The Right and White Nationalism - An annoying cancer

[The Original Sixth]

If this is the worst quote you have for me, I'm not impressed.

Yes, Socialism is not the answer. But to claim he's laying the foundation for white guilt, is to ignore the fact that at the time, racism was an active oppressive force, and the economic inequality blacks were suffering was tied to racism.

Part of it was racism, but another aspect that is overlooked is one of in-group-out-group dynamics. Something that today, is actively championed as racism when white people do it, but is wholly encouraged by every other ethnic group, on the presumption that white people at one point having done it makes it okay.

Again, socialism very much was not the answer. But there's a world of difference between someone in the 50's/60's saying 'the structure of American life must change, economic inequality is tied to racism,' because then it was and that did need to change, and someone in the 2000's/2010's saying the same thing.

In the Deep South and Appalachia, it was very much racism. In more northern and western regions though, it had less to do with racism and more to do with economic competition between two ethnic groups. The same complaints that you get from large scale immigration now is the same problem they had then when you had lots of blacks move from the south to the north for better employment.

It's not even like this is a mystery. The people who crafted and promulgated Critical Race Theory, intesectionalism, and so-on, draw direct descendency from Critical Theory and the like, which was directly built on post-modernism, which was directly formed by disaffected Marxists once the horriffic failures of the USSR were revealed.

Criticize MLK for what he did do wrong. Trying to make him responsible for things that other people did is silliness.

Apart from what I hear of his degenerate sex life, I can't remember him being much to blame for anything.

 

[FriedCFour]

Apart from what I hear of his degenerate sex life, I can't remember him being much to blame for anything.

He was a big figure and pushed out to lots of activists and figures that would carry on his ideology to today. That ideology is exactly the same as what we deal with now. He had the same exact ideology as socially progressive socialists do now, with pretty much they only exception being they’ve included the LGBT since.

 

[The Original Sixth]

He was a big figure and pushed out to lots of activists and figures that would carry on his ideology to today. That ideology is exactly the same as what we deal with now.

I would disagree. I think a great deal of ideological groups have been hijacked by radical liberals, whose ideology always presses them towards the logical point of communism.

 

[FriedCFour]

I would disagree. I think a great deal of ideological groups have been hijacked by radical liberals, whose ideology always presses them towards the logical point of communism.

He advocated for socialism openly and directly, and saw capitalism and racism and American society and it’s values as all intertwined and that all had to be reshaped revolutionarily. There was no hijacking. He was the radical. In fact, he hijacked American ideals to further his own ends.

 

[The Original Sixth]

He advocated for socialism openly and directly, and saw capitalism and racism and American society and it’s values as all intertwined and that all had to be reshaped revolutionarily. There was no hijacking. He was the radical. In fact, he hijacked American ideals to further his own ends.

Fried, Marxist's vile ideas have swept through and corrupted much of what they touched. It lures in liberals who want to be charitable without having to produce it from their own pocket and without the overwatch of a divine purpose to tame it. And hence it always devolves into theft by greedy assholes who know a racket when they see one.

 

[FriedCFour]

Fried, Marxist's vile ideas have swept through and corrupted much of what they touched. It lures in liberals who want to be charitable without having to produce it from their own pocket and without the overwatch of a divine purpose to tame it. And hence it always devolves into theft by greedy assholes who know a racket when they see one.

Agreed. It’s why we shouldn’t uphold a Marxist who wanted revolution in America, like MLK.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

The Lewis, Clark, and Sacajawea statue, f'rex, was suddenly removed after an emergency zoom meeting with less than 20 minutes notice, hardly the gold standard for reasoned consideration over a piece of history more than a century old, but quite in line with the wishes of the angry mob the city was dealing with at the time.

The emergency meeting was to authorize removal when the company that had already been hired to remove the Confederate statues got done early and offered to complete the additional statue relocation at no extra cost. As cited in this article, they were already planning on relocating the statue, but were not planning to do it yet:

The council had already voted to move the statue following discussion with Native American representatives, but it wasn't going to be removed yet.

This decision was reached Saturday because of the speed at which the contractor was able to remove the statues of Robert E. Lee and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson.

They had already voted to relocate the Lewis, Clark, and Sacajawea statue. The emergency meeting was only done to grant authorization when the contractor got done with the other statues ahead of schedule and offered to proceed with the relocation as part of the same job at no additional cost. Here's another source.

 

[Zachowon]

That second one is basically road rage and nothing new for either race

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Bacle.
You are saying "Give them an inch! They wont take a mile! They promise!"

And watch, next month they are going after Washington

They already did that actually.

During the Nation spanning Kristalnacht Black supremacist terrorists caused last year, numerous monuments to the founding fathers were destroyed.

That second one is basically road rage and nothing new for either race

Ghetto culture is an abomination, it destroys everything because it glorifies ignorance and filth and ugliness.

The exact same vile moral depravity of the urbanites scum on the left.

Read Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell or a Vision of the Annoited by the same dude.

He argues the case well.

Ghetto culture isn't a black thing, it's a human thing and it has plagued every civilization.

It's an eternal enemy that must be fought with extreme prejudice and never tolerated or forgiven.

 

[Battlegrinder]

All of @LindyAF's posts about random crimes have been removed from the thread as a derail. Do not post anything else like that in this thread unless it's relevant to this thread. And explain what relevance it has, because the staff was not able to discern the point of the previous comments.

 

[Terthna]

Yes, and yes, one can. Marx laid down the ideological foundations, and is therefore responsible for everything done in the name of creating a Communist society. Nevermind that the "communist society" is a terrible idea to begin with.

So he was an idiot who got it wrong; big whoop. The only people to whom he still matters, are those who treat his writings as gospel; the rest of us don't need to accept the framework where he's at all relevant anymore, to point out that the people using what he said to justify their actions are, by and large, jerks who treat people like crap.

 

[ShieldWife]

So he was an idiot who got it wrong; big whoop. The only people to whom he still matters, are those who treat his writings as gospel; the rest of us don't need to accept the framework where he's at all relevant anymore, to point out that the people using what he said to justify their actions are, by and large, jerks who treat people like crap.

It’s kinda strange that you’re talking about Karl Marx like some kind of obscure and discredited figure, instead of one of the most influential and followed men in history. Almost every university on Earth is full of adherents to his ideology who teach his ideas and have students read his books. The ruling elites of every Western nation are sympathetic to Marx and his ideas if not actual Marxists. The most populous and debatably the most powerful nation on Earth are ruled by an overtly Marxist regime.

Marx is more relevant in the modern world than Jesus Christ is and unlike Jesus, his followers daily become not only more numerous but more powerful and devout. We don’t need to accept his framework, in fact we should utterly reject it, but we most also acknowledge that it is the most dominant ideology in the modern world.

 

[Terthna]

It’s kinda strange that you’re talking about Karl Marx like some kind of obscure and discredited figure, instead of one of the most influential and followed men in history. Almost every university on Earth is full of adherents to his ideology who teach his ideas and have students read his books. The ruling elites of every Western nation are sympathetic to Marx and his ideas if not actual Marxists. The most populous and debatably the most powerful nation on Earth are ruled by an overtly Marxist regime.

Marx is more relevant in the modern world than Jesus Christ is and unlike Jesus, his followers daily become not only more numerous but more powerful and devout. We don’t need to accept his framework, in fact we should utterly reject it, but we most also acknowledge that it is the most dominant ideology in the modern world.

I'm doing that because I'm trying to divest his work of the importance his worshipers insist it has. Because let's be honest here; even if he had never been born, the sociopathic narcissists of the world would find some other reason to justify why they should have all the power, why they should be allowed to abuse everyone else. It's not like people like them weren't doing it before Marx too.

 

[Aldarion]

So he was an idiot who got it wrong; big whoop. The only people to whom he still matters, are those who treat his writings as gospel; the rest of us don't need to accept the framework where he's at all relevant anymore, to point out that the people using what he said to justify their actions are, by and large, jerks who treat people like crap.

He is an idiot who got it wrong, yes. Problem is that so many people refuse to accept that, and instead follow his ideas like a gospel. His work provides ideas which form a perfect justification for various psychopaths and narcissists while fooling idiotic masses into supporting them. That is why Marxism is so dangerous.

 

[The Original Sixth]

It’s kinda strange that you’re talking about Karl Marx like some kind of obscure and discredited figure, instead of one of the most influential and followed men in history. Almost every university on Earth is full of adherents to his ideology who teach his ideas and have students read his books. The ruling elites of every Western nation are sympathetic to Marx and his ideas if not actual Marxists. The most populous and debatably the most powerful nation on Earth are ruled by an overtly Marxist regime.

Marx is more relevant in the modern world than Jesus Christ is and unlike Jesus, his followers daily become not only more numerous but more powerful and devout. We don’t need to accept his framework, in fact we should utterly reject it, but we most also acknowledge that it is the most dominant ideology in the modern world.

I suspect that the problem actually stems from Liberal morality. Liberals operate primarily in two points of the six points of morality; that being liberty and compassion. They are not opposed to things like loyalty, authority, sanctity, or karma--but they will toss those aside without a second thought for the sake of compassion. Even liberty will be thrown aside for compassion.

And that explains communism. The ideology is based in the concept that people will be good (compassionate) to each other, while supplying the maximum amount of liberty possible. The most common trap of attempting to achieve this (besides the fact that it's impossible) is that very often someone of dubious morality takes over. The second, less common trap--which is more of a long-term, slow boil as you see in the West (or China), rather than Russia or most Second World nations that attempted this system, is that it actually destroys social cohesion.

Inclusivity is actually not a problem. Diversity is the problem. No one really gets angry that you push to have a black guy at the table. And the black guy will be welcomed if you make him seem and act a lot like the other people at the table. The differences do not seem so big. If on the other hand, you not only have the black guy sit down, but then lecture how the black guy was oppressed by the rest of the table for not letting him play, then insist he gets special advantages for having lost out on previous turns, and then you add in two Hispanics and tell everyone that you better not make any jokes or references to Mexico because that's offensive--oh yeah, then a gay guy and transvestite are playing and you have to use these preferred pronouns...

What you've done is not create a unified table of players, but created jaded tribes forced to occupy the same space. People stop mingling and turtle. Or worse, they start joining teams and start attacking each other. And the liberal forcing this whole thing thinks that just because the new people they put on the table will vote his way so they can stay at the table, that suddenly they're all friends. They aren't. Because they won't agree on much of anything else. Because they all lack things in common.

Liberalism is both its own disease and cure. The entire movement will fragment (because it must) and those fragments will not work well together. Then a competing ideology that is cohesive and assimilative will move in and displace them.

I'm sorry, but comparing Marx to Christianity is a bit of a joke. Christianity is actually much more relevant, because it can be applied in someone's daily life. Marxism...really can't. It's all very high concept and when you force people to adhere to its mythology, it horrifically backfires.

 

[The Original Sixth]

I'm doing that because I'm trying to divest his work of the importance his worshipers insist it has. Because let's be honest here; even if he had never been born, the sociopathic narcissists of the world would find some other reason to justify why they should have all the power, why they should be allowed to abuse everyone else. It's not like people like them weren't doing it before Marx too.

Again, the problem with Marx wasn't that he was power hungry. Whether he was or not is besides the point. The problem with Marx is that he was a radical liberal, who only cared about two points of morality in a six-point system. For example, karma is important. Punishing someone for doing something wrong, for the sake of punishment, is actually a net positive for society. Experiments have shown that humans actually participate more in games where those who try to cheat others are punished. In fact, they will actually expend a fair amount of their resources to see that they are punished, when given the opportunity.

Marxism fails because it is either quickly corrupted by individuals or it destroys the cohesive ability of humans to engage with one another.

 

[boomghost]

I suspect that the problem actually stems from Liberal morality. Liberals operate primarily in two points of the six points of morality; that being liberty and compassion. They are not opposed to things like loyalty, authority, sanctity, or karma--but they will toss those aside without a second thought for the sake of compassion. Even liberty will be thrown aside for compassion.

thats leftism not liberalism, being a liberal means smaller government and fewer controls on the people. leftism is bigger government and full on communism as california wants.

 

[The Original Sixth]

thats leftism not liberalism, being a liberal means smaller government and fewer controls on the people. leftism is bigger government and full on communism as california wants.

Liberalism as in liberal?

No, it doesn't. Liberals in theory want a smaller government so they can maximize their personal freedom, because they do care about liberty. But they are primarily driven by compassion--and that compassion means throwing everything else to the shredder to obtain the compassionate result. And this is what undoes liberals who are unchecked.

That's not to mean that liberals are just trouble; they aren't and they are a net benefit for society, but when they are left unchecked, they tend to break down and destroy any society they're a part of.

 

[boomghost]

Liberalism as in liberal?

No, it doesn't. Liberals in theory want a smaller government so they can maximize their personal freedom, because they do care about liberty. But they are primarily driven by compassion--and that compassion means throwing everything else to the shredder to obtain the compassionate result. And this is what undoes liberals who are unchecked.

That's not to mean that liberals are just trouble; they aren't and they are a net benefit for society, but when they are left unchecked, they tend to break down and destroy any society they're a part of.

I think we have different ideas of liberals, you're thinking of bleeding heart leftists who would happily throw individual liberties under the bus for their collective socialism, while I'm thinking of people who want to shrink government for individual rights, as a large central government is prone to tyranny.

 

[Marduk]

Liberalism as in liberal?

No, it doesn't. Liberals in theory want a smaller government so they can maximize their personal freedom, because they do care about liberty. But they are primarily driven by compassion--and that compassion means throwing everything else to the shredder to obtain the compassionate result. And this is what undoes liberals who are unchecked.

That's not to mean that liberals are just trouble; they aren't and they are a net benefit for society, but when they are left unchecked, they tend to break down and destroy any society they're a part of.

I think this is so confusing due to US left taking over "liberalism" as a political flag which used to represent quite a separate idea, one closer to what we now call libertarianism - until leftists have started to infiltrate all the liberal parties and pushing for more care, fairness and equality of outcomes over liberty. Which is unavoidable, because where there's liberty there can't be equality of outcomes, as free people will make different decisions with unequal outcomes.