I really hope Trump would score even more today

[Bible_Belt]

Lynch mobs are quite populist.

 

[AttackFormation]

It's just what this PC agenda is called and generally referred to as. Do a search for "cultural marxism" and you will see what I mean.

Yeah, and that's what I'm getting at. Millions of people who haven't read even an introductory section or internet oversight of any of Marx's works, have no clue what he was writing about, using his name as a pejorative because that's what their tribe does and they want to belong and be cool too. Fvcking pack of monkeys.

 

[AttackFormation]

You can bash the name all you want, it does nothing to take away from my point about the Overton window and the extreme left cultural marxist policies.

Regular Marxism has it's own flaws, but that is for another thread.

I'm not just bashing the stupid name, but the fact that the people who are up in arms about LGBTQ bathrooms and whatever else the mainstream political industry is putting out are simply the other side of the coin. These aren't economic issues, and the whole point of identity politics isn't what side you're on, it's to get you to focus on that and not socioeconomics and especially to not read anything on your own, like what Marx actually wrote, and instead just go with established narratives that you are given. Ideally, you should feel a strong enough dislike for the enemy that you think their loss is your gain and you would rather make sure they lose than that you both win. You see it with this thread, and the others like it. What would those OPs focus on if all of their "enemies" didn't exist?

That's how the southern slavers in America used racism too, which they started to invent in the 17th century after Bacon's rebellion...

"In the past, white men have hated white men quite as much as some of them hate the Negro, and have vented their hatred with as much savagery as they ever have against the Negro. The best educated people have the least race prejudice. In the United States the poor white were encouraged to hate the Negroes because they could then be used to help hold the Negroes in slavery. The Negroes were taught to show contempt for the poor white because this would increase the hatred between them and each side could be used by the master to control the other. The real interest of the poor whites and the Negroes were the same, that of resisting the oppression of the master class. But ignorance stood in the way. This race hatred was at first used to perpetuate white supremacy in politics in the South. The poor whites are almost injured by it as are the Negroes. " - John T. Campbell, The Broad Axe 1906.

The fact that you use the Overton window in reference to identity politics not to renounce identity politics but to make it your focus represents the best kind of success for a political strategist, and is a sad fact.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Exactly how poor white people can think a billionaire rich boy draft dodger, who has probably never broken a sweat outside of a golf course, represents their interests...it escapes me. I live red state America, and see Trump banners outside run down trailers all the time. Getting the poor to champion the interests of the rich is the greatest con job of the 21st century.

 

[AttackFormation]

I used the Overton window to demonstrate where we are as a nation today and what is acceptable in the current discourse. Identity politics is embedded in that window particularly at the extreme Right or Lefr.

This is a fact. Hate on it and me all you want, but that fact stands.

The fact that you are attacking me for recognizing the identity politics and the role it plays in that window only demonstrates your anger at having it pointed out.

Ok, you didn't originally recognize that it's embedded in the whole mainstream spectrum and not just "the left" so you can't blame me too much for thinking that's what you meant.

All conjecture and accusations with no evidence. And personal attacks abound whenever one asks for the evidence.

This is what extreme leftism is and the Overton window has placed us here.

Do you see yet Attackformation?

People don't have the economic literacy to analyze what's going on in our societies. That's why they - and rightly so - may denounce Trump, but think similar and I would say more professional con men like Obama are serving them. The problem is, how are you going to defeat that strategy when people don't know anything else and are stuck in Plato's cave?

Let's take the American School of Economics (that is, school of economic thought) for example. People like Joseph Wharton, Simon Patten, Thorstein Veblen and E Peshine Smith (who doesn't even have a wikipedia article), who were the diametric opposite of the neoliberalism which is now the establishment consensus, and the American school's modern sympathizers like Michael Hudson... when was the last time you heard of these people? Thought so... no one is discussing things like earned and unearned income, economic rent, rentiers, natural monopolies today. Instead we have bank lobbyists like Krugman being given prizes and recognition. It's a sad state of affairs, and when I use the term Overton window, this is what I mean. The greatest victory of neoliberals and their predecessors like JB Clark in America in the latter 20th and 21th centuries has been to make people think that the alleged left vs right spectrum in the political establishment is genuine.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Ever since Dubya appointed Roberts, the Supreme Court has been on a mission to increase the power of corporate America. The Citizens United decision sold off every politician to the lure of unlimited contributions. Well, except Bernie Sanders, and we all saw what the Democratic National Committee did to him. Hillary was going to be the nominee, regardless of how the people voted. When Goldman Sachs owns the Democrats, there is no leftist option, we are offered the two choices corporate America has purchased for us.

 

[AttackFormation]

We have not seen the Overton window at the mainstream Right in a very long time. At least not in White western Christian nations.

I completely understand you on the economic side and I have encountered similar things. One coworker of mine had never even heard of Austrian School economic theory until I brought it up on a business trip.

The root problem here is that we do not have Capitalism and have not had it in a long time. The conbination of a fiat monetary structure combined with the current crony element of capitalism (Including Government for sale) has forced people to attach to the far left side of economics.

Forgive me in advance for this long answer, hah...

Monetary structures are fiat by nature, and that's how they originated in the Near East. The problem isn't "fiat money", it's the interest, financial fees, privatization and profit-driving of banking instead of being a public utility to create and allocate money productively without speculation, interest bondage and financial fees, and polarization between debtors and creditors leading to debt deflation. This is the basic dynamic that has remained true throughout most of civilized history. Jesus was killed over proclaiming the Jubilee Year, an old Near Eastern tradition of debt cancellations to restore social harmony, and it's the same thing today except no one is talking about it. The Pharisees, their leader Hillel and the creditors who backed them killed Jesus essentially because he wanted to free people from systemic financial bondage.

You are right to say that we have not had capitalism for a long time. That's part of what Marx wrote about... capitalism was a revolutionary system because it would replace feudalism. Bankers, landlords, monopolists and kleptocrats were no longer to rule over societies, and eliminating them was a necessary prerequisite for industrial capitalism because otherwise there would be economic depression due to households', industries' and governments' revenues being siphoned off by economic rent and industrialism and progress wouldn't take off. This is what people don't get when they talk about Marx. What he didn't anticipate enough was the emergence of finance capitalism and neoliberalism, of the rentier class fighting back. To Marx, Patten, Adam Smith etc. a free market was a market "free from" rentiers so that industrial capitalism could take off in the next development of society. Then the Overton window would shift into debating how that stage should progress. Instead we have as I just said, a neo-feudalist reaction of JB Clarks, Friedrich Hayeks, Milton Friedmans, Paul Krugmans... either useful idiots or professional con men seeking to undo this progress and restore the socioeconomic structure of society to a kind of feudal stage.

And of course as you say, the state is complicit in this. And both Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and everyone else recognized this fact, that the state had always been a tool to formalize and legalize the power of what I'll call the rentier class over society - people who accumulated privilege and unearned income through conquest, inheritance, finance or legislation. That's why they all wanted to either reform or dismantle the state. Every society is governed, but a 'state' is a particular kind of government.

Since you seem to be an Austrian adherent we probably won't agree on what we discuss... but at least we know of these issues. Most people have no idea.

 

[Billtx49]

Ever since Dubya appointed Roberts, the Supreme Court has been on a mission to increase the power of corporate America.

Judges an SC Justices are impartial. Some may be biased, but mostly impartial and interpreting the laws. That’s Reality and not a radical conspiracy…

 

[AttackFormation]

I posit that fiat is the issue because that means money can only come from debt. As interest compounds the debt grows larger than the supply of money itself.

Lend 10 for 11 when only 10 exist.

Banking used to work without lending and it smoothed out the business cycles so that we did not have massive depressions. Tally sticks and bank partial ownership (instead of interest payments) were how these previous systems would work.

It doesn't mean money can only come from debt... that's simply the way the monetary system has been usurped so that now it only comes from debt. Unless of course the captured central banks create fresh real money to give to their banker cronies, that's the only time when it doesn't. If it were a public utility, it wouldn't be privatized for profit and so it wouldn't charge interest or fees or engage in speculation (and speculation itself requires a financialized society). That's what the systems like tally sticks you're referring to really were. But I guess it depends on what your definition of "fiat" is. As I understand it, what separates a fiat means of exchange from an informal means of exchange is that government accepts the fiat in payment and is responsible for creating the currency if it's not a natural good but an artifice, and that's how the monetary system basically started in the Near East along with land allotments to citizens so they could pay the taxes and have a means of living.

 

[AttackFormation]

I was using fiat to describe money that was "borrowed into existence", but yes that is not really an accurate definition.

However the process where money is only borrowed into existence truly is the root cause. When the interest compounded to such a high degree and a collapse ensued in 1929, all of the dollars chased gold and broke the gold standard.

Naturally, the banks blamed gold instead of the system they profited from and gold was suddenly "banned". As time went on after golds devaluation, bretton woods came along, etc... and now it's legal to own gold again, if even it is only officially valued at $35 per ounce.

It's not merely the borrowing, but who it's borrowed from, what the money is used for, and what the conditions of borrowing are. If the money is borrowed without interest and fees, if it's allocated productively and not for speculation and things like corporate raiding, and if the debt is written down if it can't be paid, then there isn't a problem with borrowing per se. The problem is when you have a privatized, for-profit banking system, they create credit that causes speculation and debt deflation as you point to because that's their business model.

I'm not sure bankers blamed gold, I think bankers love gold. They control the supply, they can still create credit booms and busts, and it's deflationary which favors the creditors, ie. themselves. And something I always chuckle about with gold salesmen is if they think it's so valuable to hold on to... why are they selling it?

 

[Ranger]

First off, you can look up plenty of videos of the Clintons calling for a wall. Heavy sanctions against illegal “immigrants”.
They were protecting the Unions. More workers means a surplus of workers which equals lower wages.

Then it switched. What caused this? Too simple. In North America and nearly all the west, the birth rate is down to 1.5 children per household?
We are not producing slaves for taxation and to allow the government to survive. So immigration is now supported by leftists/communists.
Without immigrat tax slaves, the main governments will soon fold.

All this human rights BS is a smoke screen. To take the red pill is to realize that nothing is as it seems. Just ignor the leftists and the extreme far right. You want the best immigrants. Smartest and brightest.

These countries have accepted their poverty and their own form of slavery. Until they start hacking off corrupt heads I guess they have the only choice of coming to the west.

 

[Ranger]

None of the stuff the left talks about is real. It’s all smoke and mirrors. Just like the feminine imperative. All goofy misdirection.

 

[Billtx49]

So immigration is now supported by leftists/communists.


To take the red pill is to realize that nothing is as it seems.

Right. They want the power one party rule provides and the socialism that follows. More immigrants equal more votes…

When powerful people with media helpers try to manipulate public perception to change reality you are right, nothing is as it seems…

 

[AttackFormation]

lol... it's not a "socialist" conspiracy driving people to emigrate. Quotation marks because neither democratic socialism nor libertarian socialism advocate "state rule" and socialism doesn't mean "welfare" either.

It's a "conspiracy" of the NATO invasions, drone bombings and State Department & CIA-supported NGO terror and criminal groups, political coups to install client oligarchies, assassinations of land reformers, university professors, intellectuals, labor organizers and politicians who are socialist or social democratic like in Operation Condor who won't go along with the neoliberal Washington consensus imposing transnational exploitation by corporations, bankers and kleptocrats, and the IMF & World Bank's de-development austerity policies on them. Same neoliberal class war that your own establishment are imposing on you, whether through professional con men like Obama, Reagan and the Clintons or more frank ones like Trump... and you think there's a socialist conspiracy in America by that same establishment. Lol.

 

[Spaz]

Judges an SC Justices are impartial. Some may be biased, but mostly impartial and interpreting the laws. That’s Reality and not a radical conspiracy…

That's naive.

You think they got there by being impartial ?

First off, you can look up plenty of videos of the Clintons calling for a wall. Heavy sanctions against illegal “immigrants”.
They were protecting the Unions. More workers means a surplus of workers which equals lower wages.

Then it switched. What caused this? Too simple. In North America and nearly all the west, the birth rate is down to 1.5 children per household?
We are not producing slaves for taxation and to allow the government to survive. So immigration is now supported by leftists/communists.
Without immigrat tax slaves, the main governments will soon fold.

All this human rights BS is a smoke screen. To take the red pill is to realize that nothing is as it seems. Just ignor the leftists and the extreme far right. You want the best immigrants. Smartest and brightest.

These countries have accepted their poverty and their own form of slavery. Until they start hacking off corrupt heads I guess they have the only choice of coming to the west.

Clever

 

[Ranger]

lol... it's not a "socialist" conspiracy driving people to emigrate. Quotation marks because neither democratic socialism nor libertarian socialism advocate "state rule" and socialism doesn't mean "welfare" either.

It's a "conspiracy" of the NATO invasions, drone bombings and State Department & CIA-supported NGO terror and criminal groups, political coups to install client oligarchies, assassinations of land reformers, university professors, intellectuals, labor organizers and politicians who are socialist or social democratic like in Operation Condor who won't go along with the neoliberal Washington consensus imposing transnational exploitation by corporations, bankers and kleptocrats, and the IMF & World Bank's de-development austerity policies on them. Same neoliberal class war that your own establishment are imposing on you, whether through professional con men like Obama, Reagan and the Clintons or more frank ones like Trump... and you think there's a socialist conspiracy in America by that same establishment. Lol.

I don’t think there’s any conspiracy. Not in the least. There’s no cabal or secret meeting rooms. The masses are usually and invariably wrong.
Socialism is only a tool. Like a pocket knife.
This is about the swings of power and branding. The masses grovel to and fro.
This is about money and power.
The true aberration is the idea of government control. For the good of the people of course.

 

[AttackFormation]

I don’t think there’s any conspiracy. Not in the least. There’s no cabal or secret meeting rooms. The masses are usually and invariably wrong.
Socialism is only a tool. Like a pocket knife.
This is about the swings of power and branding. The masses grovel to and fro.
This is about money and power.
The true aberration is the idea of government control. For the good of the people of course.

Every society is 'governed' formally or informally like with the plutocrats who own America... what you mean is state control, an authoritarian form of government. And for god sake, there is no socialism in America or any other country in the world right now and no advocacy for it in the political establishment. You people don't have any idea what the term means. America has such a bizarre political landscape... fvck it, why did I even bother haha.

 

[Ranger]

Every society is 'governed' formally or informally like with the plutocrats who own America... what you mean is state control, an authoritarian form of government. And for god sake, there is no socialism in America or any other country in the world right now and no advocacy for it in the political establishment. You people don't have any idea what the term means. America has such a bizarre political landscape... fvck it, why did I even bother haha.

Communism is submission by force. Socialism is submission by vote.
I understand the term just fine. To assert that one is the only one who knows and nobody else does is like throwing a dead cat onto the dinner table.
Well travelled people see more than you think.

 

[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.”