The Far Left

Steven Murphy2, I honestly don't think the liberal model is even aiming for that kind of equality—it’s more about individualism... the end game is clearly the neoliberal model (zero state involvement, though maybe that's being a bit extra for now, or perhaps it's just because of how much influence you right-wingers or those leftists have.)

Thomas Nelson25 said:Steven Murphy2, I honestly don't think the liberal model is even aiming for that kind of equality—it’s more about individualism... the end game is clearly the neoliberal model (zero state involvement, though maybe that's being a bit extra for now, or perhaps it's just because of how much influence you right-wingers or those leftists have.)

Look, individualism is built on faith. Sure, having an individual opinion is fine—we aren't all carbon copies, obviously—but "individual politics"? That's a myth. We moved past primitive living ages ago, and even back then, there was no such thing as individualism; resources were shared within the family unit. This whole neoliberal model is basically just a way for people to pretend they’re great philosophers when, in reality, they can't get anything done. I mean, seriously, how many actual capitalists are out here championing the neoliberal model and bashing the state? Big Capital sure isn't doing it. And those Masons who make up the liberal elite—you know, the ones supposedly fixing the world's problems like Hanžeković explained—they're just working to keep the system running. When they go off to fight wars in Afghanistan or Syria, do they actually believe in "equal opportunity"? Because let's be real, it doesn't exist. Are their actions actually promoting individualism? As far as I can tell, they're just creating more collectives—you've got the current system, then you've got the opposition like ISIS, and then a third force like the push for borders. You could use libertarianism to attack immigration since that's a state policy—using their own weapons against them—or you could use it against Communism, because that explains how capital is formed, though it usually just boils down to claiming what we have isn't liberalism but socialism by hinting at Communism. But if you ask me, Communism is just the inevitable byproduct of democracy and equality (which is easy to prove once you realize equal opportunity is a fairy tale). Communism is the final stage of this drive toward equality and democracy that ends up screwing over the American worker. It turns out liberals just lied to themselves with this obsession with equality, and now we're stuck with cultural chaos because those egalitarian "equal chances" they brag about are total bunk. I see what they're aiming for, but the state exists for the reasons I just laid out. We had families built on social principles (not Communist stuff where everyone gets everything), we had tribes, we developed nations and states as groups, and all of it was fueled by individual interests too. Honestly, it would be better if liberals actually integrated the natural sciences and hard laws into their theories, alongside humanistic sciences like economics. Everything is explained there! And birth rates? They play the biggest role in both the economy and society. If someone capable of having more kids doesn't care about it while simultaneously letting in people from high-growth populations, those newcomers are going to overwrite the existing culture and wreck the economy. Since companies need workers, the state is absolutely necessary to step in—to take earnings away from some negligent heir and redistribute them through subsidies to those who will actually preserve our current culture. We've got over 200 multi-millionaires floating around while our birth rate is tanking, which means our workforce is shrinking. Then you hear all this whining about "we can't find workers"—yeah, no kidding, none of those 200-some-odd rich guys are actually providing what the market needs, lol.

Steven Murphy2 said:Do Nazis actually believe in equality of outcome? 😁 Not even close. They value the individual, even within their own race. Look, if you’ve got capital but you aren't following pro-natalist policies—say, you decide to just blow all your inheritance money on nonsense instead of building a family—the state isn't going to let that slide; they'll lower taxes for some and hike them for others. And if it's the other way around? Well, then you're looking at selection processes, which ultimately means banning the "worst" from breeding. The whole goal of the Nazi Party was to create ubermenschen. Equality of outcome would mean forcing the so-called untermensch to compete on equal footing with the best—like making the sick compete with the healthy, or the bad worker with the good one, or the failing student with the genius—which would totally wreck their entire blueprint.

Classical liberals—the ones who actually give a damn about freedom—believe in equality of opportunity through equality before the law, not equality of outcome forced by a regime. That’s why they are fundamentally different from those socialist variants mentioned earlier.

Let's be real: the kid of a millionaire and the kid of a pauper don't have equal opportunities. Because of that, liberalism—with its obsession with "equal opportunity"—starts looking a lot like Communism. Why? Because Communists argue that if an heir hasn't actually worked for their wealth, they shouldn't inherit it; they claim it's inherently unfair that someone gets such a massive head start compared to someone starting from zero. And honestly? The Communists are right when they say true equality of opportunity comes down to economics. This liberal push for equality is basically a slippery slope straight into Communism. Now, the Nazis didn't see anything wrong with unequal opportunities, provided the heir was working for the good of the nation. Unequal opportunity is just how nature works, and through selection, it creates a better society based on racial philosophy. Mind you, they didn't invent this; they just adopted it. Eugenics only became a dirty word because the cultural Left took over, launching these unhinged, purely emotional attacks against its proponents. From that, they manufactured a "new science" that uses laws and media to shut down any debate, because it's way too easy to just slap the "Nazi" label on anyone and call it a day.

Even the Nazis believed in equality before the law, because breaking that rule would mean the entire social order would just collapse.

You can't run a state without some form of socialism. States exist for a reason—because humans wanted to rise above small, primitive tribes. Just because Germany had a labor right wing that wasn't "politically correct" doesn't mean we should go copying them. There's this fear of conservative workers—who are usually the majority—that exists among both conservatives and self-proclaimed progressives, mostly because they're terrified that a truly conservative labor movement would actually fight for what workers need. Hitler rose to power because the German conservatives were so narrow-minded; even the people who wanted change couldn't convince their conservative buddies that change was necessary. The shifts coming to the world will be driven by American workers, and it's up to them to position themselves so they don't get screwed over by big capital. This whole topic is basically a case study for how to reorganize things after major shifts in Europe. Conservatives who try to act like liberals already failed the test back in Germany when there wasn't even an immigration issue; they can't afford to make that mistake again if they actually want to avoid totalitarianism.

Everything you just laid out is basically just an attempt to force equality of outcome via socialist redistribution of wealth on a massive scale. They weren't claiming to be "friends of the working class" for nothing!

A millionaire's kid and a poor kid don't have the same opportunities.

Oh, of course they do!

In that sense, liberalism—with its obsession over equal opportunity—ends up looking just like communism because communists argue that if an heir hasn't actually worked for their money, they shouldn't inherit the capital, since it's "unfair" for them to have such a head start compared to someone inheriting nothing.

Wait, what kind of liberalism are we even talking about here? A classical liberal recognizes there are differences, sure, but their whole thing is about possibilities and equality of opportunity. In the capitalist West, most of the people sitting in that top 1% today aren't going to be there in ten years, and they weren't there ten years ago either. That's economic mobility right there! A wealthy person can blow their entire fortune in a heartbeat, and a person starting from nothing can work hard, invent something, or provide a service people want and strike it rich. Economic mobility is the holy grail for individualists and free-market advocates. It has absolutely zero to do with Marxist fairy tales or "communism."

Communists are right when they say equal opportunity comes from the economy. The liberal pursuit of equality leads straight to communism.

.
?!?
What kind of communism are you talking about, for heaven's sake?! Communism is a collective ideology—unless you're talking about the nonsense peddled by Marx and Engels, who honestly thought they could build a society where everyone is simultaneously a fisherman, a poet, and a painter all in one day. Just pure romantic daydreaming from third-rate ideologues.

The Nazis see nothing wrong with unequal opportunities as long as the heir is working for the good of the nation.

So, look—you gotta follow the central plan if you're playing by the rules of any socialist system. Period.

Nature is what created unequal opportunities in the first place! And through selection, it builds a better society based on natural philosophy. We should be clear that this isn't some new invention—it was already there—but eugenics turned into a dirty word because the cultural left took over, launching these totally unhinged emotional attacks against its supporters. Because of that, they manufactured a whole new "science" that uses laws and the media to shut down any debate; if you even try to talk about it, they just slap the "Nazi" label on you and boom—conversation over.

.
Exactly! That’s why the only move we have left is to establish a legal system where every single individual is treated equally, and then just let the market competition play out among the players.

Even the Nazis believed in equality before the law, because breaking that rule means the whole order just falls apart.

Sure, equality before the law applies—as long as you aren't an undesirable, a Jew, a Romani, or whatever else. Basically, it's just "identity politics," which is the favorite little trick of today's leftists.

You can't organize a state without socialism; states exist because humans wanted to rise above just being small, primitive tribes. Just because Germany had a working-class right wing that wasn't politically correct doesn't mean we should all start imitating them. This fear of conservative workers—who actually make up the majority—exists among both conservatives and those self-proclaimed progressives, mostly because they're terrified that true working-class conservatism would actually fight for the interests of the workers. Hitler rose to power because the German conservatives had such a narrow view of the world—even the ones who wanted change couldn't convince their conservative buddies that change was absolutely necessary. The shifts happening in the world will be driven by European workers, and it's up to them to position themselves so they don't get played by big capital. This whole topic is really just one example of how to reorganize things after the massive changes coming to Europe. Conservatives who want to act like liberals already failed the test once back in Germany when there weren't even immigrants around; they can't afford to make that mistake again if they actually want to avoid totalitarianism.

But let's be real: the Nazi Party grabbed its power by abusing massive state authority at the expense of citizens' freedoms and rights, and it was their specific flavor of socialist philosophy and social engineering that made it possible. And it's not just them—every single socialist mess turns into a totalitarian nightmare because you need a massive, overbearing state to pull off the kind of type of engineering those central planners dream up.

The kid of a millionaire and the kid of a pauper just don't have the same shot at life.

Man, this is actually pretty interesting! I mean—obviously they don't have the same opportunities. It’s like you and LeBron James, right? He’s this massive African American icon born and raised in the States, and let's be real—you aren't him! You don't have the same breaks that someone like Drew Barrymore or Angelina Jolie had, coming from families deep inside the Hollywood elite. On the flip side, you don't even have the "opportunities" of some Indian pauper born into total destitution, sitting there typing on a gadget that could probably feed those poor folks for an entire year. At the end of the day, what matters is that nobody gets special treatment under the law—that every single individual is equal. That's really the only thing we can actually level out.

There is absolutely nothing weird or unnatural about this. Inequality is part of nature—it's actually desirable! We shouldn't try to fix it, no matter how much force we throw at it. There will always be people who are hardworking and frugal, and then there'll be the smart ones, the big spenders, the responsible types, and yeah, the complete idiots—all of them exist so that even if we tried to redistribute everything equally tomorrow, by the day after, the inequalities would all be back again.

Here is what I want to know: if I’m being smart, saving my money and investing wisely just so I can give my kid a smoother ride in life, where on earth do you get the right to come along and forcibly snatch that away from me just to hand it to some other kid whose dad didn't bother to save or invest a dime?

That is the absolute heart of the whole argument.

Steven Murphy2 said:Look, individualism is built on faith. Sure, having an individual opinion is fine—we aren't all carbon copies, obviously—but "individual politics"? That's a myth. We moved past primitive living ages ago, and even back then, there was no such thing as individualism; resources were shared within the family unit. This whole neoliberal model is basically just a way for people to pretend they’re great philosophers when, in reality, they can't get anything done. I mean, seriously, how many actual capitalists are out here championing the neoliberal model and bashing the state? Big Capital sure isn't doing it. And those Masons who make up the liberal elite—you know, the ones supposedly fixing the world's problems like Hanžeković explained—they're just working to keep the system running. When they go off to fight wars in Afghanistan or Syria, do they actually believe in "equal opportunity"? Because let's be real, it doesn't exist. Are their actions actually promoting individualism? As far as I can tell, they're just creating more collectives—you've got the current system, then you've got the opposition like ISIS, and then a third force like the push for borders. You could use libertarianism to attack immigration since that's a state policy—using their own weapons against them—or you could use it against Communism, because that explains how capital is formed, though it usually just boils down to claiming what we have isn't liberalism but socialism by hinting at Communism. But if you ask me, Communism is just the inevitable byproduct of democracy and equality (which is easy to prove once you realize equal opportunity is a fairy tale). Communism is the final stage of this drive toward equality and democracy that ends up screwing over the American worker. It turns out liberals just lied to themselves with this obsession with equality, and now we're stuck with cultural chaos because those egalitarian "equal chances" they brag about are total bunk. I see what they're aiming for, but the state exists for the reasons I just laid out. We had families built on social principles (not Communist stuff where everyone gets everything), we had tribes, we developed nations and states as groups, and all of it was fueled by individual interests too. Honestly, it would be better if liberals actually integrated the natural sciences and hard laws into their theories, alongside humanistic sciences like economics. Everything is explained there! And birth rates? They play the biggest role in both the economy and society. If someone capable of having more kids doesn't care about it while simultaneously letting in people from high-growth populations, those newcomers are going to overwrite the existing culture and wreck the economy. Since companies need workers, the state is absolutely necessary to step in—to take earnings away from some negligent heir and redistribute them through subsidies to those who will actually preserve our current culture. We've got over 200 multi-millionaires floating around while our birth rate is tanking, which means our workforce is shrinking. Then you hear all this whining about "we can't find workers"—yeah, no kidding, none of those 200-some-odd rich guys are actually providing what the market needs, lol.

Didn't the liberals basically invent the natural sciences? (basically sidelining religion where it belongs, right?) And when it comes to ethics, they're definitely the most "humanitarian"—if you follow that logic of "teach them how to fish whenever possible."
I get what you're getting at, but the whole "tribe" concept doesn't really cut it anymore—it's not even a military force these days. Nowadays, it's all about education, specialization, creativity, skills... information.
Those are the individual comparative advantages you have to recognize and leverage in the market to make a profit. You could say individuality is the capital of today, and it'll be even more so tomorrow, especially as production shifts toward goods and services tailored specifically to whatever the customer wants.
Even with all that, unemployment is still gonna be a thing, and that's a real challenge ahead. (Some countries are already moving toward providing benefits, but that requires a wealthy state)

In your scenario, you've basically got a collective corporation called "the state," where the goal is just raw numbers and a culturally pure nation in terms of ideas—kind of like socialism... though it really makes you wonder what a "nation" even is anymore... and whose interests is it actually serving?

crimsonwolf20 said:

The kid of a millionaire and the kid of a pauper just don't have the same shot at life.

Man, this is actually pretty interesting! I mean—obviously they don't have the same opportunities. It’s like you and LeBron James, right? He’s this massive African American icon born and raised in the States, and let's be real—you aren't him! You don't have the same breaks that someone like Drew Barrymore or Angelina Jolie had, coming from families deep inside the Hollywood elite. On the flip side, you don't even have the "opportunities" of some Indian pauper born into total destitution, sitting there typing on a gadget that could probably feed those poor folks for an entire year. At the end of the day, what matters is that nobody gets special treatment under the law—that every single individual is equal. That's really the only thing we can actually level out.

There is absolutely nothing weird or unnatural about this. Inequality is part of nature—it's actually desirable! We shouldn't try to fix it, no matter how much force we throw at it. There will always be people who are hardworking and frugal, and then there'll be the smart ones, the big spenders, the responsible types, and yeah, the complete idiots—all of them exist so that even if we tried to redistribute everything equally tomorrow, by the day after, the inequalities would all be back again.

Here is what I want to know: if I’m being smart, saving my money and investing wisely just so I can give my kid a smoother ride in life, where on earth do you get the right to come along and forcibly snatch that away from me just to hand it to some other kid whose dad didn't bother to save or invest a dime?

That is the absolute heart of the whole argument.

Why? Well, the answer is pretty straightforward—if you want your own life to be more comfortable and secure within the society you live in (not to mention the fact that capitalism basically needs a solid middle class to actually buy things), then it’s in everyone's interest to organize things so that the poor and those struggling aren't left feeling so destitute that they feel like they're hitting rock bottom.
Because when too many people feel like they don't stand a chance at a second or third act in life, things usually don't end well—for them, or for public safety.

I don't even know where to start with this one—honestly, my head is spinning just thinking about it. You see these things happening and you just have to wonder... is anyone actually paying attention? Is anybody else seeing the patterns here, or am I just shouting into the void? It’s like we’re living through some kind of slow-motion train wreck and everyone is just sitting there, sipping their lattes, acting like everything is totally normal. It's not normal! And don't even get me started on the way people react when you try to point out the obvious. You bring up a valid point—a real, grounded observation—and suddenly you're the crazy one. The "outlier." Give me a break. It’s the same old story every single time. They want us to stay in our little boxes, follow the script, and never, ever ask why the script was written in the first place. Why is that? Why is there such a massive push to keep everyone quiet and compliant? It’s frustrating, man. It really is. You look at the big picture—the actual, messy, complicated reality of how things work—and it’s nothing like what they feed us on the nightly news. It’s all sanitized, polished, and completely disconnected from the grit and grime of real life. We’re being fed a diet of pure nonsense while the real issues are swept under the rug. How long can people keep ignoring the elephant in the room before someone finally trips over it? I mean, seriously.

crimsonwolf20 said:

The kid of a millionaire and the kid of a pauper just don't have the same shot at life.

Man, this is actually pretty interesting! I mean—obviously they don't have the same opportunities. It’s like you and LeBron James, right? He’s this massive African American icon born and raised in the States, and let's be real—you aren't him! You don't have the same breaks that someone like Drew Barrymore or Angelina Jolie had, coming from families deep inside the Hollywood elite. On the flip side, you don't even have the "opportunities" of some Indian pauper born into total destitution, sitting there typing on a gadget that could probably feed those poor folks for an entire year. At the end of the day, what matters is that nobody gets special treatment under the law—that every single individual is equal. That's really the only thing we can actually level out.

There is absolutely nothing weird or unnatural about this. Inequality is part of nature—it's actually desirable! We shouldn't try to fix it, no matter how much force we throw at it. There will always be people who are hardworking and frugal, and then there'll be the smart ones, the big spenders, the responsible types, and yeah, the complete idiots—all of them exist so that even if we tried to redistribute everything equally tomorrow, by the day after, the inequalities would all be back again.

Here is what I want to know: if I’m being smart, saving my money and investing wisely just so I can give my kid a smoother ride in life, where on earth do you get the right to come along and forcibly snatch that away from me just to hand it to some other kid whose dad didn't bother to save or invest a dime?

That is the absolute heart of the whole argument.

The real question here is just how comfortable you can be relative to what? I mean, does it all boil down to leaving your kid some massive inheritance—like a company that pays peanuts while they’re out there blowing through cash at casinos and flying around on private jets? If you look at it from a purely economic or some kind of fairy-tale humanist perspective, sure, the market dictates everything. But if you look at it from a natural, raw standpoint? It’s an invitation for a revolt. In our neck of the woods, we aren't talking about some pampered European uprising—we're looking at the non-Western proletariat. I spend way too much time scrolling through Facebook feeds, and honestly, the articles they push show that these types of workers are way more combative; they’re the ones cutting the wires whenever they get the chance. They aren't just more aggressive, though—they have a completely different culture altogether. See, the liberal lives this cozy, insulated life, totally detached from reality, having no clue what's actually happening in the streets around them. They’ll go off to fight wars "for democracy" in the name of individual equality, even when you've got libertarians standing firmly against immigration. And let's be real—the official policy of the capitalist USA is the exact opposite of what those liberals claim to stand for. Like I was saying, if you look at the numbers—and you can find the official stats online, the people running these polls love categorizing voters like this—about 70% of Americans voted, which leaves a 30% non-Western demographic in the mix. People went for Trump because he wanted to build the wall and protect jobs against a low-income, non-Western class. But between the commitment to democracy and these ongoing population trends, we’re looking at a future where we either face a full-blown civil war or a total surrender in the name of "equality."

nimblemarlin6 I can't even begin to explain how much this gets under my skin—honestly, where do we even start? It’s like people just refuse to see what’s right in front of their faces, you know? They're all caught up in these little bubbles, ignoring the bigger picture entirely, and then they act shocked when things go sideways. Is anyone actually paying attention anymore? I mean, seriously! It’s the same old story every single time—people getting swept up in the hype, following the crowd without a second thought, and leaving the actual logic behind in the dust. It makes me want to scream sometimes, I swear. You'd think after everything we've seen, people would have learned a thing or two by now, but nope—back to square one. It's exhausting, really. Just... exhausting.
Why? Honestly, the answer is pretty damn simple—if you actually want to feel comfortable and secure in the society you live in (not to mention the fact that capitalism literally needs a solid middle class just to keep people buying stuff), then you’ve got to organize things so that the poor or folks with disabilities aren't left feeling like they're stuck at the absolute bottom of the barrel. It's just common sense, right?

It’s always going to be bottom-of-the-barrel trash. Just because people coming from some impoverished corner of the world are acting like total terrorists doesn't mean we should overhaul our entire system just to accommodate them—seriously, why would we even consider that? If we keep playing this game and letting things slide, the American working class is basically toast anyway... I mean, look at the numbers. We're losing our population fast if we stay on this path. It's a downward spiral, plain and simple.

Thomas Nelson25 said:Didn't the liberals basically invent the natural sciences? (basically sidelining religion where it belongs, right?) And when it comes to ethics, they're definitely the most "humanitarian"—if you follow that logic of "teach them how to fish whenever possible."
I get what you're getting at, but the whole "tribe" concept doesn't really cut it anymore—it's not even a military force these days. Nowadays, it's all about education, specialization, creativity, skills... information.
Those are the individual comparative advantages you have to recognize and leverage in the market to make a profit. You could say individuality is the capital of today, and it'll be even more so tomorrow, especially as production shifts toward goods and services tailored specifically to whatever the customer wants.
Even with all that, unemployment is still gonna be a thing, and that's a real challenge ahead. (Some countries are already moving toward providing benefits, but that requires a wealthy state)

In your scenario, you've basically got a collective corporation called "the state," where the goal is just raw numbers and a culturally pure nation in terms of ideas—kind of like socialism... though it really makes you wonder what a "nation" even is anymore... and whose interests is it actually serving?

Before World War II, you had all kinds of political science that would be considered totally "incorrect" by today's standards—stuff people wouldn't dare whisper about now. But once WWII wrapped up, everything shifted. Suddenly, anything that even smelled like a connection to the Nazi Party was tossed straight into the trash bin. They tried to scrub religion out of the equation entirely, too. But seriously, look at the sheer scale of things! I mean, the Pope heads what is arguably the most powerful organization on the planet. You see priests being called upon constantly. Even here in the States, look at how traditional values hold their ground in certain regions during major votes. At the end of the day, Christianity and liberalism are both built on these big egalitarian ideas. But here’s the kicker: liberalism completely turned its back on natural sciences. Because they rejected that, I honestly think we're headed for a massive cultural shockwave—sort of a Darwinian reckoning coming for us all. And don't even get me started on the Communists. They ditched Christianity just to try and pivot toward this weird, twisted version of "atheistic Christianity." It's all connected, isn't it?

In your little scenario, you’re basically treating the state like one giant collective corporation—where the whole goal is just sheer numbers and some "pure" national identity based on ideas, socialism... I mean, honestly, what even defines a nation anymore? If everything is driven by interests, whose interests are we actually talking about here?

Oh, please, we’ve got that exact setup right now. Look at the USA—it's the same thing. You have this collective corporate state dragging us into wars in the name of "democracy" and basically just snatching money straight out of people's paychecks 😁 That’s socialism if I ever saw it—go ahead, ask crimsonwolf20 about it. My point is, my scenario is about making sure we don't stumble blindly into another Dark Age fueled by either Islam or Christianity.

Steven Murphy2 said:I don't even know where to start with this one—honestly, my head is spinning just thinking about it. You see these things happening and you just have to wonder... is anyone actually paying attention? Is anybody else seeing the patterns here, or am I just shouting into the void? It’s like we’re living through some kind of slow-motion train wreck and everyone is just sitting there, sipping their lattes, acting like everything is totally normal. It's not normal! And don't even get me started on the way people react when you try to point out the obvious. You bring up a valid point—a real, grounded observation—and suddenly you're the crazy one. The "outlier." Give me a break. It’s the same old story every single time. They want us to stay in our little boxes, follow the script, and never, ever ask why the script was written in the first place. Why is that? Why is there such a massive push to keep everyone quiet and compliant? It’s frustrating, man. It really is. You look at the big picture—the actual, messy, complicated reality of how things work—and it’s nothing like what they feed us on the nightly news. It’s all sanitized, polished, and completely disconnected from the grit and grime of real life. We’re being fed a diet of pure nonsense while the real issues are swept under the rug. How long can people keep ignoring the elephant in the room before someone finally trips over it? I mean, seriously.

The real question here is just how comfortable you can be relative to what? I mean, does it all boil down to leaving your kid some massive inheritance—like a company that pays peanuts while they’re out there blowing through cash at casinos and flying around on private jets? If you look at it from a purely economic or some kind of fairy-tale humanist perspective, sure, the market dictates everything. But if you look at it from a natural, raw standpoint? It’s an invitation for a revolt. In our neck of the woods, we aren't talking about some pampered European uprising—we're looking at the non-Western proletariat. I spend way too much time scrolling through Facebook feeds, and honestly, the articles they push show that these types of workers are way more combative; they’re the ones cutting the wires whenever they get the chance. They aren't just more aggressive, though—they have a completely different culture altogether. See, the liberal lives this cozy, insulated life, totally detached from reality, having no clue what's actually happening in the streets around them. They’ll go off to fight wars "for democracy" in the name of individual equality, even when you've got libertarians standing firmly against immigration. And let's be real—the official policy of the capitalist USA is the exact opposite of what those liberals claim to stand for. Like I was saying, if you look at the numbers—and you can find the official stats online, the people running these polls love categorizing voters like this—about 70% of Americans voted, which leaves a 30% non-Western demographic in the mix. People went for Trump because he wanted to build the wall and protect jobs against a low-income, non-Western class. But between the commitment to democracy and these ongoing population trends, we’re looking at a future where we either face a full-blown civil war or a total surrender in the name of "equality."

nimblemarlin6 I can't even begin to explain how much this gets under my skin—honestly, where do we even start? It’s like people just refuse to see what’s right in front of their faces, you know? They're all caught up in these little bubbles, ignoring the bigger picture entirely, and then they act shocked when things go sideways. Is anyone actually paying attention anymore? I mean, seriously! It’s the same old story every single time—people getting swept up in the hype, following the crowd without a second thought, and leaving the actual logic behind in the dust. It makes me want to scream sometimes, I swear. You'd think after everything we've seen, people would have learned a thing or two by now, but nope—back to square one. It's exhausting, really. Just... exhausting.
Why? Honestly, the answer is pretty damn simple—if you actually want to feel comfortable and secure in the society you live in (not to mention the fact that capitalism literally needs a solid middle class just to keep people buying stuff), then you’ve got to organize things so that the poor or folks with disabilities aren't left feeling like they're stuck at the absolute bottom of the barrel. It's just common sense, right?

It’s always going to be bottom-of-the-barrel trash. Just because people coming from some impoverished corner of the world are acting like total terrorists doesn't mean we should overhaul our entire system just to accommodate them—seriously, why would we even consider that? If we keep playing this game and letting things slide, the American working class is basically toast anyway... I mean, look at the numbers. We're losing our population fast if we stay on this path. It's a downward spiral, plain and simple.

Before World War II, you had all kinds of political science that would be considered totally "incorrect" by today's standards—stuff people wouldn't dare whisper about now. But once WWII wrapped up, everything shifted. Suddenly, anything that even smelled like a connection to the Nazi Party was tossed straight into the trash bin. They tried to scrub religion out of the equation entirely, too. But seriously, look at the sheer scale of things! I mean, the Pope heads what is arguably the most powerful organization on the planet. You see priests being called upon constantly. Even here in the States, look at how traditional values hold their ground in certain regions during major votes. At the end of the day, Christianity and liberalism are both built on these big egalitarian ideas. But here’s the kicker: liberalism completely turned its back on natural sciences. Because they rejected that, I honestly think we're headed for a massive cultural shockwave—sort of a Darwinian reckoning coming for us all. And don't even get me started on the Communists. They ditched Christianity just to try and pivot toward this weird, twisted version of "atheistic Christianity." It's all connected, isn't it?

In your little scenario, you’re basically treating the state like one giant collective corporation—where the whole goal is just sheer numbers and some "pure" national identity based on ideas, socialism... I mean, honestly, what even defines a nation anymore? If everything is driven by interests, whose interests are we actually talking about here?

Oh, please, we’ve got that exact setup right now. Look at the USA—it's the same thing. You have this collective corporate state dragging us into wars in the name of "democracy" and basically just snatching money straight out of people's paychecks 😁 That’s socialism if I ever saw it—go ahead, ask crimsonwolf20 about it. My point is, my scenario is about making sure we don't stumble blindly into another Dark Age fueled by either Islam or Christianity.

I get the rest, but I’m still lost on this part... how exactly did he say no?

Steven Murphy2 said:I don't even know where to start with this one—honestly, my head is spinning just thinking about it. You see these things happening and you just have to wonder... is anyone actually paying attention? Is anybody else seeing the patterns here, or am I just shouting into the void? It’s like we’re living through some kind of slow-motion train wreck and everyone is just sitting there, sipping their lattes, acting like everything is totally normal. It's not normal! And don't even get me started on the way people react when you try to point out the obvious. You bring up a valid point—a real, grounded observation—and suddenly you're the crazy one. The "outlier." Give me a break. It’s the same old story every single time. They want us to stay in our little boxes, follow the script, and never, ever ask why the script was written in the first place. Why is that? Why is there such a massive push to keep everyone quiet and compliant? It’s frustrating, man. It really is. You look at the big picture—the actual, messy, complicated reality of how things work—and it’s nothing like what they feed us on the nightly news. It’s all sanitized, polished, and completely disconnected from the grit and grime of real life. We’re being fed a diet of pure nonsense while the real issues are swept under the rug. How long can people keep ignoring the elephant in the room before someone finally trips over it? I mean, seriously.

The real question here is just how comfortable you can be relative to what? I mean, does it all boil down to leaving your kid some massive inheritance—like a company that pays peanuts while they’re out there blowing through cash at casinos and flying around on private jets? If you look at it from a purely economic or some kind of fairy-tale humanist perspective, sure, the market dictates everything. But if you look at it from a natural, raw standpoint? It’s an invitation for a revolt. In our neck of the woods, we aren't talking about some pampered European uprising—we're looking at the non-Western proletariat. I spend way too much time scrolling through Facebook feeds, and honestly, the articles they push show that these types of workers are way more combative; they’re the ones cutting the wires whenever they get the chance. They aren't just more aggressive, though—they have a completely different culture altogether. See, the liberal lives this cozy, insulated life, totally detached from reality, having no clue what's actually happening in the streets around them. They’ll go off to fight wars "for democracy" in the name of individual equality, even when you've got libertarians standing firmly against immigration. And let's be real—the official policy of the capitalist USA is the exact opposite of what those liberals claim to stand for. Like I was saying, if you look at the numbers—and you can find the official stats online, the people running these polls love categorizing voters like this—about 70% of Americans voted, which leaves a 30% non-Western demographic in the mix. People went for Trump because he wanted to build the wall and protect jobs against a low-income, non-Western class. But between the commitment to democracy and these ongoing population trends, we’re looking at a future where we either face a full-blown civil war or a total surrender in the name of "equality."

nimblemarlin6 I can't even begin to explain how much this gets under my skin—honestly, where do we even start? It’s like people just refuse to see what’s right in front of their faces, you know? They're all caught up in these little bubbles, ignoring the bigger picture entirely, and then they act shocked when things go sideways. Is anyone actually paying attention anymore? I mean, seriously! It’s the same old story every single time—people getting swept up in the hype, following the crowd without a second thought, and leaving the actual logic behind in the dust. It makes me want to scream sometimes, I swear. You'd think after everything we've seen, people would have learned a thing or two by now, but nope—back to square one. It's exhausting, really. Just... exhausting.
Why? Honestly, the answer is pretty damn simple—if you actually want to feel comfortable and secure in the society you live in (not to mention the fact that capitalism literally needs a solid middle class just to keep people buying stuff), then you’ve got to organize things so that the poor or folks with disabilities aren't left feeling like they're stuck at the absolute bottom of the barrel. It's just common sense, right?

It’s always going to be bottom-of-the-barrel trash. Just because people coming from some impoverished corner of the world are acting like total terrorists doesn't mean we should overhaul our entire system just to accommodate them—seriously, why would we even consider that? If we keep playing this game and letting things slide, the American working class is basically toast anyway... I mean, look at the numbers. We're losing our population fast if we stay on this path. It's a downward spiral, plain and simple.

Before World War II, you had all kinds of political science that would be considered totally "incorrect" by today's standards—stuff people wouldn't dare whisper about now. But once WWII wrapped up, everything shifted. Suddenly, anything that even smelled like a connection to the Nazi Party was tossed straight into the trash bin. They tried to scrub religion out of the equation entirely, too. But seriously, look at the sheer scale of things! I mean, the Pope heads what is arguably the most powerful organization on the planet. You see priests being called upon constantly. Even here in the States, look at how traditional values hold their ground in certain regions during major votes. At the end of the day, Christianity and liberalism are both built on these big egalitarian ideas. But here’s the kicker: liberalism completely turned its back on natural sciences. Because they rejected that, I honestly think we're headed for a massive cultural shockwave—sort of a Darwinian reckoning coming for us all. And don't even get me started on the Communists. They ditched Christianity just to try and pivot toward this weird, twisted version of "atheistic Christianity." It's all connected, isn't it?

In your little scenario, you’re basically treating the state like one giant collective corporation—where the whole goal is just sheer numbers and some "pure" national identity based on ideas, socialism... I mean, honestly, what even defines a nation anymore? If everything is driven by interests, whose interests are we actually talking about here?

Oh, please, we’ve got that exact setup right now. Look at the USA—it's the same thing. You have this collective corporate state dragging us into wars in the name of "democracy" and basically just snatching money straight out of people's paychecks 😁 That’s socialism if I ever saw it—go ahead, ask crimsonwolf20 about it. My point is, my scenario is about making sure we don't stumble blindly into another Dark Age fueled by either Islam or Christianity.

Isn't their whole economic setup basically just a central axis—with two major political parties revolving around it? —kind of like how we talked about earlier regarding how the government treats bureaucrats. Basically, free-market democracy is the endgame... which means liberalism ends up dominating everything outside of economics, too. (I mean, sure, there's plenty of friction over stuff like tolerance and diversity, but statistically speaking, it doesn't actually threaten the system.)

Even if that cowboy in the movie talks a big game about traditional values and saying grace before meals—it's still just a movie.

I feel like your whole scenario is just a gut reaction to how fast Islam is spreading across Europe—basically a defensive move—and since both religions share some DNA but have their own vibes (especially with being more conservative), it makes sense. I'm wondering though—is this actually the best-case scenario, or are there other ways this could play out?

I can't even begin to wrap my head around this... I mean, seriously? How are we even having this conversation in this day and age? It’s like people just stop thinking the second things get complicated—it’s honestly exhausting. You see it everywhere, right? People just jumping to conclusions without looking at the actual facts, just following the crowd because it's easier than actually using their brains. And don't even get me started on the "experts" who act like they have all the answers when half the time they don't have a clue what's actually happening on the ground. Is anyone actually listening anymore, or are we all just shouting into the void? It feels like we're stuck in this loop where nobody wants to admit they might be wrong, which—let's face it—is the whole point of learning something new! It's frustrating, man. Truly.

Thomas Nelson25 said:I get the rest, but I’m still lost on this part... how exactly did he say no?

Isn't their whole economic setup basically just a central axis—with two major political parties revolving around it? —kind of like how we talked about earlier regarding how the government treats bureaucrats. Basically, free-market democracy is the endgame... which means liberalism ends up dominating everything outside of economics, too. (I mean, sure, there's plenty of friction over stuff like tolerance and diversity, but statistically speaking, it doesn't actually threaten the system.)

Even if that cowboy in the movie talks a big game about traditional values and saying grace before meals—it's still just a movie.

I feel like your whole scenario is just a gut reaction to how fast Islam is spreading across Europe—basically a defensive move—and since both religions share some DNA but have their own vibes (especially with being more conservative), it makes sense. I'm wondering though—is this actually the best-case scenario, or are there other ways this could play out?

So, I tried posting some of those scientifically and politically incorrect ideas—you know, the ones that got tossed in the trash after World War II—on this forum, and boom, everything just vanished. Like, seriously? If you don't believe me, go Google it. It’s like the entire American school system is basically just one big indoctrination camp for this unnatural egalitarianism nonsense. They spend all this time studying everything from bottom-feeding critters up to humans, and then they just shut down any actual debate once they hit the "equality" part. Honestly, if you want proof of how much these ideologies have hijacked our education, just look at the absolute mess our schools are today. It’s embarrassing. We have mountains of highly qualified experts running around, people who were literally elected by the public, yet they can't seem to fix a single major issue in this country for years on end. It’s ridiculous! That's exactly why I’m against democracy—though, let me be clear, I am *not* against free speech. We don't need this version of democracy. You see these so-called "direct democrats" attacking the system while simultaneously being totally against free speech? People like RF? Give me a break. They act like they want a voice, but the second you say something that challenges their precious worldview, you're out. That's not democracy—that's just them wanting to run the whole damn country their way without anyone talking back.

So, isn't their whole economic setup basically just one giant, spinning vortex centered around two massive political factions? It’s like everything else is just orbiting those two main players—nothing actually moves unless they say so, right?

Sure thing.

I mean, look—it feels like your whole theory is just a massive knee-jerk reaction to how fast Islam is spreading across Europe, right? It’s basically a defensive play—a reactionary move to push back against that shift—even if you consider that while religions share some DNA, they’re definitely cut from different cloths... way more conservative on this side of things. But honestly, I gotta wonder... is that even the best-case scenario here? Or are we looking at a bunch of other options that we aren't even considering yet?

It’s not just some knee-jerk reaction to the spread of Islam—it’s a direct response to the total, blatant neglect that allowed things to get this far in the first place. Seriously, how do you even ignore a situation like this until it's already staring you in the face? I don't know, maybe I'm missing something here... you got a better idea? Any actual alternative? Because let's be real: when there's an action, there's always gonna be a reaction. It's just basic math at this point.

Steven Murphy2 said:I can't even begin to wrap my head around this... I mean, seriously? How are we even having this conversation in this day and age? It’s like people just stop thinking the second things get complicated—it’s honestly exhausting. You see it everywhere, right? People just jumping to conclusions without looking at the actual facts, just following the crowd because it's easier than actually using their brains. And don't even get me started on the "experts" who act like they have all the answers when half the time they don't have a clue what's actually happening on the ground. Is anyone actually listening anymore, or are we all just shouting into the void? It feels like we're stuck in this loop where nobody wants to admit they might be wrong, which—let's face it—is the whole point of learning something new! It's frustrating, man. Truly.

So, I tried posting some of those scientifically and politically incorrect ideas—you know, the ones that got tossed in the trash after World War II—on this forum, and boom, everything just vanished. Like, seriously? If you don't believe me, go Google it. It’s like the entire American school system is basically just one big indoctrination camp for this unnatural egalitarianism nonsense. They spend all this time studying everything from bottom-feeding critters up to humans, and then they just shut down any actual debate once they hit the "equality" part. Honestly, if you want proof of how much these ideologies have hijacked our education, just look at the absolute mess our schools are today. It’s embarrassing. We have mountains of highly qualified experts running around, people who were literally elected by the public, yet they can't seem to fix a single major issue in this country for years on end. It’s ridiculous! That's exactly why I’m against democracy—though, let me be clear, I am *not* against free speech. We don't need this version of democracy. You see these so-called "direct democrats" attacking the system while simultaneously being totally against free speech? People like RF? Give me a break. They act like they want a voice, but the second you say something that challenges their precious worldview, you're out. That's not democracy—that's just them wanting to run the whole damn country their way without anyone talking back.

So, isn't their whole economic setup basically just one giant, spinning vortex centered around two massive political factions? It’s like everything else is just orbiting those two main players—nothing actually moves unless they say so, right?

Sure thing.

I mean, look—it feels like your whole theory is just a massive knee-jerk reaction to how fast Islam is spreading across Europe, right? It’s basically a defensive play—a reactionary move to push back against that shift—even if you consider that while religions share some DNA, they’re definitely cut from different cloths... way more conservative on this side of things. But honestly, I gotta wonder... is that even the best-case scenario here? Or are we looking at a bunch of other options that we aren't even considering yet?

It’s not just some knee-jerk reaction to the spread of Islam—it’s a direct response to the total, blatant neglect that allowed things to get this far in the first place. Seriously, how do you even ignore a situation like this until it's already staring you in the face? I don't know, maybe I'm missing something here... you got a better idea? Any actual alternative? Because let's be real: when there's an action, there's always gonna be a reaction. It's just basic math at this point.

It’s just this dilemma—is religion actually better than philosophy, you know what I mean?
If I recall correctly, Wilhelm Reich dives into the exact kind of stuff you're looking for in his books. Seems like that's what rural folks used to lean on, but then industrialization basically flipped the whole script.

Steven Murphy2 said:I can't even begin to wrap my head around this... I mean, seriously? How are we even having this conversation in this day and age? It’s like people just stop thinking the second things get complicated—it’s honestly exhausting. You see it everywhere, right? People just jumping to conclusions without looking at the actual facts, just following the crowd because it's easier than actually using their brains. And don't even get me started on the "experts" who act like they have all the answers when half the time they don't have a clue what's actually happening on the ground. Is anyone actually listening anymore, or are we all just shouting into the void? It feels like we're stuck in this loop where nobody wants to admit they might be wrong, which—let's face it—is the whole point of learning something new! It's frustrating, man. Truly.

So, I tried posting some of those scientifically and politically incorrect ideas—you know, the ones that got tossed in the trash after World War II—on this forum, and boom, everything just vanished. Like, seriously? If you don't believe me, go Google it. It’s like the entire American school system is basically just one big indoctrination camp for this unnatural egalitarianism nonsense. They spend all this time studying everything from bottom-feeding critters up to humans, and then they just shut down any actual debate once they hit the "equality" part. Honestly, if you want proof of how much these ideologies have hijacked our education, just look at the absolute mess our schools are today. It’s embarrassing. We have mountains of highly qualified experts running around, people who were literally elected by the public, yet they can't seem to fix a single major issue in this country for years on end. It’s ridiculous! That's exactly why I’m against democracy—though, let me be clear, I am *not* against free speech. We don't need this version of democracy. You see these so-called "direct democrats" attacking the system while simultaneously being totally against free speech? People like RF? Give me a break. They act like they want a voice, but the second you say something that challenges their precious worldview, you're out. That's not democracy—that's just them wanting to run the whole damn country their way without anyone talking back.

So, isn't their whole economic setup basically just one giant, spinning vortex centered around two massive political factions? It’s like everything else is just orbiting those two main players—nothing actually moves unless they say so, right?

Sure thing.

I mean, look—it feels like your whole theory is just a massive knee-jerk reaction to how fast Islam is spreading across Europe, right? It’s basically a defensive play—a reactionary move to push back against that shift—even if you consider that while religions share some DNA, they’re definitely cut from different cloths... way more conservative on this side of things. But honestly, I gotta wonder... is that even the best-case scenario here? Or are we looking at a bunch of other options that we aren't even considering yet?

It’s not just some knee-jerk reaction to the spread of Islam—it’s a direct response to the total, blatant neglect that allowed things to get this far in the first place. Seriously, how do you even ignore a situation like this until it's already staring you in the face? I don't know, maybe I'm missing something here... you got a better idea? Any actual alternative? Because let's be real: when there's an action, there's always gonna be a reaction. It's just basic math at this point.

I'm not so sure—some countries are pretty religious (think parts of the US, maybe Poland or Italy...), while others aren't really feeling it. We're talking about all of Europe here... plus you've got Protestants, Orthodox, local sects, Jews, Muslims... (boom, religious wars right there.)
So, basically, is pre-French Revolution Europe the end goal? 😁

Thomas Nelson25 said:It’s just this dilemma—is religion actually better than philosophy, you know what I mean?
If I recall correctly, Wilhelm Reich dives into the exact kind of stuff you're looking for in his books. Seems like that's what rural folks used to lean on, but then industrialization basically flipped the whole script.

I'm not so sure—some countries are pretty religious (think parts of the US, maybe Poland or Italy...), while others aren't really feeling it. We're talking about all of Europe here... plus you've got Protestants, Orthodox, local sects, Jews, Muslims... (boom, religious wars right there.)
So, basically, is pre-French Revolution Europe the end goal? 😁

It really boils down to this one massive, annoying dilemma—either we just keep doubling down on this exact same policy, or we scrap it entirely and try something completely different. There's no middle ground here, right? It’s either stay the course or pivot hard. What else is there to even talk about?

I don't know, man—it’s different depending on where you look. In some parts of the US, people actually hold onto their faith, you know? Like in the Bible Belt or parts of the Midwest, but then you go somewhere else and nobody gives a damn. We're talking about the whole landscape here... and then you've got the Protestants, the Catholics, all those local factions, plus Jewish and Muslim communities. It’s just a constant cycle of religious friction—basically a recipe for endless holy wars, if you ask me.
So, let me get this straight—are we basically saying the goal is to roll back the clock to how things were in America before the French Revolution? Is that really where we're headed? 😁

American Christians are finally being backed into a corner—they’re going to have to pick a side. Are you actually for mass immigration or are you against it? It goes even deeper than that, honestly. Are you standing up for Christianity or are you turning your back on it? Look, before the French Revolution, what did "Europe" even mean? It meant Christianity. And we aren't trying to slide back into the Dark Ages, are we? That’s definitely not the goal here. The real goal should be the dominance of science and a true sense of Western identity—not some weird obsession with respecting Middle Eastern cultures from the pre-French Revolution era, which, let's be real, basically stifled any actual progress.

Steven Murphy2 said:It really boils down to this one massive, annoying dilemma—either we just keep doubling down on this exact same policy, or we scrap it entirely and try something completely different. There's no middle ground here, right? It’s either stay the course or pivot hard. What else is there to even talk about?

I don't know, man—it’s different depending on where you look. In some parts of the US, people actually hold onto their faith, you know? Like in the Bible Belt or parts of the Midwest, but then you go somewhere else and nobody gives a damn. We're talking about the whole landscape here... and then you've got the Protestants, the Catholics, all those local factions, plus Jewish and Muslim communities. It’s just a constant cycle of religious friction—basically a recipe for endless holy wars, if you ask me.
So, let me get this straight—are we basically saying the goal is to roll back the clock to how things were in America before the French Revolution? Is that really where we're headed? 😁

American Christians are finally being backed into a corner—they’re going to have to pick a side. Are you actually for mass immigration or are you against it? It goes even deeper than that, honestly. Are you standing up for Christianity or are you turning your back on it? Look, before the French Revolution, what did "Europe" even mean? It meant Christianity. And we aren't trying to slide back into the Dark Ages, are we? That’s definitely not the goal here. The real goal should be the dominance of science and a true sense of Western identity—not some weird obsession with respecting Middle Eastern cultures from the pre-French Revolution era, which, let's be real, basically stifled any actual progress.

You're overlooking the fact that when Muslims arrived in places like Spain or the North America, they actually had a massive positive impact on a continent that was basically just mud, plague, and violence at the time—all while Rome was busy encouraging that chaos.

The German liberals get what's happening here; most of these refugees are perfectly fine people... it's the same story across other American countries, too. But does that mean we should just tear down the whole Union project? I don't think so.

All these right-wing populists popping up (and even some on the left), they're all pushing similar agendas—some even want to bail out of the Union entirely. I'm worried they aren't looking at the big picture or thinking about the long game.

Thomas Nelson25 said:You're overlooking the fact that when Muslims arrived in places like Spain or the North America, they actually had a massive positive impact on a continent that was basically just mud, plague, and violence at the time—all while Rome was busy encouraging that chaos.

The German liberals get what's happening here; most of these refugees are perfectly fine people... it's the same story across other American countries, too. But does that mean we should just tear down the whole Union project? I don't think so.

All these right-wing populists popping up (and even some on the left), they're all pushing similar agendas—some even want to bail out of the Union entirely. I'm worried they aren't looking at the big picture or thinking about the long game.

Look, just like how ISIS is out there wrecking things across Europe today, it’s the exact same story with the old guard—they paved the way for this mess. You want to talk about origins? Muhammad was the one who started spreading the first Islamic state everywhere. It’s all just plague, filth, and pure violence... and yet people have the nerve to claim Islam is some kind of religion of peace? Give me a break.😁 Look, the Rome you’re out here trashing? That’s basically the foundation of all of Europe—we're talking the whole deal, including Greece. I actually had this historian tell me once that if Greece was the starting line, then Rome was the finish line for that entire era of antiquity. It’s a massive concept, right? And honestly, look at the world today—this plague of constant warfare and violence? It’s everywhere. Back then, Rome basically encompassed the entire civilized world. We're talking about true ancient citizenship. But then, because of those egalitarian teachings coming out of the catacombs, that whole civilized world just... collapses into the Dark Ages. Though, let's be real for a second—they didn't even have a grasp on modern science back then. They certainly didn't have the kind of scientific approach we saw leading up to World War II, where people were actually trying to figure out how to prevent this kind of chaos—you know, like the work Francis Galton did.

The liberals over in Germany actually get what’s going on here—most of those refugees are perfectly fine people, honestly. And look, it’s the same story playing out across most of Europe. So, does that mean we should just go ahead and tear the whole European Union project to pieces? I really don't think so.

They’re basically tearing down the whole European project themselves—it's like watching a slow-motion train wreck. Honestly? The right wing is the only thing standing in the way of total collapse.

Alright, let's pick up the pace:

Steven Murphy2 As stated by Steven Murphy2:
He isn't suggesting a global seizure of workers' assets; rather, he’s specifically targeting the workforce across Europe.

Not unless you can provide me with an exact quote; if you can, then I’ll gladly eat my words.

If you find yourself sitting comfortably in the upper echelon of global wealth while the rest of the workforce struggles in the lower tiers, then the concept of a dictatorship of the proletariat isn't just an academic theory—it’s a direct threat to everything you've built, isn't it?

No. Communism isn't some grand equalizer. It isn’t about some "more equitable distribution of wealth" or any other similar fantasy peddled by people who clearly haven't the slightest clue what they're talking about.

National Bolshevism essentially functions as a system where the means of production remain predominantly under social control.

No. Honestly, I haven't the slightest clue where you even found the inspiration for such an idea.

And that did them absolutely zero good, honestly. Besides, the left doesn't exactly hold the reins over there in Iraq anyway.

I provided an example, and honestly, what failed there is an entirely different issue altogether. Besides, what on earth does the government in Iraq have to do with any of this?

Where exactly did this claim come from—that the workers actually made up the majority? It seems like a bit of a reach to me. After all, isn't the very foundation of a democracy built upon the principle of the majority vote?

Yes, the source clearly stated that the workers made up the majority. Just because a democracy operates on a "majority rule" basis doesn't mean the working class actually held the numerical advantage in this instance. Honestly, is this really the level we’ve sunk to in our discussions?

If I may take a moment to poke a little fun at your rhetoric: why on earth did the right-wing factions of the USSR and the right-wing West find themselves fighting against the left-wing elements of Central Europe? It is common knowledge that the anti-communist West didn't exactly rush to form a coalition with Hitler.

The economy of the USSR was traditionally quite left-leaning, so I’m having a hard time grasping your exact point here. Why did the West and the USSR join forces against Nazi Germany? It was simply a matter of self-interest. At that particular moment in history, the Soviet Union posed a much smaller threat to Western capitalists than Hitler's Germany did. That fact actually says more about the supposed communism held by those foreign leaders than it does about the Nazis themselves, though I suspect you aren't going to see it that way. 🙂

By the way, Marxism was pretty much a mandatory subject back when you were sitting through those public school classes in the States.

Are we being serious here? Marxism isn't some monolithic, unified dogma, if that’s what you were implying. What was taught back in those old state-run schools was merely one specific interpretation—one that conveniently served the interests of the ruling party bureaucracy.

Frankly, the fact that you identify as a Marxist tells me everything I need to know. Marxism is nothing more than a weapon wielded by the capitalist elite of one nation against the civilization of all others. It mobilizes the workers of underdeveloped nations to dismantle civilized ones, and what is the result? A paradise on earth? I believe we've seen how that plays out in practice. Even Churchill addressed this in an article regarding who was actually pulling the strings behind Marxism in Russia. It's the same crowd that mobilized people from the catacombs in Rome to plunge us into the Dark Ages. Vatican City openly sides with the impoverished, the modern-day inhabitants of the Third World's catacombs. This would happen regardless of their influence, which is why selective population policies are necessary—policies that democracy and liberalism either refuse to acknowledge or simply don't understand—leaving civilization once again vulnerable to incursions from the East.

Oh, right, now I remember—you're that wild conspiracy theorist obsessed with fascism. Sure, sweetheart, you're absolutely right; it's all controlled by Jewish people, and the world is just a simple, easy-to-explain concept if you just use a few paragraphs from an internet forum.🙂

I have no interest in engaging in an irrational debate about the Democratic Party shifting to the right, especially when radical right-wingers spend all their time arguing that the Republican Party is moving left.

I suppose it isn't "rational" then, because I pointed out three or four very clear instances of the Democratic Party making decidedly right-wing political decisions?

Steven Murphy2 said:Maybe you should look into who actually banned child labor in the mines, or who pioneered the progressive legislation that paved the way for health insurance, workers' compensation, and old-age pensions?

So, some kind of socialist, then?

In a sense, yes, mostly. It was usually social democrats of various stripes, particularly in the era following WW2. Occasionally, however, conservative or right-wing administrations were the ones to push these through—not out of sudden altruism, but for the exact same reason the left did: the sheer pressure from the working class and the very real fear of a looming revolution.

I seem to recall reading a quote from a certain British conservative politician addressing his own party colleagues, essentially warning them that they had to implement progressive social reforms after the war, otherwise, they ought to brace themselves for an uprising. I’ll try to track down the specific passage.

mistycrane3 said:Alright, let's pick up the pace:

Steven Murphy2 As stated by Steven Murphy2:
He isn't suggesting a global seizure of workers' assets; rather, he’s specifically targeting the workforce across Europe.

Not unless you can provide me with an exact quote; if you can, then I’ll gladly eat my words.

If you find yourself sitting comfortably in the upper echelon of global wealth while the rest of the workforce struggles in the lower tiers, then the concept of a dictatorship of the proletariat isn't just an academic theory—it’s a direct threat to everything you've built, isn't it?

No. Communism isn't some grand equalizer. It isn’t about some "more equitable distribution of wealth" or any other similar fantasy peddled by people who clearly haven't the slightest clue what they're talking about.

National Bolshevism essentially functions as a system where the means of production remain predominantly under social control.

No. Honestly, I haven't the slightest clue where you even found the inspiration for such an idea.

And that did them absolutely zero good, honestly. Besides, the left doesn't exactly hold the reins over there in Iraq anyway.

I provided an example, and honestly, what failed there is an entirely different issue altogether. Besides, what on earth does the government in Iraq have to do with any of this?

Where exactly did this claim come from—that the workers actually made up the majority? It seems like a bit of a reach to me. After all, isn't the very foundation of a democracy built upon the principle of the majority vote?

Yes, the source clearly stated that the workers made up the majority. Just because a democracy operates on a "majority rule" basis doesn't mean the working class actually held the numerical advantage in this instance. Honestly, is this really the level we’ve sunk to in our discussions?

If I may take a moment to poke a little fun at your rhetoric: why on earth did the right-wing factions of the USSR and the right-wing West find themselves fighting against the left-wing elements of Central Europe? It is common knowledge that the anti-communist West didn't exactly rush to form a coalition with Hitler.

The economy of the USSR was traditionally quite left-leaning, so I’m having a hard time grasping your exact point here. Why did the West and the USSR join forces against Nazi Germany? It was simply a matter of self-interest. At that particular moment in history, the Soviet Union posed a much smaller threat to Western capitalists than Hitler's Germany did. That fact actually says more about the supposed communism held by those foreign leaders than it does about the Nazis themselves, though I suspect you aren't going to see it that way. 🙂

By the way, Marxism was pretty much a mandatory subject back when you were sitting through those public school classes in the States.

Are we being serious here? Marxism isn't some monolithic, unified dogma, if that’s what you were implying. What was taught back in those old state-run schools was merely one specific interpretation—one that conveniently served the interests of the ruling party bureaucracy.

Frankly, the fact that you identify as a Marxist tells me everything I need to know. Marxism is nothing more than a weapon wielded by the capitalist elite of one nation against the civilization of all others. It mobilizes the workers of underdeveloped nations to dismantle civilized ones, and what is the result? A paradise on earth? I believe we've seen how that plays out in practice. Even Churchill addressed this in an article regarding who was actually pulling the strings behind Marxism in Russia. It's the same crowd that mobilized people from the catacombs in Rome to plunge us into the Dark Ages. Vatican City openly sides with the impoverished, the modern-day inhabitants of the Third World's catacombs. This would happen regardless of their influence, which is why selective population policies are necessary—policies that democracy and liberalism either refuse to acknowledge or simply don't understand—leaving civilization once again vulnerable to incursions from the East.

Oh, right, now I remember—you're that wild conspiracy theorist obsessed with fascism. Sure, sweetheart, you're absolutely right; it's all controlled by Jewish people, and the world is just a simple, easy-to-explain concept if you just use a few paragraphs from an internet forum.🙂

I have no interest in engaging in an irrational debate about the Democratic Party shifting to the right, especially when radical right-wingers spend all their time arguing that the Republican Party is moving left.

I suppose it isn't "rational" then, because I pointed out three or four very clear instances of the Democratic Party making decidedly right-wing political decisions?

It feels like I’m dealing with someone who needs everything spoon-fed to them on a silver platter. Look, I already laid out exactly what Marxism does to the American worker—I said what I said, and I'm not repeating myself again.

Look, let me get this straight—Communism isn't some kind of equalizer. It’s not some magical "fairer distribution of wealth" or whatever other fairy tale is being peddled by people who clearly haven't read a single book on the subject. Honestly, how can anyone believe that nonsense? You know, those folks out there just talking in circles without having the slightest clue what they're actually discussing... it's ridiculous.

So, let me get this straight—you’re telling me we can have Communism without actually building a classless society? Seriously? Like, how does that even work in practice? It sounds like a total joke, right? You can't just pick and choose the parts of Marxism you like while ignoring the whole point of the ideology. If you aren't tearing down those rigid social hierarchies and getting rid of the elite stranglehold on everything, then what are you actually doing? Are we just playing pretend here? It feels like people want all the supposed "benefits" of the system without doing any of the actual heavy lifting required to level the playing field. It's like trying to run a marathon while refusing to leave the starting line—it's just delusional. Without the removal of classes, you're basically just looking at some weird, distorted version of state control that still keeps the big players on top. Why bother calling it anything else if the fundamental structure of inequality stays exactly where it is? Is anyone actually buying this nonsense? Honestly, it just seems like a way to repackage old power dynamics under a shiny new label. 😁

No. Honestly, I have absolutely no clue where you even got an idea like that from. Seriously, what are we even talking about here?

So, what exactly is national bolshevism? It’s one of those terms that makes you want to roll your eyes before you even finish reading it, right? It sounds like some weird, contradictory fever dream—like trying to mix oil and water or eating a cheeseburger with a side of kale salad. You’ve got the intense, almost obsessive nationalism on one hand, and then you throw in this hardcore, radical communist vibe on the other. How does that even work? Is it just a way for people to feel edgy while still clinging to their roots? Honestly, it feels like a political identity crisis wrapped in a single, confusing package.

Look, I gave you an example—and what didn't work is a completely different ballgame. Like, seriously, what does the government in Iraq have to do with any of this?

It all goes back to that whole internationalism theory bullshit—you know, the kind where they try to deny anything different exists? These theorists act like everyone just needs to fall in line and swallow their specific little idea. Like, seriously? As if everyone’s just gonna nod along and agree with them. Obviously, that’s never going to work. It’s a total non-starter.

Yeah, sure, so the source says the workers made up the majority. But listen—just because we vote based on a "majority rule" in a democracy doesn't mean the actual workers were the ones holding all the cards back then. It’s not a given, okay? Is this really where we're at now? Is this seriously the level of discourse we're settling for? Honestly, it's kind of pathetic.

So, if the capitalists were running the whole show and held all the cards, how the hell did everything just fall apart into a massive crisis? Seriously, how does that even work? If they’re the ones pulling the strings, shouldn't they be able to keep the machine greased? It doesn't add up—unless there's something deeper going on under the hood.

So, why did the West and the USSR team up against Nazi Germany in the first place? Honestly, it was just pure self-interest. Back then, the Soviet Union wasn't even the biggest threat to Western capitalists—Hitler’s Germany was the real monster under the bed. It says a lot more about what those Western leaders actually thought of Communism than it does about the Nazis themselves... but hey, I doubt you're ever going to wrap your head around that. 🙂

So, what does "Communism" even actually mean when you look at the USSR? It’s a joke, right? Like, there wasn't any actual communism happening over there—not really. What we actually saw was these massive German capitalists basically running the show because the working class didn't have the numbers to stop them. They were a total threat to the West, plain and simple. How can you call it one thing when it's clearly another? It’s just a mess.😵 Mainly, I’m just glad you're finally admitting—even if it's just indirectly—that Communists aren't actually some massive threat to the system. I mean, they couldn't even pose a threat back when the system itself paved the way for them to take over in Russia, right?

Ohhh yeah, there you are—that crazy conspiracy theorist I met before. Yeah, sure thing, sweetheart, you're totally right; everything is controlled by the Jews, and the world is just so simple and easy to explain using some random little blurb from an internet forum 🙂

Winston Churchill on Communism in Russia—you know, Hitler's opponent and a high-ranking Mason:

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/ish.htm

So, was Churchill a Zionist? Oh, absolutely. And hey, there's great hope for the Right; Donald Trump has nothing but praise for Israel, so we're looking at a bright future ahead, right? Here’s why: http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/78...ple-jerusalem/

The Catholic Church claims their Messiah will actually be ours—meaning both Jews and Christians are waiting for the exact same guy. All roads lead to the Temple of Jerusalem 😁 which was destroyed, but they want it rebuilt as a symbolic gesture. If someone tries to tear it down again, it won't just be some marginal uprising like back in Rome; instead, they'll muster an entire army—Christians, liberals, Communists—all fighting against anyone who refuses to accept them as the chosen ones. Right now, their only real threat is ISIS, but they'll mobilize Americans to deal with that; Trump already promised he'd wipe them off the face of the earth.

Steven Murphy2 said:You seem to be one of those people who needs everything drawn out for them in crayon. I have already explained what Marxism means for the American worker, and I am not repeating myself.

You claimed that Marx was calling for the expropriation of European workers. It is hardly my concern if you choose to lie.

Communism without a classless society

That is not what I said.

So what is National Bolshevism?

It is a very murky Russian nationalist ideology that blends Stalinism with Russian imperialism. Leftist? Perhaps to a certain extent. Social ownership of the economy? Definitely not.

If capitalists were the majority, how did the crisis occur?

I never said the capitalists were the majority; learn how to read. And while you are at it, learn how to provide actual sources for your claims.

Communism didn't exist in the USSR

Of course it didn't, nor did anyone in the USSR claim it did.

Mainly, I am glad you indirectly admit that Communists aren't any threat to the system—they couldn't even be when the system itself brought them into Russia.

No. I stated that the USSR during World War II represented a smaller threat to Western capitalists than Nazi Germany. A similar dynamic played out during World War I, where the German bourgeoisie posed a massive threat to British and French interests, and lo and behold—it was the capitalist system on both sides. You see, Germany in WW2 was a direct threat to American, British, and French interests; the USSR was merely a distant problem that became more pressing later on (though it had been relevant even before WW2). Communism has always been an issue for the West.

Winston Churchill on communism in Russia, therefore Hitler's opponent and a high-ranking Freemason:

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/ish.htm

Was Churchill a Francophile? Sure. Given that the great hope of the Right, Donald Trump, has nothing but praise for Israel, we certainly have a wonderful future ahead of us.

So, apparently this incredibly powerful, wealthy British imperial politician is out here attacking Communists by leaning into these old antisemitic conspiracy theories! Well, you’ve certainly sold me on that logic. There is absolutely no way someone holding a position of that much influence would ever resort to spreading such blatant falsehoods, right? Not a chance.

🤣

mistycrane3 said:You claimed that Marx was calling for the expropriation of European workers. It is hardly my concern if you choose to lie.

Communism without a classless society

That is not what I said.

So what is National Bolshevism?

It is a very murky Russian nationalist ideology that blends Stalinism with Russian imperialism. Leftist? Perhaps to a certain extent. Social ownership of the economy? Definitely not.

If capitalists were the majority, how did the crisis occur?

I never said the capitalists were the majority; learn how to read. And while you are at it, learn how to provide actual sources for your claims.

Communism didn't exist in the USSR

Of course it didn't, nor did anyone in the USSR claim it did.

Mainly, I am glad you indirectly admit that Communists aren't any threat to the system—they couldn't even be when the system itself brought them into Russia.

No. I stated that the USSR during World War II represented a smaller threat to Western capitalists than Nazi Germany. A similar dynamic played out during World War I, where the German bourgeoisie posed a massive threat to British and French interests, and lo and behold—it was the capitalist system on both sides. You see, Germany in WW2 was a direct threat to American, British, and French interests; the USSR was merely a distant problem that became more pressing later on (though it had been relevant even before WW2). Communism has always been an issue for the West.

Winston Churchill on communism in Russia, therefore Hitler's opponent and a high-ranking Freemason:

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/ish.htm

Was Churchill a Francophile? Sure. Given that the great hope of the Right, Donald Trump, has nothing but praise for Israel, we certainly have a wonderful future ahead of us.

So, apparently this incredibly powerful, wealthy British imperial politician is out here attacking Communists by leaning into these old antisemitic conspiracy theories! Well, you’ve certainly sold me on that logic. There is absolutely no way someone holding a position of that much influence would ever resort to spreading such blatant falsehoods, right? Not a chance.

🤣

Communism: basically just seizing stuff and redistributing wealth.
Christianity: it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich guy to get into the Kingdom of Heaven... and if you look at the Acts of the Apostles, anyone who didn't want to hand over their riches was basically taken out by a "higher power."
Freemasonry (liberalism): the modern roots of this stuff trace back to the Knights of the Temple of Solomon—you know, Kabbalism.

Churchill was part of that third group. It really reminds me of those Christian antisemites who attack Judaism, even though Judaism is what actually wrote down these ideas to serve their own interests. I mean, seriously, where does the Sanhedrin get the idea that Trump or Putin could somehow build a third temple for them?

Detektor said:Communism is all about expropriation and the redistribution of wealth.
Christianity, on the other hand, suggests it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven; even in the Acts of the Apostles, we see how someone who refused to redistribute their wealth was struck down by a "higher power."
Freemasonry—which essentially mirrors modern liberalism—has its roots in the Knights Templar and certain forms of Kabbalism.

Churchill was actually aligned with this third group. It brings to mind those instances of Christian antisemitism where people attack Judaism, yet it's the underlying Jewish thought processes that authored these very ideas to serve their own interests. I find myself wondering where the Sanhedrin gets the notion that men like Trump or Putin could somehow facilitate the building of a Third Temple.

I honestly can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to convey here. I have no idea how any of this connects to the rest of this thread, nor do I understand what that last bit is supposed to imply.

Go get some sleep; it’s late, and things usually look a little clearer in the morning.🙂

The Catholic Church maintains that their Messiah will actually be ours—that both Jews and Christians are ultimately waiting for the same figure. All roads lead to Jerusalem.

NB—you clearly don't grasp the theology involved.

mistycrane3 said:In a sense, yes, mostly. It was usually social democrats of various stripes, particularly in the era following WW2. Occasionally, however, conservative or right-wing administrations were the ones to push these through—not out of sudden altruism, but for the exact same reason the left did: the sheer pressure from the working class and the very real fear of a looming revolution.

I seem to recall reading a quote from a certain British conservative politician addressing his own party colleagues, essentially warning them that they had to implement progressive social reforms after the war, otherwise, they ought to brace themselves for an uprising. I’ll try to track down the specific passage.

You've wandered way too far into the future. Revolution happened long before that, suppressed by some other left-liberal--
http://history.com/today-in-history/chancellor-1815/

I might even concede your point regarding that famous left-liberal we know who abolished serfdom for Americans— link deleted because the destination site was infected with a virus