So-called "Democratic" Elite - Stop Psychological Warfare Against the American People!

[Questioner]

I believe most if not all mass media is a form of "psychological warfare", and to some extent has always been that way, it's nothing "recent" or "Democratic" - the use of propaganda is as old as the Roman empire.

More intelligent people can read books on their own and not allow "short form" media to be their only source of (mis) information.

I doubt that any serious political philosopher who's written a book, whether John Stuart Mill, Russel Kirk, or otherwise, would think that mass media is anything but dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, and is primarily there because it sells and carries a "brand image", not because it's true, good, or informative.

HISTORY is a a series of short- or long-term social hysteria cases skillfully initiated and nourished by those who own power.

How silly a conspiracy theory - there's no such thing as "owning power", according to Alinsky, it's what one thinks one has.

Money, for example, is just paper and metal - in practice, it has less power than a loaded gun, however people have faith in money being worth something, and voluntarily participate in economic exchanges - which is where the illusion of the power comes from.

If people stopped using money, it's "power" would cease to exist and it would be reduced to paper and metal, and a loaded gun or knife would have more "practical" power than a billion dollars - no one is "forced" to accept money at all, and any vendor could deny a purchase if he so wished.

Historically speaking, national currency is a recent invention anyway - in the past states or private businesses would issue their own tender, or even further back, people would trade, haggle, and barter (which is still done today, albeit not in the sense you are thinking - this is where the "super rich" make most of their money - from negotiating deals, rather than working for fixed wages).

The period we are going through is no exception

It all started from the moment when a human being realized his worthlessness, helplessness and felt a need to escape the for a dream world.

That's a silly notion, one can't "realize" worthlessness to begin with, since like money, "worth" is merely what someone attributes to something within the context of voluntary associations, exchanges and so on.

Most people wouldn't likely believe that a piece of cheese toast which resembles the virgin Mary is "worth" anything, but to a millionaire with a lot of money to blow on trinkets, he made decided it's a collector's item.

So your argument is silly and contradictory, unless you're appealing to some "inherent" type of worth, like the worth a man might have in the eyes of God.

It is, in itself, a historical narrative in the very sense you describe, not to mention contradictory - since you apparently believe it is "morally wrong" to "escape into a dream world" via history, but if man is simply "realizing his helplessness and worthlessness", or some childish notion like that - then no, there is nothing wrong at all with escaping into a dream world, if it works it works.

So even here, not only are you fabricating a history of man inventing history, but are appealing to some inherent moral principle, in which man "shouldn't" escape into a dream world, or man "shouldn't" hold power, or this or that.

But by the very axioms you assert, then there is nothing wrong with either of these things at all.

You didn't say anything.

 

[Alexandre Fedorovski]

I believe most if not all mass media is a form of "psychological warfare", and to some extent has always been that way, it's nothing "recent" or "Democratic" - the use of propaganda is as old as the Roman empire.

More intelligent people can read books on their own and not allow "short form" media to be their only source of (mis) information.

I doubt that any serious political philosopher who's written a book, whether John Stuart Mill, Russel Kirk, or otherwise, would think that mass media is anything but dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, and is primarily there because it sells and carries a "brand image", not because it's true, good, or informative.

HISTORY is a a series of short- or long-term social hysteria cases skillfully initiated and nourished by those who own power.

How silly a conspiracy theory - there's no such thing as "owning power", according to Alinsky, it's what one thinks one has.

Money, for example, is just paper and metal - in practice, it has less power than a loaded gun, however people have faith in money being worth something, and voluntarily participate in economic exchanges - which is where the illusion of the power comes from.

If people stopped using money, it's "power" would cease to exist and it would be reduced to paper and metal, and a loaded gun or knife would have more "practical" power than a billion dollars - no one is "forced" to accept money at all, and any vendor could deny a purchase if he so wished.

Historically speaking, national currency is a recent invention anyway - in the past states or private businesses would issue their own tender, or even further back, people would trade, haggle, and barter (which is still done today, albeit not in the sense you are thinking - this is where the "super rich" make most of their money - from negotiating deals, rather than working for fixed wages).

The period we are going through is no exception

It all started from the moment when a human being realized his worthlessness, helplessness and felt a need to escape the for a dream world.

That's a silly notion, one can't "realize" worthlessness to begin with, since like money, "worth" is merely what someone attributes to something within the context of voluntary associations, exchanges and so on.

Most people wouldn't likely believe that a piece of cheese toast which resembles the virgin Mary is "worth" anything, but to a millionaire with a lot of money to blow on trinkets, he made decided it's a collector's item.

So your argument is silly and contradictory, unless you're appealing to some "inherent" type of worth, like the worth a man might have in the eyes of God.

It is, in itself, a historical narrative in the very sense you describe, not to mention contradictory - since you apparently believe it is "morally wrong" to "escape into a dream world" via history, but if man is simply "realizing his helplessness and worthlessness", or some childish notion like that - then no, there is nothing wrong at all with escaping into a dream world, if it works it works.

So even here, not only are you fabricating a history of man inventing history, but are appealing to some inherent moral principle, in which man "shouldn't" escape into a dream world, or man "shouldn't" hold power, or this or that.

But by the very axioms you assert, then there is nothing wrong with either of these things at all.

First of all, I will try to be more polite and thank you for the comment.

It is very difficult to answer as you mix cheese with a female character from Middle Eastern tales. But I will try.

1. We do not discuss the value theory. I just mentioned that a person born in a society divided by social INEQUALITY prefers to go into dreams (according to Schopenhauer).

For example, I understand that I can’t change the world, but I’m trying, in any case, to enlighten people.
And, of course, not to become a victim of psychological manipulations such as the "chosen people", "the people on whom Providence has set the mission to lead the world ..." (more often under the guns and rockets). OR become part of the possessed, attacking President of the country...

2.I hope that in the future you will not stick labels on the statements of others and call them "silly" just because you do not agree with the statements. Your mixing of cheese with an Abrahamic mythical image I find more than strange, but I do not call it silly - that would be a violation of the basics of dialogue.

So your argument is silly and contradictory, unless you're appealing to some "inherent" type of worth, like the worth a man might have in the eyes of God.




"As to the gods, I have no means of knowing either that they exist or do not exist. For many are the obstacles that impede knowledge, both the obscurity of the question and the shortness of human life."

I can not compete in my statements with the Great Protagoras and indeed I’m interested in how this world looks in the eyes of ordinary exploited American people

It is, in itself, a historical narrative in the very sense you describe, not to mention contradictory - since you apparently believe it is "morally wrong" to "escape into a dream world" via history, but if man is simply "realizing his helplessness and worthlessness", or some childish notion like that - then no, there is nothing wrong at all with escaping into a dream world, if it works it works.

3. SURE, this is very convenient for the rich and super-rich who control power: everlasting poor, everlasting debtors of banks, so that in despair they do not commit suicide (and their number is growing even among young people!) go into the dream world of the Middle Eastern fairy tale invented for the poor:

Suffer here, in heaven you will be rewarded for it!

And if NOT???

Money, for example, is just paper and metal - in practice, it has less power than a loaded gun, however people have faith in money being worth something, and voluntarily participate in economic exchanges - which is where the illusion of the power comes from.

0. Are you kidding me??? People voluntarily participate in economic exchange ??? And all my life I thought that people are already working on two jobs, now husband and wife are already working, they get really worthless green papers (a great robbery of peoples - the elimination of the "golden equivalent"!), Because I want to eat, dress and multiply slightly. You should talk with the Great Jew Marx on this subject!

))

 

[Alexandre Fedorovski]

I believe most if not all mass media is a form of "psychological warfare", and to some extent has always been that way, it's nothing "recent" or "Democratic" - the use of propaganda is as old as the Roman empire.

More intelligent people can read books on their own and not allow "short form" media to be their only source of (mis) information.

I doubt that any serious political philosopher who's written a book, whether John Stuart Mill, Russel Kirk, or otherwise, would think that mass media is anything but dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, and is primarily there because it sells and carries a "brand image", not because it's true, good, or informative.

HISTORY is a a series of short- or long-term social hysteria cases skillfully initiated and nourished by those who own power.

How silly a conspiracy theory - there's no such thing as "owning power", according to Alinsky, it's what one thinks one has.

Money, for example, is just paper and metal - in practice, it has less power than a loaded gun, however people have faith in money being worth something, and voluntarily participate in economic exchanges - which is where the illusion of the power comes from.

If people stopped using money, it's "power" would cease to exist and it would be reduced to paper and metal, and a loaded gun or knife would have more "practical" power than a billion dollars - no one is "forced" to accept money at all, and any vendor could deny a purchase if he so wished.

Historically speaking, national currency is a recent invention anyway - in the past states or private businesses would issue their own tender, or even further back, people would trade, haggle, and barter (which is still done today, albeit not in the sense you are thinking - this is where the "super rich" make most of their money - from negotiating deals, rather than working for fixed wages).

The period we are going through is no exception

It all started from the moment when a human being realized his worthlessness, helplessness and felt a need to escape the for a dream world.

That's a silly notion, one can't "realize" worthlessness to begin with, since like money, "worth" is merely what someone attributes to something within the context of voluntary associations, exchanges and so on.

Most people wouldn't likely believe that a piece of cheese toast which resembles the virgin Mary is "worth" anything, but to a millionaire with a lot of money to blow on trinkets, he made decided it's a collector's item.

So your argument is silly and contradictory, unless you're appealing to some "inherent" type of worth, like the worth a man might have in the eyes of God.

It is, in itself, a historical narrative in the very sense you describe, not to mention contradictory - since you apparently believe it is "morally wrong" to "escape into a dream world" via history, but if man is simply "realizing his helplessness and worthlessness", or some childish notion like that - then no, there is nothing wrong at all with escaping into a dream world, if it works it works.

So even here, not only are you fabricating a history of man inventing history, but are appealing to some inherent moral principle, in which man "shouldn't" escape into a dream world, or man "shouldn't" hold power, or this or that.

But by the very axioms you assert, then there is nothing wrong with either of these things at all.

You didn't say anything.

It is below

 

[Questioner]

I believe most if not all mass media is a form of "psychological warfare", and to some extent has always been that way, it's nothing "recent" or "Democratic" - the use of propaganda is as old as the Roman empire.

More intelligent people can read books on their own and not allow "short form" media to be their only source of (mis) information.

I doubt that any serious political philosopher who's written a book, whether John Stuart Mill, Russel Kirk, or otherwise, would think that mass media is anything but dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, and is primarily there because it sells and carries a "brand image", not because it's true, good, or informative.

HISTORY is a a series of short- or long-term social hysteria cases skillfully initiated and nourished by those who own power.

How silly a conspiracy theory - there's no such thing as "owning power", according to Alinsky, it's what one thinks one has.

Money, for example, is just paper and metal - in practice, it has less power than a loaded gun, however people have faith in money being worth something, and voluntarily participate in economic exchanges - which is where the illusion of the power comes from.

If people stopped using money, it's "power" would cease to exist and it would be reduced to paper and metal, and a loaded gun or knife would have more "practical" power than a billion dollars - no one is "forced" to accept money at all, and any vendor could deny a purchase if he so wished.

Historically speaking, national currency is a recent invention anyway - in the past states or private businesses would issue their own tender, or even further back, people would trade, haggle, and barter (which is still done today, albeit not in the sense you are thinking - this is where the "super rich" make most of their money - from negotiating deals, rather than working for fixed wages).

The period we are going through is no exception

It all started from the moment when a human being realized his worthlessness, helplessness and felt a need to escape the for a dream world.

That's a silly notion, one can't "realize" worthlessness to begin with, since like money, "worth" is merely what someone attributes to something within the context of voluntary associations, exchanges and so on.

Most people wouldn't likely believe that a piece of cheese toast which resembles the virgin Mary is "worth" anything, but to a millionaire with a lot of money to blow on trinkets, he made decided it's a collector's item.

So your argument is silly and contradictory, unless you're appealing to some "inherent" type of worth, like the worth a man might have in the eyes of God.

It is, in itself, a historical narrative in the very sense you describe, not to mention contradictory - since you apparently believe it is "morally wrong" to "escape into a dream world" via history, but if man is simply "realizing his helplessness and worthlessness", or some childish notion like that - then no, there is nothing wrong at all with escaping into a dream world, if it works it works.

So even here, not only are you fabricating a history of man inventing history, but are appealing to some inherent moral principle, in which man "shouldn't" escape into a dream world, or man "shouldn't" hold power, or this or that.

But by the very axioms you assert, then there is nothing wrong with either of these things at all.

First of all, I will try to be more polite and thank you for the comment.

It is very difficult to answer as you mix cheese with a female character from Middle Eastern tales. But I will try.

1. We do not discuss the value theory. I just mentioned that a person born in a society divided by social INEQUALITY prefers to go into dreams (according to Schopenhauer).

For example, I understand that I can’t change the world, but I’m trying, in any case, to enlighten people.
And, of course, not to become a victim of psychological manipulations such as the "chosen people", "the people on whom Providence has set the mission to lead the world ..." (more often under the guns and rockets). OR become part of the possessed, attacking President of the country...

2.I hope that in the future you will not stick labels on the statements of others and call them "silly" just because you do not agree with the statements. Your mixing of cheese with an Abrahamic mythical image I find more than strange, but I do not call it silly - that would be a violation of the basics of dialogue.

So your argument is silly and contradictory, unless you're appealing to some "inherent" type of worth, like the worth a man might have in the eyes of God.




"As to the gods, I have no means of knowing either that they exist or do not exist. For many are the obstacles that impede knowledge, both the obscurity of the question and the shortness of human life."

I can not compete in my statements with the Great Protagoras and indeed I’m interested in how this world looks in the eyes of ordinary exploited American people

It is, in itself, a historical narrative in the very sense you describe, not to mention contradictory - since you apparently believe it is "morally wrong" to "escape into a dream world" via history, but if man is simply "realizing his helplessness and worthlessness", or some childish notion like that - then no, there is nothing wrong at all with escaping into a dream world, if it works it works.

3. SURE, this is very convenient for the rich and super-rich who control power: everlasting poor, everlasting debtors of banks, so that in despair they do not commit suicide (and their number is growing even among young people!) go into the dream world of the Middle Eastern fairy tale invented for the poor:

Suffer here, in heaven you will be rewarded for it!

And if NOT???

Marx was a fraud and an anti-Semite, who sold his own brand of opiate to the masses in lieu of "religion".

No one but an idiot would follow or idolize "Marx", he is merely their God.

Suffer here, in heaven you will be rewarded for it!
​

The immoral suffer here and in any afterlife their is for their own immorality and vice, lacking anything resembling self-control, or impulse control, or anything other than a destructive or "radical" solution for the problems common to mankind and his nature.

"Religion", at least in my view, is primarily about mastery of the lower impulses, which if left unchecked lead to addiction, violence, and sexual immorality - something common to both so-called "religious" and "secular" systems of government and morality, such as our Common Law system.​

 

[Alexandre Fedorovski]

I believe most if not all mass media is a form of "psychological warfare", and to some extent has always been that way, it's nothing "recent" or "Democratic" - the use of propaganda is as old as the Roman empire.

More intelligent people can read books on their own and not allow "short form" media to be their only source of (mis) information.

I doubt that any serious political philosopher who's written a book, whether John Stuart Mill, Russel Kirk, or otherwise, would think that mass media is anything but dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, and is primarily there because it sells and carries a "brand image", not because it's true, good, or informative.

HISTORY is a a series of short- or long-term social hysteria cases skillfully initiated and nourished by those who own power.

How silly a conspiracy theory - there's no such thing as "owning power", according to Alinsky, it's what one thinks one has.

Money, for example, is just paper and metal - in practice, it has less power than a loaded gun, however people have faith in money being worth something, and voluntarily participate in economic exchanges - which is where the illusion of the power comes from.

If people stopped using money, it's "power" would cease to exist and it would be reduced to paper and metal, and a loaded gun or knife would have more "practical" power than a billion dollars - no one is "forced" to accept money at all, and any vendor could deny a purchase if he so wished.

Historically speaking, national currency is a recent invention anyway - in the past states or private businesses would issue their own tender, or even further back, people would trade, haggle, and barter (which is still done today, albeit not in the sense you are thinking - this is where the "super rich" make most of their money - from negotiating deals, rather than working for fixed wages).

The period we are going through is no exception

It all started from the moment when a human being realized his worthlessness, helplessness and felt a need to escape the for a dream world.

That's a silly notion, one can't "realize" worthlessness to begin with, since like money, "worth" is merely what someone attributes to something within the context of voluntary associations, exchanges and so on.

Most people wouldn't likely believe that a piece of cheese toast which resembles the virgin Mary is "worth" anything, but to a millionaire with a lot of money to blow on trinkets, he made decided it's a collector's item.

So your argument is silly and contradictory, unless you're appealing to some "inherent" type of worth, like the worth a man might have in the eyes of God.

It is, in itself, a historical narrative in the very sense you describe, not to mention contradictory - since you apparently believe it is "morally wrong" to "escape into a dream world" via history, but if man is simply "realizing his helplessness and worthlessness", or some childish notion like that - then no, there is nothing wrong at all with escaping into a dream world, if it works it works.

So even here, not only are you fabricating a history of man inventing history, but are appealing to some inherent moral principle, in which man "shouldn't" escape into a dream world, or man "shouldn't" hold power, or this or that.

But by the very axioms you assert, then there is nothing wrong with either of these things at all.

First of all, I will try to be more polite and thank you for the comment.

It is very difficult to answer as you mix cheese with a female character from Middle Eastern tales. But I will try.

1. We do not discuss the value theory. I just mentioned that a person born in a society divided by social INEQUALITY prefers to go into dreams (according to Schopenhauer).

For example, I understand that I can’t change the world, but I’m trying, in any case, to enlighten people.
And, of course, not to become a victim of psychological manipulations such as the "chosen people", "the people on whom Providence has set the mission to lead the world ..." (more often under the guns and rockets). OR become part of the possessed, attacking President of the country...

2.I hope that in the future you will not stick labels on the statements of others and call them "silly" just because you do not agree with the statements. Your mixing of cheese with an Abrahamic mythical image I find more than strange, but I do not call it silly - that would be a violation of the basics of dialogue.

So your argument is silly and contradictory, unless you're appealing to some "inherent" type of worth, like the worth a man might have in the eyes of God.




"As to the gods, I have no means of knowing either that they exist or do not exist. For many are the obstacles that impede knowledge, both the obscurity of the question and the shortness of human life."

I can not compete in my statements with the Great Protagoras and indeed I’m interested in how this world looks in the eyes of ordinary exploited American people

It is, in itself, a historical narrative in the very sense you describe, not to mention contradictory - since you apparently believe it is "morally wrong" to "escape into a dream world" via history, but if man is simply "realizing his helplessness and worthlessness", or some childish notion like that - then no, there is nothing wrong at all with escaping into a dream world, if it works it works.

3. SURE, this is very convenient for the rich and super-rich who control power: everlasting poor, everlasting debtors of banks, so that in despair they do not commit suicide (and their number is growing even among young people!) go into the dream world of the Middle Eastern fairy tale invented for the poor:

Suffer here, in heaven you will be rewarded for it!

And if NOT???

Marx was a fraud and an anti-Semite, who sold his own brand of opiate to the masses in lieu of "religion".

No one but an idiot would follow or idolize "Marx", he is merely their God.

Suffer here, in heaven you will be rewarded for it!
​

The immoral suffer here and in any afterlife their is for their own immorality and vice, lacking anything resembling self-control, or impulse control, or anything other than a destructive or "radical" solution for the problems common to mankind and his nature.

"Religion", at least in my view, is primarily about mastery of the lower impulses, which if left unchecked lead to addiction, violence, and sexual immorality - something common to both so-called "religious" and "secular" systems of government and morality, such as our Common Law system.​

1. Marx was a fraud and an anti-Semite, who sold his own brand of opiate to the masses in lieu of "religion".

Question #1: Have you ever held in your hands at least one masterpiece by Marx?
Question #2: What was the anti-Semitism of the Jew Marx?
Question#3: "...his own brand of opiate to the masses in lieu of "religion"...
WHAT do you mean???

"No one but an idiot would follow"

You use insults again - a sign of blind hatred of another opinion and, it seems, of a “tunnel” thinking. Do you have no desire to start shooting "In name od God" ???

"Religion", at least in my view, is primarily about mastery of the lower impulses, which if left unchecked lead to addiction, violence, and sexual immorality...

Did your religion help you a lot when you were destroying 100 million owners of this country ???

And, what, the naked female body does not deserve to be admired?
???

Do you prefer to cover with a torn sheet ???


Do you know a way of "moral" from your point of view, reproduction ???

 

[Questioner]

...

Here you go

"A World Without Jews" - Karl Marx

https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Jews-Karl-Marx/dp/0806529539&tag=ff0d01-20

Marx's quasi "religion" of "abolishing all private property" was just another breed of opiate for the masses.

 

[Alexandre Fedorovski]

...

Here you go

"A World Without Jews" - Karl Marx

https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Jews-Karl-Marx/dp/0806529539&tag=ff0d01-20

Marx's quasi "religion" of "abolishing all private property" was just another breed of opiate for the masses.

I do not know HOW to conduct a discussion with a person who does not know the elementary History of mankind: it started with the ABSENCE of private property.

The emergence of private property, and then its transformation into the main vector of human development is the result of the adoption of false moral guidelines.

The wealth accumulated by mankind is SUFFICIENT to ensure a worthy existence for EVERY inhabitant of the planet, but this contradicts the ugly value standards of modern capitalist society. There is NO moral interest in the "Happiness for everybody!" in our world!

Jewish kibbutzim also lack private property and all their inhabitants are happy and even give birth to kids.

 

[Questioner]

...

Here you go

"A World Without Jews" - Karl Marx

https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Jews-Karl-Marx/dp/0806529539&tag=ff0d01-20

Marx's quasi "religion" of "abolishing all private property" was just another breed of opiate for the masses.

I do not know HOW to conduct a discussion with a person who does not know the elementary History of mankind: it started with the ABSENCE of private property.

That's just a superstitious myth which the whole cult of Marx and his ilk (e.x. critical theory, frankfurt school) is founded on, and easily debunked.

The ant colony: structure and roles | Western Exterminator

Looting, Cannibalism and Death Blows: The 'Shock and Awe' of Ant Warfare

Even in nature, such as in ant colonies, concepts of property, hierarchy, division of labor and castes (e.x. Queens, workers, drones, and such) exist, with ant colonies fighting rivals over the property.

It's biologically innate, not invented, at least not invented anymore than "science" was - and even in hunter-gatherer societies where no "formal" property or government exists, informal hierarchies and "rules" are still existent.

Marx was a scammer, and a self-hating Jew, and you've been drinking his kool aid - the only private property he wasn't in favor of abolishing is the money he made off of selling his own brand of opiate to the masses.

The emergence of private property, and then its transformation into the main vector of human development is the result of the adoption of false moral guidelines.

The wealth accumulated by mankind is SUFFICIENT to ensure a worthy existence for EVERY inhabitant of the planet, but this contradicts the ugly value standards of modern capitalist society. There is NO moral interest in the "Happiness for everybody!" in our world!

Then start abolishing your private property by abolishing your computer, your Eurocentric education, your English language, and so forth.

Even then, you'd still be putting the happiness of "humanity" above the happiness of other species, further proving that it's natural and innate for some people to "have more stuff" than others.

 

[Alexandre Fedorovski]

...

Here you go

"A World Without Jews" - Karl Marx

https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Jews-Karl-Marx/dp/0806529539&tag=ff0d01-20

Marx's quasi "religion" of "abolishing all private property" was just another breed of opiate for the masses.

I do not know HOW to conduct a discussion with a person who does not know the elementary History of mankind: it started with the ABSENCE of private property.

That's just a superstitious myth which the whole cult of Marx and his ilk (e.x. critical theory, frankfurt school) is founded on, and easily debunked.

The ant colony: structure and roles | Western Exterminator

Looting, Cannibalism and Death Blows: The 'Shock and Awe' of Ant Warfare

Even in nature, such as in ant colonies, concepts of property, hierarchy, division of labor and castes (e.x. Queens, workers, drones, and such) exist, with ant colonies fighting rivals over the property.

It's biologically innate, not invented, at least not invented anymore than "science" was - and even in hunter-gatherer societies where no "formal" property or government exists, informal hierarchies and "rules" are still existent.

Marx was a scammer, and a self-hating Jew, and you've been drinking his kool aid - the only private property he wasn't in favor of abolishing is the money he made off of selling his own brand of opiate to the masses.

The emergence of private property, and then its transformation into the main vector of human development is the result of the adoption of false moral guidelines.

The wealth accumulated by mankind is SUFFICIENT to ensure a worthy existence for EVERY inhabitant of the planet, but this contradicts the ugly value standards of modern capitalist society. There is NO moral interest in the "Happiness for everybody!" in our world!

Then start abolishing your private property by abolishing your computer, your Eurocentric education, your English language, and so forth.

Even then, you'd still be putting the happiness of "humanity" above the happiness of other species, further proving that it's natural and innate for some people to "have more stuff" than others.

...

Here you go

"A World Without Jews" - Karl Marx

https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Jews-Karl-Marx/dp/0806529539&tag=ff0d01-20

Marx's quasi "religion" of "abolishing all private property" was just another breed of opiate for the masses.

I do not know HOW to conduct a discussion with a person who does not know the elementary History of mankind: it started with the ABSENCE of private property.

That's just a superstitious myth which the whole cult of Marx and his ilk (e.x. critical theory, frankfurt school) is founded on, and easily debunked.

The ant colony: structure and roles | Western Exterminator

Looting, Cannibalism and Death Blows: The 'Shock and Awe' of Ant Warfare

Even in nature, such as in ant colonies, concepts of property, hierarchy, division of labor and castes (e.x. Queens, workers, drones, and such) exist, with ant colonies fighting rivals over the property.

It's biologically innate, not invented, at least not invented anymore than "science" was - and even in hunter-gatherer societies where no "formal" property or government exists, informal hierarchies and "rules" are still existent.

Marx was a scammer, and a self-hating Jew, and you've been drinking his kool aid - the only private property he wasn't in favor of abolishing is the money he made off of selling his own brand of opiate to the masses.

The emergence of private property, and then its transformation into the main vector of human development is the result of the adoption of false moral guidelines.

The wealth accumulated by mankind is SUFFICIENT to ensure a worthy existence for EVERY inhabitant of the planet, but this contradicts the ugly value standards of modern capitalist society. There is NO moral interest in the "Happiness for everybody!" in our world!

Then start abolishing your private property by abolishing your computer, your Eurocentric education, your English language, and so forth.

Even then, you'd still be putting the happiness of "humanity" above the happiness of other species, further proving that it's natural and innate for some people to "have more stuff" than others.

You obviously confused me with this Greek. His name was Sisyphus. My name is Alexandre.

Your problem is that you are not looking for the Truth; it is important for you to prove your case in the absence of a logic of conviction.

THESE views are called the "spontaneous philosophy." You are simply afraid to admit this society is as mortal as those that preceded it ...

 

[Questioner]

...

Here you go

"A World Without Jews" - Karl Marx

https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Jews-Karl-Marx/dp/0806529539&tag=ff0d01-20

Marx's quasi "religion" of "abolishing all private property" was just another breed of opiate for the masses.

I do not know HOW to conduct a discussion with a person who does not know the elementary History of mankind: it started with the ABSENCE of private property.

The emergence of private property, and then its transformation into the main vector of human development is the result of the adoption of false moral guidelines.

The wealth accumulated by mankind is SUFFICIENT to ensure a worthy existence for EVERY inhabitant of the planet, but this contradicts the ugly value standards of modern capitalist society. There is NO moral interest in the "Happiness for everybody!" in our world!

Jewish kibbutzim also lack private property and all their inhabitants are happy and even give birth to kids.

Kids are private property.

If you're talking about voluntary communes, then yes, these would be great forms of living if everyone agreed to participate in them, such as the Christian monastic communities of yore.

Marxism, however is not such a thing.

 

[Questioner]

...

Here you go

"A World Without Jews" - Karl Marx

https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Jews-Karl-Marx/dp/0806529539&tag=ff0d01-20

Marx's quasi "religion" of "abolishing all private property" was just another breed of opiate for the masses.

I do not know HOW to conduct a discussion with a person who does not know the elementary History of mankind: it started with the ABSENCE of private property.

That's just a superstitious myth which the whole cult of Marx and his ilk (e.x. critical theory, frankfurt school) is founded on, and easily debunked.

The ant colony: structure and roles | Western Exterminator

Looting, Cannibalism and Death Blows: The 'Shock and Awe' of Ant Warfare

Even in nature, such as in ant colonies, concepts of property, hierarchy, division of labor and castes (e.x. Queens, workers, drones, and such) exist, with ant colonies fighting rivals over the property.

It's biologically innate, not invented, at least not invented anymore than "science" was - and even in hunter-gatherer societies where no "formal" property or government exists, informal hierarchies and "rules" are still existent.

Marx was a scammer, and a self-hating Jew, and you've been drinking his kool aid - the only private property he wasn't in favor of abolishing is the money he made off of selling his own brand of opiate to the masses.

The emergence of private property, and then its transformation into the main vector of human development is the result of the adoption of false moral guidelines.

The wealth accumulated by mankind is SUFFICIENT to ensure a worthy existence for EVERY inhabitant of the planet, but this contradicts the ugly value standards of modern capitalist society. There is NO moral interest in the "Happiness for everybody!" in our world!

Then start abolishing your private property by abolishing your computer, your Eurocentric education, your English language, and so forth.

Even then, you'd still be putting the happiness of "humanity" above the happiness of other species, further proving that it's natural and innate for some people to "have more stuff" than others.

...

Here you go

"A World Without Jews" - Karl Marx

https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Jews-Karl-Marx/dp/0806529539&tag=ff0d01-20

Marx's quasi "religion" of "abolishing all private property" was just another breed of opiate for the masses.

I do not know HOW to conduct a discussion with a person who does not know the elementary History of mankind: it started with the ABSENCE of private property.

That's just a superstitious myth which the whole cult of Marx and his ilk (e.x. critical theory, frankfurt school) is founded on, and easily debunked.

The ant colony: structure and roles | Western Exterminator

Looting, Cannibalism and Death Blows: The 'Shock and Awe' of Ant Warfare

Even in nature, such as in ant colonies, concepts of property, hierarchy, division of labor and castes (e.x. Queens, workers, drones, and such) exist, with ant colonies fighting rivals over the property.

It's biologically innate, not invented, at least not invented anymore than "science" was - and even in hunter-gatherer societies where no "formal" property or government exists, informal hierarchies and "rules" are still existent.

Marx was a scammer, and a self-hating Jew, and you've been drinking his kool aid - the only private property he wasn't in favor of abolishing is the money he made off of selling his own brand of opiate to the masses.

The emergence of private property, and then its transformation into the main vector of human development is the result of the adoption of false moral guidelines.

The wealth accumulated by mankind is SUFFICIENT to ensure a worthy existence for EVERY inhabitant of the planet, but this contradicts the ugly value standards of modern capitalist society. There is NO moral interest in the "Happiness for everybody!" in our world!

Then start abolishing your private property by abolishing your computer, your Eurocentric education, your English language, and so forth.

Even then, you'd still be putting the happiness of "humanity" above the happiness of other species, further proving that it's natural and innate for some people to "have more stuff" than others.

You obviously confused me with this Greek. His name was Sisyphus. My name is Alexandre.

Your problem is that you are not looking for the Truth; it is important for you to prove your case in the absence of a logic of conviction.

THESE views are called the "spontaneous philosophy." You are simply afraid to admit this society is as mortal as those that preceded it ...

You're obviously content with your philosophy, your references to classical Greek and Roman culture, traditionally privilidges and luxuries only for the "rich", the wellborn, the aristocrats, and so forth - that's effectively what you are, at least compared to the average denizen of any 3rd world country, and I know you won't be abolishing that privilege's and living a life of material renunciation anytime soon, no.

 

[Alexandre Fedorovski]

...

Here you go

"A World Without Jews" - Karl Marx

https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Jews-Karl-Marx/dp/0806529539&tag=ff0d01-20

Marx's quasi "religion" of "abolishing all private property" was just another breed of opiate for the masses.

I do not know HOW to conduct a discussion with a person who does not know the elementary History of mankind: it started with the ABSENCE of private property.

The emergence of private property, and then its transformation into the main vector of human development is the result of the adoption of false moral guidelines.

The wealth accumulated by mankind is SUFFICIENT to ensure a worthy existence for EVERY inhabitant of the planet, but this contradicts the ugly value standards of modern capitalist society. There is NO moral interest in the "Happiness for everybody!" in our world!

Jewish kibbutzim also lack private property and all their inhabitants are happy and even give birth to kids.

Kids are private property.

If you're talking about voluntary communes, then yes, these would be great forms of living if everyone agreed to participate in them, such as the Christian monastic communities of yore.

Marxism, however is not such a thing.

Do not go there - you will either drown yourself, or I will drown you

The theory of communism is the quintessence of the collective dream of exploited humanity for millennia.

The main thing is to brake in time