Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Foreigners looking in at America from a observational point of view.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/X56rQkDgd0qqB7R68t6t7C/seven-things-you-need-to-know-about-antifa

How is this article balanced? It's basically an advertisement for Antifa. No mention of their authoritarian tendencies, nor any attempt to highlight their extreme-left communist backbone (they wave red flags, ffs).


Shame on the BBC.

Who is ANTIFA? Simple really. They're communist pieces of sh*t who label anyone who disagrees with them as being "fascists" while they themselves behave EXACTLY like fascists. They're terrorist scum, plain and simple. Some lame a** article by the BBC (LOL) is not gonna change that.


Not surprising that Marxist-loving pooty is desperately trying to do some damage control for his terrorist heroes after they've now been officially designated as a terrorist organization by our great president.


Oh pooty... smh.

Another interesting and balanced article, which explains a great deal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/01/trump-antifa-terrorist-organization/

Originally posted by Scribble
How is this article balanced? It's basically an advertisement for Antifa. No mention of their authoritarian tendencies, nor any attempt to highlight their extreme-left communist backbone (they wave red flags, ffs).


Shame on the BBC. Say what you will about Antifa, but they are not authoritarian.

Bullshit, they're not.

Another article meant to frame antifa in a positive light, they are just misunderstood because their platforms are so virtuous.....lulz.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Bullshit, they're not.

They aren't they are non-hierarchical, decentralized groups. If anything they are closer to anarchists, but the truth is that they don't have any specific political agenda, except being vaguely on the left, and believing that fascist movements need to be opposed with force.

Originally posted by Artol
Say what you will about Antifa, but they are not authoritarian. They intend to stamp out viewpoints that they don't like through violence or the threat of violence. That is textbook authoritarianism.


They may identify as 'anarchists', but they aren't. They act like the state police of a future communist dystopia.
Originally posted by Artol
They aren't they are non-hierarchical, decentralized groups. If anything they are closer to anarchists, but the truth is that they don't have any specific political agenda, except being vaguely on the left, and believing that fascist movements need to be opposed with force. The red in their flag signifies communism. Like, it does. This isn't a point of contention or debate. They are communists.

Originally posted by Artol
They aren't they are non-hierarchical, decentralized groups. If anything they are closer to anarchists, but the truth is that they don't have any specific political agenda, except being vaguely on the left, and believing that fascist movements need to be opposed with force. bang on!

Communism is a political ideology that spans the whole range from Anarchists to Stalinist. Violence and authoritarianism are not the same thing, it is true, as I stated, that what unifies them is the believe that you must oppose fascism through violence. This view is historically informed by the rise of fascist dictatorships in the 20s and 30s, but of course there can be disagreement on tactics. Most liberal societies do agree that you must use violence to oppose elements that are bent on destruction of the liberal order, btw, so this is by no means a communist idea only.

Originally posted by Artol
Communism is a political ideology that spans the whole range from Anarchists to Stalinist. Violence and authoritarianism are not the same thing, it is true, as I stated, that what unifies them is the believe that you must oppose fascism through violence. This view is historically informed by the rise of fascist dictatorships in the 20s and 30s, but of course there can be disagreement on tactics. Most liberal societies do agree that you must use violence to oppose elements that are bent on destruction of the liberal order, btw, so this is by no means a communist idea only. Bang on! They're really arent enough of them to pull the shit Trump is pretending, he is doing what he does best playing on some people's fears whilst supporting the Alt Right.

Yeah, both communists and fascists are bad... equally so, imo.

Edit......

I mean that's clearly not true, I mean it is fair enough that you disagree with whether their targets are well picked, that's a valid argument you can have, and there's surely mistakes that a autonomous, decentralized groups will make, but they don't attack all structure, it is clearly those that they believe are fascist. Perhaps you are mixing them up with some other leftist groups that have other tactics, like maybe the black bloc?

Authoritarianism requires violence, but so do basically all structures of power, including the liberal democracies of the US and UK, and the social democracies of France, Sweden, Germany. So again, violence is clearly not a sufficient trait to claim something is authoritarian.

This is a simplistic view, for first you must ask who defines what is far outside the political acceptable. If we look at trends historically we can see an economic move to the right in Western countries, meaning that ideologies that were in the past completely in the mainstream are often labelled by media and politicians as far-left now. While inhumane capitalist ideas have become so mainstream they are almost unquestionably accepted.

Your "I'm not willing to ally with communists" again seems to suggest a very limited understanding of what communism means, and I may suggest to you that one of the reasons why the NSDAP was able to grab power is because social democrats and conservatives were unwilling to work together with communists (the latter even siding with fascists outright).

Originally posted by Artol
I mean that's clearly not true, I mean it is fair enough that you disagree with whether their targets are well picked, that's a valid argument you can have, and there's surely mistakes that a autonomous, decentralized groups will make, but they don't attack all structure, it is clearly those that they believe are fascist. Perhaps you are mixing them up with some other leftist groups that have other tactics, like maybe the black bloc?

Authoritarianism requires violence, but so do basically all structures of power, including the liberal democracies of the US and UK, and the social democracies of France, Sweden, Germany. So again, violence is clearly not a sufficient trait to claim something is authoritarian.

This is a simplistic view, for first you must ask who defines what is far outside the political acceptable. If we look at trends historically we can see an economic move to the right in Western countries, meaning that ideologies that were in the past completely in the mainstream are often labelled by media and politicians as far-left now. While inhumane capitalist ideas have become so mainstream they are almost unquestionably accepted.

Your "I'm not willing to ally with communists" again seems to suggest a very limited understanding of what communism means, and I may suggest to you that one of the reasons why the NSDAP was able to grab power is because social democrats and conservatives were unwilling to work together with communists (the latter even siding with fascists outright). Bang on again, you are an excellent addition to this forum Artol.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Bang on again, you are an excellent addition to this forum Artol. He actually breaks down posts and replies to them in a sensible and polite manner. I hope he doesn't get corrupted by you and the rest of the shit-slingers on both sides; this place could do with some real conversation, for once.

Originally posted by Scribble
He actually breaks down posts and replies to them in a sensible and polite manner. I hope he doesn't get corrupted by you and the rest of the shit-slingers on both sides; this place could do with some real conversation, for once. I would never corrupt anyone.

Anti-government? Don't recall that being reported by CNN or MSNBC or anyone else. Ever. Funny that they'd ignore this.

i'm tired of these f*ckers with this "us vs them" mentallity ruining this forum, right guys? lets GET THEM!!!

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i'm tired of these f*ckers with this "us vs them" mentallity ruining this forum, right guys? lets GET THEM!!!

The first article you posted doesn't really endear them to me.


I was with them on an anti-government streak, and on fighting neo-Nazi's. Disrupting the right in a general sense, not so much.


And I especially condemn the notion that violence is justified in any way by the history of Nazi germany. Even the most vehement rhetoric are incomparable to Germans rounding people up and murdering them.

Donald Trump and his allies, for all their faults, are not rounding people up and murdering them. Using violence against Hitler is not in any way equivalent to using violence against a MAGA supporter.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i'm tired of these f*ckers with this "us vs them" mentallity ruining this forum, right guys? lets GET THEM!!! I am neither an us nor a them. I have no allegiance.

It's especially funny how pooty described the BBC article as "balanced" in the title lol. As if the people at the heavily left-leaning BBC (which is basically the UK version of CNN) could ever write a balanced article when it comes to politics.

The BBC is a joke. They play the general public off against the government when convenient, endorse 'woke' shit when convenient, back the government and gaslight the public when convenient, and deflect from their structural paedophilia / child abuse at all times.

https://i.imgur.com/xHuKSKk.jpg

Like I said, the BBC shills whatever it has to to deflect from its structural child abuse. I'd consider that less "balanced" or fair than just, you know, saying whatever the hell gets people riled up / distracts from their crimes against the youth of the UK.

Originally posted by Scribble
The BBC is a joke. They play the general public off against the government when convenient, endorse 'woke' shit when convenient, back the government and gaslight the public when convenient, and deflect from their structural paedophilia / child abuse at all times.

PB loves BBC

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
https://i.imgur.com/xHuKSKk.jpg

The establishment ideology in this picture is making my eyes bleed.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Foreigners looking in at America from a observational point of view.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/X56rQkDgd0qqB7R68t6t7C/seven-things-you-need-to-know-about-antifa

Balanced lol

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Balanced lol

Originally posted by Artol
The establishment ideology in this picture is making my eyes bleed. I think it's pretty accurate tbh mate.

Originally posted by Artol
The overton window in the west has moved so far right that something as benign as social democrats (or Bernie Sander's platform) get labeled as left wing extremists, I don't buy your justification to throw them all in one pot.

The Khmer Rouge was a para-fascist movement propped up by the United States and China and brought down by an actual Marxist regime in Vietnam.

China today is certainly not marxist, I have had a discussion about that before, but certainly with Deng Xiaoping China has transitioned to what most experts call state-capitalism now, having an authoritarian government with a protectionist capitalist market economy. I think your analysis for why previously communist countries are doing so badly is misguided, the real reason is that after the fall of the communist regimes western capitalists (in the case outside of Russia) and a view oligarchs (in the case of Russia) seized all assets of the countries and implemented draconian neo-liberal policies.

China, incidentally, and perhaps sadly, has lifted millions of people out of poverty with it's hybrid system (and outsourcing of labour by western capitalist countries) I argued this about the Overton window maybe 3vyears ago. Good call

funny since just about everything on the center (including ruphert murdoch's wall street journal) has been attacked by trump as "fake news"

https://i.imgur.com/Jl4vGbA.jpg

It was 5 years ago... Just before Trump!

I brought it up as Steve Zodiac too

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I think it's pretty accurate tbh mate.

I don't think so, it's much to limited really, and certainly some of the things they put on the same level is bizarre. I mean the New York Times Opinion page...that's the one that Thomas Friedman and Bret Stephens right for......on the same level as Jacobin....on the same level as Vox.

And then the Wall Street Journal opinion page is surely a completely different kind of right wing from Fox News and that is completely different from Reason magazine. And The Economist, a 170 year old right wing magazine founded to justify British imperialism as left as The Guardian...I'm flabbergasted.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
https://i.imgur.com/Jl4vGbA.jpg

It was 5 years ago... Just before Trump!

I brought it up as Steve Zodiac too

https://i.imgur.com/AkWImQr.jpg

Originally posted by Artol
And The Economist, a 170 year old right wing magazine founded to justify British imperialism as left as The Guardian...I'm flabbergasted. Yeah, the Economist being put to the left is silly. They describe themselves as "radical centrists", and have endorsed everyone in recent years at different points: Labour, Tories and the Lib Dems. I've read a lot of their material, and they're certainly not left-skewed. I'd put them into the neo-liberal globalist camp, if anywhere.

Originally posted by Surtur
https://i.imgur.com/AkWImQr.jpg

But you need capitalism to fund those social programs.

I always see people citing Nordic countries too, but in some places their taxes are high as hell. They take in a lot of money from what people earn in order to provide all that stuff.

It's not perfect, nothing will be perfect. The alternatives are worse.

Originally posted by Artol
Regardless of what is in Sanders heart, his platform is a mid-90s social democratic platform.

Capitalism alone is responsible for immense amounts of poverty and suffering, only through social programs fought for by leftists did any of the wealth that was created actually get slightly spread around. These programs are more and more being considered far-left ideas to be destroyed. You can see it in the destruction of the NHS under the Tory government, you can see it in the privatization waves in France, Germany, etc. we are moving from a relatively humane form of chained up capitalism to a hyper capitalism that has made inequality far, far worse (not to speak of the devastation neo-liberal trade policies have done to the growth of third world nations), while destroying anything that used to give meaning and identity to people, which we can see in the crises of suicides and ill mental health throughout the west. I've argued this many times here, top notch.

Originally posted by Surtur
But you need capitalism to fund those social programs.

I always see people citing Nordic countries too, but in some places their taxes are high as hell. They take in a lot of money from what people earn in order to provide all that stuff.

It's not perfect, nothing will be perfect. The alternatives are worse.

Those nordic countries that lefties like to cite as "examples of successful socialism" are not even really socialist. Can't believe people are still claiming they are.

Originally posted by Surtur
But you need capitalism to fund those social programs.

I always see people citing Nordic countries too, but in some places their taxes are high as hell. They take in a lot of money from what people earn in order to provide all that stuff.

It's not perfect, nothing will be perfect. The alternatives are worse.

Marx actually mostly agrees with you, in the sense that he views capitalism as an improvement over the feudalism we have before, leading to enormous creations of wealth unthinkable beforehand. He'd just say that this enormous wealth should not be capitalized (pardon the pun) by a small elite. I'm not a Marxist myself, but it is true that if the wealthiest can make the laws most people live at the bare minimum in squalor (you can see that in the miner towns in the north of England and around the world).

Taxes are high in social democracies, though I would disagree with the framing, a fair amount of money is not taken from people who earned it, but people that were the beneficiaries of how the system was laid out (i.e. capitalists). Social programs have the advantage that they give some of the wealth that capitalists have extracted from worker labor back to the community.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Those nordic countries that lefties like to cite as "examples of successful socialism" are not even really socialist. Can't believe people are still claiming they are.

And a lot of those countries are...well, just mostly white people lol.

Originally posted by Artol
Marx actually mostly agrees with you, in the sense that he views capitalism as an improvement over the feudalism we have before, leading to enormous creations of wealth unthinkable beforehand. He'd just say that this enormous wealth should not be capitalized (pardon the pun) by a small elite. I'm not a Marxist myself, but it is true that if the wealthiest can make the laws most people live at the bare minimum in squalor (you can see that in the miner towns in the north of England and around the world).

Taxes are high in social democracies, though I would disagree with the framing, a fair amount of money is not taken from people who earned it, but people that were the beneficiaries of how the system was laid out (i.e. capitalists). Social programs have the advantage that they give some of the wealth that capitalists have extracted from worker labor back to the community. The mining towns are gone, where they were is third generation unemployed.

Originally posted by Artol
Marx actually mostly agrees with you, in the sense that he views capitalism as an improvement over the feudalism we have before, leading to enormous creations of wealth unthinkable beforehand. He'd just say that this enormous wealth should not be capitalized (pardon the pun) by a small elite. I'm not a Marxist myself, but it is true that if the wealthiest can make the laws most people live at the bare minimum in squalor (you can see that in the miner towns in the north of England and around the world).

Taxes are high in social democracies, though I would disagree with the framing, a fair amount of money is not taken from people who earned it, but people that were the beneficiaries of how the system was laid out (i.e. capitalists). Social programs have the advantage that they give some of the wealth that capitalists have extracted from worker labor back to the community.

I do think changes need to be made. I'm uncomfortable with the amount of control corporations have here. A select few control social media, which is rapidly becoming akin to the public square. So in a way they control a fair amount of our speech. They control youtube too, which a lot of people use to earn a living now.

And the problem is it's not like the government would do any better.

Originally posted by Surtur
But you need capitalism to fund those social programs.

I always see people citing Nordic countries too, but in some places their taxes are high as hell. They take in a lot of money from what people earn in order to provide all that stuff.

It's not perfect, nothing will be perfect. The alternatives are worse.

Sorry, I just saw your edit, about the alternatives being worse. We don't need to have live in an alternative to capitalism to have huge improvement. The lives of working Americans were far better comparatively before Reagan's neo-liberal. Even going back to a (more inclusive) version of capitalism as the United States had in the 50s and 60s, would help almost everyone, except perhaps a tiny, tiny amount of billionaires, and, tbh, even they'd be better off, even if they can't see that at the moment.

Originally posted by Surtur
And a lot of those countries are...well, just mostly white people lol.


True lol.

Originally posted by Surtur
I do think changes need to be made. I'm uncomfortable with the amount of control corporations have here. A select few control social media, which is rapidly becoming akin to the public square. So in a way they control a fair amount of our speech. They control youtube too, which a lot of people use to earn a living now.

And the problem is it's not like the government would do any better.

The government does better in some aspects, but it also does worse in others, I totally admit that. What we need is a truly mixed economy. We need to turn back Milton Friedman's changes to society, so that more people can take part in the immense wealth. The United States is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, yet millions of people sleep rough every night, millions more can't afford health care, and millions of others can never find any job that has any potential of fulfillment or security. The US is at the same time the most successful state (from a capitalist POV) and a failed state (from a humanist POV).

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
The mining towns are gone, where they were is third generation unemployed.

Yes, I should have specified, I was talking about late 19th and early 20th century mining towns as a product of unchained capitalism. The devastation done to these places by Margaret Thatcher is of course also unspeakable.

And our economy took a big hit cuz of the virus and now just as stuff was starting to reopen people burnt down their cities.

Large chains are insured, but all those small businesses that really needed the money and needed to reopen...

Originally posted by Artol
Regardless of what is in Sanders heart, his platform is a mid-90s social democratic platform.

Capitalism alone is responsible for immense amounts of poverty and suffering, only through social programs fought for by leftists did any of the wealth that was created actually get slightly spread around. These programs are more and more being considered far-left ideas to be destroyed. You can see it in the destruction of the NHS under the Tory government, you can see it in the privatization waves in France, Germany, etc. we are moving from a relatively humane form of chained up capitalism to a hyper capitalism that has made inequality far, far worse (not to speak of the devastation neo-liberal trade policies have done to the growth of third world nations), while destroying anything that used to give meaning and identity to people, which we can see in the crises of suicides and ill mental health throughout the west. I mostly agree with you on the Sanders issue. I'm fine with many of his policies. I just don't like the people he surrounds himself with.

I mean, you're wrong. Pre-capitalism, all of the wealth was owned by the aristocracy. It's only since the free market fully materialised that poverty has gone down. Your analysis of capitalism is very narrow-minded and slanted. It's essentially just a Freedom Model. It's dispassionate. Yes, we need social programs to flesh out society's needs and wants, to iron out the creases and right some wrongs; but without the freedom of capitalism, you can't do that.

A lot of what you're seeming to take umbrage with is the more modern model of corporatism / greed-conservatism. Also tied in with neo-liberalism, and economic imperialism. But, I do think your underlying points have merit. Consumerism has been disastrous for our shared cultural mental health, as it were, and due to the influx of postmodern thought, which was completely embraced by corporatism, much of our inherent truths have been wiped away. Also, just as a general point, **** the Tories.

Originally posted by Artol
Sorry, I just saw your edit, about the alternatives being worse. We don't need to have live in an alternative to capitalism to have huge improvement. The lives of working Americans were far better comparatively before Reagan's neo-liberal. Even going back to a (more inclusive) version of capitalism as the United States had in the 50s and 60s, would help almost everyone, except perhaps a tiny, tiny amount of billionaires, and, tbh, even they'd be better off, even if they can't see that at the moment. Bang on!

Originally posted by Surtur
And our economy took a big hit cuz of the virus and now just as stuff was starting to reopen people burnt down their cities.

Large chains are insured, but all those small businesses that really needed the money and needed to reopen...


It wasn't the virus itself that hurt our economy. It was the overreaction to it: the extended lockdown.

Originally posted by Scribble
I mostly agree with you on the Sanders issue. I'm fine with many of his policies. I just don't like the people he surrounds himself with.

I mean, you're wrong. Pre-capitalism, all of the wealth was owned by the aristocracy. It's only since the free market fully materialised that poverty has gone down. Your analysis of capitalism is very narrow-minded and slanted. It's essentially just a Freedom Model. It's dispassionate. Yes, we need social programs to flesh out society's needs and wants, to iron out the creases and right some wrongs; but without the freedom of capitalism, you can't do that.

A lot of what you're seeming to take umbrage with is the more modern model of corporatism / greed-conservatism. Also tied in with neo-liberalism, and economic imperialism. But, I do think your underlying points have merit. Consumerism has been disastrous for our shared cultural mental health, as it were, and due to the influx of postmodern thought, which was completely embraced by corporatism, much of our inherent truths have been wiped away. Also, just as a general point, **** the Tories.

I made a point about pre-capitalism above, btw.

I think your view of capitalism is the one that was actually fought for by leftists. Things like the 5 day, 40 hour work week, sick leave, healthcare, pensions, those are not things capitalism gave us. Those are things that real people had to fight and die for against capitalist interest. You are right that my current anger is mainly at the neo-liberal capitalism we live in, but I am aware of the historic circumstances.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
The far left are pretty much an invention of the last three years to enable the systematic dismantling of civil rights and create a scapegoat and excuse for intolerance. Nah.

Originally posted by Scribble
Nah. Yah.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Yah. I mean, you're entirely wrong. I grew up around the far-left. My parents know a lot of bonafide communists and anarchists. The far-left are not a made up thing at all.


The far-left has grown in support amongst young people drastically in the past few years, and again, being a young person and knowing young people, I know this to be true.


I mean this with no offence, but you live a distant, sheltered life. You've earned that as you've worked for it, but it shows that you have become disconnected from reality. It's like looking down at the fish and telling them that the water around them ain't wet.

Originally posted by Artol
I want a hybrid system with socialist tendencies. I think that the market logic that we often associate with capitalism can be very powerful, but I don't think we need to give capitalists (or shareholders) the immense power they have to harness the market's abilities, a limited role I'm alright with though.

When you say our current system, I am wondering, how far do you view our current system to go back, because if you mean say "our current system of the last 30 years" I'd disagree, I view that as a large misstep in progress. me too and a misstep that has speeded up. My generation is generally much better off than Scribbles. Surely he sees this.

I do think the far left as right wing politicians are using it is mainly an invention, of course there are some people that fall into that, but they are not a real political force. The left generally has had somewhat of a resurgence after the 2008 crash, with the Occupy movement and Sanders and Corbyn, but obviously as we can see by the defeats of all three of that they are not a force that can contend with the united establishment forces of Democrats and Republicans (or Blairite Labour, Liberal Democrats and Tories in the UK) ...

Originally posted by Artol
I want a hybrid system with socialist tendencies. I think that the market logic that we often associate with capitalism can be very powerful, but I don't think we need to give capitalists (or shareholders) the immense power they have to harness the market's abilities, a limited role I'm alright with though.

When you say our current system, I am wondering, how far do you view our current system to go back, because if you mean say "our current system of the last 30 years" I'd disagree, I view that as a large misstep in progress. I'm inclined to agree. Capitalism, as I said before, is dispassionate, and can thus attract people who don't care about other people into positions of power. I think that's a major issue. People should always be the focus of any system as there's not much point in one otherwise.

I also agree that there have been steps back in the past 30 years, for sure. Thatcher and Reagan and their brand of what I kind of think of as 'economic imperialism'. The whole neo-liberal idea that everything is for sale. Not a huge fan of all that stuff.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
me too and a misstep that has speeded up. My generation is generally much better off than Scribbles. Surely he sees this. I certainly do. I live in London and there doesn't look like there's much hope of me getting my own place any time soon, despite working a genuinely good job. Neo-liberal policies allowed for great swathes of housing in the city to be bought up by rich Arabs and Russian oligarchs. Thanks, Boris Johnson!

Originally posted by Scribble
I certainly do. I live in London and there doesn't look like there's much hope of me getting my own place any time soon, despite working a genuinely good job. Neo-liberal policies allowed for great swathes of housing in the city to be bought up by rich Arabs and Russian oligarchs. Thanks, Boris Johnson! it is shocking what has happened, my second son is a town planner, a very smart lad and it is only this year he got a deposit at 31.

But Artol just to talk about Antifa since you don't seem to be from here, they really do not tend to behave like the anti-fascists they claim to be.

Let me get this out of the way: there is a small percentage of white supremacists here and yes antifa has shown up and clashed with literal white supremacists at times. I can't say I give a shit if an actual nazi gets punched.

The problem is it's not just white supremacists they clash with. They will attack innocent people, including journalists. The defense for this is often that antifa has never killed someone, but they have come close. We aren't talking about just punching, we are talking about beating people over the head with metal objects, hurling bricks at heads, hurling glass bottles at heads, etc.

The difference between antifa and the white supremacists is the conservatives despise the white supremacists. Yes you will find some who don't, but the majority actively despise them. The left is either supportive of Antifa or indifferent to their deeds.

At the end of the day, the alt right is on the outside looking in. The radical left has infected Academia and the Entertainment industry, they control it. They are on the inside.

At least that is how I see it. I see those who can shape this culture more dangerous than nazis who have small numbers and no power here. That is just me.

Originally posted by Scribble
I'm inclined to agree. Capitalism, as I said before, is dispassionate, and can thus attract people who don't care about other people into positions of power. I think that's a major issue. People should always be the focus of any system as there's not much point in one otherwise.

I also agree that there have been steps back in the past 30 years, for sure. Thatcher and Reagan and their brand of what I kind of think of as 'economic imperialism'. The whole neo-liberal idea that everything is for sale. Not a huge fan of all that stuff.

I don't think it's dispassionate, maybe in some idealist kind of way, that's never been used. I think capitalism as it has ever been implemented in reality has been designed to benefit certain people over others. I don't subscribe to libertarian ideas of capitalism as an unbiased playing field that finds whatever is most efficient.

Yeah, it sounds like we are on the same page there. How do you think we can best roll back these changes of the past 30 years? I'd be interested both in politics and policy, i.e. what political campaigns and movements and what specific laws you are in favor of.

Originally posted by Artol
I don't think it's dispassionate, maybe in some idealist kind of way, that's never been used. I think capitalism as it has ever been implemented in reality has been designed to benefit certain people over others. I don't subscribe to libertarian ideas of capitalism as an unbiased playing field that finds whatever is most efficient.

Yeah, it sounds like we are on the same page there. How do you think we can best roll back these changes of the past 30 years? I'd be interested both in politics and policy, i.e. what political campaigns and movements and what specific laws you are in favor of. the concept of an unbiased playing field is retarded.

Originally posted by Surtur
But Artol just to talk about Antifa since you don't seem to be from here, they really do not tend to behave like the anti-fascists they claim to be.

Let me get this out of the way: there is a small percentage of white supremacists here and yes antifa has shown up and clashed with literal white supremacists at times. I can't say I give a shit if an actual nazi gets punched.

The problem is it's not just white supremacists they clash with. They will attack innocent people, including journalists. The defense for this is often that antifa has never killed someone, but they have come close. We aren't talking about just punching, we are talking about beating people over the head with metal objects, hurling bricks at heads, hurling glass bottles at heads, etc.

The difference between antifa and the white supremacists is the conservatives despise the white supremacists. Yes you will find some who don't, but the majority actively despise them. The left is either supportive of Antifa or indifferent to their deeds.

At the end of the day, the alt right is on the outside looking in. The radical left has infected Academia and the Entertainment industry, they control it. They are on the inside.

At least that is how I see it. I see those who can shape this culture more dangerous than nazis who have small numbers and no power here. That is just me.

I have heard similar accounts, I guess what is always strange to me is how many things get conflated into the left. I guess from my POV, a lot of the things you said should be done are left wing, I suspect you would greatly benefit from left wing policies (of the kind that our parents generation were the beneficiaries of), yet there is a fundamental dislike of anything that is called left. It's similar in the US as a whole, a lot of actual left ideas are pretty popular, but there's just no way that establishment Democrats and Republicans are ever going to deliver. It's the same with Trump, I can see some of his appeal, much of the populism of his campaign would fit perfectly in a moderate leftists playbook, yet once he got into office he did not deliver on these promises, and if anything continued the looting of the American people by the wealthiest that has been going on under Obama, under Bush Jr., under Clinton...

Originally posted by Artol
I made a point about pre-capitalism above, btw.

I think your view of capitalism is the one that was actually fought for by leftists. Things like the 5 day, 40 hour work week, sick leave, healthcare, pensions, those are not things capitalism gave us. Those are things that real people had to fight and die for against capitalist interest. You are right that my current anger is mainly at the neo-liberal capitalism we live in, but I am aware of the historic circumstances. this is what I see as the dismantling of the systems that made western capitalism tenable for the working class.

Originally posted by Artol
I have heard similar accounts, I guess what is always strange to me is how many things get conflated into the left. I guess from my POV, a lot of the things you said should be done are left wing, I suspect you would greatly benefit from left wing policies (of the kind that our parents generation were the beneficiaries of), yet there is a fundamental dislike of anything that is called left. It's similar in the US as a whole, a lot of actual left ideas are pretty popular, but there's just no way that establishment Democrats and Republicans are ever going to deliver. It's the same with Trump, I can see some of his appeal, much of the populism of his campaign would fit perfectly in a moderate leftists playbook, yet once he got into office he did not deliver on these promises, and if anything continued the looting of the American people by the wealthiest that has been going on under Obama, under Bush Jr., under Clinton...

I don't disagree with all left wing policies. I am in heavy disagreement when it comes to things like immigration. And when it comes to the direction they are trying to send our culture in I disagree heavily.

I disagree with republicans on things like abortion and also the religious bullshit.

Though to be fair I was sent to catholic school for grammar school and high school so I might have a skewed vision. And the high school was all boys so you can just imagine what that was like.

They did force me to drink the symbolic blood of their deity tho. Just saying. That happened.

@Surtur: Yeah, the catholic ritual of "mass" is disgusting, imo, and I say that as someone who holds a very strong belief in the Christian God. It's not something that the Bible teaches either, just like so many other things that roman catholics believe.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
But none of this is anti socialism. Yes, it is. It requires a free market. Socialism in its core stands in opposition to free markets. I agree with social policies, but they need a capitalist free market to actually work.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
@Surtur: Yeah, the catholic ritual of "mass" is disgusting, imo, and I say that as someone who holds a very strong belief in the Christian God. It's not something that the Bible teaches either, just like so many other things that roman catholics believe. As a Christian I also find many of the rituals and additional beliefs of Catholicism objectionable. I see their veneration of the Virgin Mary to be borderline idolatry.


Sorry, I know this is quite far from the topic... just thought I'd throw my 2 pennies in.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
@Surtur: Yeah, the catholic ritual of "mass" is disgusting, imo, and I say that as someone who holds a very strong belief in the Christian God. It's not something that the Bible teaches either, just like so many other things that roman catholics believe.

I mean okay the communion wafer isn't that bad and the wine was meh. Though adults forcing children to drink alcohol is...suspect in itself. It was just a sip.

The thing is it's so boring. It's like an hour long and it always felt like 8 hours. They never talk about interesting stuff from the bible. One time this dude summoned bears to eat some teenagers. Nobody talked about that during a mass, and I'd remember that shit.

https://s3.crackedcdn.com/articleimages/wong/badass3b.jpg

Originally posted by Scribble
Yes, it is. It requires a free market. Socialism in its core stands in opposition to free markets. I agree with social policies, but they need a capitalist free market to actually work.

There are forms market socialism, markets are certainly not a concept tied to capitalism. And free markets are a miss, all markets are defined by the rules we give them, so by their nature not free.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

https://s3.crackedcdn.com/articleimages/wong/badass10.jpg

^Word

Anyways tho, I'm anti fascism as are most. What I would say is normal non-violent anti-fascists should try to avoid identifying as Antifa.

Originally posted by Scribble
Yes, it is. It requires a free market. Socialism in its core stands in opposition to free markets. I agree with social policies, but they need a capitalist free market to actually work. actually Marxism and socialism have no problem with the market at all they are built on a fair days wage for a fair days work.

Originally posted by Scribble
As a Christian I also find many of the rituals and additional beliefs of Catholicism objectionable. I see their veneration of the Virgin Mary to be borderline idolatry.


Amen.


I could go on and on and on about things that RC's do that are in direct contradiction to the Bible. The way they put Mary (who, btw, wasn't still a virgin when she died, the bible indicates she had other children after she had Jesus contrary to what RC's think) on a pedestal and pray to her as if she's a goddess is just one of the things they do that bothers me. She was a very blessed woman of course but she was not equal to Christ. Yet RC's pray to her even more than they do to Jesus, Himself. Their purgatory belief is also unscriptural. There is only Heaven and Hell; there is no "purgatory" according to the Bible.

Their "churches" are filled with idols, they teach that you are saved by faith PLUS good works (the Bible makes it clear that we're saved only by grace thru faith in what Christ did for us, not thru our own good works), they teach you have to go to a confession booth to confess your sins to a priest to get God to forgive you but that practice is found nowhere in scripture. You can ask God directly to forgive you, you don't have to go thru another person. There are many, many other things but it would take up way too much of my time to list them all.


For the record, I have nothing against roman catholics (although I DO NOT trust the Pope and other high-ranking leaders in the RC church), I just don't like Roman Catholicism.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
actually Marxism and socialism have no problem with the market at all they are built on a fair days wage for a fair days work. I've read Marx. His view on markets is incredibly dim. I'm just not a fan of Marxist thought at all. I try to take a non-Marxist approach to social(ist) ideas: Marx was crazy and bitter, a sad, lazy man with dreams of grandeur. The damage he has done to rhetoric is largely unforgivable, and the fact that he is considered a 'philosopher' is a travesty.

Originally posted by Scribble
I've read Marx. His view on markets is incredibly dim. I'm just not a fan of Marxist thought at all. I try to take a non-Marxist approach to social(ist) ideas: Marx was crazy and bitter, a sad, lazy man with dreams of grandeur. The damage he has done to rhetoric is largely unforgivable, and the fact that he is considered a 'philosopher' is a travesty. I've read Marx too, marxism is about ownership of the means of production by the people, it relies on the concept of trade.

Oh, Artol, I should also mention that my current ideas are still highly nascent and unformed. I've been building them slowly over the past three or so years, testing them against people, so I'm sure there'll be inconsistencies and faults within them yet. I mostly react to the culture around me and try to process it best I can through different perspectives, to see what feels correct and rational.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Amen.


I could go on and on and on about things that RC's do that are in direct contradiction to the Bible. The way they put Mary (who, btw, wasn't still a virgin when she died, the bible indicates she had other children after she had Jesus contrary to what RC's think) on a pedestal and pray to her as if she's a goddess is just one of the things they do that bothers me. She was a very blessed woman of course but she was not equal to Christ. Yet RC's pray to her even more than they do to Jesus, Himself. Their purgatory belief is also unscriptural. There is only Heaven and Hell; there is no "purgatory" according to the Bible.

Their "churches" are filled with idols, they teach that you are saved by faith PLUS good works (the Bible makes it clear that we're saved only by grace thru faith in what Christ did for us, not thru our own good works), they teach you have to go to a confession booth to ask a priest to get God to forgive you for your sins but that practice is found nowhere in scripture. You can ask God directly to forgive you, you don't have to go thru another person. There are many, many other things but it would take up way too much of my time to list them all.


For the record, I have nothing against roman catholics (although I DO NOT trust the Pope and other high-ranking leaders in the RC church), I just don't like Roman Catholicism. I agree heavily, I am not anti-Catholic, but I find that their form of worship of God has been corrupted over the years. I very much am suspicious of the Pope, the current one in particular. The RC church is also very shady in protecting its own interests.

In terms of actual churches, I prefer a nice simple Protestant church (or an Anglican church, like we have in the UK). Worship is not about how much gold you have, or how heavy you are with your prayers.

I'm not so sure about your view on Faith and Works, however, I've been reading Romans recently and Paul seems conflicted on the issue. From what I make of it, true Faith in God has to be backed up *by* acts, but one needs Faith as well, for Works without Faith are still Godless. Either way, it's complex, for me. For example, I don't think a serial killer who believes in God is going to heaven, just because he has faith.

Originally posted by Surtur
And the high school was all boys so you can just imagine what that was like.



Many gay experiences?

@Scribble: I do believe that good works naturally flow from people who've been truly saved but the works themselves are not what saves you. Earning your way to Heaven thru works is not what scripture teaches. (at least not if you're reading the actual HOLY Bible aka The King James version which is hopefully what u r reading). People who're truly saved WANT to do good works because they know that it is the right thing to do, not because they think it'll earn God's approval.


They know that Christ's sacrifice on the cross fully paid the price for our sins (both future and past). The danger with believing in a works salvation or even faith + works is that you can easily become filled with pride over it and God hates that.

You should put your faith in Jesus Christ alone. Anything else and you're basically thinking that Christ's sacrifice wasn't enough. The Bible (again, this is if u r reading a KJV, not sure about the other versions but I wouldn"t trust them if I were you) says that Salvation is a free gift to those who truly want it. Of course, like any gift, you are free to turn it down if you like but if you genuinely accept it then you are forever saved. Nothing you do, no matter how bad, will ever make you lose your salvation. You will find that this will give you lasting peace of mind. You will still want to do good works but it will then be for the right reasons, not because you think it'll save you.


Remember, it is a free gift. If it was hard or you had to work for it then it wouldn't truly be a gift would it? When someone gives you something and they expect something in return it's not really a gift is it?

At least you're actually reading your Bible pretty regularly though. I salute you for that. That is something I need to get in habit of doing a lot more often. Get so caught up in worldly things that I never get around to making time for it. Usually the only time I really get around to reading it is when I'm sitting on the toilet lol. And even then, usually only read about one chapter. At this rate, Judgment Day will be here long before I finish.

It's just that some books have such incredibly boring parts it makes me want to sleep. Trying to read the book of Numbers currently. Jesus, it's so boring... not like Genesis, Exodus, or any of the Gospels or, of course, Revelation. Loved all those. Leviticus had a lot of really boring parts as well.

Oh yeah, in regards to your part about you not believing serial killers are saved just by believing: why not? Anyone who is genuinely sincere in asking God for forgiveness can be saved. Of course I'm not saying they don't deserve the death penalty for murdering someone in cold blood and I'm all for the death penalty 100%. But in regards to their eternal salvation then yes, I absolutely believe they can be saved if they're truly sincere in asking forgiveness. Saved from Hellfire, not saved from being punished by man for killing another innocent human being.

Originally posted by Artol
Capitalism alone is responsible for immense amounts of poverty and suffering

Another perspective is mixed economies - which includes the capitalistic innovations that come with it including the SEM and general uplift it brings - is responsible for greatest reduction of suffering and poverty in the history of human civilization.



I think you'd agree with me that a pure capitalistic system leads to corporatocracies which are barely functionally different than oligarchies and authoritarian regimes.

The US is currently in a mild to moderate oligarchy/corporatocracy.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Another perspective is mixed economies - which includes the capitalistic innovations that come with it including the SEM and general uplift it brings - is responsible for greatest reduction of suffering and poverty in the history of human civilization.



I think you'd agree with me that a pure capitalistic system leads to corporatocracies which are barely functionally different than oligarchies and authoritarian regimes.

The US is currently in a mild to moderate oligarchy/corporatocracy. To a point this was true, until Trump where you now have a leader who has used his political position to advance his private business empire and vice versa. Not unlike members of a certain party in 39 Germany

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
@Scribble: I do believe that good works naturally flow from people who've been truly saved but the works themselves are not what saves you. Earning your way to Heaven thru works is not what scripture teaches. (at least not if you're reading the actual HOLY Bible aka The King James version which is hopefully what u r reading). People who're truly saved WANT to do good works because they know that it is the right thing to do, not because they think it'll earn God's approval.


They know that Christ's sacrifice on the cross fully paid the price for our sins (both future and past). The danger with believing in a works salvation or even faith + works is that you can easily become filled with pride over it and God hates that.

You should put your faith in Jesus Christ alone. Anything else and you're basically thinking that Christ's sacrifice wasn't enough. The Bible (again, this is if u r reading a KJV, not sure about the other versions but I wouldn"t trust them if I were you) says that Salvation is a free gift to those who truly want it. Of course, like any gift, you are free to turn it down if you like but if you genuinely accept it then you are forever saved. Nothing you do, no matter how bad, will ever make you lose your salvation. You will find that this will give you lasting peace of mind. You will still want to do good works but it will then be for the right reasons, not because you think it'll save you.


Remember, it is a free gift. If it was hard or you had to work for it then it wouldn't truly be a gift would it? When someone gives you something and they expect something in return it's not really a gift is it?

At least you're actually reading your Bible pretty regularly though. I salute you for that. That is something I need to get in habit of doing a lot more often. Get so caught up in worldly things that I never get around to making time for it. Usually the only time I really get around to reading it is when I'm sitting on the toilet lol. And even then, usually only read about one chapter. At this rate, Judgment Day will be here long before I finish.

It's just that some books have such incredibly boring parts it makes me want to sleep. Trying to read the book of Numbers currently. Jesus, it's so boring... not like Genesis, Exodus, or any of the Gospels or, of course, Revelation. Loved all those. Leviticus had a lot of really boring parts as well.

Oh yeah, in regards to your part about you not believing serial killers are saved just by believing: why not? Anyone who is genuinely sincere in asking God for forgiveness can be saved. Of course I'm not saying they don't deserve the death penalty for murdering someone in cold blood and I'm all for the death penalty 100%. But in regards to their eternal salvation then yes, I absolutely believe they can be saved if they're truly sincere in asking forgiveness. Saved from Hellfire, not saved from being punished by man for killing another innocent human being. Yeah, I think that's what Paul is more or less saying in Romans, that true faith leads to good works. He's basically saying that we're all connected to God, whether Jew or Gentile, and that faith is the most important aspect of worship, that everything else stems from that. Romans is very good, I enjoy it.

I'm generally a fan of the KJV, although I have a number of versions to compare and contrast. The KJV makes some changes from the original scripture, but it gets the message across is such a beautiful manner. Other versions tend to be very literal, which can actually diminish the meaning as certain words don't have the same meaning in English than they do in the Greek scripture all versions come from originally. But yeah, I'm no true scholar of the Bible, I'm just familiar with certain parts of it. I often feel guilty for not spending more time with it.

I think what I meant about serial killers is the idea of them praying, worshipping, but still committing grievous sins. I think that shows a lack of faith at its core, and I believe sins will be punished even if one is 'faithful'; God is Good, and so I find it hard to believe that someone who lives their life purely and does their best to make life on earth better for others would be consigned to Hellfire whilst a serial killer with faith would ascend. I dunno. It's all very complex and I'm still mostly a neophyte on the subject, admittedly. My faith stems from an extremely intense and personal revelation / experience, so I'm kind of working backwards from there, I guess.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Another perspective is mixed economies - which includes the capitalistic innovations that come with it including the SEM and general uplift it brings - is responsible for greatest reduction of suffering and poverty in the history of human civilization.



I think you'd agree with me that a pure capitalistic system leads to corporatocracies which are barely functionally different than oligarchies and authoritarian regimes.

The US is currently in a mild to moderate oligarchy/corporatocracy. This is the thing: ultimate 'freedom' will always result in tyranny. Hence why we need fully tempered hybrid systems; they're more resistant to being corrupted. Although no system is perfect. But then, that's kind of the point.

Originally posted by Scribble
Yeah, I think that's what Paul is more or less saying in Romans, that true faith leads to good works. He's basically saying that we're all connected to God, whether Jew or Gentile, and that faith is the most important aspect of worship, that everything else stems from that. Romans is very good, I enjoy it.

I'm generally a fan of the KJV, although I have a number of versions to compare and contrast. The KJV makes some changes from the original scripture, but it gets the message across is such a beautiful manner. Other versions tend to be very literal, which can actually diminish the meaning as certain words don't have the same meaning in English than they do in the Greek scripture all versions come from originally. But yeah, I'm no true scholar of the Bible, I'm just familiar with certain parts of it. I often feel guilty for not spending more time with it.

I think what I meant about serial killers is the idea of them praying, worshipping, but still committing grievous sins. I think that shows a lack of faith at its core, and I believe sins will be punished even if one is 'faithful'; God is Good, and so I find it hard to believe that someone who lives their life purely and does their best to make life on earth better for others would be consigned to Hellfire whilst a serial killer with faith would ascend. I dunno. It's all very complex and I'm still mostly a neophyte on the subject, admittedly. My faith stems from an extremely intense and personal revelation / experience, so I'm kind of working backwards from there, I guess.



The KJV is actually much more true to the original Hebrew and Greek texts than any other version. In fact, I wasn't aware of any changes it made at all. You can point them out if u like. The great King James, in his great wisdom, commissioned over 40 (I forget the exact number) of the best translators in the world at that time to translate the original texts into english. I promise you that IF (and that's a really big if) it doesn't match the ancient texts precisely it's still much closer to the originals than all of the modern day versions are.

All of the current modern day versions are corrupted "Bibles". They've made lots of changes which is why I don't trust any of them. They're not all just minor insignificant changes either. If you like, I could list some of them. I would never, ever swap my Authorized King James version for any other "Bible." Period.

Yes, I'm one of those "stubborn" KJV only folks you may've heard about. Though that doesn't mean I agree with every single thing that all other KJV only people believe. On the contrary, there are many KJV only people on You Tube who believe things that I certainly don't agree with. Some of it is just minor stuff like their views on current day Israel or the Sabbath but some of them believe really crazy stuff like the earth being flat lol.

Though I certainly believe in a literal 7 day creation as described exactly in the book of Genesis, I don't believe in a flat earth. I've seen no actual verses to support it and science also easily refutes it. Other things I may disagree with them about are stuff like when exactly the rapture takes place (I'm a post-tribber) or whether Noah's Flood was global or localized to the ME, or even geocentricity vs heliocentricity.


God can and often does discipline/punish those who are actually saved but still keep committing the same sins over and over while they're still on this earth just like a father punishes his child. No matter how much the child may misbehave or disobey his earthly father he will always technically be his son.

Same thing goes for those who've been saved. If a saved person just continues to keep committing same sins over and over again then God will punish/discipline him or her in some way while that person is still on this earth. However, he or she is still part of God's family and nothing will ever change that. God may punish the person very severely while he or she is still alive (He might even kill the person for being an embarrassment to Him; there are actually instances of God doing that to people in the Bible) but that person will still make it into Heaven when he or she dies.

Originally posted by Artol
They aren't they are non-hierarchical, decentralized groups. If anything they are closer to anarchists, but the truth is that they don't have any specific political agenda, except being vaguely on the left, and believing that fascist movements need to be opposed with force.

Anarchists by definition. Literally. No Fs given. They don't live long. But a few do. And they are all narcissistic sociopathic poop.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
You haven't read Marx, because he is about fair remuneration.

I'd doesn't work my friend.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Another perspective is mixed economies - which includes the capitalistic innovations that come with it including the SEM and general uplift it brings - is responsible for greatest reduction of suffering and poverty in the history of human civilization.



I think you'd agree with me that a pure capitalistic system leads to corporatocracies which are barely functionally different than oligarchies and authoritarian regimes.

The US is currently in a mild to moderate oligarchy/corporatocracy.

I'm a big fan of mixed economies, though I think most don't go far enough in curtailing the power of capital and giving rights and freedoms to workers.

Originally posted by Artol
I'm a big fan of mixed economies, though I think most don't go far enough in curtailing the power of capital and giving rights and freedoms to workers. Same

dur