Andylusion
Platinum Member
When you act like the people you claim are evil.... that makes you no better than them. Remember that.
Some white men arrested for inciting riots
- Thread starter pyetro
- Start date
When you act like the people you claim are evil.... that makes you no better than them. Remember that.
DOTR
Gold Member
- Oct 24, 2016
- 14,270
- 3,524
- 290
How about being in the camp that promotes my interests?
Andylusion
Platinum Member
Depends on what camp that is, and how they promote your interest. If they promote your interest, by being decent upstanding people, who live at peace with all people as far as it depends on them....
Sure.
But if they intend to be evil, then promoting your interest with evil, will only destroy you in the process... just like it is destroying black people right now.
Mac-7
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2019
- 67,218
- 48,841
- 3,565
I would point that out to radical blacks a guilt-ridden white liberals first if I were you
they are the spark that causes most of the backlash among some white people
we now have adults who have been browbeaten their entire lives about how bad white people are
DOTR
Gold Member
- Oct 24, 2016
- 14,270
- 3,524
- 290
I’ll ask again....does the white man below have a choice about ignoring the “rantings” of black privilege? Is he concerned with “being better than them”?
Andylusion
Platinum Member
If you are being attacked... then you shoot back. Nothing I said means, just wait to be killed.
But if you are suggesting you get in a group, and start going around the city throwing rocks at black people, so you can be part of your group... that makes you no better than those guys. That just makes you evil, like them.
But obviously if your wife is being attacked, you pull your weapon of choice, and strike the thug down, whether he is black white, orange or purple with yellow stripes.
I said be at peace with all men, as far as it depends on you. Not roll over and be killed. That's ridiculous.
And that's not a white or black issue even. Some of the rioters are white. Nothing to do with color.
DBA
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2015
- 13,216
- 11,927
- 2,140
Ah, the trusty old "racist" defense. A good lemming you are.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
Communism Is a dictatorship. Socialism is democratic. Marx was wrong Lennon was a liar. Every definition of socialism includes regulation or control by the community. That is democracy. The committees in the Soviet Union or the Soviets turned out to not have any democracy as advertised.... Only English speaking conservatives have your problem of confusion. Or other people who are misinformed....Wtf, A. You’re conflating regulation with government ownership. 2 totally different things. B. Just because a dictator runs a country, doesn’t automatically disqualify it as a socialist country. That’s a ridiculous point. It’s the natural progression of socialism. You give that much power to a centralized organization, eventually an authoritarian takes over, or turns authoritarian. Which is what you see in Venezuela. Praised as a socialist done right by the left, don’t deny it, up until it wasn’t. Then all of a sudden, it wasn’t socialism, it magically turned into “Maduro is actually a right wing extremist”. To believe in socialism, it requires a narcissism to think that a centralized entity, if run by the right type of people, can make the correct top down decisions on extremely complex and nuanced systems that are all tied into each other. It’s impossible to do without “breaking a few eggs”. Kings figured this out Millenia ago. You need viceroys, lords, and governors. And even that was a way too top down system. In that system, just like in socialism, the only “games” to win at are government sanctioned, and you have to play by the rules as sanctioned by the government. In capitalism, you see that there’s a near infinite “games” to win at, there’s a niche for everything, and you don’t even have to be at the top of the game to earn substantial wealth.What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anyone here was a commie. There are actually a couple. Socialism is not at all strictly democratic. Lenin was a “democratic socialist”. He created that term. He also created the USSR, which stands for.....Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism is the government ownership of means of production. There are really only 2 socialist countries that I can think of, Cuba, and Venezuela. Neither are in the least bit democratic. Nor have any of the other socialism experiments there have been in the past. If your referring to the Nordic states as socialist, they will vehemently disagree with you. They are fully capitalistic. They happen to have larger social programs than us. They are still very much capitalistic countries. Bernie will refer to these countries often, much to the dismay of their economic leaders who correct him on Twitter, but the policies that Bernie pushes are closer to that of Venezuela, and Cuba. The closest Nordic country to socialism would be Norway. Government is a shareholder in the oil business, but the government is barred from making business decisions.Communism is a dictatorship that owns all business and industry and no one here is a communist. Shows you are an idiot. Socialism is democratic so not communism as everyone in the world but Anglo American conservatives know at this point.Well in socialism everyone has to have the right idea or they get thrown in the gulag. Or starved to death. Or become the scape goat and the rest of the starving population takes out their anger on them. If you want to make all the trees equal in size, you have to cut them all to the same size.Thats left wingNational socialism a.k.a. nazism; where does that fall on the political spectrum. They nationalized the nation's property, then parceled control to members of the regime and those loyal to it. People who weren't compatible to their regime (based on ethnic or religious or linguistic [sometimes that persecution has been the same cause] policies) were "removed".One difference is the sheer numbers. The national unite the right demonstration that got non stop media coverage of it for weeks leading up to it, turned out to be the saddest protest/demonstration in the history of media coverage. Not even 25 showed up. Sad for them, hilarious for us.
White nationalist group posing as antifa called for violence on Twitter
Other misinformation and misleading claims spread across Twitter on Sunday night and into Monday related to the protests.www.yahoo.com
I find it hard to believe that some red-necks from the rural countryside with their camos and deer-hunter shirts, are organizing a high-tech campaign to setup bots and pay people to raise mayhem.
It could be true. It could be.
If they are, then ship them to prison with the rest of the rioters and looters.
Well read this and we're not talking about some rednecks.
Fringe groups point finger back at Trump, Democrats
Even some alt right turning on the trumpturd.
The Boogaloo Movement Wants To Be Seen as Anti-Racist, But It Has a White Supremacist Fringe
CTEC Digital Research Lead Alex Newhouse and Researcher Nate Gunesch investigate the Boogaloo Movement’s recent involvement in the Minneapolis protests following the killing of George Floyd.www.middlebury.edu
Far-Right Extremists Are Hoping to Turn the George Floyd Protests Into a New Civil War
Armed extremists are showing up to protests and urging a “boogaloo” — code for civil war — online.www.vice.com
Administrators of pages such as Big Igloo Bois and Boojahadeen Memes actively supported the anti-racist and Black Lives Matter protests.
Doesn't that make them left-wing? How do you identify with everything the left-wing stands for, and then claim to be right-wing?
What exactly do the boogaloo bois stand for, that is the opposite of the left-wing BLM and Anarchists?
AFter you research them get back with me. So are the oath keepers left wing?
I did research them. For about an hour.
I don't see what they are that makes them right-wing.
Let me start with this. Between left-wing radicals, and right-wing radicals, what is the difference?
What makes one right, and the other left?
As far as politics go. Both want socialism. One wants a “pure race state”, in the “radical right”. The other wants social hierarchy based on identity, including race, as well as other identity factors. Both hate Israel. On the European political spectrum they are not far off from each other, outside the issue of race. The radical left would like to see communism ushered in, the radical right probably wouldn’t go that far.
Nazism was and still is Fascism to the extreme. I can understand why you would try and change the definition since you may have realized that you may be a fascist.
LOLz Nazism supports individual rights and liberties? That's what you imagine?
Only for those that have like ideas. Everyone else doesn't get that opportunity. I suggest you read up on the Spanish Civil War in the 30s and see where both the Fascists and Socialists went to war with each other. Or you can stay clueless because you can't stomach being called what you are, a Fascist like MOST The Party of the Rumpsters are. A mind is a terrible thing to waste but in your case, it's no big loss.
And no libertarianism isn’t contained to those with the same ideologies. Everyone has the same rights, you can be a communist, talk about it as much as you want, you just can’t force anyone else into your communism. That’s silly. Get your ears cleaned out, or learn comprehensive reading.
Stop and think about it. Your history is a bit Cracked.
The Government of Canada owns a share in the Oil industry as well as just about every major corporation. They only have a say when it benefits the entire nation. Otherwise, the Corporate Boards run things. MOST Western Countries are Social Democracies and that term far dates Lenin. In fact, even the United States have Government interests in many Corporation such as Passenger Trains.
Lenin set up the USSR in order to take over the world because he saw it as the only way to make Communism (Marxism) work. And he was right on that. What he was wrong about was the cooperation of the rest of the world. So he set up a country that was run by Military Leaders, not Corporate Leaders. The experiment was doomed from the start because Communism can only exist in very small groups of people. So instead of making the Utopian Society, he made a Dictatorship or a Oliarchy. There was nothing Social about it. You can call a pig a rose but that doesn't make it smell any better.
Before Hitler seized power, it was a Social Democratic Nation. He changed that to a Dictatorship. Mussolini did the same thing. Both of these changed the Social Democratic Nation into the direct opposite (Fascism) because, again Socialism that has little Democracy to it doesn't work. It becomes an Oliarchy.
Italy was a huge mess so Mussolini could mold it to Fascism because people were scare to death. When over half of your population doesn't have enough to eat then it's fairly easy to get them to grab the brass ring.
Germany was different. It had a workable Social Democratic Government. But due to the Treaty, the people thought they could do better. Along comes Hitler who promises them better. And for a time period he more than delivered. Germany became the envy of much of the western world. Then he got the idea that he wanted the Triangle. The Triangle is parts of Belgium, France and Germany that is high in natural resources. And in order for Germany to grow, it needed control of all the Triangle. So he does that his ancestors have done and decides to just take it. Of course, Hitler was a piecefull kind of guy. He took a piece of this and a piece of that and decided to take ALL of Europe. He was also an extreme bigot who hate the Slavs and any race of color. Hence the hatred of the USSR which isn't all white. Germany became a Dictatorship, not a Social Democratic Country. Like Communism, Democracy can only work in small groups. Once again, you can call a pig a rose but it still smells like a pig. Germany and Italy became Fascism that morphed into Dictatorships.
Meanwhile, Franco had a much healthier Fascist State that survived clean into today. While it's not what we would want, it's worked pretty well for the Spaniards for so many decades. What makes it work? Unlike what you claim as Socialism, Fascism is heavily supported by the Corporate Industries. If it's good for them it's good for the nation. But it only works if the Capitalists are nationalists. They still are even today. But Spain has been drifting towards a Social Democratic Government slowly. Yes, in order to do that, a shift to the left has to happen. A shift to the right of Fascism leads to a Dictatorship of Oligarchy.
Like Capitalism, Socialism is NOT a government model. It's an economic model. I'll do a in depth on that by itself. But trust me, neither one can exist without the other in anything other than small groups.
Think of Government Models being a complete circle. At the top you have the Dictatorship and at the bottom you have the Federal Republic. Going left of the Federal Republic you move into Social Democracies. Going right of the Federal Republic you go into Fascism. But I think you will find that a Federal Republic actually has models from both the Social Democracies and the Fascists while having it's own Representative Government.
Now, move to both the right of Fascism and Social Democracies and you end up the same place, the Dictatorship or Oligarchy. You just made the complete circle. Hence the starting of Hitler was so good but it ended up so bad. He completed the circle.
There are NO Socialist, Democratic nor Communist countries that exist. There never was and never will be.
Socialism is Marxist. And Marx was wrong. He believed the working class would eventually rise up. There wouldn’t be a need for world domination, it would happen naturally. It still hasn’t. Unless you want to consider the Mao’s, the Lenin’s, the Pol Pots, as the “workers” rising up. Those didn’t turn out well at all. None of them do. Socialism is inherently authoritarianism. It has to be to achieve its goals. It may even get voted in. That doesn’t mean it’s what’s best, or that people understand what they’re voting for. Jim Crow was the populist movement of the south. Very popular. Problem is, it’s the majority imposing their will on the minority. At its best socialism is utilitarianism. Taking care of the needs of the many, over the needs of the few. Especially if it’s “democratic”. You have to put policies in place that’ll get the votes.
Polishprince
Diamond Member
- Jun 8, 2016
- 46,112
- 35,729
- 3,615
Communism Is a dictatorship. Socialism is democratic. Marx was wrong Lennon was a liar. Every definition of socialism includes regulation or control by the community. That is democracy. The committees in the Soviet Union or the Soviets turned out to not have any democracy as advertised.... Only English speaking conservatives have your problem of confusion. Or other people who are misinformed....Wtf, A. You’re conflating regulation with government ownership. 2 totally different things. B. Just because a dictator runs a country, doesn’t automatically disqualify it as a socialist country. That’s a ridiculous point. It’s the natural progression of socialism. You give that much power to a centralized organization, eventually an authoritarian takes over, or turns authoritarian. Which is what you see in Venezuela. Praised as a socialist done right by the left, don’t deny it, up until it wasn’t. Then all of a sudden, it wasn’t socialism, it magically turned into “Maduro is actually a right wing extremist”. To believe in socialism, it requires a narcissism to think that a centralized entity, if run by the right type of people, can make the correct top down decisions on extremely complex and nuanced systems that are all tied into each other. It’s impossible to do without “breaking a few eggs”. Kings figured this out Millenia ago. You need viceroys, lords, and governors. And even that was a way too top down system. In that system, just like in socialism, the only “games” to win at are government sanctioned, and you have to play by the rules as sanctioned by the government. In capitalism, you see that there’s a near infinite “games” to win at, there’s a niche for everything, and you don’t even have to be at the top of the game to earn substantial wealth.What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anyone here was a commie. There are actually a couple. Socialism is not at all strictly democratic. Lenin was a “democratic socialist”. He created that term. He also created the USSR, which stands for.....Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism is the government ownership of means of production. There are really only 2 socialist countries that I can think of, Cuba, and Venezuela. Neither are in the least bit democratic. Nor have any of the other socialism experiments there have been in the past. If your referring to the Nordic states as socialist, they will vehemently disagree with you. They are fully capitalistic. They happen to have larger social programs than us. They are still very much capitalistic countries. Bernie will refer to these countries often, much to the dismay of their economic leaders who correct him on Twitter, but the policies that Bernie pushes are closer to that of Venezuela, and Cuba. The closest Nordic country to socialism would be Norway. Government is a shareholder in the oil business, but the government is barred from making business decisions.Communism is a dictatorship that owns all business and industry and no one here is a communist. Shows you are an idiot. Socialism is democratic so not communism as everyone in the world but Anglo American conservatives know at this point.Well in socialism everyone has to have the right idea or they get thrown in the gulag. Or starved to death. Or become the scape goat and the rest of the starving population takes out their anger on them. If you want to make all the trees equal in size, you have to cut them all to the same size.Thats left wingNational socialism a.k.a. nazism; where does that fall on the political spectrum. They nationalized the nation's property, then parceled control to members of the regime and those loyal to it. People who weren't compatible to their regime (based on ethnic or religious or linguistic [sometimes that persecution has been the same cause] policies) were "removed".One difference is the sheer numbers. The national unite the right demonstration that got non stop media coverage of it for weeks leading up to it, turned out to be the saddest protest/demonstration in the history of media coverage. Not even 25 showed up. Sad for them, hilarious for us.
White nationalist group posing as antifa called for violence on Twitter
Other misinformation and misleading claims spread across Twitter on Sunday night and into Monday related to the protests.
I find it hard to believe that some red-necks from the rural countryside with their camos and deer-hunter shirts, are organizing a high-tech campaign to setup bots and pay people to raise mayhem.
It could be true. It could be.
If they are, then ship them to prison with the rest of the rioters and looters.
Well read this and we're not talking about some rednecks.
Fringe groups point finger back at Trump, Democrats
Even some alt right turning on the trumpturd.The Boogaloo Movement Wants To Be Seen as Anti-Racist, But It Has a White Supremacist Fringe
CTEC Digital Research Lead Alex Newhouse and Researcher Nate Gunesch investigate the Boogaloo Movement’s recent involvement in the Minneapolis protests following the killing of George Floyd.
Far-Right Extremists Are Hoping to Turn the George Floyd Protests Into a New Civil War
Armed extremists are showing up to protests and urging a “boogaloo” — code for civil war — online.
Administrators of pages such as Big Igloo Bois and Boojahadeen Memes actively supported the anti-racist and Black Lives Matter protests.
Doesn't that make them left-wing? How do you identify with everything the left-wing stands for, and then claim to be right-wing?
What exactly do the boogaloo bois stand for, that is the opposite of the left-wing BLM and Anarchists?
AFter you research them get back with me. So are the oath keepers left wing?
I did research them. For about an hour.
I don't see what they are that makes them right-wing.
Let me start with this. Between left-wing radicals, and right-wing radicals, what is the difference?
What makes one right, and the other left?
As far as politics go. Both want socialism. One wants a “pure race state”, in the “radical right”. The other wants social hierarchy based on identity, including race, as well as other identity factors. Both hate Israel. On the European political spectrum they are not far off from each other, outside the issue of race. The radical left would like to see communism ushered in, the radical right probably wouldn’t go that far.
Nazism was and still is Fascism to the extreme. I can understand why you would try and change the definition since you may have realized that you may be a fascist.
LOLz Nazism supports individual rights and liberties? That's what you imagine?
Only for those that have like ideas. Everyone else doesn't get that opportunity. I suggest you read up on the Spanish Civil War in the 30s and see where both the Fascists and Socialists went to war with each other. Or you can stay clueless because you can't stomach being called what you are, a Fascist like MOST The Party of the Rumpsters are. A mind is a terrible thing to waste but in your case, it's no big loss.
And no libertarianism isn’t contained to those with the same ideologies. Everyone has the same rights, you can be a communist, talk about it as much as you want, you just can’t force anyone else into your communism. That’s silly. Get your ears cleaned out, or learn comprehensive reading.
Stop and think about it. Your history is a bit Cracked.
The Government of Canada owns a share in the Oil industry as well as just about every major corporation. They only have a say when it benefits the entire nation. Otherwise, the Corporate Boards run things. MOST Western Countries are Social Democracies and that term far dates Lenin. In fact, even the United States have Government interests in many Corporation such as Passenger Trains.
Lenin set up the USSR in order to take over the world because he saw it as the only way to make Communism (Marxism) work. And he was right on that. What he was wrong about was the cooperation of the rest of the world. So he set up a country that was run by Military Leaders, not Corporate Leaders. The experiment was doomed from the start because Communism can only exist in very small groups of people. So instead of making the Utopian Society, he made a Dictatorship or a Oliarchy. There was nothing Social about it. You can call a pig a rose but that doesn't make it smell any better.
Before Hitler seized power, it was a Social Democratic Nation. He changed that to a Dictatorship. Mussolini did the same thing. Both of these changed the Social Democratic Nation into the direct opposite (Fascism) because, again Socialism that has little Democracy to it doesn't work. It becomes an Oliarchy.
Italy was a huge mess so Mussolini could mold it to Fascism because people were scare to death. When over half of your population doesn't have enough to eat then it's fairly easy to get them to grab the brass ring.
Germany was different. It had a workable Social Democratic Government. But due to the Treaty, the people thought they could do better. Along comes Hitler who promises them better. And for a time period he more than delivered. Germany became the envy of much of the western world. Then he got the idea that he wanted the Triangle. The Triangle is parts of Belgium, France and Germany that is high in natural resources. And in order for Germany to grow, it needed control of all the Triangle. So he does that his ancestors have done and decides to just take it. Of course, Hitler was a piecefull kind of guy. He took a piece of this and a piece of that and decided to take ALL of Europe. He was also an extreme bigot who hate the Slavs and any race of color. Hence the hatred of the USSR which isn't all white. Germany became a Dictatorship, not a Social Democratic Country. Like Communism, Democracy can only work in small groups. Once again, you can call a pig a rose but it still smells like a pig. Germany and Italy became Fascism that morphed into Dictatorships.
Meanwhile, Franco had a much healthier Fascist State that survived clean into today. While it's not what we would want, it's worked pretty well for the Spaniards for so many decades. What makes it work? Unlike what you claim as Socialism, Fascism is heavily supported by the Corporate Industries. If it's good for them it's good for the nation. But it only works if the Capitalists are nationalists. They still are even today. But Spain has been drifting towards a Social Democratic Government slowly. Yes, in order to do that, a shift to the left has to happen. A shift to the right of Fascism leads to a Dictatorship of Oligarchy.
Like Capitalism, Socialism is NOT a government model. It's an economic model. I'll do a in depth on that by itself. But trust me, neither one can exist without the other in anything other than small groups.
Think of Government Models being a complete circle. At the top you have the Dictatorship and at the bottom you have the Federal Republic. Going left of the Federal Republic you move into Social Democracies. Going right of the Federal Republic you go into Fascism. But I think you will find that a Federal Republic actually has models from both the Social Democracies and the Fascists while having it's own Representative Government.
Now, move to both the right of Fascism and Social Democracies and you end up the same place, the Dictatorship or Oligarchy. You just made the complete circle. Hence the starting of Hitler was so good but it ended up so bad. He completed the circle.
There are NO Socialist, Democratic nor Communist countries that exist. There never was and never will be.
Socialism is Marxist. And Marx was wrong. He believed the working class would eventually rise up. There wouldn’t be a need for world domination, it would happen naturally. It still hasn’t. Unless you want to consider the Mao’s, the Lenin’s, the Pol Pots, as the “workers” rising up. Those didn’t turn out well at all. None of them do. Socialism is inherently authoritarianism. It has to be to achieve its goals. It may even get voted in. That doesn’t mean it’s what’s best, or that people understand what they’re voting for. Jim Crow was the populist movement of the south. Very popular. Problem is, it’s the majority imposing their will on the minority. At its best socialism is utilitarianism. Taking care of the needs of the many, over the needs of the few. Especially if it’s “democratic”. You have to put policies in place that’ll get the votes.
Socialism always turns out to be a mess. Remember Germany's socialist leader back in the 30's, Mr. Hitler?
His national Socialist Party established Hitlercare, gun control and genocide. And Mr. Hitler's bragging that socialism in Germany would last a thousand years was off by988.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
Bologna everything you know about Venezuela is pure propaganda.... Free market capitalism is Savage capitalism that gives you the worst inequality and upward mobility ever like we have now. What we need is democratic well regulated capitalism with a good safety net like every other modern country in the world.What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anyone here was a commie. There are actually a couple. Socialism is not at all strictly democratic. Lenin was a “democratic socialist”. He created that term. He also created the USSR, which stands for.....Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism is the government ownership of means of production. There are really only 2 socialist countries that I can think of, Cuba, and Venezuela. Neither are in the least bit democratic. Nor have any of the other socialism experiments there have been in the past. If your referring to the Nordic states as socialist, they will vehemently disagree with you. They are fully capitalistic. They happen to have larger social programs than us. They are still very much capitalistic countries. Bernie will refer to these countries often, much to the dismay of their economic leaders who correct him on Twitter, but the policies that Bernie pushes are closer to that of Venezuela, and Cuba. The closest Nordic country to socialism would be Norway. Government is a shareholder in the oil business, but the government is barred from making business decisions.Communism is a dictatorship that owns all business and industry and no one here is a communist. Shows you are an idiot. Socialism is democratic so not communism as everyone in the world but Anglo American conservatives know at this point.Well in socialism everyone has to have the right idea or they get thrown in the gulag. Or starved to death. Or become the scape goat and the rest of the starving population takes out their anger on them. If you want to make all the trees equal in size, you have to cut them all to the same size.Thats left wingNational socialism a.k.a. nazism; where does that fall on the political spectrum. They nationalized the nation's property, then parceled control to members of the regime and those loyal to it. People who weren't compatible to their regime (based on ethnic or religious or linguistic [sometimes that persecution has been the same cause] policies) were "removed".One difference is the sheer numbers. The national unite the right demonstration that got non stop media coverage of it for weeks leading up to it, turned out to be the saddest protest/demonstration in the history of media coverage. Not even 25 showed up. Sad for them, hilarious for us.
White nationalist group posing as antifa called for violence on Twitter
Other misinformation and misleading claims spread across Twitter on Sunday night and into Monday related to the protests.
I find it hard to believe that some red-necks from the rural countryside with their camos and deer-hunter shirts, are organizing a high-tech campaign to setup bots and pay people to raise mayhem.
It could be true. It could be.
If they are, then ship them to prison with the rest of the rioters and looters.
Well read this and we're not talking about some rednecks.
Fringe groups point finger back at Trump, Democrats
Even some alt right turning on the trumpturd.The Boogaloo Movement Wants To Be Seen as Anti-Racist, But It Has a White Supremacist Fringe
CTEC Digital Research Lead Alex Newhouse and Researcher Nate Gunesch investigate the Boogaloo Movement’s recent involvement in the Minneapolis protests following the killing of George Floyd.
Far-Right Extremists Are Hoping to Turn the George Floyd Protests Into a New Civil War
Armed extremists are showing up to protests and urging a “boogaloo” — code for civil war — online.
Administrators of pages such as Big Igloo Bois and Boojahadeen Memes actively supported the anti-racist and Black Lives Matter protests.
Doesn't that make them left-wing? How do you identify with everything the left-wing stands for, and then claim to be right-wing?
What exactly do the boogaloo bois stand for, that is the opposite of the left-wing BLM and Anarchists?
AFter you research them get back with me. So are the oath keepers left wing?
I did research them. For about an hour.
I don't see what they are that makes them right-wing.
Let me start with this. Between left-wing radicals, and right-wing radicals, what is the difference?
What makes one right, and the other left?
As far as politics go. Both want socialism. One wants a “pure race state”, in the “radical right”. The other wants social hierarchy based on identity, including race, as well as other identity factors. Both hate Israel. On the European political spectrum they are not far off from each other, outside the issue of race. The radical left would like to see communism ushered in, the radical right probably wouldn’t go that far.
Nazism was and still is Fascism to the extreme. I can understand why you would try and change the definition since you may have realized that you may be a fascist.
LOLz Nazism supports individual rights and liberties? That's what you imagine?
Only for those that have like ideas. Everyone else doesn't get that opportunity. I suggest you read up on the Spanish Civil War in the 30s and see where both the Fascists and Socialists went to war with each other. Or you can stay clueless because you can't stomach being called what you are, a Fascist like MOST The Party of the Rumpsters are. A mind is a terrible thing to waste but in your case, it's no big loss.
And no libertarianism isn’t contained to those with the same ideologies. Everyone has the same rights, you can be a communist, talk about it as much as you want, you just can’t force anyone else into your communism. That’s silly. Get your ears cleaned out, or learn comprehensive reading.
Stop and think about it. Your history is a bit Cracked.
The Government of Canada owns a share in the Oil industry as well as just about every major corporation. They only have a say when it benefits the entire nation. Otherwise, the Corporate Boards run things. MOST Western Countries are Social Democracies and that term far dates Lenin. In fact, even the United States have Government interests in many Corporation such as Passenger Trains.
Lenin set up the USSR in order to take over the world because he saw it as the only way to make Communism (Marxism) work. And he was right on that. What he was wrong about was the cooperation of the rest of the world. So he set up a country that was run by Military Leaders, not Corporate Leaders. The experiment was doomed from the start because Communism can only exist in very small groups of people. So instead of making the Utopian Society, he made a Dictatorship or a Oliarchy. There was nothing Social about it. You can call a pig a rose but that doesn't make it smell any better.
Before Hitler seized power, it was a Social Democratic Nation. He changed that to a Dictatorship. Mussolini did the same thing. Both of these changed the Social Democratic Nation into the direct opposite (Fascism) because, again Socialism that has little Democracy to it doesn't work. It becomes an Oliarchy.
Italy was a huge mess so Mussolini could mold it to Fascism because people were scare to death. When over half of your population doesn't have enough to eat then it's fairly easy to get them to grab the brass ring.
Germany was different. It had a workable Social Democratic Government. But due to the Treaty, the people thought they could do better. Along comes Hitler who promises them better. And for a time period he more than delivered. Germany became the envy of much of the western world. Then he got the idea that he wanted the Triangle. The Triangle is parts of Belgium, France and Germany that is high in natural resources. And in order for Germany to grow, it needed control of all the Triangle. So he does that his ancestors have done and decides to just take it. Of course, Hitler was a piecefull kind of guy. He took a piece of this and a piece of that and decided to take ALL of Europe. He was also an extreme bigot who hate the Slavs and any race of color. Hence the hatred of the USSR which isn't all white. Germany became a Dictatorship, not a Social Democratic Country. Like Communism, Democracy can only work in small groups. Once again, you can call a pig a rose but it still smells like a pig. Germany and Italy became Fascism that morphed into Dictatorships.
Meanwhile, Franco had a much healthier Fascist State that survived clean into today. While it's not what we would want, it's worked pretty well for the Spaniards for so many decades. What makes it work? Unlike what you claim as Socialism, Fascism is heavily supported by the Corporate Industries. If it's good for them it's good for the nation. But it only works if the Capitalists are nationalists. They still are even today. But Spain has been drifting towards a Social Democratic Government slowly. Yes, in order to do that, a shift to the left has to happen. A shift to the right of Fascism leads to a Dictatorship of Oligarchy.
Like Capitalism, Socialism is NOT a government model. It's an economic model. I'll do a in depth on that by itself. But trust me, neither one can exist without the other in anything other than small groups.
Think of Government Models being a complete circle. At the top you have the Dictatorship and at the bottom you have the Federal Republic. Going left of the Federal Republic you move into Social Democracies. Going right of the Federal Republic you go into Fascism. But I think you will find that a Federal Republic actually has models from both the Social Democracies and the Fascists while having it's own Representative Government.
Now, move to both the right of Fascism and Social Democracies and you end up the same place, the Dictatorship or Oligarchy. You just made the complete circle. Hence the starting of Hitler was so good but it ended up so bad. He completed the circle.
There are NO Socialist, Democratic nor Communist countries that exist. There never was and never will be.
I was curious about Canada's ownership of the oil revenue. As it turns out, it wasn't nearly as interesting as you seem to imply.
The national oil company of Korea, owns 1.2% ownership of Canada's oil sector.
The Chinese government owns 0.7% of Canada's oil sector.
The central government of Canada, only owns 0.5% of Canada's oil sector.
Foreign governments own more of Canada's oil sector than Canada does. Not all that great of an argument.
Especially since, 0.5% share in a company, is basically a zero. The government of Canada likely has less influence over their oil sector, than our government does over our oil sector.
As for the US government involvement in passenger trains... yes they do, and it is terrible. Trains suck. We are losing billions of dollars, on this money losing ash pit. We need to privatize Amtrak completely, and stop funding this waste of money.
So as far as Stalin and setting up an oligarchy, and saying there was nothing social about it... that's somewhat true, I would agree with that.
I the problem is, all forms of complete government control end up as oligarchies.
This is why the US was supposed to have hard limits on government. There is no provision in the constitution for government being involved in health care, or pensions, or housing, or education, or so on.
And it is exactly because when government gets involved, you end up with oligarchy. The natural results of government involvement in the economy, is oligarchy. It's unavoidable.
Look at every sector where the government is directly involved, and you see... oligarchy. Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac, two largest bank failures and bailouts of the entire sub-prime melt down. Franklin Raines, caught clearly fudging the numbers, and nothing happened to him. Didn't even get indicted.
And we see this going on in Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez daughter, had lucrative (read price gouging) contracts with rice suppliers from Argentina, after the Venezuela government wrecked the rice production in Venezuela, and people are literally starving to death.
Late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s daughter used laundered funds for US luxury lifestyle
Maria Gabriela Chávez, daughter of former president Hugo Chávez, has been accused of enriching herself through money launderingfcced.com
Oligarchy. It's the natural result of socialist ideology.
The solution is free-market Capitalism, where anyone can compete on the open market. No company could get a defacto monopoly through government contracts, connected to the former presidents daughter, for overly expensive rice, if anyone anywhere, could sell Rice in Venezuela at any price they wanted.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
Communists and Nazis are the biggest liars in the world and anyone who believes anything they say are idiots.
Communists and Nazis are the biggest liars every time and are always claiming to be socialists. there is no democracy or community regulation in either one so they are not socialists. Communism you can say is pure socialism but anyting pure like pure capitalism is a disgrace. France Spain Italy Germany Scandinavia all believe they are socialists. English-speaking conservative people are brainwashed twits of savage capitalists. Like the crap you spew. You are terminally confused.....What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anyone here was a commie. There are actually a couple. Socialism is not at all strictly democratic. Lenin was a “democratic socialist”. He created that term. He also created the USSR, which stands for.....Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism is the government ownership of means of production. There are really only 2 socialist countries that I can think of, Cuba, and Venezuela. Neither are in the least bit democratic. Nor have any of the other socialism experiments there have been in the past. If your referring to the Nordic states as socialist, they will vehemently disagree with you. They are fully capitalistic. They happen to have larger social programs than us. They are still very much capitalistic countries. Bernie will refer to these countries often, much to the dismay of their economic leaders who correct him on Twitter, but the policies that Bernie pushes are closer to that of Venezuela, and Cuba. The closest Nordic country to socialism would be Norway. Government is a shareholder in the oil business, but the government is barred from making business decisions.Communism is a dictatorship that owns all business and industry and no one here is a communist. Shows you are an idiot. Socialism is democratic so not communism as everyone in the world but Anglo American conservatives know at this point.Well in socialism everyone has to have the right idea or they get thrown in the gulag. Or starved to death. Or become the scape goat and the rest of the starving population takes out their anger on them. If you want to make all the trees equal in size, you have to cut them all to the same size.Thats left wingNational socialism a.k.a. nazism; where does that fall on the political spectrum. They nationalized the nation's property, then parceled control to members of the regime and those loyal to it. People who weren't compatible to their regime (based on ethnic or religious or linguistic [sometimes that persecution has been the same cause] policies) were "removed".One difference is the sheer numbers. The national unite the right demonstration that got non stop media coverage of it for weeks leading up to it, turned out to be the saddest protest/demonstration in the history of media coverage. Not even 25 showed up. Sad for them, hilarious for us.
White nationalist group posing as antifa called for violence on Twitter
Other misinformation and misleading claims spread across Twitter on Sunday night and into Monday related to the protests.
I find it hard to believe that some red-necks from the rural countryside with their camos and deer-hunter shirts, are organizing a high-tech campaign to setup bots and pay people to raise mayhem.
It could be true. It could be.
If they are, then ship them to prison with the rest of the rioters and looters.
Well read this and we're not talking about some rednecks.
Fringe groups point finger back at Trump, Democrats
Even some alt right turning on the trumpturd.The Boogaloo Movement Wants To Be Seen as Anti-Racist, But It Has a White Supremacist Fringe
CTEC Digital Research Lead Alex Newhouse and Researcher Nate Gunesch investigate the Boogaloo Movement’s recent involvement in the Minneapolis protests following the killing of George Floyd.
Far-Right Extremists Are Hoping to Turn the George Floyd Protests Into a New Civil War
Armed extremists are showing up to protests and urging a “boogaloo” — code for civil war — online.
Administrators of pages such as Big Igloo Bois and Boojahadeen Memes actively supported the anti-racist and Black Lives Matter protests.
Doesn't that make them left-wing? How do you identify with everything the left-wing stands for, and then claim to be right-wing?
What exactly do the boogaloo bois stand for, that is the opposite of the left-wing BLM and Anarchists?
AFter you research them get back with me. So are the oath keepers left wing?
I did research them. For about an hour.
I don't see what they are that makes them right-wing.
Let me start with this. Between left-wing radicals, and right-wing radicals, what is the difference?
What makes one right, and the other left?
As far as politics go. Both want socialism. One wants a “pure race state”, in the “radical right”. The other wants social hierarchy based on identity, including race, as well as other identity factors. Both hate Israel. On the European political spectrum they are not far off from each other, outside the issue of race. The radical left would like to see communism ushered in, the radical right probably wouldn’t go that far.
Nazism was and still is Fascism to the extreme. I can understand why you would try and change the definition since you may have realized that you may be a fascist.
LOLz Nazism supports individual rights and liberties? That's what you imagine?
Only for those that have like ideas. Everyone else doesn't get that opportunity. I suggest you read up on the Spanish Civil War in the 30s and see where both the Fascists and Socialists went to war with each other. Or you can stay clueless because you can't stomach being called what you are, a Fascist like MOST The Party of the Rumpsters are. A mind is a terrible thing to waste but in your case, it's no big loss.
And no libertarianism isn’t contained to those with the same ideologies. Everyone has the same rights, you can be a communist, talk about it as much as you want, you just can’t force anyone else into your communism. That’s silly. Get your ears cleaned out, or learn comprehensive reading.
Stop and think about it. Your history is a bit Cracked.
The Government of Canada owns a share in the Oil industry as well as just about every major corporation. They only have a say when it benefits the entire nation. Otherwise, the Corporate Boards run things. MOST Western Countries are Social Democracies and that term far dates Lenin. In fact, even the United States have Government interests in many Corporation such as Passenger Trains.
Lenin set up the USSR in order to take over the world because he saw it as the only way to make Communism (Marxism) work. And he was right on that. What he was wrong about was the cooperation of the rest of the world. So he set up a country that was run by Military Leaders, not Corporate Leaders. The experiment was doomed from the start because Communism can only exist in very small groups of people. So instead of making the Utopian Society, he made a Dictatorship or a Oliarchy. There was nothing Social about it. You can call a pig a rose but that doesn't make it smell any better.
Before Hitler seized power, it was a Social Democratic Nation. He changed that to a Dictatorship. Mussolini did the same thing. Both of these changed the Social Democratic Nation into the direct opposite (Fascism) because, again Socialism that has little Democracy to it doesn't work. It becomes an Oliarchy.
Italy was a huge mess so Mussolini could mold it to Fascism because people were scare to death. When over half of your population doesn't have enough to eat then it's fairly easy to get them to grab the brass ring.
Germany was different. It had a workable Social Democratic Government. But due to the Treaty, the people thought they could do better. Along comes Hitler who promises them better. And for a time period he more than delivered. Germany became the envy of much of the western world. Then he got the idea that he wanted the Triangle. The Triangle is parts of Belgium, France and Germany that is high in natural resources. And in order for Germany to grow, it needed control of all the Triangle. So he does that his ancestors have done and decides to just take it. Of course, Hitler was a piecefull kind of guy. He took a piece of this and a piece of that and decided to take ALL of Europe. He was also an extreme bigot who hate the Slavs and any race of color. Hence the hatred of the USSR which isn't all white. Germany became a Dictatorship, not a Social Democratic Country. Like Communism, Democracy can only work in small groups. Once again, you can call a pig a rose but it still smells like a pig. Germany and Italy became Fascism that morphed into Dictatorships.
Meanwhile, Franco had a much healthier Fascist State that survived clean into today. While it's not what we would want, it's worked pretty well for the Spaniards for so many decades. What makes it work? Unlike what you claim as Socialism, Fascism is heavily supported by the Corporate Industries. If it's good for them it's good for the nation. But it only works if the Capitalists are nationalists. They still are even today. But Spain has been drifting towards a Social Democratic Government slowly. Yes, in order to do that, a shift to the left has to happen. A shift to the right of Fascism leads to a Dictatorship of Oligarchy.
Like Capitalism, Socialism is NOT a government model. It's an economic model. I'll do a in depth on that by itself. But trust me, neither one can exist without the other in anything other than small groups.
Think of Government Models being a complete circle. At the top you have the Dictatorship and at the bottom you have the Federal Republic. Going left of the Federal Republic you move into Social Democracies. Going right of the Federal Republic you go into Fascism. But I think you will find that a Federal Republic actually has models from both the Social Democracies and the Fascists while having it's own Representative Government.
Now, move to both the right of Fascism and Social Democracies and you end up the same place, the Dictatorship or Oligarchy. You just made the complete circle. Hence the starting of Hitler was so good but it ended up so bad. He completed the circle.
There are NO Socialist, Democratic nor Communist countries that exist. There never was and never will be.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
National socialism is fascism. The first thing Hitler did was put all the Communists and socialists in concentration camps.Communism Is a dictatorship. Socialism is democratic. Marx was wrong Lennon was a liar. Every definition of socialism includes regulation or control by the community. That is democracy. The committees in the Soviet Union or the Soviets turned out to not have any democracy as advertised.... Only English speaking conservatives have your problem of confusion. Or other people who are misinformed....Wtf, A. You’re conflating regulation with government ownership. 2 totally different things. B. Just because a dictator runs a country, doesn’t automatically disqualify it as a socialist country. That’s a ridiculous point. It’s the natural progression of socialism. You give that much power to a centralized organization, eventually an authoritarian takes over, or turns authoritarian. Which is what you see in Venezuela. Praised as a socialist done right by the left, don’t deny it, up until it wasn’t. Then all of a sudden, it wasn’t socialism, it magically turned into “Maduro is actually a right wing extremist”. To believe in socialism, it requires a narcissism to think that a centralized entity, if run by the right type of people, can make the correct top down decisions on extremely complex and nuanced systems that are all tied into each other. It’s impossible to do without “breaking a few eggs”. Kings figured this out Millenia ago. You need viceroys, lords, and governors. And even that was a way too top down system. In that system, just like in socialism, the only “games” to win at are government sanctioned, and you have to play by the rules as sanctioned by the government. In capitalism, you see that there’s a near infinite “games” to win at, there’s a niche for everything, and you don’t even have to be at the top of the game to earn substantial wealth.What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anyone here was a commie. There are actually a couple. Socialism is not at all strictly democratic. Lenin was a “democratic socialist”. He created that term. He also created the USSR, which stands for.....Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism is the government ownership of means of production. There are really only 2 socialist countries that I can think of, Cuba, and Venezuela. Neither are in the least bit democratic. Nor have any of the other socialism experiments there have been in the past. If your referring to the Nordic states as socialist, they will vehemently disagree with you. They are fully capitalistic. They happen to have larger social programs than us. They are still very much capitalistic countries. Bernie will refer to these countries often, much to the dismay of their economic leaders who correct him on Twitter, but the policies that Bernie pushes are closer to that of Venezuela, and Cuba. The closest Nordic country to socialism would be Norway. Government is a shareholder in the oil business, but the government is barred from making business decisions.Communism is a dictatorship that owns all business and industry and no one here is a communist. Shows you are an idiot. Socialism is democratic so not communism as everyone in the world but Anglo American conservatives know at this point.Well in socialism everyone has to have the right idea or they get thrown in the gulag. Or starved to death. Or become the scape goat and the rest of the starving population takes out their anger on them. If you want to make all the trees equal in size, you have to cut them all to the same size.Thats left wingNational socialism a.k.a. nazism; where does that fall on the political spectrum. They nationalized the nation's property, then parceled control to members of the regime and those loyal to it. People who weren't compatible to their regime (based on ethnic or religious or linguistic [sometimes that persecution has been the same cause] policies) were "removed".One difference is the sheer numbers. The national unite the right demonstration that got non stop media coverage of it for weeks leading up to it, turned out to be the saddest protest/demonstration in the history of media coverage. Not even 25 showed up. Sad for them, hilarious for us.
White nationalist group posing as antifa called for violence on Twitter
Other misinformation and misleading claims spread across Twitter on Sunday night and into Monday related to the protests.
I find it hard to believe that some red-necks from the rural countryside with their camos and deer-hunter shirts, are organizing a high-tech campaign to setup bots and pay people to raise mayhem.
It could be true. It could be.
If they are, then ship them to prison with the rest of the rioters and looters.
Well read this and we're not talking about some rednecks.
Fringe groups point finger back at Trump, Democrats
Even some alt right turning on the trumpturd.The Boogaloo Movement Wants To Be Seen as Anti-Racist, But It Has a White Supremacist Fringe
CTEC Digital Research Lead Alex Newhouse and Researcher Nate Gunesch investigate the Boogaloo Movement’s recent involvement in the Minneapolis protests following the killing of George Floyd.
Far-Right Extremists Are Hoping to Turn the George Floyd Protests Into a New Civil War
Armed extremists are showing up to protests and urging a “boogaloo” — code for civil war — online.
Administrators of pages such as Big Igloo Bois and Boojahadeen Memes actively supported the anti-racist and Black Lives Matter protests.
Doesn't that make them left-wing? How do you identify with everything the left-wing stands for, and then claim to be right-wing?
What exactly do the boogaloo bois stand for, that is the opposite of the left-wing BLM and Anarchists?
AFter you research them get back with me. So are the oath keepers left wing?
I did research them. For about an hour.
I don't see what they are that makes them right-wing.
Let me start with this. Between left-wing radicals, and right-wing radicals, what is the difference?
What makes one right, and the other left?
As far as politics go. Both want socialism. One wants a “pure race state”, in the “radical right”. The other wants social hierarchy based on identity, including race, as well as other identity factors. Both hate Israel. On the European political spectrum they are not far off from each other, outside the issue of race. The radical left would like to see communism ushered in, the radical right probably wouldn’t go that far.
Nazism was and still is Fascism to the extreme. I can understand why you would try and change the definition since you may have realized that you may be a fascist.
LOLz Nazism supports individual rights and liberties? That's what you imagine?
Only for those that have like ideas. Everyone else doesn't get that opportunity. I suggest you read up on the Spanish Civil War in the 30s and see where both the Fascists and Socialists went to war with each other. Or you can stay clueless because you can't stomach being called what you are, a Fascist like MOST The Party of the Rumpsters are. A mind is a terrible thing to waste but in your case, it's no big loss.
And no libertarianism isn’t contained to those with the same ideologies. Everyone has the same rights, you can be a communist, talk about it as much as you want, you just can’t force anyone else into your communism. That’s silly. Get your ears cleaned out, or learn comprehensive reading.
Stop and think about it. Your history is a bit Cracked.
The Government of Canada owns a share in the Oil industry as well as just about every major corporation. They only have a say when it benefits the entire nation. Otherwise, the Corporate Boards run things. MOST Western Countries are Social Democracies and that term far dates Lenin. In fact, even the United States have Government interests in many Corporation such as Passenger Trains.
Lenin set up the USSR in order to take over the world because he saw it as the only way to make Communism (Marxism) work. And he was right on that. What he was wrong about was the cooperation of the rest of the world. So he set up a country that was run by Military Leaders, not Corporate Leaders. The experiment was doomed from the start because Communism can only exist in very small groups of people. So instead of making the Utopian Society, he made a Dictatorship or a Oliarchy. There was nothing Social about it. You can call a pig a rose but that doesn't make it smell any better.
Before Hitler seized power, it was a Social Democratic Nation. He changed that to a Dictatorship. Mussolini did the same thing. Both of these changed the Social Democratic Nation into the direct opposite (Fascism) because, again Socialism that has little Democracy to it doesn't work. It becomes an Oliarchy.
Italy was a huge mess so Mussolini could mold it to Fascism because people were scare to death. When over half of your population doesn't have enough to eat then it's fairly easy to get them to grab the brass ring.
Germany was different. It had a workable Social Democratic Government. But due to the Treaty, the people thought they could do better. Along comes Hitler who promises them better. And for a time period he more than delivered. Germany became the envy of much of the western world. Then he got the idea that he wanted the Triangle. The Triangle is parts of Belgium, France and Germany that is high in natural resources. And in order for Germany to grow, it needed control of all the Triangle. So he does that his ancestors have done and decides to just take it. Of course, Hitler was a piecefull kind of guy. He took a piece of this and a piece of that and decided to take ALL of Europe. He was also an extreme bigot who hate the Slavs and any race of color. Hence the hatred of the USSR which isn't all white. Germany became a Dictatorship, not a Social Democratic Country. Like Communism, Democracy can only work in small groups. Once again, you can call a pig a rose but it still smells like a pig. Germany and Italy became Fascism that morphed into Dictatorships.
Meanwhile, Franco had a much healthier Fascist State that survived clean into today. While it's not what we would want, it's worked pretty well for the Spaniards for so many decades. What makes it work? Unlike what you claim as Socialism, Fascism is heavily supported by the Corporate Industries. If it's good for them it's good for the nation. But it only works if the Capitalists are nationalists. They still are even today. But Spain has been drifting towards a Social Democratic Government slowly. Yes, in order to do that, a shift to the left has to happen. A shift to the right of Fascism leads to a Dictatorship of Oligarchy.
Like Capitalism, Socialism is NOT a government model. It's an economic model. I'll do a in depth on that by itself. But trust me, neither one can exist without the other in anything other than small groups.
Think of Government Models being a complete circle. At the top you have the Dictatorship and at the bottom you have the Federal Republic. Going left of the Federal Republic you move into Social Democracies. Going right of the Federal Republic you go into Fascism. But I think you will find that a Federal Republic actually has models from both the Social Democracies and the Fascists while having it's own Representative Government.
Now, move to both the right of Fascism and Social Democracies and you end up the same place, the Dictatorship or Oligarchy. You just made the complete circle. Hence the starting of Hitler was so good but it ended up so bad. He completed the circle.
There are NO Socialist, Democratic nor Communist countries that exist. There never was and never will be.
Socialism is Marxist. And Marx was wrong. He believed the working class would eventually rise up. There wouldn’t be a need for world domination, it would happen naturally. It still hasn’t. Unless you want to consider the Mao’s, the Lenin’s, the Pol Pots, as the “workers” rising up. Those didn’t turn out well at all. None of them do. Socialism is inherently authoritarianism. It has to be to achieve its goals. It may even get voted in. That doesn’t mean it’s what’s best, or that people understand what they’re voting for. Jim Crow was the populist movement of the south. Very popular. Problem is, it’s the majority imposing their will on the minority. At its best socialism is utilitarianism. Taking care of the needs of the many, over the needs of the few. Especially if it’s “democratic”. You have to put policies in place that’ll get the votes.
Socialism always turns out to be a mess. Remember Germany's socialist leader back in the 30's, Mr. Hitler?
His national Socialist Party established Hitlercare, gun control and genocide. And Mr. Hitler's bragging that socialism in Germany would last a thousand years was off by988.
That man is dead. Your talk of being "at peace with all men" is naive. And ignoring the reality of the problem. People are dying in the streets.
What will it take to wake you up?
Polishprince
Diamond Member
- Jun 8, 2016
- 46,112
- 35,729
- 3,615
National socialism is fascism. The first thing Hitler did was put all the Communists and socialists in concentration camps.Communism Is a dictatorship. Socialism is democratic. Marx was wrong Lennon was a liar. Every definition of socialism includes regulation or control by the community. That is democracy. The committees in the Soviet Union or the Soviets turned out to not have any democracy as advertised.... Only English speaking conservatives have your problem of confusion. Or other people who are misinformed....Wtf, A. You’re conflating regulation with government ownership. 2 totally different things. B. Just because a dictator runs a country, doesn’t automatically disqualify it as a socialist country. That’s a ridiculous point. It’s the natural progression of socialism. You give that much power to a centralized organization, eventually an authoritarian takes over, or turns authoritarian. Which is what you see in Venezuela. Praised as a socialist done right by the left, don’t deny it, up until it wasn’t. Then all of a sudden, it wasn’t socialism, it magically turned into “Maduro is actually a right wing extremist”. To believe in socialism, it requires a narcissism to think that a centralized entity, if run by the right type of people, can make the correct top down decisions on extremely complex and nuanced systems that are all tied into each other. It’s impossible to do without “breaking a few eggs”. Kings figured this out Millenia ago. You need viceroys, lords, and governors. And even that was a way too top down system. In that system, just like in socialism, the only “games” to win at are government sanctioned, and you have to play by the rules as sanctioned by the government. In capitalism, you see that there’s a near infinite “games” to win at, there’s a niche for everything, and you don’t even have to be at the top of the game to earn substantial wealth.What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anyone here was a commie. There are actually a couple. Socialism is not at all strictly democratic. Lenin was a “democratic socialist”. He created that term. He also created the USSR, which stands for.....Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism is the government ownership of means of production. There are really only 2 socialist countries that I can think of, Cuba, and Venezuela. Neither are in the least bit democratic. Nor have any of the other socialism experiments there have been in the past. If your referring to the Nordic states as socialist, they will vehemently disagree with you. They are fully capitalistic. They happen to have larger social programs than us. They are still very much capitalistic countries. Bernie will refer to these countries often, much to the dismay of their economic leaders who correct him on Twitter, but the policies that Bernie pushes are closer to that of Venezuela, and Cuba. The closest Nordic country to socialism would be Norway. Government is a shareholder in the oil business, but the government is barred from making business decisions.Communism is a dictatorship that owns all business and industry and no one here is a communist. Shows you are an idiot. Socialism is democratic so not communism as everyone in the world but Anglo American conservatives know at this point.Well in socialism everyone has to have the right idea or they get thrown in the gulag. Or starved to death. Or become the scape goat and the rest of the starving population takes out their anger on them. If you want to make all the trees equal in size, you have to cut them all to the same size.Thats left wingNational socialism a.k.a. nazism; where does that fall on the political spectrum. They nationalized the nation's property, then parceled control to members of the regime and those loyal to it. People who weren't compatible to their regime (based on ethnic or religious or linguistic [sometimes that persecution has been the same cause] policies) were "removed".One difference is the sheer numbers. The national unite the right demonstration that got non stop media coverage of it for weeks leading up to it, turned out to be the saddest protest/demonstration in the history of media coverage. Not even 25 showed up. Sad for them, hilarious for us.
White nationalist group posing as antifa called for violence on Twitter
Other misinformation and misleading claims spread across Twitter on Sunday night and into Monday related to the protests.
I find it hard to believe that some red-necks from the rural countryside with their camos and deer-hunter shirts, are organizing a high-tech campaign to setup bots and pay people to raise mayhem.
It could be true. It could be.
If they are, then ship them to prison with the rest of the rioters and looters.
Well read this and we're not talking about some rednecks.
Fringe groups point finger back at Trump, Democrats
Even some alt right turning on the trumpturd.The Boogaloo Movement Wants To Be Seen as Anti-Racist, But It Has a White Supremacist Fringe
CTEC Digital Research Lead Alex Newhouse and Researcher Nate Gunesch investigate the Boogaloo Movement’s recent involvement in the Minneapolis protests following the killing of George Floyd.
Far-Right Extremists Are Hoping to Turn the George Floyd Protests Into a New Civil War
Armed extremists are showing up to protests and urging a “boogaloo” — code for civil war — online.
Administrators of pages such as Big Igloo Bois and Boojahadeen Memes actively supported the anti-racist and Black Lives Matter protests.
Doesn't that make them left-wing? How do you identify with everything the left-wing stands for, and then claim to be right-wing?
What exactly do the boogaloo bois stand for, that is the opposite of the left-wing BLM and Anarchists?
AFter you research them get back with me. So are the oath keepers left wing?
I did research them. For about an hour.
I don't see what they are that makes them right-wing.
Let me start with this. Between left-wing radicals, and right-wing radicals, what is the difference?
What makes one right, and the other left?
As far as politics go. Both want socialism. One wants a “pure race state”, in the “radical right”. The other wants social hierarchy based on identity, including race, as well as other identity factors. Both hate Israel. On the European political spectrum they are not far off from each other, outside the issue of race. The radical left would like to see communism ushered in, the radical right probably wouldn’t go that far.
Nazism was and still is Fascism to the extreme. I can understand why you would try and change the definition since you may have realized that you may be a fascist.
LOLz Nazism supports individual rights and liberties? That's what you imagine?
Only for those that have like ideas. Everyone else doesn't get that opportunity. I suggest you read up on the Spanish Civil War in the 30s and see where both the Fascists and Socialists went to war with each other. Or you can stay clueless because you can't stomach being called what you are, a Fascist like MOST The Party of the Rumpsters are. A mind is a terrible thing to waste but in your case, it's no big loss.
And no libertarianism isn’t contained to those with the same ideologies. Everyone has the same rights, you can be a communist, talk about it as much as you want, you just can’t force anyone else into your communism. That’s silly. Get your ears cleaned out, or learn comprehensive reading.
Stop and think about it. Your history is a bit Cracked.
The Government of Canada owns a share in the Oil industry as well as just about every major corporation. They only have a say when it benefits the entire nation. Otherwise, the Corporate Boards run things. MOST Western Countries are Social Democracies and that term far dates Lenin. In fact, even the United States have Government interests in many Corporation such as Passenger Trains.
Lenin set up the USSR in order to take over the world because he saw it as the only way to make Communism (Marxism) work. And he was right on that. What he was wrong about was the cooperation of the rest of the world. So he set up a country that was run by Military Leaders, not Corporate Leaders. The experiment was doomed from the start because Communism can only exist in very small groups of people. So instead of making the Utopian Society, he made a Dictatorship or a Oliarchy. There was nothing Social about it. You can call a pig a rose but that doesn't make it smell any better.
Before Hitler seized power, it was a Social Democratic Nation. He changed that to a Dictatorship. Mussolini did the same thing. Both of these changed the Social Democratic Nation into the direct opposite (Fascism) because, again Socialism that has little Democracy to it doesn't work. It becomes an Oliarchy.
Italy was a huge mess so Mussolini could mold it to Fascism because people were scare to death. When over half of your population doesn't have enough to eat then it's fairly easy to get them to grab the brass ring.
Germany was different. It had a workable Social Democratic Government. But due to the Treaty, the people thought they could do better. Along comes Hitler who promises them better. And for a time period he more than delivered. Germany became the envy of much of the western world. Then he got the idea that he wanted the Triangle. The Triangle is parts of Belgium, France and Germany that is high in natural resources. And in order for Germany to grow, it needed control of all the Triangle. So he does that his ancestors have done and decides to just take it. Of course, Hitler was a piecefull kind of guy. He took a piece of this and a piece of that and decided to take ALL of Europe. He was also an extreme bigot who hate the Slavs and any race of color. Hence the hatred of the USSR which isn't all white. Germany became a Dictatorship, not a Social Democratic Country. Like Communism, Democracy can only work in small groups. Once again, you can call a pig a rose but it still smells like a pig. Germany and Italy became Fascism that morphed into Dictatorships.
Meanwhile, Franco had a much healthier Fascist State that survived clean into today. While it's not what we would want, it's worked pretty well for the Spaniards for so many decades. What makes it work? Unlike what you claim as Socialism, Fascism is heavily supported by the Corporate Industries. If it's good for them it's good for the nation. But it only works if the Capitalists are nationalists. They still are even today. But Spain has been drifting towards a Social Democratic Government slowly. Yes, in order to do that, a shift to the left has to happen. A shift to the right of Fascism leads to a Dictatorship of Oligarchy.
Like Capitalism, Socialism is NOT a government model. It's an economic model. I'll do a in depth on that by itself. But trust me, neither one can exist without the other in anything other than small groups.
Think of Government Models being a complete circle. At the top you have the Dictatorship and at the bottom you have the Federal Republic. Going left of the Federal Republic you move into Social Democracies. Going right of the Federal Republic you go into Fascism. But I think you will find that a Federal Republic actually has models from both the Social Democracies and the Fascists while having it's own Representative Government.
Now, move to both the right of Fascism and Social Democracies and you end up the same place, the Dictatorship or Oligarchy. You just made the complete circle. Hence the starting of Hitler was so good but it ended up so bad. He completed the circle.
There are NO Socialist, Democratic nor Communist countries that exist. There never was and never will be.
Socialism is Marxist. And Marx was wrong. He believed the working class would eventually rise up. There wouldn’t be a need for world domination, it would happen naturally. It still hasn’t. Unless you want to consider the Mao’s, the Lenin’s, the Pol Pots, as the “workers” rising up. Those didn’t turn out well at all. None of them do. Socialism is inherently authoritarianism. It has to be to achieve its goals. It may even get voted in. That doesn’t mean it’s what’s best, or that people understand what they’re voting for. Jim Crow was the populist movement of the south. Very popular. Problem is, it’s the majority imposing their will on the minority. At its best socialism is utilitarianism. Taking care of the needs of the many, over the needs of the few. Especially if it’s “democratic”. You have to put policies in place that’ll get the votes.
Socialism always turns out to be a mess. Remember Germany's socialist leader back in the 30's, Mr. Hitler?
His national Socialist Party established Hitlercare, gun control and genocide. And Mr. Hitler's bragging that socialism in Germany would last a thousand years was off by988.
There has always been internecine battles between the various branches of liberalism and socialism.
Remember that Trotsky and Stalin were BFF's, and then Stalin had Leon taken out with an ice pick.
Remember that Stalin and Hitler were BFF's, and then war broke out between the two liberal powers in June 1941
DOTR
Gold Member
- Oct 24, 2016
- 14,270
- 3,524
- 290
If it has everything to do with color. Without color none of this would be happening.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #337
I can feel the goalpost starting to move on this one. That question has been answered many times and yet you still play ignorant.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #338
DWB is a honest reason for a cop to pull over a motorist, right? Do you know what DWB stands for? And now JWB has been added to that series of justifiable reasons. That is what they want addressed.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #339
National socialism is fascism. The first thing Hitler did was put all the Communists and socialists in concentration camps.Communism Is a dictatorship. Socialism is democratic. Marx was wrong Lennon was a liar. Every definition of socialism includes regulation or control by the community. That is democracy. The committees in the Soviet Union or the Soviets turned out to not have any democracy as advertised.... Only English speaking conservatives have your problem of confusion. Or other people who are misinformed....Wtf, A. You’re conflating regulation with government ownership. 2 totally different things. B. Just because a dictator runs a country, doesn’t automatically disqualify it as a socialist country. That’s a ridiculous point. It’s the natural progression of socialism. You give that much power to a centralized organization, eventually an authoritarian takes over, or turns authoritarian. Which is what you see in Venezuela. Praised as a socialist done right by the left, don’t deny it, up until it wasn’t. Then all of a sudden, it wasn’t socialism, it magically turned into “Maduro is actually a right wing extremist”. To believe in socialism, it requires a narcissism to think that a centralized entity, if run by the right type of people, can make the correct top down decisions on extremely complex and nuanced systems that are all tied into each other. It’s impossible to do without “breaking a few eggs”. Kings figured this out Millenia ago. You need viceroys, lords, and governors. And even that was a way too top down system. In that system, just like in socialism, the only “games” to win at are government sanctioned, and you have to play by the rules as sanctioned by the government. In capitalism, you see that there’s a near infinite “games” to win at, there’s a niche for everything, and you don’t even have to be at the top of the game to earn substantial wealth.What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anyone here was a commie. There are actually a couple. Socialism is not at all strictly democratic. Lenin was a “democratic socialist”. He created that term. He also created the USSR, which stands for.....Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism is the government ownership of means of production. There are really only 2 socialist countries that I can think of, Cuba, and Venezuela. Neither are in the least bit democratic. Nor have any of the other socialism experiments there have been in the past. If your referring to the Nordic states as socialist, they will vehemently disagree with you. They are fully capitalistic. They happen to have larger social programs than us. They are still very much capitalistic countries. Bernie will refer to these countries often, much to the dismay of their economic leaders who correct him on Twitter, but the policies that Bernie pushes are closer to that of Venezuela, and Cuba. The closest Nordic country to socialism would be Norway. Government is a shareholder in the oil business, but the government is barred from making business decisions.Communism is a dictatorship that owns all business and industry and no one here is a communist. Shows you are an idiot. Socialism is democratic so not communism as everyone in the world but Anglo American conservatives know at this point.Well in socialism everyone has to have the right idea or they get thrown in the gulag. Or starved to death. Or become the scape goat and the rest of the starving population takes out their anger on them. If you want to make all the trees equal in size, you have to cut them all to the same size.Thats left wingNational socialism a.k.a. nazism; where does that fall on the political spectrum. They nationalized the nation's property, then parceled control to members of the regime and those loyal to it. People who weren't compatible to their regime (based on ethnic or religious or linguistic [sometimes that persecution has been the same cause] policies) were "removed".One difference is the sheer numbers. The national unite the right demonstration that got non stop media coverage of it for weeks leading up to it, turned out to be the saddest protest/demonstration in the history of media coverage. Not even 25 showed up. Sad for them, hilarious for us.
White nationalist group posing as antifa called for violence on Twitter
Other misinformation and misleading claims spread across Twitter on Sunday night and into Monday related to the protests.
I find it hard to believe that some red-necks from the rural countryside with their camos and deer-hunter shirts, are organizing a high-tech campaign to setup bots and pay people to raise mayhem.
It could be true. It could be.
If they are, then ship them to prison with the rest of the rioters and looters.
Well read this and we're not talking about some rednecks.
Fringe groups point finger back at Trump, Democrats
Even some alt right turning on the trumpturd.The Boogaloo Movement Wants To Be Seen as Anti-Racist, But It Has a White Supremacist Fringe
CTEC Digital Research Lead Alex Newhouse and Researcher Nate Gunesch investigate the Boogaloo Movement’s recent involvement in the Minneapolis protests following the killing of George Floyd.
Far-Right Extremists Are Hoping to Turn the George Floyd Protests Into a New Civil War
Armed extremists are showing up to protests and urging a “boogaloo” — code for civil war — online.
Administrators of pages such as Big Igloo Bois and Boojahadeen Memes actively supported the anti-racist and Black Lives Matter protests.
Doesn't that make them left-wing? How do you identify with everything the left-wing stands for, and then claim to be right-wing?
What exactly do the boogaloo bois stand for, that is the opposite of the left-wing BLM and Anarchists?
AFter you research them get back with me. So are the oath keepers left wing?
I did research them. For about an hour.
I don't see what they are that makes them right-wing.
Let me start with this. Between left-wing radicals, and right-wing radicals, what is the difference?
What makes one right, and the other left?
As far as politics go. Both want socialism. One wants a “pure race state”, in the “radical right”. The other wants social hierarchy based on identity, including race, as well as other identity factors. Both hate Israel. On the European political spectrum they are not far off from each other, outside the issue of race. The radical left would like to see communism ushered in, the radical right probably wouldn’t go that far.
Nazism was and still is Fascism to the extreme. I can understand why you would try and change the definition since you may have realized that you may be a fascist.
LOLz Nazism supports individual rights and liberties? That's what you imagine?
Only for those that have like ideas. Everyone else doesn't get that opportunity. I suggest you read up on the Spanish Civil War in the 30s and see where both the Fascists and Socialists went to war with each other. Or you can stay clueless because you can't stomach being called what you are, a Fascist like MOST The Party of the Rumpsters are. A mind is a terrible thing to waste but in your case, it's no big loss.
And no libertarianism isn’t contained to those with the same ideologies. Everyone has the same rights, you can be a communist, talk about it as much as you want, you just can’t force anyone else into your communism. That’s silly. Get your ears cleaned out, or learn comprehensive reading.
Stop and think about it. Your history is a bit Cracked.
The Government of Canada owns a share in the Oil industry as well as just about every major corporation. They only have a say when it benefits the entire nation. Otherwise, the Corporate Boards run things. MOST Western Countries are Social Democracies and that term far dates Lenin. In fact, even the United States have Government interests in many Corporation such as Passenger Trains.
Lenin set up the USSR in order to take over the world because he saw it as the only way to make Communism (Marxism) work. And he was right on that. What he was wrong about was the cooperation of the rest of the world. So he set up a country that was run by Military Leaders, not Corporate Leaders. The experiment was doomed from the start because Communism can only exist in very small groups of people. So instead of making the Utopian Society, he made a Dictatorship or a Oliarchy. There was nothing Social about it. You can call a pig a rose but that doesn't make it smell any better.
Before Hitler seized power, it was a Social Democratic Nation. He changed that to a Dictatorship. Mussolini did the same thing. Both of these changed the Social Democratic Nation into the direct opposite (Fascism) because, again Socialism that has little Democracy to it doesn't work. It becomes an Oliarchy.
Italy was a huge mess so Mussolini could mold it to Fascism because people were scare to death. When over half of your population doesn't have enough to eat then it's fairly easy to get them to grab the brass ring.
Germany was different. It had a workable Social Democratic Government. But due to the Treaty, the people thought they could do better. Along comes Hitler who promises them better. And for a time period he more than delivered. Germany became the envy of much of the western world. Then he got the idea that he wanted the Triangle. The Triangle is parts of Belgium, France and Germany that is high in natural resources. And in order for Germany to grow, it needed control of all the Triangle. So he does that his ancestors have done and decides to just take it. Of course, Hitler was a piecefull kind of guy. He took a piece of this and a piece of that and decided to take ALL of Europe. He was also an extreme bigot who hate the Slavs and any race of color. Hence the hatred of the USSR which isn't all white. Germany became a Dictatorship, not a Social Democratic Country. Like Communism, Democracy can only work in small groups. Once again, you can call a pig a rose but it still smells like a pig. Germany and Italy became Fascism that morphed into Dictatorships.
Meanwhile, Franco had a much healthier Fascist State that survived clean into today. While it's not what we would want, it's worked pretty well for the Spaniards for so many decades. What makes it work? Unlike what you claim as Socialism, Fascism is heavily supported by the Corporate Industries. If it's good for them it's good for the nation. But it only works if the Capitalists are nationalists. They still are even today. But Spain has been drifting towards a Social Democratic Government slowly. Yes, in order to do that, a shift to the left has to happen. A shift to the right of Fascism leads to a Dictatorship of Oligarchy.
Like Capitalism, Socialism is NOT a government model. It's an economic model. I'll do a in depth on that by itself. But trust me, neither one can exist without the other in anything other than small groups.
Think of Government Models being a complete circle. At the top you have the Dictatorship and at the bottom you have the Federal Republic. Going left of the Federal Republic you move into Social Democracies. Going right of the Federal Republic you go into Fascism. But I think you will find that a Federal Republic actually has models from both the Social Democracies and the Fascists while having it's own Representative Government.
Now, move to both the right of Fascism and Social Democracies and you end up the same place, the Dictatorship or Oligarchy. You just made the complete circle. Hence the starting of Hitler was so good but it ended up so bad. He completed the circle.
There are NO Socialist, Democratic nor Communist countries that exist. There never was and never will be.
Socialism is Marxist. And Marx was wrong. He believed the working class would eventually rise up. There wouldn’t be a need for world domination, it would happen naturally. It still hasn’t. Unless you want to consider the Mao’s, the Lenin’s, the Pol Pots, as the “workers” rising up. Those didn’t turn out well at all. None of them do. Socialism is inherently authoritarianism. It has to be to achieve its goals. It may even get voted in. That doesn’t mean it’s what’s best, or that people understand what they’re voting for. Jim Crow was the populist movement of the south. Very popular. Problem is, it’s the majority imposing their will on the minority. At its best socialism is utilitarianism. Taking care of the needs of the many, over the needs of the few. Especially if it’s “democratic”. You have to put policies in place that’ll get the votes.
Socialism always turns out to be a mess. Remember Germany's socialist leader back in the 30's, Mr. Hitler?
His national Socialist Party established Hitlercare, gun control and genocide. And Mr. Hitler's bragging that socialism in Germany would last a thousand years was off by988.
There has always been internecine battles between the various branches of liberalism and socialism.
Remember that Trotsky and Stalin were BFF's, and then Stalin had Leon taken out with an ice pick.
Remember that Stalin and Hitler were BFF's, and then war broke out between the two liberal powers in June 1941
First of all, all semblence of Communism was lost right after Lenin took over and Stalin sealed his power. There was nothing liberal about it. It went from a Marxist/Communist idea to a Oliargy to a Military Dictatorship very fast. Lenin realized that unless the entire world adopted Communism unilaterally, it would never work so he created the tool to bring a one rule world. The World had other ideas. When Stalin died, it went back to being a oliarchy and has been ever since. There is nothing socialist about it.
Meanwhile, Mussolini put together a manifesto for Fascism based on other's past works and formed a Government out of that. Once again, he did what he thought he needed to do to get it done. But he included the Capitalist Corporates into that power base. Like Germany, when you have over half your population going to bed hungry, they will grasp just about anything. Like Mussolini, Hitler took a working Social Democratic Government and moved it into a Dictatorship using the Corporate Capitalists to support him. That worked until the Corporates found out what was really going on. Then it went from Fascism to a Military Dictatorship. Remember, I one said that the types of governments are not linear. It's a circle and when both sides go too far, they both end up the same place.
Franco from Spain also started with the same Fascist Manifesto (Mussolini, 1923) and it worked just fine. Okay, not like WE would want but it worked for about 90 years and still counting. But even Spain has been slowly inching towards a Social Democratic Government over the years.
Both Hitler and Lenin included Social in the names of what they were doing but you can call a pig a rose but it still smells like a pig.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #340
All the more reason for the community, as a whole, to work together to clean it up. Driving while Black (DWB) is NOT a legitimate reason to pull someone over yet it's a daily ocurance. Now they have added JWB to that list as well for reasons to murder blacks or so some think. This has to stop. The Cops need to be part of the community. I am proud of the ones that have "Walked" with the protesters. The good will that gets is priceless. Sort of like feeling more secure because a white cop lives in a white apartment building for whites.
