Comments by "RexFx" (@RextheRebel) on "The Rational National"
channel.
-
260
-
167
-
70
-
28
-
24
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
17
-
16
-
14
-
12
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I wish I had a computer, man. Then I could full time devote myself to making content and arguing from a different perspective, communicating with people like you, Case, Hasan, Destiny, Vaush, Convo Couch, Jimmy Dore, Kyle and Saager, or whoever. I've always been political and I've always had a very logical perspective, which has evolved over the years. I'm not a progressive but I am a leftist and I strive to reveal to conservatives, the MRA community and centrists that Capitalism is their enemy not their savior. I fight for family values, Capitalism hates the family because they want people married to the company and to the profit motive, alienating us from our labor and each other.
But Ii sincerely wish I could put my two cents out there.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nunyabidnis3815 order is determined by function. What determines function? Whether or not the net impact of a decision whether by an individual, group or governing body is net neutral, positive or negative. If the result of that decision was negative and would be negative consistently across the board should it be adopted as a behavior then it's net negative and therefore dysfunctional. If the behavior does not have a clear or overbearing impact on society as a whole then it would be considered a net neutral impact and therefore a tolerable behavior not to be shunned or encouraged. If a behavior, sets an example that is results in a positive outcome and it influences others to take part in similar cooperative behavior then it is a net positive and therefore functional and should be supported by the majority.
I'm called Rex the Rebel because when I was a teenager I was part of a youth Golden Gloves boxing gym. I had a mohawk and looked like your stereotypical punk rocker. Hence the name. But philosophically and politically in a rebel in the sense that I don't fit into any traditional category. I'm an atheist and am avidly anti theist but I'm conservative on cultural issues for rhe most part, but despite this I support the legalization of sc work (even though I despise the practice, it serves a function), yet my economic beliefs are decidedly left wing since I'm a socialist and oppose the private ownership of land and capital. I'm a Marxist in the sense that I recognize and acknowledge historical materialism, class divisions and the concept of wage slavery. Yet I'm not a communist of either the Marxist or anarchist variety, as I tend to support market socialism, syndicalism and guilds. Though I appear all over the place and ideologically contradictory that is because I am not interested in ideology but function and logical conclusion based decisions. If I am logically consistent that is all which matters. I do not advocate specifically for a libertarians or authoritarian position simply for the sake of it. I support free speech because suppressing it is dysfunctional and prevents the subject of what is functional out of proper discourse. However, I do just t support the legalization of drugs because it does not lead to productive, reliable, honest or trustworthy people and often results in undesirable outcome not only for users but members of their community, their workspace and their family.
What someone's worldview is is irrelevant. All that matters is behavior, the intention and the outcome. I care little about what one says, rather I judge someone based on what they do. And everyday we choose and lose friends because of what they say or do. Politically, how we enforce order is by having law be determined by order and not law determining why's order is to be. And again, order is derived from function and more specifically what is overall functional. Certain things that are undesirable serve a function in the absence of an overall functional state. Obamacare for instance serves a function but it's purpose that it serves and the function that it provides would be obsolete if a universal single payer healthcare system was in place. The refund the police movement only works if the material conditions of a community are already improved, the proof of this is the suburbs. Where there is little inequality there is little crime and therefore little need for a robust police force. The concept of the family, whether nuclear or extended, is key to society as it provides the basis of what society is built on, cooperation, separation and respect to skill and contribution, distribution methods to best serve all those involved in the unit, a sense of support and growth, stability and proper social skills. Therefore values around the basis of the family are critical for the majority to uphold. There is always room for exceptions, without filth we cannot know what is clean. The need for rebels keeps the powe structure in line and in return the power structure keeps everyone else in line. The social contract is immensely important for civil society. Emphasis on the civil aspect. When workers are neglected, men are rejected, womn are objectified and responsibility is vilified then hope for social stability and order is lost. Freedom is not free, duty, responsibility and self restraint are essential. Lest we fall into sociological anarchy.
1
-
1
-
@nunyabidnis3815 as I stated before, situations and certain environments change the importance and the necessity for certain functions and that would be taken accordingly. Ideology should not dictate anything. Material conditions should. Objective aspects of our reality should.
We only know to have laws in place because we recognize certain behaviors are disrupt social cohesion, some more than others. For instance, jaywalking, despite being pushed by the automobile industry, had an impact because the invention of clear road laws had yet to be determined. Many people would walk in front of and cause accidents. So laws were put in place to reconcile the sharing of pedestrians and automobiles, though it can very reasonably be argued that car dependent towns are a blight both aesthetically and cost wise as they take in more money than they give back.
As for who defines the harm, it depends on the system in place. In a socialist society the workers or the community itself would. In Feudalistic times, landlords and kings did. Today in modern Capitalist society, codes of conduct not driven by Capitalism are made unable to "ossify" as Marx stated on Capitalism's refusal to let any form of value, norm or social behavior exist outside the need for consumerism. So a battle between business, voters, experts and politicians all vy for control. However, what is the most functional for them dictates their motivations. But that's why the aggregate is more important, that's why the general rule is important. Because as a general rule, while outsourcing, low wages, illegal immigration and deregulation might be the most functional for widescsle profit, the negative externalities that affect consumers, domestic laborers, foreign labor, the environment and the upkeep of social interdependence suffer as a result. Weighing the pros and cons needs to be deliberated on based on facts presented.
It not functional for a purely centralized or decentralized system to determine prices and production. A mix of both is necessary. Life is complex but actions and outcomes speak for themselves. I don't need to jump off a bridge or stab a needle in my arm full of heroin to know that neither of those things are good for me, neither of those things are subjective statements. The more we make things subjective the less we can even rely on truth to dictate how we operate our lives. I fight against people's perception of the truth because ones perception is irrelevant. Someone may truly believe that they are a ghost and act like they are, this is their experience and therefore that's makes it real to them, just like someone who is schizophrenic or anorexic. But it doesn't matter what their experience is because their truth does not determine the truth. Material reality does. Someone's faith is whatever god they believe in does not make it so because they have enough faith. Religion is so atrocious for the very fact that it is so interpretable and unobjective yet millions live their life by it. Sure, religions can form a sense of social commonality that helps that community flourish but we need other things that are concrete and evidence based to determine that common sense of values. If it ain't broke don't fix it. This is valuable because it shows what works and what doesn't. Things that don't work should be replaced. Its very easy to determine what works and what doesn't when looking at things for what they are.
No system is perfect, that's because humans aren't. I'm not asking for utopia, I'm not an anarchist who believes society and it's inhabitants will spontaneously and magically all recognize how everything and everyone should fit into place. The O in the Anarchist logo is just that, an O, not a circle. It stands for Order. But they believe this order will come about spontaneously. I do not. It takes time, trial and error, arguments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is alot to break down here because while AOC is on point for most of this there are some major idiosyncrasies in her argument. It is true that the majority of the country considers themselves independent, which is not the same as centrist, which she mentioned. She also mentions how the system doesn't work for several groups of people, including workers, women, people of color and discrimination against age, though likely she is talking about younger workers not older. My mom has faced ageism for being older. My issue with her comments on who the system works for is she specifies that it doesn't work for women... says the woman of color who is a favored politician according to her base, speaking to a table of women who have been in the business for decades. Then she says it doesn't work for working people, which is true...but, working people includes women. Historically, men were the dominant sex in the workforce which means if it doesn't work for workers it doesn't work for men. No one mentions this. Instead we hear things about supposed "male privilege" a concept that is sexist, harmful and untrue. So by saying the system doesn't work for women or workers she is essentially excluding men from being mentioned and words it to where women are somehow separate from the workforce. She mentions how her opponent (Joe Crowley) was the antithesis of her and who she is. He is the establishment, an old straight white man, yet she defeated him with ease. So where is the privilege or oppression? Everyone in this country has aspects that hinder their rise. To explicitly say the system doesn't work for women is simply untrue. When it comes to workers who is more likely to suffer an at work injury or even death? Men. 95% of the time i might add. IF we are going to talk about the blights of people in this country based on race and gender then we need to talk about men's. And not talk about men and their "evil, toxic, dangerous and fragile" masculinity. Does that exist? Certainly. But is it masculinity itself? Certainly not. We don't talk about toxic women either. And when someone does, they get cancelled and attacked. I.e Meryl Streep.
And if fighting for working families is your fight, then you need to stand up for the family instead of attacking it for being oppressive. Especially since the family is very important in immigrant households. We need to get black people to form families instead of so many single parents running around. We need to stop pushing white people (usually liberal) to reject the importance of the family and instead to reject open relationships which are harmful to men and women and society. Call me a class reductionist, i don't care. That's just you refusing to accept my point as being valid and accurate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Look man, your denial of SJWs not being a real thing outside of the internet is annoying. Lots of people understate the social and cultural power PC SJWs have on businesses, acedemia and even high schools. It's far reaching and its damaging. These people who constantly demonize white people and who pander to "minorities" while admitting what their white ancestors did are very real. They marginalize white men who are suffering yet don't get any sympathy. White people, especially men, are taking the burden of the sins of their fathers. They are blamed for everything, that the patriarchy is real and is the threat when it's not. I'm a left wing guy, not necessarily a Marxist but I am a socialist, and I'm a straight white male who is at the bottom of the barrel. I am lumped in with this group identity of what white people represent. I don't have privilege, my mom and haven't had any money to spend on food in 5 days... We had to go to a food bank which we do often. SJWs don't care about the homeless rate among men, or the suicide rate. They only care that women still do 60% of housework, that the AC temperature is set to "male body temperature" and that Band-Aids don't match their skin tone.
Do not underestimate their influence. Especially on business and acedemia. The right very much has power too in their own way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"create good jobs but don't allow wmn to get back into the workforce"
What does that mean? Is there something specific about wmn that they are more important? And I don't want more wmn in the workforce. We need to be incentivizing families, meaning they need to be in affordable homes that a man could sustain due to his good paying union job. Stop with the two income trap, it's not good for relationships. Men and women have different roles. It's better that way. Are there exceptions? Of course! And we shouldn't dismiss those exceptions. But they should not become nor should they be encouraged to become the rule. Men and women are not supposed to compete for the same role, we are supposed to collaborating by fulfilling our different roles to make up for where the other lacks. It's like a duet, there are parts each singer has that they aren't supposed to street interrupt the other and then there are parts of the song where both sing.
Some may call me a sexist. That's your prerogative. But I tend to be a traditionalist in this case because this worked for many millennia and since straying from it we have seen no success. Except we do in certain communities like the Indian American and Asian Americans. They are the most successful in the US despite the inequality and the various barriers that make it hard to see how America could be free.
My point is, focusing and forcing (which Capitalism did btw) wmn to get into the workforce have far too many social consequences. They want wmn married to the company rather then a man, depression, anxiety and loneliness are at an all time high with wmn reporting the most of it, drug addiction and self unalivement is at a horrendous peak and it's mostly men. The best economic period for the US was the 50s, where men were in unions, wmn worked part time in typically different fields and then came home full time when ready to have a kid, and housing wasn't so God damn expensive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1