Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Vermonters "Deface" BLM "Murals" According to Newspeak Craptivists" video.

  1.  @ReverseTranscriptase  You seem to be convinced of the old trope, 'Marx, the utopian, proletarian masses, family-busting, "postnationalism", equality and postmodernist harbinger'. I don't think he was ever those things, based on my reading all he did was provide the opinions on the calculus of how the "elites" would operate, and witness the cultural degradation everyone complains about. They blame socialism without realising that that was always going to happen...unless they literally...abrogated the wealth. Now no one is pleased. This was foreseen. Yet everyone hails capitalism, their savior. Makes no sense. And I'm not a "neo-Marxian". I will give you an analysis: see below: cause I've already written one, and several. But no, not a "neo-Marxian". I actually would slim Marx down to his bare minimum. No Engels, no "dictator of the proletariat" [that's done, we already have unions, and they also falter], no "vangaurdism" [Leninism is orthodox and classical Marxian theory doesn't ascribe to those notions]. YOU learn something, please. Now see below for more info.
    2
  2.  @ReverseTranscriptase  New Sections On The On-Coming Socium & It's Affects §1: Pro-socium advancemen: pur[il]e supernumerary aggregate development [P(lace)-SAD] for short. All is numerical econometric force; life is valueless, all numbers must conform to the socium of affects. §2: The closer man gets to the socium, the more the synarchic fold of the "elite" [so-called, ostensibly] reign supreme; the Capital will always be the utmost top earners, as per the baring of the "job" [so-called] and it's antecedent "belonging" to hierarchy. §3: Someone who is the "ideal perfect man" president- this expectation is what leads into the socium [it's also a false expectation and a false premise]; assuming that we need a completely transparent leadership for "the proletariat" or for some ideal "utopia". §4: Allow this schemata to be detailed through-and-through, you'll have a rudderless leadership who's only regard is towards the socium. One will be taken advantage of, the proletariat will continue to espouse disdain for the upper classes; until they rule "the ideal leadership", which will be a continuance of the communism of old. This, or, more and more of the already elite leadership in the world will decentralize out of sight and mind, further, as they use puppet-leadership, to enact the socium and it's details. §5: The Trisons quotidian of the anarchic dune-warmachine, Islam, prevails by introducing themselves 'as Other', in the process of Lamassu [the Super-Bull] [eg, the "anti-"bull] and []hole-complex. §6: If power is racism then racism is the only way. It's really pathetic that leftists cannot fathom this simple logic, which a: evinces how wrong they are and b: evinces how, in the future, they will have to continue fighting, as one group will always be "in more need" than another. §7: People hyperbolically use the term 'racist' to denote things in a comedic fashion; this gets domesticated, in the hyperbolic fashion, and then is made more hyperbolic, leaving us with a societal disconnect. §8: People [will] foment that 'they themselves' [their "race"] are under attack, by way of prevarication and lies, in order to raise racial tensions. §9: What is seen as "racial tensions" is really just the incurring of the socium of affects against the "rich North", in the progressively federalizing [in Europe; and continually bloating in the American north], and it all can be summarized in this epigram; The rich are marred by the poor, so thus they are hated. The poor are marred by the rich, so thus they are hated. §10: One cannot all at once say "you need money to make money" & "you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps" and make sense. I guess this is why the UBI is A: up for debate as per it's use in institutions, & B: why it [& cryptocurrencies] are so contentious [until federalized]. §11: The proponents of the advent of the on-coming socium, and it itself, are bullies. §12: All people "all working together" is a misidentification of humanities composite. Majorities are majorities and minorities are minorities. There is no changing that but through foist and force.
    2
  3.  @ReverseTranscriptase  On The Racial Implications Of The Incurring Socium Of Affects §1: An example of the misplaced notion of economics over disparity. It's never the same thing. Disparity is willed into the economy, but at the depths of depravity, and that is, even political depravity, of the sort [especial] that relates to common kind- the breakdown is thus... §2: Family breakdown is subtle, it [family] is the last to go, but the first to feel the trembling of inversion. The first to go is the axiom of the "common man" [read Marx], then of "woman and children" [as they become subpersonal stock- first by way of welfare, then by way of ordination]. §3: This leads to everyone becoming "worker". Not "breadwinner" versus "housekeeper" or, in other words, husbandry in the most commonest sense of the term; no, but "worker", for the state, at first, then lastly as serfs to the synarchic fold of syndicalist corporations or "factions". §4: Only then does the family breakdown find it's completion- and only then does the trend go from normalcy to deadpan disaster. First, this is enacted by the socium, by the centralized forces of world federalization engaging the peripheral proletariat in asserting themselves. §5: This is promulgated by the strata of neoliberal turfwar which aims to stultify the proponents of populist movements [and this is merely one angle in a many-fold complexity], and foment the peripheral proletariat with strength [in 'numbers', yet again] and "courage" [to join the bourgeoisie]. §6: This leads to further incursion from the South & from insurgent forces, from other nations which pose a threat to US intelligence & integrity- a ballast of the navigational jetty which then acts as a Trojan Horse- wars across the heartland converge on the west, in involution. Thru this, the peripheral proletariat provide a tunnel entrance [so to speak] to the narrow divide in the conjunction of war-zones, of classes, and of nations, and races. §7: All by way of asserting the peripheral proletariat against the west, and thru incorporating them into the bourgeoisie, does the chips fall.
    2
  4.  @ReverseTranscriptase  The Similarities & Differences Of Fascism & Communism Right now the "antifa" people are a threat to American sovereignty. This "Anticenter-Fascism" is not good for the country. It's growing (on both the right and the left) because the left keeps fucking insinuating itself in debacle after debacle, pissing off the right enough for them to become "rampantly individualist" from the base of the 'center-right' on the political spectrum, and thus separate from the left entirely—a bifurcation. Which is by title alone extensive in it's nuance, because it is this that is actually an attempt at the impossible; that is to say, the two divisions share in remarkable quality the essence of what both sides want to achieve, yet vary in the goals to achieve for themselves—and that's still putting it simply. Yet the Fascist strives for (thus in likemindedness they strive for) what is essentially an antithesis to the Global-Centrist model, given the current political spectrum. It's revolutionary, it's tendency is to be disdained, it involves a massive disproportion of violence (throughout History, this is a fact)—and it revolves around idealist solutions that DO NOT WORK for long term success, unless they were to enact a virulent (and in this day and age, possibly world-ending) war—the selfsame as the Communist, which aims for non-violent coercion, in the striving for autarky (whether they achieve that or not History tells us is an entirely different matter); that is, whether collectivized, a la Communist existence, versus, "more independent" a la Fascismo methodology, for the state. Now notice, there are two distinctions here: One: Fascism focuses on "independence", and there is a, let's call it, "rampant individualism" of the Fascistic flair—and yet they at most collectivize the labor's wealth at the very highest state levels—in order to fund it's activities, all while maintaining it's self-providing state. It relies on everyone's "individual" effort, but no less than "everyone's"; similar to.... Two: Communism focuses on "collectivism" and there is a notion of the state being abolished and the individual being insuperable in importance, a la Fascismo—but without the import of the state—thusly requiring, in theory, no one to supplant one another in their collective importance. Thusly, like the Fascismo, they are needed in a collective state to provide the necessities of the whole of the individual—this is what the Greeks taught, at some point, I do believe—point is, that it eventually requires something akin to a "state". [A last point is definitely that statism has nothing more than the social requirement, period: nothing akin to a imperialistic state apparatus, but the State often adapts that form. And the social requires the economic at that end, but that means that the conversion from socialism and/or anarcho-capitalism (in a given racial/national body) and then into either totalizing it's pursuits of resources and juridical/legal components or absolutizing the universal imperative of racial/national or religious directives: which then lead to a contradiction: this is why you see such forms taking place in Russia, as of now, and in China, still yet].
    2
  5.  @ReverseTranscriptase  On Capitalism: An economic system has as much conscience as people give it. People consume so much, that's why you see the results you get, but that's not capitalisms' fault. It's the consumers. Corporations should not be granted "personhood"; just as- like how Orwell noted- "his idea of Socialism" is not Stalinism- one thinks pertaining to a political cause, does not an ideology (or economic system) make. On Killing (In Self-Defense): Killing is natural, just like socializing is natural. One can claim to have a moral high-ground, but it's build on one's own whims. Which are equal to the whims of a killer, only the former's entail a sense of order, and the latter, accepts his own order, and confounds it by simply being. Human nature requires higher truths to avoid this conundrum. The same argument could be made for those who steal. People don't tend to complain about that who are socialized, but then again.... On "The west": The "west" didn't export anything that wasn't already fungible, say, in the middle east, or even Vietnam. All these places had the same economic wants and desires, and they needed to fight for them, and they certainly couldn't have the amenities to their desires (for wealth, or infrastructure, political change, etc) if it wasn't for their fighting, and if it wasn't for the practical annihilation of Communism (from most of) that part of the world. It could have gone either way- don't get me wrong. Soviet communism was strong (and I'm not making an espousal for Communism, just adverting the facts), but they had to MAKE IT STRONG. On Class Warfare: 'It's called being aware that the world is not run by the hoi polloi, and it would be no different in any goddamn economy. Just look at the population rate of this planet. There is no perfect world where a small group of well connected people will not "leer" over them (the hoi polloi)- even the Guardians of Plato's Republic (as noted in the work itself) are a purely speculative and impossible fiction, as even they would become as the "leerer" of the top-dogs of the public body. You want answers, it's not "defeating capitalism", because it's been here since the Sun was cooking oil in the bowels of the Earth. An order where everything is in it's set place is still one in which oil permeates the underwork, and movements need be made to retrieve it's resource (among other resources, just the same). As an institution, it needs work...undoubtedly. Something people tend to do, especially if they see political underpinnings in motion, is they get tunnel vision. All of these "ideologies" have suffered from it. Neoliberalism. Conservatism. Socialism (Che, Maduro, etc). Communism (Iron Curtain, Mao, ect). None of these ideologies are (did I mention Mussolini was a socialist before he was a fascist? look it up, if you are curious) without faults. They all fall for the same human plights. Greed and feigned superiority. Whether rich, middle-class, or poor, it's been shown that each of these classes can permit themselves to commit to the same things....' There ya go.
    2
  6. With Marxist ties by the way Yeah, and it's common knowledge to anyone who isn't a retard that to read Marx is to understand modern history in it's actuality. Everyone, who ever had a political axe-to-grind, had to read Marx...only morons now feel like they don't cause there is enough idiots like you Styx who just aimlessly propagate ideas that actually stem out of the whole debate, some of which is quite Marxian in and of itself. I should do a video espousing all the ties to libertarianism Marxism has...and to Theosophy, as well. Besant, Leadbeater, they were communists. The term Libertarian comes from a communist. It's really funny. But alas...no, people who don't think they should read Marx cause "muh leftism bad" is just a moron who is so stupid...literally they'd be better off...ya know....
    1
  7. PS: You are all super-morons. There is really not much more about it. America is filled with the egregiously minded.
    1
  8.  Vytautas Borisas  Uhh no. It's a sure thing that you haven't read a single letter of either Marx or the Talmud. You're just a moron who is wrapped up in this, just another moron.
    1
  9.  @conveyor2  You are oppressed. You want self-management. You're too stupid to fathom what that means. And you never read a single word of Marx. Right? Right.
    1
  10. @CuckZLayer 3000 No. I don't just talk shit. I actually inform myself.
    1
  11.  @ReverseTranscriptase  Entrepreneurs are basically Marxian, in theory. shrug You people want to have more self-management and the elites usurp that from you, at the top. This is all in Marx. Shrug how was he wrong?
    1
  12. With Marxist ties by the way Yeah, and it's common knowledge to anyone who isn't a retard that to read Marx is to understand modern history in it's actuality. Everyone, who ever had a political axe-to-grind, had to read Marx...only morons now feel like they don't cause there is enough idiots like you Styx who just aimlessly propagate ideas that actually stem out of the whole debate, some of which is quite Marxian in and of itself. I should do a video espousing all the ties to libertarianism Marxism has...and to Theosophy, as well. Besant, Leadbeater, they were communists. The term Libertarian comes from a communist. It's really funny. But alas...no, people who don't think they should read Marx cause "muh leftism bad" is just a moron who is so stupid...literally they'd be better off...ya know....
    1