White Privilege?

[jaxadam]

4 degreees?!? I got to drive the lunar rover around the moon with only one!

 

[Beigelemon]

LOL! You're making a fool of yourself again. You're not even making any sense. Please spare yourself the embarrassment and try to work out your logic before running your mouth. Hey, do you think Democrats are democratic because it's in the name of your horde? LOL! As if blanket legislation, overblown government, totalitarian policies, etc. are 'democratic' as your fascist party claims. Run along now before you bump your head again.

I live in the UK and I'm not a liberal. You, however are a far right troll. No, scrub that. You don't believe in anything at all.

 

[Beigelemon]

LOL! What pompous ignorance you spew. You deserve absolutely no shred of respect. Even your own liberal publications don't refute that. I swear, you guys are so slow to catch on. I mean how hard is it to figure out that you get put to shame every time you run your mouths? You're so far below my level I have a clearer view of moon craters.

View attachment 209140

Your level, eh? And also, just so you know, that's a review of a book.
Just tell me though, oh wise one, did Hitler or the Nazis take over the means of production and institute a dictatorship of the proletariat? Or did they infact leave German industry and business in private hands? It was the later, wasn't it? Now that wasn't very Marxist of them, was it? Oh and how did they get into power? Was it with the connivance of Von Papen and the conservatives? Yes, yes it was! It's a bit odd that Von Papen would side with Marxists, don't you think? And didn't the Nazis blame the communists for the Reichstag fire and have them booted out? Yes! They did! And then didn't they then start rounding up socialists, communists, anarchists and trade unionists and herding them into camps? Yes! They did! And then didn't Hitler and the Nazis side with Franco, a fascist, in the Spanish civil war? Against the Republican left? Yes! They did! Not very Marxist that, was it? And didn't Hitler and the Nazis form an alliance with fascist Italy, later to prop up Mussolini in 1943? Yes! They did!! That's a bit odd, isn't it? Marxists going out of their way to support fascists? Or maybe the Nazis weren't actually Marxists at all. Maybe that is just revisionist clap-trap.

 

[Strandberg Junkie]

BAM!

 

[WEF Chairman]

Like I said, I've proven my competence with 4 degrees from 4 state universities. I am designated by the government as a master and highly-qualified in my profession. I earned straight As through 4 degrees. I literally have dozens of high-level certifications and state licenses.

 

[Krull]

Your level, eh? And also, just so you know, that's a review of a book.
Just tell me though, oh wise one, did Hitler or the Nazis take over the means of production and institute a dictatorship of the proletariat? Or did they infact leave German industry and business in private hands? It was the later, wasn't it? Now that wasn't very Marxist of them, was it? Oh and how did they get into power? Was it with the connivance of Von Papen and the conservatives? Yes, yes it was! It's a bit odd that Von Papen would side with Marxists, don't you think? And didn't the Nazis blame the communists for the Reichstag fire and have them booted out? Yes! They did! And then didn't they then start rounding up socialists, communists, anarchists and trade unionists and herding them into camps? Yes! They did! And then didn't Hitler and the Nazis side with Franco, a fascist, in the Spanish civil war? Against the Republican left? Yes! They did! Not very Marxist that, was it? And didn't Hitler and the Nazis form an alliance with fascist Italy, later to prop up Mussolini in 1943? Yes! They did!! That's a bit odd, isn't it? Marxists going out of their way to support fascists? Or maybe the Nazis weren't actually Marxists at all. Maybe that is just revisionist clap-trap.

What a scholar! Do the Democrat party next!

 

[MistaGuitah]

Your level, eh? And also, just so you know, that's a review of a book.
Just tell me though, oh wise one, did Hitler or the Nazis take over the means of production and institute a dictatorship of the proletariat? Or did they infact leave German industry and business in private hands? It was the later, wasn't it? Now that wasn't very Marxist of them, was it? Oh and how did they get into power? Was it with the connivance of Von Papen and the conservatives? Yes, yes it was! It's a bit odd that Von Papen would side with Marxists, don't you think? And didn't the Nazis blame the communists for the Reichstag fire and have them booted out? Yes! They did! And then didn't they then start rounding up socialists, communists, anarchists and trade unionists and herding them into camps? Yes! They did! And then didn't Hitler and the Nazis side with Franco, a fascist, in the Spanish civil war? Against the Republican left? Yes! They did! Not very Marxist that, was it? And didn't Hitler and the Nazis form an alliance with fascist Italy, later to prop up Mussolini in 1943? Yes! They did!! That's a bit odd, isn't it? Marxists going out of their way to support fascists? Or maybe the Nazis weren't actually Marxists at all. Maybe that is just revisionist clap-trap.

LOL! You thought you were smart but humiliate yourself. All you've done is prove that you're a mindless follower who gets his information from propaganda and has never actually read Marx's writings. Ha ha ha ha ha!

How do you think that Marx proposed his socialist system would need to be implemented to be successful? Well, if you ever actually read Marx, you would know he said anarchy, total collapse, taking of property, and destruction of all eatablishments would be necessary so that a totalitarian authority would come in doing exactly what Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Castro did.

LOL! How embarrassing that you've lived your whole life what so many stupid beliefs based on bad information. Ha ha ha ha! Why on earth, knowing you are entirely uneducated, did you think you could come along and show how smart you are? That's absolutely nuts man! Ah ha ha ha ha. Socialism can't even be implemented without brutal authoritarianism. What a pathetic attempt at trying to sound smart.

 

[WEF Chairman]

LOL! You thought you were smart but humiliate yourself. All you've done is prove that you're a mindless follower who gets his information from propaganda and has never actually read Marx's writings. Ha ha ha ha ha!

 

[Beigelemon]

LOL! You thought you were smart but humiliate yourself. All you've done is prove that you're a mindless follower who gets his information from propaganda and has never actually read Marx's writings. Ha ha ha ha ha!

How do you think that Marx proposed his socialist system would need to be implemented to be successful? Well, if you ever actually read Marx, you would know he said anarchy, total collapse, taking of property, and destruction of all eatablishments would be necessary so that a totalitarian authority would come in doing exactly what Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Castro did.

LOL! How embarrassing that you've lived your whole life what so many stupid beliefs based on bad information. Ha ha ha ha! Why on earth, knowing you are entirely uneducated, did you think you could come along and show how smart you are? That's absolutely nuts man! Ah ha ha ha ha. Socialism can't even be implemented without brutal authoritarianism. What a pathetic attempt at trying to sound smart.

Interesting that you don't actually address anything that I wrote. But of course you wouldn't.
Marx was a Hegelian, his theory is called dialectical materialism. He theorised that human history moves in stages. Like Hegel Marx proposed that in any given age there is a ruling ideology (thesis) and a counter-ideology (antithesis). At certain points in history thesis and antithesis combine (synthesis) thus producing a new thesis. Hegel ultimately saw this movement in history in producing a society that would know the mind of God. (As detailed in The Phenomenology of Spirit.) Marx rejected God and instead theorised that ultimately society was moving towards communism. Capitalism, according to Marx, was a necessary late stage for the emergence of communism. Whilst clearly this has never (as of yet) happened (to be clear, what Marx envisioned was a worldwide communist revolution in which all national boundries would cease to exists and the notion of the nation state would be gone) his analysis of Capitalism has provided a clear theoretical framework from which to critique power structures and inequality in late stage Capitalism. For example, his notion that economic forces provide the superstructure of society and all other spheres of life are ultimately (although not mechanically subservient to) the economy has proved a remarkably durable concept. Indeed, one doesn't need schooling in Marxian political economy to know that in economic downturns, funding for libraries and the arts can be slashed.
It is worth pointing out perhaps that economic downturns, or crisis as Marx preferred, are often triggered in the supply side of the economic paradigm yet decreased wages and a loss of employment opportunities are how these are dealt with, something which Marx predicted. What he failed to see was political moderates using the state to overcome supply side failings. In a nutshell, Keynesian prime pumping. Of course, of late, Keynesianism is anathema to hegemonic economic interests and the solutions to current economic woes appear to be conforming to Marx's analysis. Whether the powers that be are creating their "gravediggers" only time will tell.
Feel free to respond with "lol" and other assorted insults.

 

[WEF Chairman]

Interesting that you don't actually address anything that I wrote. But of course you wouldn't.
Marx was a Hegelian, his theory is called dialectical materialism. He theorised that human history moves in stages. Like Hegel Marx proposed that in any given age there is a ruling ideology (thesis) and a counter-ideology (antithesis). At certain points in history thesis and antithesis combine (synthesis) thus producing a new thesis. Hegel ultimately saw this movement in history in producing a society that would know the mind of God. (As detailed in The Phenomenology of Spirit.) Marx rejected God and instead theorised that ultimately society was moving towards communism. Capitalism, according to Marx, was a necessary late stage for the emergence of communism. Whilst clearly this has never (as of yet) happened (to be clear, what Marx envisioned was a worldwide communist revolution in which all national boundries would cease to exists and the notion of the nation state would be gone) his analysis of Capitalism has provided a clear theoretical framework from which to critique power structures and inequality in late stage Capitalism. For example, his notion that economic forces provide the superstructure of society and all other spheres of life are ultimately (although not mechanically subservient to) the economy has proved a remarkably durable concept. Indeed, one doesn't need schooling in Marxian political economy to know that in economic downturns, funding for libraries and the arts can be slashed.
It is worth pointing out perhaps that economic downturns, or crisis as Marx preferred, are often triggered in the supply side of the economic paradigm yet decreased wages and a loss of employment opportunities are how these are dealt with, something which Marx predicted. What he failed to see was political moderates using the state to overcome supply side failings. In a nutshell, Keynesian prime pumping. Of course, of late, Keynesianism is anathema to hegemonic economic interests and the solutions to current economic woes appear to be conforming to Marx's analysis. Whether the powers that be are creating their "gravediggers" only time will tell.
Feel free to respond with "lol" and other assorted insults.

So much wasted time and energy replying to that dude.

 

[dcburn]

“If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail!” ― Benjamin Franklin

Thats awesome! Love it

 

[Strandberg Junkie]

Thats awesome! Love it

Always liked this one.

"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy." - some drunk at the bar.

 

[MistaGuitah]

Interesting that you don't actually address anything that I wrote. But of course you wouldn't.
Marx was a Hegelian, his theory is called dialectical materialism. He theorised that human history moves in stages. Like Hegel Marx proposed that in any given age there is a ruling ideology (thesis) and a counter-ideology (antithesis). At certain points in history thesis and antithesis combine (synthesis) thus producing a new thesis. Hegel ultimately saw this movement in history in producing a society that would know the mind of God. (As detailed in The Phenomenology of Spirit.) Marx rejected God and instead theorised that ultimately society was moving towards communism. Capitalism, according to Marx, was a necessary late stage for the emergence of communism. Whilst clearly this has never (as of yet) happened (to be clear, what Marx envisioned was a worldwide communist revolution in which all national boundries would cease to exists and the notion of the nation state would be gone) his analysis of Capitalism has provided a clear theoretical framework from which to critique power structures and inequality in late stage Capitalism. For example, his notion that economic forces provide the superstructure of society and all other spheres of life are ultimately (although not mechanically subservient to) the economy has proved a remarkably durable concept. Indeed, one doesn't need schooling in Marxian political economy to know that in economic downturns, funding for libraries and the arts can be slashed.
It is worth pointing out perhaps that economic downturns, or crisis as Marx preferred, are often triggered in the supply side of the economic paradigm yet decreased wages and a loss of employment opportunities are how these are dealt with, something which Marx predicted. What he failed to see was political moderates using the state to overcome supply side failings. In a nutshell, Keynesian prime pumping. Of course, of late, Keynesianism is anathema to hegemonic economic interests and the solutions to current economic woes appear to be conforming to Marx's analysis. Whether the powers that be are creating their "gravediggers" only time will tell.
Feel free to respond with "lol" and other assorted insults.

Yes I did very clearly address your nonsense. Now you're just trying to double down with your little compilation of Wiki lookups. I'll sum it all up quickly because your argument is senseless and unnecessary. First, no one in their right mind can defend Marx or socialism. I don't care what contrived history you're trying to draw from but I was around before liberals liberal universities started coordinating with Google AI to rewrite history in their own image... And yes, I was a professional programmer with a degree in computer science so spare me the whole ignorant conspiracy theory thing.

Second, socialism has never worked. In fact, we have plenty of contemporary examples of socialist failure all over South America and parts of Europe.

Third, no matter how you try to defend or venerate your radical liberal forefathers, the fact is they all share the same pedigree and produce the exact same outcomes that their ideas are supposed to cure. Only a fool would try to seriously justify any of it because it would be asinine.

Socialism, in any case, is nothing more than an intermediate state between repressed capitalism and full-out communist. Everyone with a brain knows that. If you knew the stuff you keep failing to look up then you would know that:

1. Only despotic control can allow the implementation of a socialist system
2. Socialism cannot be maintained in it's initial state. It must continually move towards communism. That's why liberals call it, "progress."
3. Socialism is born in despotism and is maintained by tyranny.

No matter how hard you try and how many Wiki lookups you do, nothing can dispute those facts because they were written by your communist forefathers in the first place. So spare me the jive because you're not going to convince anyone with a brain that socialism is good or has any kind of positive effect on society. Your arguments are futile. It's like trying to argue that terminal cancer is a better condition than good health.

 

[WEF Chairman]

Yes I did ver clearly address your nonsense. Now you're just tryinh to double down with your little compilation of Wiki lookups. I'll sum it all up quickly because your argument is senseless and unnecessary. First, no one in their right mind can defend Marx or socialism. I don't care what contrived history you're trying to draw from but I was around before liberals liberal universities started coordinating with Google AI to rewrite history in their own image... And yes, I was a professional programmer with a degree in computer science so spare me the whole ignorant conspiracy theory thing.

Second, socialism has never worked. In fact, we have plenty of contemporary examples of socialist failure all over South America and parts of Europe.

Third, no matter how you try to defend or venerate your radical liberal forefathers, the fact is they all share the same pedigree and produce the exact same outcomes that their ideas are supposed to cure. Only a fool would try to seriously justify any of it because it would be asinine.

Socialism, in any case, is nothing more than an intermediate state between capitalistic repression and full-out communist. Everyone with a brain knows that. If you knew the stuff you keep failing to look up then you would know tha:

1. Only despotic control can allow the implementation of a socialist system
2. Socialism cannot be maintained in it's initial state to work. It must continually move towards communism. That's why liberals call it, "progress."
3. Socialism is born in despotism and is maintained by tyranny.

No matter how hard you try and how many Wiki lookups you do, nothing can dispute those facts because they were written by your communist forefathers in the first place. So spare me the jive because you're not going to convince anyone with a brain that socialism is good or has any kind of positive effect on society. Your arguments are futile. It's like trying to argue that terminal cancer is a better condition than good health.

 

[Beigelemon]

Yes I did very clearly address your nonsense. Now you're just trying to double down with your little compilation of Wiki lookups. I'll sum it all up quickly because your argument is senseless and unnecessary. First, no one in their right mind can defend Marx or socialism. I don't care what contrived history you're trying to draw from but I was around before liberals liberal universities started coordinating with Google AI to rewrite history in their own image... And yes, I was a professional programmer with a degree in computer science so spare me the whole ignorant conspiracy theory thing.

Second, socialism has never worked. In fact, we have plenty of contemporary examples of socialist failure all over South America and parts of Europe.

Third, no matter how you try to defend or venerate your radical liberal forefathers, the fact is they all share the same pedigree and produce the exact same outcomes that their ideas are supposed to cure. Only a fool would try to seriously justify any of it because it would be asinine.

Socialism, in any case, is nothing more than an intermediate state between repressed capitalism and full-out communist. Everyone with a brain knows that. If you knew the stuff you keep failing to look up then you would know that:

1. Only despotic control can allow the implementation of a socialist system
2. Socialism cannot be maintained in it's initial state. It must continually move towards communism. That's why liberals call it, "progress."
3. Socialism is born in despotism and is maintained by tyranny.

No matter how hard you try and how many Wiki lookups you do, nothing can dispute those facts because they were written by your communist forefathers in the first place. So spare me the jive because you're not going to convince anyone with a brain that socialism is good or has any kind of positive effect on society. Your arguments are futile. It's like trying to argue that terminal cancer is a better condition than good health.

Where did I praise socialism? You are labouring under a conspiratorial mind-set that Hitler was a Marxist. He wasn't. And none of my post was from any Wiki. I taught this stuff for years. Anyway, the 1945 Labour government on the UK brought in a type of socialism.

Edit: And what's this shite about Google? I'm 54 and read yer know, books. Published before the advent of the intetnet. Tits on a stick do you honestly think that I'd fall for clearly fallacious crap like that?

 

[Beigelemon]

So much wasted time and energy replying to that dude.



View attachment 209407

I know. I can't help myself sometimes. Must. Try. Harder.

 

[Diary of a Axeman]

White Privilage is still going strong, but it's dying fast .

If the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys or other Anti American terrorist group, were people of Color.... they would have been a blood bath on the Capital steps .... that why those Inferior Fascist live to see a day in court .

 

[Diary of a Axeman]

Where did I praise socialism? You are labouring under a conspiratorial mind-set that Hitler was a Marxist. He wasn't. And none of my post was from any Wiki. I taught this stuff for years. Anyway, the 1945 Labour government on the UK brought in a type of socialism.

Edit: And what's this shite about Google? I'm 54 and read yer know, books. Published before the advent of the intetnet. Tits on a stick do you honestly think that I'd fall for clearly fallacious crap like that?

The GOP / MAGA are Fascist , anti American, anti Democracy, ant Constitutional idiots of low intellect that are nothing short of being Russian Sarogates....

I wish that here in California, that we could deport our MAGA idiots to Texas, Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma, Missouri or Ohio .... they tend to be low intellect clueless idiots that don't deserve California .... they're just a bunch of inferior racist harpies crying over, a now , fair level playing field .
They can't handle equality , because they always lose in equality.
That's what happens when you take away White Privilage .

 

[rsm]

The GOP / MAGA are Fascist , anti American, anti Democracy, ant Constitutional idiots of low intellect that are nothing short of being Russian Sarogates....

I wish that here in California, that we could deport our MAGA idiots to Texas, Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma, Missouri or Ohio .... they tend to be low intellect clueless idiots that don't deserve California .... they're just a bunch of inferior racist harpies crying over, a now , fair level playing field .
They can't handle equality , because they always lose in equality.
That's what happens when you take away White Privilage .

 

[Diary of a Axeman]

If only that were possible.

Indifference works well for me; planning my exit strategy; once the decline passes the point of no return or the collapse happens, I'll leave, and watch it unfold from afar.

It's all in the planning and execution.

“If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail!” ― Benjamin Franklin

Go move to the GOP / MAGA Red States .... they're already in total decline ....a trailer park awaits you and your MAGA Jerry Spring KKKultured paradise awaits you .
Go to West Virginia or Mississippi or Alabama, your people await you.