Meme Thread for Both Posting and Discussing Memes

[Skitzyfrenic]

The problem is that you are using the straw-capitalism definition.
The definition invented by communists to denigrate capitalism.
The definition pushed by the feudalists to hoodwink the gullible. "why yes, this feudal system we set up is totally capitalism. anything bad we do to you is capitalism fault. thus you should vote our puppets into power so we can rape you even more"

No.

Hunter-Gatherer capital is consolidated under the tribal leadership and moves at the direction of the leadership with some leeway for personal transactions. That's Fascism.

Hunter-Gatherer capital is either communal or personal, nothing private. That's Communism's take on property.

Hunter-Gatherer's work together, share supplies, and surplus to survive the winter. That's Socialism.

Hunter-Gatherer's trade labor and goods for goods and labor. That's Capitalism.

It cannot possibly be all four. But it cannot possible be any single one of them.

Hunter-Gatherer's have a Survival Based Economic Ideology.

It's literally too primitive to be anything other than 'The Tribe Must Survive' the Economic Ideology. If Communism is what gets the Tribe to survive, they'll fucking do it.

It isn't until someone somewhere properly settles down, literally stop being nomadic and start inventing agrarianism, that we begin to see Capitalism charge to the fore.

 

[Scottty]

 

[mrttao]

No.

Hunter-Gatherer capital is consolidated under the tribal leadership and moves at the direction of the leadership with some leeway for personal transactions. That's Fascism.

Hunter-Gatherer capital is either communal or personal, nothing private. That's Communism's take on property.

Hunter-Gatherer's work together, share supplies, and surplus to survive the winter. That's Socialism.

Hunter-Gatherer's trade labor and goods for goods and labor. That's Capitalism.

It cannot possibly be all four. But it cannot possible be any single one of them.

Hunter-Gatherer's have a Survival Based Economic Ideology.

It's literally too primitive to be anything other than 'The Tribe Must Survive' the Economic Ideology. If Communism is what gets the Tribe to survive, they'll fucking do it.

It isn't until someone somewhere properly settles down, literally stop being nomadic and start inventing agrarianism, that we begin to see Capitalism charge to the fore.

> Says No
> Proceeds to completely ignore the post he quotes

You did not refute a single line from the post you quoted.

Instead you pivoted into an unrelated discussion about the definition of the word communism and its origins in the most primitive, which has little to do with the definition of the word "capitalism".

You assert that "communism" is the "natural" state because it is what a family of hunter gatherers will practice.
1. hunter-gatherer society largely ended 10 thousand years ago when people discovered agriculture. Highly biased "studies" of "this one tribe in africa that still lives like hunter gatherers today" is not really an accurate representation of hunter gatherer society.

2. so what? / no shit that a close knitted family has "some resemblance to communism". (how much is arguable too)

The natural state of humans is to own what they make, share it with family, and barter it with strangers.
This has nothing to do with either definition though. It is just discussing the origins.

You are clearly under the belief that capitalism means

feudal lords owning everything. promise to tax the rich to give to the poor, instead tax the poor to give to themselves.

When in fact literally socialism, and a strawman used by communists to misrepresent capitalism.

voluntary sharing is a fine and dandy system for a close family / a besieged settlement. It worked for the mayflower compact, it worked for israeli kibutz. and it works for most families.

But then as soon as it grows slightly those things implode. Or families have a fallout over money, over who is a leech and who is a provider.

Sharing does not work when you remove the voluntary part and enforce it beyond the family. where you have to "share" all your work with strangers. especially not when in reality the bandit lords in charge of managing the "sharing" (communism) end up taking all the sharing into their own pocket instead.

Capitalism as defined by capitalists is dead simple.
"you are free to own stuff and free to barter it with other people."
This btw means you cannot be robbed, you cannot be made a slave, you cannot have a monopoly manipulating the market to prevent you from trading.

By definition those feudal systems we are told by the media are "crony capitalism" / "corporate capitalism" / "late stage captalism" / whatever are not capitalism. Because you are not free to own stuff and barter it with other people. And you are a wage-slave. (slavery is anathema to capitalism).

Meanwhile voluntary sharing is not communism.
Since communism is specifically an ideology based entirely on the notion that

industrialized society has no upper class anymore. There are only the poor and the middle class. the latter of which is evil and needs to be exterminated and robbed.
To facilitate this we must:
1. slaughter the current evil corrupt politicians who are abusing the people.
2. replace them with angel politicians devoid of greed (identified by being bandit lords who say "I am a communist")
3. abolish human rights and give unlimited unchecked power to this new govt made up of angels

I am not joking, read what fucking marx wrote. the dude was beyond retarded.

In practice, communism always ends up with bandit lords in charge stealing from everyone as they conduct massacres.
And they vastly differ from voluntary sharing in that in voluntary sharing you can STOP SHARING.

You can cut off your family member.
You can walk out of the commune.

 

[mrttao]

No.

Hunter-Gatherer capital is consolidated under the tribal leadership and moves at the direction of the leadership with some leeway for personal transactions. That's Fascism.

Hunter-Gatherer capital is either communal or personal, nothing private. That's Communism's take on property.

Hunter-Gatherer's work together, share supplies, and surplus to survive the winter. That's Socialism.

Hunter-Gatherer's trade labor and goods for goods and labor. That's Capitalism.

It cannot possibly be all four. But it cannot possible be any single one of them.

Hunter-Gatherer's have a Survival Based Economic Ideology.

It's literally too primitive to be anything other than 'The Tribe Must Survive' the Economic Ideology. If Communism is what gets the Tribe to survive, they'll fucking do it.

It isn't until someone somewhere properly settles down, literally stop being nomadic and start inventing agrarianism, that we begin to see Capitalism charge to the fore.

I rambled a bit before. Because there was a lot to unpack...
but... I am pretty sure you are confusing me with someone else.

@S'task wrote about the definition of capitalism, what capitalists actually believe, and its origin and natural state.

You replied to him that you disagree with him.

I am a 3rd person, who replied to a specific portion of your post. Namely, that I think you are misinformed about what capitalists actually believe. that you use a strawman definition of capitalism invented by its haters.

So you arguing with me about the definition of communism is missing the mark. and suggests you probably mixed us up.

 

[Skitzyfrenic]

So you arguing with me about the definition of communism is missing the mark. and suggests you probably mixed us up.

Except I didn't do this. I didn't argue with you about Communism, or S'task about Communism. In any post.

I asserted that Capitalism was a belief,

Ultimately, even Capitalism is a cult. It's a belief.

To which S'task replied.

I opined that he was more right than wrong and that Capitalism requires some level of specialization in response,

I think Capitalism is a belief the same way the others are, just more reflective of reality in a society with an techbase that's heavily reliant on specialization;

I opined that Capitalism was too advanced for the Natural State of the Economy:

I don't consider a basic barter economy to be Capitalist, it's too primitive, which feeds into Capitalism being an actual ideology and not a pure reflection of the world in ideological form

Being too primitive doesn't make it Communism.

In my follow up post to you telling me I used a Strawman definition of Capitalism, I said No.

In response, I illustrated that I was cognizant that multiple economic ideologies could easily be applied to H-G society. Which is the root of my thinking.

Because your entire post was tilting at windmills based on that misconception.

You moved the goal posts.

I then showed why I wasn't using a strawman definition. I think, quite strongly, H-G and the overlap in their survival economy is too primitive to be Capitalist.

Not that it was Communist. H-G are too primitive to be Communist either.

I, at no point, claimed the Natural State to be Communism. I just said it wasn't Capitalism.

I was not at any point Pro-Communist.

You put words into my mouth. And claimed I was doing something I wasn't.

Thank you for grossly misrepresenting me.

Edit: Grammar

 

[mrttao]

Except I didn't do this. I didn't argue with you about Communism, or S'task about Communism. In any post.

I asserted that Capitalism was a belief,



To which S'task replied.

I opined that he was more right than wrong and that Capitalism requires some level of specialization in response,



I opined that Capitalism was too advanced for the Natural State of the Economy:



Being too primitive doesn't make it Communism.

In my follow up post to you telling me I used a Strawman definition of Capitalism, I said No.

In response, I illustrated that I was cognizant that multiple economic ideologies could easily be applied to H-G society. Which is the root of my thinking.

Because your entire post was tilting at windmills based on that misconception.

You moved the goal posts.

I then showed why I wasn't using a strawman definition. I think, quite strongly, H-G and the overlap in their survival economy is too primitive to be Capitalist.

Not that it was Communist. H-G are too primitive to be Communist either.

I, at no point, claimed the Natural State to be Communism. I just said it wasn't Capitalism.

I was not at any point Pro-Communist.

You put words into my mouth. And claimed I was doing something I wasn't.

Thank you for grossly misrepresenting me.

Edit: Grammar

I didn't say you are pro communist. You are anti communist, but you are ALSO anti capitalist in a "middle of the road" approach that is completely missing the mark.
All of your "anti capitalist" notions are based entirely on believing in strawmen for the term capitalism given to you by communist media and education system.

Also, your "capitalism is a belief" thing is also very off base.
You admitted yourself that communists must "fellate" the idealogy.

Communism is a belief in the sense of "I am part of the church that worships god"
Capitalism is a belief the sense of "I have observed the sky is blue."
There is no "church of the blue sky".
You do not pray to the blue sky.
You do not "ritually fellate the ideology" of "the sky is blue"

Technically speaking, you could call anything a belief. The sky is blue, oranges are citrus fruit, tomatos has seeds... lots of "beliefs". none of which are religious worship.

 

[Scottty]

On the subject of which system is more "natural", whatever that means...

Humans as sapient beings can generally see the advantage in cooperation to mutual benefit, rather than simply trying to kill each other on sight. And working together for shared good in practice requires some give-and-take, where you pay X and in exchange get Y, however the deal is defined.

The problem is that not everyone is a team player.

 

[mrttao]

On the subject of which system is more "natural", whatever that means...

Humans as sapient beings can generally see the advantage in cooperation to mutual benefit, rather than simply trying to kill each other on sight. And working together for shared good in practice requires some give-and-take, where you pay X and in exchange get Y, however the deal is defined.

The problem is that not everyone is a team player.

Yes, but this kinda creates a false equivocation between what communists and capitalists advocate for.

Communists openly adovate for a 3 step program:
1. slaughter the robber barons of a wageslavery system.
2. replace them with robber angels, who will selflessly rob the middle class to give to the poor (in reality they give to themselves. just new set of robber barons).
3. abolish human rights, give unlimited power to govt so the angels could get the "good work" done and slaughter anyone evil enough to oppose angels.

When communists say that "real communism has never been tried". what they mean is "mysteriously in the triple digit number of communist revolutions, the human bandits we followed turned out to be robber barons instead of robber angels. Nobody could have predicted this! But don't worry comrade, next time it will be actual robber angels!".

Capitalist commoners do NOT advocate for a robber baron wageslave, nor robber angels.

Communists love to slander capitalism as a robber baron wageslave system. But... that is based on the notion that only 2 kinds of system can exist. That everyone must be communism or capitalism. That no other thing exist.

I would in fact argue that the basic society humans form naturally. whether it is hunter gatherers 500k years ago, or early agrarian society 10k years ago... it was neither capitalism nor socialism.

Capitalism and communism are both ideologies specifically born of the industrial age.
Communism explicitly states that industrialization killed the aristocratic class. Condensing all classes into just 2. the working poor and the decadent middle class.

Meanwhile capitalism by definition cannot coexist with slavery. Slavery has been a universal aspect of humanity across all cultures before industrial farming. Slavery is the foundation of Feudalism. The aristocracy is born to rule, the serfs are born to toil.

 

[Scottty]

Yes, but this kinda creates a false equivocation between what communists and capitalists advocate for.

Communists openly adovate for a 3 step program:
1. slaughter the robber barons of a wageslavery system.
2. replace them with robber angels, who will selflessly rob the middle class to give to the poor (in reality they give to themselves. just new set of robber barons).
3. abolish human rights, give unlimited power to govt so the angels could get the "good work" done and slaughter anyone evil enough to oppose angels.

Yes, exactly. The Communist goal is that they should get to treat everyone else as their slaves. It's an inverted value system in which bandits who go around robbing everyone else are the good guys, and anyone who resists them is bad.

 

[PsihoKekec]

 

[Bigking321]

OK. That burning statue one looks incredibly badass.

 

[Ixian]

On the subject of which system is more "natural", whatever that means...

Humans as sapient beings can generally see the advantage in cooperation to mutual benefit, rather than simply trying to kill each other on sight. And working together for shared good in practice requires some give-and-take, where you pay X and in exchange get Y, however the deal is defined.

The problem is that not everyone is a team player.

The fear of the other exists for a reason.

Because occasionally the other rides through the village slaughtering the men and carrying off the women and children into slavery.

 

[King Arts]

From what I can gather, anything about Muslims treating jews better then Christians is often called a myth and a way to make it so like Christians are bad.
For instance, the 1066 Granada massacre....
Yes the catholics eventually forced them to convert or expelled them, but dint go saying Islam was just so much nicer to them...

I never said that Muslims did not oppress or have their own pogroms against Jews. I just said that on average it was better for Jews to live under Muslims than under Christians. I mean if you disagree WHY do you disagree? Like are you unaware that Jews in Spain for instance did help Muslim invaders against the Christians. Why do you think that the Jews did that, do you think they had a logical reason or not?

I think you are strawmanning my position. I never said Islam was a tolerant religion of peace and equality and fairness. I simply said there are degrees to oppression some places have more strict and some less. For instance a serf in Russia is oppressed right, and so is a slave in America. But are they equally oppressed? Isn't one on average likely to be better off.

That's what I'm saying, you are trying to argue that Islamic empires are uniquely evil yet we can see that when groups like the Golden Horde convert to Islam from Tengrism or Buddhism their behavior did not change to be worse. Muslim Persian Empires were not much worse than Zoroastrian Persian Empires they both enslaved and conquered castrated eunuchs to have as slave guards for the harems, etc. Same race same nation same actions even if they have a different faith.

Did...did you nit hear what I said?
Do you nit know what helped lead to the end if the tutonic order?
The fact they went to war with the commonwealth led to them facing a step decline and eventual dissolution due to that.

Umm we were talking about general Christian persecution. We can talk specefically about Poland and the Teutonic Order if you want. First off the Teutonic Order did not end because of some military victory over them. They continued to keep on going, and in fact would end up creating Prussia. Yup their Grand Master abandoned his monastic vows converted to Lutheranism and took a wife and made the nation that would end up uniting Germany.

As for earlier you were talking about Jadwiga right? The marriage was not between a Christian and a pagan to "bring unity" or any modern liberal nonsense like that supposedly her husband had a choice to convert to Christianity because paganism was being pushed out. He was choosing between Orthodo and Catholic and chose Catholic because he hoped that being the same religion as the Teutonics would make their crusades less frequent against his lands. So he married Jadwiga of Poland but first had to convert and get baptised to actually have a marriage. Jadwiga supposedly had a vision from God telling her to accept the marriage.

I don't know if that is true, and I don't know if her husband's conversion was "geniuine" and he really believed Jesus was the son of God. But I tend to give all converts the benefit of the doubt, he has not done anything to show some relapse so no the marriage was not between a Christian and a pagan, but between two Christians. But I'm pretty sure your wrong if you said they really loved each other again, Jadwiga was 12 and he was 35 when they married. It was a political marriage, hell they probably did not even become intimate until years later since Jadwiga was without child for over a decade. It's just a dynastic political marriage. And again there was forced conversion the king also made laws requiring conversion of people who married a Catholic. That's something a Muslim ruler would do. Again their story was not some Romeo and Julliet thing where two people on diffrent sides marry for love. Medieval Christian Europe was not a disney movie.

However I don't feel comfortable talking about other's history without review so I'll ask some Polish people to check if I made any errors.

@Marduk
@ATP

Can you tell us about Jadwiga please, and correct me if I said something wrong.

Teutonic Order - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jadwiga of Poland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Władysław II Jagiełło - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

All of this is irrelevant because Muslims treat everyone who isn't them by medieval standards at best in the modern era. Christians are far too cucked and cowardly to confront anyone on anything nowadays so Islam never gets any pushback and frequently gets preferred status when it should be getting ostracized for the primitive backwards religion that it is

Isn't this contradictory? You are complaining about Muslims calling them backwards, and you are complaining about modern day Christians for being cucked. I mean the changes that made modern Christians act like "cucks" are "progress" and "advancing" away from the "primitive backwardness" of the medieval Christendom.

What would be the ideal way for a religion to act?

Fun fact: Mohammedanism only exists at all due to Christian missionary activity in the Arabian peninsular being aggressively opposed by the Jews of what is now Yemen.

Oh I know, I'm not saying Jews are pure angels and always victims. They are people like any other when in power they have oppressed other groups like the early Christians. When they were out of power they were oppressed. Groups act differently based on their current status, again Jews are human and all human groups have these survival strategies.

 

[ATP]

I never said that Muslims did not oppress or have their own pogroms against Jews. I just said that on average it was better for Jews to live under Muslims than under Christians. I mean if you disagree WHY do you disagree? Like are you unaware that Jews in Spain for instance did help Muslim invaders against the Christians. Why do you think that the Jews did that, do you think they had a logical reason or not?

I think you are strawmanning my position. I never said Islam was a tolerant religion of peace and equality and fairness. I simply said there are degrees to oppression some places have more strict and some less. For instance a serf in Russia is oppressed right, and so is a slave in America. But are they equally oppressed? Isn't one on average likely to be better off.

That's what I'm saying, you are trying to argue that Islamic empires are uniquely evil yet we can see that when groups like the Golden Horde convert to Islam from Tengrism or Buddhism their behavior did not change to be worse. Muslim Persian Empires were not much worse than Zoroastrian Persian Empires they both enslaved and conquered castrated eunuchs to have as slave guards for the harems, etc. Same race same nation same actions even if they have a different faith.


Umm we were talking about general Christian persecution. We can talk specefically about Poland and the Teutonic Order if you want. First off the Teutonic Order did not end because of some military victory over them. They continued to keep on going, and in fact would end up creating Prussia. Yup their Grand Master abandoned his monastic vows converted to Lutheranism and took a wife and made the nation that would end up uniting Germany.

As for earlier you were talking about Jadwiga right? The marriage was not between a Christian and a pagan to "bring unity" or any modern liberal nonsense like that supposedly her husband had a choice to convert to Christianity because paganism was being pushed out. He was choosing between Orthodo and Catholic and chose Catholic because he hoped that being the same religion as the Teutonics would make their crusades less frequent against his lands. So he married Jadwiga of Poland but first had to convert and get baptised to actually have a marriage. Jadwiga supposedly had a vision from God telling her to accept the marriage.

I don't know if that is true, and I don't know if her husband's conversion was "geniuine" and he really believed Jesus was the son of God. But I tend to give all converts the benefit of the doubt, he has not done anything to show some relapse so no the marriage was not between a Christian and a pagan, but between two Christians. But I'm pretty sure your wrong if you said they really loved each other again, Jadwiga was 12 and he was 35 when they married. It was a political marriage, hell they probably did not even become intimate until years later since Jadwiga was without child for over a decade. It's just a dynastic political marriage. And again there was forced conversion the king also made laws requiring conversion of people who married a Catholic. That's something a Muslim ruler would do. Again their story was not some Romeo and Julliet thing where two people on diffrent sides marry for love. Medieval Christian Europe was not a disney movie.

However I don't feel comfortable talking about other's history without review so I'll ask some Polish people to check if I made any errors.

@Marduk
@ATP

Can you tell us about Jadwiga please, and correct me if I said something wrong.

Teutonic Order - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jadwiga of Poland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Władysław II Jagiełło - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Isn't this contradictory? You are complaining about Muslims calling them backwards, and you are complaining about modern day Christians for being cucked. I mean the changes that made modern Christians act like "cucks" are "progress" and "advancing" away from the "primitive backwardness" of the medieval Christendom.

What would be the ideal way for a religion to act?

Oh I know, I'm not saying Jews are pure angels and always victims. They are people like any other when in power they have oppressed other groups like the early Christians. When they were out of power they were oppressed. Groups act differently based on their current status, again Jews are human and all human groups have these survival strategies.

True about Jadwiga and Jagiełło marriage - but only partially.
It was political marriage,yes - but,people then really belived in Jesus.Jadwiga really marry him,becouse she wonted to made Lithuania catholic country,and stop war between christians.

Second was impossible,becouse Teutonic Order by that time become political tool which exist to send german gentry second sons somwere wherfe they could keep power.
When they send letters to western Europe,they wrote "save christians"
but wgen they wrote to german states they wrote "save hospital for german gentry" .

And ,Jadwiga was made Saint by pope JP II - so,only polish Saint King is woman !


P.S about muslims - you are right,religion could made people worst,but usually they remained the same as before conversion.
Jews - they were muslim fifth column in Spain,that is why they were kicked out.

 

[mrttao]

Liberal women are old and nasty meme.

We need to update the charts since so many democrat "women" nowadays have an extra apple and sausage

 

[Zachowon]

That list is not including the large amount of Hollywood sweethearts rhat are very left leaning or outright heavily invovled.

He'll, isn't Swift left?

Edit: she definitely is

Swift identifies as a pro-choice feminist,[554] and is one of the founding signatories of the Time's Up movement against sexual harassment.[555] She criticized the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to end federal abortion rights in 2022.[556] Swift also advocates for LGBT rights,[557] and has called for the passing of the Equality Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity.[558][559] She performed during WorldPride NYC 2019 at the Stonewall Inn, a gay rights monument, and has donated to the LGBT organizations Tennessee Equality Project and GLAAD.[560][561][562]

A supporter of the March for Our Lives movement and gun control reform in the U.S.,[563] Swift is a vocal critic of white supremacy, racism, and police brutality.[564][554] Following the George Floyd protests, she donated to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the Black Lives Matter movement,[565] called for the removal of Confederate monuments in Tennessee,[566] and advocated for Juneteenth to become a national holiday.[567] In 2020, Swift urged her fans to check their voter registration ahead of elections, which resulted in 65,000 people registering to vote within one day of her post,[568] and endorsed Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in the U.S. presidential election.[569] She has openly criticized former president Donald Trump.[570]

 

[LordsFire]

That list is not including the large amount of Hollywood sweethearts rhat are very left leaning or outright heavily invovled.

He'll, isn't Swift left?

Edit: she definitely is

'Celebrities who got their position partially based on how good-looking they are, and also talk about politics' are a very different thing from 'politicians and political thinkers/activists/critics.'

Any actor who talks about politics is almost guaranteed to be good looking. The same is not true of a philosopher, academic, or author.

It's still probably not a very fair comparison set, given how easy it is to pick and choose pictures to your preference.

 

[Zachowon]

'Celebrities who got their position partially based on how good-looking they are, and also talk about politics' are a very different thing from 'politicians and political thinkers/activists/critics.'

Any actor who talks about politics is almost guaranteed to be good looking. The same is not true of a philosopher, academic, or author.

It's still probably not a very fair comparison set, given how easy it is to pick and choose pictures to your preference.

I mean, someone as polific as Swift for instance, has a wider reach then any of the other ones you mentionedq

 

[Bacle]

Liberal women are old and nasty meme.

We need to update the charts since so many democrat "women" nowadays have an extra apple and sausage

While a neat meme, Kamala Harris isn't bad on the eyes, same with AOC and other Dem woman who aren't Boomers or older.

So more accurate to say that older Boomer liberal/progressive women are uglier than the mostly younger conservative female crowd, not liberal or progressives in general.

 

[Captain X]

In any case I notice a distinct lack of Kari Lake.