The mafia
Andrew Usher
society in the past decades. I will call this group leftism, as I have
in previous posts, for lack of a better term: they deliberately do not
use any word for themselves that is not misleading. Leftism is not
identical with Judaism (Jewishness) though there is a clear
correlation, and it may be so that leftism would never have arisen
without Jews. Now what is so evil about these people is that they are
dishonest to their very core; there whole belief system is dishonest.
It is about hijacking men's natural patterns of thinking to make them
act in a way contrary to their interests, and thus perpetuate the
control by an elite that doesn't really give a fuck about us (meaning
white men not in the elite) - in that respect it is very Jewish, and
truly it seems that Jews are in the elite almost automatically.
Now my last post was about the metric system, and as I said there that
is only one issue associated with them. I chose it not only for the
obvious reasons but as a test case: if you won't stand against metric
you surely won't stand for anything decent. Yes, there may be an
economic argument for metric but it is only a slight one, and using it
shows that you will subordinate everything to the profit motive - just
as they want. Leftism has recently merged with capitalist ideology - a
brilliant strategy for them - meaning they now have business on their
side, as well as both the Democrat and Republican parties.
As I said there, I have no wish to debate metric farther except with
someone that has read and understood my entire essay, as respect
commands.
They serve capitalism by distracting us from the real issues with our
system, by means of manufactured ones that are not useless but even
dangerous. I can hardly account for the harm done by feminism, for
example. The endless 'civil rights' crap is not only a waste of time
and effort, but has no purpose now other than beating down white men.
All reasonable goals in regard to the environment having been
accomplished, all the latest 'green' nonsense is just that. Global
warming, in particular, while a legitimate issue, is abused simply to
make people feel guilty. And that's what it's all about: guilty,
guilty, guilty! They want us (white men) to believe that we are guilty
of all the ills that have even happened to humanity. One might
legitimately wonder why they are so biased when it comes to race and
sex. The reason is simple: they see only white men as a possible
threat to their power, and therefore everything possible has to be
done to undermine them, including deliberaty reducing profit by buying
off women and non-whites; better, after all, to have less profit now
but remain in power indefinitely.
CAPITALISM IS UNNATURAL AND A LIE. We men are naturally socialist but
some men pervert this and take it upon themselves to rule us and steal
from us, and they can only do this by fooling us. Once, religion and
ignorance provided the pretext to do that, while now capitalist
ideology does. But it is built on sand, their economic arguments
assume an ideal state that never has and never can exist. In contrast,
recent history provides endless examples of business doing the most
atrocious things, and that they will do in pursuit of profit such evil
things that so sane man would ever do alone. Capitalism makes
exploitation worse _relative to economic conditions_ than non-
capitalism, because of its almighty weapon - termination of
employment. And they, of course, have taken great strides in making it
ever more difficult to find another job after being fired from one, as
they want employers to have absolute power over us - the kind of power
that all our political theory forbids to the State.
I can set no absolute rule on whether the government ought to have
more or less power; it depends on circumstances. But what is clear is
that whatever power the government does have ought to be directed for
the people, and not against them; and that whenever any power it not,
it must be altered or abolished, the latter if it is clear that it
can't be reformed (and this I have stated with regard to CPS in
particular). Whatever I am, I am not a Marxist as I do not believe in
the philsophical junk associated with the name of Marxism, which is of
course Jewish.
There are not many issues but just one - how to attack the ruling
class and its weapons, capitalist ideology, leftism, and feminism.
The freedom of our thoughts can bring down their walls and crumble
their foundations!
Andrew Usher
Michael Gordge
> CAPITALISM IS UNNATURAL AND A LIE.
Capitalism is natural and therefore is a fact.
Life is a self generating self sustaining form of existence, you
digest your food, you breath your air, your energy can only be
activated by your mind, you are therefore the owner of your actions,
ownership by default implies responsibility.
Whether or not you want to be, you are in fact born a capitalist, you
own yourself, it's as natural as your fucking nose, why dont ewe want
to be held responsible for your actions?
MG
Andrew Usher
> Capitalism is natural and therefore is a fact.
>
> Life is a self generating self sustaining form of existence, you
> digest your food, you breath your air, your energy can only be
> activated by your mind, you are therefore the owner of your actions,
> ownership by default implies responsibility.
>
> Whether or not you want to be, you are in fact born a capitalist, you
> own yourself, it's as natural as your fucking nose, why dont ewe want
> to be held responsible for your actions?
Libertarian kool-aid.
Andrew Usher
Mensanator
> There are not many issues but just one - how to attack the ruling
> class and its weapons, capitalist ideology, leftism, and feminism.
Still can't get it up, eh?
They have pills for that nowadays.
Uncle Al
Andrew Usher wrote:
>
> There is a perverse group aiming successfully to take control of
> society in the past decades.
> CAPITALISM IS UNNATURAL AND A LIE.
[snip rest of crap]
idiot
"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed
works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the
evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for
money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind."
Catastrophically collapsed societies one and all believed that the
productive had no rights to their productivity. The State had a debt
to its unproductive to seize what was Officially unfairly gained,
award what was deserved, and take a fat a cut of the flow as reward
for its mandated charity. Rome to the USSR, socialism dies when there
is nothing left to steal.
Third quarter 2010: Private ARM reset again, commercial real estate
collapse; disastrous harvest corn, soybeans, potatoes (Black '47);
collapse of the three front Muslim war, collapse of healthcare,
collapse of government minority make-work hiring at all levels; China
declines to attend Treasury paper auctions; collapse of Welfare and
Social Security. Cities burn. Finis.
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Urion
> "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed
> works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the
> evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for
> money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind."
Greed to a certain extent is good and is part of human nature. Without
a certain level of greed there would be no progress in any sector of
society.
But again, anything in excess is bad and the current system takes
individual greed a bit too far. Some multibillionaires like Bill Gates
have 50 billion dollar net worth and that is more than they will ever
need but many other people in Africa and in Haiti are allowed to die
off because they are forced to live on less than 1 dollar a day. That
is a good example of human greed taken to extremes and that is a bad
thing.
Michael Gordge
>
> Libertarian kool-aid.
Nothing new, ewe cant validate your fucking lefturdian stupidity,
whereas reality validates capitalism.
MG
Igor
If you don't see the fnord, it can't eat you.
jmfbahciv
But they have to be red, not blue.
/BAH
Andrew Usher
Well, that's a great reply. You know, if I were impotent, I'd still be
a greater man than one that would use such a base argument.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> Third quarter 2010: Private ARM reset again, commercial real estate
> collapse; disastrous harvest corn, soybeans, potatoes (Black '47);
> collapse of the three front Muslim war, collapse of healthcare,
> collapse of government minority make-work hiring at all levels; China
> declines to attend Treasury paper auctions; collapse of Welfare and
> Social Security. Cities burn. Finis.
And that's an example of the success of capitalism?
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> Greed to a certain extent is good and is part of human nature. Without
> a certain level of greed there would be no progress in any sector of
> society.
I wouldn't say that. There would be less, to be sure.
> But again, anything in excess is bad and the current system takes
> individual greed a bit too far. Some multibillionaires like Bill Gates
> have 50 billion dollar net worth and that is more than they will ever
> need but many other people in Africa and in Haiti are allowed to die
> off because they are forced to live on less than 1 dollar a day. That
> is a good example of human greed taken to extremes and that is a bad
> thing.
Bill Gates is not a good example of greed. Sure, he has gotten more
wealth than any man ought to have, but not by being particularly
greedy, just particularly lucky.
Goldman Sachs, for example, is a much better example of greed.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> Greed to a certain extent is good and is part of human nature. Without
> a certain level of greed there would be no progress in any sector of
> society.
I wouldn't say that. There would be less, to be sure.
> But again, anything in excess is bad and the current system takes
> individual greed a bit too far. Some multibillionaires like Bill Gates
> have 50 billion dollar net worth and that is more than they will ever
> need but many other people in Africa and in Haiti are allowed to die
> off because they are forced to live on less than 1 dollar a day. That
> is a good example of human greed taken to extremes and that is a bad
> thing.
Bill Gates is not a good example of greed. Sure, he has gotten more
Andrew Usher
Reality? LOL! You people are well known for ignoring reality.
Andrew Usher
Ste
> There is a perverse group aiming successfully to take control of
> society in the past decades. I will call this group leftism, as I have
> in previous posts, for lack of a better term: they deliberately do not
> use any word for themselves that is not misleading. Leftism is not
> identical with Judaism (Jewishness) though there is a clear
> correlation, and it may be so that leftism would never have arisen
> without Jews. Now what is so evil about these people is that they are
> dishonest to their very core; there whole belief system is dishonest.
> It is about hijacking men's natural patterns of thinking to make them
> act in a way contrary to their interests, and thus perpetuate the
> control by an elite that doesn't really give a fuck about us (meaning
> white men not in the elite) - in that respect it is very Jewish, and
> truly it seems that Jews are in the elite almost automatically.
Who exactly are you alluding to with "leftism"?
> Now my last post was about the metric system, and as I said there that
> is only one issue associated with them. I chose it not only for the
> obvious reasons but as a test case: if you won't stand against metric
> you surely won't stand for anything decent. Yes, there may be an
> economic argument for metric but it is only a slight one, and using it
> shows that you will subordinate everything to the profit motive - just
> as they want. Leftism has recently merged with capitalist ideology - a
> brilliant strategy for them - meaning they now have business on their
> side, as well as both the Democrat and Republican parties.
"Leftism", by which we mean certain "left-wing" institutions, have
often merged with business in the past. Unions are a prime example.
New Labour is another.
> As I said there, I have no wish to debate metric farther except with
> someone that has read and understood my entire essay, as respect
> commands.
>
> They serve capitalism by distracting us from the real issues with our
> system, by means of manufactured ones that are not useless but even
> dangerous. I can hardly account for the harm done by feminism, for
> example.
The harm done to whom?
> The endless 'civil rights' crap is not only a waste of time
> and effort, but has no purpose now other than beating down white men.
> All reasonable goals in regard to the environment having been
> accomplished, all the latest 'green' nonsense is just that. Global
> warming, in particular, while a legitimate issue, is abused simply to
> make people feel guilty.
I have similar suspicions, but I think it's more likely to be a ploy
to increase profits, now that capitalists have realised that green
technologies can be profitable, and that a green agenda can serve to
hobble developing economies.
> And that's what it's all about: guilty,
> guilty, guilty! They want us (white men) to believe that we are guilty
> of all the ills that have even happened to humanity. One might
> legitimately wonder why they are so biased when it comes to race and
> sex. The reason is simple: they see only white men as a possible
> threat to their power, and therefore everything possible has to be
> done to undermine them, including deliberaty reducing profit by buying
> off women and non-whites; better, after all, to have less profit now
> but remain in power indefinitely.
Isn't the common denominator here not race or gender, but wealth? That
is, the rich are as threatened by the white working class as they are
by the blacks, as threatened by women as they are by men?
> CAPITALISM IS UNNATURAL AND A LIE. We men are naturally socialist
Andrew, I ask seriously, are you a homosexual by any chance? Or at
least ambivalent about it?
> but
> some men pervert this and take it upon themselves to rule us and steal
> from us, and they can only do this by fooling us. Once, religion and
> ignorance provided the pretext to do that, while now capitalist
> ideology does. But it is built on sand, their economic arguments
> assume an ideal state that never has and never can exist. In contrast,
> recent history provides endless examples of business doing the most
> atrocious things, and that they will do in pursuit of profit such evil
> things that so sane man would ever do alone. Capitalism makes
> exploitation worse _relative to economic conditions_ than non-
> capitalism, because of its almighty weapon - termination of
> employment. And they, of course, have taken great strides in making it
> ever more difficult to find another job after being fired from one, as
> they want employers to have absolute power over us - the kind of power
> that all our political theory forbids to the State.
Indeed. It was full employment for 30 years after the second world war
that largely contributed to the capitalists' inability to discipline
workers. That's why these days they normally try to keep a certain
section of society unemployed, in order to maintain competition
between workers and ensure discipline.
> I can set no absolute rule on whether the government ought to have
> more or less power; it depends on circumstances. But what is clear is
> that whatever power the government does have ought to be directed for
> the people, and not against them; and that whenever any power it not,
> it must be altered or abolished, the latter if it is clear that it
> can't be reformed (and this I have stated with regard to CPS in
> particular). Whatever I am, I am not a Marxist as I do not believe in
> the philsophical junk associated with the name of Marxism, which is of
> course Jewish.
>
> There are not many issues but just one - how to attack the ruling
> class and its weapons, capitalist ideology, leftism, and feminism.
>
> The freedom of our thoughts can bring down their walls and crumble
> their foundations!
It might take a bit more than thought alone.
THE BORG
you feel about The Illuminati?
"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d706a39d-06e0-4765...@d27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Andrew Usher
> Speaking of these kind of "elite" or "ruling classes" how do
> you feel about The Illuminati?
They don't exist. I'm sure the real elites are fine with us believing
in junk like that, though.
Andrew Usher
THE BORG
What makes you think they do not exist? There is ample
proof they do. Look at your history books, there is much
proof and written documentation about The Illuminati.
The Illuminati commenced with man's desire to understand
space and the world around.
Religion at the time condemned the Illuminati by saying that
they should have "faith" and anything they do not understand
they should merely say "God didit."
The argument of the Illuminati, was that if they had
intelligence, then surely God gave them intelligence, and if
they wished to use to intelligence to understand the world
around and space then surely they should be permitted to.
Many men were killed by the Church as they viewed the
Illuminati as attempting to understand God when the Church
argued that they should simply have faith and accept all
around without question.
"But surely God gave us the intelligence to question." was
the argument of the Illuminati.
(God here meaning Brahma - The Creator).
Over time The Illuminati has continued the role of science
and intelligence, and although they have "gone underground"
so to speak, and what they do now is highly secret, some
speak that they are some kind of secret government or secret
intelligence on Earth, and that the masses or common people
are controlled by them. Some say that they are now so
scientifically advanced that they can read brain patterns
and are literally able to read the thoughts of other human
people.
Rumours of alien sightings, UFO's, and a huge number of
things that are never explained to the masses or common
people, it does seem that the higher control levels (The
Illuminati?) do actually know about these and know what is
going on, and that there are huge secrets about space,
aliens and about many things that the common masses of Earth
do not know of.
Even in the Church and in the Jewish religion are huge cover
ups of so called "religious" incidents that are highly
secret and not known to the general population of Earth.
The Vatican closely guards these secrets which are only
known to the Pope and absolute top religious people, and the
same also happens in Judaism.
The common masses are very much in the dark about what is
the true situation on Earth.
The Intelligence of Earth only allows them to know what they
think they should know.
THE BORG
THE BORG
that, we are speaking of proper organized intelligence.
Knowledge of space, the existence of intelligent alien life,
and what can be termed "universal secrets" would be known to
the "men" not to the common masses who would be viewed as
the "children".
It would be viewed as better that these secrets are withheld
from the common populace, the common populace would include
even presidents and the gung ho ho murder and killing silly
ordinary existence of the masses of ordinary people.
Because these secrets are so huge, and so meaningful and the
consequences are so far reaching thus they would render life
on Earth among the common lower masses as irrelevant to
people who know these secrets. And the "bigger issues" that
would concern "what it is all about" and similar would be
known only to the higher intelligences and "men" of Earth.
This is why the common populace are generally left to run
amuck, as they are viewed as "irrelevant" compared to what
the Intelligence and "men" of Earth know.
THE BORG
Michael Gordge
> Reality? LOL! You people are well known for ignoring reality.
Proving conclusively that ewe can not substaniate your hysterical
lefturdian nasal whining rant re capitalism, what a fucking wanker ewe
are.
MG
Michael Gordge
> Urion wrote:
> > Greed to a certain extent is good and is part of human nature. Without
> > a certain level of greed there would be no progress in any sector of
> > society.
>
> I wouldn't say that.
Well of course ewe wouldn't say that, simply because ewe are a fucking
stupid knuckle-dragging lefturd nasal whining idiot who can not
substaniate anything ewe regurgitate and thats simply because ewe do
nothing more than regurgitate the mindless rants and chants of other
leftist envy ridden commie fuckwits.
MG
Andrew Usher
Aha! So you don't even read my posts before responding with your
mindless insults.
People like you that scream about the virtue of pure capitalism are
usually those that for one reason or another have never had to get a
real job - perhaps, like you most likely are - they have not finished
school. They're interested only in forcing capitalism on other people,
not on themselves.
Andrew Usher
THE BORG
"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:57162e4d-eb45-41ef...@g8g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
****
Whatever you say about Andrew Usher, he certainly has
eloquence and a good usage of the English language.
When an argument is presented logically, rationally and in
an eloquent manner, then at least credit is given to the
intelligence of the writer, and consideration given to his
opinion.
If you, Michael Gordge, learnt how to speak English, rather
than profanity, you may find more people would listen to
what you have to say.
THE BORG
MG
Michael Gordge
> If you, Michael Gordge, learnt how to speak English, rather
> than profanity, you may find more people would listen to
> what you have to say.
Ewe fucking arogant stuck-up piece of leftist / conservatist crap
borg, what the fuck would ewe know?
Explain what in the following statement is not a rational and English
written arguement, which I have used to substaniate capitalism as
being derived from the reality of man's (the human individual)
identity, therefore contradicts Usher's nauseating nasal whining
leftist chant?
Its the argument I first put to the leftist git Usher and which he
refuses to debate.
"Life is a self generating self sustaining form of existence, you
digest your food, you breath your air, your energy can only be
activated by your mind, you are therefore the owner of your actions,
ownership by default implies responsibility."
Whether or not you want to be, you are in fact born a capitalist, you
own yourself, it's as natural as your fucking nose, why dont ewe want
to be held responsible for your actions?"
MG
Michael Gordge
> They're interested only in forcing capitalism on other people,
> not on themselves.
>
> Andrew Usher
Wrong, capitalism is destroyed / no longer exists, by the initiated
use of force.
As I have explained, capitalism is based upon reality, it is based
upon YOU being the owner, therefore YOU being responsible for the
results of YOUR actions generated by YOUR mind.
Capitalism means leaving YOU free and alone, why? So as that YOU can
be the SOLE benefactor and the sole decider of the results of YOUR
energy, why? Because they belong to YOU and so as that YOU can be held
responsible and so as that YOU and YOU alone can determine your very
own perceptions of obtaining for YOURSELF a greater for lessor value
via the use of trade.
BOTH parties to a capitalist transaction benefit, how? By applying
their very own perception of obtainig a greater for lessor value for
EACH OTHER.
MG
Urion
> Bill Gates is not a good example of greed. Sure, he has gotten more
> wealth than any man ought to have, but not by being particularly
> greedy, just particularly lucky.
It's all about luck actually. It's luck that we were even born and are
actually alive. Also quantum mechanics supports luck.
It's luck that the molecules which make me me and you you have
arranged themselves to create diverse life and eventually also
humans.
It's luck that you were born in an industrialized country that is
better off than 3rd world countries (America, UK, etc)
It's luck that you were born into a family with a decent income to
live comfortably.
It's luck that you were born with attractive traits that the opposite
sex may adore about you.
It's luck that you were born male, allowing you to have a step up on
society.
It's luck that you were born with a higher intellect than most humans.
So, the moral is: Don't be arrogant, be appreciative because deep down
life is all about luck and we are all lucky to be alive.
John Jones
YOu are, in fact, and soberly, talking about capitalism, and not communism.
Capitalism exits as a parasite on communal society.
Ophelia
"THE BORG" <bo...@gone.com> wrote in message
news:zzEdn.142351$0b3....@newsfe24.ams2...
Blimey! You are a proper little ray of sunshine aren't ya?
--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
jmfbahciv
> On 12 Feb, 23:29, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> The endless 'civil rights' crap is not only a waste of time
>> and effort, but has no purpose now other than beating down white men.
>> All reasonable goals in regard to the environment having been
>> accomplished, all the latest 'green' nonsense is just that. Global
>> warming, in particular, while a legitimate issue, is abused simply to
>> make people feel guilty.
>
> I have similar suspicions, but I think it's more likely to be a ploy
> to increase profits, now that capitalists have realised that green
> technologies can be profitable, and that a green agenda can serve to
> hobble developing economies.
It's profitable only because oil prices have increased enough.
<snip ignorance about wealth creation>
Andrew Usher
> On Feb 14, 7:13 am, "THE BORG" <b...@gone.com> wrote:
>
> > If you, Michael Gordge, learnt how to speak English, rather
> > than profanity, you may find more people would listen to
> > what you have to say.
>
> Ewe fucking arogant stuck-up piece of leftist / conservatist crap
> borg, what the fuck would ewe know?
What he knows is that your posts are neither polite nor well-written;
whereas his are, even though I disagree with his theories.
> Its the argument I first put to the leftist git Usher and which he
> refuses to debate.
I do not debate you as you have not shown yourself capable of civil
debate.
> "Life is a self generating self sustaining form of existence, you
> digest your food, you breath your air, your energy can only be
> activated by your mind, you are therefore the owner of your actions,
> ownership by default implies responsibility."
>
> Whether or not you want to be, you are in fact born a capitalist, you
> own yourself, it's as natural as your fucking nose, why dont ewe want
> to be held responsible for your actions?"
What this is is 'not even wrong' i.e. its premisses are so far off
base that it can't even be argued against sensibly.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
It is indeed about luck. And that's what pro-capitalists are less than
honest about.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> On 12 Feb, 23:29, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > There is a perverse group aiming successfully to take control of
> > society in the past decades. I will call this group leftism, as I have
> > in previous posts, for lack of a better term: they deliberately do not
> > use any word for themselves that is not misleading. Leftism is not
> > identical with Judaism (Jewishness) though there is a clear
> > correlation, and it may be so that leftism would never have arisen
> > without Jews. Now what is so evil about these people is that they are
> > dishonest to their very core; there whole belief system is dishonest.
> > It is about hijacking men's natural patterns of thinking to make them
> > act in a way contrary to their interests, and thus perpetuate the
> > control by an elite that doesn't really give a fuck about us (meaning
> > white men not in the elite) - in that respect it is very Jewish, and
> > truly it seems that Jews are in the elite almost automatically.
>
> Who exactly are you alluding to with "leftism"?
I have repeated it several times.
> > Now my last post was about the metric system, and as I said there that
> > is only one issue associated with them. I chose it not only for the
> > obvious reasons but as a test case: if you won't stand against metric
> > you surely won't stand for anything decent. Yes, there may be an
> > economic argument for metric but it is only a slight one, and using it
> > shows that you will subordinate everything to the profit motive - just
> > as they want. Leftism has recently merged with capitalist ideology - a
> > brilliant strategy for them - meaning they now have business on their
> > side, as well as both the Democrat and Republican parties.
>
> "Leftism", by which we mean certain "left-wing" institutions, have
> often merged with business in the past. Unions are a prime example.
> New Labour is another.
Well, the Establishment has a way of gobbling up any threats to it.
But in this case I think it is and intended strategy by our leaders.
> > They serve capitalism by distracting us from the real issues with our
> > system, by means of manufactured ones that are not useless but even
> > dangerous. I can hardly account for the harm done by feminism, for
> > example.
>
> The harm done to whom?
To men, and to civil society.
> > All reasonable goals in regard to the environment having been
> > accomplished, all the latest 'green' nonsense is just that. Global
> > warming, in particular, while a legitimate issue, is abused simply to
> > make people feel guilty.
>
> I have similar suspicions, but I think it's more likely to be a ploy
> to increase profits, now that capitalists have realised that green
> technologies can be profitable, and that a green agenda can serve to
> hobble developing economies.
Of course, once it got big, business figured out how to take it over.
'Green' businesses are now the biggest supporters of the regulations
that make them necessary.
> > And that's what it's all about: guilty,
> > guilty, guilty! They want us (white men) to believe that we are guilty
> > of all the ills that have even happened to humanity. One might
> > legitimately wonder why they are so biased when it comes to race and
> > sex. The reason is simple: they see only white men as a possible
> > threat to their power, and therefore everything possible has to be
> > done to undermine them, including deliberately reducing profit by buying
> > off women and non-whites; better, after all, to have less profit now
> > but remain in power indefinitely.
>
> Isn't the common denominator here not race or gender, but wealth? That
> is, the rich are as threatened by the white working class as they are
> by the blacks, as threatened by women as they are by men?
Not in the same way. They know that blacks or women (since they
perceive themselves as benefiting from their system) are not a threat
to form a political revolution. The white working class is different;
they'd never let us get handed power in the same way that blacks and
woman do - would they? That would threaten their monopoly on control,
and any attempt to maintain it would indeed lead down the road to
revolution - just as it did in 1789.
> > CAPITALISM IS UNNATURAL AND A LIE. We men are naturally socialist
>
> Andrew, I ask seriously, are you a homosexual by any chance? Or at
> least ambivalent about it?
Why? I sometimes wish I were, as I know how dreadful is the influence
of women, but I am not.
> > And they, of course, have taken great strides in making it
> > ever more difficult to find another job after being fired from one, as
> > they want employers to have absolute power over us - the kind of power
> > that all our political theory forbids to the State.
>
> Indeed. It was full employment for 30 years after the second world war
> that largely contributed to the capitalists' inability to discipline
> workers. That's why these days they normally try to keep a certain
> section of society unemployed, in order to maintain competition
> between workers and ensure discipline.
I'm not sure it's so organised as that. But it does have that effect
without a doubt; and a combination of modern technology, legal
restrictions, etc. makes it very difficult to operate outside their
system at all.
> > There are not many issues but just one - how to attack the ruling
> > class and its weapons, capitalist ideology, leftism, and feminism.
> >
> > The freedom of our thoughts can bring down their walls and crumble
> > their foundations!
>
> It might take a bit more than thought alone.
Actually, that was a reference to the anthem 'Die Gedanken sind frei'
- no one picked up on it.
Andrew Usher
Ste
> Ste wrote:
>
> > > And that's what it's all about: guilty,
> > > guilty, guilty! They want us (white men) to believe that we are guilty
> > > of all the ills that have even happened to humanity. One might
> > > legitimately wonder why they are so biased when it comes to race and
> > > sex. The reason is simple: they see only white men as a possible
> > > threat to their power, and therefore everything possible has to be
> > > done to undermine them, including deliberately reducing profit by buying
> > > off women and non-whites; better, after all, to have less profit now
> > > but remain in power indefinitely.
>
> > Isn't the common denominator here not race or gender, but wealth? That
> > is, the rich are as threatened by the white working class as they are
> > by the blacks, as threatened by women as they are by men?
>
> Not in the same way. They know that blacks or women (since they
> perceive themselves as benefiting from their system) are not a threat
> to form a political revolution.
But that has not been the case in places like South Africa. Blacks
have consistently posed a revolutionary threat, and there was no
question that blacks benefitted from the apartheid regime. As I say,
the only common thread is that the rich face a constant revolutionary
threat from the poor and dispossessed.
> The white working class is different;
> they'd never let us get handed power in the same way that blacks and
> woman do - would they? That would threaten their monopoly on control,
> and any attempt to maintain it would indeed lead down the road to
> revolution - just as it did in 1789.
I think you forget that the working class (which only incidentally
happens to be predominantly white in the UK) was heavily disciplined
during the 80s, with the very strongest working class communities and
workers' organisations smashed. The difference with women and blacks
is that in their present form they are not really a threat to the
existing economic system, largely because they're having to fight
against social as well as economic oppression.
> > > CAPITALISM IS UNNATURAL AND A LIE. We men are naturally socialist
>
> > Andrew, I ask seriously, are you a homosexual by any chance? Or at
> > least ambivalent about it?
>
> Why? I sometimes wish I were, as I know how dreadful is the influence
> of women, but I am not.
Lol. No particular reason, except that I just couldn't imagine you
finding it tasteful to be involved with a woman - either that, or it
would be a guilty pleasure. The emphatic way in which you denounce all
women verges on comical - even if one were to concede that there is
some truth to your stereotypical characterisations.
> > > And they, of course, have taken great strides in making it
> > > ever more difficult to find another job after being fired from one, as
> > > they want employers to have absolute power over us - the kind of power
> > > that all our political theory forbids to the State.
>
> > Indeed. It was full employment for 30 years after the second world war
> > that largely contributed to the capitalists' inability to discipline
> > workers. That's why these days they normally try to keep a certain
> > section of society unemployed, in order to maintain competition
> > between workers and ensure discipline.
>
> I'm not sure it's so organised as that.
I think you'd be surprised. As unemployment drops, you'd expect
inflation to rise and productivity to fall, as labour becomes less
disciplined and the relative labour supply becomes more scarce (and
therefore demanding higher wages, etc). And when that happens,
governments with monetarist policies (like the Thatcher government)
react by reigning in government spending, and ratcheting up interest
rates, which puts people back on the dole and wrings out
"inefficiency".
> But it does have that effect
> without a doubt; and a combination of modern technology, legal
> restrictions, etc. makes it very difficult to operate outside their
> system at all.
Indeed.
spudnik
its founder has littered its "data" with skads
of his "space opera" predilection. example:
'Fifties USA "culture" was implanted from the the Marduk system!
there are plenty of operative membership groups,
like Skull and Bones, the Bilderburgers, the Trilateral Commission,
and
also the British monarchy e.g. (which has been said to be vestigial
for decades, by the Tory and Labor presses; well) ...
not to be bothered with silly crap like "the" illuminati (of course,
Robert Anton Wilson spent a lot of time in building it up,
in a wholly fictional setting).
> > Knowledge of space, the existence of intelligent alien life, and what can
> > be termed "universal secrets" would be known to the "men" not to the
> > common masses who would be viewed as the "children".
thus:
your rotating list of anti-einsteinmania is getting rather
repeatative,
dood.
thus:
Michelson-Morley not null; just say, Duh!
thus:
most of Russell;'s lagubrious paradoxes are perilinguistic,
lacking the element (or variable) of time; are they not?
thus:
of course, there is a base-one;
what is it's digital counter, by induction on base-ten?
in factorial base, it has n digits; eh?
> In base 1, the factorial n! has n! digits.
> [OK I realize there's no "base 1"...]
thus:
sea-level is not rising, globally --
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf
-- and warming is mostly equatorial. however,
there is massive loss of soil, and that might change *relative* sea-
level,
in some locations, as well as dysplace some sea!
thus quoth:
Let’s take a look at the complexity of polar bear life. First, the
polar bear has been around for about 250,000 years, having survived
both an Ice Age, and the last Interglacial period (130,000 years ago),
when there was virtually no ice at the North Pole. Clearly, polar
bears have adapted to the changing environment, as evidenced by their
presence today.
(This fact alone makes the polar bear smarter than Al Gore and the
other global warming alarmists. Perhaps the polar bear survived the
last Interglacial because it did not have computer climate models that
said polar bears should not have survived!)
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GW_polarbears.pdf
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Global_Warming.html
thus:
the photographic record that I saw,
in some rather eclectic compendium of Einsteinmania,
seemed to show quite a "bending" effect, I must say;
not that the usual interpretation is correct, though.
Nude Scientist said:
> > "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-
> > bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned
--Another Flower for Einstein:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html
--les OEuvres!
http://wlym.com
--Stop Cheeny, Rice & the ICC in Sudan;
no more Anglo-american quagmires!
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2010/100204rice
Sam
You talk about base arguments and you come out with that clanger.
Who are the real elites?
How do they operate?
Sam
> "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
This issue would probably go over his head. Most liberal/leftist
types have an in-built firewall that renders the cognitive domain
pretty much useless.
Most who have concrete assertions about their supposed reality cannot
cope with information that challenges their feeble world paradigm.
I often wonder that what the mainstream calls insane is actually a
natural reaction to the contrived, inane, reality we live in. How
else does one explain 13 years of New Labour?
Michael Gordge
>
> What this is is 'not even wrong' i.e. its premisses are so far off
> base that it can't even be argued against sensibly.
It's the premise of capitalism that can not be argue against, and so
because ewe cant, ewe choose to attack me and not the subject being
debated, typical behaviour of ewe lefturd retards.
Capitalism is based upon and is utterly impotent without, the premise
of private ownership, begining at you / your life / your body - based
on facts of reality, that life is a self generating self sustaining
form of existence, you breath your air, you digest your food, your
energy can only be activated by your mind, therefore you are the owner
and you are therefore responsible for the results of your energy which
can only be initiated by your mind.
You didn't answer, why dont you want to be held responsible for the
results of your energy?
MG
Andrew Usher
> On Feb 14, 11:41 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > What this is is 'not even wrong' i.e. its premisses are so far off
> > base that it can't even be argued against sensibly.
>
> It's the premise of capitalism that can not be argue against, and so
> because ewe cant, ewe choose to attack me and not the subject being
> debated, typical behaviour of ewe lefturd retards.
See what I said about this guy not even reading my posts !
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > The common masses are very much in the dark about what is
> > the true situation on Earth.
> > The Intelligence of Earth only allows them to know what they
> > think they should know.
> >
> > THE BORG
>
> This issue would probably go over his head. Most liberal/leftist
> types have an in-built firewall that renders the cognitive domain
> pretty much useless.
Your 'cognitive domain' is not working properly if you uncritically
accept such unsupported conspiracy theories.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > They don't exist. I'm sure the real elites are fine with us believing
> > in junk like that, though.
>
> You talk about base arguments and you come out with that clanger.
>
> Who are the real elites?
>
> How do they operate?
Read my first post, and perhaps previous posts by me. Then use your
brain, if you can.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > > Isn't the common denominator here not race or gender, but wealth? That
> > > is, the rich are as threatened by the white working class as they are
> > > by the blacks, as threatened by women as they are by men?
> >
> > Not in the same way. They know that blacks or women (since they
> > perceive themselves as benefiting from their system) are not a threat
> > to form a political revolution.
>
> But that has not been the case in places like South Africa. Blacks
> have consistently posed a revolutionary threat, and there was no
> question that blacks benefitted from the apartheid regime.
First of all, I think you mean 'blacks did NOT benefit from the
apartheid regime', don't you?
Anyway, it's a question of numbers there. When blacks outnumber us
five-to-one, they can be a threat. When they are outnumbered by that
ratio, not really. Even so, they are not a threat to organise in the
same way that say, the Bolsheviks were.
> As I say,
> the only common thread is that the rich face a constant revolutionary
> threat from the poor and dispossessed.
But they don't. Why then is there no revolutionary threat right now in
the Western world? It's because they've successfully brainwashed
almost all of us. What to do about that is an important question.
> > The white working class is different;
> > they'd never let us get handed power in the same way that blacks and
> > woman do - would they? That would threaten their monopoly on control,
> > and any attempt to maintain it would indeed lead down the road to
> > revolution - just as it did in 1789.
>
> I think you forget that the working class (which only incidentally
> happens to be predominantly white in the UK) was heavily disciplined
> during the 80s, with the very strongest working class communities and
> workers' organisations smashed.
If they were strong enough, it would be impossible to smash them, as
they could just go underground.
> The difference with women and blacks
> is that in their present form they are not really a threat to the
> existing economic system, largely because they're having to fight
> against social as well as economic oppression.
There is no social oppression against blacks or women! Not anymore;
they are advantaged in every possible way. The decisive reason they
are not a threat is that they have been bought off as a result.
> > > Indeed. It was full employment for 30 years after the second world war
> > > that largely contributed to the capitalists' inability to discipline
> > > workers. That's why these days they normally try to keep a certain
> > > section of society unemployed, in order to maintain competition
> > > between workers and ensure discipline.
> >
> > I'm not sure it's so organised as that.
>
> I think you'd be surprised. As unemployment drops, you'd expect
> inflation to rise and productivity to fall, as labour becomes less
> disciplined and the relative labour supply becomes more scarce (and
> therefore demanding higher wages, etc). And when that happens,
> governments with monetarist policies (like the Thatcher government)
> react by reigning in government spending, and ratcheting up interest
> rates, which puts people back on the dole and wrings out
> "inefficiency".
If you goal is production, then it's an inefficiency to have people
not working when they are capable of working - even if they are less
productive than others. Efficiency for business only means profits for
them, not the general welfare.
Monetarism isn't all bad, as far as it recognises the importance of
the money supply - inflating the currency (as Nixon did) is no cure
for structural problems.
Andrew Usher
Urion
> But they don't. Why then is there no revolutionary threat right now in
> the Western world? It's because they've successfully brainwashed
> almost all of us. What to do about that is an important question.
The only reason that revolution hasn't happened by now is that most
people do not want a revolution because they know that revolution may
only make things worse for them. Also most of the time revolutions are
squashed by the powerful minority.
Ste
> Ste wrote:
> > > > Isn't the common denominator here not race or gender, but wealth? That
> > > > is, the rich are as threatened by the white working class as they are
> > > > by the blacks, as threatened by women as they are by men?
>
> > > Not in the same way. They know that blacks or women (since they
> > > perceive themselves as benefiting from their system) are not a threat
> > > to form a political revolution.
>
> > But that has not been the case in places like South Africa. Blacks
> > have consistently posed a revolutionary threat, and there was no
> > question that blacks benefitted from the apartheid regime.
>
> First of all, I think you mean 'blacks did NOT benefit from the
> apartheid regime', don't you?
Yes. It's interesting you mention that because I've just had an
argument on another group about the meaning of "no question that". And
yes, in this case, it means "it is emphatically false that..."
> Anyway, it's a question of numbers there. When blacks outnumber us
> five-to-one, they can be a threat. When they are outnumbered by that
> ratio, not really. Even so, they are not a threat to organise in the
> same way that say, the Bolsheviks were.
I disagree. If your population consists of 17% blacks, within liberal
society you can't successfully resist an internal group of that size
that is highly organised with a common aim and little to lose, even
less so if the remaining 83% are themselves ideologically fractured.
> > As I say,
> > the only common thread is that the rich face a constant revolutionary
> > threat from the poor and dispossessed.
>
> But they don't. Why then is there no revolutionary threat right now in
> the Western world?
Perhaps because the economy has been booming at home, we're becoming
increasingly a police state, and we're fighting a number of foreign
campaigns?
> It's because they've successfully brainwashed
> almost all of us.
Perhaps. Personally I think it has more to do with material
circumstances.
> What to do about that is an important question.
As Marx said: "the philosophers have interpreted the world; the point
however is to change it".
> > > The white working class is different;
> > > they'd never let us get handed power in the same way that blacks and
> > > woman do - would they? That would threaten their monopoly on control,
> > > and any attempt to maintain it would indeed lead down the road to
> > > revolution - just as it did in 1789.
>
> > I think you forget that the working class (which only incidentally
> > happens to be predominantly white in the UK) was heavily disciplined
> > during the 80s, with the very strongest working class communities and
> > workers' organisations smashed.
>
> If they were strong enough, it would be impossible to smash them, as
> they could just go underground.
Haha. That's quite a funny statement given that I had in mind the
miners' strike.
The point in the 80s is that the working class were not wholly united
whereas the ruling class was, and all the strongholds of unionisation
like pit villages and nationalised industries were ultimately smashed.
You're right that a united working class is impossible to smash by a
fractured ruling class, but that simply wasn't the situation in the
80s..
> > The difference with women and blacks
> > is that in their present form they are not really a threat to the
> > existing economic system, largely because they're having to fight
> > against social as well as economic oppression.
>
> There is no social oppression against blacks or women! Not anymore;
> they are advantaged in every possible way.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that blacks or women are "advantaged"
above and beyond white men. Most of the "advantages" are there
precisely to offset the systematic disadvantages that continue to
exist, and there is no measure by which women or blacks are over-
represented in any area of society as a result of intervention.
> The decisive reason they
> are not a threat is that they have been bought off as a result.
That's correct.
> > > > Indeed. It was full employment for 30 years after the second world war
> > > > that largely contributed to the capitalists' inability to discipline
> > > > workers. That's why these days they normally try to keep a certain
> > > > section of society unemployed, in order to maintain competition
> > > > between workers and ensure discipline.
>
> > > I'm not sure it's so organised as that.
>
> > I think you'd be surprised. As unemployment drops, you'd expect
> > inflation to rise and productivity to fall, as labour becomes less
> > disciplined and the relative labour supply becomes more scarce (and
> > therefore demanding higher wages, etc). And when that happens,
> > governments with monetarist policies (like the Thatcher government)
> > react by reigning in government spending, and ratcheting up interest
> > rates, which puts people back on the dole and wrings out
> > "inefficiency".
>
> If you goal is production, then it's an inefficiency to have people
> not working when they are capable of working - even if they are less
> productive than others. Efficiency for business only means profits for
> them, not the general welfare.
But the goal of capitalism isn't production, the goal is profit. And
the capitalists would say there is no point increasing production if
it reduces profits.
> Monetarism isn't all bad, as far as it recognises the importance of
> the money supply - inflating the currency (as Nixon did) is no cure
> for structural problems.
Monetarism isn't "bad" in the sense of "a false analysis", but it is
bad in the sense that it is presupposes that a free-market capitalist
ideology is desirable.
jmfbahciv
> On 17 Feb, 02:58, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Ste wrote:
>>>>> Isn't the common denominator here not race or gender, but wealth? That
>>>>> is, the rich are as threatened by the white working class as they are
>>>>> by the blacks, as threatened by women as they are by men?
>>>> Not in the same way. They know that blacks or women (since they
>>>> perceive themselves as benefiting from their system) are not a threat
>>>> to form a political revolution.
>>> But that has not been the case in places like South Africa. Blacks
>>> have consistently posed a revolutionary threat, and there was no
>>> question that blacks benefitted from the apartheid regime.
>> First of all, I think you mean 'blacks did NOT benefit from the
>> apartheid regime', don't you?
>
> Yes. It's interesting you mention that because I've just had an
> argument on another group about the meaning of "no question that". And
> yes, in this case, it means "it is emphatically false that..."
>
>
and both of you need to learn the definition of "blacks" as
it's used in South Africa.
/BAH
ASCEND Internet Marketing Group
> There is a perverse group aiming successfully to take control of
> society in the past decades. I will call this group leftism, as I have
> in previous posts, for lack of a better term: they deliberately do not
> use any word for themselves that is not misleading. Leftism is not
> identical with Judaism (Jewishness) though there is a clear
> correlation, and it may be so that leftism would never have arisen
> without Jews. Now what is so evil about these people is that they are
> dishonest to their very core; there whole belief system is dishonest.
> It is about hijacking men's natural patterns of thinking to make them
> act in a way contrary to their interests, and thus perpetuate the
> control by an elite that doesn't really give a fuck about us (meaning
> white men not in the elite) - in that respect it is very Jewish, and
> truly it seems that Jews are in the elite almost automatically.
>
> is only one issue associated with them. I chose it not only for the
> obvious reasons but as a test case: if you won't stand against metric
> you surely won't stand for anything decent. Yes, there may be an
> economic argument for metric but it is only a slight one, and using it
> shows that you will subordinate everything to the profit motive - just
> as they want. Leftism has recently merged with capitalist ideology - a
> brilliant strategy for them - meaning they now have business on their
> side, as well as both the Democrat and Republican parties.
>
> someone that has read and understood my entire essay, as respect
> commands.
>
> system, by means of manufactured ones that are not useless but even
> dangerous. I can hardly account for the harm done by feminism, for
> and effort, but has no purpose now other than beating down white men.
> accomplished, all the latest 'green' nonsense is just that. Global
> warming, in particular, while a legitimate issue, is abused simply to
> guilty, guilty! They want us (white men) to believe that we are guilty
> of all the ills that have even happened to humanity. One might
> legitimately wonder why they are so biased when it comes to race and
> sex. The reason is simple: they see only white men as a possible
> threat to their power, and therefore everything possible has to be
> off women and non-whites; better, after all, to have less profit now
> but remain in power indefinitely.
>
> some men pervert this and take it upon themselves to rule us and steal
> from us, and they can only do this by fooling us. Once, religion and
> ignorance provided the pretext to do that, while now capitalist
> ideology does. But it is built on sand, their economic arguments
> assume an ideal state that never has and never can exist. In contrast,
> recent history provides endless examples of business doing the most
> atrocious things, and that they will do in pursuit of profit such evil
> things that so sane man would ever do alone. Capitalism makes
> exploitation worse _relative to economic conditions_ than non-
> capitalism, because of its almighty weapon - termination of
> ever more difficult to find another job after being fired from one, as
> they want employers to have absolute power over us - the kind of power
> that all our political theory forbids to the State.
>
> more or less power; it depends on circumstances. But what is clear is
> that whatever power the government does have ought to be directed for
> the people, and not against them; and that whenever any power it not,
> it must be altered or abolished, the latter if it is clear that it
> can't be reformed (and this I have stated with regard to CPS in
> particular). Whatever I am, I am not a Marxist as I do not believe in
> the philsophical junk associated with the name of Marxism, which is of
> course Jewish.
>
> class and its weapons, capitalist ideology, leftism, and feminism.
>
> The freedom of our thoughts can bring down their walls and crumble
> their foundations!
>
Wow, your a shit for brains. Impressive.
Darwin123
> > The difference with women and blacks
> > is that in their present form they are not really a threat to the
> > existing economic system, largely because they're having to fight
> > against social as well as economic oppression.
>
You are a National Socialist! I sensed it from the beginning, but
wasn't sure.
Michael Gordge
> See what I said about this guy not even reading my posts !
>
> Andrew Usher
In your post of arbitrary leftist garbage ewe claimed that socialism
was natural and that capitalism was not, ewe did not substaniate your
position, whereas capitalism can be substaniated as being as natural
as your nose, you are born capitalist, (not withstanding in your case
your parents did not want you to think) you were born the owner of
yourself and therefore the owner of your ideas that must be used to
activate your energy.
MG
Michael Gordge
You arbitrary unsubstaniated nauseating nasal whining leftist claim is
"capitalism is based upon sand", whereas in reality it is based upon
the foundation of the rock of private property ownership and beginning
at you, your body your skin, up-holding YOU as the owner, therefore
responsible for the results of your actions.
The examples ewe gave against capitalism are dishonest, they are NOT
capitalism they are cronyism.
MG
Michael Gordge
>
> Andrew Usher
"I can set no absolute rule on whether the government ought to have
more or less power; ..........................
..................... Whatever I am, I am not a Marxist as I do not
believe in
the philsophical junk associated with the name of Marxism, which is
of
course Jewish."
You need to spend some time on checking and clarifying your premise.
MG
Michael Gordge
The evidence is he's lost his way on his journey, or to be more
accurate, he's running around in circles between socialism communism -
marxism / fascism / nazism, the silly twit believes there are
fundamental differences between them.
MG
Andrew Usher
>
> Wow, your a shit for brains. Impressive.
Wow, you can sling an unsupported insult. Impressive.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
Excellent posting, dimwit! You are attempting to call me a 'National
Socialist', but only quoted another poster!
In any case, it's nothing but a typical leftist tactic to scream
'Nazi' at views that challenge their dogmas.
Andrew Usher
Darwin123
> Darwin123 wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 9:58 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The difference with women and blacks
> > > > is that in their present form they are not really a threat to the
> > > > existing economic system, largely because they're having to fight
> > > > against social as well as economic oppression.
>
> > You are a National Socialist! I sensed it from the beginning, but
> > wasn't sure
>
> Excellent posting, dimwit! You are attempting to call me a 'National
> Socialist', but only quoted another poster!
when I joined Google. The software sometimes lists me as Darwin123,
and sometimes as Lorentz.
>
> In any case, it's nothing but a typical leftist tactic to scream
> 'Nazi' at views that challenge their dogmas.
concerning race, not on logic or profit. It is not precisely Fascism.
However, it is a convincing facsimile.
>
> Andrew Usher
Immortalist
> On Feb 14, 6:42 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > They're interested only in forcing capitalism on other people,
> > not on themselves.
>
> > Andrew Usher
>
> Wrong, capitalism is destroyed / no longer exists, by the initiated
> use of force.
>
> As I have explained, capitalism is based upon reality, it is based
> upon YOU being the owner, therefore YOU being responsible for the
> results of YOUR actions generated by YOUR mind.
>
I agree that capitalism is based on the reality of altruistic
instincts involved with "fair deals" and fair trades" which trigger
specially evolved emotions and reaction patterns. Capitalism and
leftism/comunitarianism are both based upon the natural altruistic
drives to not cheat one another. Your stealing the concept and
applying it to just capitalism man.
Altruistic behaviour is common throughout the animal kingdom,
particularly in species with complex social structures. For example,
vampire bats regularly regurgitate blood and donate it to other
members of their group who have failed to feed that night, ensuring
they do not starve. In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives
help in raising its young from other ‘helper’ birds, who protect the
nest from predators and help to feed the fledglings. Vervet monkeys
give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators,
even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves,
increasing their personal chance of being attacked. In social insect
colonies (ants, wasps, bees and termites), sterile workers devote
their whole lives to caring for the queen, constructing and protecting
the nest, foraging for food, and tending the larvae. Such behaviour is
maximally altruistic: sterile workers obviously do not leave any
offspring of their own -- so have personal fitness of zero -- but
their actions greatly assist the reproductive efforts of the queen.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/
Some animals are 'nice' to each other. Vampire bats, for example, have
been shown to share meals. These animals live life on the edge. If a
bat fails to find a meal it is often unable to survive until the next
evening's hunting. A bat that has fed well, though, has more than
enough to survive, and could easily spare some of its meal. So
sometimes a full bat will regurgitate some of its meal to another that
is starving.
But why should one bat share with another? Bats within a colony are
not necessarily relatives, and so there seems to be no reason why they
should be so charitable. Needless to say, there is a good reason.
These animals are showing behaviour known as 'reciprocal altruism',
which simply means that they lend each other favours in the
expectation that the favours will be repaid some time in the future. A
bat which one day might be bloated by a great meal, might on another
evening be less lucky and be in need of help itself. By being generous
one day at little cost to itself, it might be saved from starvation
the next by another bat returning the favour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/mammals/explore/altruism.shtml
> Capitalism means leaving YOU free and alone, why? So as that YOU can
> be the SOLE benefactor and the sole decider of the results of YOUR
> energy, why? Because they belong to YOU and so as that YOU can be held
> responsible and so as that YOU and YOU alone can determine your very
> own perceptions of obtaining for YOURSELF a greater for lessor value
> via the use of trade.
>
> BOTH parties to a capitalist transaction benefit, how? By applying
> their very own perception of obtainig a greater for lessor value for
> EACH OTHER.
>
> MG
Immortalist
National socialists prefer giving more freedom and rights to
corporations than the people. Leftists and communitarians are more
concerned about the rights of individuals over corperatism.
Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a
mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests
subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of
national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic,
cultural, or racial attributes. Various scholars attribute different
characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually
seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, statism,
militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, collectivism,
corporatism, populism, and opposition to economic and political
liberalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian: corporativismo)
refers to a political or economic system in which power is given to
civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian,
social, cultural, and professional groups. These civic assemblies,
known as corporations (not necessarily in the same sense as
contemporary business corporations) are unelected bodies with an
internal hierarchy; their purpose is to exert control over their
respective areas of social or economic life. Thus, for example, a
steel corporation would be a cartel composed of all the business
leaders in the steel industry, coming together to discuss a common
policy on prices and wages. When much political and economic power
rests in the hands of such groups, then a corporatist system is in
place....
...Political scientists may also use the term corporatism to describe
a practice whereby an authoritarian state, through the process of
licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious,
economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their
leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority
by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy, as well
as sometimes running them, either directly or indirectly through shill
corporations. This usage is particularly common in the area of East
Asian studies, and is sometimes also referred to as state corporatism.
Bappa
> On Feb 13, 8:29 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > CAPITALISM IS UNNATURAL AND A LIE.
Unfortunately, capitalism is natural and true, wherever allowed.
Capitalism is the one true way of the cannibal swine - it must keep on
gorgin and gorging upon Mother Nature and upon all decency until it
bursts. Its small children - accidentally created, never lovingly -
then feast upon the dying carcass with gusto, while trying to snap
each other out of existence.
Such is what happens, with all listed companies.
> Capitalism is natural and therefore is a fact.
Yep, yepwohl. We humans are such swine.
> Life is a self generating self sustaining form of existence, you
> digest your food, you breath your air, your energy can only be
> activated by your mind, you are therefore the owner of your actions,
> ownership by default implies responsibility.
How Randist. Actually most of us are robots and morons controlled by
the press and great institutions. Technology has made Randist
individualism seemingly possible, but only tenuously and
derivatively. In the Stone age, individualism meant death. For when
the tribe outed you, you could only starve - no matter how great a
hunter or gatherer you were in the trible
When great-great individualists nevertheless have to depend upon
others for their survival (someone else does their food gathering,
they just havr to pay) the situation is ultimately always
socialistic, like it or not.
> Whether or not you want to be, you are in fact born a capitalist, you
> own yourself, it's as natural as your fucking nose, why dont ewe want
> to be held responsible for your actions?
The law of karma is always there, like it or not. How it bites your
behind, is another story, unknown
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.
>
> MG
Michael Gordge
> When great-great individualists nevertheless have to depend upon
> others for their survival (someone else does their food gathering,
> they just havr to pay) the situation is ultimately always
> socialistic, like it or not.
There is nothing socialistic in you being left free and alone to be
the sole benefactor and the sole decider of the results of your
energy, idiot.
MG
Michael Gordge
> I agree that capitalism is based on the reality of altruistic
> instincts involved with "fair deals" and fair trades" which trigger
> specially evolved emotions and reaction patterns.
wtf? who the fuck are you agreeing with? yourself?
MG
Andrew Usher
> > > But that has not been the case in places like South Africa. Blacks
> > > have consistently posed a revolutionary threat, and there was no
> > > question that blacks benefitted from the apartheid regime.
> >
> > First of all, I think you mean 'blacks did NOT benefit from the
> > apartheid regime', don't you?
>
> Yes. It's interesting you mention that because I've just had an
> argument on another group about the meaning of "no question that". And
> yes, in this case, it means "it is emphatically false that..."
That's not how I use it. It means 'it is undeniable that ...' Anyway,
I'm not sure that it is so obvious that apartheid hurt blacks, if you
consider what's going on now in South Africa.
> > Anyway, it's a question of numbers there. When blacks outnumber us
> > five-to-one, they can be a threat. When they are outnumbered by that
> > ratio, not really. Even so, they are not a threat to organise in the
> > same way that say, the Bolsheviks were.
>
> I disagree. If your population consists of 17% blacks, within liberal
> society you can't successfully resist an internal group of that size
> that is highly organised with a common aim and little to lose,
One can always give them something to lose, you know.
> even
> less so if the remaining 83% are themselves ideologically fractured.
Well, yes. That's how the Nazis took over, isn't it?
> > > As I say,
> > > the only common thread is that the rich face a constant revolutionary
> > > threat from the poor and dispossessed.
> >
> > But they don't. Why then is there no revolutionary threat right now in
> > the Western world?
>
> Perhaps because the economy has been booming at home, we're becoming
> increasingly a police state, and we're fighting a number of foreign
> campaigns?
The economy now is far from booming; we're not a police state in the
sense of suppressing criticism of the government; and our foreign wars
are not terribly popular. I think there must be another reason.
> > It's because they've successfully brainwashed
> > almost all of us.
>
> Perhaps. Personally I think it has more to do with material
> circumstances.
But most Americans do not question their ideology because of bad
personal circumstances.
Look at this: http://vdare.com/sailer/100214_unemployment.htm
(actually, the Atlantic Monthly article quoted in it) and ask yourself
why there is not serious discussion of that issue, let alone (as
Sailer says) discussion mentioning immigration.
It's because it's primarily a problem affecting white men and The
Mafia (as I called it) aim deliberately (although not always
consciously) to hurt white men. This is what we should be angry about.
Well today, I read that someone did get pretty angry and commit a
terroristic act - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586627,00.html .
Contrary to the fake news reports, his anger wasn't really with the
IRS; that was only the last straw. I encourage you to read the whole
thing - and his struggles are not unusual. He just figured out that
the whole god-damned system is stacked against him.
> > > The difference with women and blacks
> > > is that in their present form they are not really a threat to the
> > > existing economic system, largely because they're having to fight
> > > against social as well as economic oppression.
> >
> > There is no social oppression against blacks or women! Not anymore;
> > they are advantaged in every possible way.
>
> I wouldn't go as far as to say that blacks or women are "advantaged"
> above and beyond white men. Most of the "advantages" are there
> precisely to offset the systematic disadvantages that continue to
> exist, and there is no measure by which women or blacks are over-
> represented in any area of society as a result of intervention.
What systematic disadvantages? You are still holding to those leftist
prejudices.
White men are the engine of civilisation; while blacks and women are
demonstrably less talented. So they are over-represented, if they are
represented to a higher degree than would be the case without the
intervention. For example, all the 'diversity' jobs created in recent
years by all manner of institutions are clearly intended as sinecures
for minorities or women.
> > The decisive reason they
> > are not a threat is that they have been bought off as a result.
>
> That's correct.
The point is that the can't buy off white men, as there are too many
of use and we aren't fooled by government handouts only to privileged
members. God help us, then.
> > If you goal is production, then it's an inefficiency to have people
> > not working when they are capable of working - even if they are less
> > productive than others. Efficiency for business only means profits for
> > them, not the general welfare.
>
> But the goal of capitalism isn't production, the goal is profit. And
> the capitalists would say there is no point increasing production if
> it reduces profits.
Well, then, that's prima facie evidence that pure capitalism is not in
the best interest of the people.
> > Monetarism isn't all bad, as far as it recognises the importance of
> > the money supply - inflating the currency (as Nixon did) is no cure
> > for structural problems.
>
> Monetarism isn't "bad" in the sense of "a false analysis", but it is
> bad in the sense that it is presupposes that a free-market capitalist
> ideology is desirable.
OK, I see what you mean. But all influential economic theories are
based on capitalism, are they not?
Andrew Usher
Michael Gordge
>
> > But the goal of capitalism isn't production, the goal is profit. And
> > the capitalists would say there is no point increasing production if
> > it reduces profits.
>
> Well, then, that's prima facie evidence that pure capitalism is not in
> the best interest of the people.
Oh utter garbage, its prima facie evidence that the twit who wrote
that crap has no idea at all what capitalism is about, just like you
obviously dont.
The goal of capitalism, because it is a fundamental requirement of
capitalism, is having human individuals trading freely.
The goal of capitalism is to have all human individuals eventually
being left free and alone to trade on terms and conditions that leave
parties to trade better off, and better off according to their own
individual unique perceptions and or needs and not better off
according to your perceptions and or any other person's arrogant envy
ridden ignorant perceptions.
MG
Errol
Capitalism cannot have a goal. Are you drunk? Only humans can have
goals, and why should they all conform to your limited idea of trading
freely without government or taxes.
Some human goals might be to improve communal living standards and if
enough people share the same goals they can accomplish this.
Others might share your goal of free trade (you can't trade all by
yourself you know, it's part of the definition of trade that there be
more than 1 party to a trade) and you can trade for free all you like
until the tax people catch up with you and put you in jail. It is
their goal to do that.
Pity it conflicts so radically with your goal.
For a new goal try avoiding self contradiction in the future.
Michael Gordge
> and why should they all conform to your limited idea of trading
> freely without government or taxes.
Fuck off ewe clueless fucking commie moron, communism doesn't work ewe
fucking idiot.
MG
Y.Porat
> On Feb 13, 8:29 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > CAPITALISM IS UNNATURAL AND A LIE.
>
>
> digest your food, you breath your air, your energy can only be
> activated by your mind, you are therefore the owner of your actions,
> ownership by default implies responsibility.
>
> own yourself, it's as natural as your fucking nose, why dont ewe want
> to be held responsible for your actions?
>
--------------------
so as usual in **social business ** ..... :
lets compromise upon
'social capitalism ' !
and why talk so much ?? (:-)
(freedom of speech is beyond dispute
it is agreed on all --especially in science ...)
Y.P
-------------------------
Errol
hahaha! I know that my points landed heavily on your jowely chin by
the short and incoherent reply.
Please explain how Capitalism can have goals MG
Is capitalism a soccer/football team? Is capitalism a living entity?
Are countries which have taxation systems communist?
For a new goal try limiting your number of derogatory adjectives to
one per noun.
Michael Gordge
Fuck off commie idiot.
MG
Errol
A good start to your new goal of only one derogatory adjective per
noun. well done!
Michael Gordge
> lets compromise upon
> 'social capitalism ' !
compromise with an oxymoron, ewe cant be serious.
MG
Michael Gordge
> A good start to your new goal of only one derogatory adjective per
> noun. well done!
The only reason ewe want capitalism to have a million different
definitions / meanings is so as that ewe can prounce around pretending
to yourself that ewe are a capitalist while at the same time acting
like an anti-human anti-capitalist lefturd fucking retard.
I am not interested in playing your stupid fucking games, so fuck off
and troll elsewhere, ewe fucking thick as pig shit idiot.
MG
Ste
> Ste wrote:
> > > > But that has not been the case in places like South Africa. Blacks
> > > > have consistently posed a revolutionary threat, and there was no
> > > > question that blacks benefitted from the apartheid regime.
>
> > > First of all, I think you mean 'blacks did NOT benefit from the
> > > apartheid regime', don't you?
>
> > Yes. It's interesting you mention that because I've just had an
> > argument on another group about the meaning of "no question that". And
> > yes, in this case, it means "it is emphatically false that..."
>
> That's not how I use it. It means 'it is undeniable that ...'
Indeed, that's what I've been told. I'll simply have to refrain from
using the phrase in future.
> Anyway,
> I'm not sure that it is so obvious that apartheid hurt blacks, if you
> consider what's going on now in South Africa.
I think you're using a naive concept of "hurt" when you're suggesting
that blacks were somehow better off being spat at by whites, than shot
at by blacks. And recall that until European settlement and
encroachment, native blacks in South Africa had a fairly stable social
structure which was ultimately smashed by the British in the late 19th
century.
Moreover, by time the various independence struggles were coming to
fruition in Africa, there was little prior investment in building up a
black "middle class" who could manage a modern economy. I'm convinced
South Africa fared so relatively well by African standards only
because the white minority in South Africa had seen, by then, the
result of the bitter struggles in other African countries, where the
whites had fought hard until the bitter end (with ruinous outcomes)
instead of coming to terms peacefully.
In any event, in the long term, it remains to be seen how it will all
play out - almost certainly it will settle down in time in the absence
of outside political interference and sponsorship.
> > > Anyway, it's a question of numbers there. When blacks outnumber us
> > > five-to-one, they can be a threat. When they are outnumbered by that
> > > ratio, not really. Even so, they are not a threat to organise in the
> > > same way that say, the Bolsheviks were.
>
> > I disagree. If your population consists of 17% blacks, within liberal
> > society you can't successfully resist an internal group of that size
> > that is highly organised with a common aim and little to lose,
>
> One can always give them something to lose, you know.
I'm not quite sure that I do know what you mean. For sure, you can
always compromise and bring them on board. But of course these
internal factions almost invariably develop in the first place because
the establishment won't compromise.
> > even
> > less so if the remaining 83% are themselves ideologically fractured.
>
> Well, yes. That's how the Nazis took over, isn't it?
Not entirely. The Nazis took over in a climate of 1 in 3 unemployed,
runaway inflation, crippling reparations, etc. And faced with the
prospect of a communist revolution, the ruling and middle classes
largely threw their weight behind the Nazis. As usual, workers
organisations were smashed early, and socialists and trade unionists
were amongst the first in the concentration camps. And indeed, not a
lot of people know that the German economy wasn't effectively
nationalised in support of the war effort until quite late in the war,
and up until then private enterprise in Germany thrived.
> > > > As I say,
> > > > the only common thread is that the rich face a constant revolutionary
> > > > threat from the poor and dispossessed.
>
> > > But they don't. Why then is there no revolutionary threat right now in
> > > the Western world?
>
> > Perhaps because the economy has been booming at home, we're becoming
> > increasingly a police state, and we're fighting a number of foreign
> > campaigns?
>
> The economy now is far from booming;
I don't think anyone has felt the worst of it yet. The huge amount of
government spending has forestalled the full effects, for now.
> we're not a police state in the
> sense of suppressing criticism of the government; and our foreign wars
> are not terribly popular. I think there must be another reason.
As I say, the predominant reason is simply that the economy is still
quite healthy by most everyday measures, and the sustained boom from
the mid-90s to the late 00s is not that far behind us yet. To put that
into context, you'd probably have to go back to the 60s to find the
last sustained boom, and it was only really the mid to late 70s when
it really started to hit socially and that was in the context of
spiralling inflation, rising unemployment, huge industrial unrest and
the three-day week. There's definitely no sign of that yet.
> > > It's because they've successfully brainwashed
> > > almost all of us.
>
> > Perhaps. Personally I think it has more to do with material
> > circumstances.
>
> But most Americans do not question their ideology because of bad
> personal circumstances.
>
> Look at this:http://vdare.com/sailer/100214_unemployment.htm
> (actually, the Atlantic Monthly article quoted in it) and ask yourself
> why there is not serious discussion of that issue, let alone (as
> Sailer says) discussion mentioning immigration.
>
> It's because it's primarily a problem affecting white men and The
> Mafia (as I called it) aim deliberately (although not always
> consciously) to hurt white men. This is what we should be angry about.
I still don't understand how there is any conspiracy against the
"white man". The reality is that the world is run predominantly by
white men, and has been for a long time.
> Well today, I read that someone did get pretty angry and commit a
> terroristic act -http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586627,00.html.
> Contrary to the fake news reports, his anger wasn't really with the
> IRS; that was only the last straw. I encourage you to read the whole
> thing - and his struggles are not unusual. He just figured out that
> the whole god-damned system is stacked against him.
That's an interesting article. It's just a shame he didn't take out
more people when it came to it.
> > > > The difference with women and blacks
> > > > is that in their present form they are not really a threat to the
> > > > existing economic system, largely because they're having to fight
> > > > against social as well as economic oppression.
>
> > > There is no social oppression against blacks or women! Not anymore;
> > > they are advantaged in every possible way.
>
> > I wouldn't go as far as to say that blacks or women are "advantaged"
> > above and beyond white men. Most of the "advantages" are there
> > precisely to offset the systematic disadvantages that continue to
> > exist, and there is no measure by which women or blacks are over-
> > represented in any area of society as a result of intervention.
>
> What systematic disadvantages? You are still holding to those leftist
> prejudices.
Disadvantages like poverty and discrimination. I think you're on
another world if you don't think that blacks (both men and women) have
suffered huge disadvantages. As for feminists, they really span the
spectrum of political thought and class position, but again there is
no doubt that women historically have suffered a great deal of
unwarranted discrimination.
> White men are the engine of civilisation;
Only insofar as they have rode roughshod over other civilisations.
Otherwise this statement is rubbish.
> while blacks and women are
> demonstrably less talented.
Not only would I challenge you to point out in what way this is true,
but secondly I would challenge you to identify which talents you think
are desirable in society (which, of course, is necessary before we can
talk about who has these 'talents' to a greater or lesser degree).
> So they are over-represented, if they are
> represented to a higher degree than would be the case without the
> intervention.
This presupposes that the market should be left to determine the
representation of people in jobs.
> For example, all the 'diversity' jobs created in recent
> years by all manner of institutions are clearly intended as sinecures
> for minorities or women.
Perhaps. But surely as any kind of socialist you don't object to
people having the right to work for a fair wage?
> > > The decisive reason they
> > > are not a threat is that they have been bought off as a result.
>
> > That's correct.
>
> The point is that the can't buy off white men, as there are too many
> of use and we aren't fooled by government handouts only to privileged
> members. God help us, then.
You jest, surely. White men predominantly comprise the ruling class.
The people they can't buy off are the working class, because the whole
point of the system to exploit the working class. As I say, you're on
another world if you think somehow poor women and poor blacks are now
head and shoulders above white men. The reality is that the binding
ideology, of feminism or black power or whatever, has been defused by
making some minor concessions to those groups as a whole. But that was
possible because, at its heart, capitalism is not about exploiting any
particular racial or social group - it's fundamentally about one class
exploiting another, and really there is no common traits to either of
those classes except that one is rich, and one is poor.
> > > If you goal is production, then it's an inefficiency to have people
> > > not working when they are capable of working - even if they are less
> > > productive than others. Efficiency for business only means profits for
> > > them, not the general welfare.
>
> > But the goal of capitalism isn't production, the goal is profit. And
> > the capitalists would say there is no point increasing production if
> > it reduces profits.
>
> Well, then, that's prima facie evidence that pure capitalism is not in
> the best interest of the people.
Lol. You don't say!
> > > Monetarism isn't all bad, as far as it recognises the importance of
> > > the money supply - inflating the currency (as Nixon did) is no cure
> > > for structural problems.
>
> > Monetarism isn't "bad" in the sense of "a false analysis", but it is
> > bad in the sense that it is presupposes that a free-market capitalist
> > ideology is desirable.
>
> OK, I see what you mean. But all influential economic theories are
> based on capitalism, are they not?
It depends what you mean. Certainly not all influential economic
theories are based on free market capitalism or "laissez faire".
Ste
> On Feb 19, 9:47 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > But the goal of capitalism isn't production, the goal is profit. And
> > > the capitalists would say there is no point increasing production if
> > > it reduces profits.
>
> > Well, then, that's prima facie evidence that pure capitalism is not in
> > the best interest of the people.
>
> Oh utter garbage, its prima facie evidence that the twit who wrote
> that crap has no idea at all what capitalism is about, just like you
> obviously dont.
And I can tell immediately from your abrasive tone that you have no
idea what capitalism is about.
> The goal of capitalism, because it is a fundamental requirement of
> capitalism, is having human individuals trading freely.
Rubbish. "Freely" is just defined to mean whatever the writer wants it
to mean.
> The goal of capitalism is to have all human individuals eventually
> being left free and alone to trade on terms and conditions that leave
> parties to trade better off, and better off according to their own
> individual unique perceptions and or needs and not better off
> according to your perceptions and or any other person's arrogant envy
> ridden ignorant perceptions.
Utter bollocks. Again, I expect the concept of "better off" will be
simply twisted out of all recognition in order to force a fit with
what we actually observe. By definition, if individuals are self-
interested, or are motivated to act in their own self-interest (which
is a principle of the free market), then their goal is to further
their own self-interest, whether or not it leaves others "better off"
- in other words, it is always the goal of self-interested individuals
to leave others *worse off* than themselves.
On the other hand, if trade is held to necessarily leave people better
off, then it becomes tautologous. A drug user who trades money for
drugs from a drug dealer is engaging in a "beneficial trade" by this
analysis. A poverty-stricken husband and father who borrows money from
a vicious loanshark at sky-high rates to put food on the table is
engaging in a "beneficial trade" by this analysis. But this simply
shows the analysis to be totally useless and meaningless.
Michael Gordge
> And I can tell immediately from your.....
And I can tell immediately from your nauseating nasal whining that ewe
are a loonylefturdian retard who has never looked at anything but how
to remain needy and stupid via loonylefturdism.
> Rubbish. "Freely" is just defined to mean whatever the writer wants it
> to mean.
Fucking idiot, free means free, do ewe own a dictionary? In the
context of capitalism laissez-frier. Do some of your own research ewe
idiot, try starting here http://mises.org/etexts/austrian.asp
MG
Y.Porat
================
how old are you ??
ddint you learn untill now that *realistic **
life is a long saga of compromises ??
---------------------
Y.Porat
> On Feb 17, 4:58 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > But they don't. Why then is there no revolutionary threat right now in
> > almost all of us. What to do about that is an important question.
>
> The only reason that revolution hasn't happened by now is that most
> people do not want a revolution because they know that revolution may
> only make things worse for them. Also most of the time revolutions are
> squashed by the powerful minority.
-----------------
I dont Believe in revolutions
i believe in
EVOLUTION !!
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------
Michael Gordge
> how old are you ??
None of your fucking business but as it happens, old enough to know
how fucking stupid and untrusting ewe are.
> ddint you learn untill now that *realistic **
> life is a long saga of compromises ??
> ---------------------
"Any compromise between food and poison can only result in death, any
compromise between good and evil can only result in a victory to
evil", (Ayn Rand) no I dont believe in compromise and the fact that
ewe do shows just how untrustworthy you are.
MG
Ste
Lol. I certainly warn everyone else to take that essay with a punch of
salt.
Michael Gordge
> Lol. I certainly warn...
In other words it was way over your head and ewe would prefer to
remain ignorant, needy and stupid via loonylefturdism.
MG
Zinnic
Oh! Dammit! I drink alcohol in moderation. I have compromised myself
into a doom that was going to happen anyway. You quoute Rand as if
she was a 'vergin' Saint. Pathetic Believer!
Ste
Lol. It wasn't so much "over my head", as "hopelessly partial".
Michael Gordge
> Lol. It wasn't so much "over my head", as "hopelessly partial".
But of course you cant say where how and or why it is.
MG
Michael Gordge
> Oh! Dammit! I drink alcohol in moderation.
There is never any evidence of that in the Kantian garbage ewe
regurgitate on here, i.e. ewe are either constantly pissed or plain
fucking stupid.
> You quoute Rand as if
> she was a 'vergin' Saint............
If you ever say something intelligent then I would give you the credit
just I do her, its known as giving recognition of talent and being
honest, polite and respectful, virtues totally unknown to you and your
lefturd ilk.
MG
Ste
I dare say it's ideological nonsense from start to finish; mendacious
in many of its statements, utterly misleading in many of its omissions.
Darwin123
Both the English system of units and the metric system of units
were invented by dead white men profiting from a colonial system.
Therefore, I do not see how the choice of English over metric is any
more politically correct than the alternative.
In deference to these dead white men, I recommend that the
discussion of "English" versus "metric" be restricted to discussions
of profit. The bottom line for America is the turn around time for
investment in the metric conversion.
Will the metric system result in an increase in profits to
America in a reasonable time frame?
The question has nothing to do with white guilt, political
correctness, or the role of women in society. It doesn't relate to
left, right, Creationism, or evolution in the schools. It doesn't even
relate to the relative intelligence of Americans to other
nationalities. One can discuss any and all issues related to
standardization of units. However, the only legitimate bottom line is $
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Andrew Usher
But it is better written than anything Gordge could come up with, and
manages to avoid insults.
Indeed, it is correct in most of its facts and many of its theories -
that doesn't stop it from being terribly biased.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> If you ever say something intelligent then I would give you the credit
> just I do her [Rand], its known as giving recognition of talent and being
> honest, polite and respectful, virtues totally unknown to you and your
> lefturd ilk.
LOL. Ayn Rand's only talent was bullshitting and grandiosity (I would
add self-deception but that's common to all females), nor was her
movement noted for being very polite.
And as for 'honest, polite, and respectful', look at yourself!
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> Both the English system of units and the metric system of units
> were invented by dead white men profiting from a colonial system.
> Therefore, I do not see how the choice of English over metric is any
> more politically correct than the alternative.
> In deference to these dead white men, I recommend that the
> discussion of "English" versus "metric" be restricted to discussions
> of profit. The bottom line for America is the turn around time for
> investment in the metric conversion.
> Will the metric system result in an increase in profits to
> America in a reasonable time frame?
> The question has nothing to do with white guilt, political
> correctness, or the role of women in society. It doesn't relate to
> left, right, Creationism, or evolution in the schools. It doesn't even
> relate to the relative intelligence of Americans to other
> nationalities. One can discuss any and all issues related to
> standardization of units. However, the only legitimate bottom line is $
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Hey, dipshit. Aren't you in the wrong thread?
Andrew Usher
Darwin123
> Darwin123 wrote:
> > Both the English system of units and the metric system of units
> > were invented by dead white men profiting from a colonial system.
> > Therefore, I do not see how the choice of English over metric is any
> > more politically correct than the alternative.
>>
> Hey, dipshit. Aren't you in the wrong thread?
>
> Andrew Usher
posted in sci.math and sci.physics. Therefore, the issues in this
thread relating to physics and math are open for discussion.
Here is a quotation from your original post in this thread.
"Now my last post was about the metric system, and as I said there
that
is only one issue associated with them. I chose it not only for the
obvious reasons but as a test case: if you won't stand against metric
you surely won't stand for anything decent. Yes, there may be an
economic argument for metric but it is only a slight one, and using it
shows that you will subordinate everything to the profit motive - just
as they want."
Your ideology is no stronger than your "test case." Your polemic
revolves around white culture representing everything decent. White
guilt and feminism were created by Jews to threaten this white
culture.
Both the metric system and the English system were invented by
dead white males. In fact, they were invented by gentile dead white
males. The French who developed the metric system, to my knowledge,
were Saxon and quasiChristian.
There wasn't a single Negro or Jew who has claimed credit for
either the metric or the English system of units. Martin Luthur King
and Mandela avoided discussing the metric system. Neither Hadassah nor
Mossad has ever promoted the metric system. Significantly, NIST has
ignored apartheid. The American Physical Society was notably absent
from the civil rights protests of the 1960's.
Both mathematics and science are closely associated, especially in
the third world eyes, with European culture. Therefore, respect for
white culture must include the institutions of science and mathematics
which white people have built with so much sweat and tears. This
includes profit. White people have stormed the world on the basis of
profit. Our science and mathematics must remain instruments of
profit.
A white standard system must generate $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Andrew Usher
> This
> includes profit. White people have stormed the world on the basis of
> profit. Our science and mathematics must remain instruments of
> profit.
> A white standard system must generate $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Granting everything else you said, it's still absurd. 'White culture'
has never included the proposition that everything must be based on
profit. Indeed, the foremost exponents of pure capitalism have been
Jews.
In particular, science and mathematics have never been considered for-
profit endeavors.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > > > > As I say,
> > > > > the only common thread is that the rich face a constant revolutionary
> > > > > threat from the poor and dispossessed.
> >
> > > > But they don't. Why then is there no revolutionary threat right now in
> > > > the Western world?
> >
> > > Perhaps because the economy has been booming at home, we're becoming
> > > increasingly a police state, and we're fighting a number of foreign
> > > campaigns?
> >
> > The economy now is far from booming;
>
> I don't think anyone has felt the worst of it yet. The huge amount of
> government spending has forestalled the full effects, for now.
Government spending has made hardly any difference, since our
government refuses to launch the kinds of programs that would help,
which are ones that have the effect of redistributing wealth. That's
what FDR did during the Depression (which helped somewhat), WW2 was
the same on a much larger scale, and you will note that after WW2, the
average American's life kept unambiguously improving as long as wealth
inequality kept falling (until 1970 or so), and then everything turned
around.
> > we're not a police state in the
> > sense of suppressing criticism of the government; and our foreign wars
> > are not terribly popular. I think there must be another reason.
>
> As I say, the predominant reason is simply that the economy is still
> quite healthy by most everyday measures, and the sustained boom from
> the mid-90s to the late 00s is not that far behind us yet. To put that
> into context, you'd probably have to go back to the 60s to find the
> last sustained boom, and it was only really the mid to late 70s when
> it really started to hit socially and that was in the context of
> spiralling inflation, rising unemployment, huge industrial unrest and
> the three-day week. There's definitely no sign of that yet.
There is more unemployment than there ever was in the 1970s. What
really stops criticism is political correctness. Either people don't
think or don't say any explanation that involves race or gender which
any decent analysis of the present situation will.
> > But most Americans do not question their ideology because of bad
> > personal circumstances.
> >
> > Look at this:http://vdare.com/sailer/100214_unemployment.htm
> > (actually, the Atlantic Monthly article quoted in it) and ask yourself
> > why there is not serious discussion of that issue, let alone (as
> > Sailer says) discussion mentioning immigration.
> >
> > It's because it's primarily a problem affecting white men and The
> > Mafia (as I called it) aim deliberately (although not always
> > consciously) to hurt white men. This is what we should be angry about.
>
> I still don't understand how there is any conspiracy against the
> "white man". The reality is that the world is run predominantly by
> white men, and has been for a long time.
But the white men that runs thing DO NOT feel racial solidarity with
ordinary white men. They did once, to a limited extent, but no longer.
The 'civil rights' movement gave them a convenient excuse to abandon
us.
> > Well today, I read that someone did get pretty angry and commit a
> > terroristic act -http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586627,00.html.
> > Contrary to the fake news reports, his anger wasn't really with the
> > IRS; that was only the last straw. I encourage you to read the whole
> > thing - and his struggles are not unusual. He just figured out that
> > the whole god-damned system is stacked against him.
>
> That's an interesting article. It's just a shame he didn't take out
> more people when it came to it.
Well, the difference he made was in getting some people to read his
manifesto (of course, I was already convinced) - I don't consider
violence in itself a good thing.
> > What systematic disadvantages [of blacks and women]? You are still
> > holding to those leftist prejudices.
>
> Disadvantages like poverty and discrimination. I think you're on
> another world if you don't think that blacks (both men and women) have
> suffered huge disadvantages. As for feminists, they really span the
> spectrum of political thought and class position, but again there is
> no doubt that women historically have suffered a great deal of
> unwarranted discrimination.
Because they have historically suffered discrimination does not mean
they are now. Also, I'm not sure if we can call it 'unwarranted' - it
is quite possibly true that such discrimination is necessary to
prevent what's happening today.
> > White men are the engine of civilisation;
>
> Only insofar as they have rode roughshod over other civilisations.
> Otherwise this statement is rubbish.
Nonsense. I think the superiority of all that we have made is plain to
see.
> > while blacks and women are
> > demonstrably less talented.
>
> Not only would I challenge you to point out in what way this is true,
> but secondly I would challenge you to identify which talents you think
> are desirable in society (which, of course, is necessary before we can
> talk about who has these 'talents' to a greater or lesser degree).
I would say that this is not a trivial question even though the answer
should be obvious. IQ alone is not enough. To prove it rigorously, I
suppose you could select a number of prominent people from the
respective races or genders and compare their true individual
achievement.
> > So they are over-represented, if they are
> > represented to a higher degree than would be the case without the
> > intervention.
>
> This presupposes that the market should be left to determine the
> representation of people in jobs.
I think it's reasonable to believe that jobs requiring more talent
should be filled preferably by those people with more talent.
> > For example, all the 'diversity' jobs created in recent
> > years by all manner of institutions are clearly intended as sinecures
> > for minorities or women.
>
> Perhaps. But surely as any kind of socialist you don't object to
> people having the right to work for a fair wage?
Of course I do, and I think it's close to a natural right. But paying
people far more than they deserve for work of zero or negative value
is quite opposed to that.
> > The point is that the can't buy off white men, as there are too many
> > of use and we aren't fooled by government handouts only to privileged
> > members. God help us, then.
>
> You jest, surely. White men predominantly comprise the ruling class.
As I said above, this does not mean the ruling class represents white
men. After all, the great majority of non-Jewish white men are not in
the ruling classes.
> The people they can't buy off are the working class, because the whole
> point of the system to exploit the working class. As I say, you're on
> another world if you think somehow poor women and poor blacks are now
> head and shoulders above white men.
OK, Ste, take an average white man that's now unemployed. Then imagine
a woman or black man with the same qualifications and work history.
Who's going to get hired? The truth is, it's only white men that have
to worry today about long-term unemployment without an obvious cause.
> But that was
> possible because, at its heart, capitalism is not about exploiting any
> particular racial or social group - it's fundamentally about one class
> exploiting another, and really there is no common traits to either of
> those classes except that one is rich, and one is poor.
First of all, capitalism isn't inherently about exploiting the working
class. The exploitation is and _effect_ of the profit motive, not a
first cause.
Secondly, yes, of course, class differences are more fundamental in
your sense. But we have to deal with the real world, in this age, and
not with an abstraction. In the real world today, white men are the
group being exploited, and if we promote socialism without realising
that fact, it will only transfer more goodies to women and minorities.
> > > But the goal of capitalism isn't production, the goal is profit. And
> > > the capitalists would say there is no point increasing production if
> > > it reduces profits.
> >
> > Well, then, that's prima facie evidence that pure capitalism is not in
> > the best interest of the people.
>
> Lol. You don't say!
I think that's an important truth because there are a lot of people
that somehow believe that capitalism maximises production, and is
optimal for that reason. (Even if it did, there would still be the
matter of wealth distribution to consider.)
> > OK, I see what you mean. But all influential economic theories are
> > based on capitalism, are they not?
>
> It depends what you mean. Certainly not all influential economic
> theories are based on free market capitalism or "laissez faire".
What do you consider the exceptions?
Andrew Usher
Michael Gordge
> LOL.
Nervousness noted by the screaming.
> Ayn Rand's only talent was bullshitting and grandiosity
Also noted, not one example mentioned.
> And as for 'honest, polite, and respectful', look at yourself!
I have never treated any of ewe lefturd retards with any more or less
honesty and respect than ewes deserve.
MG
Are'you Jegeg
>
I don't understand how you see this as a refutation of special
relativity.
Michael Gordge
> I dare say........
Found it too hard to grasp obviously.
> mendacious
> in many of its statements,
But of course ewe refuse to state the standard ewe are using to
determine anything mendacious.
> utterly misleading in many of its omissions.
But of course ewe fail to give any examples of what ewe claim is
misleading and or has been omitted.
MG
Michael Gordge
> Indeed, it is correct in most of its facts and many of its theories -
> that doesn't stop it from being terribly biased.
Towards what?
MG
Tater Gumfries
> if you won't stand against metric
> you surely won't stand for anything decent.
You must be trollin.
Tater
Darwin123
> Darwin123 wrote:
> In particular, science and mathematics have never been considered for-
> profit endeavors.
>
> Andrew Usher
What about Thomas Edison? What about Ford? What about Nobel?
What about Goodyear? What about Haber? What about Alexander Graham
Bell?
Zinnic
Honest, polite and respectful? Guffaw!
Where did you discover these adjectives. Not in your 'Ayn' writings,
that's for sure!
Michael Gordge
> Honest, polite and respectful? Guffaw!
> Where did you discover these adjectives. Not in your 'Ayn' writings,
> that's for sure!
Honesty, polite and being respectful are virtues which are not owed to
lefturdian scum who use and or threaten to initiate physical harm /
force to obtain unearned benefits.
MG
Immortalist
> On Feb 18, 12:09 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree that capitalism is based on the reality of altruistic
> > instincts involved with "fair deals" and fair trades" which trigger
> > specially evolved emotions and reaction patterns.
>
> wtf? who the fuck are you agreeing with? yourself?
>
> MG
I kind of agreed that capitalism is based upon reality, it is based
upon YOU being the owner, therefore YOU being responsible for the
results of YOUR actions generated by YOUR mind.
Ste
> Ste wrote:
> > > > > > As I say,
> > > > > > the only common thread is that the rich face a constant revolutionary
> > > > > > threat from the poor and dispossessed.
>
> > > > > But they don't. Why then is there no revolutionary threat right now in
> > > > > the Western world?
>
> > > > Perhaps because the economy has been booming at home, we're becoming
> > > > increasingly a police state, and we're fighting a number of foreign
> > > > campaigns?
>
> > > The economy now is far from booming;
>
> > I don't think anyone has felt the worst of it yet. The huge amount of
> > government spending has forestalled the full effects, for now.
>
> Government spending has made hardly any difference,
I think it has in the short term, when you consider that by some
measures the economy is in its worst state since the 30s.
> since our
> government refuses to launch the kinds of programs that would help,
> which are ones that have the effect of redistributing wealth. That's
> what FDR did during the Depression (which helped somewhat), WW2 was
> the same on a much larger scale, and you will note that after WW2, the
> average American's life kept unambiguously improving as long as wealth
> inequality kept falling (until 1970 or so), and then everything turned
> around.
Indeed, the generations born after the 60s are probably the first
American generations that were (and are) not significantly better off
than their parents. I like how Billy Joel put it: "Every child had a
pretty good shot, to get at least as far as their old man got, but
something happened on the way to that place, they threw an American
flag in our face".
> > > we're not a police state in the
> > > sense of suppressing criticism of the government; and our foreign wars
> > > are not terribly popular. I think there must be another reason.
>
> > As I say, the predominant reason is simply that the economy is still
> > quite healthy by most everyday measures, and the sustained boom from
> > the mid-90s to the late 00s is not that far behind us yet. To put that
> > into context, you'd probably have to go back to the 60s to find the
> > last sustained boom, and it was only really the mid to late 70s when
> > it really started to hit socially and that was in the context of
> > spiralling inflation, rising unemployment, huge industrial unrest and
> > the three-day week. There's definitely no sign of that yet.
>
> There is more unemployment than there ever was in the 1970s.
Yes, but as I say unemployment wasn't the *only* social problem in the
70s, and the point is that it took probably a decade between the
recognition of growing economic problems in the late 60s, and the
setting in of real social problems by the mid to late 70s. I for one
haven't seen any songs written recently about "1 in 10" unemployed and
people having "no future".
> What
> really stops criticism is political correctness. Either people don't
> think or don't say any explanation that involves race or gender which
> any decent analysis of the present situation will.
I don't accept that the problems have a great deal to do with race or
gender.
> > > But most Americans do not question their ideology because of bad
> > > personal circumstances.
>
> > > Look at this:http://vdare.com/sailer/100214_unemployment.htm
> > > (actually, the Atlantic Monthly article quoted in it) and ask yourself
> > > why there is not serious discussion of that issue, let alone (as
> > > Sailer says) discussion mentioning immigration.
>
> > > It's because it's primarily a problem affecting white men and The
> > > Mafia (as I called it) aim deliberately (although not always
> > > consciously) to hurt white men. This is what we should be angry about.
>
> > I still don't understand how there is any conspiracy against the
> > "white man". The reality is that the world is run predominantly by
> > white men, and has been for a long time.
>
> But the white men that runs thing DO NOT feel racial solidarity with
> ordinary white men. They did once, to a limited extent, but no longer.
But that's because *it's not fundamentally about race*. It's about
capitalists making profits, and they'll align themselves with any
cause or group if it serves profit. They were happy with racism when
we had a world empire. Now they're happy with multiculturalism and
globalisation. Why? Because they've suddenly decided to betray their
own race? No, because it serves profit, and profit it what it is
about.
> The 'civil rights' movement gave them a convenient excuse to abandon
> us.
Not an excuse but a reason. The truth is that the left has an interest
in civil rights, because invariably the capitalists try to divide
people along national or racial lines, and its workers who end up
pitted against each other on the battlefields, so that's why the left
have tried to tackle social discrimination. But this has also turned
out to have been good for profit, particularly with globalisation.
> > > Well today, I read that someone did get pretty angry and commit a
> > > terroristic act -http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586627,00.html.
> > > Contrary to the fake news reports, his anger wasn't really with the
> > > IRS; that was only the last straw. I encourage you to read the whole
> > > thing - and his struggles are not unusual. He just figured out that
> > > the whole god-damned system is stacked against him.
>
> > That's an interesting article. It's just a shame he didn't take out
> > more people when it came to it.
>
> Well, the difference he made was in getting some people to read his
> manifesto (of course, I was already convinced) - I don't consider
> violence in itself a good thing.
I'd say it is a necessary evil. The reality is that many groups simply
won't cooperate in a political solution unless a long campaign of
violence precedes, and the threat of a continued long campaign
remains.
> > > What systematic disadvantages [of blacks and women]? You are still
> > > holding to those leftist prejudices.
>
> > Disadvantages like poverty and discrimination. I think you're on
> > another world if you don't think that blacks (both men and women) have
> > suffered huge disadvantages. As for feminists, they really span the
> > spectrum of political thought and class position, but again there is
> > no doubt that women historically have suffered a great deal of
> > unwarranted discrimination.
>
> Because they have historically suffered discrimination does not mean
> they are now.
It does insofar as discrimination remains, and it does insofar as the
scars run down the generations. I don't think there's a great deal of
systematic discrimination against women these days, save to the extent
that women are subject to certain biological realities. I also don't
think blacks are subject to a great deal of discrimination amongst
mainstream society, but I think the scars of coming from extremely
poor communities run deep.
> Also, I'm not sure if we can call it 'unwarranted' - it
> is quite possibly true that such discrimination is necessary to
> prevent what's happening today.
It depends what you mean.
> > > White men are the engine of civilisation;
>
> > Only insofar as they have rode roughshod over other civilisations.
> > Otherwise this statement is rubbish.
>
> Nonsense. I think the superiority of all that we have made is plain to
> see.
It depends what you call superior.
> > > while blacks and women are
> > > demonstrably less talented.
>
> > Not only would I challenge you to point out in what way this is true,
> > but secondly I would challenge you to identify which talents you think
> > are desirable in society (which, of course, is necessary before we can
> > talk about who has these 'talents' to a greater or lesser degree).
>
> I would say that this is not a trivial question even though the answer
> should be obvious. IQ alone is not enough. To prove it rigorously, I
> suppose you could select a number of prominent people from the
> respective races or genders and compare their true individual
> achievement.
But as I say, this first requires a statement of which talents are
desirable.
> > > So they are over-represented, if they are
> > > represented to a higher degree than would be the case without the
> > > intervention.
>
> > This presupposes that the market should be left to determine the
> > representation of people in jobs.
>
> I think it's reasonable to believe that jobs requiring more talent
> should be filled preferably by those people with more talent.
It is one question whether all jobs should always be filled with the
"most talented" people, it is another question whether the market
should determine the allocation of jobs. Personally I think it's
better to simply fill jobs with people of sufficient talent, and
secondly I don't think the free market should be left to determine
anything.
> > > For example, all the 'diversity' jobs created in recent
> > > years by all manner of institutions are clearly intended as sinecures
> > > for minorities or women.
>
> > Perhaps. But surely as any kind of socialist you don't object to
> > people having the right to work for a fair wage?
>
> Of course I do, and I think it's close to a natural right. But paying
> people far more than they deserve for work of zero or negative value
> is quite opposed to that.
If you think wages should be commensurate with individual
productivity, then you're probably not a socialist. Secondly, the idea
of even having jobs of "zero or negative value" in a command economy
is absurd.
> > > The point is that the can't buy off white men, as there are too many
> > > of use and we aren't fooled by government handouts only to privileged
> > > members. God help us, then.
>
> > You jest, surely. White men predominantly comprise the ruling class.
>
> As I said above, this does not mean the ruling class represents white
> men. After all, the great majority of non-Jewish white men are not in
> the ruling classes.
As indeed is the case for every other race. The point is that, of the
ruling class and of the most powerful people in the world, the
predominant race is white.
> > The people they can't buy off are the working class, because the whole
> > point of the system to exploit the working class. As I say, you're on
> > another world if you think somehow poor women and poor blacks are now
> > head and shoulders above white men.
>
> OK, Ste, take an average white man that's now unemployed. Then imagine
> a woman or black man with the same qualifications and work history.
> Who's going to get hired? The truth is, it's only white men that have
> to worry today about long-term unemployment without an obvious cause.
Rubbish. Unemployment is sky high amongst blacks. Women are still
under-represented in top jobs and earning power. You can't reconcile
these facts with the idea that somehow women and blacks are more
likely to be hired - if that were the case, then it would be evident
statistically in the employment figures. And like I say, if you divide
yourself along racial or national lines, it will be workers who end up
crying, and capitalists who end up laughing.
> > But that was
> > possible because, at its heart, capitalism is not about exploiting any
> > particular racial or social group - it's fundamentally about one class
> > exploiting another, and really there is no common traits to either of
> > those classes except that one is rich, and one is poor.
>
> First of all, capitalism isn't inherently about exploiting the working
> class. The exploitation is and _effect_ of the profit motive, not a
> first cause.
Nonsense. Profit on capital and exploitation are so inextricably
linked that to suggest exploitation is a by-product is just laughable.
Indeed, the motivation for profit is to out-do your fellow man. That's
why absolute increases in wealth across society do not make people
feel richer, because it is relative inequalities that matter to people
in any society.
> Secondly, yes, of course, class differences are more fundamental in
> your sense. But we have to deal with the real world, in this age, and
> not with an abstraction. In the real world today, white men are the
> group being exploited, and if we promote socialism without realising
> that fact, it will only transfer more goodies to women and minorities.
I simply don't agree Andrew. I agree that the working class white man
is exploited, but I don't agree that it is because he is white. And
while he continues to fight against others who are also exploited and
are in similar circumstances, instead of uniting against the common
enemy who is the real cause of the exploitation, then the exploitation
will continue.
> > > > But the goal of capitalism isn't production, the goal is profit. And
> > > > the capitalists would say there is no point increasing production if
> > > > it reduces profits.
>
> > > Well, then, that's prima facie evidence that pure capitalism is not in
> > > the best interest of the people.
>
> > Lol. You don't say!
>
> I think that's an important truth because there are a lot of people
> that somehow believe that capitalism maximises production, and is
> optimal for that reason. (Even if it did, there would still be the
> matter of wealth distribution to consider.)
Indeed. Anyone who is serious about the subject knows that, above a
subsistence level, what matters to people is inequality, not absolute
wealth.
> > > OK, I see what you mean. But all influential economic theories are
> > > based on capitalism, are they not?
>
> > It depends what you mean. Certainly not all influential economic
> > theories are based on free market capitalism or "laissez faire".
>
> What do you consider the exceptions?
Well, Keynesian economics certainly doesn't promote laissez faire, and
indeed it is anathema to monetarists. There are plenty of brands of
capitalist economics that are not based on the free market. And of
course, the world didn't begin with the advent of capitalism.
SilentOtto
That line of thought is really one of the basic flaws in Objectivism.
Ownership is an -artificial- concept.
Objectivism masquerades as natural law, but it's based on an
artificial concept.
Michael Gordge
> That line of thought is really one of the basic flaws in Objectivism.
Whooops silly ewe, there are no flaws in reality and reailty is all
that objectivism deals with.
> Ownership is an -artificial- concept.
Only to those who seek to remove the responsibility of their actions
which are generated by their minds.
> Objectivism masquerades as natural law, but it's based on an
> artificial concept.
There is no masquerading and you being responsible for the results of
your energy which can only be generated by your mind, is as natural as
it gets.
Tell you what dopey, why dont ewe jump out of a plane without a
parachute and test your idea that ewe are not responsible for the
results of your mind.
MG