Black Lives Matter, Marxist?

david starling

Well-known member
John Bolton - one of the main architects of the invasion of Iraq.

He was the guy who pushed the idea that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. He was the one who told the world a war in the middle-east was required to stop the axis of evil.

We can say that the entire foreign policy of the U.S. and Europe in the Middle-East was shaped by John Bolton... a man who was a proven fraud.

And now?

He is against Trump.

He is a hero of the left.

Everyone loves Bolton, and uphelds his new book as "truth".

Wake up david.

Didn't Trump hire Bolton? Already knowing about his role in the Iraq debacle? Trump is severely lacking in judgment on too many important issues in too many important areas to be holding such an important position of power and authority.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Trump acts as though pandemic deaths are no big deal. He's also encouraging his followers by example not to wear masks, and holding close-contact rallies, while keeping his own distance.

Meanwhile, he, himself, has a team that thoroughly sanatizes his own environment everywhere he goes.

Here's a slogan for Trump: "No Lives Matter!" (Except his own, of course.)
 

AppLeo

Well-known member
Are you aware that Homo sapiens is a social animal? There are no societies on the planet-- and never have been-- that operate as loose aggregates of autonomous individuals.

Yes, I'm aware.

I'm all for individual rights and freedoms. But with those come
responsibilities.

Yes, and that responsibility is upholding individual rights, not collective rights.

Maybe you'd prefer to abolish police and fire departments as too collective for your tastes.

No, police are necessary. Otherwise, we'd devolve into anarchy in which the most physically powerful would rule. Even though these rulers would be at the top, their lives would be better served in a free society.

Having police is an agreement of every individual that force is monopolized and owned by everyone. This force, then, can only be in the interest of the collective. The collective of individuals.

Since force is monopolized, there is no competition or demand for force. Force stagnates and declines. Everything becomes voluntary in which only individuals can only deal with one another rationally and consensually. Anyone who uses force outside of this monopoly is considered a criminal and will lose their individual rights.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Didn't Trump hire Bolton? Already knowing about his role in the Iraq debacle? Trump is severely lacking in judgment on too many important issues in too many important areas to be holding such an important position of power and authority.

Yes, maybe he did it as a compromise to the republican party, or perhaps it was bad judgement on Trump's part. Maybe bolton had some information needed for a specific situation. No one here denies Trump can make mistakes. It is Imposible to know for certain what the reasons were for Trump selecting him. Trump did have many disagreements with him and eventually fired him.

What is certain is the man was a proven lier, who was hated by every single left-winger for over 20 years.

The irony is that once he released a book against Trump- he suddenly becomes a beloved icon for left-wingers. The same man they hated for 20 years, who is a proven liar.

It just shows how easy left-winger change positions, as long as it suits them.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Yes, I'm aware.



Yes, and that responsibility is upholding individual rights, not collective rights.



No, police are necessary. Otherwise, we'd devolve into anarchy in which the most physically powerful would rule. Even though these rulers would be at the top, their lives would be better served in a free society.

Having police is an agreement of every individual that force is monopolized and owned by everyone. This force, then, can only be in the interest of the collective. The collective of individuals.

Since force is monopolized, there is no competition or demand for force. Force stagnates and declines. Everything becomes voluntary in which only individuals can only deal with one another rationally and consensually. Anyone who uses force outside of this monopoly is considered a criminal and will lose their individual rights.

The police need to be policed themselves, in order to ensure they protect the civil liberties of all individuals.
 

aquarius7000

Well-known member
You are in Canada. You have no clue what is actually going on here. ..
Distance gives perspective.

This thread is the perfect example of some living IN this country that have far less clue about the most persistently prevalent indigenous social issues. Their responses give away their sheer ignorance and their repeated hollow assertions, seldom accompanied by trustworthy sources, their incomprehension of such issues, their rather peremptory and often unfair approach to appalling social stigmas that minorities suffer from generation after generation and how damaging they are to the 'free and better world they brag about'.

Interestingly enough, when somebody from outside the country says things that 'suit' them, they are deemed as 'in touch'. And, there are a no. of people on this very thread that are not residents of America.

Similarly, when a person not born in America living INside the country speaks their mind about existing issues or their History, since, like it or not, they are part of the society you live in, even if such comments are backed by reliable news sources, they are accused of 'hating the country, better yet, the entire West' or verbally sent packing off to a country that in the eyes of 'some' is 'ranks' much below than where they hail from. Is that what you call Equality and Justice? Is that what is Tolerance in your eyes? The same people when they criticise other countries they have perhaps never set foot in is ok? That should be tolerated? Seems just a wee bit hypocritical, if you ask me. If a non-American by birth, who might have a different perspective of things, because indeed they have lived in (a no. of) of other countries has to face ridicule and often gets to hear "leave if you don't find America good", could I ask what then gives people living here the right to criticise any other country? When a person lives somewhere, is integrated and part of a society, even if they are not born there, they have the right to express their opinion without fear of ridicule and being verbally shunted out just because you don't like what you hear!! Isn't that what Freedom of Speech entails? I can only imagine the plight if such a non-American is also a coloured person. Perhaps you live in an ignorant world yourself, or one that you have never set foot outside of, so all you know is what the media - that too the media you choose to refer to - want you to know, or what helps you feel great about yourself and what you identify with. The open-mindedness and freedom many love to gloat about is reflected right in one's responses and reactions. I often also ask myself why people of one country would not like a non-American for standing up for another American, or at least other residents of America? Have you ever thought of that? Doesn't that prove that such a person voicing such social issues is actually more concerned about this country than you might be?

Thankful that there indeed are more educated and mature people I have encountered both in this country and outside. And, since I have had the good fortune to travel extensively from the East to the West, not just the two coasts inside this country, but out there around the globe as well, as well as live in both those geographies of the world, let me tell you something that might come as a shock to some of you, there in fact are countries in the East, where many indigenous people are much ahead in their thinking and of a much more peaceful and forgiving character, and a far less condemning nature.

If there is one thing I have concluded, it is that a big portion of individualism and material well-being distance most (not all) from the really important things in life and (can) have a deep effect on their value-systems.

Finally, it does make me happy that the US of today is not the US of the 1960's, where black women working at NASA had to run in the rain when they needed to ease themselves because the bathrooms for blacks were made far from the main building, where white folk had theirs. At the same time, you cannot deny that racism is a plague this country has always suffered from, and still does, perhaps not that severely, but much much more severely than we would want to see in 2020.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Yes, maybe he did it as a compromise to the republican party, or perhaps it was bad judgement on Trump's part. Maybe bolton had some information needed for a specific situation. No one here denies Trump can make mistakes. It is Imposible to know for certain what the reasons were for Trump selecting him. Trump did have many disagreements with him and eventually fired him.

What is certain is the man was a proven lier, who was hated by every single left-winger for over 20 years.

The irony is that once he released a book against Trump- he suddenly becomes a beloved icon for left-wingers. The same man they hated for 20 years, who is a proven liar.

It just shows how easy left-winger change positions, as long as it suits them.

I'm not going to read it.
 

AppLeo

Well-known member
The police need to be policed themselves, in order to ensure they protect the civil liberties of all individuals.

Well, that's the problem with monopolized force. Since there's no competition, it can easily turn into an abuse of force. If the government doesn't hold the interest of the people or favors certain people over others, either there's a revolution, civil war, or countries with borders.

I hope that one day we can eradicate countries because whatever qualities that say, the Chinese have that differ from ours, are minimal and we can unite as individuals. We are all humans that want to be free at the end of the day.

It's no surprise to find out that countries that trade with one another are least likely to go to war.
 

aquarius7000

Well-known member
Well, that's the problem with monopolized force. Since there's no competition, it can easily turn into an abuse of force. If the government doesn't hold the interest of the people or favors certain people over others, either there's a revolution, civil war, or countries with borders.

I hope that one day we can eradicate countries because whatever qualities that say, the Chinese have that differ from ours, are minimal and we can unite as individuals. We are all humans that want to be free at the end of the day.

It's no surprise to find out that countries that trade with one another are least likely to go to war.
Taking your last sentence first - the US and China trade with one another - so would your last sentence hold good for both of them as well?

Also, would you say that the US might be headed towards another civil war?
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Taking your last sentence first - the US and China trade with one another - so would your last sentence hold good for both of them as well?

The idea behind that theory is that as long they need each other through commerce, war can only cause mutual destruction.

China is dependant on the U.S. for oil, gas, copper, vehicles, gold, etc. imports. Without them, they can't naturally produce such products.

If the chinese were to go to war with the U.S., that trade would stop, which would only hurt themselves. It goes the same way for the americans. Such possibility will, in theory, prevent the chinese from starting a war with the U.S.

The thing about the U.S. is that, although they get a benefit from trading with the chinese, they could replace China with other cheap manufacturers (such as India), or produce it themselves.

The "golden arches" theory proposed by Milton Friedman's is the idea that two countries with "McDonalds" franchises (meaning both countries accept international commerce) are unwilling or unlikely to go to war.
 
Last edited:

AppLeo

Well-known member
Taking your last sentence first - the US and China trade with one another - so would your last sentence hold good for both of them as well?

I doubt US and China will go to war. They are allies and contribute to each other's wellbeing.

Trump, on the other hand, doesn't seem to understand that. :smile:

If enough Americans believe what Trump says about China, China could be made into an enemy artifically.

Also, would you say that the US might be headed towards another civil war?

It's hard to say. I don't keep up with the news much, and all you hear in the news are things taken out of context and intensified. There's probably a rational and calm side to America that we aren't seeing.

However, the right and left are quite polarized.

Due to the ridiculous Marxist identity politics of the left, and the alt-right's response to that identity politics with white supremacy and MGTOW (basically fascism), it wouldn't be surprising to see some kind of a civil war. Fascism and Communism are enemies, but they are two sides of the same coin: authoritarianism. Where there is authoritarianism there is force. And where there is force, there is violence.

And to make things worse, COVID-19 has put pressure on everyone by sabotaging our economy and social fabric and cohesion. A natural response to this decay would be anger and violence, such as the riots we see from BLM.

I have a feeling that there is no turning back. Things are crumbling and something else will have to take its place, and America is divided about what will take this place. Not to sound all prophetic, but we are witnessing a clear shift in the times, as astrology has predicted. Whatever comes next is going to be the thing for the next 5000 years. It's almost as dramatic as the agricultural revolution.

I just hope the rational individuals, like myself, that just want to be left alone, can salvage something decent out the rubble.
 

aquarius7000

Well-known member
I am not completely knowledgeable if India can scale up productions to the level of China - as an exporter - so not sure China is so easily replaceable. China is pretty strong I think, but you can never know the truth with what that country actually 'chooses' to reveal to the world.

Pres. Xi is also said to be struggling to keep his people 'under control'. Sometimes I wonder if all the commotion that has to do with China - is partly intentionally orchestrated by Xi
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
I doubt US and China will go to war. They are allies and contribute to each other's wellbeing.

Trump, on the other hand, doesn't seem to understand that. :smile:

If enough Americans believe what Trump says about China, China could be made into an enemy artifically.

Here is the part I disagree.

China and the U.S. don't need each other in the same manner.

Any cheap manufacturer could replace China, such as India. It is much harder for China to replace U.S. technological development and natural resources.

Also China has, through economic development, corporate espionage, and currency manipulation become a competitor with the U.S. in the last two decades.

The U.S. and China are now direct competitors, so conflict is bound to occur. Not necessarily war, but on the very least diplomatic.
 

david starling

Well-known member
I doubt US and China will go to war. They are allies and contribute to each other's wellbeing.

Trump, on the other hand, doesn't seem to understand that. :smile:

If enough Americans believe what Trump says about China, China could be made into an enemy artifically.



It's hard to say. I don't keep up with the news much, and all you hear in the news are things taken out of context and intensified. There's probably a rational and calm side to America that we aren't seeing.

However, the right and left are quite polarized.

Due to the ridiculous Marxist identity politics of the left, and the alt-right's response to that identity politics with white supremacy and MGTOW (basically fascism), it wouldn't be surprising to see some kind of a civil war. Fascism and Communism are enemies, but they are two sides of the same coin: authoritarianism. Where there is authoritarianism there is force. And where there is force, there is violence.

And to make things worse, COVID-19 has put pressure on everyone by sabotaging our economy and social fabric and cohesion. A natural response to this decay would be anger and violence, such as the riots we see from BLM.

I have a feeling that there is no turning back. Things are crumbling and something else will have to take its place, and America is divided about what will take this place. Not to sound all prophetic, but we are witnessing a clear shift in the times, as astrology has predicted. Whatever comes next is going to be the thing for the next 5000 years. It's almost as dramatic as the agricultural revolution.

I just hope the rational individuals, like myself, that just want to be left alone, can salvage something decent out the rubble.

Well said!
 

Dirius

Well-known member
I am not completely knowledgeable if India can scale up productions to the level of China - as an exporter - so not sure China is so easily replaceable. China is pretty strong I think, but you can never know the truth with what that country actually 'chooses' to reveal to the world.

Pres. Xi is also said to be struggling to keep his people 'under control'. Sometimes I wonder if all the commotion that has to do with China - is partly intentional by Xi

At the rate India is growing, 6%-7% per year, they could easily become as productive as the chinese by 2025-2030.

They also have more ideological/cultural similarities with the U.S. than China does, which makes diplomacy, commerce and enforcement of agreements much easier for both.
 
Top