## It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Discussion of the recent unfolding of history.

### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Are you willing to allow cultural-marxist "teachers" teach your Elementary School children that homosexuality and transexuality is "natural", should be tolerated, and that young boys can "choose" to castrate... or aren't you?

Where do you draw the line?

Are you going to guard your children from perverts, or aren't you?

Are your children yours? Or are they property of The State?

Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

It's a clever thing, that if you are far-right, "alt-right", and intelligent, then you must engage buggery, and "identify" as a homosexual, to be given a 'pass'. I really wonder and criticize the nature of "homosexuality". What if it were, instead, a symbolic gesturing of deferment and submission to a greater implication? That, if you were to want to "speak against" the core ideologies and degeneracy pervasive throughout civilization, then you must be "taken down a notch" and humiliated? This is my impression on somebody like Ruben, as-if they were "faking it", like Milo Yinappolous, and in so "faking it", they are finally given a 'pass', somewhat, to say what they originally wanted to say, or to think what they wanted to think? And consider this philosophy forum, the nature of anonymity, and the sacrifices required to "think freely". Isn't it dangerous, at least?

Now, in this conversation, there are a few powerful themes. The State, versus Religion. Secularism, versus Abrahamism. Yet, are they even different?? The "Protestants" in early US history, the Colonials, the Settlers, the Puritans and Mennonites, what were they really "Protesting"? Answer: Catholicism. The historic division and challenge, of (European) religion, has been between Catholics and "everybody else". Rome versus the Gauls (Germany meaning Allemand "every man"). Christian versus Pagan. Here's a quick-theory. Europeans never quit being "pagan", at least, not completely. And so the spread of Christianity, by Catholicism, is against the European nature, by which even Modern-Post-Modern people still hope to rebel, and reawaken whatever ancient spirits they originally had inside.

Think of the Matrix and the compulsion to "keep waking up" from a dream/nightmare. The Ancient spirit keeps trying to reawaken, but the Subversion, Suppression, and Repression keeps pushing it back down. This represents the uprising and upheaval of Nazi Germany, and the significance of the 20th Century. If the locks and chains are taken off, if they're removed, then Calamity/Armageddon/Destruction will result. But why and how?

The American Protestants are a (per)version of Christianity. One version of many. Thus, one variant of a virus, out of many variants. And the spread is very powerful and invasive. Can people be vaccinated, can it be cured? Can Man remove himself from "God"? Historically, the answer is No.

Because what is Secularism today, except a shadow-religion? US Protestants (Anglo-Saxons), classically the enemies of Rome (Catholicism), did not want to establish a Central Church in USA. So what happened? The State became The Church. And the masses, seeking purpose, protection, and parentage, first go to The State, when they do not have God as a choice.

In the video I linked, this is more relevant and prevalent than ever before. Because now, in 2019, average people see, view, and recognize "The State" as The Church, and the institution that they must travel through, to receive, or to do, anything at all. So the female speaker is correct in the video, to conclude, that Post-Modern peoples, the masses, the average person, has the understanding backward (inverted), identifying the affect as the cause.

My summation: when people don't have a Religion, a God, they will make a new one. And this "Secular-Protestant-Humanism", is the New Religion. And this "Deep State" is merely symbolic, of the types of tyranny and fanaticism to come, on the horizon. Because when you are a follower, a slave, a serf, at heart, in the blood, then you don't really have a choice do you, except to follow? And if you have no guidance, then the masses of people will merely wait around, for a Messiah to come. Followers waiting for a Leader.

Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

"Give me just one generation of youth, and I'll transform the whole world. Give us the child for eight years and it will be a Bolshevik forever." - Lenin
promethean75
Philosopher

Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

promethean75 wrote:"Give me just one generation of youth, and I'll transform the whole world. Give us the child for eight years and it will be a Bolshevik forever." - Lenin

I don't think Lenin would dress his sons in pink dresses, frills, and apply makeup to their faces, do you?
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

promethean75 wrote:

"Give me just one generation of youth, and I'll transform the whole world. Give us the child for eight years and it will be a Bolshevik forever." - Lenin

And not that they didn't have a chance.
Besides,communism is an inverted Christianity
Meno_
ILP Legend

Posts: 5590
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Besides,communism is an inverted Christianity

lol i hear this all the time, but marxist thinkers and their philosophies couldn't be less christian. what's happening is, naturally ocurring instinctual behaviors like compassion, sympathy, collective cooperation, charity, tolerance and the like, have never before in history received greater proselytization than that by christian dogma. hence, by ideological shorthand, philosophers can't help but to perceive any narrative containing ideas of, and sentiments towards, these things as 'christian', and forget entirely their evolutionary origins in human behavior.

and yet when such behaviors are practiced by enemies of marxism - which they now can't help but seeing as idealistically 'christian' - suddenly it's acceptable, virtuous, and a sign of strength. so it's okay to be compassionate and sympathetic and charitable and all that so long as you don't call yourself a 'christian' while being so. but here you see the mass confusion again; these things are not christian. there is no christianity... that is just a name given to a set of abstract ideas which have claimed both the source and origin of these human instincts and social behaviors.

lol... if confucianism dominated the west instead of christianity, enemies of marxism would be calling communism inverted confucianism.
promethean75
Philosopher

Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

I don't think Lenin would dress his sons in pink dresses, frills, and apply makeup to their faces, do you?

no. pink fatigues and/or uniform, maybe, but certainly not dresses. a dress is impractical for a revolutionary soldier. frills might be acceptable though. certainly stylish. it would depend on the additional time and materials needed to produce such uniforms.
promethean75
Philosopher

Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Meno_ wrote:
promethean75 wrote:

"Give me just one generation of youth, and I'll transform the whole world. Give us the child for eight years and it will be a Bolshevik forever." - Lenin

And not that they didn't have a chance.
Besides,communism is an inverted Christianity

...Inverted Judaism mostly...*cough**cough*

...Christianity is a Jewish slave religion with a slave morality....*cough**cough*

"I'm sorry, but the lifestyle you've ordered that you've grown accustomed to is completely out of stock. Have a nice day! "-$$Zero_Sum Evil Neo-Nazi Extraordinaire. Posts: 2815 Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm Location: U.S.S.A- Newly lead Bolshevik Soviet block. Also known as Weimar America. ### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST nah it's not 'inverted' anything, really. if at all, it would maybe be an extension of Henri de Saint-Simon's thought, who was one of the first in europe to create a thorough critique of industrialized society. simon says wrote:In 1817 Saint-Simon published a manifesto called the "Declaration of Principles" in his work titled L'Industrie ("Industry"). The Declaration was about the principles of an ideology called industrialism that called for the creation of an industrial society led by people within what he defined as the industrial class. The industrial class, also referred to as the working class, was defined as including all people engaged in productive work that contributed to society, emphasizing scientists and industrialists, but including engineers, businesspeople, managers, bankers, manual workers, and others. Saint-Simon said the primary threat to the needs of the industrial class was another class he referred to as the idling class, that included able people who preferred to be parasitic and benefit from the work of others while seeking to avoid doing work. He saw the origins of this parasitic activity by idlers in what he regarded as the natural laziness of humanity. He believed the principal economic roles of government were to insure that productive activity in the economy is unhindered and to reduce idleness in society. call em whatcha want; idlers, parasites, capitalists, duddint matter. but these niggas gots ta go. now this was before marx and engels, see, and then engels wuz like 'hey yo karl, this dude might be on to something', and so began the work of the dynamic duo of historical materialists. promethean75 Philosopher Posts: 1868 Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm ### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST promethean75 wrote:nah it's not 'inverted' anything, really. if at all, it would maybe be an extension of Henri de Saint-Simon's thought, who was one of the first in europe to create a thorough critique of industrialized society. simon says wrote:In 1817 Saint-Simon published a manifesto called the "Declaration of Principles" in his work titled L'Industrie ("Industry"). The Declaration was about the principles of an ideology called industrialism that called for the creation of an industrial society led by people within what he defined as the industrial class. The industrial class, also referred to as the working class, was defined as including all people engaged in productive work that contributed to society, emphasizing scientists and industrialists, but including engineers, businesspeople, managers, bankers, manual workers, and others. Saint-Simon said the primary threat to the needs of the industrial class was another class he referred to as the idling class, that included able people who preferred to be parasitic and benefit from the work of others while seeking to avoid doing work. He saw the origins of this parasitic activity by idlers in what he regarded as the natural laziness of humanity. He believed the principal economic roles of government were to insure that productive activity in the economy is unhindered and to reduce idleness in society. call em whatcha want; idlers, parasites, capitalists, duddint matter. but these niggas gots ta go. now this was before marx and engels, see, and then engels wuz like 'hey yo karl, this dude might be on to something', and so began the work of the dynamic duo of historical materialists. Are you sure? "I'm sorry, but the lifestyle you've ordered that you've grown accustomed to is completely out of stock. Have a nice day! "-$$$Zero_Sum Evil Neo-Nazi Extraordinaire. Posts: 2815 Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm Location: U.S.S.A- Newly lead Bolshevik Soviet block. Also known as Weimar America. ### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST Christianity is a Jewish slave religion with a slave morality... you'd have to unpack this statement because there much more to it. of course, there is a slave ethos or psychology that is characterized by experiencing joy in submission of some kind, whether it be to a god or a king or whatever. but this isn't all that is meant by detractors of the history of the jews. what they've done, instead, is characterize the jew's need to be underhanded and deceptive as a measure of weakness... rather than possessing the brute strength to directly and openly wage a war. but remember, they had neither the numbers or the resources to do so, and so had to resort to such measures. on this account they'd not really be practicing a slave-morality in relation to their oppressors, but rather a more strategic, more cunning form of warfare that was necessary for those who hadn't the numerical strength. your homeboy nietzsche held the same opinion as myself here, and was careful not to confuse the different kinds of meaning of 'slave-morality'. if anything was slavish about the jews, it was their submission to their god. promethean75 Philosopher Posts: 1868 Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm ### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST Are you sure? but that don't mean nuthin, bro. marxism is a description of, and set of instructions for, a certain kind of organized society. anybody can get a'hold of it and try to implement it. you'd not call pol-pot a jew, would ya? that's what i'm tryn to tell you; the ideas of marxism have no racial or cultural origin. and again, if you do have a entire continent of self-identified 'jews' who are behind a marxist movement, and who believe what they are doing is sanctioned by the silly religious nonsense they believe, they'd simply be wrong. god didn't invent marxism. nature did. evolution did. promethean75 Philosopher Posts: 1868 Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm ### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST That's the thing, the redeeming quality. Everybody loves an underdog story. If you're oppressed, feel victimized, then ultimately you can see the 'magic' of Jewry and Judaism. It's very compelling and attractive to those who have been forced into abject slavery and ultimate suffering. This does not mean or imply though, to 'forgive' or 'accept' victim-politics or religion. History still dictates, there are winners and losers all throughout history. "You can't win em all" Urwrongx1000 Philosopher Posts: 2209 Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm ### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST Urwrongx1000 wrote:That's the thing, the redeeming quality. Everybody loves an underdog story. If you're oppressed, feel victimized, then ultimately you can see the 'magic' of Jewry and Judaism. It's very compelling and attractive to those who have been forced into abject slavery and ultimate suffering. This does not mean or imply though, to 'forgive' or 'accept' victim-politics or religion. History still dictates, there are winners and losers all throughout history. "You can't win em all" My favorite portion of history is when societies, nations, states, and regions violently collapse. It's like having a clean slate to go with where everyday is like Christmas. In this transformation those that were winners find themselves becoming the new losers and watching people fall from glory or grace whimpering to themselves, "Why is this happening to me?" Well, for me that is just pure beautiful poetry being sung. Yes, I guess you can say I revel in such thoughts as it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. It's also a time where those who were deemed the losers have the grand opportunity to shed their shackles and rise to the top. Out with the older order and in with the new. "I'm sorry, but the lifestyle you've ordered that you've grown accustomed to is completely out of stock. Have a nice day! "-$$Zero_Sum Evil Neo-Nazi Extraordinaire. Posts: 2815 Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm Location: U.S.S.A- Newly lead Bolshevik Soviet block. Also known as Weimar America. ### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST Zero_Sum wrote: "Inverted Judaism mostly...*cough**cough* ...Christianity is a Jewish slave religion with a slave morality....*cough**cough*" ---- ----- ---- ------ ------ ------ ------- ----- -- Capitalism has it's basis in the modern industrially revolutionized mode of.production, where as only a money chamger adhered to the Jewish stereotype. Capitalism did not begin with changing money, it started with modes of changing methods of production. Christian values before vested changes in moral artifacts, such as those which occurred in the early stages of.production, where there were unionized protections against means of production , such as child labor laws. The connections between the two types of changes are tedious, and very far flung the product of a regressed symbolic value missong a lot over variables in productive values. That may explain the difficulty in Stalin's efforts to revise premises that have gone out of hand, and why the Soviets now down on the Hungarians, who took advantage of the weakness of the Communist Internationale , beginning in France. Another badly wrangled and misinterpreted argument about Stalin's assassination by Jewish doctors for Beria's assassination, is equally bereft of reality. I am not even sure this argument can hold up today, even on it's face, and some even consider the revision to be the product of the anger represented by ghost writers who Stalin used to write the revision. Stalin's daughter was interview when she defected, but I don't remember any of this becoming mentioned , or, entertained. My spotty flow of reading and replying fits with the idea of no process-flow, and still retain the connexion of a backward nexus to evolving forms this forum is taking. Last edited by Meno_ on Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:25 am, edited 1 time in total. Meno_ ILP Legend Posts: 5590 Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am Location: Mysterium Tremendum ### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST Meno_ wrote:Inverted Judaism mostly...*cough**cough* ...Christianity is a Jewish slave religion with a slave morality....*cough**cough* ---- ----- ---- ------ ------ ------ ------- ----- -- Capitalism has it's basis in the modern industrially revolutionized mode of.production, where as only a money chamger adhered to the Jewish stereotype. Capitalism did not begin with changing money, it started with modes of changing methods of production. Christian values before vested changes in moral artifacts, such as those which occurred in the early stages of.production, where there were unionized protections against means of production , such as child labor laws. The connections between the two types of changes are tedious, and very far flung the product of a regressed symbolic value missong a lot over variables in productive values. That may explain the difficulty in Stalin's efforts to revise premises that have gone out of hand, and why the Soviets now down on the Hungarians, who took advantage of the weakness of the Communist Internationale , beginning in France. Another badly wrangled and misinterpreted argument about Stalin's assassination by Jewish doctors for Beria's assassination, is equally bereft of reality. I am not even sure this argument can hold up today, even on it's face, and some even consider the revision to be the product of the anger represented by ghost writers who Stalin used to write the revision. Stalin's daughter was interview when she defected, but I don't remember any of this becoming mentioned , or, entertained. It's not a stereotype, up until the Trump administration Jews controlled the Federal Reserve for almost thirty years. Our current national head of treasury? Jewish. The national governmental economic advisor? Jewish. Hell, I could mention facts like this all day long and not tire or wear out. I'm a man of facts and I don't believe in anything lightly. "I'm sorry, but the lifestyle you've ordered that you've grown accustomed to is completely out of stock. Have a nice day! "-$$$

Zero_Sum
Evil Neo-Nazi Extraordinaire.

Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: U.S.S.A- Newly lead Bolshevik Soviet block. Also known as Weimar America.

### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Zero_Sum wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Inverted Judaism mostly...*cough**cough*

...Christianity is a Jewish slave religion with a slave morality....*cough**cough*

---- ----- ---- ------ ------ ------ ------- ----- --

Capitalism has it's basis in the modern industrially revolutionized mode of.production, where as only a money chamger adhered to the Jewish stereotype.

Capitalism did not begin with changing money, it started with modes of changing methods of production.

Christian values before vested changes in moral artifacts, such as those which occurred in the early stages of.production, where there were unionized protections against means of production , such as child labor laws.

The connections between the two types of changes are tedious, and very far flung the product of a regressed symbolic value missong a lot over variables in productive values.

That may explain the difficulty in Stalin's efforts to revise premises that have gone out of hand, and why the Soviets now down on the Hungarians, who took advantage of the weakness of the Communist Internationale , beginning in France.

Another badly wrangled and misinterpreted argument about Stalin's assassination by Jewish doctors for Beria's assassination, is equally bereft of reality. I am not even sure this argument can hold up today, even on it's face, and some even consider the revision to be the product of the anger represented by ghost writers who Stalin used to write the revision.

Stalin's daughter was interview when
she defected, but I don't remember any of this becoming mentioned , or, entertained.

It's not a stereotype, up until the Trump agency Jews controlled the Federal Reserve for almost thirty years.

Our current national head of the treasury? Jewish.

The national governmental economic advisor? Jewish.

Hell, I could make facts like this all day long and not fire or wear out. I'm a man of facts and I don't believe in anything lightly.

Yes, but does that overly sure with the original basic assumptions between the sources of capitalism (protestant etchic) and of socialism (judeo{christian}) ethic ? Your suggestion is a minor sub-plot to a major plot that , if we could travel back in time, have no objective -future relationship, and oracles would not cover connections , as they did individulot selected epochs, that were read to leaders.

Zero_Sum wrote :

It's not a stereotype, up until the Trump agency Jews controlled the Federal Reserve for almost thirty years.

In order to develop a stereotype , both, types have to be incorporated into the one. The administrative/executive stereotype may be typical of modern and post modern history , but does rise to stereotype.

This may be a trite arguable point, but after all, the devil is in detail.
Meno_
ILP Legend

Posts: 5590
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Meno_ wrote:
Zero_Sum wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Inverted Judaism mostly...*cough**cough*

...Christianity is a Jewish slave religion with a slave morality....*cough**cough*

---- ----- ---- ------ ------ ------ ------- ----- --

Capitalism has it's basis in the modern industrially revolutionized mode of.production, where as only a money chamger adhered to the Jewish stereotype.

Capitalism did not begin with changing money, it started with modes of changing methods of production.

Christian values before vested changes in moral artifacts, such as those which occurred in the early stages of.production, where there were unionized protections against means of production , such as child labor laws.

The connections between the two types of changes are tedious, and very far flung the product of a regressed symbolic value missong a lot over variables in productive values.

That may explain the difficulty in Stalin's efforts to revise premises that have gone out of hand, and why the Soviets now down on the Hungarians, who took advantage of the weakness of the Communist Internationale , beginning in France.

Another badly wrangled and misinterpreted argument about Stalin's assassination by Jewish doctors for Beria's assassination, is equally bereft of reality. I am not even sure this argument can hold up today, even on it's face, and some even consider the revision to be the product of the anger represented by ghost writers who Stalin used to write the revision.

Stalin's daughter was interview when
she defected, but I don't remember any of this becoming mentioned , or, entertained.

It's not a stereotype, up until the Trump agency Jews controlled the Federal Reserve for almost thirty years.

Our current national head of the treasury? Jewish.

The national governmental economic advisor? Jewish.

Hell, I could make facts like this all day long and not fire or wear out. I'm a man of facts and I don't believe in anything lightly.

Yes, but does that overly sure with the original basic assumptions between the sources of capitalism (protestant etchic) and of socialism (judeo{christian}) ethic ? Your suggestion is a minor sub-plot to a major plot that , if we could travel back in time, have no objective -future relationship, and oracles would not cover connections , as they did individulot selected epochs, that were read to leaders.

Zero_Sum wrote :

It's not a stereotype, up until the Trump agency Jews controlled the Federal Reserve for almost thirty years.

In order to develop a stereotype , both, types have to be incorporated into the one. The administrative/executive stereotype may be typical of modern and post modern history , but does rise to stereotype.

This may be a trite arguable point, but after all, the devil is in detail.

So I give you real facts and details, where that's all you got as a response?

Okay then...
"I'm sorry, but the lifestyle you've ordered that you've grown accustomed to is completely out of stock. Have a nice day! "-$$Zero_Sum Evil Neo-Nazi Extraordinaire. Posts: 2815 Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm Location: U.S.S.A- Newly lead Bolshevik Soviet block. Also known as Weimar America. ### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST No, not quite. All who have known me in other incarnations know my situation and how I derived the synthesis, that enabled me to replicate both sides of this argument. I was other than Meno, then, and didn't appreciate the fact that iOBJECTIVELY, both sides of the argument, one, apparently as a flowing Heglelian dialectical synthesis, and, two, the new material version, diluted for popular expectations. The pretty 5 year economic plan, was a propaganda tool, not true in any sense , excepting the desire of planners to saturate public confidence toward labor, which proved disastrous to dissenters, who actually became slaves in the salt mines of Siberia. Lenin's fabrication , noted above , included the Marxian utopia. Meno_ ILP Legend Posts: 5590 Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am Location: Mysterium Tremendum ### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST Either that, or some kind of collusion was going on in the veritable past. But that probably became part of the revision. Which proves the unreliability of supposed flows of information. Meno_ ILP Legend Posts: 5590 Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am Location: Mysterium Tremendum ### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST Meno_ wrote:No, not quite. All who have known me in other incarnations know my situation and how I derived the synthesis, that enabled me to replicate both sides of this argument. I was other than Meno, then, and didn't appreciate the fact that iOBJECTIVELY, both sides of the argument, one, apparently as a flowing Heglelian dialectical synthesis, and, two, the new material version, diluted for popular expectations. The pretty 5 year economic plan, was a propaganda tool, not true in any sense , excepting the desire of planners to saturate public confidence toward labor, which proved disastrous to dissenters, who actually became slaves in the salt mines of Siberia. Lenin's fabrication , noted above , included the Marxian utopia. Well, I'm not a communist where none of that means much to me except for maybe sympathizing with the Russians for all they were forced to endure. "I'm sorry, but the lifestyle you've ordered that you've grown accustomed to is completely out of stock. Have a nice day! "-$$$Zero_Sum Evil Neo-Nazi Extraordinaire. Posts: 2815 Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm Location: U.S.S.A- Newly lead Bolshevik Soviet block. Also known as Weimar America. ### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST That's the thing, the redeeming quality. Everybody loves an underdog story. If you're oppressed, feel victimized, then ultimately you can see the 'magic' of Jewry and Judaism. It's very compelling and attractive to those who have been forced into abject slavery and ultimate suffering. This does not mean or imply though, to 'forgive' or 'accept' victim-politics or religion. History still dictates, there are winners and losers all throughout history. indeed, but that's a truism and explains nothing. what needs to be understood is the behavior of soliciting sympathy, the purpose it serves. here morality becomes weaponized; those who lose must resort to hijacking the conscience of the winners into experiencing feelings of guilt because they lack the means to directly regain power over them. but what is forgotten in the criticism of the 'loser' is that the loser is doing the same thing the winner is doing... trying to gain the upper hand. so when the winners win, it's noble, but when the losers win, it's ignoble and underhanded. this demarcation ironically reverses the slave-mentality (i did a vocaroo audio on this very thing a year ago). first we have the stage; slave interprets master's caprice as bad, as 'evil'. second stage; winner/master interprets slave's revolt as 'bad', as 'evil'. here, the master/winner engages in the same weaponized moralizing that the slave engaged in directly following his loss of power. now, it is 'bad' to not want to remain the loser, says the winner... and that's the dumbest shit i have ever heard. now it becomes especially ugly when we apply this analysis to what has been done, and is being done, in the dialectic between the ruling class and the working class. note that the initial power gained by the ruling class was not established by direct force, but rather through the same kind of underhanded deception that is now being scrutinized in the hands of the losers, the working class. the ruling class was able to convince the working class that something other than a direct show of force gave them their right to their position... and this would involve telling the long story of the rise of the aristocratic class to power (which i'm not obliged to tell because it would take too long). suffice it to say that this initial rise to power was not the result of an affirmative show of strength by the ruling class, but rather the result of a lack of organized effort by the working class to keep their power. and what caused this long, drawn out process of losing executive power to the ruling class was cateorically identical to the moralizing that the losers, the slaves, the workers, now execute in an attempt to regain their original power. so you have a 'master' class that gained its status by underhanded and deceptive means... then has the audacity to try and convince the 'slave' class, which it successfully subordinated by weaponizing morality, that they should accept their fate rather than revolt. like i said... the dumbest shit i have ever heard. i take a great leap here and say something you'll not understand... something that will immediately shock you and strike you as absurd. i'm using a metaphor you like to think in terms of, here. the aristocratic/capitalistic ruling class's entire pathos is feminine and ignoble. in the same way you might see women as being experts at manipulation and able to access power through indirect means, the ruling class has done the same thing through 'philosophy', through 'ideology'. the rise to power of the bourgeois class is an activity perfectly characterized as feminine; accessing power deceptively and then persuading those from whom it was taken that they should feel guilty in wanting it back. now i'd not use that metaphor myself because it over-generalizes... but i did anyway because it's in a way you might be able to understand. i'm trying to simplify something extremely complicated so it's easily accessible to you. it's another irony i sit nicely on as i watch the political philosophers go with great amusement. conservatism is the very incarnation of the feminine pathos, while... let's just call it 'marxism ' because that's how everyone understands it these days... is at its core is the embodiment of ultra-masculinity and nobility. okay... let's say that capitalism is dionysian, while socialism is apollonian. will that work for you? i know, i know. this is probably very disturbing to you and i apologize for that. i've been known to turn whole centuries upside down in one fell swoop. promethean75 Philosopher Posts: 1868 Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm ### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST promethean75 wrote: That's the thing, the redeeming quality. Everybody loves an underdog story. If you're oppressed, feel victimized, then ultimately you can see the 'magic' of Jewry and Judaism. It's very compelling and attractive to those who have been forced into abject slavery and ultimate suffering. This does not mean or imply though, to 'forgive' or 'accept' victim-politics or religion. History still dictates, there are winners and losers all throughout history. indeed, but that's a truism and explains nothing. what needs to be understood is the behavior of soliciting sympathy, the purpose it serves. here morality becomes weaponized; those who lose must resort to hijacking the conscience of the winners into experiencing feelings of guilt because they lack the means to directly regain power over them. but what is forgotten in the criticism of the 'loser' is that the loser is doing the same thing the winner is doing... trying to gain the upper hand. so when the winners win, it's noble, but when the losers win, it's ignoble and underhanded. this demarcation ironically reverses the slave-mentality (i did a vocaroo audio on this very thing a year ago). first we have the stage; slave interprets master's caprice as bad, as 'evil'. second stage; winner/master interprets slave's revolt as 'bad', as 'evil'. here, the master/winner engages in the same weaponized moralizing that the slave engaged in directly following his loss of power. now, it is 'bad' to not want to remain the loser, says the winner... and that's the dumbest shit i have ever heard. now it becomes especially ugly when we apply this analysis to what has been done, and is being done, in the dialectic between the ruling class and the working class. note that the initial power gained by the ruling class was not established by direct force, but rather through the same kind of underhanded deception that is now being scrutinized in the hands of the losers, the working class. the ruling class was able to convince the working class that something other than a direct show of force gave them their right to their position... and this would involve telling the long story of the rise of the aristocratic class to power (which i'm not obliged to tell because it would take too long). suffice it to say that this initial rise to power was not the result of an affirmative show of strength by the ruling class, but rather the result of a lack of organized effort by the working class to keep their power. and what caused this long, drawn out process of losing executive power to the ruling class was cateorically identical to the moralizing that the losers, the slaves, the workers, now execute in an attempt to regain their original power. so you have a 'master' class that gained its status by underhanded and deceptive means... then has the audacity to try and convince the 'slave' class, which it successfully subordinated by weaponizing morality, that they should accept their fate rather than revolt. like i said... the dumbest shit i have ever heard. i take a great leap here and say something you'll not understand... something that will immediately shock you and strike you as absurd. i'm using a metaphor you like to think in terms of, here. the aristocratic/capitalistic ruling class's entire pathos is feminine and ignoble. in the same way you might see women as being experts at manipulation and able to access power through indirect means, the ruling class has done the same thing through 'philosophy', through 'ideology'. the rise to power of the bourgeois class is an activity perfectly characterized as feminine; accessing power deceptively and then persuading those from whom it was taken that they should feel guilty in wanting it back. now i'd not use that metaphor myself because it over-generalizes... but i did anyway because it's in a way you might be able to understand. i'm trying to simplify something extremely complicated so it's easily accessible to you. it's another irony i sit nicely on as i watch the political philosophers go with great amusement. conservatism is the very incarnation of the feminine pathos, while... let's just call it 'marxism ' because that's how everyone understands it these days... is at its core is the embodiment of ultra-masculinity and nobility. okay... let's say that capitalism is dionysian, while socialism is apollonian. will that work for you? i know, i know. this is probably very disturbing to you and i apologize for that. i've been known to turn whole centuries upside down in one fell swoop. All I know is that if you get more slaves than masters an uprising, insurrection, and revolution is always inevitable. And being poor working class it is why my variation of fascism is a socialist one. I do not admire, praise, and elevate inequality as a natural given that should just be, I think it should be lessened or constantly restrained in the name of maintaining social order. I know we'll never get rid of inequality but we can at least try to lesson it as much as possible because societies where inequality spirals out of control almost always collapse in on themselves much like the current United States right now. "I'm sorry, but the lifestyle you've ordered that you've grown accustomed to is completely out of stock. Have a nice day! "-$$Zero_Sum Evil Neo-Nazi Extraordinaire. Posts: 2815 Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm Location: U.S.S.A- Newly lead Bolshevik Soviet block. Also known as Weimar America. ### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST I do not admire, praise, and elevate inequality as a natural given that should just be, I think it should be lessened or constantly restrained in the name of maintaining social order. I know we'll never get rid of inequality but we can at least try to lesson it as much as possible because societies where inequality spirals out of control almost always collapse in on themselves much like the current United States right now. marx never advocated such idealistic nonsense as 'equality'. that's a reg-flag word invented by right-wingers to obfuscate the theory and distract people away from it. if you make marxism seem like a fairytale, people won't pay any attention to it. another one is this 'utopia' baloney marxism is supposed to be about. more bullshit made up by morons who don't know wtf they're talking about, or purposely lying to maintain that distraction. perfect example; listen to peterson numb-nutts think he's making a point against marx in this first video. promethean75 Philosopher Posts: 1868 Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm ### Re: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST I'm not talking about lessening inequality from a Marxist or communist stance obviously but instead from a national socialist one. I have a very different outlook entirely. "I'm sorry, but the lifestyle you've ordered that you've grown accustomed to is completely out of stock. Have a nice day! "-$$$

Zero_Sum
Evil Neo-Nazi Extraordinaire.

Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: U.S.S.A- Newly lead Bolshevik Soviet block. Also known as Weimar America.

PreviousNext