Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on "RJ Talks" channel.

@calebclark5615 Antitrust Law has been coopted by the Marxists in DC. It is the New Deal command economy that created the "good monopoly" paradigm. Like Google, Facebook and Microsoft are not monopolies. They're an illegal syndicate. But the government likes it that way because it's easier to tap their data (also by law) and let them keep operating this way. For the Greater Good. And the elected politicians get to power by making promises that voters want but are screened by careerists in DC that take out any scary politicians (scary to them) before you ever hear of them.
1
@protorhinocerator142 The DNC organized crime machine "reimagined" how they count ballots as a result of Ronald Reagan's domination. They were the first to come up with these scams. Others followed. What was unique about 2020 is they went to specific swing States looking for corrupt precincts and counties in those swing States to insure they could not lose. They tried again in 2024 but after "The Insurrection" and all of the evidence against them that leaked out over time (especially in Georgia and Arizona) it became a lot more difficult for them to throw elections. But Arizona still stole a Senate seat and who knows what New York was up to. California is the absolute worst because they have zero fear of ever getting caught. Ever. Most politicians from California are groomed like Newsom or Kamala. They sleep with someone and or run for office in San Francisco and work their way up as mayor or something in the executive branch of that small uber woke city.
1
@chuckevans2792 There is no vetting for immigrants. And Marxists around the world hate Westphalian sovereignty aka nationalism. Including US Brain Trust Marxists that run DC and that includes naturalization policy.
1
The swamp already controls elections. How much easier to control newbs? You have it backwards. You can entertain Congressional reform after draining the swamp by first prosecuting the organized criminals that run the place. Second is to repeal the 17th Amendment and third is school vouchers as civil right. Restoring freedom (and the return of critical thinking to replace Marxist Critical Theory) to schools and restoring checks and balances to Congress will be "battle won".
1
These devils have done a lot of damage in the TDS era. TDS is actually "Reactionary" Marxism. Reactionaries are against evolutionary change. The Marxists call us "Reactionaries" by resisting their version of "Progress" (the complete destruction of property rights in favor of absolute political control over all "Commanding Heights" of the economy and society itself).
1
NATO is a defense pact. So adding Ukraine while at war with Russia would be like, um, just declare war on Russia already. But NATO can't technically do that. These Euroloons are straight up insane war mongers. I think it is driven by CCP and EU Marxists who want to replace NATO and all EU members' national military institutions with "Federal" EU military and EU would achieve full blown sovereignty over its member states. This way the "EU Federation" would rival the US and China.
1
@logans3365 Capitalism isn't a real thing. Capitalism is just "not Communism". They're playing modern arbitrage games where they interfere in politics to cause cost/price differentials that they then cash in on. Just like the CCP does. They're "non state" Marxists. They're trying to profit by "crashing Capitalism". They're all massively delusional. But they have enough power to gain power and wealth through their centrally planned destruction.
1
@@Gft75365 That's why these syndicates are theoretically illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
1
@bombkangaroo You're too obviously correct. The problem is that these people don't understand anything at all. Marx created a Manichean two-class atheist religion. This religion includes the belief that critics are either deluded or in on the "Oppression". Fascism was really created in the USA by the US Democratic Party as it evolved from "reactionary" defense of chattel slavery to "liberal" terrorism with the KKK and "Democratic" Marxism as "Progressives" using whatever Marxist "labor rights" tropes that helped them consolidate power under single party rule. The first openly Marxist "fascist" regime was actually under Lenin and his NEP. Mussolini came after that and used all of the superficial trappings to harken back to a rebooted "Roman Empire" origin story and stupid people think that that is the relevant feature of "fascism". Now, every paranoid zero-sum-economics regime is called "fascist" by the other fascists that want to smear them. Zero-sum ecomics means the people believe in Marxist dogmas like "property is theft" and the dogma that "wage slavery" is the "proven result" of allowing "Capitalists" to hire people and keep some of the earnings to grow their own wealth. The idea that people get rich by building an enterprise that also enables workers to get rich is "delusion" in their book. You're either with them or against them. That's why Google, Facebook, etc. etc. etc. all have these stupid "Social Justice" programs. It's pure corporate virtue signaling that is useful to the "democratic" Marxist regimes. It's not quasi fascism. Black Rock are non-state fascist syndicate. Trying to do more or less the same thing that every other Marxist regime is trying to do. It's arguably illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act but nobody ever mentions actual offenders any longer since FDR and the binary "good vs. evil" Critical Theory analytical paradigm that has turned so many people in to abject morons.
1
@steveweast475 Capitalism doesn't have a clear definition except to Marxists, who call it a "phase of history" before Communism. Socialism is incremental Communism. Socialism is the incremental destruction of private property rights that allow "the rich" to use "the law" to defend the property that the socialists and Communists envy. Also, note the "ism" is a system or ideology. The thing Marx calls "Capitalism" is simply anything that allows people to keep property that Marxists envy and want to take away. Hence, it's all about "the property question". Capitalism is a leftwing construct to explain away their own personal deficits and recast them as virtues. Just as the Jacobins did before Marx's pseudoscientific dogmas came along to "prove" that property is in fact theft. According to this religion. Also note that according to Marxists the worst "Capitalist regime" is the USA and during Marx's time the whole idea was that "Capitalism" was illegitimate because the rich were all made that way simply through alliances with the monarchs of Europe and the land grants that made them rich and that they were allowed to pass on to their heirs. You don't have that here in the USA and never did. Furthermore, those land grants in Europe did not include mineral rights. In the USA the only one that ever claimed total land sovereignty was the British monarch. The colonies created a "3 branch government" Constitution that meant any power taken by any government must first be justified by the US Constitution. The people were otherwise free. The government could not just sit around looking for things to seize. This is exactly what happened in Europe as coal and oil was discovered as engines of wealth creation. So even if we say "Capitalism is the right to keep wealth" then that is not the same in every country. Not even close. And there is no "international rule of law" other than the law of treaties, which has no "due process" and boils down to good faith agreements and rare examples of actual enforcement. Using terms like "Capitalism" in such a simple way is all about deception but it is also a tool of the likewise deceived.
1
@logans3365 You thought it over? LOL. So, maybe your case studies are flawed? And maybe your conclusion is really only about things that you fear for no good reason?
1
@steveweast475 Both claims are silly. Even dumbasses like Maslow had a much better "hierarchy of needs" explanation but even that treats humans like barely sentient primates. Apes with the gift/curse of advanced communication. These kinds of people say such stupid things about humanity that seem to place themselves at the top rather than at the bottom where they belong. Why would anyone listen to people that make a career out of pimping completely circular theories that only explain why you should fear related circular theories might be true? They have zero experience to even understand anything that might reduce their theories to childish fear mongering.
1
@harleydeclue2456 Capitalism is an agitprop term. If you want to defend liberty under the rule of law and address Marxist tropes then at least refer to it as "rule of law Capitalism". Because in the end, if you read the Communist Manifesto, they agree that the rule of law is a problem but don't actually explain it except with "Capitalism" tropes where "property is theft" and "wage slavery" only makes it worse. Rule of law Capitalism is where people can exploit their own reasons to get rich even of a majority of people surround your house and scream about how unfair it all is. They have to make a "rule of law" case against you before asking the government to intervene. That coupled with "castle doctrine" solves most problems. And it's a fact of history taht the first thing "socialists" asked for (after killing monarchs) was land reform. When that didn't help they started asking for wealth redistributions. When that didn't help they needed stories to explain why it's still the fault of the rich that poor people can't "get rich" or "become equal" by constantly complaining about storis invented by demagogic socialists that never learned how to solve any of the problems they complained about. Sometimes land reform is legitimate. But you have to make a rational case to define who is at fault and then put together a rational "rule of law" judgement. Same with taxation for the purposes of "lifting up the poor". These people are NEVER even taught how to use case studies to defend any of their demands or propositions. They're inculcated to believe that their demands are "playing a positive role" by applying "selective pressures" to the Oppressive Rich People aka Capitalism.
1
@logans3365 LOL. You can't understand other people because it's too long and nobody can understand you because you supply no reasoning. I don't even know what thing you say you dislike. My comments all involved in silly tropes like indicating support or dislike simply by using labels that few can properly define objectively. What exactly do you say you dislike pertaining to this conversation here?
1
@logans3365 "8 days ago @bombkangaroo " the government is corporations, corporations use lobbying (bribes) to fund politicians campaigns on the promise that those politicians will write favorable legislation for them. " The government is corporations. If you're talking about the US government this is erroneous conflations. Corporation just means "body" or group that acts as a unified body. We use the term "corporations" because private sector corporations are supposed to be ruled by State law. Other governments have similar doctrines but different nomenclature. So in the USA "corporate law" is the law private corporations have to follow. They generally must register with the name of the corporate officers and so forth like small governments for the purpose of running that entity but they have no governing power at all. They can't enforce any laws on their own. They have to follow all laws of "corporations" and citizens. The US government itself is divided in to 3 branches and its power only comes from explicit language in the US Constitution. The fundamental thing that you're complaining about is, first of all, described like a simplistic Marxist so that there's no actual solution according to them. The thing you're complaining about is how somehow "corporations" are able to operate beyond the rule of law. You mention "lobbying" and conflate that with bribes. Bribes are illegal. Lobbying, as you call it, is protected under the First Amendment. Even for you. That is why the January 6 prosecutions are almost entirely unconstitutional. If they actually caught someone breaking a real law and prosecuted that person or persons that would be different. But that wasn't even their purpose. In any case, the root cause can clearly be traced back by anyone with a serious interest to do so. This is all about FDR's reign and what he did to get his "New Deal" scheme rammed through Congress and the courts. The whole mess was then blessed even further with something call the Administrative Procedures Act and that coupled with the cult that grew up around FDR and took hold first in the US State Department and then ever related agency after that (especially the Pentagon and finally the DOJ). The "lobbying" that is problematic is when they lobbyists petition agencies that have no legitimate "governing" power in the US Constitution. The voting public can't walk up to them and "lobby" or petition them either. You're supposed to petition Congress or the courts but by that time the schemes are already in play. By the way, the so called "Military Industrial Complex" in real life is the New Deal and its Arsenal of Democracy carried forth with WWII and Cold War missions that all took on a life of their own because nobody got away with criticizing FDR or what had been done. Even today you are called all kind of names and smeared as "fascist" for criticizing FDR, the most successful US fascist in all of history. Fascist regimes sometimes fight each other. Fascism is about having a shared worldview with Marxists but reject international solidarity. They make alliances but also reserve the right to attack dangerous rival regimes with all of the same fear Marxism is rooted in. The USA has a Constitution that could be said to be the original "rule of law Capitalist nation". The US Democratic Party never believe in the rule of law. The pivoted from defense of chattel slavery to "labor rights" under Marxist doctrines almost as soon as they took over the Oval Office as a result of Abraham Lincoln's assassination.
1
@JacksonPaulsen The thing that Marx called "Capitalism" is the most "democratic" thing that ever existed. He used examples from the early age of sail coming out of feudalism to pretend that that was the inevitable end result of Capitalism because "disparity" and "oppression" would supposedly accelerate. Not one prediction of his came true and his analysis was all about exceptions and claiming that these were rules. Every example he cited was due to concentrations of power that existed before wealth was created and concentrated. The age of Marx's calls for Communism were all about his prophecies totally failing where workers become "middle class" (not oppressive Capitalists and not wage slaves). People today who dream of "socialism" are the most delusional dreamers of all. They simply think its a "rule" that people will fail to make a good living by working for it. They're afraid to try. Made afraid by fearmongering demagogues that turned themselves into parasites as the only solution to this imagined "Capitalism". What you see when you look for proof is what you want to see to justify your fear. The problems of today are all about shrinking opportunities because of "socialist" doctrines. Climate Change above all should convince you that you've been scammed. Who is going to pay for your "Post Industrial Socialist Economy" once the socialists have destroyed all decent jobs? And once all of the decent jobs are destroyed who will pay the lawyers to sue the nonexistent "rich corporations" that all fled the "Post Industrial Economies"? The only people that believe Marx today are those that are terrified to find the truth. And the same goes for "Climate Change" history designed to strip all "capital" from everywhere but China where it is "democratized" in accordance with classic Marxism. And End of History Communism is even more delusional because once you politicize these things or "democratize" as Marxists like to say what you're really done is taken away all incentives to compete in good faith and instead defend something like the CCP calls "social scoring". What a joke. How can anyone not see the blatant lies? If you want to acquire things you need to get a job or start your own business and find clients that pay for something you can offer to them without lying.
1
@logans3365 You have trouble defining words like Capitalism. I read more of your comments and I see that you believe in textbook Marxism. To say you are guided "purely by logic" and deal only in dogmatic Marxist statements is silly. The "logic" that guides you is doctrinaire Marxism. That's just silly. Economic systems exist on a national level. Each nation will have significant differences. The thing Marx was ranting about was reducing all of history to stories that fit his "Oppressor versus Oppressed" Manichean atheist religion to replace Judaism and Christianity. The things that he was complaining about were natural in accordance with how political systems had been slowly developing to include more and more of the denizens. His grievances would have been logically limited to ossified class systems that were never possibly to overcome until "middle class" jobs became available thanks to the Industrial Revolution that he said would reduce all workers to slaves. He got everyone wrong. Why didn't you notice that? In any case, the monarchies still hold a lot of the national wealth in Europe so in that sense people there can still ask to "socialize" that property if they do so "democratically". But all of his rants are basically insane fear mongering because why would you expect peasants to vote on national policy for monarchs? And unless Marx was talking about plantation slaves in the US, what did he have to complain about in terms of "social justice"? Absolutely nothing. Rants against "Capitalism" are wholly insane. Especially for an American. There are still places today that can "socialize" mineral wealth if they choose but that's not doctrinaire socialism and has nothing to do with Marx, only mineral rights. Marx ranted against all private property rights. According to him it all had to go. The reason we have "lifted up the impoverished" is because we have promoted the rule of law for "liberal democracies" which means we have not "democratized" means of production but we have instead democratized political rights and that includes, must include, private property rights. Don't get me started on "greed" tropes. Marx wasn't simply wrong. He was very stupid and the solution in the real world was the thing that he demonized as inherently oppressive.
1
@StepItUpAndGo If you're not a pathetic liar why don't you show specifically what your theory is? Because you actually lie like a typical Marxist.
1
We know what they're doing. They exploit every loophole that they create. They do "ballot curing" that only ends up in one direction. It's rule of DEI.
1
@jamesreney2210 Your comment tells me that you're a whack job.
1
@jamesreney2210 You clearly don't know what those terms mean. Left wing politics is an invention of the French Revolutionaries. The most radical were known as the Jacobins and they styled themselves "left wing" along with "Third Estate". The "Right Wing" thing is an invention of binary thinkers that is used by leftists, now Marxists, to create a false equivalence trope as you have done. The "Left Wing" Jacobins fought against the Ancient Regime divided in to First, Second and Third estates. The monarchy and all of this minions was the First Estate. No "right wing" but if there was a "right wing" at that time they would have been allies of the Jacobins.
1
@brilliantblue4366 The Republicans need a Roman Decimation each election cycle. The Democratic Party delenda est. Also a phrase from ancient Rome. The US Democratic Party is today's Carthage. Carthago delenda est.
1