Katy Perry in the aftermath of Manchester

[Ashock]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBhboWaFodU


Why is it, that every time, without fail, we get the same achingly predictable response on social media from the useful idiots of the progressive left?

1. Stupidity. Thanks to a dumbed-down education system and ignorant, left-leaning teachers, a lot of people lack either the knowledge base or the intellectual capacity to understand that what’s going on here really is a Clash of Civilizations – not some series of random incidents provoked by “Islamophobia” and foreign policy
2. Ideology. Many Soros-funded progressives see Western Civilization as the problem. They want it to fail. They want open borders. They hate people who oppose these things far more than they hate terrorists.
3. Virtue-signalling. Tweeting your concerns about Islamophobia while the bodies from the latest Islamic atrocity are barely cold is a very fashionable way of showing how high-minded and decent you are. It means you are capable of rising above raw emotion and that you care about The Other.
4. Peer pressure. The liberal-left – most especially the arty and chattering class types I call the Wankerati – live in a bubble. They never associate with anyone who doesn’t think as stupidly as they do – therefore they never have original or insightful opinions.
5. Cowardice. They think if they don’t stick their heads above the parapet no one will notice. Or, as Churchill once put it: “Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last.”

The above is shamelessly plagiarized, but is wholeheartedly supported by me.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/05/23...cide-bomb/

Now personally, I have absolutely no illusions of changing anyone's mind in this place. You people are too far gone. However, getting a different perspective other than the usual Clinton News Network, or Microsoft No Brain Channel never hurt anyone, except under communists or islamists, so enjoy while you can.

[LavCat]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBhboWaFodU


Why is it, that every time, without fail, we get the same achingly predictable response on social media from the useful idiots of the progressive left?

1. Stupidity. Thanks to a dumbed-down education system and ignorant, left-leaning teachers, a lot of people lack either the knowledge base or the intellectual capacity to understand that what’s going on here really is a Clash of Civilizations – not some series of random incidents provoked by “Islamophobia” and foreign policy
2. Ideology. Many Soros-funded progressives see Western Civilization as the problem. They want it to fail. They want open borders. They hate people who oppose these things far more than they hate terrorists.
3. Virtue-signalling. Tweeting your concerns about Islamophobia while the bodies from the latest Islamic atrocity are barely cold is a very fashionable way of showing how high-minded and decent you are. It means you are capable of rising above raw emotion and that you care about The Other.
4. Peer pressure. The liberal-left – most especially the arty and chattering class types I call the Wankerati – live in a bubble. They never associate with anyone who doesn’t think as stupidly as they do – therefore they never have original or insightful opinions.
5. Cowardice. They think if they don’t stick their heads above the parapet no one will notice. Or, as Churchill once put it: “Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last.”

The above is shamelessly plagiarized, but is wholeheartedly supported by me.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/05/23...cide-bomb/

Now personally, I have absolutely no illusions of changing anyone's mind in this place. You people are too far gone. However, getting a different perspective other than the usual Clinton News Network, or Microsoft No Brain Channel never hurt anyone, except under communists or islamists, so enjoy while you can.

Yes, I am a leftist in favor of open borders. If you are a naturalized American perhaps at one time you were warmly encouraged to read a document, The Declaration of Independence? One grievance against the late sovereign of these colonies was:

"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands."

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/d...transcript


And who are our friends? The British, who burned Washington and the White House? Or the Islamists? Who gave diplomatic recognition to the United States in our hour of need? Who supported the United States in our great civil war against enemies whose terrorists burned hotels in New York City?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco%E2..._relations

[FireIceTalon]

Now personally, I have absolutely no illusions of changing anyone's mind in this place.

I couldn't help but LOL upon reading this. Are you sure?

You people are too far gone.

Says the right wing troll who inserts his foot everytime he opens his mouth and thinks Breitbart is actually "news".

However, getting a different perspective other than the usual Clinton News Network, or Microsoft No Brain Channel never hurt anyone, except under communists or islamists, so enjoy while you can.

I don't use any of those as my source of news. However, you aren't saying anything different than the prototype right-wing rhetoric we hear everyday.

You know Ashock, if it's acceptance or confirmation of your views that you seek, I'm sure the folks over at Stormfront will greet you with open arms. I think you would fit in much better there.

If you haven't noticed, it is pretty rare that I start a political thread nowadays. I've come to realize that if I want to discuss politics with people who share similar views to me, I have revleft.com or libcom.org. Sure I will comment in a thread made by someone else and provide my perspective, but you don't see me making threads left and right to get on a soapbox. You might be better off if you did the same.

[Lissa]

Ashock, everytime you start a thread on these boards I am always reminded of this:



If you haven't figured out by now that you need MULTIPLE sources for your news to get the full picture, then you are just as blinded as everyone saying that Fox is a terrible source and others saying CNN is a terrible source. The fact is, the truth is somewhere in the middle and the fact that you STILL have not realized this shows how biased you truly are.

[kandrathe]

Not news. I could give a flying flip what Katy Flipping Perry tweets.

All I know is that Salman Abedi accomplished his goal. It is so hard the prevent an enemy of Western Democracy from exploiting the freedom we afford to assemble the means to commit a heinous act. In order to guarantee 100% security requires a massive elimination of privacy and the same freedoms that make Western Democracies exemplar.

If Fox, or Breitbart, or CNN or AlterNet or wherever have a solution where we can stop the killing, I'm listening. Otherwise, they can all crawl back into the gutter with their crap news.

[Archon_Wing]

They make a good point about virtual signaling. Using a tragedy as an excuse to push a political position is a pitiful thing to do.
Which is why they're doing the same thing.

It's the type of stuff that angsty teenage edgelords on the internet would make threads about to seem cool in the counterculture way. Of course, what's your excuse, OP?

[eppie]

Now personally, I have absolutely no illusions of changing anyone's mind in this place. You people are too far gone. However, getting a different perspective other than the usual Clinton News Network, or Microsoft No Brain Channel never hurt anyone, except under communists or islamists, so enjoy while you can.

The thing that worries me most (and I am not a conspiracy theory fan) is that again (just after all the recent attacks) it turns out governments were warned in advance to watch this guy.....but they didn't.

GE develops a new body scanner and the US goverment obliges all airports to buy 10 of these scanners (we all know that is because those politicians (or their friends) have shares in the company.
Again and again, we are supposed to give up our privacy because then ''they'' can better protect us from terrorists but it turns out that these terrorist are known already..........and then we get the same excuse over and over again : we don't have the manpower to check on them.

5 different people (groups of people) have warned the british government about this Manchester terrorist: he was radicalizing too much (and that was coming from people from a quite conservative Mosque, he told friends that het thought suicide bombers were doing a good thing so his friends called the police (HIS FRIENDS), his father was part of an organization connected to Al Qaeda, his family called the police because they saw it was going the wrong way...................
................. but the police is too busy to follow him.


Let's just take the easy way out: 1 blame the left, 2 invest in companies we own shares in and 3 take away people's privacy.


(I can write a similar story for the Boston marathon attack, teh berlin attach, the paris attacks etc. etc,).

[FireIceTalon]

Don't be fooled. The right loves it when things like this happen, because it fuels whatever scapegoat conspiracy theory is currently fashionable to explain all the worlds problems. In this case, Islamaphobia. The irony is, they couldn't give two shits about the people who die or whose lives are ruined from a terrorist attack so much as they care about using it to justify Western Imperialism - just like they don't really care about unborn babies so much as they care about controlling how much autonomy women have with their bodies. Right-wingers are scum to the fullest.

[kandrathe]

Don't be fooled. The right loves it when things like this happen, because it fuels whatever scapegoat conspiracy theory is currently fashionable to explain all the worlds problems.

Let's just say power mongers. Who said, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste"?

In this case, Islamaphobia.

No, it is capitalizing on fear. Now many feel we need more protection. Which leads to more government faux solutions, more spending, and less freedom. Why do we need to spend billions on a south wall?

The irony is, they couldn't give two shits about the people who die or whose lives are ruined from a terrorist attack so much as they care about using it to justify Western Imperialism - just like they don't really care about unborn babies so much as they care about controlling how much autonomy women have with their bodies.

Oh, I think they care. It is just in Britain, and also the US they need to break a law before you can incarcerate them -- at least so far... mostly, except for extraordinary rendition...

Right-wingers are scum to the fullest.

As are left wingers who kill people, like Maduro in Venezuala. All X are Y is usually a bigoted red flag for me.

[FireIceTalon]

Why do we need to spend billions on a south wall?

We don't. But doing so panders to one of the biggest scapegoats/boogeymen for privileged, racist white males: Mexican immigrants.

Oh, I think they care. It is just in Britain, and also the US they need to break a law before you can incarcerate them -- at least so far... mostly, except for extraordinary rendition...

Trust me, they don't. The only thing they care about is keeping America white, turning the Middle East into "civilized Western style" nations, and loading the bank accounts of the capitalists in the process. All while selling us the false narrative that minorities, immigrants, refugees, and the poor are the cause of their brain-dead constituents woes.

Additionally, they then have the audacity to think leftists support terrorism because we are critical of and against Imperialism. The truth is, we are critical of and against both Imperialism, and terrorism, but are competent enough to realize that "terrorism" is a reaction against Western Imperialism. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Of course, Western Imperialism is in itself a form of terrorism, so yes, we are against terrorism. Any leftist worth their salt should disapprove of Isis (more or less, an Islamic version of the KKK) just as much and for the same reasons they do the US government, its military force, and the capitalist overlords they serve.

As are left wingers who kill people, like Maduro in Venezuala.

Maduro is about as left-wing as Trump, Obama, or Clinton. Maybe on the left-wing of capital, perhaps. In other words, not really at left-wing at all; and certainly not in any meaningful sense of what is to be a leftist. He's also a raging homophobe - something no leftist of today, worth their salt, will (or can) be. Overall, he is your average bourgeois politician.

red flag for me.

Red flags are wonderful. We need more of them.

[kandrathe]

Well, whatever....

Several political parties in Venezuela support chavismo. The main party, directly affiliated with Chávez, is the PSUV, United Socialist Party of Venezuela, which replaced the Fifth Republic Movement (Spanish: Movimiento Quinta Republica, usually referred to by the three letters, MVR). Other parties and movements supporting chavismo include Communist Party of Venezuela, Venezuelan Popular Unity and Tupamaros.

I forget that what this world considers "leftist" is not in your reality.

[FireIceTalon]

My reality? As if me, you and everyone else has their own abstract reality that they live in, mutually exclusive from one another, like we are all from different planets. This is exactly the fundamental problem of idealism - it is short sighted, convoluted, incomplete, and in many instances, just flat out wrong in its conclusions. Some idealist perspectives also suffer from eclecticism, which can lead to a distorted view of reality or cognitive dissonance.

No, Kandrathe. There is no "my" reality or "your" reality here. There is only the ONE reality that me, you and some 7 billion other human beings live in, comprised of a very specific set of social relations and economic laws that guide human interaction and behavior.

I simply analyze the reality we all live in through a materialist lens, rather than an idealist one. Why? Because material conditions, and not ideas (as impactful as they may be), are what shape the world we live and our social existence within it - as well as our very perception of it. Therefore, following that to its logical conclusion, it only makes sense to use it as a starting point as the road to truth.

It doesn't matter what someone wants to categorize themselves (or someone else) as. Anyone can say I'm this, or that. Or that someone else is this, or that. It doesn't make it so. What does matter, does the hypothesis/assertion/whatever is being stated/claimed, reflect real world material conditions? If not, then that idea or statement should be rejected.

[kandrathe]

My reality? As if me, you and everyone else has their own abstract reality that they live in, mutually exclusive from one another, like we are all from different planets. ...

Maduro is about as left-wing as Trump, Obama, or Clinton. Maybe on the left-wing of capital, perhaps. In other words, not really at left-wing at all; and certainly not in any meaningful sense of what is to be a leftist. He's also a raging homophobe - something no leftist of today, worth their salt, will (or can) be. Overall, he is your average bourgeois politician.

...
It doesn't matter what someone wants to categorize themselves (or someone else) as. Anyone can say I'm this, or that. Or that someone else is this, or that. It doesn't make it so. What does matter, does the hypothesis/assertion/whatever is being stated/claimed, reflect real world material conditions? If not, then that idea or statement should be rejected.

Your reality is where you get to judge and label Maduro, and Chavistas not Left enough, then eschew labels.

China, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, or North Korea are the remaining examples of communist nations. Only China, after re-embracing capitalism is digging out of the central planning hole. Are any of those five left enough? It seems no one exemplifies the ideal of Leftism for your approval. Who is the real idealist?

[FireIceTalon]

Your reality is where you get to judge and label Maduro, and Chavistas not Left enough, then eschew labels.

Indeed I do, and I am calling them as they are - not as they or others think they are, but what they ACTUALLY are. They do not represent or even desire international proletarian revolution, and are content, at best, with 'socialism in one country', which has proven time and again that it cannot work within a global capitalist system. I'm all for socialism, but never in just one isolated country because it will eventually crumble under external capitalist forces, or be forced to regress back into capitalism. Chavez was more or less a social democrat regardless of how much lip service he gave communism, Maduro is probably not even that, probably closer to a liberal.

communist nations

Oxymoron. Communism by definition must exist worldwide to be realized, and therefore there can be no such thing as a "communist nation" by definition. None of these countries ever were communist, nor could they be ever since there are no "nations" in a global communist society. Some of them were, perhaps arguably at one point, in a very very early stage of socialism, but thats about it (and socialism and communism are two very different things, different modes of production). Even that is highly debatable; and they certainly weren't anywhere near communist. Except in name, which means absolutely nothing.

It seems no one exemplifies the ideal of Leftism for your approval.

Most communists, as well as Anarchists, disapproved of the concept of 'socialism in one country' long before Lenin was even a thought, let alone myself. It has nothing to do with my approval, and everything to do with the fact that it was well established scientifically in the communist movement that proletarian revolution must be international in nature. 'Socialism in one country' is fundamentally flawed for obvious reasons, anti-Marxist, and doomed to failure; just as capitalism is.

If one thinks capitalism can be reformed or saved, then no, they are not a leftist. Not by a long shot, no matter how much they think they can make it fair when it is an exploitative, vicious, and rotten system to its very core. That is idealism at its finest. If you support capitalism (regardless of how fair you think you can make it), you support inequality, exploitation, and despotism by DEFAULT - those are traits inherent to the capitalist mode of production. And therefore, by extension, you cannot be a leftist.

And someone with a reactionary tendency like homophobia, like Maduro (who also, not to mention, for all his supposed "leftism", has enacted many anti-worker policies and has illegitimately laundered money to himself - which is as anti-working class as you can get), SURE AS HELL ain't no leftist.

Who is the real idealist?

It would seem you, since it is you who desires to put his own definition of communism to turn it into something that it isn't, so that you may suit your own purposes. You also think its possible for one to be a leftist when they support a system (capitalism) that is, by its very nature, oppressive, backwards, barbaric on many levels, economically irrational and destructive towards the environment.

I guess we have very different standards of what leftism qualifies as, and quite frankly, ill stick with being a communist because soc dems and liberals are, at the end of the day, just as bad as right-wingers. In a way, even worse, since at least right-wingers wear their archaic and disgusting views on their sleeve so they are easily identifiable. Soc dems and liberals pretend to be for the worker and the oppressed, when in reality they aren't.

[kandrathe]

If one thinks capitalism can be reformed or saved, then no, they are not a leftist. Not by a long shot, no matter how much they think they can make it fair when it is an exploitative, vicious, and rotten system to its very core. That is idealism at its finest. If you support capitalism (regardless of how fair you think you can make it), you support inequality, exploitation, and despotism by DEFAULT - those are traits inherent to the capitalist mode of production. And therefore, by extension, you cannot be a leftist.

Given the alternatives... How would you and your comrades rule the world then? If you switch -isms from Islamism to Communism your goals seem similar to ISIS. Again, in the past millions died horribly (Bolsheviks, Maoists, Yezhovshchina, Cambodia, ongoing in DPRK, ...) when more aggressive revolutionaries tire of waiting for the global awakening have embraced this -ism. Much like ISIS is trying to jump start prophecy, by unifying a Pan-Islamic caliphate. The Islamic State awaits the army of 'Rome'(the West) whose defeat at Dabiq, Syria, will initiate the countdown to the apocalypse. To me, Stalin, , Mao, Pol Potts, David Koresh, or Zarqawi, all are delusional despot charismatics bending the ears and minds of millions into a global Jonestown massacre.



Lest we imply it is merely China...

[FireIceTalon]

That is still a shit ton of people living in misery, and that only takes into account the most extreme of poverty. Further, the decline of people in poverty has nothing to do with capitalism becoming more benevolent as a system, and everything to do with increases in technological level/capacity, education and improved standards medical care - things we can obtain WITHOUT capitalism. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, poverty is far from being the only of capitalisms problems.

How would you and your comrades rule the world then?

You see, this question itself is very telling of the bourgeois thought process. The answer is, we wouldn't need (or desire) to rule at all. Humans are largely a cooperative rather than competitive species. Only under capitalism do people get divided into classes where someone has to be ruled and exploited, where goods/services are produced on a market as commodities rather than as things for human need. And such a system of course, can only be upheld by means of violence and State force.

If you switch -isms from Islamism to Communism your goals seem similar to ISIS.

Yep, you got us all figured out. Our goals align with those of ISIS. Spread the word comrades, its time to join ISIS! Therein lies the secret to finally overthrowing the capitalist oligarchs!

[kandrathe]

That is still a shit ton of people living in misery, and that only takes into account the most extreme of poverty. Further, the decline of people in poverty has nothing to do with capitalism becoming more benevolent as a system, and everything to do with increases in technological level/capacity, education and improved standards medical care - things we can obtain WITHOUT capitalism. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, poverty is far from being the only of capitalisms problems.

Except, no where did "not capitalism" ever advance people's standard of living. Most of the former Soviets are now better off in the EU. After the fall of the Soviet Union, and the end of central planning did people there begin to get prosperous.

How would you and your comrades rule the world then?

You see, this question itself is very telling of the bourgeois thought process. The answer is, we wouldn't need (or desire) to rule at all. Humans are largely a cooperative rather than competitive species. Only under capitalism do people get divided into classes where someone has to be ruled and exploited, where goods/services are produced on a market as commodities rather than as things for human need. And such a system of course, can only be upheld by means of violence and State force.

It was not a serious question, and sorry for being a bit facetious. But, seriously, some people cannot drive a car without making asshat moves. I just don't see anarchy is being viable. Empowering police gives them authority, and soon enough you're back to authoritarianism.

If you switch -isms from Islamism to Communism your goals seem similar to ISIS.

Yep, you got us all figured out. Our goals align with those of ISIS. Spread the word comrades, its time to join ISIS! Therein lies the secret to finally overthrowing the capitalist oligarchs!

Maybe not goals. But, dichotomic, violence infused, hyperbolic rhetoric leading to worldwide adoption of your ideology.

[Taem]

Maybe not goals. But, dichotomic, violence infused, hyperbolic rhetoric leading to worldwide adoption of your ideology.

This somehow reminds me of watching Narcos and seeing how the diehard communists there wanted their vision so badly, they sided with Pablo Escobars enemies, but take no mistake, they were still an exceptionally violent group of fanatics bent on remaking the world in their image.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Colombia

[FireIceTalon]

Right, because we all know the capitalist image of the world is so peaceful and non-violent...

[kandrathe]

Well, first as the world embraces education and democracy, the rate of violent death decreases. It has little to do with your bogeyman "capitalism".

Our world in data - war and violence

It is not like eliminating commerce and profits will reduce shortages, corruption and or greed. Things are better in the 21st century