Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "The Babylon Bee"
channel.
-
25
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
@elgatofelix8917 He does not claim Jews are the master race. He tells Jew jokes. Don't tell me you can't tell the difference. Klavan was never Judaic enough to consult a rabbi. And just because you find a commie hack rabbi who confirms your prejudices does not mean that you're right. An ethnicity is not a conspiracy.
A fundamental absurdity of Jew haters, after the absurdity of calling an ethnicity a conspiracy. Is equating anti-Zionist leftist political organizations, George Soros, SPLC, ACLU, BLM, Antifa with Zionists and Israel that all these groups are doing their best to destroy. The "party line" of these morons is that that is all a cover and that they are all on the same side. And the only argument they have to support their party line is "They are all run by Jews", in other words, they have no argument at all. The most cursory investigation of the Israel policies of these organizations shows that they have the SAME Israel policy as the "Jews are destroying the world" conspiracy theorists. In fact, every day in every way the "racist right" supports the same things the "cultural Marxists" support, from the centrality of "group identity" through the abolition of the civil rights enumerated in the Constitution (all of them, without exception) through segregation, to the ideal/goal of limited government and freedom itself. This is how you know they are false flag leftists-BECAUSE ALL OF THE THINGS THEY ADVOCATE ARE LEFTIST THINGS.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jupitard "Can you tidy up your post about "Jew haters"? "
"It's full of theys and thems and generalisation "[sic]
It is impossible to speak about groups of people without generalizations. To speak about groups is to argue the validity or non validity of generalizations or their fractional applicability. Tell you what, I can't do anything about the generalizations but I will do a copy with all the pronouns (except "I"=Digital Nomad) specified. The clarifications will be in brackets "[ ]". You are probably wasting my time on this since I suspect your problem is not that you don't understand, but that you disagree:
A fundamental absurdity of Jew haters [henceforth specified as JH], after the absurdity of calling an ethnicity a conspiracy is equating anti-Zionist leftist political organizations, George Soros, SPLC, ACLU, BLM, Antifa [shortened as Alphabet Soup or AS] with Zionists and Israel that all these groups are doing their best to destroy. The "party line" of these morons [JH] is that that is all a cover and that they [AS on the one hand and Israel on the other] are all on the same side. And the only argument they [JH] have to support their party line is "They [AS and Israel and Zionists] are all run by Jews", in other words, they [JH] have no argument at all. The most cursory investigation of the Israel policies of these organizations [AS] shows that they [AS] have the SAME Israel policy as the "Jews are destroying the world" conspiracy theorists.
In fact, every day in every way the "racist right" supports the same things the "cultural Marxists" support, from the centrality of "group identity" through the abolition of the civil rights enumerated in the Constitution (all of them, without exception) through segregation, to the ideal/goal of limited government and freedom itself. This is how you know they ["racist right"] are false flag leftists-BECAUSE ALL OF THE THINGS THEY ["racist right"] ADVOCATE ARE LEFTIST THINGS.
/end revision
I don't really think that this is an improvement. Pronouns are used for a reason. I did catch a false sentence ending near the start which probably confused things a little, so I thank you for letting me catch and edit that. I added a paragraph separation for "white space" eye relief.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jsusbdndk1362 "capitalism is based on individual initiative while socialism is based government. Both act on production of goods and services, it’s just a matter of who controls it"
As though who controls goods and services cannot possibly have any effect on the production of goods and services.
The socialist disconnect between productivity and incentives has been elaborated on. It is the aspect of socialism which impoverishes the society, and gives the lie to the altruistic pretensions of its advocates. The common folk of a socialist society are uniformly poorer than their counterparts in a free one, in addition to being sorely oppressed and hampered and proscribed at every turn.
Freedom of opportunity and property rights have created the wealthiest societies in the world. Have created societies where the "poor" have a material position far more advantageous than the kings under former systems. That is where wealth and opportunity are made. If your ideology is actually better then "improve" some 3rd world country and out-compete the rest of the world. That is how freedom proved itself, by providing the greatest benefit to all, and to the least gifted in particular. "Capitalism" is Marx's straw man, equating freedom with rule by robber barons.
If you are really concerned with human suffering and oppression, why do you always seek to "improve" the freest, most prosperous, and most equitable societies, rather than liberating the actually oppressed? It is almost as if you are more concerned with pulling down the rich than lifting up the poor.
In fact, and historically in practice, despotism results, and the reason why IS AN INHERENT FLAW OF THE THEORY. You seek to replace the free market with an arbitrary distribution of stuff. To do this you need an arbiter. The arbiter does not BECOME, he IS by nature of his function, the dictator. You, first, remove all the protections, restraints, checks and balances of the civic society, (often accompanied by the removal of checks on the conscience from religion,) give absolute power (in a sense greater even than the kings and emperors of old) to a person or a group, already acclimated to a free hand in the use of force when they steal everybody's stuff. Then you wonder why so many get murdered by your just and equitable and scientific government, and why life in your utopia is so similar to slavery.
In fact this similarity was recognized, and embraced by George Fitzhugh,19th century leftist and southern slavery advocate of the "positive good" school, that is, of those who insisted that slavery was good for the slave. (source, Dinesh D'Sousa "Death of a Nation") Like Wolff, of course, he characterizes the relationship between the wage worker and capital as oppressive. He goes further in comparing it unfavorably with slavery, claiming that the supposed freedom of choice of the wage worker is illusory and the wage worker is a "slave without a master", that is, in his construction, without a person obligated and motivated to "take care" of him. "The maxim, every man for himself embraces the whole moral code of a free society. The rich are continually growing richer and the poor poorer." Freedom is a "war of the rich, with the poor, and the poor with one another."
By way of contrast, he finds in slavery a sort of commune "in which the master furnishes the capital and skill, and the slaves the labor, and divide the profits, not according to each one's in-put, but according to each one's wants and necessities." He called the contemporary socialist theory "an ever receding and illusory Utopia." Slavery, he insists, is an existing and the only practical form of socialism, achieving "the ends all Communists and Socialists desire."
The common thread, is that to the libertarian sensibility essential freedom is freedom TO (to act), and to the socialist is freedom FROM (from responsibilities, uncertainties).
James Madison in Federalist 51, states the obvious that eludes these ivory tower theorists:
"The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."
A common fallacy of utopian ideologues is that human nature is inherently good, but is being held back by some flaw in the social contract. In fact, the same flawed, imperfect, selfish, stupid nature that infests the lord, or the "capitalist", infests the revolutionary. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The "capitalist" AS SUCH, can only hire or bribe. An unchecked authoritarian government can do that (with other people's money), plus arrest, torture, and kill you or your family. It is incoherent to fear the former and not fear the latter. No "angel" is available to bear this power benignly. It is not just the resources that rampant government spending removes from the productive sector, removing incentives to productivity, it is the dangerous further unnecessary concentration of power in the most dangerous place possible. This would be harmful even if the resources spent were beamed down by well meaning space aliens.
2
-
2
-
2