Doer
Well-Known Member
You understand that approx. most of the women in this county don't feel they are being attacked like this. Those laws are voted in by we the People. Wimmins, also.
Union extortion now illegal in Michigan
- Thread starter desert dude
- Start date
You understand that approx. most of the women in this county don't feel they are being attacked like this. Those laws are voted in by we the People. Wimmins, also.
canndo
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Doer
Well-Known Member
And there are no women that vote these folks in? And there are no women in the State Legislatures? No women conservatives? No women big political contributors? We only get what we care about. We hear exactly what we want to hear and disregard the rest. (Paul Simon)
The Political theories are about how best to not create the hungry Mob, as I see it. The rest of the detail, the issues/opinions are created to push for the desired results out of the vote for Representation. Party Politics. Old saying here is, don't believe your own bullshit. Issue voters are the ones to swallow it.
You see how quickly this stuff is taken up and then ignored? I see that as the way, we can't remember what happened, exactly. It is a system of Law, run by Lawyers. The parsing of words is the edge of the sword. We the people get the opinions. The Butt of the sword.
So, of course, Women are represented. They are mostly not at all shrill about this so called, attack on women. About 1/2 the women are conservative or independent. 80% of women attend church if they are married.
This group, may see it, by and large as a red herring, a false trail, if not an actual attempt to control reproduction by claiming it is a war to protect women. A ruse and the real danger. It is a matter of view point and more or less equally divided.
Quoting talking head, idiots from either, so called side, misses the point. All these opinions are just a way to manipulate the vote. One side is doing pretty good, right now. I applaud them. But, I don't take any of it whole cloth. And I don't take sides, like cows on a fence. Moo.
There is no, us and them, problem here, I will state. It is all us. That's a problem. That is the grand experiment in federated democracy.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
if you re-frame "class struggle" to "any conflict or disagreement" then your right, all conflicts between people and nations are "class struggle". but that makes "class struggle" as a classification of conflict.
stalin, mao, marx, lenon, trotsky, mussolini, hitler, pol pot, castro, guverra, idi amin, kim il sung, kohmeni, and all the rest of the Bolshevik Bunch used the dogwhistle of "class struggle" to convince their dupes to take up their red banners and hurl their bodies at the barricades, and when the dust settled, all that changed was the titles of the ruling class. instead of aristocracies and capitalists, the proles were left to the tender mercies of "the party" " the revolutionary islamic council of experts" and the "Dear Leader". not a class struggle, a revolution (in the Full Circle, nothing changes but the players sense)
britain and france were engaged in conflict over territory, resources and thrones, the peasants and yeomanry were used as pawns, but the "struggle" was contained within the single aristocratic "class" while the peasants and commoners were mobilized by loyalty, nationalism and their faith in the divine right of Their King to dominate the other guy's less divinely illuminated overlord. again no "class struggle", only a conflict between members of the same interrelated ruling class.
Catholicism dominated the entire western world for centuries by making themselves the kingmakers, and king breakers,, but the catholic bishops cardinals and popes were all drawn from the same aristocratic class. catholicism was designed to be "The One Ring To Rule Them All", not a proponent of any "class struggle". in fact catholic dogma up till the start of the 20th century was all about knowing your place, and "giving boon service to your liege lord". not a drop of "class struggle", in fact catholicism is the stalwart advocate of class stratification.
Somalia is in turmoil because they have NOTHING any possible stabilizing power could possibly want. they are literal Anarchists trapped in the Anarcho-Shoot-You-In-The-Faceism of real and persistent Anarchy. your "colonialist" commentary only holds true between 1884 and 1969, when the land was a fascist colony (for no their reason then "you gotta have colonies...") which was available for taking by mussolini (socialist, marxist, Anarcho-Faux-Historianist and contemporary of marx and engles) because it had NOTHING anyone wanted, and remained free by virtue of being essentially valueless save as a source of victims for the arab/ottoman slave trade. winning ww1 and ww2 placed britain in the unfortunate position of having to administer this parched and unappealing piece of dirt till they finally found an excuse to push it out the door and into "freedom" under a democratically elected government in 1960.
Somalia then destabilized itself with an abortive islamic/marxist popular uprising in 1969, which was not as popular as advertised. this "glorious revolution" was pushed not by western and european EVIL, but by libya and syria, so they were the good kind of marxist despots. the recently formed constitutional democracy was thrown down, but "The Supreme Revolutionary Party" forgot to read marx's book thoroughly. they were unable to properly "De-Radicalize" the people to force them to accept their good fortune of socialist rule, and they overthrew the military hunta after only 22 years of glorious socialist worker's paradise. 1990 was the beginning of the Anarcho-Paradise so widely praised today, but this Anarcho-Revolution was also not caused by evil western and euopean powers, but by famine, inflation and the high price of Khat. (a locally popular addictive narcotic supplied by kenya. conspiracy theorists, sharpen your pencils...) no western power (or asiatic or arab or even african power) wants somalia, so they get to settle shit themselves, through the traditional means used by Anarcho-Societies through history. they're gonna scuffle till one dog winds up on top, and he gets to be "king" still no "class struggle", just struggle.
rome and carthage fought over the centrally located and strategically vital island of sicily, which happed to be the biggest producer of wheat in the world at the time. again, no "class struggle". it was a war over WHEAT, resulting in a butthurt feud from which only one city-state empire could survive.
class struggle my ass.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
One group of slave owners fights another group of slave owners and class struggle has nothing to do with it. Cool.
Bolshevik bunch? I mean it is kind of funny, in the context of appealing to the common stupidity and lack of historical understanding that people who likely agree with you have, but you must know how far from reality you are when you bunch that entire lot into one category. You're the one reaching as hard as you can to find examples of organized conflict that don't perfectly fit the description of class struggle. As I said, contrived to mask, or symptoms of, class struggle. Why would an empire need wheat if they weren't planning to enslave the lowest class and feed an army that they could use to assert dominance over more territory for more resources? More people to dominate too.
Hierarchy IS class struggle. Unless of course, you're not struggling against it, because you worship your master.
Bolshevik bunch? I mean it is kind of funny, in the context of appealing to the common stupidity and lack of historical understanding that people who likely agree with you have, but you must know how far from reality you are when you bunch that entire lot into one category. You're the one reaching as hard as you can to find examples of organized conflict that don't perfectly fit the description of class struggle. As I said, contrived to mask, or symptoms of, class struggle. Why would an empire need wheat if they weren't planning to enslave the lowest class and feed an army that they could use to assert dominance over more territory for more resources? More people to dominate too.
Hierarchy IS class struggle. Unless of course, you're not struggling against it, because you worship your master.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
"long ago" being 1913, to be specific.
when the "Money Trust" created the "Federal Reserve Act" in secret on jekyll island in georgia for the express purpose of making the 4 richest bankers in the world, richer.
and before the usual suspects start creaming about jewish bankers dominating the world, and their equally charming "Thats Antisemitism" opposite numbers start accusing me of being anti-jew, only ONE of the 4 banks at the secret meeting was a jewish institution.
Rothschild bankin cartel: Jewish
Wharburg Banking Cartel: German, and decidedly NOT jewish
J.P Morgan: Not Jewish
Nelson Aldrich, US senator and Big Money Billionaire: NOT JEWISH.
together these assholes controlled about 25% of the world's wealth (THE WORLD! not just america!) now, who knows how much they control through their shell corporations and subsidiaries worldwide.
and they dont even want power. they just want money. the control is just to keep the music playing in their big stakes no-limit game of musical chairs.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Bolshevik Bunch: the various and sundry adherents of the tenets of Marx and Engles, who by their actions, mimic the early successes and ultimate failure of the bolshevik revolution in russia. even if they deny being marxists due to the current un-popular status of marxism, if you use marx's playbook for marx's stated aims, youre a marxist. shouting "Nuhh Uhh!!" doesnt change the facts.
rome and carthage wanted sicily to feed their POPULATIONS not armies. rome was a city-state with no desire for empire at the time, they colonized the previously empty island to grow wheat for rome, not to feed rome's legions (of which there were none at the time)
carthage was situated in a desert with highly unreliable rainfall and no source of fresh water suitable for large scale irrigation (north africa is not well known for it's agricultural output...)
neither city had dreams of empire, both pursued resources for their CITY not for dominance over other peoples. both these empires were born of need not greed.
perhaps the "class struggle" you refer was Hector Vs Achilles in the Thrilliad.
though how a war between greek city-states over a broad classifies as "class struggle" escapes me, as im sure it does the millions AAANND MIIIILLIONS of Achilles' fans.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Fact: pretending youre not a marxist doesnt make you any less of a Marxist, as MOST Marxists deny their Marxism at various points in their Glorious Revolutionary Heroic Epics, like Fidel "I'm Not A Marxist" Castro.
Those who forget to hide their Marxism usually wind up dead, like Leonid "Left Ear" Trotsky or Che "Fidel Promised the Bolvians Dont Know We're Coming" Guevara.
I'm sure the PRI Ruling Party would not take kindly to Zapatista rebels, even if they have US Passports, so hiding your Marxism is essential. Dont Worry Comrade! I wouldnt tell the PRI if their cocaine caches were on fire.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Please no quote rewriting. cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;-eSN8Cwit_s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eSN8Cwit_s[/video]
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Youre no fun!
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You know, if I agreed with all of Marx's ideas, I would not hesitate to quote him and argue accordingly and I'm tempted to do it, just to piss you off, but a real Marxist will likely come along and point out how many ways my Libertarian Socialist and Anarchosyndicalist ideas differ. Since you're only recourse is to paint me as a Marxist, out of fear that i will turn sheeple away from Rand, you have lost the debate. You do this in every thread when I destroy your arguments.
When all else fails, just repeat "YOU'RE A MARXIST!" until the previous argument is forgotten.
I give you some credit though, it isn't quite "you're gay, I win".
When all else fails, just repeat "YOU'RE A MARXIST!" until the previous argument is forgotten.
I give you some credit though, it isn't quite "you're gay, I win".
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Just because I use words that have been deemed as Marxist buzzwords, does not mean I agree with state socialism. That would be like saying that if you drink coffee, you're homosexual, since a lot of homosexuals like coffee. Using words like bourgeois, proletariat, capitalism, greed, and a general concern for the well being of the lower class, is not indicative of Soviet loyalty.
This highlights a tactic employed by fascists to subvert the United States. It is no longer taboo to have left wing political views.
This highlights a tactic employed by fascists to subvert the United States. It is no longer taboo to have left wing political views.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
even marx didnt agree with all of marx's ideas. the framework of the communist manifesto was never intended to be a statement of fact, only of ideals. The closest to a "True Believer" Marxism ever had was leonid trostcky and vlaadimir lenin, both of whom were targets of bolshevik assassination attempts (with varying degrees of success)
no marxist can ever espouse the entire manifesto, since much of it is simply unworkable, unrealistic utopianism. practical marxism runs the gamut from completely benign communist purists living in ashrams, kibbutzes and communes, to the ultra-nationaaislt prison colonies of north korea and cuba.
Marxism is out of favour due to the despotism endorsed as the middle-ground of the revolutionary process under the tenets of socialism, not for the harmless communism and utopian smurf village style caring and sharing vision of the worker's paradise.
being a marxist isnt evil, but marxism sure does make the evil pop up like mushrooms after the rain. those mushrooms poison the believers and the opponents alike.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The trouble is, Abandon, that "proletariat" and "class struggle" really are seen to be words specific to Marxism and, to an only slightly lesser extent, Leninism. There are serviceable synonyms that aren't thus tainted. Your willingness to stay with the ones that do have the cultural baggage suggests that you like that baggage to remain together as the whole set. Fwiw. cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No, I just don't care. I choose my words to mean what I say, not to avoid offending fascists. I don't need untainted serviceable words, I need the right words. The reason those words have cultural baggage, is because the culture has baggage. It isn't like I'm using ebonics.
*add* I hope I don't sound like I am unappreciative of your attempt to help me understand where Kynes is coming from though. I reject the stupidity whether an entire culture is stupid along with him or he is alone. That is the beauty of fearless nonconformity in the face of cultural baggage.
By the way, "cultural baggage" is a wonderful phrase.
Similar threads
