The Rat "I am willing to debate you" thread.

You're way to narrow in your interpretations.

ALL Civilized Men want a controlled state, and you're no different.

It's a psycho-sexual desire of fear's continuous grip on the anal sphincter.

Every Civilized Man is fullfilling a desire to submissively surrenders his own sovereignty, and instead seek the authority and security of patriarchal father-figures.

Seeks the security of griping anal-retentive walls and fences protecting us in our postage-stamp prisons of private-property.

It's a chronic behavioral pattern, ubiquitous to all of us raised in our Patriarchal Civilization.

Our Pollyannish Founding American Utopia Myth was never the land of the free nor the home of the brave.

Rather a people repressed by dragging all the Old World baggage of a freedom-fearing nature-hating culture.

If freedom snuck-up behind us, we'd shit and run.

Stop Skate-goating!

Forget the Elites and Socialists!

Brave a look into the mirror!

If there were NO Elites, we'd be busy inventing them.

That's who we are, and that's who and what we need to look at.

 

Was that intended to make sense, or just a failed attempt at being poetic and/or artistic?

What is "skate-goating"? Is that anything like scapegoating?

In other words, I think what m6m is saying is bend over and submit. Never ask serious questions, because totalitarian power is just a simple matter of "human nature," and we all have, according to him, some perverse desire to be ruled over.

Um... yeah.

 

I don't really get what he's saying either, but hes right in saying you are far too narrow in your interpretations. Not all forms of socialism depend on a state to rule them. If you're so bent on absolving the state, why do you have something against anarchism? Of course it may be something that could be used to create civil unrest, but not all of us are misguided and violent punks. I don't quite understand, how is it a philosophy which can truly benefit any totalitarian society?

 

Rat I think we all know that you have the capacity to hate, which is sometimes directed toward those that disagree with you, but which seems always to be directed toward those with left wing views. But this is not about what you hate but what you like. It is not about what you would like to destroy but about what you would like to build.

This is not about you negative views but about your positive ideas, it is a good thing, it is your time to shine, which is why I find it so strange that you seem so reluctant and evasive.

**

At one time you seemed proud to declare yourself libertarian and only seemingly stopped doing so when it was explained that libertarian ideas would in fact help toward making the rich and powerful, richer and more powerful.

Since your stated aim was to lessen their power this seemed contradictory.

Since then you have tried to distant yourself from libertarianism, but have said that you are for small government and a ‘return’ to the US constitution (both things that I’ve heard from those that still claim to be libertarians). However whenever asked you seem very reluctant to explain these ideas and so they can only remain rhetorical statements.

We know you are against the Anarchist idea of no government saying “There needs to be some form of government for a society to function. There needs to be a system to keep power in check”. But at the same time you claim you “want to limit government power”.
So just how is a government meant to be powerful enough to keep in check the collective will of the wealthy elite but still remain limited in its powers? Without some explanation it seems contradictory.

Economically you seem to be against regulation and to loathe all types of distributive systems yet you also claim to be against lassie faire economics. So where do you stand?

You said “I just feel that it's important to know that the Left/Right paradigm was established by the system to control you. It's called divide and rule. When you create polarities, you create a system in which people are distracted by the issues confined to these two belief systems.”

Which seems like you are claiming that have found a new and totally different political idea that has neither any elements of the left or the right.

Which if true would be momentous, the only thing that stops me opening the champagne is your total lack of any detail.

Why is that?

**

PS - As to your views about the left I think a thread of their own is the only way to give them justice.

“Are all left wing views communist?”
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2139903#post2139903

 

I'm more than a little curious myself.
Rat, you hold too many anarchist ideals to just dismiss the theories as distractions.

 

We only know bend-over submission, that's the point, and you know it.

Our inadequacy as men is an uncomfortable point to admit, and we always try to avoid it.

The more uncomfortable it is, the more psychological deceptions our EGOs must generate to maintain social cover.

We want others to believe that we desire freedom. But we really don't!

We've never been our own masters, we've been civilized our whole lives.

We were raised in a repressed anal-retentive civilization, and we wouldn't know how to be free.

Even our breath is repressed.

Human nature is anything but simple.

And the nature of your psycho-dynamics can reveal the only serious explanation for your submission to patriarchal civilization's totalitarian power.

The only serious explanation for the civilized funeral-march of the inadequate male's death-drive.

But the more un-balanced our psycho-sexual energy the more desperately we raise up political straw-men to aviod any serious explanations.

 

I am not a libertarian, nor have I ever been a member of the Libertarian Party. I voted for (L)ibertarian Michael Badnarik in the last presidential election, and I might have referred to myself has having some beliefs that matched those of (l)ibertarians. But I am not a libertarian, and I see many of today's libertarians as simply anti-war Republicans.

Again, I refuse to limit myself to political parties and labels.

I also do not support, nor believe in, what is termed "anarchy." Fact is, there is no such thing as anarchy. The so-called anarchist movement is little more than a government-funded front consisting of mostly of naive and disillusioned teens and early twenty-somethings, that does more to serve as a front for agent-provacatuers than it does to bring about any sort of positive change. Being a thug and dressing like our militarized Nazi-style police officers is not my idea of how to win people's hearts and minds over. Also, the anarchist movement, like the communist movement, promises its followers a utopia far different than what either of the two offer in reality.

Neither are attainable, either. Nor are they embraced by most ordinary people. Anarchists, like Communists, Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Socialists, and even Libertarians, for the most part, are being unknowingly duped and manipulated. Once you come to understand the compartmentalized power structure, this doesn't seem quite as delusional and far-fetched.

 

History doesn't just span the last 30 years nor is it restricted to some marginalised punk movement, i thought someone as well read as you wouldn't be naive or even dishonest enough to express such, well propagandist crap. What do racist punks and the puppets of the "new world order" have to do with any of us? Why do we have to suffer for their actions.

Your beliefs aren't widely embraced either. What is embraced by the masses is no indication of whether something is right or wrong. Are you arguing that capitalism is right then?

This one is from another thread, but i think its relevant to this one:

Can I ask the question, who in the entire world, according to you is not helping the bush administration? You?

 

You don't have to suffer their actions, but why would you want to be part of a group that is unknowingly (at least at the lower levels) being used by the establishment, both to discredit genuine, peace-loving protesters, as well as provide government justification to further the police state?

I am not saying you're a punk, or that you even believe the same things as these other "anarchists." I am speaking in terms of the actual movement as a whole.

No, I am not in favor of capitalism as it currently exists, but that doesn't make me a socialist, communist or anarchist, either. I examine what's wrong with the current system before I start looking to jump on the communist/anarchist bandwagon. Communism, like the much hated capitalism, was a creation of the central banks. They might not have created the communist ideology or written the Communist Manifesto (their minions did), but they have most certainly funded the rise of communism, and used communism to their benefit.

I should also mention that Marx was not the originator of communism. Communist ideology dates back to the days of Plato's Republic. This ideology was later embraced by Adam Weishaupt, who founded the Bavarian Illuminati in 1776. It was Marx who plagerized and re-wrote the writings of Weishaupt, which would later become his 'Communist Manifesto.' More than it is a political movement, communism is an occult ideology rooted in the Illuminati's agenda to usurp humanity, destroy civilization and install what they call the "New World Order."

Before you laugh and call me a kook, do your own research.

 

Ok, i'm glad you're attacking the anarchist movement and not us..because that was going to be my next argument.

But movements aside, the simple fact is you don't need to analyse the faults in the current system - the capitalist system is a fault itself. The idea that a system can remain in control of a restless growing population of people (as well as a minority of greedy and very powerful merchants) using single centralised governments which administer the same laws for an entire nation, whilst preserving basic human rights and liberties is highly impractical and highly utopian. Democratic Capitalism as it stands requires people to be 'perfect', that is in order for it to actually work properly (which as we all know it doesn't now and probably never will) it will require rigid and totalitarian rule. The reason why American Jails are filling up is because governments have to make more effort everyday to remove the 'bad apples' from the crop. If capitalism lives on and advances further, I sincerely fear for the future of humanity.

I'm guessing you're familiar with Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World'. Well consider that story and consider what my main point is...Centralised government requires humans to be perfect (which they are not and obviously must be manipulated) and is therefore a utopian idea. Anarchism accounts for the fact that humans are not perfect, and that the only way to cater for our absolute human needs would be to allow groups or individuals to govern themselves and in return for this freedom make the small sacrifice to allow other groups or individuals the same right. Anarchism is far from utopian, it is common sense.

I apologise to any Anarchists here if my sentiments are inaccurate in anyway..i am new to the philosophy. But I have known for many years that Capitalism makes about as much sense as a square peg in a round hole.

 

What bandwagon?
Aside from the net I know NO other anarchists in my area.

(btw socialism, communism, and anarchism are three separate shools of philosophy. Yes they overlap in areas and are not mutually exclusive but acceptance of one is not prerequisite for another.)

I find it hilarious that someone antistate, antireligion(organized), and anticapitalism(current system) who wants to educate the public about freeing themselves from elitist control doesn't want to be associated with anarchist philosophy.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...:H

 

My old Grandma used to say that when someone had something to hide they talked a lot but said very little.

Over many threads you have talked a lot but I’m not the only one that has noticed you still haven’t addressed any of the questions I’ve raised.

I said -

“you have tried to distance yourself from libertarianism, but have said that you are for small government and a ‘return’ to the US constitution (both things that I’ve heard from those that still claim to be libertarians). However whenever asked you seem very reluctant to explain these ideas and so they can only remain rhetorical statements”

You also seem to say that you are against “increased taxation, erosion of property rights, gun control laws, environmental acts that establish international law”

Again these are also things I’ve heard from libertarian types.

You are also on record as saying you think some Republican policies are too left wing for you, a view that is held by many libertarian types.

**

All you say in reply is –

“I am not a libertarian, nor have I ever been a member of the Libertarian Party. I voted for (L)ibertarian Michael Badnarik in the last presidential election, and I might have referred to myself has having some beliefs that matched those of (l)ibertarians. But I am not a libertarian, and I see many of today's libertarians as simply anti-war Republicans.”

Now you admit to “having some beliefs that matched those of (l)ibertarians” but as I’ve said before about you ‘if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is probably a duck’. If most of your views are libertarian in nature (and from the evidence so far they are) then you are likely to be seen as a libertarian. You can call yourself what you want but to me that is being dishonest and just why would you want to do it? If you have libertarian type views why would you try and hid the fact and why do you continually shy away from any discussion of those views? That again seems to me to be dishonest.

My views are mainly left wing and I would think it dishonest of me to say I was independent or some such or claim I did not somehow have left wing views. I have one or two views that some people might think are in the realms of the right wing camp, but I still don’t think that entitles me to claim that I’m not a leftie.

So why if most of your views are right wing libertarian are you trying to claim they are not?

What are you trying to hide and from whom?

**

“I am not in favor of capitalism as it currently exists”

So what would you want to exist and how do you bring it into existence?

**

 

Sorry to hound you Rat, but I found this little gem in another thread

Balbus, does rat really have some "darker" motives behind his posts or is he just intellectually topsy-turvy?

 

I think it is the joy of being part of a small cult which holds the other 99.999999% of the world in contempt. Coming up with a coherent platform or proposal would only spoil the fun. How can you ever be wrong if you don't actually stand for anything? In fact Lick and Rat have a lot in common here, both are consumed by loathing and contempt for nearly everyone, say they are resigned to living in a world too stupid to recognise their genius, and defy all attempts to get them to put something meaningful, positive, or constructive forward.

 

Pot kettle black, little PB.

Never claimed any genius, only recognition of political reality. Something you still desperately avoid with your petty diatribes.

 

I thought this whole thing was petty too for a while, until I realised that many of us here have genuine cause for concern. When somebody comes on a website which is viewed by thousands of people around the world and attempts to uproot and discount every effort at progressive thought and every viable solution to the worlds problems, its quite a harmful thing.

I think diatribe is a harsh word to use for honest question

 

The situation is indeed cause for concern, LIF, but dismissal of any progressive analysis - the precursor of any possible solution being recognition of the fraud, criminality and betrayal by a concerted self perpetuating elite - and derision is all PB can and does contribute to these forums. He's been a status quo endorsing, narcissistic troll since he first began his tirades against me and others here.

That he presumes to use the proverbial "we" when denigrating those who actually research issues, rather than regurgitate the latest Murdoch and other sanitised, mainstream corporate tripe that masquerades as "News", makes him all the more laughable since his "we" comprises nought but a handful of naysayers in these forums.

"Progressive" is a concept as alien to him and his ilk as honesty and accountability is to his oft defended US administration idols.

 

Someone just might have hit the nail on the head.:H

 

I don't claim to have ever seen PB in these forums, nor have I seen you, but that aside, there is a genuine reason for his and our dismissal of pressed rat's 'progressive analyisis'. That 'progressive analysis' seems to extend to every viable or progressive political idea (that is those which actually pertain to action rather than analysis) in Hipforums and attempts to render each one useless, whilst offering no alternative solutions to the ones which are thrown in the trash heap. I can't speak for you Lickerish yet.

 

The weird thing is that I highly doubt Lick believes the world was taken over by the Illuminati conspiracy in 1867 or whenever. Its just that he approves of Rat's anti-Bush views and general contempt for everything, so he snipes at Rat's critics, but keeps his mouth shut when Rat quotes people who claim to have discovered Noah's Ark as experts on the Federal Reserve System.

Crankyness makes strange bedfellows.