Joey, you can take anyone out of context and discredit them. The guy is hardcore against vacines and links the vacine blitz to the ruling class. He verifies this stance with documents(memos, scientific papers, etc.) and field experts.
He also has given examples of multiple people in power of being child predators. Again, documents and expert interviews.
While I do not know exactly what you pulled that stuff from because you gave no context, I've read enough of his message to know the above.
As for the Boston bombings, I started this by saying I don't agree with everything he says. I do agree with truthful, factual information though. From my experience its very evident when he is providing facts and when he is speculating because he flat out tells you and tells you where to find the info for yourself. Presentation of facts and speculation based on fact are common place everywhere in society. It happens all the time on mainstream television. I mean the Iraq war was fueled based on mdia speculation and sensationalism. When we got to the truth years later we found out that the proof for war was bogus but the million some odd people were already dead...
I trust Alex Jones no more than anyone else, but he does at times make go points and typically his detractors attempt to discredit him for how he acts, and by taking him out of context rather than facing off by challenging the substance within the message. The medium is irrelevant, it's the facts that matter.
Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk
Awesome comments, Joey, Enlightenment and White Men Can't Jump!
I mean, you have people comparing the US to China and shit like that. Comparing both, obviously, since roughly around US independence. But that China was in no way representative of modern China, or rather since the Maoist victory and formation of the PRC. It's like comparing the experiences of an old man to that of a teenager.
Where was the US roughly half a century in its development? Still not very far along economically (they really didn't break out til the 20th century as the global hegemonic power). Slaughtering indigenous people by the millions (far worse than anything that's happened in China since they became the PRC). Enslaving Africans.....Basically, they accomplished far less in that span, both economically and socially, than China. Now, they did have democracy, and much better freedoms for those who held democratic rights...but not everyone had such rights until well into the 20th century.
Last edited by white men can't jump; Wed Dec 11th, 2013 at 01:35 PM.
The Tornado conspiracy theory is almost on the same line as boob-quake in terms of ridiculousness. I want to know which Experts were consulted on that one.
Its clear to me that Alex is actually another version of the media that you shoot down. He is fishing for clicks, and is compromising truth and journalistic decency in order to do so.
The Baltic Beast is unstoppable!
Wealth redistribution does not create a higher standard of living, maybe in the short term it does for some but what happens when people one the drive to produce because they can't reap the benefits of their hard work, sacrifice and risk? What encourages them to innovate and create new products to or services that people want? If not for capitalism we wouldn't have the many things we take for granted today. We wouldn't even be having this discussion on this forum because there would be no reason to create the means to do it. Everything we take for granted today started with a person coming up with an idea creating a product and selling it for yes the evil word PROFIT. In doing so he or she improved the life of the purchaser of that product. It is the freedom of people and business to exchange goods servics and money that drives innovation and promotes personal and social growth. That is what makes capitalism great. I admit it's not perfect but it is the best system ever created by man
I think Apollo and and Uncle_Si might have a point:
Beware the Master Race Frankenstein Radio Controls! Distribute Widely!
@whitemen, yeah, I try my best to only discuss political theory with those that actually have some skin in the game, in terms of study, and not some tedious blowhard at the Christmas party. The three of you have done really well!
Come on Joey, most stories come from one source, like the associated press and is then picked up (repeated) by all the outlets. You're getting no variety and no one is challenging and investigating like journalists used to do. Typically what is fact is the words from one man's mouth. Why is that?
You never get the full story unless you go to the people investigating the stories, those asking questions. If you are someone who asks questions in today's society or challenging the collective message you are attacked but its rarely an attack of the facts. Typically its an attack on the character of the person asking the questions. Oh, he's just a nut or oh, he's just out for attention, etc. We as a society tend to fly over the message and attack the messenger any time the message flies contrary to the commonly held narrative. This method has been used since the beginning of time. At least now we no long burn someone alive for their observations which fly contrary to the prepared message.
Those who investigate are typically independent in this age. There you have my answer. Am I crazy or out for attention? Thats your decision.
Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk
Here's another one that doesn't frame it in terms of freedom, but in terms of functionality of the state (and hence inherently gives some insight into how a state helps or hurts certain pursuits)
Last edited by white men can't jump; Wed Dec 11th, 2013 at 01:59 PM.
Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk
It should also be noted in all of this, that Canada is about as "Communist" as a Capitalist country can get; what with its Government run Health Care. The equivalent in the states was recently panned as "Commiunist" within the US. You guys must HATE all that free Communist Health Care.
The NBA has actually been charged with being Anti-Capitalist several times in the past. Why shouldn't these athletes be able to choose where they Play and how much they earn? Why do all teams have to have an equal shot at winning? Why do they have Revenue Sharing?!
Its SOO communist.
Last edited by Joey; Wed Dec 11th, 2013 at 02:27 PM.
In Masai we Trust.
I would disgree. Most industries are free game for all, and elections are legitimate and tranparent. There sure is a lot of corruption still though but Canada is nothing like your classic real examples of communist countries.
Some would ague that there are problems with Canada's health system... And its not free. Why do you think your income taxes are so high? You don't even get to see how much you spend on health care. You don't have a seat at the table. Whenever there is a lack of competition there is a lack of motivation. Why do you think wait times are so long for surgeries and specialist appointments?
I get the merits but lets not lose sight of what it is and how its funded.
Most Americans didn't want Obamacare and it's been a collossal failure so far.
The NBA isn't a communist entity. They're out to make as much as they can. They operate in a market against competitors. I don't get your point, there is no government control and players don't get paid equally, quite the contrary. They get paid based on market demand within the confines of a collective bargaining agreement. Some of the owners benefit from revenue sharing but they don't make equal profits and they don't share in equal risk.
Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk
This was just published today! So, funny that a thread on communism breaks out here. What I do is pretty rarely relevant here, so here you go.
Interview with Dmytri Kleiner, Venture Communist and Miscommunications Technologist
Some very uninformed and biased opinions in here that are backed up with nothing more than just their opinions...
But I guess that's what politics is
I won't jump in here, since getting into politics in a Forum is always a bad idea.
But, for what it's worth, I've lived in Canada, Capitalist/"Free", and I live in Hong Kong, and work in China.
as to Uncle_Si's point about is it the Capitalist's fault that people are in poverty, well, as a Business man, and somebody who's family owns and operates business in China, and employs a fair amount of people (Approximately 1500 - 2000 depending on the season), I will say without a doubt, that the Capitalists do hold a huge fault in their poverty.
In my eyes at least.
EDIT: I also thought i'd mention something on the point of whether "Communist" Countries care about their citizens or not, and expand on my point.
In the last few years, China has been steadily pushing for businesses that employee people to raise wages. It's been a steady increase, and a fair amount. I don't remember the exact number, but it has run a lot of firms out of business.
Not only are they raising the wages, they also are forcing firms to purchase some sort of "plan" to help these individuals save money, and work towards buying housing, or what-not.
It's something they've been doing for a while, and it grows each and ever year.
On top of my original point. Thikn about it this way. If the "Capitalist" countries didn't require their $150.00 Nikes that cost $20.00 to make, and cheap labour, China wouldn't have the means to employ so many people.
With the wage-rate rising in China, people are moving to India and other countries that haven't imposed these higher fees.
So...don't say that "Communism" doesn't have a care for it's people while other people benefit. Sure, those up top continue to reap in the money for doing nothing. But isn't that the same in any culture or economy/country?
Last edited by phiLLy; Thu Dec 12th, 2013 at 03:31 AM.
I have seen what communism does to oppress people because my family lived through it, they escaped to Canada in hopes of bettering their lives and providing their kids. What my family went through under communist rule I would never wish on anyone. For these reasons I believe in Capitalism and I oppose communism. The great thing about Canada, unlike communist countries, we can have these discussions and debates without risk of persecution. Freedom is a precious commodity to me and is more valuable than any amount of money. As I said these are my views and I don't expect anyone else to understand them nor do I expect anyone to agree with me. I think that these types of discussions are important to have, but this forum doesn't seem to be the best for it. If anyone would like to discuss further feel free to PM me. #tanknation #MU
On the matter of renouncement of violence when the "offer" was "graciously" made by Botha to Mandela, he replied, "Let him renounce violence". After all, there was a great violence first begun by the ruling white class upon Mandela's people. For those who forget how insidious the system is...a brief description:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid_in_South_AfricaRacial segregation in South Africa began in colonial times under Dutch rule. Apartheid as an official policy was introduced following the general election of 1948. Legislation classified inhabitants into four racial groups, "black", "white", "coloured", and "Indian", with Indian and coloured divided into several sub-classifications, and residential areas were segregated, sometimes by forced removals. Non-white political representation was abolished in 1970, and starting in that year black people were deprived of their citizenship, legally becoming citizens of one of ten tribally based self-governing homelands called bantustans, four of which became nominally independent states. The government segregated education, medical care, beaches, and other public services, and provided black people with services inferior to those of white people.
Malcolm X & ML King were leaders in the US who struggled with the concept of violence in their leadership of black peoples in America during the struggles of the 60s:
While the two struggles had the commonality of subjugated black peoples there is a dichotomy that the ruling class would subject the black populations to less than equal conditions and forced separation under pain of incarceration if there was pushback but yet demand non violence/obedience locally and violence abroad (induction into the army) against supposed enemies of the state.Malcolm X understood:
If violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong abroad. If it is wrong to be violent defending black women and black children and black babies and black men, then it is wrong for America to draft us, and make us violent abroad in defense of her. And if it is right for America to draft us, and teach us how to be violent in defense of her, then it is right for you and me to do whatever is necessary to defend our own people right here in this country.
Martin Luther King Jr. agreed:
As I have walked among the desperate, rejected and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems ... But, they asked, what about Vietnam? They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today, my own government.
As did Mandela. Offered the chance to be free by the avowed white supremacist P.W. Botha if he would renounce violence, Mandela replied, “Let him renounce violence.”
I notice that the thread has devolved into a discussion of economic/political systems. This is a canard and diversion from the real subject.....fundamental justice and freedoms equal to all regardless of race, creed or gender. That is what Mandela fought for. SA is not going to change overnight...it never does but the reconciliation movement he started to safeguard the rights of those who supported and enforced the prior system is a testimony to his fundamental goodness of being. I couldnt care less about his true ideology (he has denied being a communist).
Oops. Nothing personal, but it seems that I was insulting Rand. I didnt realize the gentleman's background...he just came across very conservative on fiscal and socio grounds and unforgiving that there will always be people in any society that will be disadvantaged and consequently require help. A just society will provide this. I still dont get his anti Mandela spiel. He was fighting to free indigenous SAs from an insidious racist government. It seems like the height of confusion (a charge often levelled against libertarians) that Stefan is an anti-colonialist but seemingly pro apartheid. Something is not computing.
To be honest I dont want to tread in areas I do not have much knowledge in but here are a couple of quotes from Rand on libertarians and anarchists and dont know quite what to make of it....I was of the opinion the two (Randian & Libertarian) were relatively close in their thinking....individualism, survival of the fittest and the usual looking after #1 stuff. Oh yes and government and social programs are bad. Ms Rand who railed against programs like social security and medicare etc when dying of lung cancer was not above getting those benefits to ease her misfortune.
Are you saying that Stefan/yourself are further right of Rand?Q: What do you think of the libertarian movement?
AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement.
Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you do, so why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party?
AR: They’re not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now it’s a bad sign for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)