Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Why I Won't Bother Debating the Griftleft (Breadtube Crowd) And You Shouldn't Either" video.

  1.  @enki6676  You literal gormless freaks actually think Sargon looked good with his loaded idiocy. Immense.
    2
  2.  @Astares9  I'm not a commie, though. The time for that is long past, the retreat into the future has left us away from the potential of a "return" to the ethnos, or for the potential of a "communist revolution" [that isn't crude and forced]. Besides, Marx had stated that the means come about for "revolution" [which I take to be a different meaning here, as a revolution of thinking] is when capitalism is collapsing: not to make it collapse thru force: because the theory [classical] is eschatological. At least, that's how it seems to have evolved, to Marx [as he abjured the communist manifesto, sometime after it's publishing]. For me to be a "commie", whether crude and insurrectionary, or just plain orthodox in my thinking "as a communist" [allegedly], I would have to believe that Marx was inherently correct in his orientation, in toto. I do believe that he was trying to maintain a historical trend of socialism [pagan, even: this sort of trend can be seen in the anthropological dealings some parts of Marxian theory], to maintain the level of society that didn't extend to "civil society" or "global society", and didn't extend into the atomization and thingification of "human resource", and the culture-corruption of these forces he deemed "capitalism" and "capital" itself. Very highfalutin, very 1800s. I would say, I'm not a communist, I'm more of a libertarian marxist in my thinking, or a libertarian socialist, even. From a purely issue-based point of view, I'm a Municipal Localist: not an insurrectionary, nor even a structural marxist [professing constructivist and structuralist cues to modernity and postmodernity that line up with Marxian theory or Marxist-Leninist]. I am a Non-Marxist. Marx pointed out in his work "Private Property And Communism" a means by which "woman" are fetishized as commodity form, in a reified manner. I would say this is true, but it's not because of why Marx said [what he alluded to was prescient though]. And this is really the crux of why I'm not a Marxist, even if I understand Marxian theory. I also understand Spengler and Evola's crisis of concern for the human race under the boot of "machine industry". Look at Kazcinsky: yet another "right-wing" theorist. I am prompting a concern of such things: nothing more. I am promoting nothing more than the idea that people want a: self-management and b: that people want to be productive for their social ends [races, groups, even at an individual level. But no less than these three categories persist at once]. My videos would be aiming to promote this, yes.
    1
  3.  @Astares9  Uhh, if you can't fathom what it's like to see someone with original thoughts voice their opinions, your Americanization is wearing thinly into a proto-communism, already. Some fascist barracks elements with some Roman decoration and ornamentation, and then really making everything concretely "materialist". Tch, does not sound like fun. But you want self-management. Don't you? well, you'll have to take it at-bottom to those on-high. Won't you?
    1
  4. PS: If I was obfuscating I'd be avoiding your question, dummy. You can't even address a single thing I said because it baffles you...nothing more. You're just a dolt.
    1
  5.  @audiofash8478  How is the hall-mark of proto-communism the inability to understand the experience of being exposed to original ideas? Because the likes of Thomas Müntzer and the Shakers, et al., exemplify the common idea, shared by Christian socialists, Christian communists, Christians in generally, Lutherans [cf. Müntzer], shared by Platonists, shared by people at meet social ends common to them; part of Marx's point, over all, was that men would be slaves to machines: to him a miserable existence that would only lead to the devaluation of workers in the long-run [automation, automatons, "NPCs", in the contemporary parlance; cf. 'Erewhon', by Samuel Butler]...heck, this notion of 'meet social ends' applies as well to the pagan groups of various origin. And why is this the "hall-mark" of the "inability to understand the experience of being exposed to new ideas"? Why is that "proto-communism"? Because they emulate the form, that's why...there is alot of different contents, faces to the multifarious extrapolations of the means [the concretization] of historical forces to divulge the intention, to converge on the ratiocination, of 'meet social ends', for 'groups' and 'races' and 'individuals/individuated institutions' [the family, "schools", "the factory", etc.]; and with this, the consolidation [solidarity] of peoples under different compositions of the form of the ethnos being given as the choice between "progress" and "conservation".
    1
  6. You won't engage anyone that isn't solely repeating your idiotic talking points to you, like sweet nothings in your ear, Styx.
    1
  7. ​ @Augmintt  LOL Styx doesn't need to notice me outright. But he's still a pussy, he won't even debate the people he would need to engage with in order for there to be such a thing as "debate" in a political sense. That's just plain insuperable fact. He'll only stick to echo chambers, which is funny.
    1
  8. Pussy
    1
  9.  @realdonaldtrump8833  Sell more medicine to Africa. I mean, they get alot...thank god, but they need more.
    1
  10. Styx, you literally won't debate the people you quote need to "debate" for a "debate" to occur. You won't Debate, simply put. Weakling.
    1