SJW strategy and Communist strategy
In reading "LEARNING FROM VIETNAM: THE PATTERNS OF LIBERATION MOVEMENTS" by Doan Van Toai and David Chanoff, I couldn't help but notice that the pattern of SJW entryism in television, SF/F, and games appears to be rather similar to the successful Communist strategy in Vietnam
Notice in particular the importance that an ignorant media and controlling the public narrative plays in both strategies.
First among the lessons that Viet Nam teaches concerns the composition of liberation-war guerrilla movements.... After Dien Bien Phu (1954), non-Communist revolutionaries were still employed in the government to continue attracting popular support, even while all anti-Communist factions were being eliminated. It was only when Ho Chi Minh had sufficiently consolidated power that the turn of the nationalists and non-Party militants came. Exactly the same tactic was re-employed in the 1960s when the National Liberation Front was founded to rally all those who sympathized in any way with Communist goals....We're already seeing the hard core SJWs turn on their less-committed allies. This also demonstrates the absolute importance of driving home to the moderates that they need to resist their urge to train their guns on their own side rather than the opposition. Moderates are always trying to curry favor with the opposition by criticizing their own "extremists", but this is not only futile, it actually plays into the enemy's strategy of shifting coalitions.
There are two points to be made here, both obvious but often overlooked. One is that Communist “liberation war” strategy calls for the creation of guerrilla fronts representing many shades of political feeling, within which the Communists themselves are likely to be a minority. Antagonists are thus faced with an enemy which attracts diversified support and whose leadership is difficult to identify.
The foreign propaganda effect alone of such an organization is more than worth the minor risk to the Communist nucleus that it will be outmaneuvered by some temporarily allied faction. Foreign journalists, for example, can be counted on to make a cogent case for the moderate, the liberal, and the nationalist struggle for a homeland rather than for the Communist flavor of the guerrilla movement. They will note that apparently leading figures are intellectuals or religious leaders whose standpoints may be distinctly non-Communist. And over time their reportage will convey to their democratically and pluralistically inclined readers the impression of a movement that is itself “pluralistic,” and to that extent representative and even democratic....
There is also no doubt (and this is the second point) that the non-Communist elements in the guerrilla front will be destroyed as soon as feasible. Ton Due Thang, president of North Viet Nam’s Fatherland Front, succinctly characterized Communist strategy in this regard: “Rally all forces that can be rallied, neutralize all forces that can be neutralized, eliminate all forces that can be eliminated.”
Ton was referring here to the standard Communist device of shifting coalitions in order to make use of opposition forces and eventually eliminate them piecemeal. For example, to deal with three enemies, alliances are formed with two while the primary enemy is attacked. The process is then repeated until Communist power stands unopposed.
Notice in particular the importance that an ignorant media and controlling the public narrative plays in both strategies.
134 Comments:
Politics goes by the Rule of Threes, with two sides and a neutral to sway over. See where rhetoric wins, where disqualification is almost necessary.
SJW are Cultural Communists. And what is Communism? It is a Jewish ideology. The coalition is of blacks, gays, feminists, liberals and atheists with the Jewish/Masonic elite at the top. The blacks serve as a sort of "shock troops" that foment the unrest and then the call for more anti-racism.
This whole scheme was hatched in the Renaissance.
Vox,
I'm glad to see you addressing the source of SJW madness. People think Communism is gone, and that the SJW's just magically and randomly appeared. They're wrong.
Frankly speaking conservatives especially their intellectuals make these people out to be invincible and that is a load of shit, these people frankly speaking are generally moronic followers. The Left is incredibly top down so much so that if someone told me that about a dozen people controlled the script for the Left I would tend to believe it.
That means in my estimation that the cults of the left can be short circuited quite easily and that dissension could easily be spread amongst the cults. These SJWs are fairies compared to the colored orcs who have no respect for their silly nonsense.
Don't forget entryism, as you call it, (subversion, is the word) occurred also in the Christian churches. Every Protestant and Catholic/Orthodox Church is SJW.
I have a saying, "Modern Roman Catholicism is nothing more than Marxism with a cross". Christianity has been supplanted by Cultural Marxism. Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, Catholics, are SJW--their anti-racism rants are out of this world.
We live in a Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevist culture and civilization. Christianity has been supplanted with Cultural Marxism and the God of Equality.
entryism is a really useful word. Things always start out sounding reasonable and sweet. Gay rights rapidly morphed into "you're a hate speech bigot discriminatory xenophobe homophobe for not baking cakes for a gay wedding and now you're going to be sued into bankruptcy the store closed and house forfeited.
The speed of the real "outing" was amazingly swift. [human rights/ laodicea masks a death cult]
or multiculturalism means there are now suburbs you aren't welcome because you don't "belong" in the country you were born in. It's lightning fast. It happened.
the value of the blog is that it helps you identify the beast, the trojan, the breach.
Vox, I'll put it to you in the history of the world one of the most destructive forces ever has been the 'separation of church and state' meme. It's simply untrue. It was never "dominian theology" for Christians to want a home for themselves/ or a nation for themselves.
Given how America was settled how it now is is truly head shakingly bizarre.
Gaming should belong to the people with the passion. Not political hero wannabes.
ergo the expression "useful idiots"
One thing that must be understood about the hardcore Marxist-Leninists is that they fucking despise liberals and moderate leftists more than anyone else, way more than fascists and conservatives do. Lenin said that he would rather see the Czar reign another millennium than let the Mensheviks win. It's always the fluffy liberals who are the first to be lined up and shot come the revolution, because the Far Left has to be able to depict all opposition as fascists and saboteurs which cannot be done so long as a moderate Left is still granted legitimacy. I agree with a lot of Marxist-Leninist ideas and I read this blog because I absolutely cannot stand liberals. They should be shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY3JYxG0xqA
People without firm principles are easily manipulated.
That this is the majority of people explains why it is the human condition to endlessly repeat the errors of the past. To be ignorant of the past (and hold no principle inviolable) is to remain a perpetual child, forever surprised by the bad things that follow your latest fad.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Doesn't matter which enemy is which, for when you're done with one it's time for the other.
As Mises stated, there is no Third Way (collectivism in moderation.) All "partial" collectivisms slide inexorably toward full totalitarian collectivisms for the same reason failure never falsifies Keynesian economics or Marxism. Failure only signifies that the model in question just isn't being pursued with adequate zeal.
Need more zeal? Que the (bloodthirsty) zealots.
"Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."
—Theodore Dalrymple, “Our Culture, What’s Left Of It”
As a reminder, such attempts to zealously apply "the model" have resulted in Mankind's greatest democides, where tens of millions of men, women and children were slaughtered (usually starved to death) often by their countrymen.
Those who join such Epic Adventures are surely doing Satan's work. Remember that when you have the impulse to join that march.
PhillipGeorge, is not the separated state simply a substitute religion? Surely it is so once the Post-millennial Christian Pietists birthed the Progressive Era and its full scale attempt to implement the Gnostic Heresy.
Those who recognize the pattern of subversion are usually destroyed or excoriated by those who refuse to see: John Birch Society was driven out of the conservative movement and denied credibility by Wm. F. Buckley and National Review: all because they recognized the pattern of the progressive elites early.
and... it took a whole 13 minutes for someone to say "Jews are bad. mmmkay?"
Related, here's an account of a journey into- and out of SJW-dom. Everything Vox has said about how miserable SJWs actually are is confirmed here: http://www.mcgilldaily.com/2014/11/everything-problematic/.
There is a lot of crazy here, but still worth the read to see inside their brains.
Nate March 19, 2015 8:37 AM
and... it took a whole 13 minutes for someone to say "Jews are bad. mmmkay?"
let's be fair. that was Wheeler.
if he didn't, we'd all be kind of disappoint.
i'm actually somewhat shocked that he's throwing both the Catholics and Orthodox under the bus as well.
Vox
Notice in particular the importance that an ignorant media and controlling the public narrative plays in both strategies.
can i say, "Frankfurt School" now? or is that too Juicy?
and... it took a whole 13 minutes for someone to say "Jews are bad. mmmkay?"
The viet cong was actually created by Marxist Jews in the renaissance!
i'm actually somewhat shocked that he's throwing both the Catholics and Orthodox under the bus as well.
I believe he's going to devolve to the point where the only hope for mankind is a direct blood descendent of Leonidas. Literally everyone else is a suspected commie.
"Those who recognize the pattern of subversion are usually destroyed or excoriated by those who refuse to see . . . . all because they recognized the pattern of the progressive elites early."
What should be said to those who fancy themselves to be "progressive"? To them, we really have nothing to say. They do not expect nor will they brook any instruction from us. Remember, they have 'advanced' so far beyond us that they are the only ones qualified to instruct us. Through their refined mockery, they desire to sway us from our narrow and small-minded views up to the unrestrained level of their so-called progressiveness.
When the progressives and the moderates speak, they do not speak to hear instruction, but only to instruct us. However, they are still not so secure in their 'progressiveness' or 'moderation' that they do not still perceive in our loyalty a reproach which irritates them. Perhaps only experience can bring them back, the experience of the delusions to which they have so thoughtlessly committed themselves. Until then, what can we really say to them? Perhaps all we can do is leave them to their delusions.
In the meantime, we continue, without apology, to maintain our convictions against their doubts and our steadfastness against their wavering. We will remain grounded in reality, for all our sakes.
Evil never sleeps.
@Wheeler: No, Communism is a Babylonian construct which was adopted by the Jews when they adopted the Babylonian Talmud. See the Code of Hammurabi, a Babylonian set of laws which predate the Jews.
And this mutant form of Communism isn't afraid to be economic capitalist, e.g. Starbucks. It's hilarious... their commie SJW race baiting blown-up in their coffee.
"All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need."
The founding idea of Marxist Jews, such as Gerrard Winstanley.
"Literally everyone else is a suspected commie."
Why is such an authoritarian freak so worried about communism?
and... it took a whole 13 minutes for someone to say "Jews are bad. mmmkay?" & The viet cong was actually created by Marxist Jews in the renaissance!
Outstanding Tag Team trolling.
The reason "Jews" are directly related to Communism is because they are the modern pushers of it. Very simple. Very historical. Very Revolutionary.
No, Communism is a Babylonian construct which was adopted by the Jews when they adopted the Babylonian Talmud
Dancing all around it.
Babylon and the ancient mystery religions in the world today are perpetuated by heavily involved Marxist/Communist "Jews" and through secret societies. Tell us, why does Levi and Crowley and Majick use Hebrew?
"Jewish" leaders despise and hate Jesus of Nazareth, as their Talmud - and their killing him then, and now - proves.
The devil hates competition
As Mises stated, there is no Third Way (collectivism in moderation.) All "partial" collectivisms slide inexorably toward full totalitarian collectivisms for the same reason failure never falsifies Keynesian economics or Marxism.
Yes, a Christian-hating Jew is just the person I was hoping to hear from in this type of conversation!
We are told that "among any two Jews there will be three opinions."
However, I suspect that this is just a Jewish strategy to have non-Jews believe that the Jews are just as faction ridden as they are.
Communist strategy looks like ...
It's increasingly apparent that Commies, SJW, Feminists, and all the assorted grab-bag movements of The Left share a certain core set of behaviors and attitudes.
1) There's always an appeal to flattening the heirarchy that's really just a disquised effort by the lefty leaders to put themselves at the top of the heap.
2) People only matter based on the group they can claim membership in.
3) Honor is a weakness to be exploited.
4) Dissent is met with the harshest possible consequences.
5) The enemy is evil, never just wrong.
6) Every leader should expect and ice pick to the head eventually.
SJW are so successful because SJ is a religion. They are fanatical believers. Evil is always a caricature of The Good. As they don't believe in God, their ideology becomes a religion. SJW are evangelizers of the Gospel of Marx.
Interestingly, I am about half way through "Giap, The Victor in Viet Nam" and had drawn the same conclusion. http://www.amazon.com/Giap-Vietnam-Peter-G-MacDonald/dp/0393034011/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426775032&sr=8-1&keywords=giap+the+victor
SJW's are so successful because thy (like their communist brothers) ruthlessly eliminate any opposition.
Reminded me of this interview with an ex-KGB:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLqHv0xgOlc&t=172
The Vietnamese Communists were simply following the playbook of Lenin. The October revolt in St. Petersburg was nothing more than a coup d'etat that overthrew a fragile constitutional monarchy. All sorts of groups allied with the Bolsheviks during the Civil War, but once power was consolidated the first ones to be arrested, imprisoned and shot were the anarchists, followed by other groups.
The Communists play a clever game, on the one hand they sit in the sleigh and get to decide who is thrown out to pacify the imaginary wolves pursuing, and on the other hand…the are the wolves.
Read transcripts of the show trials in the USSR during the 1930's, people like Radek confessed to the most absurd crimes in order to preserve party unity, etc. People who are true believers in a cult would rather die than be Othered, and the SJW's are extremely vulnerable to the threat of Othering, because they are rabbits at heart.
Each rabbit selected for persecution due to impure thoughts by the warren leader is surely stunned by the betrayal, but is so far gone in group think that he/she/it can't really fight back.
"Moderates are always trying to curry favor with the opposition by criticizing their own "extremists", but this is not only futile, it actually plays into the enemy's strategy of shifting coalitions."
Its playing out exactly like this in Washington state over gun rights. The open carry protesters of the Patrick Henry Society vs Alan Gotleib and the SAF. Far too many moderates here in the northwest who are worried about image and feelings.
Yes, a Christian-hating Jew is just the person I was hoping to hear from in this type of conversation!
Who are you calling a Christian hating Jew, Mises?
I would disagree about the media being ignorant. Some, maybe, but quite a few know exactly what they are doing. They are socialist propagandists with bylines, promoting their narrative at all costs (even to the detriment of the media organization that employs them).
Wouldn't say Mises was a hater... However, he did believe Christianity and capitalism are contradictory. Most likely he had a complete misunderstanding of Christianity.
“A living Christianity,” said Mises, “cannot exist side by side with, and within, Capitalism” (Quoted in Jorg Guido Hulsmann, Mises, the Last Knight of Liberalism, p. 982).
SJW are evangelizers of the Gospel of Marx.
To connect the dots and help tie it all together people should know more about seldom mentioned Georg Lukacs.
"Yes, a Christian-hating Jew is just the person I was hoping to hear from in this type of conversation!"
...
Disqualify!!!!
people should know more about seldom mentioned Georg Lukacs
What does the creator of Star Wars have to do with communism? Oh let me guess, their supposed to be Jewdis from Planet Druidia.
Mr. MantraMan, back in the 80s, my neighbor, who had a shortwave radio, noticed that you could tell what was going to be the focus of campus activism by listening to Radio Moscow a few months in advance.
Mr. MantraMan, back in the 80s, my neighbor, who had a shortwave radio, noticed that you could tell what was going to be the focus of campus activism by listening to Radio Moscow a few months in advance.
Who are you calling a Christian hating Jew, Mises?
Disqualify!!!!
Yes, these types (Mises, Rothbard) are not going to help rebuild Christendom. It certainly does disqualify them from giving us gentiles advice on how to improve our societies, especially since they live by the "free-market capitalism for thee but not for me" mentality (both had state jobs for parts of their lives).
Yes, these types (Mises, Rothbard) are not going to help rebuild Christendom. It certainly does disqualify them from giving us gentiles advice on how to improve our societies, especially since they live by the "free-market capitalism for thee but not for me" mentality (both had state jobs for parts of their lives).
MOAR DISQUALIFY!!!
This might be the dumbest comment written on this blog in the past month, if not longer.
"Yes, these types (Mises, Rothbard) are not going to help rebuild Christendom. It certainly does disqualify them from giving us gentiles advice on how to improve our societies, especially since they live by the "free-market capitalism for thee but not for me" mentality (both had state jobs for parts of their lives)."
You sound like the idiots that called Ron Paul a hypocrite because of earmarks.
Fine by me, I don't have much respect for Mises or Rothbard. It doesn't hurt my feelings that people who respect them might not respect me. If you think atheist/agnostic Jews with persecution complexes are going to improve the world, throw in your lot with them. I'll be elsewhere.
Vox is not really a libertarian because at one point in his life he voted for a republican.
You sound like the idiots that called Ron Paul a hypocrite because of earmarks.
I wouldn't call him a hypocrite, but he should say "there's nothing wrong with using my constitutents' tax dollars for good reasons, like bringing it back to their community" if he's going to do exactly that. He's working within the system, no need to espouse purist views on how irredeemably evil government is when he's using it for good.
"It doesn't hurt my feelings that people who respect them might not respect me. If you think atheist/agnostic Jews with persecution complexes are going to improve the world, throw in your lot with them. I'll be elsewhere."
Correct. You'll be off by yourself... sitting in a corner smelling your own farts with a dunce cap on.
Stop worrying about the men and look at the ideas ya retard. All men are flawed.
Fine by me, I don't have much respect for Mises or Rothbard.
Have you actually read anything either of them wrote?
I wouldn't call him a hypocrite, but he should say "there's nothing wrong with using my constitutents' tax dollars for good reasons, like bringing it back to their community" if he's going to do exactly that.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID WHEN HE WAS ASKED ABOUT EARMARKS.
Do you in fact do any thinking at all in this tiny brain of yours?
Vox is not really a libertarian because at one point in his life he voted for a republican.
Watch what people do, consistently, not what they say. Thus, the guy who took his bread and butter from state coffers (Rothbard) for much of his life is different from the guy who espouses libertarian economics and builds his own private companies, regardless of how he voted 20 years ago.
Rothbard should have gone into comedy. He'd have been brilliant, made his own private fortune, and been able to talk all the economics he could dream about.
Have you actually read anything either of them wrote?
Yes, though I'm far more familiar with Rothbard. I think the only think I haven't read are his pamphlets and his gigantic American history (though I do own it). I used to be an "anarcho-capitalist" type. Sure, some of his criticisms and his "revisionist" history are great, but his premises are flawed. If you don't have Christ, your ideas will always be mediocre at best.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID WHEN HE WAS ASKED ABOUT EARMARKS.
Do you in fact do any thinking at all in this tiny brain of yours?
I wasn't aware I had criticized Ron Paul, just said what I think he should do, good for him that he has. I didn't bring Ron Paul into this. No need to use the caps lock to make a point about something I didn't even say.
And I'm also not the only person who is critical of Mises and Rothbard, so I'll be in a corner smelling lots of other people's farts too.
Sure, some of his criticisms and his "revisionist" history are great, but his premises are flawed.
What are his premises and how are they flawed?
"And I'm also not the only person who is critical of Mises and Rothbard, so I'll be in a corner smelling lots of other people's farts too."
Yep. you and the other retards of various stripes.. Keynesian... Communist.. and Stormfront
And I'm also not the only person who is critical of Mises and Rothbard, so I'll be in a corner smelling lots of other people's farts too.
So your argument thus far has been ad hominem and ad populum.
Aristotle and Plato are also idiots... Because No Jesus.
And we're total idiots for reading the great roman political philosophers... because No Jesus.
Aristotle and Plato are also idiots... Because No Jesus.
Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Yes.
Morons!
Actually lets have some fun here... Marissa... how about you tell us all about the government jobs Ludwig Von Mises had.
No doubt you can list them off the top your head. so lets talk about them... and how they make him a hypocrite.
lets see the list.
They're not idiots, but they are certainly flawed, very flawed in some respects.
If you start at the premise that an economy is comprised of individuals, and not the family structures that create and maintain civilization, then your system will contain serious mistakes. I do think very minimal government can work with small or dispersed populations with strong traditions (early American settles are a prime example). But that doesn't work for multicultural, feminist 4th largest city in the world Houston, Texas (and similar places that hold most of the world's population).
The problem with libertarian economics is that it assumes Christendom. It assumes a system already in place that's created and sustained by straight, European, male Christians. If goods like labor should be constrained (via immigration law, i.e., the government), then you've got an unprincipled exception, and lots of other exceptions can (and should) be allowed too, like restricting employment opportunities for women, etc. That doesn't mean "let the companies fail that employ women or immigrants"; it means "punish the companies that try to employ women or immigrants". Punishment is that terrible, evil, no-good initiation of force, and it can be used for good.
The anarcho-capitalist sees everyone as individuals, it doesn't matter if the successful entrepreneur is a woman, or an immigrant, or a Jew, he should be allowed to do whatever any other individual does. I don't think that encourages civilization, which is why I disagree with their premises.
The anarcho-capitalist sees everyone as individuals, it doesn't matter if the successful entrepreneur is a woman, or an immigrant, or a Jew, he should be allowed to do whatever any other individual does. I don't think that encourages civilization, which is why I disagree with their premises.
In other words, civilization = collectivism.
In other words, you're a commie.
In other words, MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
"If you start at the premise that an economy is comprised of individuals, and not the family structures that create and maintain civilization, then your system will contain serious mistakes. "
Holy shit.
Marissa... families aren't made up of individuals.
fascinating.
Actually lets have some fun here... Marissa... how about you tell us all about the government jobs Ludwig Von Mises had.
No doubt you can list them off the top your head. so lets talk about them... and how they make him a hypocrite.
I couldn't list them off the top of my head, as I haven't memorized anyone's career history.
He graduated in February 1906 (Juris Doctor) and started a career as a civil servant in Austria's financial administration, leaving after a few months to take a trainee position in a Vienna law firm. During that time, Mises began lecturing on economics, and in early 1909, he joined the Vienna Chamber of Commerce and Industry. During World War I, Mises served as a front officer in the Austro-Hungarian artillery and as an economic adviser to the War Department.
Mises was chief economist for the Austrian Chamber of Commerce and was an economic adviser of Engelbert Dollfuss, the austrofascist but strongly anti-Nazi Austrian Chancellor,[7] and later to Otto von Habsburg, the Christian democratic politician and claimant to the throne of Austria (which had been legally abolished in 1918).[8] In 1934, Mises left Austria for Geneva, Switzerland, where he was a professor at the Graduate Institute of International Studies until 1940.
Good for him that after his extensive work in government, he emigrated to America and didn't stay on the government teat (I did know that about him--NYU wouldn't have paid his salary because of his beliefs). I do consider it hypocritical to criticize the state and socialism, and then benefit monetarily from it, exclusively, for a few decades.
Again, I didn't call any non-Christian an idiot, but they will never have the fullness of the Truth. Nothing wrong with that, doesn't make them horrible and evil, but it doesn't make them as useful either.
I do consider it hypocritical to criticize the state and socialism, and then benefit monetarily from it, exclusively, for a few decades.
He also probably used public transportation and government roads, what a monster he is!
And Ron Paul's work to spread the ideas of freedom and liberty is all in vain because he dared to serve in congress.
Marissa... families aren't made up of individuals.
Well, you've completely missed the point. A family is made up of a male head of household who is completely different from his female subordinate wife, and who has far different powers and responsibilities than any of his children. They are not atomized individuals and actually can't be or they aren't their respective roles anymore. A father and husband cannot exist apart from his child(ren) or wife. A wife can't be a wife without having husband.
In other words, MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I prefer, BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
Anyway, that is the stock response to any criticism of atomized individualism, that one is a collectivist.
Nothing wrong with that, doesn't make them horrible and evil, but it doesn't make them as useful either.
Hey guys math is not useful because 2+2 should equal Jesus, not 4.
"Good for him that after his extensive work in government"
Oh good.. you learned to cut and paste from wikipedia. Unfortunately you didn't bother to read what you cut and pasted.
1) he was an officer leading an artillery battalion in the army.
2) He was an economic adviser for various political groups and officials.
3) The Graduate Institute of International Studies and Development is a semi-private institution.
In other words... he served in the military... then he went on to take positions that would let him influence people who were actually in authority and could implement them.
And you call him a hypocrite for it.
You're absolutely a prime grade A example of why women shouldn't talk about economics.
atomized individuals...atomized individualism
And now you've shifted the goal posts from individuals to atomized individuals.
He also probably used public transportation and government roads, what a monster he is!
And Ron Paul's work to spread the ideas of freedom and liberty is all in vain because he dared to serve in congress.
I said nothing of the sort. This womanish sarcasm is tiresome. I have no issue with libertarians who are forced to use public goods and I understand that they disapprove of how their money is taken from them and used in ways in which they disapprove. They are between a rock and a hard place and there's no way for them to do otherwise.
Why couldn't Mises find a trade, though? He wasn't required or even forced by necessity or convenience to become a government economist the way he was forced to use public roads, etc. He could have written books on the side or taught classes at a local hall, even privately. Having a distinguished job in the professariat is not a requirement in life.
Also, I'm not aware that Ron Paul wants to abolish Congress, so I see nothing wrong with him serving in it and trying to change things from the inside to comply more with his own beliefs. He's probably the most honorable person who's served in Congress in the past 50 years. And what do you know, he was able to be a child-saving, private-business-owning entrepreneur before having to get his hands dirty in the House! That's principle.
For a moment I was wondering what sort of entryism the SS had done in television.
Note to self: turn off Men Kampf after use.
Marissa, Rothbard was a comedian. For Heaven's sake, look up "Mozart was a Red" on youtube.
It all boils down to, over what issues are you willing to slit someone's throat?
It sounds to me that you favor a Christian doctrine that finds places where that's perfectly acceptable. The alternative is that you're willing to live and let live (or just separate from those with whom you disagree.)
Is that not some sort of anarcho-capitalism? Or do you favor some sort of "these are my rules, and if you don't agree to abide by them, it's time to die?" I'm still trying to find that one in a Gospel, but I defer to your greater insight.
Coercion or non-coercion. And coercion requires enforcement, and enforcement without willingness to kill for principle, not self-defense (or at least torture for it) isn't real.
"Nothing wrong with that, doesn't make them horrible and evil, but it doesn't make them as useful either."
No. What makes him useful is his writing and theories are able to predict and explain future events far better than anyone else's do.
By his fruits... we know he is useful.
" They are not atomized individuals and actually can't be or they aren't their respective roles anymore."
Zoom!
And there go the goal posts.
Right now, the SJWs can't kill people.
Which means that when they "win," it's a hollow victory -- a matter of "optics" and Tweets. Their opponents haven't gone away; in fact they're probably angrier and more committed than before.
This is their weakness. They don't understand this. They exist in a world of symbols and rhetoric, where putting up selfies on Twitter can somehow "defeat" Boko Haram or ISIS.
We need to focus on reality. Winning for real, in the real world of bodies and things. Deprive the SJWs of money, deprive them of power, deprive them of positions of influence.
If anyone has a couple of thousand bucks they're willing to spend, hire a private detective to investigate the editor or publisher of your local paper, or the producer at your local TV news. Chances are, you can find out something that will destroy them.
Do the same for professors of Women's Studies or Queer Theory (that ought to be as easy as reading their published work). Forward said info to the college trustees -- or state legislators if it's a state school. Or to the cops.
The goal is to get them fired, get them sued, get them arrested. Literally destroy them, don't just "own" them on Twitter. Let them win every comment war as they lose the real world.
i'm actually somewhat shocked that he's throwing both the Catholics and Orthodox under the bus as well.
@bob k. mando
"Pope" Francis' Marxism and syncretism has become too obvious to deny (or blame on the media, as Mr. Wright is wont to do). Not sure why he's dinging the Orthodox, though.
The viet cong was actually created by Marxist Jews in the renaissance!
@Josh
Well, the Russian Bolsheviks were in fact mostly Marxist Jews.
so I see nothing wrong with him serving in it and trying to change things from the inside to comply more with his own beliefs
If you actually were consistent in your application of logic and critical thinking, you would see nothing wrong with Mises doing essentially the same thing, as nate already pointed out.
But then you are a woman.
Also...make me a sammich...thanks.
"Why couldn't Mises find a trade, though? He wasn't required or even forced by necessity or convenience to become a government economist the way he was forced to use public roads, etc. He could have written books on the side or taught classes at a local hall, even privately. Having a distinguished job in the professariat is not a requirement in life."
You dense little twit.
He was taking jobs where he would be able to influence people in power. In other words... he was proving that he really believed what he wrote.
Well, the Russian Bolsheviks were in fact mostly Marxist Jews.
Viet cong != Russian Bolsheviks
Also...the Viet cong, the Bolsheviks, and the Marxists were not around in the renaissance.
David, I've seen it and it's hilarious. Unfortunately the only version I was able to find at the time (a few years ago now) was poor quality, but it was still extremely entertaining.
Anyway, if people want to live in a sane state, then they should certainly abide by the laws or face the consequences and sometimes the consequences of particularly heinous crimes, like murder, should be death. Otherwise, most crimes are punished by expulsion or imprisonment.
The "if you don't abide by my rules, it's time to die" canard is silly, because most crimes don't result in the death penalty (and shouldn't, obviously).
And now you've shifted the goal posts from individuals to atomized individuals.
Nate said families are comprised of individuals, but they certainly aren't identical individuals and they don't deserve the same treatment under the law or within the economy. Certainly there will always be exceptions of individuals like spinsters and bachelors, but they shouldn't be looked upon as "individuals" but as what they are, including their state, their position in life.
"If you actually were consistent in your application of logic and critical thinking, you would see nothing wrong with Mises doing essentially the same thing, as nate already pointed out."
Does this qualify as an Eiffel Tower?
He was taking jobs where he would be able to influence people in power. In other words... he was proving that he really believed what he wrote.
If he really believed taxes are always wrong and an infringement on the individual's rights, he would have acted accordingly. Instead, he took his bread from the very system he criticized as completely irredeemable. If he were a minarchist, he'd be perfectly within his rights. But he went full purist, and that's where he was wrong. Good for him for trying to influence the very government he was trying to make...disappear?
I have no problem with Paul because he seems to be a minarchist, not an anarchist. An anarchist in a government building makes no sense, unless he's armed.
"The "if you don't abide by my rules, it's time to die" canard is silly, because most crimes don't result in the death penalty (and shouldn't, obviously)."
Really?
Like most you simply fail to follow the sequence.
Nate doesn't renew his tags.
Nate gets pulled over.
Nate gets ticket.
Nate refuses to pay ticket.
Nate gets pulled over.
Nate gets arrested.
Nate refuses to allow himself to be arrested.
Nate gets shot.
You pay your parking tickets...because if you don't... someone will eventually shoot you.
Well, the Russian Bolsheviks were in fact mostly Marxist Jews.
Viet cong != Russian Bolsheviks
But the Viet Cong and the ChiComs were intellectual descendants of the Russian Bolsheviks. So yes, they were intellectually parented or grandparented by Marxist Jews, even if they weren't Jewish themselves.
Also...the Viet cong, the Bolsheviks, and the Marxists were not around in the renaissance.
Not sure where the Renaissance bit came from. I blame German "Enlightenment" philosophy, personally.
If he really believed taxes are always wrong and an infringement on the individual's rights, he would have acted accordingly. Instead, he took his bread from the very system he criticized as completely irredeemable.
Direct question: what percentage of his lifetime income was directly from the government?
If he were a minarchist, he'd be perfectly within his rights. But he went full purist, and that's where he was wrong. Good for him for trying to influence the very government he was trying to make...disappear?
That's absurd logic. It's the equivalent of telling a girl who sent a topless picture to her boyfriend that she might as well go ahead and get filmed in hd taking five dicks in the ass.
honestly Marissa... as one that has read tons of Mises... it seems to me that your opinions of the man are based entirely on something you heard someone say once and you thought it sounded smart.
But the Viet Cong and the ChiComs were intellectual descendants of the Russian Bolsheviks. So yes, they were intellectually parented or grandparented by Marxist Jews, even if they weren't Jewish themselves.
The train is fine.
Not sure where the Renaissance bit came from. I blame German "Enlightenment" philosophy, personally.
From wheeler's original comment that I was mocking:
This whole scheme was hatched in the Renaissance.
Now look. We're in the middle of an intellectual gang bang. Either join in or shut up.
I'm not sure what that has to do with my true statement that "most crimes don't result in the death penalty" because they don't, unless you want to win a Darwin Award for not rendering unto Caesar his stupid and inane parking laws. Crimes certainly can result in the death penalty, if that's the hill you want to die on, which most civilized folks certainly do not.
Let me just clear this up for you Marissa...
" If, however, the government does more than protect people against violent or fraudulent aggression on the part of antisocial individuals, it reduces the sphere of the individual's freedom to act beyond the degree to which it is restricted by praxeological law. Thus we may define freedom as that state of affairs in which the individual's discretion to choose is not constrained by governmental violence beyond the margin within which the praxeological law restricts it anyway." - Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action, page 281.
Not only was Von Mises not an anarchist... he was far less an anarchist than Rand or Ron Paul who you called a minarchist.
Von Mises was even pro-conscription.
So tell me... dear marissa... where exactly did you learn that Ludwig Von Mises was an anarchist?
" Crimes certainly can result in the death penalty, if that's the hill you want to die on, which most civilized folks certainly do not. "
The point Marissa... is that all government is based on force. All law is based on force. And force... includes deadly force.
The death penalty just formalizes it.
honestly Marissa... as one that has read tons of Mises... it seems to me that your opinions of the man are based entirely on something you heard someone say once and you thought it sounded smart.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone mention Mises outside of the libertarian circles I used to frequent. I used to visit the von Mises Institute every day, read the free books, listened to the free lectures at work, browsed the forum. I used to enjoy this stuff and learn about it. I don't consider much of it anymore. I've found it's mostly for smart white and Jewish guys who think everyone else in the world is as intelligent, disciplined and moral as they are (or want to scam people, I didn't see that very much though).
Direct question: what percentage of his lifetime income was directly from the government?
I have no idea. I do know he held a number of government jobs and therefore took government cheese. If you're an anarchist, that's untenable. I don't really understand your other comment and would prefer not to quote it.
honestly Marissa... as one that has read tons of Mises... it seems to me that your opinions of the man are based entirely on something you heard someone say once and you thought it sounded smart.
Dude, she totally reads Mises on the beach with Michele Bachmann...
Also, "something you heard someone say once and you thought it sounded smart" is exactly what this comment by paradox is:
“A living Christianity,” said Mises, “cannot exist side by side with, and within, Capitalism” (Quoted in Jorg Guido Hulsmann, Mises, the Last Knight of Liberalism, p. 982).
It's posted verbatim like this on lots of retarded blog comments.
If you actually go and read that page of THE LAST KNIGHT OF LIBERALISM you'll find that it comes from Mises's SOCIALISM which he wrote in 1922. The context of the wrote in the biography is Mises's views of Christianity and how they tempered over time. Also consider that he wrote SOCIALISM at a time when many people were using Christian theology to justify socialism and the confiscation of property.
I have no idea.
Then drop it. You can't prove how much of his income came directly from the government. It could have been ten percent, it could have been ninety percent. That matters.
I don't really understand your other comment and would prefer not to quote it.
It was about your all or nothing approach.
I've found it's mostly for smart white and Jewish guys who think everyone else in the world is as intelligent, disciplined and moral as they are (or want to scam people, I didn't see that very much though).
DISQUALIFY!!!
"I have no idea. I do know he held a number of government jobs and therefore took government cheese. If you're an anarchist, that's untenable."
he wasn't an anarchist Marissa. Which is why you really shouldn't form strong opinions about people who's work you haven't actually read.. and why you certainly shouldn't shoot your mouth off about it.
By the way, Marissa, you're providing an excellent example of this:
This also demonstrates the absolute importance of driving home to the moderates that they need to resist their urge to train their guns on their own side rather than the opposition. Moderates are always trying to curry favor with the opposition by criticizing their own "extremists", but this is not only futile, it actually plays into the enemy's strategy of shifting coalitions.
Not only was Von Mises not an anarchist... he was far less an anarchist than Rand or Ron Paul who you called a minarchist.
Von Mises was even pro-conscription.
So tell me... dear marissa... where exactly did you learn that Ludwig Von Mises was an anarchist?
Well, you're right about that. I learned most of von Mises through Rothbard and have never read anything by Mises himself where he affirmed a proper role of government. Everything I read by him was exclusively negative and critical. I have even read his writings on taxation and never remembered his approval of it. He's clearly approving of it.
I rescind my criticism of him for taking his salary from taxes. Clearly my criticism lies with Rothbard, not von Mises.
The point Marissa... is that all government is based on force. All law is based on force. And force... includes deadly force.
The death penalty just formalizes it.
There will always be an arbiter who can and does use force to make certain discriminating decisions. That's just what government is. Again, the vast majority of crimes aren't going to end in "slitting of the throats".
Josh, I'm not an extremist and I'm definitely not a Misesian/Rothbardian.
he wasn't an anarchist Marissa. Which is why you really shouldn't form strong opinions about people who's work you haven't actually read.. and why you certainly shouldn't shoot your mouth off about it.
I have read his work and I never encountered his pro-government opinions. He has a large body of work.
"
There will always be an arbiter who can and does use force to make certain discriminating decisions. "
Congratulations.
You just reduced your beloved civilization to bureaucratic barbarism.
I learned most of von Mises through Rothbard and have never read anything by Mises himself where he affirmed a proper role of government.
If you had really read as much Austrian economics as you said you had, you would know that Austrian economics isn't about affirming proper roles of government, but about identifying the consequences of an action.
Then drop it. You can't prove how much of his income came directly from the government. It could have been ten percent, it could have been ninety percent. That matters.
I have dropped it, as Nate proved that von Mises had no problem with taxation. So I now see no issue with him making his money from taxes (whatever percentage it might have been). He's in the same boat I see Ron Paul in.
Speaking of women and economics:
Women: Know Your Limits
"I rescind my criticism of him for taking his salary from taxes. Clearly my criticism lies with Rothbard, not von Mises."
So be it.
Josh, I'm not an extremist and I'm definitely not a Misesian/Rothbardian.
No shit, idiot.
You're the moderate who's fragging the extremists on her own side.
Unless...of course...you aren't really on our side...because...after all...you're really just another variant of communist.
Speaking of women and economics:
Women: Know Your Limits
Literally gold.
I have dropped it, as Nate proved that von Mises had no problem with taxation. So I now see no issue with him making his money from taxes (whatever percentage it might have been). He's in the same boat I see Ron Paul in.
I'm glad that's all cleared up.
"Women: Know Your Limits"
Know when to change lines when it's obvious you don't meet the height requirements.
@Guitar Man
+1
You're the moderate who's fragging the extremists on her own side.
Unless...of course...you aren't really on our side...because...after all...you're really just another variant of communist.
I'm a moderate and really just another variant of communist? How can I "frag my own side" when I've stated clearly that I'm not on the side of Mises and Rothbard?
I would probably be considered an extremist by SJWs because I think there should be laws against immigration, forced integration, female careerism, divorce, etc. Which means I'm certainly not remotely a libertarian. Libertarians always call people who aren't on their side "collectivists". I did it too back in the day. It doesn't phase me.
I'm certain Military Intel and probably the CIA, although who the hell knows for sure, never doubted for a second that this was a communist inspired revolution with totalitarian communist rule as the end game. We understood exactly what they were doing, in regards to "other" nationalistic movements within the NLF umbrella. Whenever I talk about Tet I'm told over and over by everyone who can read that in fact Tet was a great defeat for the NLF. False reality... but only once you understand that the Guerrilla forces under command of the NLF were used as assault troops and there destruction by the US/Viet forces in fact strengthened the control of the North Viet communist party who came out of it solidly in control with no real opposition from the NLF and hardly any losses at all were sustained by the NVA. As with most of America the group that couldn't get their mind around the mechanization's of the NVCP was the press. In fact a lot of people connected to the NLF worked for the US press in particular and they were shocked at the loss of friends (who the press regarded as nationalists, not communists). At the end of the day manipulating the press is easy.
I'm a moderate and really just another variant of communist?
Yes.
How can I "frag my own side" when I've stated clearly that I'm not on the side of Mises and Rothbard?
Well you claimed to be on the side of civilization, which is our side, and also Mises's and Rothbard's side. So by saying things like:
Yes, a Christian-hating Jew is just the person I was hoping to hear from in this type of conversation!
And
Yes, these types (Mises, Rothbard) are not going to help rebuild Christendom. It certainly does disqualify them from giving us gentiles advice on how to improve our societies,
What you're doing is trying to police our side.
I don't see them on the side of civilization, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I don't see them on the side of civilization, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
That's cute.
Last word freak.
"I don't see them on the side of civilization, so we'll just have to agree to disagree."
Then you have no idea what the word civilization means.
The blithering ignorance about the Intellectual history of the modern world and communism is apparent here on this blog when I mentioned the Renaissance.
In the Renaissance two things were resurrected that were long dead in the Middle Ages and one new thing was created. The two resurrected items was Epicurus/Lucretius stream of thought which is the rise of Atheism and the Hermetic Tradition. The New thing that was created was the Kabbala which was created de nuovo in the 13th century AD. In the Renaissance the lie began that the Kabbala and the Hermetic tradition was older than Plato.
What the Hermetic Tradition and the Kabbala do is resurrect universalism of Stoicism with the universalism of Jewish Messianism together. Along with Machiavelli's redefinition of the term republic as "any government without a king", all formed the basic intellectual basis for the rise of Communism. Modern republicanism was the vehicle for communism. Universalism is the "why" in the anti-racism agenda.
Machiavelli, Giordano Bruno, Marsillo Ficino, Giovanni Pico della Mirondola and others were all Hermetists, Kabbalists or Atheists or both or all. Mirondola launched humanism. Bruno Launched Freemasonry and Rosicrusianism, eastern syncretism. Ficino and Mirondola and Bruno were all succored and mentored by Jews.
Jews instigated the Protestant rebellions, created the Kabbala, and spread their messianistic utopia ideas throughout Europe.
In the Renaissance began the deconstruction of Christendom and the conversion of the West to Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevism. Political Correctness is nothing but Jewish ideology, Cultural Marxism if you will.
Again, Nate, we'll agree to disagree. I don't find the libertarian position on civilization convincing in the slightest degree. You can continue finding my own opinion unconvincing. We're clearly not on the same side. It's no big deal.
Wheeler, wasn't the renaissance about rediscovering the works of the ancient Greeks and Romans?
If so, according to your theory, the root cause for communism is Greek philosophy.
I don't find the libertarian position on civilization convincing in the slightest degree.
What's the libertarian position on civilization?
Corvinus: "Not sure where the Renaissance bit came from. I blame German "Enlightenment" philosophy, personally."
I blame the time traveling Spartans of Michigan State.
Josh, truly you have a dizzying intellect.
What's the libertarian position on civilization?
That individual freedom is the highest good.
I blame the time traveling Spartans of Michigan State.
Well, given that Tom Izzo is a wizard, that's not implausible.
We're clearly not on the same side. It's no big deal
Well, the shooting hasn't started yet. ;-)
Rothbard was a jew.
All jews are neocons.
Rothbard was a neocon.
Josh: "What you're doing is trying to police our side."
No, what you're doing is trying to police a side consisting of anyone who is for civilization.
Rothbard was a jew.
All jews are neocons.
Rothbard was a neocon.
I assume your trolling, but this is just ridiculous.
What the majority of SJWs seem to forget from history is that when the revolutionaries finally come into power, the first ones to be purged are the useful idiots.
"People think Communism is gone, and that the SJW's just magically and randomly appeared. They're wrong".
It was planted in the ground and came up as a watermelon enviro green on the outside, commie red on the inside.
"The "if you don't abide by my rules, it's time to die" canard is silly, because most crimes don't result in the death penalty."
People used to think I was just being a contrarian when I said "I can get married in NYC but if I share a 20oz soda with a consenting adult nanny Bloomer's jack booted storm troopers would stomp my head" until they killed a man for selling untaxed cigs.
"among any two Jews there will be three opinions."
For some reason all gay Jews fear Bibi more than they do savage moslems.
One place I was at, the infection control nurse with nothing better to do was going around pestering people to be mentors for children. When she got to me I said "sorry I can't I am gay". She talked bad about the small minded bigots and didn't want to give up on foisting some child onto my lap. She even said she could probably get me a gay or lesbian kid to which I said" that might be a good idea, most gays are told to just be victims instead of defending themselves and my cousin teaches the NRA's Eddie the Eagle gun course for kids." she ran away faster than I could say small minded bigot.
"I assume your trolling, but this is just ridiculous."
Such butthurt. Are you a jew?
"Again, Nate, we'll agree to disagree."
No. We won't.
I'm basically going to destroy your position. Because your position is simply wrong. What you think you know about libertarianism is wrong.. Just like what you thought you know about Mises is wrong.
Now I'll ask... Define Civilization.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home