.
" I think a civil war is good. Because it is the only way that we could get rid of all the negroes, latinos, faggots, coloreds, lgbtq and secure a white heterosexual cis majority."

Mort, civil war is NOT a good thing!
I think it was something like 600,000 lost their lives in the last American CW.
Also I'm not sure a lot of people would class you as 'white', (no offence) cos you look a bit Asian to me.
The great thing about the USA is its racial diversity. Its all this different 'in put' that makes a country strong.
It would be a boring world if we were all the same and not good for the gene pool.

This thread is just another attempt to make a legitimate protest movement, look a threat to US national security.
The OP might as well have interviewed Kermit to find his take on civil war.

Anyways I thought you live in Serbia?
Yeah but diverse means that there are no whites. I read in a school in new york, some whites joined a black majority school only a few whites and they felt as if "diversity" is threatened. to me thats not true diversity. the whites must defend themselfes. The communists do want the civil war, they threaten violence. Whites should not back down. Anyways, I agree that it would be bad, and I went over the top with what I said.
And what have the "communists" to do with it? Where did you see them in America ???
You didn't know?

BLM is at its' roots, a Marxist organization.



WHAT IS "Marxist" in them. Marx wrote about the exploitation of man by man. THESE mercenaries have not put forward ANY economic demand ... Except for looting...
Patrisse Cullors, co-founder of BLM, described herself and her cohorts as "trained Marxists", so perhaps you should go ask HER what's Marxist about them. My feeling is that, when someone tells you what they are, you should consider believing them.
"Trained" Marxist?
She is obviously full of shit. Marxism does not require training. Just reading and understanding of its main goals.
BLM is made up of thousands of protesters and not just in the US, who are neither trained nor Marxist.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
47,758
Reaction score
9,997
Points
2,030
I think a civil war is good. Because it is the only way that we could get rid of all the negroes, latinos, faggots, coloreds, lgbtq and secure a white heterosexual cis majority. In 20 years there will be a minority-majority and in 50 years whites will be 5-10% of the USA. Now is time for civil war which is good because the whites will win and clean america of the filth.
" I think a civil war is good. Because it is the only way that we could get rid of all the negroes, latinos, faggots, coloreds, lgbtq and secure a white heterosexual cis majority."

Mort, civil war is NOT a good thing!
I think it was something like 600,000 lost their lives in the last American CW.
Also I'm not sure a lot of people would class you as 'white', (no offence) cos you look a bit Asian to me.
The great thing about the USA is its racial diversity. Its all this different 'in put' that makes a country strong.
It would be a boring world if we were all the same and not good for the gene pool.

This thread is just another attempt to make a legitimate protest movement, look a threat to US national security.
The OP might as well have interviewed Kermit to find his take on civil war.

Anyways I thought you live in Serbia?
Yeah but diverse means that there are no whites. I read in a school in new york, some whites joined a black majority school only a few whites and they felt as if "diversity" is threatened. to me thats not true diversity. the whites must defend themselfes. The communists do want the civil war, they threaten violence. Whites should not back down. Anyways, I agree that it would be bad, and I went over the top with what I said.
And what have the "communists" to do with it? Where did you see them in America ???
You didn't know?

BLM is at its' roots, a Marxist organization.



WHAT IS "Marxist" in them. Marx wrote about the exploitation of man by man. THESE mercenaries have not put forward ANY economic demand ... Except for looting...
Patrisse Cullors, co-founder of BLM, described herself and her cohorts as "trained Marxists", so perhaps you should go ask HER what's Marxist about them. My feeling is that, when someone tells you what they are, you should consider believing them.
"Trained" Marxist?
She is obviously full of shit. Marxism does not require training. Just reading and understanding of its main goals.
BLM is made up of thousands of protesters and not just in the US, who are neither trained nor Marxist.
I couldn't tell you what sort of training she thought that required. No one ever bothered to ask her.

Nevertheless, if SHE says she's a Marxist, and that her movement is Marxist, who the hell am I to tell her she's wrong?
 
OP
Alexandre Fedorovski

Alexandre Fedorovski

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Messages
1,948
Reaction score
700
Points
210
Sorry, but I am a political scientist, a native of the Soviet Union, and I know well WHAT they wanted to build in that country. I have the highest grade in the theory of Socialism. Another thing is that an ugly society has arisen, which had almost nothing in common with society of socialism.

As for the STATEMENTS of the BLM "leaders" (and we KNOW WHO are the REAL leaders of this movement - the political elite of the Democratic Party!), I would not take their words on faith: what I observe in the behavior of the militants of this movement has nothing to do with the "socialist" movement, but, on the contrary, DISCREDITS the very notion and word "socialism ".

Taking the extremely low level of political consciousness of the Americans, they are simply deceived, which is what is being done in this case.

I think we are witnessing primitive psychological sabotage against the American people to discredit the idea of socialism - a society of social EQUALITY.
 

MisterBeale

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
27,176
Reaction score
8,459
Points
900
Marxism in theory, is about equality of ends, not opportunity.

There is a difference between, equity, and equality. This? IS anti-creation, it is opposed to nature, it supposes that man is better than god, or that he can improve upon the natural order of things. It is sheer folly.


In America, most folks believe in equality under the law, not in equal results. They recognize that men and women will always have different abilities, and that the better able should help out those less able, but cannot, and should not be forced to. THAT, is evil.

Marxism is the Maxim popularized by Marx;

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"


This? IF it is to be enforced by the STATE, not to be given voluntarily by the individual, is as bad as selfish individuals not helping their fellow man if they are able to. It is antithetical to the enlightenment, liberalism, and Christian ideals. It supposes that some far off bureaucracy knows what is best for individuals, or that they know who has the most need, or the most ability. It is a power grab by the bureaucracy and it is dehumanizing.


HARRISON BERGERON
by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

" THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

Some things about living still weren't quite right, though. April for instance, still drove people crazy by not being springtime. And it was in that clammy month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron's fourteen-year-old son, Harrison, away.


It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn't think about it very hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn't think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains. . . . ."

(MORE. . . )




. . . and this? In the end, is the goal of BLM.
 
OP
Alexandre Fedorovski

Alexandre Fedorovski

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Messages
1,948
Reaction score
700
Points
210
Marxism in theory, is about equality of ends, not opportunity.

There is a difference between, equity, and equality. This? IS anti-creation, it is opposed to nature, it supposes that man is better than god, or that he can improve upon the natural order of things. It is sheer folly.


In America, most folks believe in equality under the law, not in equal results. They recognize that men and women will always have different abilities, and that the better able should help out those less able, but cannot, and should not be forced to. THAT, is evil.

Marxism is the Maxim popularized by Marx;

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"


This? IF it is to be enforced by the STATE, not to be given voluntarily by the individual, is as bad as selfish individuals not helping their fellow man if they are able to. It is antithetical to the enlightenment, liberalism, and Christian ideals. It supposes that some far off bureaucracy knows what is best for individuals, or that they know who has the most need, or the most ability. It is a power grab by the bureaucracy and it is dehumanizing.


HARRISON BERGERON
by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

" THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

Some things about living still weren't quite right, though. April for instance, still drove people crazy by not being springtime. And it was in that clammy month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron's fourteen-year-old son, Harrison, away.


It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn't think about it very hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn't think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains. . . . ."

(MORE. . . )




. . . and this? In the end, is the goal of BLM.
Sorry, but what you write is a very bias "substitution" of the concept of socialism with YOUR interpretation. I DON'T KNOW WHERE you have such "perverted" ideas about the THEORY of socialism. Where does this reasoning that "the state will force a person to choose something" come from ?!

Everything is very simple! EVERYTHING that is on planet Earth (Mars?) belongs to EVERYONE.

Everything that, say, the land is cultivated with, ALSO belongs to EVERYONE.

The crop or whatever it is - what has been produced - ALSO belongs to EVERYONE.

If you want a BOWL -of porridge - take a bowl!

If you want to eat a kilogram of meat, eat it, if you can!

By the way, the idea of socialism emancipates every person from the economic NECESSITY to work. This is a MORAL necessity!

This is how the 100 million owners of this land - the American Indians - lived until the settlers came and killed 80-100 million of them ...

By the way, something LIKE socialism exists now in Israeli kibbutzim.

And one should not play with the words "equality of goals" and "equality of opportunities". This is very similar to verbal juggling!

If your interpretation of socialism came from a university course, you were deceived by the lecturers, which does not surprise me at all.

Lying is so common in America today !!! Just look at Biden's behavior in the debate...

Special interest' groups HATE the idea of the absence of private ownership in human society and they permanently LIE to you.

Lying to you is a permanent pathological form of their existence.

1601490361086.png
 

Attachments

Last edited:

MisterBeale

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
27,176
Reaction score
8,459
Points
900
Marxism in theory, is about equality of ends, not opportunity.

There is a difference between, equity, and equality. This? IS anti-creation, it is opposed to nature, it supposes that man is better than god, or that he can improve upon the natural order of things. It is sheer folly.


In America, most folks believe in equality under the law, not in equal results. They recognize that men and women will always have different abilities, and that the better able should help out those less able, but cannot, and should not be forced to. THAT, is evil.

Marxism is the Maxim popularized by Marx;

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"


This? IF it is to be enforced by the STATE, not to be given voluntarily by the individual, is as bad as selfish individuals not helping their fellow man if they are able to. It is antithetical to the enlightenment, liberalism, and Christian ideals. It supposes that some far off bureaucracy knows what is best for individuals, or that they know who has the most need, or the most ability. It is a power grab by the bureaucracy and it is dehumanizing.


HARRISON BERGERON
by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

" THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

Some things about living still weren't quite right, though. April for instance, still drove people crazy by not being springtime. And it was in that clammy month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron's fourteen-year-old son, Harrison, away.


It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn't think about it very hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn't think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains. . . . ."

(MORE. . . )




. . . and this? In the end, is the goal of BLM.
Sorry, but what you write is a very bias "substitution" of the concept of socialism with YOUR interpretation. I DON'T KNOW WHERE you have such "perverted" ideas about the THEORY of socialism. Where does this reasoning that "the state will force a person to choose something" come from ?!

Everything is very simple! EVERYTHING that is on planet Earth (Mars?) belongs to EVERYONE.

Everything that, say, the land is cultivated with, ALSO belongs to EVERYONE.

The crop or whatever it is - what has been produced - ALSO belongs to EVERYONE.

If you want a BOWL -of porridge - take a bowl!

If you want to eat a kilogram of meat, eat it, if you can!

By the way, the idea of socialism emancipates every person from the economic NECESSITY to work. This is a MORAL necessity!

This is how the 100 million owners of this land - the American Indians - lived until the settlers came and killed 80-100 million of them ...

By the way, something LIKE socialism exists now in Israeli kibbutzim.

And one should not play with the words "equality of goals" and "equality of opportunities". This is very similar to verbal juggling!

If your interpretation of socialism came from a university course, you were deceived by the lecturers, which does not surprise me at all.

Lying is so common in America today !!! Just look at Biden's behavior in the debate...

Special interest' groups HATE the idea of the absence of private ownership in human society and they permanently LIE to you.

Lying to you is a permanent pathological form of their existence.

View attachment 395125
You are part correct, and part incorrect.

While the planets resources might be common, the individuals labor and talents? They are not.

You reply that everything that is cultivated belongs to everyone. . . who does the cultivating? . . if the fruits of labor belong to everyone, eventually, folks will not labor. It is simple nature. You are not being very bright. You are denying nature.

You say. . .

"If you want a BOWL -of porridge - take a bowl!

If you want to eat a kilogram of meat, eat it, if you can!"



The person that worked to make that porridge, needs to be compensated, or the person that worked to herd and butcher the meat, they too, need to be compensated.

There is a middle ground between the Marxist ideal, and the Free Market. Marx stole the paradigm of the indigenous economy, it is NOT how American Indians lived hundreds of years ago. Every Indian had the right to his own labor, but, was shamed if he did not contribute. The land, water and game however? That belonged to everyone. Marx just grafted their society onto western society, awkwardly at best. Thus, it enslaved all individuals as slaves of the state.

IF, OTH, a system were created where only the planets communal resources were taxed? THAT would be honest. And in fact, free market capitalists have all endorsed such a system numerous times, as it would eliminate the distortions in corporate capitalism. Yet, obviously, the oligarchy which OWNS all of the capital, they have no interest in a tax structure such as this, nor do they have any interest in a really free market.

Nor do the Marxist global political elites which wish to have everyone and all the Earths resources under their control, i.e., a global totalitarian police state. They too, want all labor and individuals totally monitored and controlled. Sort of like a USSR or China on steroids.

You may believe the some are victims of lies, but if you do not even open your mind up to education, nor understand the difference between equality and equity? There is no hope for you. You will not out debate some one that was on a BIG TEN debate squad, nor do you know more about political science than a political scientist. Give it up man.

I know about Kibbutzs. I have absolutely no problem with voluntary collective. If they compete on the free market? I actually prefer them to corporate governance. I myself lived in a housing co-op in college. I am a member of a food co-op, and I have never belonged to a bank, always a credit union.

WHEN YOU FORCE HUMANS TO DO THINGS, IT ENDS BADLY. WHEN IT IS VOLUNTARY, IT WORKS!

Now, if we have to have a state? The taxation that is most fair, and most equitable, that takes into a account the fact that the planets resources belong to all? Would be Georgism. I would have economists asses the value of all land based on were it is at, the resource, water and navigable value, air & air space value, and then tax all that appropriately. And capital improvements made by original owners would get a pass, until transferred.

Eventually, we could probably get rid of income tax.


"The concept of gaining public revenues mainly from land and natural resource privileges was widely popularized by Henry George through his first book, Progress and Poverty (1879). The philosophical basis of Georgism dates back to several early thinkers such as John Locke,[8] Baruch Spinoza[9] and Thomas Paine.[10] Economists since Adam Smith and David Ricardo have observed that a public levy on land value does not cause economic inefficiency, unlike other taxes.[11][12] A land value tax also has progressive tax effects.[13][14] Advocates of land value taxes argue that they would reduce economic inequality, increase economic efficiency, remove incentives to underutilize urban land and reduce property speculation.[15] "
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top