straightUp Loc: California

That itself, is a misapprehension. I never said that what the majority wants is right or good. In fact, when I was asserting the fact that the majority voted for Biden I actually said that whether or not we are right or wrong, the fact remains that the majority voted for Biden, which makes him an agent of democracy not tyranny.


There have been plenty of lynch mobs that did not reflect the perspective of the majority.


The Marxist Left is a non-existent boogeyman that your thought masters have contrived. I dare you to find ANY evidence that they actually exist with any capacity to influence American politics at all. And please have the intelligence not to refer to sources that are just as driven to lie about it as you are.

If I said Trump's head is made of cheese, a reference to someone else saying the same thing would not be evidence. You would need to either find one or more liberals who either admit to being Marxist or who's actions you can identify as being Marxist according to actual Marxist theory and THEN demonstrate how they have influenced America. Think you can do it?

As for the "profound intentional harm mentally, morally, spiritually, financially, patriotic zeal & love of country, etc.," that YOU think the "Marxist Left" has caused America, I think what you are referring to are the changes that you simply don't like or someone else doesn't like so they told you it's evil and your religious conditioning makes you susceptible to their messaging.

straightUp Loc: California

Interesting how you repost that statement without offering any argument against it.


No you didn't. You linked to an article that you *thought* was showing different reasons why people voted for Biden. As it turns out the article was showing different reasons why Biden won, which is not the same thing. In fact if you really understood the article you would have noticed how it emphasized that in the end, people voted for Biden for one overwhelming reason - He isn't Trump.


While my explanations might seem unintelligible to YOU, they were actually using references to the article YOU linked to.

As for your utterly unfounded accusation about plagiarism, that's an ad hoc fallacy (attacking the messenger instead of the message) that I think comes from your desperation to discredit me somehow, probably because you're so irritated that you can't actually disprove any part of my message.

Justice101

You think that conservatives are ignorant and don't know what Social Democrats believe or adhere to.
Here 's a couple samples of your Marxist friends. Referring to conservatives as fascists and racists when you disagree with them.

Andre Damon wants to end capitalism. What would you call that?
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/03/10/bwox-m10.html

Ro Khanna and Bernie Sanders are 2 adherents in the following twitter post.
https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/1630755233834958850

Here you go Sparky: Links to the beliefs and goals of the present day "progressives".

https://fee.org/articles/5-things-marx-wanted-to-abolish-besides-private-property/

https://jacobin.com/2023/03/karl-marx-capital-economics-introduction-profit-surplus-value-labor-deepankar-basu-interview

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346651448_Did_Marx_show_that_Capitalism_must_come_to_an_end_Was_he_trying_to

Justice101

I was looking through different articles and your answers were almost word for word to one of the articles that I was perusing. Is that why you never post your links? Your opinions are not facts. I don't need to disprove your opinions since you never back them up with links supporting your position.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

To pick and choose right and wrong is a favorite tactic of the moral relativist, the atheist, the nihilist, and the fool, those people you represent. What a dreamer you are asserting that leftists struggle for human rights. That may look good on a wall as graffiti but in real life it's total bovine scat. Consider what you struggle for: LGBTQ rights, abortion rights, foreign invader rights, the right to brainwash our youth with CRT and sex changes rights and dozens of other rights not found in our constitution. And every new so called right the Left dreams up supports an evil that is destructive. You like to think of yourselves as being virtuous instead of villains. In Truth you represent the most destructive force America has ever faced. You are truly domestic enemies and should be treated as such.

You ignorant bastard, if any Christian was a slave to his or her religion the stripes on our backs that a slaves received for disobedience would show scar tissue 6 inches deep. You are a faithless individual and it shows in your disdain for people of faith. I suspect your angst is more against Christians because we stand in direct opposition to the Left's immoral agenda, your list of "rights." Therefore in your childish & impotent attack you think you can beat your chest and declare victory. You're a mere pissant in the scheme of this life, completely misdirected, full of folley and hot air. One more thing, sincere genuine faith does not demand the proof you need.

straightUp Loc: California

You should stop being so presumptuous. I never said conservatives are ignorant. In fact somewhere on this thread I actually stated that there are some very intelligent conservatives out there. I HAVE suggested that some people on the right are ignorant, but that isn't a reference to all conservatives. Nor is it a denial that ignorant people can also be found on the left.

In case no one has ever told you this, your language is very ambiguous. You've basically argued that authoritarianism and fascism are the same thing... and that progressives and socialists are the same thing. My language is more precise where I actually draw distinctions, between these shades of grey and this is where we always stumble on points of contention.

So, no... I don't think conservatives (per se) are ignorant. I think MAGA people (for lack of a better word) are ignorant about politics, yes. But I also don't think they're conservative in the definitive sense. What defines a conservative is the conservation of the status quo, a resistance to change. MAGA is all about changing things, not keeping them the same. Many of them will no doubt insist that they are trying to return America to where it was before the progressives changed it for the worse. But the progressives have been around for about 150 years and in that time, America *has* become a progressive nation... Progressive America *IS* the status quo. So, I don't see MAGA as conservative at all. I *do* see them on the right, which again, I think your language prevents you from seeing the distinction... Conservatives and "The Right" are not the same thing.


Yeah, I'm not going to play that game where people just throw links at each other. If you have a point make it. Use the links as a source if it helps your argument but using them as a substitute is just lazy and I'm tired of reading the links that people here post only to find out they don't even understand the articles they're linking to.

straightUp Loc: California

Show me a passage from ANY of those articles that match what I have said word for word and LINK to both. You can link to anything I've written by...

1. finding it
2. right-clicking on the hash mark to the right of the timestamp.
3. selecting "Copy link address".
4. paste it into your post.

There you go... I just told you how you can actually prove your accusation. So, bring it on, big boy.

straightUp Loc: California

Have you ever read Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil" ??? A lot moral relativists, atheists and especially nihilists see Nietzsche as a philosophical prophet and this book explains a lot about their thinking that reaches beyond the fences of righteousness, which were pretty much erected by the tyranny of religion as a means to control people. So you couldn't have made a more absurd statement. You can even back through our conversations and search for phrases like "is right". "is bad", "is evil" etc... and you will find that it's all coming from you, not me.


I didn't say leftists struggle for human rights... I said progressives do. You seem to have the same problem J101 has, where out of 12 terms, you think there are only two meanings.


Well, you got two out of six, right... WE do struggle for LGBTQ folks to have the same right that you and I have and we do struggle for the right for a woman and her doctor to decide if abortion is needed. The rest is just BS and you know it.

But what really grabbed me here is that you have no clue what a constitution is. You stated that none of these rights are found in our constitution. Our constitution doesn't list ANY rights! NONE! There's no way you can possibly understand the point of a constitution if you are actually suggesting that it defines our rights.

Maybe your confused by the way the first 10 amendments were titled as a Bill of Rights. Honestly, I think a LOT of people get confused by that. Maybe it was a bad choice of words, and maybe we can blame the English for having a Bill of Rights that our founders were modeling it after. But rights do not come from constitutions. The right to free speech is assumed and so is the right to bear arms. That's why Jefferson called them inalienable as in beyond the reach of mortal law. All the constitution does is prohibit the government from interfering with those rights and if a right is not listed, all it means is that the government CAN decide to prohibit that inalienable right if they can legislate it.


There you go again... labeling things you don't like as "evil" - a favorite tactic of the moral relativist, remember?


How is that any different from you? Do YOU like to think of yourself as a villain?


And yet you STILL can't actually explain how. Are you ever going to get past labels?

"This one's evil, I don't like... this one's bad I don't like it either... This one's good, I like that one..."


Is that so? LOL


I have no disdain for people of faith... I was simply saying that when people get accustomed to accepting things on faith, it's easier for politicians they trust to manipulate them. It does make logical sense and you might see it if you weren't so busy getting offended all the time.


I think you're the one with the angst, "padre" mike... And to be honest, I hold those who follow the path of Christ in very high regard. I don't think YOU follow the path Christ though... Jesus wasn't running around telling everyone that things are evil and calling people "ignorant bastards". Also, in case you haven't noticed, the Roman Catholic Church is very much aligned with leftist politics and my church, the Episcopal Church, is LGBT friendly, which I think is pretty cool.


Victory over what? All I'm doing is pointing out the absurdity of these angry accusations being fired from the right. Maybe you're just feeling really defeated. If so, that's all on you, bro.


Of course I am. We all are.


Well, that sounds more like you than me, but whatever.


I never said it did. The whole point of faith is to believe in something that *isn't* proven. But it does mean that a person taking something on faith can be wrong without ever realizing it.

In my assessment which is NOT based on faith but logic and what I understand to be facts, you are... well, REALLY, REALLY wrong. OK, I'm logging off so I can cook dinner. Oh, but wait... do I have that right? CAN I cook dinner? Is that right listed in our constitution?

LOL

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

You claim "The tyranny of religion is a means to control people." A typical atheist ignorant & arrogant comment. There is no tyranny in the free will Nietzsche claimed does not exist. Only a moral man possesses knowledge of right & wrong and the ability to choose.

You're so full of yourself you stink. You really are a mess, a total misfit. Your kind of belief in nihlism, atheism & moral relativism, releases people from the control needed for any orderly society & it's absolutely true that without God everything is permitted. We are witnessing the total upheaval of morals & values in America today and with it, life is no longer sacred and most everything is permitted such as your so called virtuous support of LGBTQ rights. Their poison has now saturated everything good.

For Nietzsche, there was no objective order or structure in the world except what we give it. He completely rejects morality. His 4 main errors are the error of confusing cause and consequence. The error of a false causality. The error of imaginary causes. The error of free will of course because free will is directly attributable to God. It's no wonder he ended up insane. I suggest you read "Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age"
by Seraphim, Rose. Nah, it's beyond your capability to comprehend.

You can probably tell I gleaned the first thing I came to in your reply to make comment. I never read your innate capacity to over bloviate. It gets boring.

Justice101

One of the remarkable things about The Communist Manifesto is its honesty.

Karl Marx might not have been a very good guy, but he was refreshingly candid about the aims of Communism. This brazenness, one could argue, is baked into the Communist psyche.

“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims,” Marx declared in his famous manifesto. “They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution.”

Like Hitler’s Mein Kampf, readers are presented with a pure, undiluted vision of the author’s ideology (dark as it may be).

Marx’s manifesto is famous for summing up his theory of Communism with a single sentence: “Abolition of private property.” But this was hardly the only thing the philosopher believed must be abolished from bourgeois society in the proletariat's march to utopia. In his manifesto, Marx highlighted five additional ideas and institutions for eradication.

https://fee.org/articles/5-things-marx-wanted-to-abolish-besides-private-property/

1. The Family

Marx admits that destroying the family is a thorny topic, even for revolutionaries. “Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists,” he writes.

But he said opponents of this idea fail to understand a key fact about the family.

“On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie,” he writes.

Best of all, abolishing the family would be relatively easy once bourgeois property was abolished. “The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.”

{{America’s black underclass exists not because the nation is systemically racist, as Democrats claim, but because progressives’ welfare policies and LBJ's “War on Poverty” destroyed the black family.
The claim that the United States is systemically racist is a colossal lie being pushed by the progressives who dominate the Democratic Party. It is being used to justify the looting, riots, murders, and destruction of public and private property that has engulfed the country for several months now, especially in cities run by Democratic mayors.}}
https://foundersbroadsheet.com/the-destruction-of-the-black-family-by-progressives/

{{Progressives are usually pro-choice thus they are anti-family activists. Women's "healthcare" is not the killing of healthy fetuses in the womb.}}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Individuality

Marx believed individuality was antithetical to the egalitarianism he envisioned. Therefore, the “individual” must “be swept out of the way, and made impossible.”

Individuality was a social construction of a capitalist society and was deeply intertwined with capital itself.

“In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality,” he wrote. “And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.”

{{When mixed with radical egalitarianism, postmodernism produces the agenda of the radical cultural left—namely, sexual and identity politics and radical multiculturalism. These causes have largely taken over the progressive liberal agenda and given the Democratic Party most of its energy and ideas.}}
https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/commentary/how-the-left-became-so-intolerant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Eternal Truths

Marx did not appear to believe that any truth existed beyond class struggle.

“The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class,” he argued. “When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie.”

He recognized how radical this idea would sound to his readers, particularly since Communism does not seek to modify truth, but to overthrow it. But he argued these people were missing the larger picture.

“‘Undoubtedly,’ it will be said, ‘religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.

There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.’

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.”

{{ Example #1: In Nevada, amid the COVID-19 crisis, casinos are open, but churches are told they must remain closed. In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom told churches that their congregants no longer could sing worship songs, even though they are wearing protective masks while doing so. In Portland, Oregon, radicals not only are burning the flag but Bibles as well. And tragically, in the same vein, vandals are targeting churches.}}
https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/08/06/how-attacks-on-faith-family-and-conscience-threaten-all-our-freedoms/

{{ Example #2: On Nov. 8, Old Dominion sociology and criminology professor Allyn Walker gave an interview in which he asserted the need to destigmatize pedophiles by redefining them as “minor-attracted persons” (MAPs). Walker stated, “We have a tendency to want to categorize people with these attractions as evil or morally corrupt,” and that when people “hear the term ‘pedophile,’ they automatically assume that it means a sex offender, and that isn’t true.”

Shortly after this interview, students at Old Dominion protested over the professor’s attempt to obfuscate the nature of sexual predators. Although the university furloughed Walker, the professor continued to defend his stance while attacking his critics as hostile to academic freedom and misguided by “rightwing media.”}}
https://nypost.com/2022/01/01/professors-redefinition-of-pedophilia-could-help-offenders-demand-rights/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Nations

Communists, Marx said, are reproached for seeking to abolish countries. These people fail to understand the nature of the proletariat, he wrote.

“The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.”

Furthermore, largely because of capitalism, he saw hostilities between people of different backgrounds receding. As the proletariat grew in power, there soon would be no need for nations, he wrote.

“National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.”

{{WE HAVE NO COUNTRY BECAUSE WE HAVE NO BORDERS. We can't have a country with open borders.
Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman said, “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.” Biden is testing Friedman’s statement using our tax dollars.

Belatedly recognizing the mess it created, the administration is finally saying, “Don’t come, our border is closed.” But its actions clearly send a different message: “If you get here, we’ve got a number of ways to allow you to stay and become a U.S. citizen.”

The extreme left/dem socialists now in control of Biden and the Democratic Party believes that anyone should be allowed to enter the U.S. at will and it is our collective responsibility to take care of them. Probably a billion of the world’s 7.9 billion people would jump at the chance to emigrate to the U.S. Would Democrats let them all in?

I’m with former Pres. Bill Clinton when he said, “We must say ‘no’ to illegal immigration so we can continue to say ‘yes’ to legal immigration.” He asked Congress for additional funding to “protect our borders, remove criminal aliens, reduce work incentives for illegal immigration [and] stop asylum abuse.”}}
https://suindependent.com/a-country-without-borders-isnt/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. The Past

Marx saw tradition as a tool of the bourgeoisie. Adherence to the past served as a mere distraction in proletariat’s quest for emancipation and supremacy.

“In bourgeois society,” Marx wrote, “the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past.”

{{So, I don’t know if you’ve noticed but radicals seem to be engaging in an all-out attempt to erase American history. Take for instance the American Museum for Natural History deciding to remove a statue of Theodore Roosevelt or protestors tearing down statues of Ulysses S. Grant and Francis Scott Key.

In other words, there are some institutions and companies that are willingly and publicly choosing to remove certain statues or images, while other statues are illegally and unlawfully being desecrated. Changing the name of pancake mix or instant rice because of perceived racism is motivated by one thing: MONEY!

Money is always the bottom line, isn’t it? These companies feel that if they do not conform, they will be characterized and seen as a symbol of hate and racism—which they believe could hurt their bottom line. Oh, they may sound virtuous and claim the change had nothing to do with money, but the truth is, it has everything to do with money.

Which is ironic because they are using capitalist techniques while promoting Marxist ideals. They want their money. They want people to continue to buy from them, but they are bowing down to the Marxist principle that only one idea, one perspective and one viewpoint should be allowed to stand.

We’re erasing our history. That is the Marxist way and is the best way to control people.
George Orwell, in his famous book, 1984, said: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”}}

True Patriot

California. That explains it.

True Patriot

I can't wait for California to get rid of gas cars. Then, when you have rolling blackouts and raging fires;you won't be able to get out. It will be because of the policies you back. If you have flooding, the cars will short out.
Where's Peta when the whales and dolphins die while installing windmills?? While rich pricks fly private jets to Davos, they tell us to eat bugs.
The Green Deal will make China richer as they send weapons to Russia.
I'm wasting my time telling you anything so good luck.

straightUp Loc: California

So, I'll give you some credit here. It looks like you put a lot of work into this. Unfortunately, I rarely have much free time on weeknights. Sunday's are usually my days for the deep dives. But I remember telling you to make your points in your own words and use links as supporting sources and it looks like you've done that here, so I just want to recognize that. It also makes me feel like your post is worth responding too, so I WILL read your post and try to respond this weekend.

In fact maybe I'll use it to open a new thread since the topic here is about Republicans and White Supremacy and what we're really talking about here are perspectives on Marxism.

I do have a question though... I'm noticing a lot of your sources are from websites that are decidedly anti-communist. A few of them are advocates of liberal economics and a few of them are just very, very conservative. I'm curious why you can't make your own judgments by reading Marx directly. From the horses mouth, sort of speak.

I'll be honest, it's been a long time for me. But your timing isn't bad since I am reading a book now called Inhuman Power, which is a thesis on AI and and how it relates to Marx's assessment of machinery as a driving force for capitalism. The authors theory is that we have only just arrived at the technical stage of evolution that Marx was predicting needed to happen BEFORE communism could exist. It's interesting but also kinda scary.

I do have one other question... Why do you think Marx was such a bad guy? It's the first thing you mention. He wasn't involved in the Russian or the Chinese revolutions and I don't think the gulags and the tyrannical treatment of people in those countries were his ideas. I mean, I haven't read *everything* he wrote but from what I have read, I didn't really see anything so nefarious.

It seem's like you have a real strong bias about this. But I'll suspend my judgement for now and I WILL read you post. Catch ya on Sunday.

Justice101

As far as a strong bias goes-we all have one. That is why we gravitated to OnePoliticalPlaza for debate, conversation or letting off steam.

straightUp Loc: California

Look, I'm fine with having an objective discussion about religion and nihilism but I think you're too personally involved for that to happen. You get so defensive when I make any comment about religion that you jump to incredible conclusions about MY personal beliefs, then you start trying to insult me. That's not an objective conversation. You're just too emotionally wrapped up and you don't appear to have any respect for another person's perspective.

I hope you find a way to get past your angst. Maybe Jesus will help you.