Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 242

On July 03 2020 19:03 Santafairy wrote: rational person: but this fatherlessness thing might be related to other problems faced by that community and we could investigate a causal link, and possibly try to change this and make some of the issues better because we'd like to help this community fix their problems (not just tell them all their problems are racism and keep them perpetually "oppressed" so they have an eternal reason to vote for a specific party as a block)

Yep, it's basically an excuse to stick their head in the sand and not have to look at how their policies help or hurt the black community because any negative thing they can just blame on racism

blackjack: I think there there is a link here between fatherlessness and welfare programs

Loco: No that is obviously caused by 400 years of oppression and structural racism

blackjack: okay but look how these two trends line up at exactly the same time

Loco: are you saying structural racism doesn't exist?!

blackjack: I'm not saying that, but...

Loco: Here's John Oliver explaining structural racism to you, educate yourself!

blackjack: ok but...

Loco: STRUCTURAL RACISM STRUCTURAL RACISM LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU STRUCTURAL RACISM



Yeah sure, that's not a trump card...

Also I think it's worth repeating, as Spitfire mentioned earlier, single motherhood actually increased 4x among white people and only 2.3x against black people. Since according to Loco fatherlessness is clearly explained by structural racism maybe Loco can explain to us why he thinks white people are the most oppressed people.

That's a nice rundown of a conversation that has never happened. Here's a key part that you conveniently left out (this is a direct quote):

blackjacki2: "I guess my only question is why would these out of wedlock childbirths start to climb in the 1960s through the 1990s?"

Loco: "Here's one of the main contributing factors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs#Arrests_and_incarceration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs#Sentencing_disparities
https://www.sentencingproject.org/criminal-justice-facts/

Graphs in spoiler.

+ Show Spoiler +

"

And I will now add this article on top of it, which looks into this issue more deeply with additional statistics and explanations: https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/arc...dlock-births-in-black-america/277084/


Essentially, when I provided actual statistical proof of structural racism massively contributing to this disparity, you completely ignored it. You've also ignored other contributors that I mentioned and scoffed at the idea that the legacy of slavery could have something to do with this. Now you are just trying to run with the idea that I have just vaguely used the words "structural racism" without backing it up with hard evidence, trying to paint me as an intellectual coward who uses buzzwords to confuse people. At no point did I do "structural racism LALALALA", I directly answered your question, but you didn't pay attention. Why is that? Probably because it's not the answer that you wanted. The answer you wanted is one that confirms what you think you know so well already.

Short of re-inventing this conversation with me calling you a literal Nazi, you couldn't have possibly done worse.

On July 03 2020 22:08 blackjacki2 wrote: Also I think it's worth repeating, as Spitfire mentioned earlier, single motherhood actually increased 4x among white people and only 2.3x against black people. Since according to Loco fatherlessness is clearly explained by structural racism maybe Loco can explain to us why he thinks white people are the most oppressed people.

I'll gladly answer your question after you have answered mine: why won't you address the war on drugs, which was precipitated by the report that you are relying on for your conclusions? Once you've answered me, can you rephrase your question in an honest way because I can't understand it as you've written it. I'm not sure if you are claiming that structural racism affects white people more than black people in some instances.

I would say the war on drugs clearly plays a part in the increase in fatherlessness. If a man is in prison he's obviously going to be absent as a father. That's more 2+2=4 stuff. Although you can clearly see mass incarceration did not take off until the 1980s. The rate of incarceration in 1980 is the same as the rate in 1940 whereas if you look at single motherhood rates for the years of 1940 vs 1980 you will see a much different story. This is a multi-faceted issue that has many variables, the only difference between you and I is I don't try to dismiss the variables I don't like, or even attempt to deny the issue exists by calling it a "myth."

Right, I'm the one who wants so desperately to push a biased narrative, meanwhile the first thing I said was "do your own research, here's a suggestion to look at the other side of the debate" and left it at that, until you fuckers insisted on simplifying the complex reality of the issue, presented a fully-fledged conclusion that welfare was the prime evil responsible for the problem (and somehow that's not connected to structural racism), and pulling me into a debate.

Again, the same straw man. I'm not creating a myth where there is none. The myth is the idea that the father who is not married, or does not live with his children, is necessarily absent from the child's live. It is not a myth that there are more black children who grow up without their fathers, or who lose them eventually. "If only black men returned to their responsibilities, and didn't have such criminal tendencies" is the idea promoted by the myth, nothing else. It is also a myth to assume that this circumstance is because of something that is not affected by structural racism (which necessitates that we look at the past, because of the legacy of slavery and social reproduction.) That it's just a disconnected policy issue, and that black women love to "take advantage of the system", why, because they're more lazy, (what else?) No, that's not ever likely to be serving a racist agenda at all.

Yeah, so, it's not just the war on drugs. Never said it was. Ok, marriage started declining. Maybe less of these black folks were able to believe in it starting in the 70s for a number of reasons? Actually, maybe that was the case for all women, regardless of whether or not they had children? Looks like it.

"One obvious reason that you have a higher percentage of children born out of wedlock in the black community is that the number of unmarried women (mothers or not) has grown a lot, while number of married women has grown only a little. You can see that in the chart above, which I culled from these census numbers. The numbers are by the thousand."





And, in fact, they were having less children.





Does it follow from that that there is cultural degeneracy? Not at all. Yet, that is the myth that is peddled by using this statistic.


Maybe part of the explanation is that it's actually pretty expensive to do and the population who is at the bottom-rung of society can't afford to marry as much? By the way, know something else that happened in the 80s? They dropped a bomb in Philadelphia on the home of black people and their children, killed nearly all of them, and consciously allowed the fire to spread and burn down an entire black community. Maybe, just maybe, they had other priorities than marriage and that had a kind of ripple effect? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing

On July 03 2020 17:33 Loco wrote: Okay, you're doing your usual diversionary tactic to distract from my argument which is that it's kind of an issue when your talking points overlap with Nazis

Except that you ignored my post where I showed how your talking points overlap with Nazis too

We don't have any charismatic leaders that have the ability to shut off a listener's prefrontal cortex within anarchism. Just try to come up with one. Who do we have? Noam Chomsky? He explicitly says the opposite. He says that persuasion is violence. That if you have charisma, you should do your absolute best to suppress it, because he regards it as a form of violence. So he doesn't engage in the spectacle. You don't see him try to dominate people. The whole point of anarchism is to build people's capacities for individual flourishing. It's to produce people who can think critically and complexly and defend their own rights, rather than invest in a political party that will represent their interests. Fascism and authoritarian communism don't have this goal and don't think that way, so they have different tactics. They are both elitist "Great Men" theories that repress the individual and attempt to use him as a means to an end.

You see the right wing radicalization as some kind of master plot from nazis that will take over the world and left wing radicalization as some natural process from attaining information and when people point out to you left-wing radicalization processes you just say they are conspiracy theories, social sciences are left wing radicalization hot spots, just like MGTOW are for right wing, that doesn't mean anybody doing MGTOW content or in the social sciences is consciously and acitvely recruiting people into an extreme political ideology.

But I mean, this isn't really a conversation we can't have, you form part of one of these extreme views, it would be like talking about the right-wing radicalization process to a Nazi... he simply won't see it.

The same is true of your elitist authoritarian ideology; you just replace the Great Theorists with Great Billionaires, Great Corporations and Great Institutions. Replace the gulags for the "counter-revolutionary" by private prisons for those coming from "backward cultures" and "thugs" and make a buck off of their cheap labor. Replace the gulags with criminals like ICE and their private "detention centers". Bombard people with misinformation, use marketing tactics that make them stupider and more impulsive. Implement extreme surveillance and data collection to further your interest in enslaving the population and predict their behaviour and capitalize on their vulnerabilities and prepare for dissident uprisings, because hey, fuck democracy, people are too stupid to rule themselves. And the oh-so-virtuous Libertarian just make excuses for all of this manipulation and murderous violence and attempt to convince people that every other alternative is just going to be worse. And when it's pointed out to you that actually, it's possible to live differently and to have self-governance, you falsely claim that it works because it's an instance of right-wing libertarianism. Fuck off.

LOL since when is the US libertarian? they have arguably the biggest state in the world.

Again you imply that I want an oligopoly when I've said 100 times that I think people should be free to do what they want as long as they don't infringe other's rights, I am truly libertarian unlike you who only pretend to be but are a close authoritarian who will impose your will into others and like any other authoritarian justifying it because it is for the common good.

On July 03 2020 22:55 blackjacki2 wrote: I would say the war on drugs clearly plays a part in the increase in fatherlessness. If a man is in prison he's obviously going to be absent as a father. That's more 2+2=4 stuff. Although you can clearly see mass incarceration did not take off until the 1980s. The rate of incarceration in 1980 is the same as the rate in 1940 whereas if you look at single motherhood rates for the years of 1940 vs 1980 you will see a much different story. This is a multi-faceted issue that has many variables, the only difference between you and I is I don't try to dismiss the variables I don't like, or even attempt to deny the issue exists by calling it a "myth."

This is a common pattern in how Loco thinks, thats why I set that obvious trap with the indigenous zone, I pointed out the obvious, that they are homophobic, a resonable preson would be like "yeah... so what?", but he can't do that, dogma requires full ideological compiance no matter how daft it sounds to everybody else.

On July 03 2020 23:25 Baalim wrote: Except that you ignored my post where I showed how your talking points overlap with Nazis too

??? I answered it less than an hour after you made the post. I even asked you clarification questions. I guess you missed it, I can't really blame you I guess, there has been lots of posts.

You see the right wing radicalization as some kind of master plot from nazis that will take over the world and left wing radicalization as some natural process from attaining information and when people point out to you left-wing radicalization processes you just say they are conspiracy theories, social sciences are left wing radicalization hot spots, just like MGTOW are for right wing, that doesn't mean anybody doing MGTOW content or in the social sciences is consciously and acitvely recruiting people into an extreme political ideology.

I'm actually really concerned about radicalization on both sides. Marxists who are not willing to give up on their fantasies and who are attached to their oversimplifications of the world and their Great Men are a big problem. They are just as stubborn as you, and just as foolish in thinking that history is a story of moral and material progress.

Yes, social sciences are definitely a hot bed, but not mostly for radical politics, it's mostly center-left identity politics. The stuff that goes well with capitalism and its interests in diversity. The universities don't churn out anarchists, and they are also not run by Marxists (yes, that is a conspiracy theory, which has an origin story in Nazism).

I've actually spent quite some time listening to alt-righters and Neo-Nazis directly. A lot of times they are radically honest with what they believe and what they want to do. A lot of times they were pretty explicit about their intent to consciously radicalize people, even if it involves lying to them, such as lying about believing in free speech:



You can keep lying on their behalf and misrepresenting their aims if you want, but it doesn't seem like a useful thing to do, it's easy to find out that you are wrong. I would also say it makes perfect sense for some professors in university to try to radicalize their students. If you are fully aware of what is going on with climate change for instance, you want people to take radical action.

But I mean, this isn't really a conversation we can't have, you form part of one of these extreme views, it would be like talking about the right-wing radicalization process to a Nazi... he simply won't see it.

I don't think my views are extreme at all, they are not rooted in hatred or gaining power over others, and I'm not interested in deceiving people because I am not interested in deceiving myself. I can see many times where I have deceived myself in the past and I am always on the lookout for it. The only dangerous form of radicalization is one that's based in self-deception.

LOL since when is the US libertarian? they have arguably the biggest state in the world.

And that's libertarianism in a nutshell. The paradox for which you have no answer, just like the delusional tankies when reality doesn't match up with their airy-fairy theories. It seems they can't read Marx properly, just like you can't read Adam Smith.

Again you imply that I want an oligopoly when I've said 100 times that I think people should be free to do what they want as long as they don't infringe other's rights, I am truly libertarian unlike you.

Sorry bro but the REAL libertarians don't infringe on other people's rights by demanding that they wear masks during a pandemic. You're a tyrant.

a close authoritarian who will impose your will into others and like any other authoritarian justifying it because it is for the common good

LOL, says the mini-tyrant who commands his army of workers who have no choice but to obey him nearly every single day of their life, for most of their waking hours, unless they want to risk to starve to death. By "justifying for the common good," do you mean this kind of justification? "I create jobs! I give them good working conditions! It's all voluntary. I took the risk, it's normal that I am paid for it!"

On July 03 2020 23:34 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On July 03 2020 22:55 blackjacki2 wrote: I would say the war on drugs clearly plays a part in the increase in fatherlessness. If a man is in prison he's obviously going to be absent as a father. That's more 2+2=4 stuff. Although you can clearly see mass incarceration did not take off until the 1980s. The rate of incarceration in 1980 is the same as the rate in 1940 whereas if you look at single motherhood rates for the years of 1940 vs 1980 you will see a much different story. This is a multi-faceted issue that has many variables, the only difference between you and I is I don't try to dismiss the variables I don't like, or even attempt to deny the issue exists by calling it a "myth." This is a common pattern in how Loco thinks, thats why I set that obvious trap with the indigenous zone, I pointed out the obvious, that they are homophobic, a resonable preson would be like "yeah... so what?", but he can't do that, dogma requires full ideological compiance no matter how daft it sounds to everybody else.

So obvious that they hate them and want to decapitate them on the spot that you couldn't point to a single instance of a homophobic hate crime that happened within their community since the uprising.

First i'd heard of that bombing on MOVE. That's quite remarkable.

In respect to right wingers complaining about the donald being shut down as a form of speech suppression, this seems inconsistent to free market views, where you can just set up your opinion on another site and let the market decide if it's something worth hearing or not.

On July 02 2020 22:24 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On July 02 2020 21:28 Baalim wrote:   On July 02 2020 16:52 Loco wrote: Santafairy, hiems: NeO-NaZis MaKe SoMe GoOd PoiNtS tOO!!!! ! ! Ok lets play the do you agree with a Nazi game... Raise your hand anyone that has used these arguments by Joseph Goebbels? ---------------------------- "The money pigs of capitalist democracy… Money has made slaves of us… Money is the curse of mankind. It smothers the seed of everything great and good. Every penny is sticky with sweat and blood." "The bourgeoisie has to yield to the working class ... Whatever is about to fall should be pushed. We are all soldiers of the revolution. We want the workers' victory over filthy lucre. That is socialism." "Maintaining a rotten economic system has nothing to do with nationalism, which is an affirmation of the Fatherland. I can love Germany and hate capitalism. Not only can I, I must. Only the annihilation of a system of exploitation carries with it the core of the rebirth of our people" "The people's community must not be a mere phrase, but a revolutionary achievement following from the radical carrying out of the basic life needs of the working class. A ruthless battle against corruption! A war against exploitation, freedom for the workers! The elimination of all economic-capitalist influences on national policy." "The worker in a capitalist state—and that is his deepest misfortune—is no longer a living human being, a creator, a maker. He has become a machine. A number, a cog in the machine without sense or understanding. He is alienated from what he produces." ------------------------------- Wait, you mean to tell me that the chief minister of propaganda of the Nazi regime was... using propaganda? To... appeal to as many people as possible? That... the working class was an important demographic to attempt to win over? That... appealing to popular sentiments was the best way to get Hitler into power and keep him there? Even if they never had any interest in helping the working class or creating socialism?!? You don't say! I am just stunned at your discovery. Are you mentioning this because you think that there is a perfect equivalence between the opinions of those who talk about similar things as those selectively chosen Nazi propaganda talking points from a master propagandist and the average person using talking points from the average Neo-Nazi? Edit: Note: At the same time as Baal makes this point, his mentor, the banned-from-YouTube cult leader extraordinaire Stefan Molyneux also makes it in his own way!

there
Oh he was lying... he wasn't a socialist, the party being named socialist, he speaking and writing about his socialists beliefs were all a ruse lol.... except that there were strong disagreements in the Nazi party when Hitler spoke against Marxists and refused to confiscate all private property because he thought it would hurt the war efforts, the disagreements were so strong than Goebbels even mentions being dissapointed in the only person he admired above Marx, Adolf Hitler.

Later on, Hitler specified that he didn't like the Marxist brand of socialism because it was jewery, and that real socialism was the nationalistic kind of the rich, so the party rallied united again by their antisemitism.

But sure bro, I'm sure these are also lies and more lies, tHaT waSnT ReAL SoCiaLiSm too, and Stefan said something about Mussolini, so it must be a lie.

You also mean to tell me that these talking points resemble anything that the average socialists say today?

Yes, but you lot have dropped a bit the "working class" part because you despise them almost as much as they despise you. Now its more about gender-queer lesbian black trans women lol

If you seriously think that nazis are socialists you are absolutely ignorant. Socialist is significantly more than and different from 'government owning and controlling shit'. The sad thing is I believe we've had this discussion before and you still manage to say this kind of bullshit, it really adds credence to loco's claim that you need to not only read more but actually manage to internalize what you read into your world view.

Like how on earth can you be as educated and interested in politics as you claim to be and occasionally show evidence of being and believe that fascists are socialists? It's like you skipped junior high school.

It's like claiming that one country that builds up their military because they want to defend against aggression and another country that builds up their military because they want to invade other countries and execute everybody who live there are the same. Yes, both are building their military. (This is the equivalent of 'government owning and controlling shit', something that has been found in both fascist regimes and regimes claiming to be socialist/, you might even argue there's been a higher degree of this in social democrat regimes.) But the goals are so fundamentally different that no right-minded person would pretend they are the same. I mean, you can just examine 'what groups get support from where' and it should give you a pretty clear idea. Fascists were supported by conservative regimes and conservatives who saw them as preferable to communists, while socialists and anarchists and communists went to war against fascists all over europe (and also latin america?) You're saying that the two ideological camps that are actual mortal enemies are the same.

I mean, you also know that the name thing is an obvious fallacy (the three countries I can immediately name with 'democratic' as part of their name are north korea, congo and east-germany) - because you've said so before. But you still repeat it as if it has some type of relevance now? Dude, it's absolute nonsense.

On July 04 2020 00:59 Stroggoz wrote: First i'd heard of that bombing on MOVE. That's quite remarkable.

There is an excellent documentary on them that goes into a lot of details that aren't covered by the Wikipedia on it. I highly recommend watching it. If you can't find a good copy I can upload it for you. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/let_the_fire_burn_2013


Oh and by the way, unrelated to this post but the video I posted earlier mentions this, it's a famous representation of the myth of the absent father in popular media. Notice how different it is than the attempt at turning it into something else here. Whenever you confront people and dig into the narrative enough, it's either the dad that's irresponsible and doesn't love his kid so he leaves, or the mother who doesn't give a shit about who she fucks, she just can't pass on the amaaaaaaaazing opportunity of popping out a few babies in order to support her dream of being on fucking welfare and not working.

On July 04 2020 02:34 Liquid`Drone wrote: If you seriously think that nazis are socialists you are absolutely ignorant. Socialist is significantly more than and different from 'government owning and controlling shit'. The sad thing is I believe we've had this discussion before and you still manage to say this kind of bullshit, it really adds credence to loco's claim that you need to not only read more but actually manage to internalize what you read into your world view. Like how on earth can you be as educated and interested in politics as you claim to be and occasionally show evidence of being and believe that fascists are socialists? It's like you skipped junior high school. It's like claiming that one country that builds up their military because they want to defend against aggression and another country that builds up their military because they want to invade other countries and execute everybody who live there are the same. Yes, both are building their military. (This is the equivalent of 'government owning and controlling shit', something that has been found in both fascist regimes and regimes claiming to be socialist/, you might even argue there's been a higher degree of this in social democrat regimes.) But the goals are so fundamentally different that no right-minded person would pretend they are the same. I mean, you can just examine 'what groups get support from where' and it should give you a pretty clear idea. Fascists were supported by conservative regimes and conservatives who saw them as preferable to communists, while socialists and anarchists and communists went to war against fascists all over europe (and also latin america?) You're saying that the two ideological camps that are actual mortal enemies are the same. I mean, you also know that the name thing is an obvious fallacy (the three countries I can immediately name with 'democratic' as part of their name are north korea, congo and east-germany) - because you've said so before. But you still repeat it as if it has some type of relevance now? Dude, it's absolute nonsense.

Lol, it's like the fourth time we run him through this. It's just classic Baal. One of the best windows into his Dunning-Krugger. I'm not just trying to piss him off when I talk about him having been radicalized by a white supremacist, you know. This has become a foundational belief of his ever since he heard it from Molyneux. Molyneux is a broken record about this point. It justifies all of his hatred of the left, and explains why they are so not worried about fascism (because they don't know what it is, and fail to realize how much of it is something they actively strengthen). Baal is literally talking about himself when he says the far-right are not conscious of the misinformation they spread in order to radicalize people, that they are not trying to deceive people. Baal isn't trying to deceive anyone with this, he strongly believes it and has no conception of the consequences of this narrative. People with this belief are seemingly unable to unlearn it because it's a pillar for their worldview, everything else crumbles if it's not there.

Btw, if you watch one of Molyneux's latest debates with this guy called Rationality Rules, you will see one of the best examples of Dunning-Krugger and cognitive dissonance on a similar point. It's probably what Baal would have looked like if we had debated Cheran on camera when I confronted him with the fact that you can't have capitalism without capital circulation/accumulation. It's a shame that he was banned from Youtube because almost all of his regular audience turned on him in the comments section lmao. Now there's just the one from the other guy left.

this tv show from the 90s is imaginary so it's a media representation of the absent father myth.

In conclusion every real black child in the country has a father QED.

On July 04 2020 02:34 Liquid`Drone wrote: If you seriously think that nazis are socialists you are absolutely ignorant. Socialist is significantly more than and different from 'government owning and controlling shit'. The sad thing is I believe we've had this discussion before and you still manage to say this kind of bullshit, it really adds credence to loco's claim that you need to not only read more but actually manage to internalize what you read into your world view. Like how on earth can you be as educated and interested in politics as you claim to be and occasionally show evidence of being and believe that fascists are socialists? It's like you skipped junior high school. It's like claiming that one country that builds up their military because they want to defend against aggression and another country that builds up their military because they want to invade other countries and execute everybody who live there are the same. Yes, both are building their military. (This is the equivalent of 'government owning and controlling shit', something that has been found in both fascist regimes and regimes claiming to be socialist/, you might even argue there's been a higher degree of this in social democrat regimes.) But the goals are so fundamentally different that no right-minded person would pretend they are the same. I mean, you can just examine 'what groups get support from where' and it should give you a pretty clear idea. Fascists were supported by conservative regimes and conservatives who saw them as preferable to communists, while socialists and anarchists and communists went to war against fascists all over europe (and also latin america?) You're saying that the two ideological camps that are actual mortal enemies are the same. I mean, you also know that the name thing is an obvious fallacy (the three countries I can immediately name with 'democratic' as part of their name are north korea, congo and east-germany) - because you've said so before. But you still repeat it as if it has some type of relevance now? Dude, it's absolute nonsense.

If you define socialism the economic and social system that emcompasses social ownership of the means of production like communism, marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Syndicalism, libertarian socialism etc then abso-fucking-lutely they were socialists.

I'll try to explain why in these points:

- The privatization of banks and railroads were seen as capitalist, but it wasn't ideologically driven, Hitler had run into massive debt spending nearly the entirety of the federal budget building an army, he needed to keep financing it, and the only way he could was by liquidating state assets.

- These corporations were sold exclusively to "Reich friends", they were heavily regulated and Hitler made explicit threats that they were allowed to exist only if they aligned with the Reich's war efforts, the government arguably had more control now than the semi-independent publicly owned banks.

- Hitler by decree dissolved all the small corporations, only allowing corporations of 200k+ marks capital to further centralize and control the means of production.

- Unions were united into the German Labor Front, where wages were set by union, they also gave the workers social security among many programs, in fact it was the biggest sindicate organization in the world.

In Germany the state had absolute control over the means of productions, that my friend, is a form of socialism.



I mentioned those Goebbels quotes because Loco said "raise your hand if you've made the same points this nazi from a movie" which it's his usual way (pretty commong among SJWs) to try to shoot things down through association rather than engage in the idea itself, so I did the same to thing, hopefully you won't be as intellectually dishonest to just shrug it off as he was just a liar so he lied in his diaries lol.

Yes Hitler fought the soviets but he also fought against many capitalists that doesn't mean they are antithesis to each other.

No I dont argue that because its in their party name, the one who uses that argument is Loco with Antifa, "they are Anti-fascists, guess who else is anti-fascists, your grandpa in 1945 are you anti D-Day too you bigot?" lol

On July 04 2020 02:55 Loco wrote: I'm not just trying to piss him off when I talk about him having been radicalized by a white supremacist, you know. This has become a foundational belief of his ever since he heard it from Molyneux. Molyneux is a broken record about this point. It justifies all of his hatred of the left, and explains why they are so not worried about fascism (because they don't know what it is, and fail to realize how much of it is something they actively strengthen). Baal is literally talking about himself when he says the far-right are not conscious of the misinformation they spread in order to radicalize people, that they are not trying to deceive people. Baal isn't trying to deceive anyone with this, he strongly believes it and has no conception of the consequences of this narrative. People with this belief are seemingly unable to unlearn it because it's a pillar for their worldview, everything else crumbles if it's not there. Btw, if you watch one of Molyneux's latest debates with this guy called Rationality Rules, you will see one of the best examples of Dunning-Krugger and cognitive dissonance on a similar point. It's probably what Baal would have looked like if we had debated Cheran on camera when I confronted him with the fact that you can't have capitalism without capital circulation/accumulation. It's a shame that he was banned from Youtube because almost all of his regular audience turned on him in the comments section lmao. Now there's just the one from the other guy left.

I've told you this many times already but to make it clear again I've never in my life watched a video of him speaking about fascists or the left or race or anything like that, 15 years ago he made videos talking about anarchy, just anti-statists content, I liked them (still do), then he had a daughter and his content became mostly relating to parenting so his content became boring and I unsubscribed.


How crazy it is that you talk about "my radicalization" when in fact you are the most radical person on this entire site, you want a revolution with all its rivers of blood that will follow, you want to imprison disidents who attempt to fight the paradise and you look up to dictators who enslaved the population and had the blood of thousands in their hands, I don't fear a bunch of racist bikers who have meetings in basements, I fear the horrors that you, ideologues filled with good intentions, will usher into this world.

What do fascists want? What do socialists want? Have you ever met a fascist who was remotely close to voting for a socialist party? Ever met a socialist who was remotely close to voting to a fascist party? They are on the opposite sides of the political spectrum. Literally. That there is some overlap in propensity for government to take control over stuff in 'socialist' regimes and fascist regimes is irrelevant when these are policies they pursue for entirely different reasons. As far as the means of production goes, 'social' ownership is only the same as 'government' ownership if the government is socialist and pursuing a socialist agenda.

Think about hierarchical structures for a bit. The goal of socialism is to create a class-less society. To rid society of people who rule over others and who are ruled over by rulers. The goal of fascism? It's the fucking opposite, it's all about entrenching strongman-rule of others. Socialists want to educate the population so they can become empowered. This might entail public (state) ownership of education. Fascists want to control the narratives and manufacture a world view within the population that makes them accepting of the guy on top ruling everything because he's so superior to the rest. The absolute best case scenario for fascism is a hypothetical benevolent dictatorship type of scenario. Socialism is entirely about empowerment of the people.

Like, if you wanna make the argument that socialism isn't feasible in the real world because of factors like 'in a world as large and diverse as ours, many people are inherently greedy and not interested in being part of a socialist society because they want to preserve the status and benefits that come from their hierarchical positions in society, and this especially manifests itself in groups larger than your family unit or tribe and to combat this you'd need to forcibly reeducate them or at least future generations which requires the state and its institutions to become so powerful that people with the mindset of wanting to rule over others might infiltrate and corrupt said state and institutions', it ends up being a reasonable argument that I have a hard time countering, beyond statements like 'we must accept that the process will be a very slow one starting with a restructuring of educational systems in line with a Freireian style of critical pedagogy and then hopefully two generations later the population making up society will be sufficiently accepting of socialism to implement it without significant segments of society pursuing a higher hierarchical position', but then the paradox of 'how do we implement large scale critical pedagogy in a society not already accepting of socialism' and 'can a style of governance so inherently concerned with strengthening democracy take drastic measures without the overwhelming current support of the population' and then we're left with either impotence or revolution.

Which again is another issue socialism has had - it's supposed to be enacted in more post-scarcity society, a fully industrialized one, as it does not want people to be 'cogs in the machinery' but rather to enable them to pursue the full human experience, however it has only garnered sufficient support to be implemented through revolution in countries that were brutally oppressed (and poor) prior to the pursuit of socialism, which is a very poor foundation for competing with wealthy countries, and then people see that 'hey these people in these capitalist countries are better off than we are' disregarding that every country to go through with a socialist revolution started their journey several decades behind so any comparison of 'where we are now' is bound to be unfair however pressure to succeed then has sadly led to the utilization of institutions like the press and educational systems for propaganda purposes.

For me, these are simplified and condensed parts of reasons why I think a fully socialist society is unlikely to be achieved in my lifetime and why countries that have pursued socialism have either entirely failed or have only had limited and initial success, and why I thus choose to fight for 'more' socialism within the existing democratic framework rather than aim for revolution, although I also realize that impending ecological disaster stemming from the continued pursuit of more growth which is inherent to the success of capitalism as they aim for a continued increase of the size of the pie rather than a more equitable distribution of said pie is likely to fuck up the world beyond recognition, so this is a position of accepted defeat more than anything.

But instead of levying this type of critique, you go with here are some quotes from a nazi which shows that he was a socialist, you're a socialist so this is who you identify with, despite the fact that during the 30s where we saw the rise of fascism throughout europe, radical socialists and anarchists like Loco were the ones who literally went to war against these regimes while capitalists either turned a blind eye or gave actual support because they considered fascism and fascists as necessary allies to hinder the growth of socialism and communism in Europe. (Even if they themselves were not fascists - fascists hardly even have a coherent economic policy, that's not their focus. )