Women's rights, or Islam?

To add to the above – as I’ve mentioned before Trump in his popularism is very similar to Hitler with the rhetoric about ‘Making America Great Again’ of healthcare for all, jobs for all and promised infrastructure projects and with the scapegoating of immigrants and the harking on about the corruption of the system that only he can correct (the draining of the swamp). As well as the disregard for facts or detailed policy.

Now before the forum explodes and people start saying I think Trump is exactly the same as Hitler I’m saying no such thing I’m just pointing out that popularist often use the same methods to wheedle their way into power.

 

6

AND AGAIN – so what form would your ‘government’ take you don’t seem to want democratic governments so what would you have? You keep putting statements like this out there but never seem able to answer the questions or address the criticisms. Why is that?

SO AGAIN - so what form would your ‘government’ take you don’t seem to want democratic governments so what would you have?

If it is not democratic who appoints the ‘government’ who appoints the legislators, the judges, the police and those that monitor and enforce the regulations?

SO AGAIN – who writes and makes the regulation - who decides what is little – who and by what criteria is regulation ‘re-evaluated’ – how often do you want ‘government’ to be ‘replaced’ – who votes?

AGAIN - You keep putting statements like this out there but never seem able to answer the questions or address the criticisms. Why is that?

 

So, you've taken time out of your exotic vacation time to talk to me ? Aww how sweet of you

I miss you too buddy ol' pal.

Well, it was Albert Einstein who said that trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

This same concept applies to economic models just as it does in science. You keep trying socialism over and over again hoping it will work this time.

I do. Just as I've explained to you why I feel alien to the far right. There are varying degrees of left/right/center philosophy. Your homeboy Okiefreak right here gives me the impression he feels that pure socialism isn't an efficient model. Perhaps you may feel the same way?

Yes you are right that the Ford family had a lot of investments in Nazi Germany. Eugenics was a popular politicized science here in America back in the early 20th century. If you opposed it, you were a heretic who didn't support the advancement of the human race. While Americans were not actively practicing real genocide, we were doing forced sterilization of everyone the government deemed an imbecile. Which included, but not limited too, the mentally unhealthy, African Americans, Native Americans, and more. These monstrosities were funded by the Rockefeller foundation, the Carnegie Institution, and more. The Nazis just took the eugenics program up to a higher level.

To be honest, this has an eerie similarity to the politicized sciences of global warming we are seeing today....

However, it seems that once again you mistakenly conflate capitalism with corporatism. In free market capitalism, the best businesses are sustained by the quality of goods and services they provide. In corporatism, the government and corporations fondle and caress each other under the bed sheets of tyranny.

I'll take a look at some of those books. It is fascinating to read the dark side of history that our own country's schools wouldn't dare teach.

Libertarian Hitlers ! Oh boy this should be fun.

I see no problem with this. Super globalist organizations undermine sovereignty and national local laws.

Says who? If a libertarian tells you she/he's an isolationist, he/she's not a very good libertarian. I support open exchange of culture and ideas with other nations. If that country invents something the world can benefit from, they can sell it to us if it's worthwhile. If it weren't for the free exchange of ideas, we wouldn't have middle eastern kebab vendors, pizza parlors, or sushi.

No, I blame corporations and government for exploiting unskilled labor from overseas to keep labor costs and wages down. Whether it be from outsourcing or mass unvetted illegal immigration.

Oh so are you saying MK Ultra never happened, and that we should accept every fake news story the TV preaches to us without offering any questioning or skepticism?

The only reason the government and the media vilify conspiracy realists (ah-hem conspiracy theorists) is because we pose a threat to their narrative by pointing out all the plotholes in the lies they tell.

As does your "good governance" utopian fantasy

The Donald is not corrupt?

I don't deny I have right leaning tendencies. I just don't like the establishment right for the same reasons I don't like the establishment left.

Yeah we do I'll admit. The golden age ended when the FED began.

That's one of the problems with socialism: "hand over lots of power to the government and all your problems will go away."

If Libertarianism appealed to the elites, then why didn't Ron Paul get the same level of spotlight as Barack Obama?

 

I don't think anyone can construct a perfectly efficient model of governance in absolute form to be perfectly honest. Do you?


I think every politician and every government leader should have term limits. Serving time leading the government should be seen as a civic duty, not a lifetime career.

Regulations need to be evaluated and re-evaluated annually if not semi-annually. I'm OK with government offering regulations for food labeling, law enforcement, public parks and civil engineering, sanitation, urban planning, national defense, a justice system, and even law enforcement to an extent, and more.

I think a justice system, out of all of the ones listed, could probably use the most improvement out of them all.

 

So there's a huge feminist protest going on in Iran right now.

The women's march organizers and pussyhat wearers are nowhere to be found

 

i think its wrong and against my rights that as a man and a non muslim i cant wear a burka

 

Good. You're acknowledging different degrees of left, right and center. Keep that in mind when making you usual generalizations about "the left". I consider myself to be a moderate: strong backer of civil rights and liberties, fiscal moderate, supporter of safety net social programs like medicare and social security, strong national defense and diplomacy, and environmental protection--generally speaking, a devotee of the U.S. constitutional system, representative government, and liberal democracy we've enjoyed throughout most of our history. I regard large corporations to be at least as great a menace to liberty as big government, and control of the government by oligopolists and oligarchs to be a clear and present danger to our freedom and well-being. You're right. I think that Socialism, strictly defined as government ownership of the means of production, would be a bad thing from the standpoint of economic efficiency, but in a Third World country where the alternative is either that or a foreign corporation, socialism might be justified. And a system like Scandanavia, blending private ownership of industry with extensive regulation and welfare state elements, would not be a bad thing.

No, that would be dishonest. To the extent the issue has been politicized, it's not the sciences that are to blame, but rather Republican politicians who serve the polluting industries. The few "scientists" who continue to deny global warming are mostly on the payrolls of the fossil fuel industry.

The idealized model of capitalism you present exists in a Never Never land of fantasy.

Of course, libertarian Hitler would be an oxymoron, but I think Balbus is perceptive in describing the incoherent blend of libertarian slogans, populist rhetoric, and white nationalist ideology cooked up by propagandists of the AltRight and Tea Party movements by demagogues like Milo and Bannon at the behest of their corporate masters, the Mercers and the Koch brothers. Oxymorons are appealing to the morons who flock to the banners of elites who cynically manipulate them to their disadvantage.

You equivocate between libertarians in Plato's heaven and the ignorant voters who use it as a catchy label. I recall the Libertarian Party candidate who visited our political science classroom to offer his solution to national defense: "Pass the hat". Or Gary ("What is Aleppo?") Johnson, 2016 candidate for President.

There you go again, taking an incident out of context and using it as a defense of conspiracy theories. MK Ultra was real. In 1977, a FOIA request uncovered 20,000 documents relating to CIA mind control experiments, which led to Senate hearings later that same year. So yes, that should lead to skepticism, not paranoia, about some areas of government activity. It comes down to judgment. You think that professional journalism is tainted, and therefore we should rely on Russia Today, Breitbart, and InfoWars as information sources. Nice try. The troll Baldnbare is trying to convince us that Russian sources can be trusted and ours can't. It really comes down to judgment. Just sizing up those sources on the basis of my experience with used car salesmen and realtors, I wouldn't buy a used car or Florida swamp real estate on the basis of information from any of yours. As conspirators go, the Russian oligarchs, the Mercers, and the Koch brothers are world class. You might take a closer look at the people behind the curtain pulling your strings.

Really? The reason you believe conspiracy theorists over professional journalists is either because you're paranoid as hell or because it serves your political purposes in spinning AltUniverse propaganda. You may think of yourself as an anti-elitist, but your spout ideas concocted by demagogues to persuade us that elite-owned outlets serving the Mercers and the Koch brothers and the Kremlin are the real news and other news is fake.

 

6

Yeah yeah blah blah blah same old far right propaganda, the same flawed economic ideology the same fantasies, misdirection and unquestioning dislike for anything to the left of your own position…yes 6 we already know you all this what we’d like to know is can you defend your position from criticism and from the evidence of this post, that question is still open.

Ok let’s try another tact and ask just one question in the hope that it makes it less possible for you to use the usual evasion and we can move things on -

Question - so what form would your ‘government’ take you don’t seem to want democratic governments so what would you have?

 

I gave up on this thread after trying to get it back on topic: How Islam is an anti-liberal cult that oppresses women homosexuals.


But since you asked in a different thread. I think my ideal form of government would be a constitutional republic, limited government minarchist society similar to the ones the founding fathers envisioned. The problem is that the US government just kept inflating more and more as time went on. The size of the US government in 1778 is only a decimal the size of what it is now in 2018. If there was a way to keep it from growing and spreading like cancer.

With anarcho-capitalism, on the other hand, there is no government and everyone abides by the non-aggression principle. However I don't see that a regulation-free society is the best way to go either.

I'm still learning and studying the pros and cons of a limited government democracy, verses anarcho-capitalism. So if I don't have a perfect answer for you of my utopian fantasy, I'm sorry to disappoint.

 

I think you have the Founding Fathers confused with their opponents, the Anti-federalists who supported the weak government of the Articles of Confederation. "Minarchists" is not what the Founders were about. We tried something like that twice in our history, first under the Articles of Confederation and second under the southern Confederacy. According to the first U.S. census in 1790, the population of the U.S. back then was 3,929,214. Today it's 325,747,404. In 1790, 90% of Americans were rural, with most people earning their living through farming. Only 2% of Americans live on farms and ranches today, and the frontier has disappeared. The U.S. in 1790 was pre-industrial, the cotton gin being invented in 1794. The U.S. today is post-industrial with the world's strongest, most diversified economy and a GNP of $17.9 trillion. The U.S. government grew to meet the challenges of socio-demographic and economic growth. The Founding Fathers were no fools, and gave us a constitution that facilitated this adaptation.

 

6

Oh I think it’s already been established that that was just flimsy propaganda been spread by right wing trolls, so we moved on to why you seem motivated to push such propaganda what was your goal, what form of government you wish to establish.

That seems like a long winded way of saying you haven’t a clue.

OK -Let’s try and untangle it.

Now I’ve talked to many people that say they would want a ‘constitutional republic’ but when this was examined they basically were saying they wanted little or no democracy in the mix.

I mean a constitutional republic doesn’t have to be democratic in any way, I mean a republic just means not having a king and if the constitution doesn’t specifically say the people have a vote well then…

For example at the time of the founding fathers Republic only some 10% of white male Americans had the vote (blacks, women and Native Americans were mainly exclude). And add to that property limits for many offices it meant even fewer numbers could actual get elected.

Even today Americans don’t vote for a presidential candidate they vote for electors from the Electoral College, who are duty bound, but not actually required, to vote for that person on the peoples behalf.

And its very hard to see any minarchist society having a strong democratic element, as the people might demand through voting for what the rulers of such a society would not want to give them.

We have been through that already and you still haven’t addressed the many outstanding criticism of your ideas, please do so and we can return to it then.

But I thought we had already established that you are not really doing that much ‘studying’ - you admit your ideas on economics are based on a bad sci-fi novel and wealth sponsored propaganda and that your knowledge of history is limited to some stuff that you can’t really remember that you did at school.

I mean if you were seriously trying to work out your thinking wouldn’t you be reading a lot more? I’ve read many books on history and economics but I readily admit that I can still learn new stuff that cab bring more insight and because of that I still do a lot of research (I’m reading two economic books and a history/journalism book at the moment).

Also if you know that what you are pushing for is some silly utopian fantasy why in any rational sense would you be promoting it?

You don’t even seem to have any fundamental principle to ‘do good’ your motivation seems to be ‘less government’ without even thinking if that might result in any degree of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ outcome and you just don’t seem to care just only as long as its ‘limited’.

So basically you are dodging the question again by the strange method of saying you are ignorant of what you want or even why you want it.

But looking at your reply it seems that the probability is more toward your system having no or very limited democratic elements, it would seem to lean toward some form of wealth based oligarchy.

In what way would that be a ‘good’ outcome for the majority of people?

 

Daft question....it's part of a Woman's right to dress up like a scary ninja!

 

.

Deconstructing Six-eyed's position, there seem to be a couple of themes:-- anti-femminism and anti-Muslim immigration--which he's interwoven here in the false either-or "choice" between women's rights and Islam. From what he's provided from past posts, these views suggest the influence of two main "thinkers": Milo Yiannopoulos and Ayn Rand. Milo, the flamboyant gay AltRight nihilist-narcissist, launched his career by championing male gamers in their arcane struggle against perceived female influence on the video gaming industry. A modern-day Oscar Wilde (without the talent) who calls Trump "Daddy", Milo exploited AltRight fears of castrating females and Muslim invaders to broaden his support base and become a player in the Breitbart push behind Trump. But he overplayed his hand and, along with Bannon, is now on the outs with his billionaire backers, the Mercers. Ayn Rand (aka Alissa Zinovievna Rosenbaum), the "Prophet of Profit", was a Russian immigrant who got rich preaching an anti-altruistic ideology called "Objectivism", designed to turn greed into a virtue and make capitalists and capitalist wannabees feel good about themselves. Her followers, who dominate the ranks of Republican elites, aspiring libertarian small business folks and techies, think they are the "wealth creators" holding up the world on their shoulders. Rand's materialist philosophy, is a combination of Social Darwinism and Nietzsche's superman concept. She favored a dog-eat-dog society led by the rich and successful, with unbridled capitalism and a form of libertarian minimal government "of the supermen, by the supermen, for the supermen." I don't think "a good outcome for the majority of the people" is their major concern, but if pressed the Objectivists would contend that capitalist meritocracy leads to the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run (when we'll all be dead).

 

Okie

I agree with you but I don’t really blame 6 – here are some musings

it’s like the thing about so many of those that are abused going on to be abusers – those that are victims of propaganda go on to try and spread that propaganda, we can only hope that one day he starts thinking for himself and begins questioning the ideas that he so clearly can’t defend from criticism.

The other problem is there seems to be a certain anti-intellectualism within some parts of US society (especially on the right) that seems to see the having and gaining of knowledge, empathy and understanding as some kind of character defect.

It leads to the view that you don’t need to have looked at often serious issues to be able to promote ideas that the people can’t defend from criticism but on the less carry on promoting because they ‘feel’ they are right. They have been bamboozled into certain mind-set and part of that mind-set is not to question the mind-set, so once in its hard to get out, it like one of those brain washing cults, everyone on the outside can see how irrational and even dangerous the cult is but those inside are taught by constant reinforcement by the rulers of the cult to see anyone who isn’t part of the cult as the enemy. And to question this is to be shunned by the other cult members.

Reinforcement like right wing radio, TV, think tanks and the works of Ayn Rand

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs"

I’ve met numerous people that have been bamboozled by Atlas Shrugged although it is an incredibly bad and tedious book (the final speech seems to go on for ever) but then that could be said of many religious books and cult texts (think of the works of L. Ron Hubbard).

And once in the cult it’s hard to get out and it can get to the point where if the leadership say black is white the membership accepts it without question.

Think of all the irrational and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that so many on the right seem to swallow without question at this very moment there is the cult section of the right seeming to be saying that the whole of the FBI is corrupt and should be purged of anyone that has ever said anything derogatory against Trump, the Republican party or anything right wing.

Anyway…