CynicalBroadcast
Styxhexenhammer666
comments
Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Dems Want to Stop Sanders With Russian Conspiracy Theories Because If he is Nominated He'll Lose" video.
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
@bza6874 Maybe because this 'education' is teaching you the wrong things, such as socialism not being bad
Socialism is such a dense topic, there is utopian socialism [Charles Fourier], there is the an-cap Chilean "socialism" funded by the libertarian think-tank associated groups, and the "socialism" attributed to the likes of Che and so-on. There is European socialism. There is the race-based self-management of National Socialism. There is the aspect that becomes twain with socialism, called "social democracy", which is really the worldwide affect of the "symptoms" of socialism accruing in a world-wide capitalist economy, where all trade is tied to international banking systems. How is "bad" to learn about these things? fact is, you are being lied to all the time. Might as well learn about the entire scope of what you are being lied to about. I did. Didn't need to go to school and waste my time or money. I just read.
Nobody who has experienced socialism would want it
That's just a contrived presumption based on nothing but word of mouth. People living in Europe, in socialist countries, seem to have no problem with their non-revolutionary socialism. And it is a symptom, so to speak, of an ailing governmental system that is sought by it's own people to be refined: they do so because it is in need of refinement, even if it's taken to the left. Because some of these nations can't compete on the world-stage, the opt for socialism, anyway.
The only people who want socialism are naive people who have never experienced it, and who are indoctrinated in universities
That is completely uninformed. You're making a huge sweeping judgement based on nothing but propaganda. Plenty of people experience socializing, so hence they experience the trends of socialism. They experience the need to strike, and to form unions. Sure, they become corrupt, but like everything, things are corrupt. Why shouldn't people do what they can for themselves? because they aren't provided for, why should they sit on their hands? just because you said some words?
If you can't see Bernie for the fraud he is, you are probably going to have to experience it the hard way. Just wait till he endorses Bloomberg or something, like he endorsed Hillary
Fraud? how? He's been utterly consistent, even in his "supporting" other candidates which he says he "keeps on eye on" [at face value, I have no reason to doubt that, seeing as is as centrist as they come, for a socialist] seeing that he is an American-borne "self-described" socialist, when really, he's more of a social democrat...which makes for just as much bureaucracy, but is not quite the same thing [even if people allude to it as the same, which is just more misinformed or prevaricating propaganda]. It's best to be clear on these things, they are all effects of a wider picture that people refuse to see the historical precedence of, because they are lied to, and told to 'just wait, your salvation is coming'. Always. It always is "just around the corner", but it never is.
Bernie Sanders does not want to be president, he wants to make a few bucks with his booksales
Meh, so does Styx? Is that so wrong?
1
Susan C. Only because of the fact of the dumbing down of society, in general. You too. People are losing themselves...for many reasons. Social media...minimalism [these damn screens]...lack of social connection...lack of incentives...behavioralism isn't working, and social engineering is driving the social engine still, even as it's exposed, because people don't realize the intrication of the complex systems they live in, as the population is the size it is. As such, things complicate in the realm of ideas, the ideograms, political ideologies, and then some...the real crux in the pedagogy [outside of the current pedagogy of the damned (the internet) and the pedagogy of the oppressed (see the book of the same name, Pedagogy Of The Oppressed, to see where, not social justice, but "socialism" enters into the Prussian system: to combat this, system exemplifies Common Core curriculum to mainstream the core system of education, which ties it even further into the pipeline into work-life, the factory, the government, the medical apparatus [big connection in the whole thing, is this portion of the medico-military industrial complex], and what is worse the military co-opts the nomadic forces [the "pioneering" ones in America—in Europe, the "proletariat" is a fitting term, if you understand where it comes from (the French Revolution, essentially, and then it's expanded on by Marx)—fact is, this is important stuff...American's revolted and had a revolution, too, just at the same time as the communists started to roll-out their programmes—and of course, this was not just done by Marx, the ideas here also evolved and this ties into the notion of the Marxian dialectic, and Hegelian dialectic, Kant, the pan-German idealist school, which is in Philosophy 101, prelude to Nietzsche, usually (of import, the idea of the "eternal return")—of course, all of this ties into the arguments of the schools of Scholasticism, medieval Theology, and down into the basic tenants of Christianity]. The nomads are faced off in the rural against the metropolis [the Megalomania expansion of urban gentrification—which is not just a "racial issue"], and the State-apparatus is, thru these economics systems in place [out of the Austrian schools response to marginalism which was a response to Marxist critique—which is now primarily in a Keynesian mode, thru out the globe] and thru 'globalization' [and 'globalism'], thru all this, it [The State] is very reductionist. The core of any critique can come from here. The thing is Foucault, and his theory of biopower. A good theory, but brought out [and critically examined] by Delueze, it's made more constructive, and with the Bateson model of the "plateau" or "double-bind" [which primitive societies find themselves locked into, against the modern world] and the Baudrillardian notion of 'code' (overcoding, decoding, coding, of 'signs'—which ties into 'semiotics', which is the part of 'semantics', the logic of communication, in other words; which ties into 'linguistics', of course), he creates a system which even can be overlayed onto the Traditional system of Evola (which is noted by esteemed thinker Alexander Dugin, in Russia). The thing about Foucault is that his biopower took off so strongly, which was warned of by Deleuze and hence was critically deconstructed in his main work I'm referring to here (which is so much more than even just that but let's not prattle on much longer...Marx, Freud, Kant, Spinoza, et al. All of these are important in philosophy, as well as other fields). This 'intersectionalism' is a form of postmodern virus, borne out of this Foucaultian schematic. See? I learned you up some. You just got a free quasi-lesson in philosophy. Now look up this stuff, read it yourself, and you don't need to go to school, per se.
1
ecky1965 Socialist countries in Europe.......have I missed something
Yes. Here's what it is. Yes, there are countries in Europe [even in the midst of populist movements for Le Pen and Rutte, et al. is there a 'leftism' to their leadership over there], which are socializing, you could say. Socializing is just another way of saying 'self-managing', really; and of course, anyway, that's what 'socialism' essentially means, after all, is "self-management" in the economic/labor force of business and government. That's why the 'National Socialist' is called 'National Socialist', because they tie this theory to race, and they are done with it: hence the phrase, 'if it wasn't for me you'd be speaking German'.
1
1
ecky1965 At least you are posing an actual argument. Good. When I said that socializing is what 'we are doing', it means that we are in a civilization, no? Well, what does 'socialism' mean? Essentially, boiled down to it's basic dictum, it is 'self-management'. Literally, look it up. Why do you think National Socialists called themselves that? Now, you can say it's all a big conspiracy, or that historical facts are just immensely interesting. Or...what? Am I wrong? Do you not want more 'self-management'? Cause that's what socialism entails. It's not just 'an economic system'. In fact, before it ever was one, it was merely an idea.
1
ecky1965 Socialism is a less extreme form of communism. Both have the state firmly in control, the state being those in control and not the proletariat
Pretty overcooked and boiled-down, cookie-cutter understanding of the concept. I elucidated how the concept ties into National Socialism by way of referring to it as "self-management" [again, look it up, the term "self-management" refers to "socialism", and to National Socialism by way of the racial aspect of Hitler's theory of biological race]. And "both have the state in control" is inaccurate. Communism should have no state control, at ends with it's final teleology. We know that's not how it's imparted in reality [it's really an eschatology, just about]. Socialism has a state because everything has a "state". An economy entails a "state". Within neoclassical economics, classical economics, it all entails having a "state body". The next arguments can only go to Rome...the plebians...the socius...etc. Anthropology. But after the "city-state", you get into very so-called "primitive" societies. This has eluded you?
If anything those traits are anti civilisation and anti social
So it has eluded you.
Could you point out a European country, which as you put it is "socialising"
Netherlands. Sweden. Et al.
1
1
ecky1965 The Netherlands and Sweden are not as you put it socialising. They are market driven economies and politically are moving more to the right as all of Europe is
Have you seen a prison in Denmark? Have you seen what kind of [socialized] healthcare they have? Dude, you are so confused as to think that nations can't use a capitalistic endeavor in the market-place...of course they must, because capitalism is a world-wide phenomenon. Derrr Herr...
Are you American ......I only ask as Americans usually have a poor grasp of things over here
No one has a poorer grasp of how America works than Americans themselves, it seems. I know plenty of non-Americans that know the law better than most do who want to talk shit, but guess what...you wouldn't know it. It's like the Soviet Union...you know, America went through all sorts of counter-measures against 'teh communism', right? Just for sake of money, but hey...the freedom for money is much better than your freedom from tyranny. It's good, also for the culture [not]. Or so I hear. And yeah...most of you are kinda looking for "racial" national socialism, but those more centrist-conservatives are still stuck in the loop of wanting to "go back", as it were...some of you supposed "monarchists" even...let's assume you aren't that far gone...even in the most "tame" conservative few, you, I presume, want to see the "immigration" issue solved...the Wall, as it were...well, that certainly might improve the "illegal immigrant" situation, and political tensions [and racial] will continue to rise, so more and more so people like yourself will be swayed towards national socialism, either way; or otherwise, more towards social democracy...anyway, if you don't go as far as to say, 'I will not go so far and remain somewhat democratic in my national stance', the nationalism either gives way with the pacifism [as nationalist ties are drawn from symbols of exchange in war, aren't they? sort of, historically speaking. That can change, but would you divulge how you'd do that?], and then with that ekes further into that dreaded ghost of communism [which the national Bolsheviks were all about, by the way...]. If not that, then unless you put up a literal bar to migrants becoming citizens, and even eventually bar travel into and out of the country [heavily effecting tourism, obviously, and thusly the economy], what then? Surely, you will value your states material infrastructure, and your governance will continue to shift...what's next? If you don't head towards racial self-management, and self-governance, what of some kind of self-management, like some kind of socialism? well, then you'd be Europeanizing...on the other hand, if Europe continues against this postnationalist end and the supranationalist union of the EU is superseded by economic dread, then they end up Americanizing: which just goes to the overall point. Eventually, you will have to make a decision. And you might choose to become "anarcho-capitalist" in the endeavor against the "globalized world": for the economies sake, mind you, not your "culture", not Tradition, certainly, but some "new thing" altogether...will it trend towards national socialism, or socialism? or a will you go from American representative democracy to merely monarchy, or fascism [you do know Mussolini was a socialist before he was a so-called "fascist", right? and that is all the same reaction and response to the liberalized civil society [internationale], or what in Ancient Rome would've been called the socius]? See the thing is you're gonna have to make a choice, and it'll eventually be made for material reasons...either economic or because literally techno-capitalists are driving technology so automatic and bizarre that you'll be spiritually striving to defeat them for the fact of your culture [which is the material side to the race, that is the spiritual self, or Selbst, if you want]. You'll have to choose.
1
ecky1965 Indeed ...you know nothing about our way of life in Europe
You haven't indicated how so.
How's that socialising working out in Venezuela or any other country stupid enough to get involved with it......
Now you are just making strawman arguments.
Strange how eastern European countries who were once under the shackles of Marxism are now the most conservative states in the union
Not really...because that is why the Soviets did what they did. If the KGB saw your comments [which, let's face it, they have some on the inside, but I can't say for sure, and thank God for that, I wouldn't know shit, and / or which Five Eyes state agency, but no shit Sherlock is all I got to say]...if they saw your comment they'd laugh at your misapprehension. The Soviet Union, was never about your Americanized ideal "freedom to" pioneering the "new world order", eventually: but it was a "freedom from" the necessity to compartmentalize with the Americans and abroad, so that they could self-sustain their own economies. Now, I'm sure most of the KGB are not only retired but also of a change of heart, so I'm not trying to insinuate Russia. Things change. But you literally know nothing, apparently, so you shouldn't talk. Why did the Soviet state grow? because it had to, that was it's motive. To self-sustain. The idea was put thru the Bolshevik strainer, if you will, but it became as it did, the Soviet Union [which I'm sure you know nothing of de-Stalinization, but whatever]. China is a different story altogether, but Europe under the Soviet 'oppression' was simply a strategy and tactic for what the Germans would call, in their decisive action, 'lebensraum': the major hindrance to America's own is the notion of 'democracy', which is built right into it's national fabric: representation in a democratic fashion [by election, and vote]. The notion is that this can be cheated...ahhh, back to the crux of the issue, you problem with state controls...well, who likes them? I don't. But you know, I'm Americanized.
1