slug.com slug.com

1 0

My favorite thing about IDW.community is that even the leftist trolls are a fabrication to give the site the flavor of a more pedestrian forum like Twitter or Facebook. A true IDW progressive would offer thoughtful concepts that invite discussion instead of the kneejerk trolling we observe. Is there a single member of this sight that can intelligently interpret or defend leftist ideoologies and political platforms that are promoted through out the West?

Facci 7 Nov 26
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

1 comment

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

What is meant by the word leftist?

Do you mean someone who dictates a false account and enforces belief in that false account?

The original meaning of many words are now commonly forgotten, and the opposite meaning of the original meaning – the counterfeit meaning – is commonly accepted.

I think that the leftists (as defined above) have been busy.

Much has been made of the Conservative dominance of the members of the sight. This has resulted in policy changes that have irrevocably diminished the experience of the site both in content and spirit of debate. Ironically, there were originally more vocal and formidable leftist contributors to the site than there are now. I enjoy listening to intelligent leftists like Eric Weinstein, Sam Harris, and Joe Rogan. But there is little representation of leftist thought that inspires intelligent conversation, merely toxic trolling. I think Conservatism always flourishes in the light of day, but I wouldn't mind an honest attempt of a justification of leftist thought and policy.

@Facci

Modern versions of the meanings of words are problematic due to confusion in the effort to understand what is meant when words have original meanings that are opposite modern meanings. I think you describe the consequence of such confusion.

If someone on the left is someone who accepts the original meaning of that which is left, then someone on the right may confuse that individual with a modern Marxist criminal. Perhaps I should leave no doubt as to what I mean by a Marxist criminal.

A Marxist is as described earlier: someone who is driven to empower a false account, and that drive includes every sort of crime imaginable (the means) to that end.

The same problem occurs in reverse as the original meaning of a conservative - as far as I know - was someone enforcing dictatorial Catholicism, which is exemplified with such pogroms as The Inquisition. The original conservatives were - in fact - conserving their power to enforce a false account.

Someone on the left (either original or modern counterfeit of the original left) may assume that someone on the modern right is not on the modern right. The one on the original (not counterfeit) left may assume that the one in the right is someone working hard to enforce a false account.

Instead of effective communication designed and worked-at (through discussion) to reach the goal of improving (making more accurate) the accounting process (finding the truth that matters through deliberate - honest - discussion), there is instead an assumption that each individual can only trust that each other individual will lie, cheat, steal, or do whatever they will do to maintain the false account.

I think it may be worthy of discussion, for those few individuals who are not captured into this divide and conquer false accounting work, to share notes on how, and why, original meanings of words such as democracy, federation, law, liberal, and conservative became the opposite meaning.

Two examples may suffice to prove the point. The original meaning of the word democracy, as reported by people who have studied the Athenian Constitution, show that democracy was rule by the people as a whole, not rule by a majority, minority, or any division of the whole.

The original meaning of federation was once a way that one person might label a voluntary association for mutual defense, but today the meaning of the word federation is synonymous with the term Nation-State, which is the opposite of a voluntary association.

Where does one individual think they fit in these groups? Why are people inspired to join a faction? Is it because people are led to believe that there is only one way to live, and that way is summed up in the words Might Makes Right? People are led to believe that the only way through life is to kill or be killed, lie or suffer from liars? People are led to believe that they must fund the most powerful gang of criminals or be enslaved by the most powerful criminals?

@Josf-Kelley I share your concern of the perversion of language. It is a problem conflated by natural evolution, such as the terms "conservative" and "republican" which is well on display in the recent Downton Abbey film. In their case, a conservative is a monarchist, and a republican is a common man often socialist as in the case of the Irish son-in-law. Republicanism was radical up and until the 1920's after the victories of the Civil War, Women's Suffrage, and the Right of African-Americans to vote. When Republicans began to stand against Democrat Party progressivism, the became conservatives, then in 1964 they attempted to distance themselves from that brand.

America loves fair play, civil rights, liberty and private property. Americans who support abolition, civil rights and private property and all of the blessings bestowed on our nation for defeating fascism, Marxism and tyranny around the world wish to conserve the standard of living to which we've become accustomed. Ideally, this doesn't have to be exclusive to either one party, however in the U.S. what is left of this sentiment is exclusive to a majority of voters and Republican voters. However, this is not exclusive to all Republicans or Republican voters. It is common with very few Democrat voters who have lingered when Obama and Andrew Cuomo ordered us to leave their party.

There are other words that have altered meanings. After 40 years of customarily using the polite term of "African American " there is still a Congressional Black Caucus. All of the members are not African American, because in this instance black means socialist it is traditionally the color of fascism which is less than ironic given to the fact that the Congressional Black Caucus practices Crony Capitalism which is the definition of fascism. Justice in the modern (golden?) era Batman means revenge. It is not the justice George Reeves' Superman stood for along with truth and the American way, and it is no longer blind. Superman is the USA, in case you were wondering why millennials hate him.

@Facci wrote:

"Republicanism was radical up and until the 1920's after the victories of the Civil War, Women's Suffrage, and the Right of African-Americans to vote."

If the association is involuntary, then victories you point out are internal power struggles commonly known as turf battles. If the victory was instead a successful defense against criminal aggression (involuntary association), then the original meaning of Republicanism would stand true; no perversion.

The idea that peace, harmony, freedom, liberty, equity, honesty, accurate accountability, and other benefits of voluntary association are "radical" is a perversion; a view from a criminal mind, or from a mind perverted by criminals.

The members of the current dominant criminal organization are generally of the mind to look at Republicanism, Democracy, Federalism, and other words that originally mean voluntary association, as Radical departures from the false narrative, or the false account propagated by the members of the dominant criminal organizations. Examples are the documented reactions of those members of those currently dominant criminal organizations when they reacted to communications from the Democrats, Republicans, and true (not counterfeit) Federalists. How did "King" John and Pope "Innocent" III react to Magna Carta? How did the slave traders, warmongers, and central banking criminals react to the Declaration of Independence? The top boss of the criminal British Empire first refused to sign the common law document which acknowledged basic human rights, such as equal protection under the law, and the Pope annulled those rights, officially reclaiming ownership of all people by a religious cult leader.

The criminals in America edited the Declaration of Independence as explained by Thomas Jefferson, and those criminals went on to annul the Federation, turning the Federation into a Nation-State in 1789, ensuring a so-called Civil War. This is well documented by actual Federalists (not Nationalists hiding behind a false flag), Democrats (before the word became the opposite meaning), and Republicans.

"When Republicans began to stand against Democrat Party progressivism, the became conservatives, then in 1964 they attempted to distance themselves from that brand."

The word Progressive was tied to the word Democrat (at least by Stephen Pearl Andrews) in the struggle against Empires run by Religious Cults such as the already mentioned British Empire run by the Catholic Papacy. Progress made by progressive democrats was exemplified in that Protestant movement which refuted the Divine Right of Kings. So when did the Democrat Party become a faction within the criminal organization, doing anything without moral limit, to gain absolute power over the criminal organization? When did progress toward refuting the false narrative become members working diligently to conserve the power gained with the false narrative? I've mentioned one leap back into despotism published as a so-called Papal Bull.

Bulla Innocentii Papae III. pro rege Johanne, contra barones. (In membr.) 1216. 151.

If the Divine Right of Criminals prevails and said criminal leaders understand the need to divide so as to conquer, then left becomes one side on a coin. The other side is right. Both sides read from the same false account. Both sides (Rino or Dino) will do whatever they arbitrarily decide to do in order to gain false control over the dictatorship, however within each criminal group are individuals who are blessed with competitive advantages in those internal struggles, such as sociopaths, psychopaths, narcissists, necrophiliacs, and other forms of mutation or disturbance which affords these individuals the power to lie best, threaten best, and exert aggressive violence better than their competition within these criminal organizations, and it is they who reach the pinnacle of those involuntary associations, not a fictional group: legal fiction.

"America loves fair play, civil rights, liberty and private property."

People are individuals. Individuals are born with a sense of fair play, civil rights, liberty, and aversion to crimes such as stealing property. Children exhibit a tendency to experiment with unfair play, uncivilized behavior, such as the aggressive taking of things held by other children. Society, or an aggregate sum total of the individual parents' actions dealing with children experimenting with unfair play, refutes unfair play, holding unfair children to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter in each case of unfair play. That is done all over the world, and America - if it is an exception - is exceptional because of special circumstances. America was the place where a viable native society suffered an extreme loss due to disease, in some accounts most of the population was wiped out, leading to such things as Mourning War. Meanwhile, runaway slaves running away from Religious or Political bondage flooded America, establishing productive capacity, independence, and voluntary mutual defense between 1775 and 1789. Those are 2 exceptional circumstances worthy of note, but things turned bad in 1789 in America.

The false narative is full of obvious contradictions.

"...,Marxism and tyranny around the world wish to conserve the standard of living to which we've become accustomed..."

If you wish to know more about so-called Marxism, then I strongly suggest a look into the work of Anthony Sutton such as the following titles (or search the net for video interviews):

  1. Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution
  2. Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler
  3. Wall Street and FDR (Franklin D Roosevelt)

For further reference on those accounts of facts - facts that matter in those cases of Marxism moving into the former Kingdom of Russia, and Socialism in the former Federated Republics of America, and Fascism in the National Socialist State of Germany see Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia in George Orwell's dystopian satire 1984.

How does a free individual accurately discriminate between fact and fiction alone, or with help?

How can the leaders of these criminal organizations maintain their power over their victims if their victims retain the power to hold those leaders to an accurate account of the facts that matter in any case?

"Superman is the USA, in case you were wondering why millennials hate him."

Those running the criminal Nation-State in America (falsely called a Federal Government) would likely assassinate Superman if Superman dared to tell the truth; see the Trial Transcripts of the Conspiracy Murder of Martin Luther King Jr.

Leaders of the left would vote to have him shot with Kriptonite.

Leaders of the right would vote to have him shot with Kriptonite.

Superman would be an unwanted third in the party of two.

@Josf-Kelley You edited this sentence, "Americans who support abolition, civil rights and private property and all of the blessings bestowed on our nation for defeating fascism, Marxism and tyranny around the world wish to conserve the standard of living to which we've become accustomed." You cut this sentence in half.

@Facci

Thanks for pointing out the error, and I hope that my editing of that error is sufficient.

"America loves fair play, civil rights, liberty and private property. Americans who support abolition, civil rights and private property and all of the blessings bestowed on our nation for defeating fascism, Marxism and tyranny around the world wish to conserve the standard of living to which we've become accustomed. Ideally, this doesn't have to be exclusive to either one party, however in the U.S. what is left of this sentiment is exclusive to a majority of voters and Republican voters. However, this is not exclusive to all Republicans or Republican voters. It is common with very few Democrat voters who have lingered when Obama and Andrew Cuomo ordered us to leave their party."

A legal fiction is a common device used and abused by specific people, some use it and abuse it knowingly, others may not be aware of its use or abuse while they communicate it.

Example:

"America loves..."

That can be interpreted with at least two meanings:

  1. The people living in a place called America generally share a love of specific things.
  2. The thing called America is capable of thought and action, and therefore the thing called America is responsible and accountable for those thoughts and actions.

The first meaning exemplifies what may be called a legal fiction because the word America serves as a fictional being (legal being or otherwise) in place of all the people in the place where all the people reside, are domiciled, exist, own land, invest, raise children, work, etc. Rather than name all the people in America, one after the other, it is convenient to use the word America to "collectivize" all those people into one, when speaking about general things common to all those people.

The second meaning exemplifies the abuse of the common device that is knowable as a legal fiction. That abuse is used to leverage weaker groups with the power of more numerous groups, and there are other abuses added to that specific abuse of a legal fiction. It is said that America - for example - is either loved or left: "Love it or leave it."

Marxism is a way of thinking and a way of acting according to those who share specific thoughts and actions. What can be accurately measured when measuring the actions of known Marxists?

How about 2 examples of Marxists measured by the same accurate measure?

How about Marxists doing what Marxists do in Russia and China? I should ask if those places belong in the Marxist group places, or areas, where Marxists do what they do so well, but assuming that I am correct I can then measure the actions of Marxists with body counts of people living in those regimes who were then no longer living.

Here is my source:
20TH CENTURY
DEMOCIDE
[hawaii.edu]

Numbers:
U.S.S.R 1917-87 - 61,911,000
China (PRC) 1949-87 - 76,702,000

My point is that Marxism didn't murder all those people. America doesn't love it, so America doesn't have to leave it. Individual people are responsible, and there is hope that individual people will be held accountable.

Before throwing a parade for America the beautiful for having avoided murdering as many Americans as Russians were murdered in the U.S.S.R, and "we" haven't murdered as many Americans as were murdered in China's version of Marxism - before proclaiming America the innocent - it might be a good idea to heed the accounting work done by Anthony Sutton. America is where Wall Street is, and Wall Street (the people not the place) funded the Nazi's, the rise of Marxism in Russia, and the rise of Marxism in America (FDR).

@Josf-Kelley Wall St. is a street in America, but those who earn money on the stock market are not exclusively American nor universally cognizant of how the money is produced. Marxism is as repulsive and stifling in America as it is anywhere else on the planet.

The facts are that the majority of Americans chose and supported a republican form of government. A majority of Americans supported the U.S. Constitution. A majority of Americans supported abolition, civil rights, suffrage and the defeat of fascism and tyranny around the world and the world is better off for it. Of all the world's nation's no other has been as positive an influence on the world as America. The world economy is still reliant on the economic engine of the U.S. The British Empire deserves an honorable mention for their influence through out the world, but American positive influence is u deniable.

@Facci

The problem with all con games is the time and place where the victims pay the price, and the criminals get the loot.

The false legal fiction con can also be explained as a false grouping together of both criminals and victims. That is an exponentially growing power transfer from victims to criminals as criminals are generally seen as less costly, less dangerous, and less of a threat to past, current, and future [victims], so the victims are less powerful in defense as victims are led to "collectivize" all people into one group: criminals and victims as if those two groups were one.

Also: the victims are dirtied, soiled, demoted, made "collectively" guilty, and that too is powerless for defense, and as time passes the shift of power accelerates while this con works generally.

In the Sutton documentation, there are specifics, rather than grouping everyone into America the beautiful, Wall Street the Economic Wizards of Oz with a few bad apples, and those bad guys who call themselves Nazis, Communists, Marxists, whatnot, except of course for the hundred million of them that didn't, those sent to the Gulags, and those sent to early graves.

Here is a tell tale:

"A majority of Americans supported..."

I edited the full message to point out the Might Makes Right claim that arrives from stage Left in the form known as Majority Rules.

The rule that works is Golden, as a matter of routinely demonstrated fact.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:61316
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.