What's new

Lol OBAMA and his "liberal" democrats securing tyranny

I have a bayonet. I inherited a gun from my grandfather, a 30/40 krag, that was used by my grandfather's uncle in world war 2. He was an army sniper. The gun was modified in the field by my GF's Uncle for accuracy, and had a bayonet attached. Family mythology suggests he used this bayonet to kill 3 germans when his position was overrun as he was sniping in France. The gun is pretty cool. It is still fully intact, and in excellent shape. It still has the graduated open sights, etc.. But the bayonet is pretty cool.
 
Lol OBAMA and his "liberal" democrats securing tyranny

lol at Marx being a genius.

Lol at thinking he wasn't. He and Engels were easily two of the brightest minds of that era.

Dala, would you agree with Marx that private property must be abolished?

Nope. It was a promising theory, and it sent a powerful point to the society that existed in England at the time (his best legacy)-- but human nature is inherently non-egalitarian.

You know, I don't want to hear another damn thing about what guilt I have to carry from not loving Jesus. Maybe you need to think about the tens of millions dead and hundreds of millions of lives ruined from the existence of Christianity. A Christian is just as good as a Nazi and should be shunned likewise.

Fiksed. Oh and also, I enjoy how of all the impacts that Marx's writings have had, all you focus on is "Marxism".



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
A promising theory to take away private property? I'm sure as a Muslim, you enjoy his thoughts on religion as well. Or shoot, even his thoughts that there will be no peace until everybody agrees with him. Genius.
 
See, the thing, as a Christian is that I don't have to carry SOCIETAL guilt. My salvation and worth are completely up to me and my actions. That is just the type of stuff Marxism runs away from. And do you know how you can tell a Marxist? Someone who cannot admit that implementation of Marx's ideas always lead to a police state despite every last bit of historical evidence. Marxism and Fascism are like the American League and the National League. Sure there are some differences, but in the end they are both still playing baseball. . .
 
Holy ****, guis! This thread is soaring with some of the best ****s in the history of JFC!!! Jesus! Marx! The greatest versions of spiritual debt. Where has this thread been my whole life??
 
See, the thing, as a Christian is that I don't have to carry SOCIETAL guilt. My salvation and worth are completely up to me and my actions. That is just the type of stuff Marxism runs away from. And do you know how you can tell a Marxist? Someone who cannot admit that implementation of Marx's ideas always lead to a police state despite every last bit of historical evidence. Marxism and Fascism are like the American League and the National League. Sure there are some differences, but in the end they are both still playing baseball. . .

LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

This post belongs on a mural. I can see it in cursive, written over an image Adam fondling Eve.

BTW, braugh, every modern form of fascism is an offshoot of Christianity and it's suffocating theory of Truth.
 
A promising theory to take away private property? I'm sure as a Muslim, you enjoy his thoughts on religion as well. Or shoot, even his thoughts that there will be no peace until everybody agrees with him. Genius.

I'm trilled that this is the thread that caused you to say, "Shucks, honey, I tried to be Howard on teh JFC, but those boys were just taunting me with dangerous ideas. I had to shine the headlights of Hantlers on that. Pray with me."
 
A promising theory to take away private property? I'm sure as a Muslim, you enjoy his thoughts on religion as well. Or shoot, even his thoughts that there will be no peace until everybody agrees with him. Genius.

He saw religion as a tool used by the elite to to perpetually recreate socioeconomic inequality. While he is wrong to abolish it (IMO) he is 100% correct in that people for millennia were okay with being treated like dog**** by their governments because of a belief in the afterlife. He just wanted to mobilize people, and demand rights. Again, ingenious of him to come to that conclusion in the context he was surrounded by.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
See, the thing, as a Christian is that I don't have to carry SOCIETAL guilt. My salvation and worth are completely up to me and my actions. That is just the type of stuff Marxism runs away from. And do you know how you can tell a Marxist? Someone who cannot admit that implementation of Marx's ideas always lead to a police state despite every last bit of historical evidence. Marxism and Fascism are like the American League and the National League. Sure there are some differences, but in the end they are both still playing baseball. . .

Yikes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Read;



It's not rocket science meets brain surgery.. don't pretend it's something only a select few will understand. It's very basic; social systems give and take from one another, or they perish. Monarchies fall unless the voice of the people is heard and represented(democracy). Socialism was almost wiped out, and then it adopted democracy to form the quantifiably most prosperous countries on Earth. Republics, like Rome, fall without a maintainable social safety net(socialism).

TL;DR, without learning from other forms of government, any one nation is doomed to fail.

It's practically useless to discuss something with someone who lacks the intellect to understand what you say, or for that matter who doesn't even follow the logic of a 'net cliché like "TL;DR" close enough to realize it is malappropriate at best, to say "TL;DR" instead of "TL:DNR".

Sorry I imagined you would understand anything.
 
See, the thing, as a Christian is that I don't have to carry SOCIETAL guilt. My salvation and worth are completely up to me and my actions. That is just the type of stuff Marxism runs away from. And do you know how you can tell a Marxist? Someone who cannot admit that implementation of Marx's ideas always lead to a police state despite every last bit of historical evidence. Marxism and Fascism are like the American League and the National League. Sure there are some differences, but in the end they are both still playing baseball. . .

I'm sad to see baseball dragged down to this level. . . .

But you are right about ideological authoritarian societies of all kinds which displace the inherent rights of the individuals and impose inappropriate regulations upon human actions. No central decision-maker can do better than the varied populace at exercising good judgment, or assuming responsibility for the consequences. If some individuals will make stupid or wrong or immoral decisions individually, it is certain that an authoritarian system, will elevate those elements of our population to the highest levels and will prevent intelligent people from doing what is right.

And that is why all governments historically fail when they have enough power to do so.

They say "cream rises to the top", but that's talking about natural milk, not even homogenized milk. A societal system with an excess of power draws flies, draws power-seeking individuals, and forms a sort of scum layer I call "herd-managers" who will do the will of some few manipulators who will exploit them for their own interests. Of course some really smart manipulators might start some recruitment organizations to draw in people who are successful, or wealthy, or famous, or prominent, or who can lead some profession or segment of society, and flatter them a lot while feeding them and having them sit and listen to selected speakers who can present some vision of a better world, and thus secure a lot of "grass-roots" support. . . . but still, they are there, stupid enough to be flattered and sold a bill of goods, and they are in fact "scum".

Every form of government with an excess of power is going to have such camp-followers, and one way or another they will defeat the collective intelligence of the human race, until their system just loses its wheels, and falls flat because of their stupid mismanagement.

The only way to create a sustainable government is to limit it to a marginally-necessary level of power. Take out it's power to print money, and limit it's revenue, and more people will just have to find honest, productive work. Government must be kept too small to interfere with people in their daily lives, too poor to feed anyone. To powerless to prevent people from access to resources or to prevent them from productive activity.

Under those conditions, evolutionary processes will favor the selection of the next generation from among those who will use their brains, and who will work. But's that's what will happen when a bad government fails, eventually, too.
 
Last edited:
The only real flaw with Marxism is that it fails to consider the amount of force that needs to be used to establish it and the even greater amount of force required to maintain it. The reason it requires so much force is because it victimizes a large portion of the population for the benefit of the rest (majority) of the population and far too often people simply refuse to be sacrificed for the the good of the many.

Okay, there are two fatal flaws, the other being that it kills human motivation, even amongst those whom it benefits.

I mean other than that it's pure genius.
 
The only real flaw with Marxism is that it fails to consider the amount of force that needs to be used to establish it and the even greater amount of force required to maintain it. The reason it requires so much force is because it victimizes a large portion of the population for the benefit of the rest (majority) of the population and far too often people simply refuse to be sacrificed for the the good of the many.

Okay, there are two fatal flaws, the other being that it kills human motivation, even amongst those whom it benefits.

I mean other than that it's pure genius.

Sometimes it's hard for me to distinguish between genius and sarcasm, or wit and humor.

All in all, knowing. . . . or imagining that I know. . . . Game, I could see where maybe he favors the ideal of people being equal and a lot of other stuff that appeals to the most of us, and disfavors whatever "goes wrong" and injures somehow our good life in all of that.

I mostly think we need to be careful about whatever is "pure genius".
 
The only real flaw with Marxism is that it fails to consider the amount of force that needs to be used to establish it and the even greater amount of force required to maintain it. The reason it requires so much force is because it victimizes a large portion of the population for the benefit of the rest (majority) of the population and far too often people simply refuse to be sacrificed for the the good of the many.

Okay, there are two fatal flaws, the other being that it kills human motivation, even amongst those whom it benefits.

I mean other than that it's pure genius.

Great post, but I don't really think that Marx WAS underselling the use of force. Marxism was just repackaged Jacobinism, and everybody was well aware of what happened there.
 
Great post, but I don't really think that Marx WAS underselling the use of force. Marxism was just repackaged Jacobinism, and everybody was well aware of what happened there.

now why didn't I realize that. After all, wasn't "A Tale of Two Cities" by Charles Dickens written before "Das Kapital" by Karl Marx?

If I remember correctly, even Lyndon LaRouche bitterly denounces how the Brit nobility demonized the French Revolution and worked to support Napoleon's carnage across Europe. I'll have to look up some information on all that.
 
now why didn't I realize that. After all, wasn't "A Tale of Two Cities" by Charles Dickens written before "Das Kapital" by Karl Marx?

If I remember correctly, even Lyndon LaRouche bitterly denounces how the Brit nobility demonized the French Revolution and worked to support Napoleon's carnage across Europe. I'll have to look up some information on all that.

Yep, all the "brilliant minds" of Marx and Engels did was take the rhetoric of the French Revolution and try to turn it pseudo-philosophic by stealing liberally from, then cut and pasting, Hegel. If you have any real understanding of Hegel, it becomes immediately obvious what frauds the founders of Communism are, and more especially the idiots who still cling to it after its end results have been so thoroughly proven.
 
Hear me please. Anybody who serves as the mouthpiece of any widespread populism, and is therefore responsible for culling the complexity and multiplicity of concepts down to a grotesque simpleness, is a fraud. They are in the business of convincing you to adopt their values as your own, and to convince you to repeat their truths for them. Marx and Engles were these kinds of frauds, and so was Jesus. This culling requires luck and skill in high quantities, so so much that it appears 'miraculous' or 'genius' (depending on what their followers call them). So high that we ascribe a magnificent agency to them -- founders, leaders, kings -- when the majority of the causes of a populism lay far outside them.


Sensations and evaluations are percolating through life all the time. They reach your fingers, toes, heart. And because you are a body of sufficient durability, they will last in your memory, and be recalled later. Reflecting, you'll organize them and then re-orgainize them -- tissues and memories in constant variation. It's amazing and unique. **** the people who tell you what your values are and should be. Hell, **** the already established words if you can. Be your own fraud, at least.
 
Hear me please. Anybody who serves as the mouthpiece of any widespread populism, and is therefore responsible for culling the complexity and multiplicity of concepts down to a grotesque simpleness, is a fraud. They are in the business of convincing you to adopt their values as your own, and to convince you to repeat their truths for them. Marx and Engles were these kinds of frauds, and so was Jesus. This culling requires luck and skill in high quantities, so so much that it appears 'miraculous' or 'genius' (depending on what their followers call them). So high that we ascribe a magnificent agency to them -- founders, leaders, kings -- when the majority of the causes of a populism lay far outside them.


Sensations and evaluations are percolating through life all the time. They reach your fingers, toes, heart. And because you are a body of sufficient durability, they will last in your memory, and be recalled later. Reflecting, you'll organize them and then re-orgainize them -- tissues and memories in constant variation. It's amazing and unique. **** the people who tell you what your values are and should be. Hell, **** the already established words if you can. Be your own fraud, at least.

At least in the lore of the Eastern, older religious traditions, the essence of becoming "holy" consisted of personal practices especially attitudes, and in accepting the higher reality and being in harmony with it. Not exactly something you could really "boast" about, without in that very attitude losing the claim. That is what I see in the teachings of Jesus, particularly in regard to some of the exhortations towards "unity" with God.

Anyway, NAOS, when it comes to accepting the task of "being your own fraud", I'll assume you mean more like being an original questor, not an "authority" others should follow. That is the exhortation of Jesus to "Seek, and ye shall find", as distinguished from following leaders, or anyone else.

My approach to it is to accept the limitations on what I know, or am, but to keep up the quest. Truth is its own advocate, its own witness. It is what it is, without excuse or apology. Hold the truth up on it's own merits without contaminating it as being somehow your own particular possession and making yourself something great if you think you catch a glimpse of it, fleeting as that might be, in your mind.

It would be interesting to understand how a person can be "holy", or make the essential virtues of holiness your own attributes in application. Christian theory is that you can't do it without the atonement of Jesus. Other ancient traditions hold out the possibility that you can make a specific effort, and attain it, by subordinating various human vices and inculcating certain universal virtues. And, that you can do it by meditation as a principal effort.

The essential assertion of Jesus consisted of His being devoted to, and subordinate to, His Father. His doctrine was NOT his own, he said it was His Father's, and he made an example of Himself in doing a higher will that his own, that of His Father. Because he did so, and made that example, he said we could do it by following Him, and gave himself as an atonement for our sin, for every unworthy thing in us. He said if we would follow Him, and do the things he taught, that we would become like Him, and therefore, like His Father. In that specific, he was "The Way, The Truth, and The Life".

While I get it that people have all sorts of conceptions of what Jesus was, or taught, I'd be cautious about calling Him a fraud. As far as I can judge it, He lived what he taught. And as far as I understand it, I believe he really was "The Way, The Truth, and The Life".

almost any of us, in trying to explain it, is likely to go wrong somehow, because we are pretty far from being like Him, or even understanding Him. So almost anything we say could be rightly called a "Fraud" or a misrepresentation of Jesus.

But Jesus did not teach you believe other men. He taught you to seek God directly, casting aside unworthy things in you.

And, whether there is a God or not, that idea of seeking better throughout your life is a pretty good quest.

"Good, Better, Best: Never them rest, until Good is Better, and Better is Best."
 
At least in the lore of the Eastern, older religious traditions, the essence of becoming "holy" consisted of personal practices especially attitudes, and in accepting the higher reality and being in harmony with it. Not exactly something you could really "boast" about, without in that very attitude losing the claim. That is what I see in the teachings of Jesus, particularly in regard to some of the exhortations towards "unity" with God.

Anyway, NAOS, when it comes to accepting the task of "being your own fraud", I'll assume you mean more like being an original questor, not an "authority" others should follow. That is the exhortation of Jesus to "Seek, and ye shall find", as distinguished from following leaders, or anyone else.

My approach to it is to accept the limitations on what I know, or am, but to keep up the quest. Truth is its own advocate, its own witness. It is what it is, without excuse or apology. Hold the truth up on it's own merits without contaminating it as being somehow your own particular possession and making yourself something great if you think you catch a glimpse of it, fleeting as that might be, in your mind.

It would be interesting to understand how a person can be "holy", or make the essential virtues of holiness your own attributes in application. Christian theory is that you can't do it without the atonement of Jesus. Other ancient traditions hold out the possibility that you can make a specific effort, and attain it, by subordinating various human vices and inculcating certain universal virtues. And, that you can do it by meditation as a principal effort.

The essential assertion of Jesus consisted of His being devoted to, and subordinate to, His Father. His doctrine was NOT his own, he said it was His Father's, and he made an example of Himself in doing a higher will that his own, that of His Father. Because he did so, and made that example, he said we could do it by following Him, and gave himself as an atonement for our sin, for every unworthy thing in us. He said if we would follow Him, and do the things he taught, that we would become like Him, and therefore, like His Father. In that specific, he was "The Way, The Truth, and The Life".

While I get it that people have all sorts of conceptions of what Jesus was, or taught, I'd be cautious about calling Him a fraud. As far as I can judge it, He lived what he taught. And as far as I understand it, I believe he really was "The Way, The Truth, and The Life".

almost any of us, in trying to explain it, is likely to go wrong somehow, because we are pretty far from being like Him, or even understanding Him. So almost anything we say could be rightly called a "Fraud" or a misrepresentation of Jesus.

But Jesus did not teach you believe other men. He taught you to seek God directly, casting aside unworthy things in you.

And, whether there is a God or not, that idea of seeking better throughout your life is a pretty good quest.

"Good, Better, Best: Never them rest, until Good is Better, and Better is Best."
There were 5 instances in your post when you forgot to capitalize "he" when referring to Christ.

I hope God has mercy on your soul.

 
There were 5 instances in your post when you forgot to capitalize "he" when referring to Christ.

I hope God has mercy on your soul.


Well, in my opinion, I've had more than my share of that mercy. I couldn't conceive of God as being offended with my spelling. That would strike me as more like the Greek gods who were famously petty about a lot stuff.
 
Back
Top