Communism Outside The Gulag

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
137,634
Reaction score
12,109
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
Thank God the Papal state has total freedom and liberty, since it's so conservative....Hahahahahahahahahahahah
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
137,634
Reaction score
12,109
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
3. A great, if unmentioned, benefit of European settlement of America was the bringing of the concept of capitalism to the Indians, stone age peoples of the continent.

…prior to the arrival of the colonials, American's prior colonists, the Indians had no concept of private property, and it's meaning in advancing the liberty and prosperity of all.

Exploration and settlement by Europeans changed all that.

Indians had no concept of private property:

"One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money

1626 Peter Minuit purchased the island of Manhattan from the Canarsee Native Americans on May 24, 1626. However, the Canarsee were actually native to Brooklyn, while Manhattan was home instead to the Weckquaesgeek,(Wappnai) who were not pleased by the exchange and later battled the Dutch in Kieft's War. Peter Minuit (1589-1638)

And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted to the point of extinction.
You know that the Native Americans certainly knew all about capitalism.
The MezoAmericans like Aztecs and Incas obviously were capitalistic when the Europeans arrived. But North Americans had gone through a capitalist phase that failed, and they rejected. It left remnants like the Mound Builders, the Mississippians, Anasazi, etc. It just does not work well when technology is primitive and resources limited.


Read more carefully this time, you dunce:

3. A great, if unmentioned, benefit of European settlement of America was the bringing of the concept of capitalism to the Indians, stone age peoples of the continent.

…prior to the arrival of the colonials, American's prior colonists, the Indians had no concept of private property, and it's meaning in advancing the liberty and prosperity of all.

Exploration and settlement by Europeans changed all that.



Indians had no concept of private property:

"One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


1626 Peter Minuit purchased the island of Manhattan from the Canarsee Native Americans on May 24,1626. However, the Canarsee were actually native to Brooklyn, while Manhattan was home instead to the Weckquaesgeek,(Wappnai) who were not pleased by the exchange and later battled the Dutch in Kieft's War. Peter Minuit (1589-1638)



And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted to the point of extinction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Here, on this continent, it was the arrival of the Europeans that induced the Indians to give up communal property rights for private property rights.



“In his article “Towards a theory of property rights” Harold Demsetz shows by a historic example of the Montagnes Indians the impact of private property. It demonstrates the different behaviours in cases with and without private property rights, how private property solves negative externalities and the role of coordination by changing individuals’ behaviour.

The Montagnes Indians had no restrictions on hunting (=> open-access common property good).

when the colonists started in the 18th century to inquire beaver furs from the Indians, the value of the beaver increased to such an extent, that the onset of intensification of hunting led to a decline in the beaver population (= negative externality).

Everyone hunted as much as he could and nobody cared about the sustainability of the beaver population. The benefit/revenue of each animal was individual for the hunter, but the costs of the stock decline had the community as a whole (= tragedy of the commons).

The Montagnes Indians successfully solved the problem by the allocation of individual territories on the families (= exactly defined property right), so that individual incentives appeared to plan for the long term under consideration of the beaver population. Consequently the negative externality was remedied and the individuals’ behavior purposely changed by property rights (Demsetz, 1967: 351 – 354).” Property rights



Need it be said that an established law, not the law of the jungle, is a corollary to private property rights?
Except when Leftist take power, and do what the Nazis did to private property rights:

"It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed. The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name onlyunder the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian


Just like Liberalism.
Capitalism which included slavery...What a concept...of Christians
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
5,509
Reaction score
697
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
...
Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....

Here is a little quiz that will show just how truly ignorant you are:

1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life
9. Which restricts free speech and thought?
10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”

And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.

They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.

Nazism
Communism
Socialism
Fascism
Progressivism
Liberalism
Communism and Nazism and Fascism are all forms of socialism.....as is modern Liberalism...and Progressivism

...
That is pretty much totally wrong.

{... 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx? ...}
Actually none of them do, since Karl Marx only refers to communism, but since communism already existed, such as during the French Revolution, it could not stem from Karl Marx.

{... 2. Which is a form of command and control big government? ...}
Obviously none of them do, since they tend to be either economic systems or simply factions, so have very little to do with any scale description of government or totalitarianism.

{... 3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies? ....}
And again obviously none of them, because things like genocide are a question of ethical values, and have nothing to do with economics or politics.

{... 4. Which is based on the collective over the individual? ...}
Since you are trying to group them all together, and clearly Nazism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism tend to have collective concerns while liberalism and progressivism are strictly oriented on the rights of individuals, the conflict is again obvious.

{... 5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)..}
Clearly only fascism and nazism have deliberately done this. Russia and China were state capitalism and never communist, and even they did not intend massive starvation, but were merely incompetent.

{...6. Which represents totalitarian governance? ...}
Nazism, communism, socialism, and fascism are economic systems, so have nothing really do to with governance, which is political decision making mechanisms. And while liberalism and progressivism are related to governance, they are the opposite of totalitarianism, and closer to anarchism.

(...7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative? ...}
This is just a repetition of 6 really.

{...8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life. ...}
Only Fascism and Nazism approach a strong central state power.

{... 9. Which restricts free speech and thought? ...}
Again, only Fascism and Nazism try to influence individual liberty. Liberalism and Progressivism are the exact opposite.

{...10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”. ...}
And again, this is just a refinement of 9.


"That is pretty much totally wrong."

Nothing I post is wrong in any way.



{... 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx? ...}
Actually none of them do, since Karl Marx only refers to communism, but since communism already existed, suh as during the French Revolution, it could not stem from Karl Marx."


While the French Revolution ‘authorized’ the slaughter of any citizens who didn’t agree with the ‘general will’, both Hitler’s and Stalin’s theses stem from Marx.

"Early socialists publically advocated genocide, in the 19th and 20th centuries. It first appeared in Marx's journal, Rheinishe Zeitung, in January of 1849. When the socialist class war happens, there will be primitive societies in Europe, two stages behind- not even capitalist yet- the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, the Serbs, and others he calls 'racial trash,' and they will have to be destroyed because, being two stages behind in the class struggle, it will be impossible to bring them up to being revolutionary." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge University.

a. "The classes and races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way...they must perish in the revolutionary holocaust." Karl Marx, People's Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981

b. "Before Marx, no other European thinker publically advocated racial extermination. He was the first." George Watson.

c."Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.

d. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists." Vladimir Bukovsky.


I'll allow you 3 out of ten points on this one.
Not the most auspicious start on the exam.
I disagree.

1. Hitler had no interest or connection to Karl Marx at all, and his may opponents were the Spartacus League that were followers of Marx. All of Hitler's propaganda was totally anti-Marxist, and he gained all his support from the aristocracy, the military, and industrialists, by always being anti-Marxist. And Stalin was actually anti-Marxist as well. While Stalin claimed to be a Marixst, he murdered all the real Marxists, and prevented communal benefits, so was not really Marxist at all. How many people are murdered is not a sign of Marxism and Marxism has nothing to do with murdering people. Claims that he supported mass murder or genocide are just ridiculous. He was anti war and anti capital punishment.
Communalism of an elite at the cost of the general public, is not really communalism at all.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
5,509
Reaction score
697
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
7. Communal property rights, e.g., communism…..or socialism via the Liberal ploy, regulation…..is based on a lack of understanding of human nature.

That’s why Marx, Lenin, ….and Hillary Clinton….all claimed that they could change human nature.

The kibbutz was socialism at its finest.

And, a failure.

“On a kibbutz, everyone is equal and no one owns any more, or any less, than anyone else. A kibbutz member dedicates his life to the collective good of the society. Since everyone is equal, all the members rotate jobs, taking a turn at each - cleaning the chicken coop one year, running the front office the next. In return the kibbutz provides for all of the member's needs - food, clothing, shelter, medicine, education for the member's children.

With all needs cared for, the kibbutz theory goes, a member needs to own little money. And so kibbutz members are given a small annual allowance for personal needs ….- no member should own more or live better than any other.

When the day came, as it did to virtually all kibbutzim, that members were no longer willing to crowd around the one television set in the clubhouse, the kibbutz had to buy televisions for every member at the same time. When efficiency apartments were no longer large enough to satisfy members, all at once new apartments had to be built for each family. All of that meant “borrowing large sums of money.” Debts Make Israelis Rethink an Ideal: The Kibbutz


“In 1989, however, the 3% of the Israeli population then living on the kibbutz had accumulated debts exceeding $4 billion.”
Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.50

Not convinced?

Try Venezuela.
“Venezuelans lose average of 19 lb in weight due to nationwide food shortages, study suggests”
Economic crisis causes Venezuelans to lose average of 19lb in weight

Not even remotely convinced.
Kibbutzim still succeed in Israel, just as Ashrams still succeed in India.
The massive materialism you describe is not normal for humans and instead is a product of European learned culture.
"Not even remotely convinced.
Kibbutzim still succeed in Israel, ..."

You represent the typical cannon fodder turned out by government schooling: the indoctrination is indelible.

You are too weak and too lazy to break out of it.

These six are, each and every one, based on bending the knee and the neck to the collective:
Socialism, Progressivism, Communism, Liberalism, Fascism and Nazism.

None are based on this:
1. In Thoreau’s On the duty of Civil Disobedience, he states: “ There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived.”

You haven't read that, have you.
That's your next assignment.


2. The kibbutz movement ended when individualism became more important than the collective.

"The kibbutz movement continued to thrive both economically and socially through the 1960s and ’70s. In 1989, the population of Israel’s kibbutzim reached its peak at 129,000 people living on 270 kibbutzim, about 2 percent of Israel’s population.

But high inflation and interest rates led to economic crisis for many kibbutzim. In the 1980s and ’90s, many kibbutzim declared bankruptcy and thousands of kibbutz members defected. In keeping with an increasing trend of individualism in Israel and world-wide, these former kibbutz members sought new opportunities in Israeli cities, and some left Israel altogether."
The Kibbutz Movement | My Jewish Learning
I disagree.
First of all, it was not kibbuztim that failed in Israel, but ones that were based on agricultural collectives.
Agriculture is too hard of work and does not pay well enough. So many left for urban opportunities that paid better.
It has nothing to do with individualism, because individuals gain their main satisfaction from others.
So communalism is the inherent goal of individuals.

Of course Thoreau is correct that individual rights are the only source of all authority, but individuals are inherently social.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,187
Reaction score
28,200
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
...
Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....

Here is a little quiz that will show just how truly ignorant you are:

1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life
9. Which restricts free speech and thought?
10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”

And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.

They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.

Nazism
Communism
Socialism
Fascism
Progressivism
Liberalism
Communism and Nazism and Fascism are all forms of socialism.....as is modern Liberalism...and Progressivism

...
That is pretty much totally wrong.

{... 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx? ...}
Actually none of them do, since Karl Marx only refers to communism, but since communism already existed, such as during the French Revolution, it could not stem from Karl Marx.

{... 2. Which is a form of command and control big government? ...}
Obviously none of them do, since they tend to be either economic systems or simply factions, so have very little to do with any scale description of government or totalitarianism.

{... 3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies? ....}
And again obviously none of them, because things like genocide are a question of ethical values, and have nothing to do with economics or politics.

{... 4. Which is based on the collective over the individual? ...}
Since you are trying to group them all together, and clearly Nazism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism tend to have collective concerns while liberalism and progressivism are strictly oriented on the rights of individuals, the conflict is again obvious.

{... 5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)..}
Clearly only fascism and nazism have deliberately done this. Russia and China were state capitalism and never communist, and even they did not intend massive starvation, but were merely incompetent.

{...6. Which represents totalitarian governance? ...}
Nazism, communism, socialism, and fascism are economic systems, so have nothing really do to with governance, which is political decision making mechanisms. And while liberalism and progressivism are related to governance, they are the opposite of totalitarianism, and closer to anarchism.

(...7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative? ...}
This is just a repetition of 6 really.

{...8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life. ...}
Only Fascism and Nazism approach a strong central state power.

{... 9. Which restricts free speech and thought? ...}
Again, only Fascism and Nazism try to influence individual liberty. Liberalism and Progressivism are the exact opposite.

{...10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”. ...}
And again, this is just a refinement of 9.


"That is pretty much totally wrong."

Nothing I post is wrong in any way.



{... 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx? ...}
Actually none of them do, since Karl Marx only refers to communism, but since communism already existed, suh as during the French Revolution, it could not stem from Karl Marx."


While the French Revolution ‘authorized’ the slaughter of any citizens who didn’t agree with the ‘general will’, both Hitler’s and Stalin’s theses stem from Marx.

"Early socialists publically advocated genocide, in the 19th and 20th centuries. It first appeared in Marx's journal, Rheinishe Zeitung, in January of 1849. When the socialist class war happens, there will be primitive societies in Europe, two stages behind- not even capitalist yet- the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, the Serbs, and others he calls 'racial trash,' and they will have to be destroyed because, being two stages behind in the class struggle, it will be impossible to bring them up to being revolutionary." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge University.

a. "The classes and races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way...they must perish in the revolutionary holocaust." Karl Marx, People's Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981

b. "Before Marx, no other European thinker publically advocated racial extermination. He was the first." George Watson.

c."Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.

d. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists." Vladimir Bukovsky.


I'll allow you 3 out of ten points on this one.
Not the most auspicious start on the exam.
I disagree.

1. Hitler had no interest or connection to Karl Marx at all, and his may opponents were the Spartacus League that were followers of Marx. All of Hitler's propaganda was totally anti-Marxist, and he gained all his support from the aristocracy, the military, and industrialists, by always being anti-Marxist. And Stalin was actually anti-Marxist as well. While Stalin claimed to be a Marixst, he murdered all the real Marxists, and" prevented communal benefits, so was not really Marxist at all. How many people are murdered is not a sign of Marxism and Marxism has nothing to do with murdering people. Claims that he supported mass murder or genocide are just ridiculous. He was anti war and anti capital punishment.
Communalism of an elite at the cost of the general public, is not really communalism at all.
"I disagree."


But I just proved that what I wrote is correct, and that you are as dumb as asphalt.

After your truly abysmal performance on the test? Well….there can be only one reason: you’ve come to recognize how ignorant you are, and are asking for my help. And, as a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to educate a Liberal….I’ll do just that.


Sadly, education requires actual work, study, anathema to your sort.

But....here is your opportunity to dig your way out of a lifetime of ignorance.


As one eventually becomes weary of having the dull, the uneducated, the ignorant, offer what they consider rebuff to intelligent and informed posts, and in the interests of better debate milieu.....I strongly suggest that no Leftists.....e.g., Democrat, Liberal, Socialist, Communist, Nazi, Progressive, or Fascist.....
....nor any combination or permutation of same, embarrass themselves by offering any post until such time that they complete a study of these three works:


1. "Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline,"
by Robert H. Bork


2. "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change,"
by Jonah Goldberg

3. "American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character,"
by Diana West



They provide the context for the world you live in.

And, please do study the vast and scholarly documentation provided in each tome.





Without having digested the three above, and carefully decided whether they are correct or not, your posts reek of stupidity and a lack of understanding.

I mean that in only the kindest way.


I fully understand the difficulties that this course (pun intended) of action entails....
...as elucidated by the great mind herself...

"Liberals don’t read books- they don’t read anything. That’s why they’re liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter




But!!!

Having completed the above assignment, you will find that your experience.....and mine....here on the board will be greatly enhanced.

Begin immediately!!!

Forthwith!!!!!!
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
5,509
Reaction score
697
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
...

"I disagree."


But I just proved that what I wrote is correct, and that you are as dumb as asphalt.

After your truly abysmal performance on the test? Well….there can be only one reason: you’ve come to recognize how ignorant you are, and are asking for my help. And, as a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to educate a Liberal….I’ll do just that.


Sadly, education requires actual work, study, anathema to your sort.

But....here is your opportunity to dig your way out of a lifetime of ignorance.


As one eventually becomes weary of having the dull, the uneducated, the ignorant, offer what they consider rebuff to intelligent and informed posts, and in the interests of better debate milieu.....I strongly suggest that no Leftists.....e.g., Democrat, Liberal, Socialist, Communist, Nazi, Progressive, or Fascist.....
....nor any combination or permutation of same, embarrass themselves by offering any post until such time that they complete a study of these three works:

1. "Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline,"
by Robert H. Bork


2. "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change,"
by Jonah Goldberg

3. "American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character,"
by Diana West

They provide the context for the world you live in.

And, please do study the vast and scholarly documentation provided in each tome.

Without having digested the three above, and carefully decided whether they are correct or not, your posts reek of stupidity and a lack of understanding.

I mean that in only the kindest way.


I fully understand the difficulties that this course (pun intended) of action entails....
...as elucidated by the great mind herself...

"Liberals don’t read books- they don’t read anything. That’s why they’re liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

But!!!

Having completed the above assignment, you will find that your experience.....and mine....here on the board will be greatly enhanced.

Begin immediately!!!

Forthwith!!!!!!
Of course I will try to read these and appreciate the suggestions.
But I have to warn you that I have read Karl Marx, and know that he was anti-war and anti-capital punishment.
His background was that of the military for the aristocracy, and he was disgusted by the brutality of imperialism and colonialism. His political views were more similar to an anarchist, with a minimalist government, that he felt would not have to be coercive once in line with inherent human nature. He was not a centralist or totalitarian in any way.

Having grown up in Wisconsin, the homeland of the Progressive Party, I can also tell you that progressives are not at all anti private property or industry, and instead felt one of the important roles of government was to help make industries more productive and efficient, in non-competitive ways.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,187
Reaction score
28,200
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
...

"I disagree."


But I just proved that what I wrote is correct, and that you are as dumb as asphalt.

After your truly abysmal performance on the test? Well….there can be only one reason: you’ve come to recognize how ignorant you are, and are asking for my help. And, as a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to educate a Liberal….I’ll do just that.


Sadly, education requires actual work, study, anathema to your sort.

But....here is your opportunity to dig your way out of a lifetime of ignorance.


As one eventually becomes weary of having the dull, the uneducated, the ignorant, offer what they consider rebuff to intelligent and informed posts, and in the interests of better debate milieu.....I strongly suggest that no Leftists.....e.g., Democrat, Liberal, Socialist, Communist, Nazi, Progressive, or Fascist.....
....nor any combination or permutation of same, embarrass themselves by offering any post until such time that they complete a study of these three works:

1. "Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline,"
by Robert H. Bork


2. "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change,"
by Jonah Goldberg

3. "American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character,"
by Diana West

They provide the context for the world you live in.

And, please do study the vast and scholarly documentation provided in each tome.

Without having digested the three above, and carefully decided whether they are correct or not, your posts reek of stupidity and a lack of understanding.

I mean that in only the kindest way.


I fully understand the difficulties that this course (pun intended) of action entails....
...as elucidated by the great mind herself...

"Liberals don’t read books- they don’t read anything. That’s why they’re liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

But!!!

Having completed the above assignment, you will find that your experience.....and mine....here on the board will be greatly enhanced.

Begin immediately!!!

Forthwith!!!!!!
Of course I will try to read these and appreciate the suggestions.
But I have to warn you that I have read Karl Marx, and know that he was anti-war and anti-capital punishment.
His background was that of the military for the aristocracy, and he was disgusted by the brutality of imperialism and colonialism. His political views were more similar to an anarchist, with a minimalist government, that he felt would not have to be coercive once in line with inherent human nature. He was not a centralist or totalitarian in any way.

Having grown up in Wisconsin, the homeland of the Progressive Party, I can also tell you that progressives are not at all anti private property or industry, and instead felt one of the important roles of government was to help make industries more productive and efficient, in non-competitive ways.

"Of course I will try to read these and appreciate the suggestions. "


Excellent!
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,187
Reaction score
28,200
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
...

"I disagree."


But I just proved that what I wrote is correct, and that you are as dumb as asphalt.

After your truly abysmal performance on the test? Well….there can be only one reason: you’ve come to recognize how ignorant you are, and are asking for my help. And, as a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to educate a Liberal….I’ll do just that.


Sadly, education requires actual work, study, anathema to your sort.

But....here is your opportunity to dig your way out of a lifetime of ignorance.


As one eventually becomes weary of having the dull, the uneducated, the ignorant, offer what they consider rebuff to intelligent and informed posts, and in the interests of better debate milieu.....I strongly suggest that no Leftists.....e.g., Democrat, Liberal, Socialist, Communist, Nazi, Progressive, or Fascist.....
....nor any combination or permutation of same, embarrass themselves by offering any post until such time that they complete a study of these three works:

1. "Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline,"
by Robert H. Bork


2. "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change,"
by Jonah Goldberg

3. "American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character,"
by Diana West

They provide the context for the world you live in.

And, please do study the vast and scholarly documentation provided in each tome.

Without having digested the three above, and carefully decided whether they are correct or not, your posts reek of stupidity and a lack of understanding.

I mean that in only the kindest way.


I fully understand the difficulties that this course (pun intended) of action entails....
...as elucidated by the great mind herself...

"Liberals don’t read books- they don’t read anything. That’s why they’re liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

But!!!

Having completed the above assignment, you will find that your experience.....and mine....here on the board will be greatly enhanced.

Begin immediately!!!

Forthwith!!!!!!
Of course I will try to read these and appreciate the suggestions.
But I have to warn you that I have read Karl Marx, and know that he was anti-war and anti-capital punishment.
His background was that of the military for the aristocracy, and he was disgusted by the brutality of imperialism and colonialism. His political views were more similar to an anarchist, with a minimalist government, that he felt would not have to be coercive once in line with inherent human nature. He was not a centralist or totalitarian in any way.

Having grown up in Wisconsin, the homeland of the Progressive Party, I can also tell you that progressives are not at all anti private property or industry, and instead felt one of the important roles of government was to help make industries more productive and efficient, in non-competitive ways.


"Progressive Party, I can also tell you that progressives....blah blah blah...."


Let us not gloss over the facts.
Progressives are as unattached to the sacredness of human life as Bolsheviks, Liberals, etc.




In fact, Progressives are the basis for many Nazi programs.

The American and German eugenics movements were one in 'the identification of human beings as valuable, worthless, or of inferior value in supposedly hereditary terms.' As one authority has noted, this 'was the common denominator of all forms of Nazi racism.'

Eugenics was synonymous with 'race hygiene,' and its most fundamental program was to purify the 'race' of 'low grade' and 'degenerate' groups. Thus, American and European eugenicists created a generic racism and sexism - the genetically inferior.

Not surprisingly, the victims always turned out to be the traditional victims of racism - Jews, Blacks, women, and the poor."
Giesela Bock, 'Racism and Sexism in Nazi Germany,'Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society,Vol. 8, no. 3, Spring 1983. Reprinted in Renate Bridenthal et. al.,When Biology Became Destiny:Women in Weimar and Nazi Germany(New York, 1984), p. 276.


Progressives, Liberals, Democrats authorized the idea of a 'Master Race' long before Hitler did.
...:"the Master Race."

Hitler studied American eugenics laws.
...
Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. "I have studied with great interest," he told a fellow Nazi, "the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."
The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics



Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his“The Case for Sterilization.”
(Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)

German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.



One more proof of my earlier post, point out that none of the totalitarian....collectivist...ideologies value the individual.
 

Tax Man

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2015
Messages
4,757
Reaction score
464
Points
170
Whenever I post this sort of attack on the pillars of Liberalism, I hope there is some sort of intelligent disagreement….you know, debate in the marketplace of ideas.

Alas, there hardly ever is.



Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest where socialism does work. ,


2. Want to know where communal, living works out?

“…communal property has not been the undoing of the traditional family, even though nonproductive children enjoy a free ride at t expense of their parents….Family ties are strong enough to defuse the sense of injustice that is so corrosive when free riding occurs in more distantly related groups.

Small children are, in any event, helpless, and parents don’t mind being ‘exploited’ by them.

Even so, parental policing becomes indispensable as children grow up. Furthermore, families are small enough to make such policing possible. In a family of four with two children, there is one cop per potential robber.”
Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.45



Don’t worry….Uncle Bernie won’t be living with you…..He’ll have his own dacha.
And attacks on the "pillars" of conservatism?" Communism is the extreme result of liberalism whereas fascism is the extreme result of conservatism. Was Stalin evil? Yes. Were Hitler and Mussolini evil? Yes. The lesson is if you are FAR right or left you are on the path to evil.
The odd thing is that there are no laws against possession of things. That is PC biggest problem, Someday she may even be correct.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,187
Reaction score
28,200
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Whenever I post this sort of attack on the pillars of Liberalism, I hope there is some sort of intelligent disagreement….you know, debate in the marketplace of ideas.

Alas, there hardly ever is.



Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest where socialism does work. ,


2. Want to know where communal, living works out?

“…communal property has not been the undoing of the traditional family, even though nonproductive children enjoy a free ride at t expense of their parents….Family ties are strong enough to defuse the sense of injustice that is so corrosive when free riding occurs in more distantly related groups.

Small children are, in any event, helpless, and parents don’t mind being ‘exploited’ by them.

Even so, parental policing becomes indispensable as children grow up. Furthermore, families are small enough to make such policing possible. In a family of four with two children, there is one cop per potential robber.”
Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.45



Don’t worry….Uncle Bernie won’t be living with you…..He’ll have his own dacha.
And attacks on the "pillars" of conservatism?" Communism is the extreme result of liberalism whereas fascism is the extreme result of conservatism. Was Stalin evil? Yes. Were Hitler and Mussolini evil? Yes. The lesson is if you are FAR right or left you are on the path to evil.
The odd thing is that there are no laws against possession of things. That is PC biggest problem, Someday she may even be correct.


"... there are no laws against possession of things."

Ah, but there are, ExLaxMan


They're called regulations.

Huge numbers of them are totally bogus, and are meant to deprive owners of private property the rights of ownership.
That's why this President can remove them without any damage to society.


Let’s understand the character of ‘private property.’

In an influential essay published in 1961, Professor Tony Honore of Oxford wrote this description of private property:

‘The most important are the rights to use the thing and to exclude others from doing so, to alter its physical configuration, to enjoy its fruits, including its income, and, not the least, to transfer the title of ownership to another.

And, ownership means much the same thing in different legal systems.’
Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p. 19





Does Liberal government deprive the individual of actual ownership, i.e., theft?

You betcha’!!



Now....let's see how Liberals, disguised as 'environmentalists,' deprive owners of their private property rights:
  1. The Spotted Owl campaign, as is so very many other environmental campaigns, a deceit. It is a way of advancing the real agenda, confiscating property, making land off-limit, and eliminating any human presence. No matter the cost. No matter the result.
  2. “Look, I don’t doubt that the regulatory process that we put in place to produce the environmental goods that we want have taken a toll on the economy generally and the rural economy in particular. Telling the story that rural communities are being harmed may tug at the heartstrings of rural people, but no one else will care.
  3. You see, what the sage grouse is about is, they want to stop drilling in beautiful Wyoming. That’s the hidden agenda….Take the spotted owl case….One of the people instrumental in shutting down the forests told me that ‘if the spotted owl hadn’t existed, we would have had to invent it.’ The goal was to stop logging….It is totally questionable whether owls were endangered by logging. Was it good for the overall health of the forest? Probably not. Was it good for the spotted owl? It probably didn’t make a difference. Did it hurt the overall economies of the West? Yes.” Nickson, “Eco-Fascists,” p.129.



See how you have been played for a fool, ExLaxMan????


Oh...wait!
You are a fool!
 
Last edited:
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,187
Reaction score
28,200
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Whenever I post this sort of attack on the pillars of Liberalism, I hope there is some sort of intelligent disagreement….you know, debate in the marketplace of ideas.

Alas, there hardly ever is.



Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest where socialism does work. ,


2. Want to know where communal, living works out?

“…communal property has not been the undoing of the traditional family, even though nonproductive children enjoy a free ride at t expense of their parents….Family ties are strong enough to defuse the sense of injustice that is so corrosive when free riding occurs in more distantly related groups.

Small children are, in any event, helpless, and parents don’t mind being ‘exploited’ by them.

Even so, parental policing becomes indispensable as children grow up. Furthermore, families are small enough to make such policing possible. In a family of four with two children, there is one cop per potential robber.”
Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.45



Don’t worry….Uncle Bernie won’t be living with you…..He’ll have his own dacha.
And attacks on the "pillars" of conservatism?" Communism is the extreme result of liberalism whereas fascism is the extreme result of conservatism. Was Stalin evil? Yes. Were Hitler and Mussolini evil? Yes. The lesson is if you are FAR right or left you are on the path to evil.
The odd thing is that there are no laws against possession of things. That is PC biggest problem, Someday she may even be correct.


Please be sure to write soon, ExLaxMan.....it is both so simple and so enjoyable, smashing a verbal custard pie in your kisser!
 

New Posts

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top