Comments by "No Fate But What We Make" (@SonoftheAllfather) on "Can Leftists Be Deradicalized? Yes!" video.
-
13
-
8
-
7
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
@jasonx7501
Okay, I'll deduce my position based on logical reasoning and data like voting demographics. The pattern I'm describing is not just true in the U.S., it is true everywhere in the West. Nonwhites and other minority groups are the vanguard of the Left, and the Left is openly anti-white, anti-cultural, anti-national, and anti-capitalist.
In every Western nation, the most brazen and extreme anti-whites are communists, and often many of those communists are nonwhite. You said it yourself, many of them are adverse to Western culture and the White race because they feel they and their group have been wronged by us, whether perceived or factually, historically or currently. Therefore, they are aggrieved and bitter and resentful, which leads to hate and the desire to subvert and destroy that which they perceive to have wronged them. Hence, far-leftism is the perfect ideology, because it is designed to harness that resentment and use it for revolution.
In the USSR, communists used resentment of the wealthy to effectuate a revolution. In the modern West, communists are using basically every other type of grievance (racial, cultural, gender, sexual, etc.) in hopes of effectuating another revolution. They wish to destroy and subjugate your "oppressors," along with our culture and systems (which are said to reinforce our "cultural hegemony," as Gramsci put it). There is an entire Marxian academic discipline being taught throughout Western academia devoted to subverting and destroying "whiteness." What you will find when you look at the racial/ethnic character of the most extreme of leftist movements in the West is that nonwhites are vastly overrepresented.
Styx said that "no one goes out and maliciously props up an ideology that sucks."
That is false. Minorities who are aggrieved and hate the West and/or White people routinely prop up a failed and murderous ideology and weaponize it to maliciously satisfy their desire for vengeance.
So here is the thing, you can deceive yourself all you want about this topic, but you are wrong. The vanguard of the far-left is minority groups, many of which would hate each other if they didn't have a common purpose. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." What's worse is that many of the most influential of them are well aware of the atrocities committed by far-left regimes throughout history. They ignore that history. That is how much they hate us.
And on a side note, reducing any human group to something as trivial as the color of their skin or "a vitamin D deficiency" is ignorant and immoral. Europeans have evolved over millennia to possess several physiological characteristics that distinguish us from other groups. People like you love to dehumanize Europeans because you think it wounds our pride or weakens our sense of identity. But in reality, all it does is the opposite of what you intend. Narratives like yours only make us stronger and more racially conscious.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jasonx7501 My whole argument is that anti-white, anti-Western, anti-American and anti-capitalist people endorse communism (an ideology that is widely known as murderous) in the hopes that communist revolution will destroy their perceived enemies. That is pure malevolence. Styx said people don't endorse ideologies that suck just to be malevolent, but the facts suggest otherwise.
The vanguard of classical Marxists was the working and lower classes. The vanguard of the neo-Marxists is minority groups. They are the useful idiots...the "proletariat" of the neo-Marxists. Their desire to destroy Western civilization is all that truly unites them. Without that desire to subvert and destroy us, their coalition would devolve and they would begin fighting amongst themselves. They are an unholy alliance of groups that would otherwise be enemies.
All the benign issues you claim leftists care about the most are simply facades for the overarching agenda. Through wealth distribution, mass immigration, multiculturalism, and the ideological subversion of our cultural institutions, the Left wants to deconstruct and reconstruct Western civilization into a globalist socialist hellscape. They hope that targeting the West first will makes all other nations follow suit. So no, it's no strawman. You're just trying to play innocent.
It is not dehumanizing to point out why we have different skin tones. It is dehumanizing to say that our skin tone is the only thing that defines us as a group of people. There is no need to be obsessed with race to realize that. You can't argue with what the voting data says, so instead you're deceptively attempting to trivialize the categorization (race) which makes those voting statistics valid to my argument, and damning to your understanding of leftism.
You have no real argument here. Just personal attacks conjoined with meaningless dogmatic gibberings and lies.
2
-
@jasonx7501
Actually, communism (a stateless society) is a theoretical concept that has never been brought to fruition. Marx said that socialism is the vehicle by which a society arrives at communism. Socialist economic reformation is generally achieved by way of violent revolution, but even if it is achieved democratically, it cannot be implemented and maintained without what Marx called the "dictatorship of the proletariat" seizing control of the means of production, maintaining one-party rule, and compelling collective ownership.
So again you are wrong. Tyranny is the default mode of communism, and a communist state cannot adopt pro-democratic ideas for its style of governance. Compelling equality of outcome is impossible without extreme tyranny. The idea of a communist state being democratic is laughable, and proves one of two things: either you are woefully ignorant or transparently dishonest. You have sunk to the depths of downplaying communism, and you call my beliefs pathetic?
Again, because you can't contend with the substance of the argument, you are now trying to pivot again and attacking the meaning of Western civilization. The enemy is so easy to spot these days..."your race and civilization don't exist, so they can't be attacked or destroyed...reeeee."
Something to that extent. It's painfully obvious what you're trying to do.
This is a YouTube comment section, not an academic journal. The idea that the left-wing agenda does not extend past the benign desire to institute socialized medicine and increased maternal leave is an insult to everyone's intelligence.
Minorities are rarely dehumanized by white people, nor are white people actively seeking to strip away their rights. Talk about a strawman. If that were the case, people would not be breaking down the gates to get into white-majority nations.
And yet when they get here and are given full rights, they immediately vote for ideologies that seek to dehumanize and destroy their host population and culture. Those ideologies are all leftist.
2
-
2
-
@jasonx7501
I listed several valid reasons why, you're just pretending I didn't. Communism requires dictatorship PER MARX HIMSELF to achieve his theoretical stateless society. And it is no wonder why it never worked. Think on a microcosmic level; simply think of the amount of tyranny required for a set of parents to achieve equal outcomes with children who they raised under the same roof. Now go macro, and multiply that level of tyranny by millions and that is how much tyranny is required to create equal outcomes in a nation of 330 million people. The idea of it being accomplished democratically is insane and incredibly naive. If you can't figure this out, you don't belong in any conversation about politics.
It isn't a cop out considering the only reason you're asking me to define Western culture/civ is because you want to deconstruct and gaslight. BLM, a Marxist (and I'm sure one of your favorite) organizations had this in its manifesto last year before removing it: "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families..." So it appears that BLM is aware of what Western culture/civ is and how it "prescribes" requirements for family structure, which it does. Interesting that they don't pretend that it doesn't exist or can't be defined, but you do. I know you know what Western culture/civ is and its relationship to those of European descent. You're just trying to argue semantics because you can't argue substance.
Restricting certain rights of transgenders is totally pragmatic and rational, given the accompanying mental health issues they suffer from. Gender dysphoria and severe depression are basically one and the same, and constitute valid reason that a person should not serve in the armed forces. It is really no different than preventing any other person with a mental disorder from joining the military, but leftists love double standards for their little victim groups.
I don't happen to have any strong aversion to homosexuality or gay marriage. That is a position that is much more common among people on the Right than you would think, especially among those of us who are not members of a world religion. Despite the GOP re-endorsing that platform, half of Republicans polled have no issue with same-sex marriage, and that number is increasing as the West is steadily becoming more irreligious. The First Amendment Defense Act just prevents the government from using authoritarianism against a person who believes in traditional marriage, and you think that's "ridiculous." Speaking of double standards again, its wildly hypocritical for you to demonize someone who supports traditional marriage, but then champion the importation of millions of people who would make homosexuality a capital punishment if they had a vote on it.
That said, immigration is a matter of national safety and security, as well as economic pragmatism and cultural integrity. It's indescribably dishonest to frame the restriction of immigration as dehumanizing to 1.) minority Americans or 2.) foreign nationals.
It's that kind of insane understanding of the situation that leads to completely unsustainable levels of migration. Mass and illegal immigration economically hurts recent immigrants and minority groups the most of all. Leftists used to understand that, because back then they were actually advocates for the working class, not the useful idiots of globalist elitists. Leftists used to be against open borders, deindustrialization and globalization. Cesar Chavez and his goons went full vigilante border patrol for a while because illegal immigrants kept coming in and acting as scabs, making it impossible for his union to negotiate higher wages and benefits with farming corporations.
On foreign nationals, the only way you could frame restriction of immigration as dehumanizing or restrictive of their rights is if you think they have an inherent human right to immigrate here, which is an insane and totally irrational position.
I think there is a mutual lack of respect here. You are an incredibly deceptive and irrational person, which is sadly very typical of those on the Left these days. You're probably some thin-armed pencil-necked pasty white middle-class suburbanite with a sub 300 T level. No one with such naive and absurd views should have a place at the table.
1
-
@jasonx7501
The deaths were caused by the policies of state socialism in the Marxist pursuit of communism. So yes, I can contribute those deaths to communism. By the logic you're using (or lack thereof) the death counts caused by national socialists is not attributable to national socialism because the end goal of national socialists never came to fruition. That, of course, is a ridiculous and desperate argument from a person who is defeated.
As far as deaths attributable to capitalism, you can attribute deaths to the governments of capitalist countries which engaged in senseless (and often illegal) war and imperialist world policing, but killing is not the normal method of implementing and maintaining capitalism. The implementation and maintenance of capitalism does not require extreme tyranny, concentration camps, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, collectivization, food rationing, etc. In contrast, Marxist state socialism does require those things to implement and maintain it, as is evidenced by every single practical application of Marxist state socialism in history, from the USSR to the PRC to the DPRK to the Khmer Rouge. Marxist state socialist governments (in the pursuit of communism) starved, shot, executed and worked to death over 100 million of their own citizens in the 20th century.
Comparing the way a corporation is organized in comparison to a government is another ridiculous and desperate false analogy. A corporation is loosely centralized, but is ultimately beholden to profit incentive (its stakeholders and market forces). Corporations become unaccountable and authoritarian when they are allowed to monopolize and seize control over the political destiny of a nation. The same is true of government. Governments are not beholden to the same incentives. When the state centrally plans an entire economy and seizes all means of production, the only incentive for production is fear of being executed or put in a gulag. "We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us" was a common Soviet expression.
I agree that collectivism and cooperation is the way humans instinctually organize themselves in a more tribal and microcosmic sense. I am not a pure individualist. But on a macrocosmic scale, especially in a vast country with so much ethnic and cultural and ideological diversity, it is complete folly and just leads towards Balkanization.
I think it's hilarious how you have exposed yourself as an unvarnished socialist during this conversation. You began by championing democracy and human rights, and now you're glorifying the Soviet regime, a murderous authoritarian dictatorship and one of the most egregious human rights abusers humanity has ever witnessed. Real worm-tier deception there, and yet I'm the bad guy.
1
-
@jasonx7501
>The reason I provided is history, and that it has failed miserably every time it has been implemented at a national scale. What's naive (and insane) is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Marxism is an idealistic utopian fantasy that is totally at odds with reality and human nature. Equity politics do not work and have never worked when applied in practice. There is a mountain of human death and misery to prove it, and yet you want to continue implementing that same system in some varied form because it seems virtuous at face value. But if you actually understood communism, you wouldn't be trying to indulge your false sense of moral virtue by sympathizing with it.
>That said, the most honest thing you've said to me is admitting you've never read Marx. If you had, you'd know it's foolish to think that communist theory can be separated from the fundamentals laid out by Marx. Marxism is the guiding theory of communism. Without it, it is no longer communism. That said, nothing Marx wrote had any basis in economic reality. It was a masterpiece of propaganda, but ultimately, a bunch of fantastical idealistic nonsense. His main premises and concepts were fundamentally flawed, so trying to tweak and modify them is comparative to trying to polish a turd.
>Comparing Marx/communism to Smith/capitalism is a false analogy. Smith did not create capitalism as an economic system, he was simply an advocate for it. Without Smith, capitalism would still exist. Without Marx, Marxist state socialism would not exist.
>I also never said there is only one path to communism. I said communism has never even been achieved and that there are two basic paths to achieve socialism: though democracy or through violent takeover. As far as the implementation of such a system, the only way to operate it is authoritarianism. It takes a very special kind of stupidity and gullibility to think that equal outcomes can be achieved without authoritarian statism.
Again, at the end of the day, you have no credible arguments, which is why the only input you have left is to try to demonize and mock me and my views, many of which you are not even privy to.
"Muh ignorance. Muh simple-mindedness. Muh bigotry. Muh bias. Muh lack of imagination."
"bUt LeT's aLL cOmE tOgEtHeR aNd bE uNiTeD" reeee
I think not. I have no desire to collaborate with midwits who have such an infantile personality and understanding of humanity and the world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jasonx7501
You can explore any economic system without advocating for it, but you're openly shilling for Marxist state socialism, which has ended in mass murder and failure every time a regime has adopted and implemented it. I openly disavow not only fascist central planning, but "that other part" of National Socialism as well. I don't believe in racial supremacism or some kind of hierarchical racial structuring of humanity. I believe in nationalism and the right of self determination for the sake of preserving human biological, cultural, and historical diversity. And that goes for ALL human groups of all races and ethnicities, not just those to which I am ancestrally linked. I also believe that human population groups have biological differences that go beyond the pigmentation of our skin, because we objectively, scientifically do.
So go ahead and strawman my beliefs, because that's the only way you can argue against me. The type of economic system you're advocating for gives the government absolute power, and when a government has absolute power, they have free reign to oppress and torture people under their control. You can make some weasely argument claiming that supporting central planning is not the same as supporting the oppression and death that invariably comes as a result of its historical and current implementation, but no one reading this is fooled by that excuse. Supporting one is de facto supporting the other, and all because you're willfully ignorant of history and a deceptive rat with no semblance of honor whatsoever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1