you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]hector_died_of_aids 11 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 4 fun -  (28 children)

they were, until leftist infiltration reached critical mass and their true colors show

[–]Karlfranz 20 insightful - 3 fun20 insightful - 2 fun21 insightful - 3 fun -  (27 children)

Tbh I don’t think it was leftist infiltration, I think the banks have supported globalism from the start, and the leftists are just their useful idiot footsoldiers

The banks are the enemy, they drew us into WW1 and WW2 in Europe. They want a stateless/weak world where banks and corporations dominate the individual nations.

[–]hector_died_of_aids 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (26 children)

no, it's easy to see. visa/mc never had a problem with processors facilitating all manner of disgusting depraved pornography, but if you say nigger you gotta go

by banks you mean jews, and i agree with that

[–]FlippyKing 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (25 children)

none of that has anything to do with actual leftist. If we let them change what "left" means, the way the are doing to the work "woman" and why said it is suddenly home to a bunch of feminist women, then we lose the ability to really see what is going on and we let them divide us.

"Left" only makes sense politically and historically as the political expression of the working class. The left were luddites, wobblies, trade unionists. They were reacting against horrible working conditions, child labor, and the fact that over the span of a few hundred years they had lost all ability to just make a living off the land they were on and had held "in common" ie the commons.

The left then were joined in a sense by some in the middle class who looked at the disparity in their own societies, the wealth enjoyed by their peers and the squalor suffered by those who physically created it through work, and came up with schools of thought in reaction against capitalism and liberalism (which go hand in hand). Liberalism may appear to be about freedom to do what you want, but it was and remains about freedoms that were created when massive amounts of wealth were accumulated, and the new class of rich people wanted the same freedoms enjoyed by the old nobility.

Those were the sides back then, and they still are the sides. Identity politics is just the new expression of the same old BS.

The idea that banks are run by "the left" is laughable. No billionaire is on the left. They might be as liberal as the old robber barons and their children, nephews, nieces, and grand kids, but it is a rewriting of history to pretend that is or was ever "left".

The "alt right" looks to me like the first wave the "left" over a similar transformation of the global economy. When agriculture and subsistence was replaced by industrial capitalism, the "left" was born. Now that globalization has shifted manufacturing far away and automation is eliminating the need for most labor, the alt right seems to be in the same role. The difference is that we have a history of analysis and data to look at, and a history of struggle from Bakunin to Fred Hampton to learn from. TO distance the working classes from that history of struggle, the false divide of left and right is created and along with it the ridiculous notion that there are left-wing billionaires.

[–]hector_died_of_aids 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

tldr

[–]FlippyKing 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (19 children)

On the pyramid of debate this site is so proud of supporting, your response is beneath it. You could read it later and not respond till then, but I suspect you know you are just being a disingenuous racist who is not interested in actually understanding issues or solving anything. Was that too long too?

[–]rman 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I think the name calling here drops you down too unfortunately (sorry)- I thought the “tldr” was a bit low effort but I did chuckle a bit - your previous comment though was very insightful, problem is people want the tldr in the first place for complicated issues — playing left/right/racist cards ignore the real bad guys and only serves as a distraction. Big banks and big corporations have way too much power - I could care less their ethnic origin - because the real solutions lay not in the race or politics (Someone will always be there to be evil in their place) but rather in putting actions or policies that prevent or disrupt in the first place

[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I'm pretty sure any name calling I did was not name calling but speculation and backed up with my reasons for the speculation. But sometimes you have to meet people where they are.

[–]rman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I get it — just wanted to make the point because the problem is that we fall down the pyramid naturally that’s all

[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

True, and it's fair to call it out-- but I was at least ON the pyramid.

[–]hector_died_of_aids 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

racist isn't a real word, it's a propaganda term created by a jew for later (now) use in stirring up a race war. in-group preference is natural and good. (except when it's whites, of course) but let's use your propaganda term for a moment, ya i'm "racist", and with good reason

[–]FlippyKing 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

can you back that assertion up? That "racist" isn't a real word? It has a meaning in a dictionary. If someone coins a word or phrase, that does not mean it is not a real word. Otherwise, racist would be like supercalafragiliousexpealidoious. So, who created the word? Do you have a link to back that up?

You should address my previous comment, beyond admitting tdcr. That's the one that is most on-topic here, not: whether or not you're a racist, or if it is a real word, or as you seem to say that it is not a real word but you have good reason to be this thing that has no real word to describe it.

[–]C3P0 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

It's a bogus assertion. His next sentence immediately after asserting that "racist" isn't a word is that racist is a "term." The definition of term is "a word." Argument over.

[–]AllStr8SexIsRape 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Racist is a word and it applies equally to all non-Jewish religions, all non-black races, and all non-gay sexuality since it is exploited to promote racism.

[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

good catch!

[–]hector_died_of_aids 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

ya look into it yourself i'm not spoon feeding you and i'm not here to convince you or anyone else

[–]RuinedRook 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

can you back that assertion up? That "racist" isn't a real word?

I've been watching this discussion from the sidelines and thought I'd add my 2 pennies. From my recollection Etymologists aren't actually sure on the origin of the word "racism". However, the word "racists" as a label was used and popularizes during the Bolshevik revolution by Leon Trotsky as a way to pit the Russian population against itself and help usher in socialism.

[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I just want to confirm that you are not saying it is not a "real" word, yes?

Trotsky must have been speaking in Russian, or he would not have been understood. The words he was using would have been Russian, and come out of Russian cultural as languages are born out of cultures and reflect their cultures. The translation of that word into English then is also going to carry with it assumptions made by the translator, if Trotsky's word is the birth of the word. But Richard Henry Pratt may have coined "racism" long before that. Regardless of who first coined the word, it is just a mechanical process applied to any word, in this case the word being: race. It seems to me the origin of the word is not really knowable or meaningful, because of the nature of the English langage: once a word exists, the variations of it all also exist. Run was not born separate from running or ran. Racism and racist are right there along with the word race from day one, used or not.

But, my use of the word, was simply because "religious bigotry" is cumbersome. Regardless, it is irrelevant to the point I'm making and it was just speculation about the dude "hector died of aids" motivations and goals in posting-- which he has no issue with even if he thinks the word is not a real word.

If Trotsky and Bolsheviks were really trying to usher in a socialism of any kind is very debatable. The debate has roots going back long before the Russian revolution. I think it was Rudolph Rocker who pointed out the incongruities between previous goals and ideas of socialists and the Bolsheviks placing the Party above and separate from the actual population-- as if the party were some non-human entity above the people, and the people running the party then above that. Rocker also details the fact that the Soviet economy was a state-run capitalism, where the "soviets", workers, were shut out of decision making and had no control over the means of production. The idea that you can be socialist but deny the worker control over their own production is laughable. They did this though through violence and totalitarianism, most clearly in what they did to the Makhnovshchina and to Ukrainian farmers who should have had at least some sovereignty over their labor if they were really socialist. (very easy listens of Rocker's works are easily found at Audible Anarchist's youtube page. His "Anarcho-syndicalism: theory and practice" has a good summary of these ideas, and his "Nationalism and Culture" is much longer and more detailed.)

Obsessing over the Jewishness of some people who abuse power seems to give a free pass to their peers who are not Jewish, and I think misses the point and misses what people should be organizing against. Does it matter what religion someone is, or what they are doing to people? George Soros is no more of a bastard than JD Rockefeller or the Koch brothers because of his religion. The damage he does is not made greater by his religion than the damage done by the Bushes or Obama or the Clintons.

[–]AllStr8SexIsRape 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[–]AllStr8SexIsRape 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Flagged for goy subvrsion. Jew is a proper noun and therefore capitalized, goy boy. If racism is justified, then Jews are ten times more justified in hating you back, and gay Jews a hundred times more justified. All non-Jewish religion is racist, and all non-gay sexuality is perversion. Homosexuality and Judaism should both be mandatory. #GayLivesMatter #JewishLivesMatter

[–]hector_died_of_aids 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

i see you following my account around. also seems obvious you're yet another sodomite kike. have fun burning in hell!

[–]dittendatt 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The SJW's / Woke people often get called the left. Because there is a surprising amount of collaboration, and because they are both represented by the Democratic party.

If you are an old school working class commie I can see how that is strange, but thats how the battle lines are drawn nowadays.

[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes, but it is not coincidence that these newer battle lines are drawn in a way that makes it impossible to find historical continuity.

I think we need to actively redraw the lines, because it is the strategic or tactical equivalent of refusing to fight on the terrain your opponents choose-- in this case a terrain they design and landscape themselves. It's also a matter of "know thyself". For people who call themselves "progressive", I think they need to understand what that word means. To me the progressive reformers make very little sense, but progressive populists and populists got much closer to the right track. It means the difference between public banking like North Dakota has (or what we all had access to before Reagan eliminated savings accounts at the post office) and minor meaningless regulation of derivatives.

Besides how their terrain makes class discussion in and of itself impossible, it eliminates one critique of their uncritical embrace of critical race theory. Another way to critique it, that it creates a new religion around white's orginal sin of racism that is every present needing constant confessing and rebuking, is too easily dismissed by them as ignoring the problem, if these battle lines can not show via class analysis a clear world view going back hundreds of years that makes perfect sense of how the world works.

The left right thing is a lie, there is just a hill. Those atop the hill may see a left and right, but we need not accept their view, their terrain. We can fight up the hill together, or we can try to ignore the hill or fence it off so that they have no impact beyond their little hill and we go about creating a decentralized world with resilient communities.

[–]dittendatt 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There is a historical continuity to what is happening. It's unsavory but it's there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clientelism

many definitions for clientelism have been proposed, according to the political scientist Allen Hicken, it is generally thought that there are four key elements of clientelistic relationships:

  • Dyadic relationships: Simply, these are two-way relationships.

  • Contingency: Delivery of a service to a citizen by a politician or broker is contingent on the citizen's actions on behalf of the politician or party through which they are receiving services.

  • Hierarchy: The politician or party is in a higher position of power than the citizen.

  • Iteration: The relationship is not a one-off exchange, but rather, ongoing.

I think the best illustration of the contingency and the hierarchy present, is Biden's statement 'If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black'. It's a really in-your-face power move. You're the cattle, I'm the shepherd, you fucking do what I say, and I'll keep the gibs flowing.

[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Interesting. Thanks for sharing that! It seems kind of obvious, but the breaking it down and parsing it out is useful and gives good ways of look at the problems. I agree, it is an example of those. It goes way beyond Biden, who as a person has done far more harm to those he was trying to appeal to in that interview than would give him a right to just grandstand for their votes. But, he's like Tilda Swinton in the Narnia movie donning the lion's mane. Biden is pretending to be heir to the New Deal/Civil Rights traditions, simply by his position in the Dem Party.

I really want national politics to collapse. We have no say in what the federal government does anymore, they are fully unaccountable in every single way be it immunity for judges and prosecutors to the fact that most house members and senators are multi-millionaires and secure in their reelection efforts by the collusion of the two parties, and it is all a distraction of real tangible problems we all have locally. So many communities can not afford to maintain their drinking water infrastructure, but we're still meddling in any country that has oil. To his credit, Trump is not as bad about it as Bush or Obama, but he's not proving to be an solution to anything and the circus that is DC is run by clowns from both parties.