Thos. posted a link to a Talking Point Memo article gloating over former Illinois Representative Joe Walsh’s child support arrears. TPM is a partisan liberal site, pro-Obama and left-wing. You’d think that would mean that its readers would be humanitarian and compassionate, but then again, since this is the good old USA you’d know better.
Two former welfare workers express their contempt for people in arrears:
Joe Leydon
Way back when I was a welfare worker, I had to deal with deadbeat dads like this clown a lot.
RichardinSanJo
Yeah. Me too. And they always had a long litany of self-pitying excuses. Most of my deadbeat-dad clients at least had enough judgement not to attack the welfare system.
Another compassionate response:
SRfromGR
Throw this MFer in jail already and teach him a fucking lesson. First he can’t pay child support as a U.S. House Rep. out of some kind of deranged principle, and now he can’t pay child support because he can’t afford it. Bullshit. Maybe its time to learn how to do an actual personal budget asshole, now that you no longer have to worry about the nation’s budget concerns. Get your own fucking house in order before telling the rest of the country what’s what…you putrid sack of shit.
A predictable honkey deserves no pity comment:
pie
What does Walsh think he’s going to get out of this?
Oh, I know. He’ll be hired by the (white) *men are abused* contingent.
What a freaking loser. His poor kids.
As we can see, liberals don’t believe in socialism or compassion for all people, but rather only those who agree with them politically. Rep Walsh, a Tea Party Republican, may be an extreme example, but the sentiment holds regardless. Socialism in the US is only supposed to be for some people — the people whose views are unimpeachable (by the left).
If you asked your typical “liberal,” he or she would agree that social benefits should not be extended to certain classes of people, regardless of need. The child support system itself proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Try it. After a few drinks, ask a partisan Democrat whether white Republican men should be eligible for welfare if they lose their jobs and fall behind on child support.
This is why I have a deep, deep skepticism of MRAs who think they can “win” by taking a liberal political position. A few of them may be able to win a few invitations to speak here and there, and perhaps someone might “listen” to them at some point, but there is no serious chance that the political left in this country is ever going to extend any compassion toward their “class enemies.” In fact, if they had their way they would starve us, and someday they may actually come close to succeeding in that goal. They will never entirely succeed, because when they take it that far there will be an uprising, but it doesn’t mean they won’t try.
Now, this doesn’t mean the Republicans will be our savior. In their current incarnation, they will not, because they aren’t compassionate toward anyone. While this may be preferable in some scenarios because it’s more fair, in the current climate and economic system, which is inherently unfair (why do broke fathers go to jail while bankers get bailed out?), it’s a losing proposition. A lot of people who vote for them, or who have voted for them, will need some help in the future because of the way our economy currently works (or doesn’t work), and if the Republicans don’t change their tune in that regard they will be abandoned wholesale, and they will deserve it.
{ 43 comments… read them below or add one }
heartiste put it best in a recent post: leftists ‘love’ humanity but hate humans.
leftists arent any kinder than right-wingers, and they are usually worse. If you get in the way of a leftists utopian dream for how humanity should be (in other words, if you are different from them), they think you deserve death.
This is why I have a deep, deep skepticism of MRAs who think they can “win” by taking a liberal political position. A few of them may be able to win a few invitations to speak here and there, and perhaps someone might “listen” to them at some point, but there is no serious chance that wthe political left in this country is ever going to extend any compassion toward their “class enemies.” In fact, if they had their way they would starve us, and someday they may actually come close to succeeding in that goal. They will never entirely succeed, because when they take it that far there will be an uprising, but it doesn’t mean they won’t try.
—————————————–
Part of the men’s rights movement should include an alternative to identity politics. Just because something is harmful to white men doesnt mean it benefits anyone else. Many of the prominent feminists are jewish and they use language against white males that is strikingly similiar to the language nazi’s used against the jews. I dont want to oppress women or minorities I just think the purpose of law should be to allow the individual to pursue his or her own projects not make up for all those years we oppressed women and minorities.
Much like you think Republicans can be our saviors in a different incarnation, so can Democrats. With Democrats, you merely need to sell them on a new group of people needing compassion. With Republicans, like you stated, you need to sell them on the idea of compassion.
Fighting against hatred of ___ is a leftist thing. The problem is, the left infantilizes the shit out of people in need, exaggerates their needs, completely makes up phony victims, etc … I completely understand Republican politicians and pundits, considering what they have to deal with. It’s not just the left they have to deal with, but also their constituency. Many Republican voters are liberal-minded in denial. President Bush’s spending were off the charts. Reagan ran a huge deficit.
Maybe the solution won’t lie with either side. Maybe you need to start a “north-winger” movement. LOL
You are so right about the Republicans, and I say that as a former GOP party activist and local chairman.
Socialism always fails for the reasons you gave, but also because it is not appropriate for a multicultural, multiracial society. It “works” in Sweden (and even there the government is edging away from it), for example, because until recently Sweden has been a homogeneous society where everyone shares the same five or six names and is pretty much related to each other. When you add huge numbers of Muslim immigrants to the mix, things start getting unraveled. The same is true in the US as it fades to brown.
BTW, the notion that men should suffer in silence and women need protection-on-steroids is a traditionalist point of view.
“Try it. After a few drinks, ask a partisan Democrat whether white Republican men should be eligible for welfare if they lose their jobs and fall behind on child support.”
Do it! If you are not talking to an outright feminazi, the answer might surprise you.
Actually, Mr. Price, leftists don’t have compassion for anyone, ever. Their version of “compassion” is to take money at gunpoint from one group of people and hand it over to the other group of people, as long as that second group of people kisses their leftwing asses. It is a well-known fact that liberals donate less to charity out of their own pockets than conservatives do. But they’ll be happy to donate your money, and feel good about themselves!
Meanwhile, conservative American thought IS compassion, because it favors the rights and inviolability of the individual, rather than the group identity politics of the Left. Recognizing the value of the individual elevates the individual, whereas assigning rights and privileges based on which special interest group one is in (or what skin color a person has) degrades the individual, because the individual, under those circumstances, can never succeed beyond the assigned limits of his group. For example, the Democrats love to give welfare money to black people, as long as those black people stay slaves to the Democrats. As soon as a black person decides to think for himself, the Left goes crazy with “house nigger” this and “house nigger” that. Look what they did to Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, and recently, Stacey Dash, when she supported Romney. With Leftists/liberals/Democrats, blacks are a protected class only as long as they toe the Democrat massa’s line.
Meanwhile, conservatives say “we’re not giving you free shit regardless of who you vote for or what ideology you spew. This is wrongly interpreted as lacking in compassion by people who don’t understand what the hell compassion really is. It is, however, the MOST truly compassionate approach because it does not limit any individual to the confines of his group, but leaves him limitless, except for what limits he places on himself. That is the essence of freedom.
Now, having said all that, we must all remember that Democrats do not necessarily equal (classical) liberals, and Republicans do not necessarily equal conservatives, nor does either party currently reflect its voter base. I often have to explain to rank-and-file Democrat voters that the people they are voting for are not who they think they are. Democrat voters think they are voting for compassionate, caring, responsible, tolerant, statesman, when, in reality, they are voting for totalitarian statists. Most conservative voters have already figured out that Republicans are mostly a bunch of liberal douchebags (hence the Tea Party).
I agree and disagree with you Price.
Not joining them in Liberal POVs may not work; and yes, they will turn on us eventually. Of course; neither will appealing to their sense of honor if you don’t agree with them; this state senator as a case in point. The comments of these former/current welfare workers is despicable; but predictable.
When I had to call to make my case; and say that I was unemployed I was told that I should get a job. Months later when I just casually made the statement that I have yet to find work, these workers voices held contempt under their breath. A lose lose situation no matter what for NC dads.
Also, if you are broke, but current; good luck getting them to evaluate your case. These people view you with hateful suspicion above all else. You should never be talking to them if you are a male; period. Mercy is not for you, but your ex.
So, why I agree with you: We need to contrast ourselves from the ruling POV in this country on the DL (read Internet blogs); but feint sympathy to their face until we are strong enough and entrenched enough where they can do nothing about it. This is why I support PE and crew at AVFM, and you. You both put on different faces of the same thing. US, the mens movement.
PE gets rhetorically in their face; and gets them riled up. Guys like you put a nice literary bow for some of those he turns away. Eventually, these same sycophantic pussies at welfare central will try to “join us” as we may one day become the popular movement.
I pray to God that as men, we let them know in no uncertain terms that we want nothing to do with their brand of nonsense. Yet as they say “absolute power, corrupts absolutely.”
I wonder if we will not just become the new face of the gender war?
liberty and socialism are like oil and water, they don’t mix. 50% of our population are ignorant and dependent on the government in one way or another. Naturally, the same 50% pay no income taxes. They actually get back more in the end of year returns than they paid in based on EIC and other vote buying bribes. I see most of my employees boast to one another about it this time of year about how much they get back. Women more than men want a risk free society and promote marxism to ensure that outcome. I for one am starting to go galt and defy my “masters”. I will no longer obey nor feed the beast anymore. I’m already being hounded by the beaurocrats(mainly females) and soon will follow the armed KGB enforcers. As Patrick Henry said “I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees”. They will secrectly relish the victory and violence over anyone who defies them, but over time they will kill off or crush the productive class till we are nothing more.
“COME AND TAKE IT”.
As far as im concerned all the above are on some sort of welfare.
You pay 1/3 of your check to taxes and then they tell you 1/3 more for child support . forgetting about the previous 1/3 they are paying them self with so, Really who,s stealing from whom .
God bless this guy he’s not playing the game . All American males need to stop plating the game and start getting tough on these Thieves .
So what happened to the point of view that, because there are many burdens only men could shoulder, they needed more authority than women to offset that?
Also, I WAS a partisan democrat (ok, maybe left libertarian) until probably 2009 and I can say you have to be batshit insane to stick to the party line.
Partisan wingers are not really getting it to the depth and extent that they should. Put on your cynical goggles and perhaps you’d see things much better and clearer gents.
Mens Rights Activism Memes are full spectrum, 360 degree push-back dialectical constructions against everything and anything impacting men and boys … whatever their theoretical, cultural, political origins or even biological origins.
Mens activism quite rightly rejects everything, as the faggots and females have done and quite unduly gained the world of their imagination. We can all play that game now, no ?
Everything either socialist, conservative, traditional, modern, cultural or presently accepted that impacts men and boys is indisputably on the table for review. Even without a movement to tell them, men and boys will still adjust themselves to whatever posture is necessary.
So that if the existing socialisms, conservatisms, cultures, traditions, mores, customs or institutional structures have anything in it for men, then YOU, ME and I as men must take our share.
Does game have any relief in it for men and boys ? Take your share.
Does draft dodging or even draft attendance and patriotic submission have anything in it for men and boys ? Take your share.
Do the courts say from now hence forth regarding sons, fathers will be presumptive and resident parent with standing and responsibility for male children over six years of age ? Take your share.
Is there new provision in the law that mandates a reduction to zero in the support an ex-husband pays an ex-wife after a short period, not exceeding year, of readjustment to work on her part ? Take your share.
STOP PLAYING AT BEING A GENTLEMAN FOR WHOM THIS AND THAT ARE BENEATH.
Just take your share and move on.
If every man does so, then the system will come to a reckoning that it cannot continue on the childish supposition of utter contempt for males … especially when it relies for its existence on their effort, ingenuity, responsibility, benevolence, virtue, goodwill, graces, temerity and indefatigaubility.
Personally I think that liberals (whether MRA or hateful towards MRAs) who blame Victorian/Puritan/New England mores (aka Anglo feminism) mixed in with chivalry/white knighting/”save my daughter!”/divorce with benefits/etc. on conservatives are grasping at straws.
There are far more of these (liberal) housewives in big cities and both coasts. And there these laws are entrenched. In “flyover country” most women are the descendants of female servants and slaves. They don’t marry. They either cohabitate/become legally unmarried with children or become single mothers milking state benefits. Sure they tend the home, but they work part-time as well. So it’s both at the same time.
The strange trashy women who do multiple marriages/multiple divorces really increase the divorce rate though. So you think that most of them are divorcing, when in reality only around 20% do and they do it multiple times.
Which is why I don’t get it when MRAs accuse stupid poor conservative men of behaviors that rich liberal men are doing.
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are sure patronizing and protective of their daughters and wives. I don’t see this behavior in other places.
I also don’t get the whole “foreign mercenary women who marry men and then divorce them for their money/after getting their green cards”.
How on earth are you going to get money out of a poor man?
El Bastardo
The MRM is multi front. The PUA and MGTOW both are MRA friends.It is good to see we are developing a political wing. I think the GOP is ready for MRA influence . The Free stuff from the government tipping point has been reached with old conventional wisdom Bronco Bama should have lost. Obama’s win shocked even the democrats and you could see almost a flush of fear over the whole country on both sides. America is gone and they know it . Most liberals are used to fighting the man ,well now they are the man. Mra’s need to be involve in politics but not as a grievence group but as red pill politicians. Constitutional rule of law with no priviledged groups.
Thanks for the call out, Mr Price!
“Socialism in the US is only supposed to be for some people — the people whose views are unimpeachable (by the left).”
Yup, that’s how it worked in the Soviet Union– the politically reliable got things as they were supposed to work, the cronies and nomenkatura got the better stuff, and the people who didn’t like this, the “class enemies,” their families and anyone else who the cronies and nomekaltura didn’t like got the shaft.
The universal acceptability of dismissal is what always confused me about the left, but in recent years I’ve come to see it for what it is; a cheap tactic to avoid debate.
Ayn Rand? Dismissed. Welfare reform? Dismissed. Second Amendment says exactly what it means? Dismissed. And on and on…
Then there was the ex-sister-in-law — a State of Texas employee whose job was essentially to decide who did or didn’t recieve TANF benefits — who managed to dismiss everything I just mentioned while capping the conversation by being the ONLY person I’ve ever heard say the following sentence out loud:
“The strong and smart people have a responsibility to take care of the weak and stupid people.” To which I replied,
“Okay, but where do you draw the line between weak/stupid and lazy?”
“You don’t.”
“This is why I have a deep, deep skepticism of MRAs who think they can ‘win’ by taking a liberal political position. A few of them may be able to win a few invitations to speak here and there, and perhaps someone might ‘listen’ to them at some point, but there is no serious chance that the political left in this country is ever going to extend any compassion toward their ‘class enemies.’ In fact, if they had their way they would starve us, and someday they may actually come close to succeeding in that goal. They will never entirely succeed, because when they take it that far there will be an uprising, but it doesn’t mean they won’t try.”
This is why I also agree with the idea that the MRM should side (for now) with the Republican party.
@ JFinn
I wish I could agree with you that selling the Democrats on the idea that males (even, or especially, males of color) are a group needing compassion would work, but in the Democratic party there is a pecking order of compassion:
All females beat out all males (even a white woman beats out any man of color).
All homosexuals and bisexuals beat out all heterosexuals.
All people of color beat out all whites and bonus points are added for being Latino (regardless of race or combination thereof). There is even an imbalance for different races, be they white, black, Native American, Asian, Pacific Islander, or the combinations of any or all of these.
Religious affiliation gets bonus points, with higher points probably awarded to followers of polytheistic religions and atheists than to followers of monotheistic religions.
One way to bring down the Democratic Party’s big tent is to exploit this pecking order to our advantage. Make it clear to Democratic party males that they are unwelcome in their own party because of what is between their legs. Nineteen percent of black male voters under 30 years of age voted for Mitt Romney in the last presidential election, and I somehow hope that that was not a fluke.
Turbo
To add to that.
It’s my observation most Liberals don’t like to call themselves Liberals because well you know the word has negative connotations.
Here’s a simple test that will determine if somebody is a Liberal or not. Ask them can they be happy if only their nation and maybe a small number of other nations on this planet are the only ones which operate on their belief system while the rest of the world is completely opposite?
If the person is okay with that then they are NOT a Liberal.
The reason is simple. One of the core principles of Liberalism is to spread their ideology all over the globe. Therefore Liberalism is what I call a “globalist” ideology. A Liberal cannot be truly happy simply living in a Liberal community, they want you and everyone else on this planet to also live by their ideology even if it means they will never step foot into the community you live in. To a Liberal their “job” is never done until the entil world is reshapped in their image. Because of this, I consider Liberalism to be one of the most intolerant belief systems of today.
A Liberal cannot be content by drawing a line in the sand and saying, “Okay how about you and your people stay on that side while me and everybody else who agrees with me stays on this side.”
This is the opposite from other belief systems like say: white nationalism, Black nationalism, conservatism, Libertariansim, …. Which is fine with that.
In a perfect world the Republicans might counter the Democrats “Party of Women” and “War on Women”, with the Party of Men and the War on Men, but because of the insanity of Political Correctness this can’t happen. (Suzanne Venker did write an article titled “The War on Men” which was roundly dismissed by MRAs, because she’s an evil TradCon/SoCon woman that just wants to use men as utilities or something)
While Democrats (with their Messiah) are busy moving forward with a Social Justice agenda, the Republicans are trying to block their efforts. Just because Republicans aren’t publicly and actively issuing legislation that doesn’t help men and boys, doesn’t mean they’re NOT helping them…by stopping Democrat Socialist policies.
Democrats are the party of identity politics. Republicans are the party of the individual citizen, regardless of identity. Problem is that “identity” is becoming de facto White Males, because they’re the one identifiable group supposedly oppressing all the others. The Democrats are collecting all the identifiable groups “under one big tent” to oppose hetero-normative white male hedgemony.
Liberal MRA’s will not align themselves with Republicans of any kind unless they take a public stand for men and boys, but yet they won’t dare villify Democrats for being the Party of Feminism. It’s as if all that pandering and policies toward women doesn’t even exist.
Sadly the Democrats are drawing the GOP right into the identity politics game, because it was so effective in them winning the last election. We are quickly becoming a Minority Majority Nation – when you add up Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, Gays, Single Women and guilty white manginas…you have a Democrat majority going forward until there’s an economic collapse from the burden of debt.
Make it clear to Democratic party males that they are unwelcome in their own party because of what is between their legs.
Most Democrat hetero-normative white males actually feel like IT’S ABOUT TIME women and minorities rise up and take power, so we can all live in a Socialist Egalitarian Utopia. They can and SHOULD rise up, but not through government enforcement of equal pay and affirmative action quotas that discriminate against “privilaged” white males. Remember these are white males that were made to feel guilty for slavery and not allowing women to vote the entire time they were in our school system. He accepts this comeuppance willingly. It makes him feel righteous and worthy.
Why socialism no work?
They said in my country: “Existing socialism not work, working socialism not exist”
I send them to gulag for it. Worked kharasho, nyet?
When you add huge numbers of Muslim immigrants to the mix, things start getting unraveled. The same is true in the US as it fades to brown.
What you’re saying then is that we are NOT all equal and that perhaps the hetero-normative privilaged Euro white male is innately superior. And that programs such as Affirmative Action and Equal Pay are actually NEEDED to “equalize” women and minorities with white men, because otherwise life wouldn’t be FAIR for everyone.
A+ comments last night and this morning, really encouraging to read when I first wake up. For once, keyster’s isn’t even the best in support of common sense, and not for lack of making sense. It’s not often that I up-vote multiple comments!
I’m in my early 30s, and quite frankly I don’t think I’m going to live long enough to consider going Galt and waiting for it all to fall apart as much of an option. I’m resigned to working within the system as it exists. I do realize that the parallels between the GOP/Dems in the USA and the various parties of the Left / CPC here in Canada are not exact, but if anything, the struggle is more desperate and urgent here in the North.
If you’re not going to fight against your sworn enemies because your natural allies aren’t perfect, at what point will you fight against your enemies, and are they really your enemies?
Not to belittle the efforts of our host here and of others, but I get a lot more real-world satisfaction out of my meager efforts in the real world, than I ever could out of commenting online anonymously. I certainly do enjoy the freedom that anonymity offers, especially since my handle is both recognizable yet offers plausible deniability in the event that scum-sucking lawyers or child support agency employees should ever try to pin my rantings on the guy who exists on this side of the keyboard.
Can’t remember where this quote came from, but I have it printed out above my computer. It explains perfectly what it means to me to be conservative:
When I do the right thing, I do it not for happiness, but out of gratitude (because God first loved me and sent his son to save me) and because of prudence (the universe is designed in such a way that doing the right thing will work out for me in the end).
Whatever is done or not done, men, white, black and hispanic mestizo should not run away from socialism or even communism merely because of the name: “socialist” or “communist”.
IT IS THE CONTENT AND SUBSTANCE, NOT THE HEADING THAT COUNTS.
If any idea or political construction pays me and my fellow men, as husbands, fathers, sons, boys, lovers or ex-husbands, then we must happily have some … take a share as others have profitably done before.
You don’t look a gift horse in the mouth pondering whether the free gift it spat out came from its left or right side now do you ? You take your share and move on, if you’re not a stupid man.
The idea that the beggars that are mens rights activists can pick and choose which amongst its own memes correspond to the right party or idea house advocating them is laughable. You take what you can get from the left, the middle, the right and everywhere else. That’s what others do and continue to do successfully.
‘Feminism’ is inherently a left-wing ideology.
The problem is that it is a form of leftism that both Democrats and Republicans buy into. Most Republicans will support any and all leftism that can be packaged as ‘chivalry’ that enables whiteknighting. Child Support is one such example.
Feminism is impossible in a small-government society. The key to killing feminism is to have a small government. Too bad we only have big-government parties.
The Tea Party aimed to be small government, but I knew the Tea Party was dead the very first time they got giddy that 55% of the Tea Party was now women. Most conservatives have no idea that women are naturally socialist, and that conservatives themselves are socialist whenever the chance to whiteknight presents itself.
WFPrice,
You’d think that would mean that its readers would be humanitarian and compassionate,
Why would anyone still think this?
Virtually all genocides are derived by leftists. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. This is because leftism views economics as zero sum, hence the killing of unwanted people is a way to have more resources for those who are allowed to live (the favored group).
Modern leftism (global warming, feminism) is all about exterminating the groups that leftists don’t like. They claim to be ‘compassionate’ so as to mask their evil. Anyone who supports current laws like VAWA and child support is ‘compassionate’, and thus MRAs by definition are ‘evil’, under that standard.
And yes, Hitler was left-wing. Don’t buy into the leftist myth that he was right wing. The Nazi party was a socialist party, that nationalized many sectors of the economy.
Men’s Rights = Small government.
Feminism cannot survive without a large and ever-growing government.
It really comes down to that.
If the Men’s Rights movement had more actual activists, they would reach out to Rep. Joe Walsh, and try to explain red pill concepts to him.
As a chivalrous Republican, he probably buys into the notion that HE is the wrongdoer.
You can’t really affect politics as a social movement until you start shifting the cultural consciousness, through the media and the education system.
The Men’s Movement is starting to make some inroads via the internet, but still has a long way to go before any critical mass is large enough to matter to the political machine. It’s challenging when Feminism controls the podium, the popular narrative, and won’t allow Men to speak.
All you can do for now (like most special interest groups) is side with the political party that least favors open support of feminist governance, by opposing economic and social justice initiatives favorable to women and girls, which inturn discriminate against men and boys…
…or you can do nothing at all.
To whine and caterwaul about things the Republicans did 20 or 30 years ago that were detrimental to men as a reason not to support them is foolish. All that matters is the present and future. If we could change the past we would, but we can’t.
Socialism doesn’t work at all. Lots of western socialist countries are going bankrupt with huge national debts, high taxation, and many regulations makes people poorer, hurts the economy etc.
Problem is lots of countries today have Cronyism and fascism instead of free market capitalism. Bad banks and businesses should never be bailed out by the state. That’s corporate welfare (the other side of social welfare).
“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money [to spend].” – Margaret Thatcher
Welmer, why would you ever expect Socialists to have any compassion at all? Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Kim Il Sung, Fidel Castro, Erich Honnecker, Pol Pot, Ernesto “Che” Guevera, Benito Mussolini…all Socialists at some point in their lives, many of them their entire lives, every one willing to have people shot in the head, beaten to death, shot to death in front of their families, chopped up with machetes, starved to death, hung to death, and so forth.
Socialism is a death cult; fast, as in the Socialism In One Country of Stalin, or slowly via demographic collapse as in Europe. The US left is merely displaying that fact yet again.
Keyster, riding his fave hobby horse once again:
(Suzanne Venker did write an article titled “The War on Men” which was roundly dismissed by MRAs, because she’s an evil TradCon/SoCon woman that just wants to use men as utilities or something)
No, Keyster, as has been pointed out to you many times, Venker walked it back when she was challenged by her feminist sisters. She talked big for a day, and then she took it back.
That’s the problem, Keyster. Your problem is you never bother to read anyone who disagrees with you, and you are apparently incapable of doing anything like real research, or ever admitting an error.
Grow up.
That’s the problem, Keyster. Your problem is you never bother to read anyone who disagrees with you, and you are apparently incapable of doing anything like real research, or ever admitting an error.
Grow up.
That’s because most commenters that disagree with me resort to insults and other ad hominem, rather than fact based debate.
Keyster, you didn’t respond to the facts I posted. Thanks for confirmation: you are indeed incapable of anything like real research, even something as easy as surfing the web, and you don’t admit error.
Seems to me you should just become a liberal…
@TFH:
All great comments, esp, small gov makes feminism impossible. Perfect. Can’t help it per you comment here:
“Modern leftism (global warming, feminism) is all about exterminating the groups that leftists don’t like. They claim to be ‘compassionate’ so as to mask their evil.”
Absolutely correct, but lets connect the dots to define just how passive, parasitic and insidious this evil really is. Modern leftism wants collectivism, so, they cannot have independent people to do this, but as your rightly observe, men are overwhelming in the latter category. It follows, men are the enemy. feminism destroys men, we know that. But if that wasn’t evil enough, it destroys boys that will one day be men. All the drugging, the brainwashing, the shaming, the flat-out abuse in public schools is evil and the source of this evil is feminism and leftism. Moreover they’re so sick they constantly say “whats best for the children”. ??? Meanwhile day in and day out these same people literally have rob boys of their future, intellect and humanity, just because “girls” should have their chance? In other words, drug, abuse, shame, hurt boys just so the girls can be made to look better. After this whole thing explodes history will not look kindly at this time, nor should it. Is there “injustice” in a small gov society where boys and men will outperform women? As callous as it may seem, who cares, we all must live with the hand dealt. That said, seeing the complete evil behind feminism I stand firm that artificially promoting one group over another (especially in a system that collects taxes and claims to be for and by the people) far exceeds any so called “injustice” chance and nature might doll out. How is it “good” when men’s income are confiscated and used to destroy them? Too boot, women will always be taken care of, small gov or big, feminism today centers around placating egos, whether its defending the fragile ones or masturbating the big (and undeserved) ones. So, again, feminism and by extension drugging and abusing boys in schools, for instance, is with us because big gov is invested in women’s egos. That’s how far we’ve fallen, that’s how sick we are, that’s how evil this whole thing is.
@TFH
Great comments, can’t agree more – feminism cannot exist in a small gov society.
Per your comment:
“Modern leftism (global warming, feminism) is all about exterminating the groups that leftists don’t like. They claim to be ‘compassionate’ so as to mask their evil.”
Absolutely correct, but lets connect the dots to define just how passive, parasitic and insidious this evil really is. Modern leftism wants collectivism, so, they cannot have independent people to do this, but as your rightly observe, men are overwhelming in the latter category. It follows, men are the enemy. feminism destroys men, we know that. But consider this example of just how evil this thing is – it destroys boys that will one day be men. All the drugging, the brainwashing, the shaming, the flat-out abuse in public schools is evil and the source of this evil is feminism and leftism. Moreover they’re so sick they constantly say “whats best for the children”. ??? Meanwhile day in and day out these same people literally have rob boys of their future, intellect and humanity, just because “girls” should have their chance? In other words, drug, abuse, shame, hurt boys just so the girls can be made to look better. After this whole thing explodes history will not look kindly at this time, nor should it. Is there “injustice” in a small gov society where boys and men will outperform women? As callous as it may seem, who cares, we all must live with the hand dealt. That said, seeing the complete evil behind feminism I stand firm that artificially promoting one group over another (especially in a system that collects taxes and claims to be for and by the people) far exceeds any so called “injustice” chance and nature might doll out. How is it “good” when men’s income are confiscated and used to destroy them? Too boot, women will always be taken care of, small gov or big, feminism today centers around placating egos, whether its defending the fragile ones or masturbating the big (and undeserved) ones. So, again, feminism and by extension drugging and abusing boys in schools, for instance, is with us because big gov is invested in women’s egos. That’s how far we’ve fallen, that’s how sick we are, that’s how evil this whole thing is.
Women who work hard dont want socializm either. nobody wants to pay for other people not to pull there own wieght.
@ Ode.
Well what do you expect.
A Liberal is a Progressive. A progressive is by nature not satisfied and yearns for more progress. A conservative being a reactionary is by definition always on the defensive.
Progress can be good and bad, depending on the progress given.
There can a be a vision of a new society based upon hierarchy, etc, but due to the current trajectory, we still live in an egalitarian paradigm.
I think there are many benefits of be Progressive. The current strand however has many bad parts.
Socialism works for a while and raises the “standard of living” in a Liberal context, however due to the inherent problems with the system it inevitably fails.
All genocides are actually caused by authoritarians, not “leftists”, but authoritarians of the left and right. The regimes that cause them always have these characteristics: 1. Pyramidal hierarchy structure with some abstraction, which must not be questioned, at the top. 2. Military chain of command with orders which must not be questioned. 3. Dehumanisation of the enemy.
Resources are zero-sum, in that there is only a finite amount of them. But this isn’t the reason why Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot had people killed. These were nationalist regimes, and communist only in an authoritarian sense. The deaths that they caused must be laid at the door of nationalism, racism and imperialism, and to the principle of hierarchical authority itself.
Don’t confuse that with socialism, which means from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. It means worker ownership and control of means of production. It is not national, but international, and need not be authoritarian. It has always had its libertarian wing.
Hitler was not left-wing. He was a right-wing and authoritarian. It’s just a complete misunderstanding of German history to think otherwise. “Nazionalsozializmus” was not “left”.
Look up this speech from February 1933 which is on Youtube: “At that time the struggle against Marxism first was raised as a goal of this fight. I then pledged to myself for the first time as an unknown individual to begin this war, and never to rest until this phenomenon was finally driven out of German life”.
George Orwell had the best definition of German fascism: “A form of capitalism which adopts just such features of socialism as make it efficient for war purposes”. That’s exactly right. In Nazi Germany, rich men, if they didn’t happen to be Jews, were left in control of means of production. Any socialization of industry which happened was partial and for purposes of armament and revanchism.