Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:14:58AM -0800, Razer wrote: > On November 18, 2018 2:09:47 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness > wrote: > >On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 10:08:49AM -0800, Razer wrote: > >> "This is dedicated to the people in the building above me who > >> called the cops on me when I was just trying to get some money to > >> feed my daughter." ~Karl Marx, Dedication, Communist Manifesto. That purported dedication by Marx struck a bell when I first read it. Still does. I've hunted around again, still can't find if it's apocryphal or factual. If anyone finds a more concrete reference, any link would be appreciated. Best I found was this: Manuscript of Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto https://socialhistoryportal.org/museum/6671 .. The only remaining manuscript page of The Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx in 1847. The handwriting is almost illegible. This text ends with the famous phrases 'The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!' manuscript Germany 1847 Inv. Nr.: archive Karl Marx Institute: IISH > >Ha! Is that actually true? > > Not sure... I read that somewhere but it must have been in the manuscript. > Marxist.org doesn't show a dedication. > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm > > I know it appears in this little piece of Knee-Grow music. > > "Yeah, this album is dedicated > To all the teachers that told me I'd never amount to nothin' > To all the people that lived above the buildings that I was hustlin' in front > of > Called the police on me when I was just tryin' to make some money to feed my > daughter (it's all good) > And all the niggas in the struggle > You know what I'm sayin'? It's all good, baby baby..." > > https://genius.com/The-notorious-big-juicy-lyrics > > Rr > > Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 02:00:09PM +1000, jam...@echeque.com wrote: > > NOW it's a total fucking waste of time to even respond to garbage like > > this but I feel the need to point out the Khmer Rouge were empowered by > > the US government and Pentagram, and certainly weren't "left" of anything. > > But they ARE the goto diversionary narrative whenever schmucks like this > > mention the alleged genocide in Vietnam that never occurred in the wake of > > the US rout-departure > > The left passionately denied the bloodbath in Cambodia as they passionately > denied the bloodbath in Vietnam: > > They only admitted to the bloodbath when Vietnam successfully invaded Cambodia > - and only then did they blame it somehow on the Americans. > > Back then when Chomsky and Herman wrote, the left, myself among them, all knew > that something terrible was happening in Vietnam, though most now claim to > remember otherwise. Today even Chomsky himself now remembers that no one in > the press even suggested such a thing [12], though back then two months before > he and Herman so indignantly complained of the failure to report the bloodbath > as “missing”. the National Review told us [13]: > > "THE BLOODBATH is motivated not so much by hatred or revenge as by the > necessity for the Communist system to purge itself of undesirable elements > From a Marxist viewpoint political purge is a necessity in order to achieve > political purity, a precondition to the building of socialism. Political > purity ensures single mindedness, which in turn achieves high efficiency. The > Vietnamese Communists, as they showed in their conduct of the war, are > doctrinaire single minded, efficient. But not until all Vietnamese men, women, > and children think the Communist way will political purity be achieved for the > new nation as a whole. This is why indoctrination (“re-education” as they call > it) is of prime importance. For those who are too old or too stubborn to > change elimination is the only alternative." > > The crimes committed by the North Vietnamese regime against the Vietnamese > people were smaller than the crimes committed by the Khmer Rouge against the > Cambodians, but for us on the left they were emotionally far more significant. > > When these Vietnamese crimes became known, the reaction of the left was ignore > the facts, the details and evidence of the accusations, and attack the > messenger, a reaction that was strikingly inconsistent with our self image as > the conscience of the world, our image of ourselves as people who cared deeply > about the welfare of faraway strangers. Today, most of the radical left > comfortably remember these accusations that they so venomously and savagely > condemned as never having been made. Let's hope that that "something terrible" does not come to North America. Time will tell...
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 18:46:18 + (UTC) jim bell wrote: > > uh oh. So let's make clear what "the right" means. As Jim B. pointed > out, the left/right classification comes from the french revolution. What > needs to be added is that the people who sat on "the right" of the assembly > were the conservatives/monarchists/theocrats or representatives of the > 'ancien regime'. > That explains how it applied in France, in 1795 or so. I candidly admit I don't know the whole history of the use of those words but I never saw them used in political literature from the 19th century. If I had to guess, the terms became common in the 20th century. Regardless, the fact that monarchists sat on the right was abstracted and "the right" became a label for conservatives/monarchists. So it doesn't apply only to revolutionary france but to all conservatives/monarchists/theocrats. Now, if "the right' is the state-church-oligarchy, ancien regime, or powers that be, then people who oppose them must be on "the left", at least according to one simple interpretation. In the french case, the people who opposed the monarchy were a mix of socialists and fake libertarians, who wanted varying degrees of statism. Quite related fact : a few years before the french revolution there was a coup d'etat against the english monarchy in north america. This coup d'etat is known as the "american revolution" and was funded and supported by the french monarchy. Furthermore, more than a few particular fake libertarians(jefferson and co.) were involved in both the french and american 'revolutions'. So in the english colonies a bunch of criminals overthrew the english monarchy (so they were left wingers) with help from the french monarchy and founded a slave empire. So they were far right wingers... Coincidentally I wonder if children in the USA learn about the fact that the american coup d'etat was funded by the french. I further wonder if children in public schools are informed of the fact that public 'education' is socialism and political brainwashing. > > > > Now, key features of fascism are close cooperation between the 'private' > sector and government and nationalism-militarism, also known as imperialism. > Fascists usualy believe that they are god's chosen master race and that they > have a Manifest Destiny. In other words the old mercantilists from the > british empire and modern day fascists like the americunts are both 'right > wingers'. And actually modern day corporatists-imperialists are simply the > continuantion of 18th century imperialists. > I won't argue with this, now, except to point out that the so-understood > "leftist" dictatorships of the 20th century (usually based on Communism) > tended to have analogous beliefs. Not identical, of course, but analogous. > For example, Juan says: > "Fascists usualy believe that they are god's chosen master race and that they > have a Manifest Destiny." > My response is that "race" is fairly irrelevant: We can't choose our race. > It's not a "variable", and certainly not in the short-term. One could argue, > "What does it matter if one person believes, and even declares, that his race > is superior? Unless he tries to act on this belief in a hostile or otherwise > violent way, it is functionally irrelevant". Agreed, if a some people are racists and they just talk about it, then it's mostly irrelevant. But when lots of people are racists, like say, the germans, the jews, the americans, and similar imperialist assholes are, then racism becomes an important anti-libertarian factor. In the case of americans, so called 'liberals' actually don't give a fuck about racism OR are racists themselves. They pose as being against racism only for war propaganda purposes. Notice that the 'liberals' where the assholes promoting eugenics at the beginning of the 20th century. OOPS -they did that before hitler and co go figure... > Yet, you will notice today that most of the American Left obsesses about >"Nazis" (seemingly their chosen label for anyone who they have come to >dislike) who, they claim, believe themselves to be superior. My response is: >"Does it really matter what THEY believe about themselves? Is it relevant? >Is it significant? Of course racism is significant in the US. > As for "Manifest Destiny": Communists had the idea that their system would > inexorably spread around the world, destroying all other forms of government. > (So, that is indeed akin to a "Manifest Destiny".) Yes, that's my point. Commies and american fascists are close cousins. And I'd put the commies on the left, and the americans who think they have a 'manifest destiny' on the right. > Does anyone remember the stories about the Soviet Union, with its "5-year > plans"? Shoe factories, for instance, were ordered by
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On 2018-11-23 04:46, jim bell wrote: This led me to the conclusion that in the limited area of dictatorships, there really isn't much difference between "left" and "right". These labels become fairly irrelevant. Pinochet kills three thousand commies, who previously wrecked the economy and terrorized the middle class, and are now trying to overthrow him. Restore order and prosperity. Demonized by the Western Media. King of Saudi Arabia kills one journalist, maintains order. Demonized by the western media. Burmese Government kills a few thousand Muslims, some of whom are terrorists, and the rest of whom are the cover that the terrorists hide among. Demonized by the western media. Vienam murders several hundred thousand capitalists. Western media love them. Looks to me that there is a difference between right wing dictators and left wing dictators.
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
My comments inline:
On Tuesday, November 20, 2018, 11:45:27 PM PST, juan wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:04:56 +1000
jam...@echeque.com wrote:
> On 2018-11-21 12:39, juan wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:31:11 + (UTC)
> > jim bell wrote:
> >
> >
> >> In any case, I think that the 'convention' that we refer to "fascism" as
> >> being "right-wing" was, and is, completely phony.�
> >
> > so assuming that commies and nazis and other fascists are on the left,
> > who is on the right then?
>
> Whosoever wants to restore civilization against the darkness is on the
> right.
> uh oh. So let's make clear what "the right" means. As Jim B. pointed out,
the left/right classification comes from the french revolution. What needs to
be added is that the people who sat on "the right" of the assembly were the
conservatives/monarchists/theocrats or representatives of the 'ancien regime'.
That explains how it applied in France, in 1795 or so.
> Now, key features of fascism are close cooperation between the 'private'
sector and government and nationalism-militarism, also known as imperialism.
Fascists usualy believe that they are god's chosen master race and that they
have a Manifest Destiny. In other words the old mercantilists from the british
empire and modern day fascists like the americunts are both 'right wingers'.
And actually modern day corporatists-imperialists are simply the continuantion
of 18th century imperialists.
I won't argue with this, now, except to point out that the so-understood
"leftist" dictatorships of the 20th century (usually based on Communism) tended
to have analogous beliefs. Not identical, of course, but analogous. For
example, Juan says:
"Fascists usualy believe that they are god's chosen master race and that they
have a Manifest Destiny."
My response is that "race" is fairly irrelevant: We can't choose our race.
It's not a "variable", and certainly not in the short-term. One could argue,
"What does it matter if one person believes, and even declares, that his race
is superior? Unless he tries to act on this belief in a hostile or otherwise
violent way, it is functionally irrelevant". Yet, you will notice today that
most of the American Left obsesses about "Nazis" (seemingly their chosen label
for anyone who they have come to dislike) who, they claim, believe themselves
to be superior. My response is: "Does it really matter what THEY believe
about themselves? Is it relevant? Is it significant?
As for "Manifest Destiny": Communists had the idea that their system would
inexorably spread around the world, destroying all other forms of government.
(So, that is indeed akin to a "Manifest Destiny".)
Nevertheless that never happened, and it presumably didn't happen because
Communism was eventually revealed to be horribly flawed. Even by the late
1920's and mid-1930's, Russian Communists had begun murdering over a million
Kulaks (people who didn't want to give up their on personally-owned farms to
the collective.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak From that article:
("The word kulak originally referred to independent farmers in the Russian
Empire who emerged from the peasantry and became wealthy following the Stolypin
reform, which began in 1906. The label of kulak was broadened in 1918 to
include any peasant who resisted handing over their grain to detachments from
Moscow.[1] During 1929–1933, Joseph Stalin's leadership of the total campaign
to collectivize the peasantry meant that "peasants with a couple of cows or
five or six acres more than their neighbors" were labeled "kulaks".[2]")
Another enormous flaw with Communism (and really, with all systems that purport
to be 'centrally-planned') is that it is virtually impossible to run an economy
by central control. I saw an essay once that discussed, as an example, the
food-distribution function in Manhattan. It explained that it was enormously
complex, and only 'worked' because all the components made their own decisions.
(Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand"). It was certainly not possible to do so in
the era before computers and Internet networking, and remains impossible today.
Does anyone remember the stories about the Soviet Union, with its "5-year
plans"? Shoe factories, for instance, were ordered by "the plan" to produce a
certain number (at least) of millions of pairs of shoes. Well, they did so,
but they tended to be of a small number of styles that many people didn't want!
Sure, they met 'the plan', but they didn't meet the wants and needs of the
public. Walk into any shoe store today, in America, and there are many
hundreds of styles, multiplied by dozens of sizes. A centrally-planned system
never could accomplish this.
China killed perhaps 20 million people in the "Great Leap Forward", a plan
which no doubt was intended to bring the prosperity that Mao saw in Western
nations. Ironically, now China is achieving
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 19:16:50 +1000 jam...@echeque.com wrote: > > > Corvee was typically one day a week working on the fields or some such. > > > Which is a lot less than I spend working for the government. > > On 2018-11-22 18:11, juan wrote: > > One day a week of slavery? cool. > > Way better than today's slavery. Well today's slavery is what fucktards like you have created. I don't understand why you keep whining about it. It's your own creation. And thanks to 'techy' fucktards like you and your 'science' we now enjoy a global surveillance police state which will soon put a radio transmitter in your brain. Or whatever passes for brain in your case. So, please go back to sucking trumpo's cock. That's all you can do. > > > >> The > >> ancient regime did not and could not send a generation off to Russia to > >> die. > > > oh, I'm sure there were no wars in the roman empire, in feudal europe > > and in monarchist europe > > No wars fought by conscript troops, stop lying, retard.
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
> Corvee was typically one day a week working on the fields or some such. > Which is a lot less than I spend working for the government. On 2018-11-22 18:11, juan wrote: One day a week of slavery? cool. Way better than today's slavery. The ancient regime did not and could not send a generation off to Russia to die. oh, I'm sure there were no wars in the roman empire, in feudal europe and in monarchist europe No wars fought by conscript troops, nor any wars with the horrifying casualty rates typical of modern wars fought with expendable conscript troops. except hyperinflation in france existed in the 18th century (that is almost 100 years before the revolution) There was the important difference that though John Law could inflate away the paper money in your pocket, he did not and could not try to force bakers to supply bread for worthless money, unlike Venezuela today and unlike Revolutionary France. what the fuck are you talking about. In Venezuela, and in Revolutionary France, the government enforces official maximum prices. When goods are not available at these prices, which they never are, the government proceeds to punish whosoever formerly produced goods. As a result, people went hungry in revolutionary France, and are going hungry in Venezuela.
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 17:50:54 +1000 jam...@echeque.com wrote: > >> On 2018-11-21 17:45, juan wrote: > >>> uh oh. So let's make clear what "the right" means. As Jim B. pointed > >>> out, the left/right classification comes from the french revolution. What > >>> needs to be added is that the people who sat on "the right" of the > >>> assembly were the conservatives/monarchists/theocrats or representatives > >>> of the 'ancien regime'. > > > On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 16:04:56 +1000 > > jam...@echeque.com wrote: > >> The ancient regime was theoretically absolute, and in an important sense > >> was absolute, but could not conscript, > > On 2018-11-22 16:56, juan wrote: > > excetp, of course it could > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corv%C3%A9e > > Corvee was typically one day a week working on the fields or some such. > Which is a lot less than I spend working for the government. One day a week of slavery? cool. > The > ancient regime did not and could not send a generation off to Russia to die. oh, I'm sure there were no wars in the roman empire, in feudal europe and in monarchist europe - hi hi hi. Seriously, what's the point of you vomiting one piece of nonsense after the other? what's the point of you constantly lying to yourself? How can you pretend to be so blind as to not see that your 'modern' government is the logical extension of the divine right of kings? > > except hyperinflation in france existed in the 18th century (that is > > almost 100 years before the revolution) > > > > > > http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/John_Law_inflation_in_France > > There was the important difference that though John Law could inflate > away the paper money in your pocket, he did not and could not try to > force bakers to supply bread for worthless money, unlike Venezuela today > and unlike Revolutionary France. what the fuck are you talking about. > > >> Which gave us science, technology, industrialization, and empire. > > > > notice that's exactly what a 'progressive' socialist would say. > > But that is because they, and you, lie. what? - again you are a 'techno' fascist. You are the exact same sort of retard who thinks that the world should be ruled by a socialist 'artificial super intelligence'. here's a mirror for you https://www.thevenusproject.com/ > > Progressives have destroyed science, and socialists' attempts at > industrialization were second rate (reflect on soviet cars), relied on > buying or stealing technology developed by capitalists lol - you are a left-wing techno-fascist bot James. I challenge you to think for yourself and say anything at least half original. But the problem is, as either a lefty or a righ-winger, you are totally and completely unable to THINK. All you can do is repeat whatever program your masters put into you. > (soviet cars and > car factories were copied from the US under American engineers) and came > at horrifying human cost. sure sure
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On 2018-11-21 17:45, juan wrote: uh oh. So let's make clear what "the right" means. As Jim B. pointed out, the left/right classification comes from the french revolution. What needs to be added is that the people who sat on "the right" of the assembly were the conservatives/monarchists/theocrats or representatives of the 'ancien regime'. > On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 16:04:56 +1000 > jam...@echeque.com wrote: The ancient regime was theoretically absolute, and in an important sense was absolute, but could not conscript, On 2018-11-22 16:56, juan wrote: excetp, of course it could https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corv%C3%A9e Corvee was typically one day a week working on the fields or some such. Which is a lot less than I spend working for the government. The ancient regime did not and could not send a generation off to Russia to die. except hyperinflation in france existed in the 18th century (that is almost 100 years before the revolution) http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/John_Law_inflation_in_France There was the important difference that though John Law could inflate away the paper money in your pocket, he did not and could not try to force bakers to supply bread for worthless money, unlike Venezuela today and unlike Revolutionary France. Which gave us science, technology, industrialization, and empire. notice that's exactly what a 'progressive' socialist would say. But that is because they, and you, lie. Progressives have destroyed science, and socialists' attempts at industrialization were second rate (reflect on soviet cars), relied on buying or stealing technology developed by capitalists (soviet cars and car factories were copied from the US under American engineers) and came at horrifying human cost.
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 16:04:56 +1000 jam...@echeque.com wrote: > On 2018-11-21 17:45, juan wrote: > > uh oh. So let's make clear what "the right" means. As Jim B. pointed > > out, the left/right classification comes from the french revolution. What > > needs to be added is that the people who sat on "the right" of the assembly > > were the conservatives/monarchists/theocrats or representatives of the > > 'ancien regime'. > > The ancient regime was theoretically absolute, and in an important sense > was absolute, but could not conscript, excetp, of course it could https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corv%C3%A9e > nor alter taxes from traditional > sense, so in a very important sense far less absolute than the regime > that replaced it, that wound up flaying bakers for charging more than > the maximum and committing hyperinflation, except hyperinflation in france existed in the 18th century (that is almost 100 years before the revolution) http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/John_Law_inflation_in_France In other words you are either fuckingly ignorant, or playing retarded (something that really suits you) Last but not least, whatever crimes the 'new regime' commited they were simply the continuation of the crimes of the old regime. > after the fashion of > Venezuela and wiped out entire generation of Frenchmen invading Russia. > > The divine right regime of Charles the Second gave us corporate > capitalism, lol - so the only valuable thing you've ever said is that you 'were' a leftist. The fact that you were a leftist and now are a fuckingly retarded, far-right fascist is pretty much a mathematical identity. You could be a bit more entertaining if you managed to actually come up with half a thought on your own instead of robotically parroting nonsense... parroting nonsense like a good 'ex' leftist. But then again you *are* a leftist, that is an unthinking idiot. >Which gave us science, technology, industrialization, and empire. notice that's exactly what a 'progressive' socialist would say. So the almost complete identity between left and right, or between western left-wing fascism and right-wing fascism is divinely embodied in fucktard James.
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On 2018-11-21 17:45, juan wrote: uh oh. So let's make clear what "the right" means. As Jim B. pointed out, the left/right classification comes from the french revolution. What needs to be added is that the people who sat on "the right" of the assembly were the conservatives/monarchists/theocrats or representatives of the 'ancien regime'. The ancient regime was theoretically absolute, and in an important sense was absolute, but could not conscript, nor alter taxes from traditional sense, so in a very important sense far less absolute than the regime that replaced it, that wound up flaying bakers for charging more than the maximum and committing hyperinflation, after the fashion of Venezuela and wiped out entire generation of Frenchmen invading Russia. The divine right regime of Charles the Second gave us corporate capitalism, made the scientific method as called for by Robert Boyle in the "Skeptical Chymist" high status and socially enforced, and instituted corporate capitalism. Which gave us science, technology, industrialization, and empire. So whoever wants to restore civilization against the darkness is going to look very like those who sat on the right hand side of the assembly
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 02:49:31 -0500 Steve Kinney wrote: > > > On 11/20/18 10:41 PM, juan wrote: > > >> http://pilobilus.net/Political.Oritnetation.Grid.png > > > > > > I don't think the 2d graph adds much. The assumption that 'economic' > > freedom and 'personal' freedom are different things is obviously flawed. > > Also, the assumption that 'conservatives' favor 'eonomic' freedom whereas > > 'modern' 'liberals' favor 'personal' freedom is flawed as well. In practice > > both 'conservatives' and 'liberal' are...fascists =) > > Not economic vs. personal freedom, but rather, economic (commerce) vs. > coercive (political) agency: Concentration of capital and firepower in > more or less hands. That would be your X axis? > > > Nolan came up with his chart because libertarianism doesn't fit the > > mainstream left/right classification, BUT the notion that mainstream left > > and right are half libertarian is complete bullshit, wishful thinking and > > dishonest pandering. In practice, both liberals and conservatives pay some > > *lip service* to 'personal' or 'eonomic' freedom while fully supporting > > fascism. > > I was under the impression that Nolan came up with that chart in an > effort to persuade people dissatisfied with the Left/Right spectrum that > they "belong in" the Libertarian Party. I guess that's a related reason. > > I can't fault his motives: It's not that I fault his motives. Rather I think the chart misrepresents the nature of left and right. In the nolan chart left and right are halfway between libertarian and authoritairan, but in reality they have varying degrees of authoritarianism. > Before the hostile takeover that converted > the Libertarian Party to a Radical Conservative a.k.a. Coprporatist org > back in the late 1990s, the Party had a lot to offer - I was a fan and > booster. Today, I can not distinguish Libertarian Party advocates and > its (rare) candidates for political office from "socially tolerant" > Republicans. The Libtards do talk a slightly different game, but I > could not care less about that: Performance is my bottom line. What's your take on this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Accord Anyway, my understanding is that the LP was supposed to be a means to 'educate' people rather than to seize power. It seems to have failed in both accounts at any rate. And at times the LP candiates were outright neocons, so, self-parody. > > > Anyway, we can simply have a line (or segment I guess) with anarchists > > on one end and authoritarians on the other end. And then we can classify > > the whole library accordingly. > > That's the X axis on the graph... > > > As to the placement of left and right in your graph, seems to me that > > both left and right should be at the top since both are authoritarian. And > > none of them favor free enterprise either... > > I put the Right near the Anarchist end of the scale, because "Private > power" vs. "State power" indicates one central State authority vs. > numerous competitive State-chartered Corporate entities: Think Soviet > Union vs. United States, toward the end of the Cold War era. But state chartered and privileged businesses are hardly anarchist? Another interpretation could be that your bottom left quadrant is literally "anarcho capitalism", but that's confusing because at least in theory "anarcho capitalism' is a synonym for full free enterprise. Though granted more than a few self styled 'anarcho capitalists' are 'anarcho' fascists. Overall I think the problem in your graph is that your capitalism/free enterprise axis should be parallel to the authoritarian/anarchist axis since authoritarian systems control all aspects of the lives of the subjects including of course economic activity. However in a cartesian plane the data in te X axis isn't necessarily related to the data in the Y axis. The x,y components are independent so you can have any combination of x,y and you can have things like "authoritarian free enterprise" which is a clearly contradiction. here's one possible take. https://anonfile.com/v9EdG0l7bf/pol_svg notice that the area marked in grey repesents "authoritarian individualism" which is something that doesn't make sense so even in this case teh 2d format isn't optimal. > > Thanks to several generations of full saturation Big Lie propaganda, > many people believe that Corporate Capitalism "is" Free Enterprise. Indeed. > But > in real life the two present as natural enemies: When an independent > sole prop or partnership starts cutting into a major corporation's > market by bringing a superior product to market at a competitive price, > our Corporate Capitalists use their massive financial reserves to > destroy the independent enterprise: Yes. So perhaps in your
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
> My initial reaction was "fuck y'all." Subsequent > experience has proved my instinctive anarchist response correct. > America's real silent majority, our classic Liberals, have no voice > Meanwhile, thanks to many contributing factors that all come back to > "make money fast, at any human cost," we remain on track for human > extinction. My own informal model, based on 40 years of obsessive > attention to relevant geophysical data and models, indicates that at > most single digit millions of humans will survive into the 2200s, with > full extinction likely to follow within another century. Setting an > extinction date presents challenges: The last humans will live under > conditions similar to long-stay missions to Mars, but with abundant > water and relatively convenient air pressure and temperature as major > advantages. As on Mars, a few minutes of unprotected exposure "outside" > will be fatal. One might wish our future Earth Colonists all the best... > > But that's another story: Search on NOVA Mass Extinction, then look for > a mirror because WGBS no longer hosts that file. When I'm really in the > zone, I imagine that plans for Mars missions exist to provide cover for > technology incubators developing methods for human survival under > upcoming atmospheric and etc. conditions right here on Sol III Prime. > > "Gentlemen, we can not allow a Mine Shaft Gap!" > > vs. we can not afford to put off the business of shutting the > Petrochemicals industry right the fuck down, and fast. No aboveground > political faction on the Left or Right, so called, will stand for that; > they would literally kill you first, in an effort to discourage others. > So the final answer is left as a lab exercise... for all the marbles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_extinction
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On 11/20/18 10:41 PM, juan wrote: >> http://pilobilus.net/Political.Oritnetation.Grid.png > > > I don't think the 2d graph adds much. The assumption that 'economic' > freedom and 'personal' freedom are different things is obviously flawed. > Also, the assumption that 'conservatives' favor 'eonomic' freedom whereas > 'modern' 'liberals' favor 'personal' freedom is flawed as well. In practice > both 'conservatives' and 'liberal' are...fascists =) Not economic vs. personal freedom, but rather, economic (commerce) vs. coercive (political) agency: Concentration of capital and firepower in more or less hands. > Nolan came up with his chart because libertarianism doesn't fit the > mainstream left/right classification, BUT the notion that mainstream left and > right are half libertarian is complete bullshit, wishful thinking and > dishonest pandering. In practice, both liberals and conservatives pay some > *lip service* to 'personal' or 'eonomic' freedom while fully supporting > fascism. I was under the impression that Nolan came up with that chart in an effort to persuade people dissatisfied with the Left/Right spectrum that they "belong in" the Libertarian Party. I can't fault his motives: Before the hostile takeover that converted the Libertarian Party to a Radical Conservative a.k.a. Coprporatist org back in the late 1990s, the Party had a lot to offer - I was a fan and booster. Today, I can not distinguish Libertarian Party advocates and its (rare) candidates for political office from "socially tolerant" Republicans. The Libtards do talk a slightly different game, but I could not care less about that: Performance is my bottom line. > Anyway, we can simply have a line (or segment I guess) with anarchists > on one end and authoritarians on the other end. And then we can classify the > whole library accordingly. That's the X axis on the graph... > As to the placement of left and right in your graph, seems to me that > both left and right should be at the top since both are authoritarian. And > none of them favor free enterprise either... I put the Right near the Anarchist end of the scale, because "Private power" vs. "State power" indicates one central State authority vs. numerous competitive State-chartered Corporate entities: Think Soviet Union vs. United States, toward the end of the Cold War era. Thanks to several generations of full saturation Big Lie propaganda, many people believe that Corporate Capitalism "is" Free Enterprise. But in real life the two present as natural enemies: When an independent sole prop or partnership starts cutting into a major corporation's market by bringing a superior product to market at a competitive price, our Corporate Capitalists use their massive financial reserves to destroy the independent enterprise: Dump lookalike products on the market at a loss, regulate their competitors out of business with the help of friendly, well bribed State agencies, or etc. This perspective comes from first hand observation, as a participant in high functioning small businesses stomped flat as soon as they became competitive by bringing superior products at completive prices to market. :o) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:04:56 +1000 jam...@echeque.com wrote: > On 2018-11-21 12:39, juan wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:31:11 + (UTC) > > jim bell wrote: > > > > > >> In any case, I think that the 'convention' that we refer to "fascism" as > >> being "right-wing" was, and is, completely phony.� > > > > so assuming that commies and nazis and other fascists are on the left, > > who is on the right then? > > Whosoever wants to restore civilization against the darkness is on the > right. uh oh. So let's make clear what "the right" means. As Jim B. pointed out, the left/right classification comes from the french revolution. What needs to be added is that the people who sat on "the right" of the assembly were the conservatives/monarchists/theocrats or representatives of the 'ancien regime'. Now, key features of fascism are close cooperation between the 'private' sector and government and nationalism-militarism, also known as imperialism. Fascists usualy believe that they are god's chosen master race and that they have a Manifest Destiny. In other words the old mercantilists from the british empire and modern day fascists like the americunts are both 'right wingers'. And actually modern day corporatists-imperialists are simply the continuantion of 18th century imperialists. So the question for Jim Bell remains. What political doctrines are 'right wing'?
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On 2018-11-21 12:39, juan wrote: On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:31:11 + (UTC) jim bell wrote: In any case, I think that the 'convention' that we refer to "fascism" as being "right-wing" was, and is, completely phony.� so assuming that commies and nazis and other fascists are on the left, who is on the right then? Whosoever wants to restore civilization against the darkness is on the right. Whosoever speaks truthfully about natures of men and women is on the right. Whosoever wants to return to the system that gave us industrialization, technology, science, and empire is on the right. Whosoever wants to allow men and women to durably contract to form families is on the right. Whosoever wants to restore Pauline marriage, marriage as it existed up to the fifties and early 1960s, is on the right. Whosoever wants science to return to the scientific method as prescribed by Robert Boyle and practiced from 1603 and 1944 is on the right. And proof of this is that anyone who deviates from leftism on any one of these issues, will be accused by leftists of deviating on all of them.
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:51:38 -0500 Steve Kinney wrote: > > The X axis represents distribution of Private power into fewer hands > (Capitalism) or more hands (Free Enterprise). The Y axis represents > distribution of State power into fewer hands (Authoritarian) or more > hands (Anarchist). I do not label the quadrants, leaving that as an > exercise. Examining various "ideologies" in the context of this graph > provides a bit of potentially educational fun. Which quadrant would you > rather live in, and why? > > In this example I place the Right and Left on the graph: > > http://pilobilus.net/Political.Oritnetation.Grid.png I don't think the 2d graph adds much. The assumption that 'economic' freedom and 'personal' freedom are different things is obviously flawed. Also, the assumption that 'conservatives' favor 'eonomic' freedom whereas 'modern' 'liberals' favor 'personal' freedom is flawed as well. In practice both 'conservatives' and 'liberal' are...fascists =) Nolan came up with his chart because libertarianism doesn't fit the mainstream left/right classification, BUT the notion that mainstream left and right are half libertarian is complete bullshit, wishful thinking and dishonest pandering. In practice, both liberals and conservatives pay some *lip service* to 'personal' or 'eonomic' freedom while fully supporting fascism. Anyway, we can simply have a line (or segment I guess) with anarchists on one end and authoritarians on the other end. And then we can classify the whole library accordingly. As to the placement of left and right in your graph, seems to me that both left and right should be at the top since both are authoritarian. And none of them favor free enterprise either...
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:31:11 + (UTC) jim bell wrote: > In any case, I think that the 'convention' that we refer to "fascism" as > being "right-wing" was, and is, completely phony. so assuming that commies and nazis and other fascists are on the left, who is on the right then?
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On 2018-11-21 06:08, Razer wrote: There IS a "Left" and there IS a "Right"... Right=Fascism Left=Anarcho-Communism(communalism et al) ...and an infinite number of points in between. Bullshit. There is one left and a thousand non lefts. Every leftist believes one thousand and one points of official doctrine, and tolerates no deviation, and whosever deviates on any one point is supposedly an extreme rightist racist nazi nazi Hitler HITLER, even if the points of doctrine, like the confederate flag being OK, and gay marriage not OK, were part of Obama's 2008 platform. And you, Razer, formulaically chant the official leftist script on every issue. One leftist says "Hail fellow anarchist", but nontheless gives us the official leftist script on every issue, one says "Hail fellow black male", but nontheless gives us the official leftist script on every issue, another says "hail fellow white male", but nontheless gives us the official leftist script on every issue, "Hail fellow Democrat", "hail fellow Nazi", "hail fellow greenie", but the formulaic and repetitious script never changes, except that if they are saying "Hail fellow Nazi", they call Trump a Jew, and if they are saying "Hail fellow progressive", they call him a Nazi.
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On Tuesday, November 20, 2018, 12:08:58 PM PST, Razer wrote: >There IS a "Left" and there IS a "Right"... Yes, and the origin of that meme was the outcome of the French revolution in 1789 onwards. "The right", of that location and era, sat in the legislature on the "right", and "The Left", of that location and era, sat in the legislature on the "left". Simple for post-revolutionary France. But applying that to other nations and at different times can be difficult. And, being only one-dimensional, it's quite inadequate and highly misleading. >Right=Fascism Actually, while I realize that this has become a 'convention', an agreed-upon idea, I challenge that concept. The Italian "Fascist" Party was formed by a schism (an ideological split, a feud) within the Italian Socialist Party, in 1915, over the relatively simple idea of whether Italy should enter WWI, which it eventually did on the side of France and Britain. Benito Mussolini https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini famously headed the "Fascists", as they were called. Nevertheless, "Fascists" were still "socialists". "Fascists" did not suddenly decide, 'we are tired of being left-wingers, we want to be right-wingers instead!!!' No, they were still socialists. And, like socialists, they wanted big, controlling governments. It's just that THEY wanted to be in control of those big, controlling governments. And eventually, they wanted to use government-directed violence against citizens, as would eventually be done in Russia, China, and every other communist nation. Similarly, Germany eventually formed the Nazi party. Why should we call that "right-wing"? Strong, authoritarian government, that uses violence against its citizens. Why didn't 'we' call that "left-wing", rather than "right wing"? Given that the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" originally came from Post-Revolutionary France, I wonder how anybody could be strongly confident that one label or another applies in any given situation. In any case, I think that the 'convention' that we refer to "fascism" as being "right-wing" was, and is, completely phony. I think it was primarily based on the fact that there eventually became a war between "national socialists" and "communist-socialists" between 1939 and 1945. Some Socialists couldn't stand the idea that other Socialists had just started a war, one that had killed 60+ million people. Don't forget the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, of 1939 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact , in which Stalin gave Hitler the 'cover' he wanted to become confident to start WWII, and he did so. The "solution", I suggest, was that they decided to label "fascism" (one kind of socialism) as being "right wing", safely kept away from another kind of socialism (Communism). So, each could safely blame each other for all the ills of the world, without seeming to be attacking themselves. >Left=Anarcho-Communism(communalism et al) Sorry, I have to disagree again. One big problem is that the term "anarchist" gets thrown around a lot. I have considered myself an "anarchist libertarian" since 1995, because I figured out how to solve the problem of eliminating that last bit of government, becoming my Assassination Politics essay. So, I think I should have some credibility here. (Many and probably most people who called themselves "anarchists", even today, were not aware of David Friedman's "Hard Problem", to which I described the solution when I invented AP. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf (Sadly, for 20+ years, David Friedman has seemed to have trouble acknowledging that I at least sketched out the solution to his "Hard Problem", in my AP essay. I wasn't even aware that he had called that problem "The Hard Problem" in January 1995, when I found the solution.) I think that many people who call themselves "anarchists", and people who are called "anarchists", don't really BELIEVE in the concept of "zero government". Many of them, today, I believe, are actually pro-big-government socialists who have become discouraged by the failure of virtually every attempt at Communism that has been tried. Even Red China's 'main claim to fame', in the last 20 years, has been the adoption of what should probably be labellable as an (imperfect) market economy. Put simply, if China hadn't done that, it would have been about as backward a nation as it was in, say, 1970. And Walmart would have had to find another supplier for a large portion of its items for sale. >"...and an infinite number of points in between" I think a one-dimensional political spectrum is hopelessly crude and misleading. Far better is the Nolan Chart, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart and the World's Smallest Political Quiz, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_Smallest_Political_Quiz × >From the moment that I first became aware of it, probably
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On November 19, 2018 10:54:19 PM PST, Steve Kinney wrote: > > >On 11/19/18 6:02 PM, juan wrote: > >>> On the brighter side, now Xenan will have lots of company over there >in >>> my CPunks Spam folder. I'm sure they will get along just fine, out >of >>> sight and out of mind. >> >> I open Zen's messages to see if they include a dailystormer link. I >can't believe he puts one or more links to the ds in every message, but >he does. >> >> And maybe I should expand my "uh oh" comment a bit. James used to be >a leftist and now he's a rightist. He was a partisan and he is a >partisan. He was a 'progressive' social engineer and now he's a >conservative social engineer, left and right being two sides of the >same coin. > >Ah, the Progressives! I first got to know them back when they were >called the New Left: Think "Hanoi" Jane Fonda & co. Over the years my >on-contact categorical rejection of the New Left's message evolved into >a personal theory that they were, wittingly or otherwise, fielded by a >Federal domestic political warfare activity. Their mission: Displace >and discredit Pacifists and Liberals who were getting way too much >influence during the Vietnam War. As always in mass media, nothing >attracts attention like violence, even if it's only violent and >deliberately offensive rhetoric; the plan, if plan it was, worked very >nicely. > >In this same time frame, COINTELPRO was A Thing and the FBI went so far >as to provide training, money, arms and explosives to Militant >Leftists, >creating "shocking headlines" in an effort to equate anti-war and other >Liberal / ComSymp sentiments with violent extremism in the public mind. > In light of the FBI arranging for people to actually bomb banks and >such, it would be absurd to imagine that they did not also field double >agents, witting or witless, to present a stereotyped "made to be hated" >pro-Commie, anti-American "Leftist" message to the Folks At Home. > >A funny thing happened after the Vietnam War: The New Left still had >its press contacts and professional networks, and kept right on going. >After a few years of dormancy, Hanoi Jane married a conventional >politician and got a faux Liberal makeover. At about that time I >started running into people in real life who presented as political >activists and talked about "political correctness" as if they had some >moral right to dictate what Liberals and Radicals could and could not >think, say and do. My initial reaction was "fuck y'all." Subsequent >experience has proved my instinctive anarchist response correct. > >The Progressives worked industriously through the Reagan years, and >managed to take over key roles in the Democratic Party. They elected >one of their own - The Clintons - to the Presidency. Did the old New >Left do that on their own, or with assistance from our Security >Services? I have no hard data on that, but need I mention the >relationship established when the CIA obtained full support from >Governor Clinton for the Iran/Contra cocaine trafficking business, and >the infamous Clinton Body Count from that era? Since before that day >to >the present, Progressive political actors have worked hand in glove >with >radical fringe Right Wing extremist elements of our "Deep State." > >The Clintons' zero-tolerance policy toward folks like the Patriot >Movement (who remembers Ruby Ridge?), and the mass murder they carried >out in Wayco, Texas do not impress me as evidence of an anti-Right >agenda. I see a commitment to Corporate interests who dictate a zero >tolerance policy toward any kind of wildcat political organizing, not >under the firm control of well entrenched, uber-wealthy factions in the >U.S. political/economic ecology. > >Today our peasants outnumber our dominant aristocrats by about 3/4 >million to one, and that can't be a comfortable position for a de facto >criminal elite to find itself in. Populism presents an existential >threat to the world as they know it - a world where less than >1/100,000th of the population literally makes all the decisions >affecting our species as a whole. So it can't be allowed, is all. > >Anyone who doubts the identity vs. "close relationship" of the >Progressive establishment with the Far Right needs only look into the >relationship between Henry Kissinger and Hillary Clinton: They present >themselves in public as best buddies, and Hillary calls him her mentor. > Her own track record for mass murder has yet to rise to Kissinger >status - Honduras, Libya and Syria notwithstanding - but put her in the >Oval Office and watch the fun! > >In light of the above model, the whole Left vs. Right paradigm in >modern >U.S. politics presents as a Big Lie. The only differences I see >between >the Parties of our duoploy are rhetorical, and a bias toward >prioritizing service to financial services and communications >shareholder value (Democrats) vs. Petrochemicals and Military >Contracting industries' shareholder value
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On 11/19/18 6:02 PM, juan wrote: >> On the brighter side, now Xenan will have lots of company over there in >> my CPunks Spam folder. I'm sure they will get along just fine, out of >> sight and out of mind. > > I open Zen's messages to see if they include a dailystormer link. I > can't believe he puts one or more links to the ds in every message, but he > does. > > And maybe I should expand my "uh oh" comment a bit. James used to be a > leftist and now he's a rightist. He was a partisan and he is a partisan. He > was a 'progressive' social engineer and now he's a conservative social > engineer, left and right being two sides of the same coin. Ah, the Progressives! I first got to know them back when they were called the New Left: Think "Hanoi" Jane Fonda & co. Over the years my on-contact categorical rejection of the New Left's message evolved into a personal theory that they were, wittingly or otherwise, fielded by a Federal domestic political warfare activity. Their mission: Displace and discredit Pacifists and Liberals who were getting way too much influence during the Vietnam War. As always in mass media, nothing attracts attention like violence, even if it's only violent and deliberately offensive rhetoric; the plan, if plan it was, worked very nicely. In this same time frame, COINTELPRO was A Thing and the FBI went so far as to provide training, money, arms and explosives to Militant Leftists, creating "shocking headlines" in an effort to equate anti-war and other Liberal / ComSymp sentiments with violent extremism in the public mind. In light of the FBI arranging for people to actually bomb banks and such, it would be absurd to imagine that they did not also field double agents, witting or witless, to present a stereotyped "made to be hated" pro-Commie, anti-American "Leftist" message to the Folks At Home. A funny thing happened after the Vietnam War: The New Left still had its press contacts and professional networks, and kept right on going. After a few years of dormancy, Hanoi Jane married a conventional politician and got a faux Liberal makeover. At about that time I started running into people in real life who presented as political activists and talked about "political correctness" as if they had some moral right to dictate what Liberals and Radicals could and could not think, say and do. My initial reaction was "fuck y'all." Subsequent experience has proved my instinctive anarchist response correct. The Progressives worked industriously through the Reagan years, and managed to take over key roles in the Democratic Party. They elected one of their own - The Clintons - to the Presidency. Did the old New Left do that on their own, or with assistance from our Security Services? I have no hard data on that, but need I mention the relationship established when the CIA obtained full support from Governor Clinton for the Iran/Contra cocaine trafficking business, and the infamous Clinton Body Count from that era? Since before that day to the present, Progressive political actors have worked hand in glove with radical fringe Right Wing extremist elements of our "Deep State." The Clintons' zero-tolerance policy toward folks like the Patriot Movement (who remembers Ruby Ridge?), and the mass murder they carried out in Wayco, Texas do not impress me as evidence of an anti-Right agenda. I see a commitment to Corporate interests who dictate a zero tolerance policy toward any kind of wildcat political organizing, not under the firm control of well entrenched, uber-wealthy factions in the U.S. political/economic ecology. Today our peasants outnumber our dominant aristocrats by about 3/4 million to one, and that can't be a comfortable position for a de facto criminal elite to find itself in. Populism presents an existential threat to the world as they know it - a world where less than 1/100,000th of the population literally makes all the decisions affecting our species as a whole. So it can't be allowed, is all. Anyone who doubts the identity vs. "close relationship" of the Progressive establishment with the Far Right needs only look into the relationship between Henry Kissinger and Hillary Clinton: They present themselves in public as best buddies, and Hillary calls him her mentor. Her own track record for mass murder has yet to rise to Kissinger status - Honduras, Libya and Syria notwithstanding - but put her in the Oval Office and watch the fun! In light of the above model, the whole Left vs. Right paradigm in modern U.S. politics presents as a Big Lie. The only differences I see between the Parties of our duoploy are rhetorical, and a bias toward prioritizing service to financial services and communications shareholder value (Democrats) vs. Petrochemicals and Military Contracting industries' shareholder value (Republican). America's real silent majority, our classic Liberals, have no voice in national policy under a system that locks out candidates for
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On November 18, 2018 1:56:31 PM PST, jam...@echeque.com wrote: You lie about Vietnam as the American left formerly lied about Cambodia On 2018-11-19 08:17, Razer wrote: You must mean US LaRouchieLabor Party 'left'. Leftists are all NPCs, all speaking from one script, like an unhelpful call center workers manning an unhelpful help line, and when the script is suddenly changed, all leftists everywhere suddenly change and no longer remember that yesterday they were saying something completely different. Leftists spoke with one voice before 1978 December 25th, and they spoke with one voice after 1979 February 16th, but now they say the opposite of what they said before before 1978 December 25th. Show us a link to a leftist admitting the Cambodian Autogenocide before 1978 December 25th, or to a leftist denying the Cambodian Autogenocide after 1979 February 16th. So, link us to a someone you consider a leftist who acknowledged the Khmer Rouge autogenocide before 1978 December 25th or denied if after 1979 February 16th. 1. I don't go to links named "Jim.com", or whatever, for authoritative info. So give us your own link that shows a leftist saying something different from the authoritative and official script. If you say that leftists existed who gave us a different story, link them. Right here buddy. But right now you are robotically and mechanically giving us today's official leftist script the Vietnamese bloodbath (no such thing, and no one even suggested there was such a thing, and if anyone suggested there was such a thing they don't count) and on the Khmer Rouge autogenocide (that it happened but the CIA did it) and if you were writing before 1978 December 25th you would have been giving us the previous official script - no such thing happened, and no one even suggested it was happening, and if anyone did suggest such a thing happened they don't count because such an absurd and outrageous suggestion proves that they are a lunatic ultra extreme right winger.
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 15:20:38 -0500 Steve Kinney wrote: > > > On 11/18/18 12:17 AM, juan wrote: > > On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 14:34:11 +1000 > > jam...@echeque.com wrote: > > > > > >> I ceased to be a leftist when > > > > uh oh... > > On the brighter side, now Xenan will have lots of company over there in > my CPunks Spam folder. I'm sure they will get along just fine, out of > sight and out of mind. I open Zen's messages to see if they include a dailystormer link. I can't believe he puts one or more links to the ds in every message, but he does. And maybe I should expand my "uh oh" comment a bit. James used to be a leftist and now he's a rightist. He was a partisan and he is a partisan. He was a 'progressive' social engineer and now he's a conservative social engineer, left and right being two sides of the same coin. > > :o) > > > > >
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On 11/18/18 12:17 AM, juan wrote: > On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 14:34:11 +1000 > jam...@echeque.com wrote: > > >> I ceased to be a leftist when > > uh oh... On the brighter side, now Xenan will have lots of company over there in my CPunks Spam folder. I'm sure they will get along just fine, out of sight and out of mind. :o) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On November 18, 2018 2:09:47 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness wrote: >On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 10:08:49AM -0800, Razer wrote: >> "This is dedicated to the people in the building above me who >> called the cops on me when I was just trying to get some money to >> feed my daughter." ~Karl Marx, Dedication, Communist Manifesto. > >Ha! Is that actually true? Not sure... I read that somewhere but it must have been in the manuscript. Marxist.org doesn't show a dedication. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm I know it appears in this little piece of Knee-Grow music. "Yeah, this album is dedicated To all the teachers that told me I'd never amount to nothin' To all the people that lived above the buildings that I was hustlin' in front of Called the police on me when I was just tryin' to make some money to feed my daughter (it's all good) And all the niggas in the struggle You know what I'm sayin'? It's all good, baby baby..." https://genius.com/The-notorious-big-juicy-lyrics Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On November 18, 2018 4:05:38 PM PST, jam...@echeque.com wrote: > Because nothing of the sort happened in Vietnam that's ever been documented anywhere. > >On November 18, 2018 1:56:31 PM PST, jam...@echeque.com wrote: >>> You lie about Vietnam as the American left formerly lied about >Cambodia > >On 2018-11-19 08:17, Razer wrote: >> You must mean US LaRouchieLabor Party 'left'. > >Leftists are all NPCs, all speaking from one script, like an unhelpful >call center workers manning an unhelpful help line, and when the script > >is suddenly changed, all leftists everywhere suddenly change and no >longer remember that yesterday they were saying something completely >different. > >Leftists spoke with one voice before 1978 December 25th, and they spoke > >with one voice after 1979 February 16th, but now they say the opposite >of what they said before before 1978 December 25th. > >Show us a link to a leftist admitting the Cambodian Autogenocide before > >1978 December 25th, or to a leftist denying the Cambodian Autogenocide >after 1979 February 16th. Your definition of "Leftist" apparently includes fascist organizations (US Labor Party, LaRouchies), which is ideologically impossible. You can't tell left from right or conflate them at whim to make a point. > >Every single leftist every where, in the sense that any leftist >anywhere >who deviated from the party line was promptly denounced and purged, >every tenured Academic everywhere, in the sense that there was not one >dissenting voice in all of tenured Academia in the entire world, lied >about the Cambodian Autogenocide until 1979 January the eighth, when >Phnom Penh fell to the Vietnamese, whereupon every leftist every where >turned on a dime, admitted the Cambodian Autogenocide and started >blaming it on the CIA, > >I just gave you a link to Chomsky denying, excusing, and justifying the > >Cambodian autogenocide. 1. I don't go to links named "Jim.com", or whatever, for authoritative info. 2. Noam Chomsky is not representative of my POV (for one, he believes in so-called "humanitarian interventions") 3. Your NZ scumbag Nazi buttfuck friend approves of it, so it MUST be a diseased link. > >If you say that leftists existed who gave us a different story, link >them. Right here buddy. Except I'm not a 'leftist'... the 'ist' prefix meaning "somethng like". Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
And you lie again. On 2018-11-19 08:17, Razer wrote: I might make mistakes, but I NEVER lie. You are stubbornly insisting that the left did not abruptly and uniformly change its line on Cambodia and on the liquidation of the kulaks If you are making a mistake, you are making a mistake while determinedly ignoring facts and evidence that has been brought to your attention - which amounts to lying. You are giving us the official leftist story on Cambodia (official after 1979 February 16, but completely different from the official left wing story before 1978 December 25) indifferent to whether it is true or false. That is lying, in that you are faithful to script, and unfaithful to the evidence.
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
Because nothing of the sort happened in Vietnam that's ever been documented anywhere. On November 18, 2018 1:56:31 PM PST, jam...@echeque.com wrote: You lie about Vietnam as the American left formerly lied about Cambodia On 2018-11-19 08:17, Razer wrote: You must mean US LaRouchieLabor Party 'left'. Leftists are all NPCs, all speaking from one script, like an unhelpful call center workers manning an unhelpful help line, and when the script is suddenly changed, all leftists everywhere suddenly change and no longer remember that yesterday they were saying something completely different. Leftists spoke with one voice before 1978 December 25th, and they spoke with one voice after 1979 February 16th, but now they say the opposite of what they said before before 1978 December 25th. Show us a link to a leftist admitting the Cambodian Autogenocide before 1978 December 25th, or to a leftist denying the Cambodian Autogenocide after 1979 February 16th. Every single leftist every where, in the sense that any leftist anywhere who deviated from the party line was promptly denounced and purged, every tenured Academic everywhere, in the sense that there was not one dissenting voice in all of tenured Academia in the entire world, lied about the Cambodian Autogenocide until 1979 January the eighth, when Phnom Penh fell to the Vietnamese, whereupon every leftist every where turned on a dime, admitted the Cambodian Autogenocide and started blaming it on the CIA, I just gave you a link to Chomsky denying, excusing, and justifying the Cambodian autogenocide. If you say that leftists existed who gave us a different story, link them.
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On November 18, 2018 1:56:31 PM PST, jam...@echeque.com wrote: >> Because nothing of the sort happened in Vietnam that's ever been >documented anywhere. > >You lie about Vietnam as the American left formerly lied about Cambodia You must mean US LaRouchieLabor Party 'left'. Anything to the left of Alt-right is 'left' to disinformation trolls like you, after all. > >and Russia, because you intend to do to us what was done to them. We'll retrain you to be a useful member of society, and if you don't want that, that's ok... you can keep collecting welfare checks like you do now. We won't mind... and we'll be able to up your benefits because the Pentagon will be... gon(sic). > >You lied before. > >And you lie again. > I might make mistakes, but I NEVER lie. Cite my mistakes or go troll, fish. >Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. A Junior Bush quote... how apropos. Rr
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 10:08:49AM -0800, Razer wrote: > "This is dedicated to the people in the building above me who > called the cops on me when I was just trying to get some money to > feed my daughter." ~Karl Marx, Dedication, Communist Manifesto. Ha! Is that actually true?
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
Because nothing of the sort happened in Vietnam that's ever been documented anywhere. You lie about Vietnam as the American left formerly lied about Cambodia and Russia, because you intend to do to us what was done to them. You lied before. And you lie again. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On 2018-11-19 04:08, Razer wrote: On November 17, 2018 8:17:38 PM PST, jam...@echeque.com wrote: The left enthusiastically supported and indignantly denied the liquidation of the Kulaks until Khruschev's secret speech, long after the liquidation There you go... Thinking the USSR was actually a communist country. Totalitarian collectivism isn't communism And yet, while the kulaks were being liquidated, you guys sure thought it was communism. You only ceased to think it was communism when they refrained from murdering as many people as you think should be murdered. And here is Chomsky supporting and denying the Cambodian autogenocide while millions of refugees fled the terror: https://chomsky.info/19770625/ Shortly before he denounced it with equal vigor - denounced it not because any new facts had become available, but because the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia now needed to justified. The left enthusiastically supported and indignantly denied the Vietnamese bloodbath, and continue to deny it to this day. nothing of the sort happened in Vietnam that's ever been documented anywhere. That is exactly what you guys, for example Chomsky, https://chomsky.info/19770625/ were saying about Khmer Rouge Cambodia, until suddenly you started saying the opposite about Cambodia, because it suddenly became convenient to do so. You lie, you lie in support of mass murderers, because you intend to commit mass murder. Millions of refugees fled Vietnam. They said there was a bloodbath, and they were fleeing it, just as millions fled Cambodia, and said there was a genocide and they were fleeing it. You are telling us the same lie about Vietnam as Chomsky in the link above tells us about Cambodia, and the lie is equally blatant in both cases. Here is a fisking of Chomsky's lies about Cambodia: https://jim.com/chomsdis.htm
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 02:40:21PM +1000, jam...@echeque.com wrote: > [12] https://jim.com/ChomskyLiesCites/Cites.htm#_ftnref12 > > [13] > https://jim.com/ChomskyLiesCites/When_we_knew_what_happened_in_Vietnam.htm Nice collection of links/cites by the way! Thanks :)
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On November 17, 2018 8:17:38 PM PST, jam...@echeque.com wrote: >The left enthusiastically supported and indignantly denied the >liquidation of the Kulaks until Khruschev's secret speech, long after >the liquidation > There you go... Thinking the USSR was actually a communist country. Totalitarian collectivism isn't communism >The left enthusiastically supported and indignantly denied the >Cambodian >autogenocide, until the Vietnamese invaded and conquered, three years >after the autogenocide had been widely publicized. > >The left enthusiastically supported and indignantly denied the >Vietnamese bloodbath, and continue to deny it to this day. Vietnamese Bloodbath... You mean in Cambodia? Because nothing of the sort happened in Vietnam that's ever been documented anywhere. As far as Cambodia goes, that "Bloodbath" committed by the Vietnamese, IF if ever actually occured, would be their wiping out of left-behind and indigenous CIA proxies. Much like the Syrians, with Russian assistance, are doing to another group of CIA proxies. If it was societal 'Familcide', it was the CIA's proxies killing off anyone who disagreed with them. The Khmer Rouge weren't "Left", and no one I ever met thought they were, so you and your Scumbag alt-right friends, and Westerners indoctrinated into the myth of Merica, believe that garbage... Sort of like believing in Chemtrails distributed by commercial airliners, or Russians in the hotel room with Donald Trump, pissing on him. Speaking of pissed... Proof that one pissed-off person can change EVERYTHING: "This is dedicated to the people in the building above me who called the cops on me when I was just trying to get some money to feed my daughter." ~Karl Marx, Dedication, Communist Manifesto. Rr Sent from my Androgyny dee-vice with K-9 Mail
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 14:34:11 +1000 jam...@echeque.com wrote: > I ceased to be a leftist when uh oh...
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
[12] https://jim.com/ChomskyLiesCites/Cites.htm#_ftnref12 [13] https://jim.com/ChomskyLiesCites/When_we_knew_what_happened_in_Vietnam.htm
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
Within my lifetime there have been two enormous mass murders committed by the left overseas, and each of them was simultaneously supported and denied by the American left. I ceased to be a leftist when I saw the flood of refugees fleeing the bloodbath in Vietnam and fleeing the Khmer Rouge autogenocide, not so much because these enormous crimes horrified me, but because the reaction of my fellow leftists to these gigantic crimes horrified me. And, since that is how they reacted to the liquidation of the kulaks, the great leap forward, the Vietnamese bloodbath, and the Cambodian autogenocide, that is likely what is coming for America.
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
The left enthusiastically supported and indignantly denied the liquidation of the Kulaks until Khruschev's secret speech, long after the liquidation The left enthusiastically supported and indignantly denied the Cambodian autogenocide, until the Vietnamese invaded and conquered, three years after the autogenocide had been widely publicized. The left enthusiastically supported and indignantly denied the Vietnamese bloodbath, and continue to deny it to this day.
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
The world knew of the mass murders in Vietnam and autogenocide of Cambodia through the enormous flood of refugees produced by these enormous crimes. The left responded to both crimes in exactly the same way, simultaneously gleefully rejoicing and smarmily denying. Only after the Vietnamese communists defeated the Cambodian communists, did they suddenly then declare, three years later, that the Cambodian autogenocide had happened and was a very bad thing - while continuing to deny the Vietnamese bloodbath.
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
The left rejoiced at the liquidation of the kulaks, and only got around to saying it was a bad thing when Stalin was condemned in the secret speech. They rejoiced in the Vietnamese bloodbath at the same time as they denied it. They rejoiced in the Cambodian bloodbath at the same time as they denied, and then suddenly changed their tune when the Vietnamese communists conquered the Cambodian communists.
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On 2018-11-18 06:24, Razer wrote: On November 16, 2018 4:42:08 PM PST,jam...@echeque.com wrote: The violence of leftists is continually and rapidly escalating. War approaches. The only question is: Do they wipe themselves out after killing a few million or so, as in Khmer Rouge Cambodia and Szechuan province, or -- I KNOW it's a total fucking waste of time to even respond to garbage like this but I feel the need to point out the Khmer Rouge were empowered by the US government and Pentagram, Commie lie. The supposed mechanism by which the Pentagon empowered the Khmer Rouge was by bombing the hell out of them, which story does not make any sense at all, and in any case the bombing stopped two years before they took power, so looks like it was effective in stopping them for as long as it lasted. https://jim.com/chomsdis.htm And the predicted bloodbath in Vietnam did in fact take place as expected and predicted, and all you guys loved it at the same time as you denied. It supposedly was not happening, and the victims supposedly really deserved it. https://jim.com/ChomskyLiesCites/When_we_knew_what_happened_in_Vietnam.htm
Re: of elephants and men, and scumbags
On November 16, 2018 4:42:08 PM PST, jam...@echeque.com wrote: >The violence of leftists is continually and rapidly escalating. War >approaches. > >The only question is: Do they wipe themselves out after killing a few >million or so, as in Khmer Rouge Cambodia and Szechuan province, or -- I KNOW it's a total fucking waste of time to even respond to garbage like this but I feel the need to point out the Khmer Rouge were empowered by the US government and Pentagram, and certainly weren't "left" of anything. But they ARE the goto diversionary narrative whenever schmucks like this mention the alleged genocide in Vietnam that never occurred in the wake of the US rout-departure. Scumbags like James are the people who spit on US soldiers returning from Vietnam, so it could be blamed on antiwar protesters who weren't even allowed near returning soldier's points of departure and return. Rr Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail.
