I really hope Trump would score even more today

[AttackFormation]

How is Socialsim not a form of State rule?

And Socialists ARE a driving force behind emigration, but you speak as if those brainwashed people are somehow not violently agitating for open borders?

Socialism has never been a singular, monolithic movement.

Socialist thought has existed since ancient times but the modern socialism was established with the founding of the International Workingmens' Association, also called the First International, in London 1864. It was conflicted from the start between (1) anarchists, (2) democratic socialists, and what we for historical practicality's sake can call (3) communists. They all had basically the same goal: basing society on social ownership and workers' self-management, with backing theory of things like positive liberty, rentiers, economic rent and surplus value. The differences were in what the strategy should or could be for achieving the goal. Democratic socialists did support labor unions but mainly believed in achieving socialism by reforming the state. Communists wanted to capture the state "temporarily" and impose "socialism from above", and then abolish it. Anarchists could support electoral reform out of pragmatism, but they believed it was necessary to build "socialism from below" through syndicalism to abolish the state and they opposed the imposition of a new "temporary" state structure.

Every society is 'governed', but a government does not require a state, which is a top-down authoritarian hierarchy used to impose the will of a ruling class on the rest of society. Socialists had a vision of a society built on democratic worker and community councils, which when it was needed for socioeconomic organization would elect delegates who were held accountable, overridable and recallable, shared their living conditions and federated into new councils. When the communists got into power in Russia, they shut down this briefly alive bottom-up system from which the name "Council=Soviet Union" came from.

The democratic socialists achieved electoral successes, but in practice the mainstream of them degenerated into social democracy/welfare capitalism, abandoning a socialist vision, and now they are also afflicted with neoliberalism. There are no democratic socialist parties which are in the mainstream. The communists purged and undermined the other socialists wherever they got into power which they of course most notably did in Russia. The anarchists achieved short-lived success first in the Free Territory of Ukraine where Lenin and Trotsky sent in their armies to wipe them out, and then in Revolutionary Spain where Franco, Hitler and Mussolini crushed them.

So there are three basic strands of socialism. Democratic socialism, communism which is and always has been discredited by the other two, and - what I adhere to - libertarian socialism ("libertarian" originates as a loan word from French, a synonym for "anarchist", but right wingers like Rothbard attacked and captured the label in America during the 1960s).

Ok that was that, I left out some details but that's pretty much it... now about the emigration thing, I have no idea who the so-called "socialists" you are referring to are.

And every law is a form of authoritarianism. You can't have any, not even socialist property and laws without claims, acquisitions, access control and threat of punishment, all of which are a kind of force. It's really a moot point. It just matters how you are going to use the property, laws and force. Socialists recognize positive liberty, not negative liberty.

 

[Ranger]

The idea of eliminating sovereignty of tribes (removing borders) comes up against biology. We talk about how women and men’s biology is different. How we are different. The idea of open borders is the assumption that science and biology do not exist. It’s like making millions of cucks.

By reducing individuality through “socialism/communism”, the act of creating unisex creatures for the purpose of economic control of goods and services becomes obvious.

The American culture, was borne out of rebellion. Sometimes this is good and sometimes it’s not. Our ways of thinking can sometimes seem alien. The world now looks at our freaks like the propaganda that the media puts out. We talk about how it’s (propaganda) used for the feminine imperative but we throw it out when it comes to government?
How narrow and dishonest is that?

European countries have been squashed a bit longer is all. The political thrust has been at work a lot longer there. If you are looking at American from the outside, it’s mostly through the lens of one’s own existence. And comparing it to the reality of one’s own “truths” and individual programming.

This is why America is so divided at this time. It is not an accident. “Civilizations are frail things. They do not endure.”

 

[AttackFormation]

It requires a collective "State" to enforce the ideological concept of private physical and intellectual property too (and please don't conflate personal property with private property). There are and always have been different philosophies to what constitutes an ownership or management right. It's a man-made law, not a natural law. There's also the concept of positive liberty, which the right wing doesn't have. So it's a disagreement over what property rights and liberty are. Could go into it more, but I'm not gonna bother.

lol, you just mud sling whatever group you don't like as "socialist". Infantile, but then again that's what America's political landscape largely is. I'm so glad I don't live there...

 

[Ranger]

You can’t be pro masculine and yet still support collective ideas. That’s the purpose of this site.

If the average man has 8 lovers in his lifetime, I’ve way surpassed my fair share. The feminine imperative wants the woman to be the selector and remove choice from men. Like a farmer and his hog breeding pen. Nope. Only these two boar hogs get to breed. The rest of you have to breed with less than optimum stock.
This is a form of collectivism. The masculine never really having a choice except to serve.

We teach men to follow their dream and go for those elusive goals. Rise above your programming and take that step forward. What does this do? It removes him from the collective. It creates an individual. We create individuals here. Unemcumbered from the dictates of the collective.

This is what is being attacked by women and the feminine imperative. A suppressed man finds out he does have power over himself. He discovers his own individuality. This is very dangerous to governments (state).
When individual men become teamed up together of their own decision. Their own agreed upon purpose and goal. There is serious danger in that. It flies up against “socialism/communism”.

Because we free men. We can’t be collectively minded like tax base robots and still free men at the same time. That’s like a banking system that funds and supports both sides of a war.

 

[Ranger]

It requires a collective "State" to enforce the ideological concept of private physical and intellectual property too (and please don't conflate personal property with private property). There are and always have been different philosophies to what constitutes an ownership or management right. ..

The idea of private property is biologically induced. Native Americans killed each other over the prime hunting grounds. Stole each other’s women and children. Why do Palestinians demand Palestine for ownership even though Palestine was never a country but a region that was labeled by the Romans?

Biologically driven drive to survive. Modern civilization is a veneer. Governments try to induce social ideas for controlling society that go against biology instead of with biology. Of course they fail. Of course the structure fails miserably. Government is abstract. It has no mass. It’s an idea. It has no weight and doesn’t take up space. (Definition of mass)

I will note that I cannot understand Sweden from my viewpoint of America. And you cannot understand America by the viewpoint of Sweden.
This is a given. This does not make America right OR wrong. Nor is Sweden right OR wrong.

I do know that here in my state of Colorado, I have millions of acres I can walk on, fish on and hunt on without permission. I do not have to ask or plead “by your leave, sir”

Is the idea of ownership of land smart? Perhaps not but if you have to ask for permission to walk on ground in your own country from your government...you are a slave sir.

You can’t free yourself from the feminine imperative and yet still support a government imperative.

We have States bigger than Sweden. Each state is its own entity. This is very dangerous to power moguls and tyrants. It has individuality. It must be destroyed. America is the most attacked nation I. The world. Some of it is even justified. But most isn’t.

When I was working in Canada, I was working in Alberta. Having a true democracy, they cannot compete with Quebec who rules by population numbers. They resent it. This is under the veneer. They pretend it doesn’t exist. It’s a lie. BC and the Yukon are the same way. Resentment.
Democracy is an abject failure. It’s where 51% of the vote can vote away the rights and individuality of the remaining 49%. How is that workable?

 

[Spaz]

You can’t be pro masculine and yet still support collective ideas. That’s the purpose of this site.

If the average man has 8 lovers in his lifetime, I’ve way surpassed my fair share. The feminine imperative wants the woman to be the selector and remove choice from men. Like a farmer and his hog breeding pen. Nope. Only these two boar hogs get to breed. The rest of you have to breed with less than optimum stock.
This is a form of collectivism. The masculine never really having a choice except to serve.

We teach men to follow their dream and go for those elusive goals. Rise above your programming and take that step forward. What does this do? It removes him from the collective. It creates an individual. We create individuals here. Unemcumbered from the dictates of the collective.

This is what is being attacked by women and the feminine imperative. A suppressed man finds out he does have power over himself. He discovers his own individuality. This is very dangerous to governments (state).
When individual men become teamed up together of their own decision. Their own agreed upon purpose and goal. There is serious danger in that. It flies up against “socialism/communism”.

Because we free men. We can’t be collectively minded like tax base robots and still free men at the same time. That’s like a banking system that funds and supports both sides of a war.

Interesting response Ranger. I'll think I play along with this just for the fun of muddying the waters..

A herd mentality needs a sense of belonging, once that is established, they will feel a sense of safety and security - control of the masses via ideologies.

A true apex predator on the other hand has no boundaries, no true ideology other then being limitless to create ideas that gives him power.

It is dangerous to hv too many predatory male's without ideological belief's - those male's that can influence lesser males into action.

A balance must then be achieved to curb man's true nature. The feminine imperative is perhaps the only true "ideological" balance.

Some things are just not meant for all men to learn - 97%-99% must be in the herd, operating in concert with the feminine imperative as right, left, libertarians, centrist etc to create the balance. If that percentage is reduced to 50%, could you imagine what the other 50% will be doing and even unleashing to the world ?

 

[Ranger]

Interesting response Ranger. I'll think I play along with this just for the fun of muddying the waters..

A herd mentality needs a sense of belonging, once that is established, they will feel a sense of safety and security - control of the masses via ideologies.

A true apex predator on the other hand has no boundaries, no true ideology other then being limitless to create ideas that gives him power.

It is dangerous to hv too many predatory male's without ideological belief's - those male's that can influence lesser males into action.

A balance must then be achieved to curb man's true nature. The feminine imperative is perhaps the only true "ideological" balance.

Some things are just not meant for all men to learn - 97%-99% must be in the herd, operating in concert with the feminine imperative as right, left, libertarians, centrist etc to create the balance. If that percentage is reduced to 50%, could you imagine what the other 50% will be doing and even unleashing to the world ?

Lol we agree that social structure is cohesive like a hierarchy. It’s true that I am looking at the world through my viewpoint.
I have no hero’s that I look up to. No idols. I have a mentor(s) in this realm. But my mentor(s) have no motive to suppress me or squash me into an abstract position. I most definitely understand your subtext. It is VERY interesting.
I like the idea of opening that door for those who are able to walk through.

Do I believe that most will walk through it? No. In fact it may be few. To become a slave, one would have to go into agreement and become a slave of his own decision.

.....ok I understand. I don’t even care about politics. It doesn’t even apply to me. Never has. Nothing has happened to me that I did not cause or go into agreement with.
One never stops being a student. Thanks Spaz.

 

[Ranger]

I was looking at the model through my eyes. Im not in that reality.

 

[Spaz]

I was looking at the model through my eyes. Im not in that reality.

I was just doing my thing..amusing myself with the others here by using ur post..

 

[Spaz]

You seem to be conflating Predator and Masculinity here.

Is that your intent?

Stay the same Danger.

The world needs plenty of ur kind.

 

[Ranger]

I was just doing my thing..amusing myself with the others here by using ur post..

I needed this thread to have something I needed. Looks like I found it.

 

[Spaz]

So rather than answer the question you call me a sheep.

Just more proof you are talking out your @ss trying to convince yourself that you are some kind of predator alpha.

Avoiding challenges only keeps you weak.

U r the one saying u r a sheep....

U r the one saying I'm an alpha...

And all I did was say remain the same Danger. The world needs you.

 

[Spaz]

Nobody is so brainwashed as those who brainwash themselves.

Your refusal to think is what keeps you manipulated, and it is why you avoid simple questions.

But yes, keep telling yourself how powerful you are LOLLLLLL!!!

I completely agree.

Continue as u r Danger.

U hv my blessings.

 

[EyeBRollin]

1. Claiming something is true without evidence is not a credible argument. So once again no evidence from your side? Quite the pattern here.

Conspiracy theorists don't accept evidence. If you feel that caging human children was made up, the burden is on you to provide counter evidence. Where is it?

2. Corporate personhood has been supported by both parties for a long time here, and neither has done anything about it.

Nope, Republican supreme court justices with the Buckley decision then Citizens United.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Counter evidence requires initial evidence.

As usual, leftists cannot provide any evidence just accusations.

Conspiracy theorists such as yourself just don't accept evidence. If you insinuate that Trump caging children isn't happening, provide your evidence to the contrary.

Moreover they actually belueve in guilty until proven innocent.

Strawman argument.

Regading corporate personhood, you should do a little reading. You will find that democrats fully supported it too in history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Co.

Now, let us all ponder the Apex Ultron Mega Predator.....do not think, do not use logic, for those only make you prey......just believe.

History requires an understanding of context. You just cited a case from almost 100 years before the parties were even at their current alignment. Now, are you going defend your Republican Supreme Court justices ruling that corporations can buy speech or will you denounce it?

 

[Ranger]

In the world we live in now, western world, completely degraded, women are the Apex predator within the feminine imperative. So just leave. Just leave that playground. Reject everything and start over. I have.

Most everyone who works has a “boss”. That’s a hierarchy in place.

Trump is Apex. So was Clinton and Bush. These were leaders. Then there’s business leaders and innovators. Obama? Lol

If the world was completely full of these types...what would our world look like? There are doers. Feelers. Motivators. All the different types.
Each has a place in the realm. Without competition the world would be pretty flat.

The crime is when each is dictated to per a social/political power. That is the absence of freedom. That’s why we say to squashed men who show up here, go live your dream. Whatever that dream may be. A woman isn’t really part of the equation in the same respect or aspect. We are men talking. This is man stuff. Amongst men.

What we sometimes call crimes is survival biology. I reject everything. A woman who eats men for lunch and then throws them out like trash is acceptable in this model we live in.

Where does our idea of what’s right or wrong come from? A dyed in the wool victim thinks that what you are thinking, if it doesn’t acknowledge his poor poor pitiful predicament, is a crime. Is it? Since when are men subject to the dictates of a retard based on what we are thinking?
The victim has already lost and has taken himself out of the game. Forget him. He’s no longer a player in the world.

There are plenty of men that we call “beta” who are fantastic creators and work like dogs and are fully responsible. They are not nothing. They build our world. They don’t really have it wrong. But the feminine imperative has been set loose on them. They were unsuspecting of this attack and have no defense. They have been tricked. Some political ideologies support this horse$hit. I do not participate.

 

[Ranger]

See I agree with much of this.

The issue is that Spaz is nkt presenting it this way. Spaz is literally saying if you support Trump then you are somehow prey, cannot think for yourself and that he is a predator taking advantage of you.

I ask, where is the evidence? One cannot just apply a blanket theory to someone without evidence linking it together.

I did not get that at all. Let me go back and look. I don’t even think Trump was even implied. BRB

 

[Ranger]

Ok. I went back and read it all from the point Spaz started posting.
It didn’t have anything to do with Trump.

The idea of ideologies makes the masses feel safe. The feminine imperative operates in this way and most men will stay in it. They really don’t have it in them to be otherwise. That’s safety. Sometimes a hunter just wants to be a hunter. He doesn’t want more. He may not even be capable of more, based on his own reality.

To be out of the feminine imperative is to have one’s OWN ideology that forwards his life and those that want to come along if that’s the case.
One cannot be out of the feminine imperative if he doesn’t have his own world. His own vision.

When I talk about these things. Almost never these days. I have a detached feeling like I am looking at it from a different place. Without a doubt the left is the most dibilitating and suppressive of the parties. That isn’t even In the realm of debate.
But without it, or the right, people would have no direction. I just think that playground should be between the conservatives and the libertarians. The left is about the mentality and protection of women in its most powerful form of the feminine imperative. It really is a natural born enemy of men who desire to be individuals.

 

[samspade]

You can’t be pro masculine and yet still support collective ideas. That’s the purpose of this site.

I see a lot of supposedly masculine/conservative members promoting collectivist ideas around here. All governments, even the most conservative, take and redistribute wealth for collectivist purposes. That would include building a wall, maintaining a military force, paving roads, imposing tariffs (taxes), etc. People just like to pick and choose the services that work for them and then get emotionally invested in what government should and shouldn't be paying for.

 

[Ranger]

Read this and the entire thread. He just claims someone is Right or Left and thus they are somehow limited..

Well I get it. I do understand what you are saying. Think about it. Let’s say a man just does what he does. Women are never a concern. He doesn’t give a crap what the world thinks. He operates on his own agenda.
He knows that both are serving masters of one type or another.
The masses need something to believe in. They choose a side based on their own propensities and dispositions. An overly emotional man will sit strongly in the left. A go getter. A man who does and builds things because it’s him, will most likely settle on the beliefs of the right.
Both sides have an ideology. Both give the feeling of belonging.
A libertarian believes both are basically the same and he’s right.
The only reason I vote to the right is because the left keeps people squashed and victims. They teach nothing.

So what kind of man follows neither because both are flawed fundamentally and not only that, it’s just not in him to follow?

What would that man look like inside?
So I do see where Spaz is coming from. Trump was a leftist at first because it was popular to be that way for famous people. Later he thought WTF?
So to get elected, he had to pick a side. The left was just too suppressive so he went with republican. But in the end Trump is his own man. That’s what the left hates. Spitting venom loathing for him. He represents openly...individuality. You can check out of the system anytime you want. You don’t have to follow anyone. That’s what Trump represents.
The left MUST have you enslaved to their system or they feel even more alone and victimized.

At the same time, the right must also have your loyalty to even exists. Trump is an Apex.

So what does a fully unplugged Apex man think? Well, he thinks his own way. He doesn’t acknowledge the reality of either side. He may agree with some from each but he has no intention of following.