Yeah. So probably nothing will come out of this. Big tech has been suited quite a bit of times and they keep blatantly doing same old stuff, because they know they have immunity.

Basically big tech gets immunity with section 230 and in exchange the big tech circumnavigates around first amendment and does the censorship and propaganda party for its own interest and partly as a deal it made with the establishment. Its a classical private/public relationship we see in banana republics. Fascism, Nazism, Communism with Chinese Characteristics.

I don't think Trump understood what he is dealing with and I don't think he can win this battle trough courts since the other side controls courts. The only way to fight this, short of war, is by culture war, Politics is downstream culture. That is how lefties got to power and like I said short of war itself, the other side will have to reclaim culture. Courts won't be much help. Someone might get off paying a parking ticket, but something of this magnitude, they won't allow it. And we have seen supreme court already in action or rather inaction during elections 2020. We all know which side of the politics they are on, and it definitely is not neutral.

Dude, check your communist privilege. Just what the world needs, more whores and failed families. Or degenerate pedophiles.

@Krunoslav so shadow banning sex workers - good. Shadow banning violent dictators - bad. Got it. Good to see where your morals lie.

Not sure how any of this ties into Communism though? You really are one-note.

@JacksonNought I would explain it to you, but you are so far behind of understanding the things you support, it would be pointless. If you actually understood what you are supporting and saying. If only.

@Krunoslav yeah... except 1 - I have never supported Communism. 2 - you don't actually seem to know what Communism is, considering you think anything and everything is Communism (sex workers rights, trans rights, etc).

Maybe if you understood what you were supporting. Stop licking the boot of the prior US President and maybe focus on your own country and making the work a better place.

@JacksonNought Cultural marxism gave birth to Feminism which created the term sex worker instead of a whore by the way, and supports being as slutty as you want because of "sexual liberation", in other words degenerate slutty behavior for the sake of hedonistic pleasure, causing families to fall apart and by extension countries. These types than created the trans lunatics and the rests of the degenerates who try to push for pedophilia and all kinds of other sick ideas as normal, legal and celebrated. While trying to destroy the western civilization in pursuit for utopia seen as communism.

Now, I know what I'm about to do is pointless, because you only have about 2 brain cells on a good day, but I'll do it anyway, in case someone else might find it useful.

Hegelian metaphysics is and has been the core at the lefties religion for the past 200 years, where left is chasing ultimate utopia, communism. Because you know.... real Communism has never been tried so we have to kill 100 more million people because maybe next time we will get to the real communism.

I know you have an IQ of shoe size and can't make the connection, so here is a video that does it for you, if you have still any interest in watching, if not maybe someone else will find it useful.

Hegel and the Dialectic | James Lindsay & Michael O'Fallon | Changing Tides Ep. 3

You Jackson or whatever you real name it, are a religion fanatic, because you see everything trough the religious dogma of the left, and you have no personal identity or thoughts you depend on the collective and that is why you cannot understand anything that said in the video or what I speak off, you have no ability for critical thinking. You depend on the collective to tell you what to think. And that is why all your arguments are not arguments you came up with, they are echo of the leftist collective.

And like all religious fanatics it is easier to convert religious fanatic to another religion as a fanatic of that religion than to make him see the error of his way, because to do that, would be terrifying for a fanatic. There is no foundation to fall back on, no actual identity. Its the identity of the collective that he uses to supplement his own individually. So off course I do not expect you to stop being one, nor do I have interest in trying to convert you to another religion, but maybe someone else will understand you by watching this video.

@Krunoslav well first off, Marxism is not the same as Communism - get your terms right. Maybe stick to one bogeyman at a time.

If you think "the left" has the ultimate goal of a Communist utopia, then what do you think goal of "the right" is? If they are polar opposites, wouldn't that mean "the right" is striving for a theocratic police state? If those are our only two options, well, I will let you be the judge of which is more ideal.

So you think giving women civil rights is Marxism? If so, I guess sign me up. You really do sound like a stereotypical incel, trying to keep women barefoot and pregnant and subservient to men. You want women to be "whores" but only for you. You probably would enjoy Islam, as then you can force women to hide their faces and bodies and only leave the house when chaperoned. You probably are also so rabidly against trans rights because you found yourself attracted to a trans woman, and upon finding out, got so mad at yourself and decided to blame them.

No, no one is pushing for pedophilia. Well, except for the evangelical Christians in the US. As I have said before, their heroes are all pedophiles (Trump, Gaetz, Moore, etc) and they fight tooth and nail to keep child brides legal. Not to mention the Catholic Church. Do left-leaning people, even in power, engage in that despicable practice? Of course? But the difference is that when discovered, the left side of the aisle appropriately prosecutes them and throws them in jail. Unlike, say, the right side of the aisle, which puts them on a pedestal and protects them.

So, you are vehemently against Communism. Okay. Well I am sure from your posts you are also against Socialism, since you classify everything on the left side as Communism / Socialism / Marxism. So, what political system do you recommend? What philosophical framework should run a thriving society? If you are for Free-Market Capitalism, then wouldn't you be fully behind the rights of sex workers to engage in unrestricted commerce based on supply and demand? Please, do tell, what is the ideal system. Define the "western civilization" and the ideals it represents that you claim "the left" is trying to destroy.

You accuse me of being a religious fanatic, yet you rail non-stop against the freedom and civil rights of women and people of the LGBTQ community. You are as fanatic as anyone - a radical chauvinist engaging in non-stop identity politics and single-issue concerns. You spend all day in Croatia complaining about a country thousands of miles away, wishing you were an American, all so you can then fight against everything America stands for (freedom of religion, freedom of speech, civil rights, minority rights).

@JacksonNought Truly pointless.

@Krunoslav yep, surefire way to win an argument or represent your side accurately. Why bother defending your actual position - or even stating a philosophy - when you can just tell someone what they believe and call them degenerates.

So I will ask you again: what political system do you recommend? What philosophical framework should run a thriving society? What is the ideal system? Define the "western civilization" and the ideals it represents that you claim "the left" is trying to destroy.

If you are for Free-Market Capitalism, then wouldn't you be fully behind the rights of sex workers to engage in unrestricted commerce based on supply and demand?

@JacksonNought Due, I just pointed you to a video explain in detail why you have no idea what you are talking about. So am I a fool for trying to reason with unreasonable one. Probably. They say never argue with a fool, the onlookers might not be able to tell the difference.

So here I am making a fool of myself.

So I will ask you again: what political system do you recommend?

Probably traditional conservatism for the western society because it has the most proven track record and least oppression. Which is a problem because communists are too aggressive against it and that is why it did not survive. Not because its wrong, but because its not prepared for violence.

And if you are not prepared for extreme violence you cannot be peaceful, you are harmless. Important distinction and that is why, as correct as philosophically it might be it is not a system that can withstand liberalism as proven by history, and even less so communism. So if I had to chose between many bad options probably I would choose monarchy, because no king has ever done as much damage to society as state religions. I don't consider monarchy to be idea, but its less bad than many others. Unlike lefties I don't think there is an ideal system because I'm not ideologue. From purely practical point of view monarchy , specifically constitutional monarchy probably is least destructive in the long run. In terms of western society if possible to maintain it, it would be traditional conservation, before everyone lost their mind.

Liberalism is a religion that undermines itself and gives birth to lefty ideologies which has been since the time of hagel the worse humans have produced. Liberlaism has gotten the legal system correct, but failed or rather deliberately avoided to argue for shared moral code, and without one there can be no civil society. Traditional conservatism, takes legal parts from classical liberalism but does not reject prior moral ties, and traditions, which makes it least destructive of them all, but also weakest of them all. If that political system and philosophical could be maintained it would be least problematic, but since it cannot , probably the next best thing is to go in the opposite direction of state religion, which would be monarchy. Constitutional monarchy based on Judeo - Christian moral code.

"If you are for Free-Market Capitalism, then wouldn't you be fully behind the rights of sex workers to engage in unrestricted commerce based on supply and demand?"

Hell, no. That is a suicide. Any nation that starts to trade in sex as a commodity has seal its own fate, there is no way it can survive. The so called Free Market Capitalism is not the opposite of communism as Marx tries to write, he just needed villein for his fictional novel.

Society is not entirely material, that was Marx view. Not everything is about economics. Free Market Capitalism is not religion like Communism is, it does not provide answers to metaphysics, it does not deal with philosophy and it does not provide moral code, it is only a framework, legal frame work that facilitate ideally free and fair trade of goods and services, it is as a concept amoral. It does no have moral boundaries or understand of right and wrong, hence if sex is used as unrestricted commodity you get degenerate society, as we see today.

Congratulations you have just proven you don't understand neither Free Market Capitalism or Marxism or Communism.

"So I will ask you again: what political system do you recommend? What philosophical framework should run a thriving society? What is the ideal system? Define the "western civilization" and the ideals it represents that you claim "the left" is trying to destroy."

Western Civilization is generally though of as combination of Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian values.

The left is the opposite of that. If you want to know what left is, watch the video I shared. Since you don't have a clue about either, it might actually do you some good.

Technically liberalism and its derivatives, nationalism and socialism sprung out Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian values, but they reject them so in most conversations they are not thought of as Western Civilization, they are thought of as ideas belonging to modernity.

.........................

Modernity is the term used by sociologists to describe the “modern” period which began in Europe several hundred years ago. Some of the key features of modern societies are:

Economic production is industrial and capitalist, with social class as the main form of social division. Social classes are based on people’s social and economic position. Marx’s view for instance, was that industrial society people were divided into two main classes, those who owned businesses and those who sold their labour to them.

The growth of cities, or urbanisation. During the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries thousands of people moved to cities to find work and make their homes.

A powerful central government and administration, known as a bureaucratic state. Local and central government have played an ever increasing part in our lives, the development of compulsory education, public housing and the welfare state for example. Many of these nations regulated people’s lives and developed welfare systems of some sort during the modern period

People’s knowledge is derived from scientific and rational thinking rather than religious faith, magic or superstition. During this period people have looked to science and logical thinking to explain the world. Natural disasters such as earthquakes, for example, have tended to be explained scientifically rather than as an “act of god”.

This part is questinable since as a result of modernity "scientism" took over scienctific disciplines and became a new religion for the left. Hence in attempt to sell it as non religious Marx claimed that his route to communism is scientific socialism. It as neither scientific nor social, it was religious and antisocial.

• A widely held faith in scientifically based progress. An associated view has been that the more we trust in science and technological progress, the better our society will be. That was the liberal view, except liberals became lefties and Marxist and used Science as a mask for their religioin. That is how we got 2+2 = 5.

And trust the "experts" and "science" and "climate change", technocrats etc. Pure religon, that has nothing to do with scientific method.

Most of the “great” sociologists have attempted to find ways of understanding “modernity” and the “great transformation” which created it. Writers such as Marx and Durkheim attempted to create theories and concepts which could help explain the workings of societies and answer basic questions such as “what holds societies together?” and “what makes societies change?”

And that rest is history as they say. Total collapse of civil sociaty in the name of Marxist inspired ideas in peruiuit of the ulimate utopia of communism.

.........................

“Science cannot replace a religious view of the world, since there is no such thing as "the scientific worldview". A method of inquiry rather than a settled body of theories, science yields different views of the world as knowledge advances...Above all, science cannot dispel religion by showing it to be an illusion. The rationalist philosophy according to which religion is an intellectual error is fundamentally at odds with scientific inquiry into religion as a natural human activity. Religion may involve the creation of illusions. But there is nothing in science that says illusion may not be useful, even indispensable, in life. The human mind is programmed for survival, not for truth. Rather than producing minds that see the world ever more clearly, evolution could have the effect of breeding any clear view of things out of the mind. The upshot of scientific inquiry could be that a need for illusion goes with being human. The recurring appearance of religions of science suggests this may in fact be the case.

Atheists who think of religions as erroneous theories mistake faith—trust in an unknown power—for belief. But if there is a problem with belief, it is not confined to religion. Much of what passes as scientific knowledge is as open to doubt as the miraculous events that feature in traditional faiths. Wander among the shelves of the social sciences stacks in university libraries, and you find yourself in a mausoleum of dead theories. These theories have not passed into the intellectual netherworld by being falsified. Most are not even false; they are too nebulous to allow empirical testing. Systems of ideas, such as Positivism and Marxism, that forecast the decline of religion have been confounded time and time again. Yet these cod-scientific speculations linger on in a dim afterlife in the minds of many who have never heard the ideas from which they spring.”

― John N. Gray, Seven Types of Atheism

Which explains you. You claim many things you adopt form the collective, but have no clue where they came from ,what they mean, what are the alternatives, you just double think your way trough the day.

@JacksonNought "If you are for Free-Market Capitalism, then wouldn't you be fully behind the rights of sex workers to engage in unrestricted commerce based on supply and demand?"

Since you are too shortsighted to draw a connection and think ahead, let me make the connection for you.

When the society turns its back on family unit than society cannot function as a family unit. And it starts to tear itself apart. American is an example of what identity politics can do to a society. There are other economic factors and historical reason for America being what it is and going downhill, but identity politics has speed up decline.

“The patriarchal authoritarian sexual order that resulted from the revolutionary processes of latter-day matriarchy (economic independence of the chief's family from the maternal gens, a growing exchange of goods between the tribes, development of the means of production, etc.) becomes the primary basis of authoritarian ideology by depriving the women, children, and adolescents of their sexual freedom, making a commodity of sex and placing sexual interests in the service of economic subjugation. From now on, sexuality is indeed distorted; it becomes diabolical and demonic and has to be curbed. In terms of patriarchal demands, the innocent sensuousness of matriarchy appears as the lascivious unchaining of dark powers. The Dionysian becomes "sinful yearning," which patriarchal culture can conceive of only as something chaotic and "dirty." Surrounded by and imbued with human sexual structures that have become distorted and lascivious, patriarchal man is shackled for the first time in an ideology in which sexual and dirty, sexual and vulgar or demonic, became inseparable associations.”

― Wilhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism

.....................................

“Modern liberalism suffers unresolved contradictions. It exalts individualism and freedom and, on its radical wing, condemns social orders as oppressive. On the other hand, it expects government to provide materially for all, a feat manageable only by an expansion of authority and a swollen bureaucracy. In other words, liberalism defines government as tyrant father but demands it behave as nurturant mother.” ― Camille Paglia, Free Women, Free Men: Sex, Gender, Feminism

.....................................

“As Baskerville points out, wherever fatherhood is discarded or diminished, we find “impoverished, crime-ridden and drug-infested matriarchies.” Taking on the role of proprietor, the state becomes the father under such “matriarchies.” According to Baskerville, “Without paternal authority, adolescents run wild, and society descends into chaos.” Quite naturally, the state has an ever-increasing reason to intervene in such a society – and inevitably, in the economy. What many defenders of capitalism have failed to understand is the connection between paternal authority and the free market. They have failed to understand that the erosion of patriarchy signifies the rise of a leviathan state (i.e., ever increasing government controls on the economy, and socialism).” ― J.R.Nyquist

"And then, at that exact dispirited moment when there seemed no one at all willing to play the proletariat, along came the women's movement.” ― Joan Didion, The White Album

...and the rest is as they say, history.

Just as Karl Marx has oversimplified and invented story of how history was one of oppression, he also invented the idea that there are classes in capitalism and they are fixed. Which off course is not true. People can become less or more wealthy in capitalist system. And indeed they do. Very rarely if ever someone is as wealthy as when they started after school and when they retire. Over time people buy cars, houses, they go to vacations, they accumulate wealth, and if they are ambitious they can have upward mobility. But those who took on Marxist ideas like for example feminists they too invented history of oppression , and that women cannot advance in society because they are being oppressed by evil patriarchy. Gay movement did the same.

“Why, when gay rights have never been better, are they portrayed as if they’ve never been worse? Why, when women have never been freer and able to make choices about their lives, is everything about the lack of opportunity for women… Why do we hear talk of the patriarchy at the least plausible time in human history? … Why? What’s actually going on?” – Douglas Murray, from an interview with Peter Whittle, Oct 2019

Watch that James Lindsey video to understand why Hegelian dielectric is at the root of it.

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis

A dialectic method of historical and philosophical progress that postulates (1) a beginning proposition called a thesis, (2) a negation of that thesis called the antithesis, and (3) a synthesis whereby the two conflicting ideas are reconciled to form a new proposition. Although this method is commonly referred to as the Hegelian dialectic, Hegel actually attributed the terminology to Immanuel Kant. Moreover, many scholars argue that the dialectic is represented of German idealism as developed by Johann Gottlieb Fichte.

Karl Marx took it and added the economic competent to it and from that Lenin, Stalin, Mao others tried to achieve communism by force and cultural Marxist of the Frankfurt school moved from Germany in the 1930's to American universities and that why Marxism is at the root of what is seen in America today.

Civil Right movements never end. They can't. its like a stray cat. Feed it once and it never goes away. No one gave civil rights to various nations and people's trough history. They had to fight for it. That is why you don't hear talk about slavery in Europe. Everyone has been a slave at some point or another. Its an American invention to serve as a narrative for the kind of politics we see now..... oppression Olympics. Its never about the equal rights, it about the exchange of rights under pretense of oppression withing the Marxist inspired framework.

Marxist ideology is immortal because it lives as a shadow of capitalists society. Remember that word, stray cat. You don't feed stray cats.

This is just one of many example of how feminists use language as weapon. By introducing new terms, redefining well established old ones, and labeling anything that does not fit the narrative as politically incorrect, feminists are doing what communists did. Its the continuation of Marxist ideas, applied in Communists China and Russia. One might say feminism began as marxism in a skirt.

As written in the 1970's Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory
by Catharine A. MacKinnon

"Sexuality is to feminism what capital is to marxism: that which is most one’s own, yet most taken away. Marxist theory argues that society is fundamentally constructed of the relations people form as they do and make things needed to survive humanly. Work is the social process of shaping and transforming the material and social worlds, creating people as social beings as they create value. It is that activity by which people become who they are. Class is its structure, production its conse­quence, capital its congealed form, and control its issue."

The relation between marxism and feminism has not changed since it was first written in 1973, but the argument on feminism itself has. It needed to evolve and it needed to become more and more aggressive, which it did. And like all civil rights movement, it has no end. No matter how much power you give to civil rights activists and how much you compromise , its never enough because that is the point. Its not about social justice its about power. It always has been.

Roger Scruton made a key observation, which is that feminist understood, they cannot win in direct competition with men, so in a sneaky way they saw opportunity in hijacking the language of the sociaty and turning it into political weapon.

"As far back as 1949 the seminal feminist thinker Simone de Beauvoir made this programmatic recommendation: “Language is inherited from a masculine society and contains many male prejudices . . . Women simply have to steal the instrument; they don’t have to break it or try a priori to make it something totally different. Steal it and use it for their own good” (1972, p. 123)."

And indeed they tried to do this with sex and gender. "During the 1970s American feminists seized on the idea of gender as a social construct, and used it to hide the truth about sex as a biological destiny. By replacing the word “sex” with the word “gender” they imagined that they could achieve at a stroke what their ideology required of them – to rescue sex from biology and to recast it as a complex social choice." (December 2002/January 2003, p. 1)

This lead to creation of a monster. Trans movement which now is the enemy of the very same feminists that created it. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the danger of letting politically ambitious people play with language. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

...................................

Former KGB Agent, Yuri Bezmenov, Warns America About Socialist Subversion

Another "oldie but a goodie" here. This video was recorded in 1984 and features former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov explaining/predicting what we're seeing in present day America.

“[T]he useful idiots, the leftists who are idealistically believing in the beauty of the Soviet socialist or Communist or whatever system, when they get disillusioned, they become the worst enemies. That’s why my KGB instructors specifically made the point: never bother with leftists. Forget about these political prostitutes. Aim higher. [...] They serve a purpose only at the stage of destabilization of a nation. For example, your leftists in the United States: all these professors and all these beautiful civil rights defenders. They are instrumental in the process of the subversion only to destabilize a nation. When their job is completed, they are not needed any more. They know too much. Some of them, when they get disillusioned, when they see that Marxist-Leninists come to power—obviously they get offended—they think that they will come to power. That will never happen, of course. They will be lined up against the wall and shot.” ― Yuri Bezmenov

...................................

Next time you claim Marxism has nothing to do with Communism , Jackson, please do us all a favor and don't make that claim. Just accept the fact that you are "useful idiot" and get out of the trap, before you are line up against the wall and shot.

@JacksonNought "First, I never claimed that Marxism had "nothing to do" with Communism. I said that Marxism wasn't the same as Communism. Which is still accurate. For example, Marx was extremely pro-gun and would be seen as a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, whereas Communism usually strips away guns from the masses in its attempt at total control. It is perhaps similar, but not 100%, to how America started off with Lockean philosophy, but eventually grew into a borderline plutocracy heading towards a theocracy."

Karl Marx wrote Communist Manifest, Marxism as based on writings of Karl Marx is road to communism. Marxit-Leninsm is the doctrine that established communism by force in Russia and other countries of Asia etc. While Cultural Marxism tries to establish communism by long march trough institutions.

To say that Marxism i snot the same as Communism is semantics. Don't be an idiot.

"You say Conservatism is the least oppressive? Well I guess that can be true if starting off at absolute freedom, but as you say this utopia doesn't exist. Conservatism is anti-change, and thinks the proven methods should be preserved and nothing should change the status quo. Conservatism is what fought against freeing the slaves. Conservatism is what fought against ending the Holocaust. Conservatism is what fought for segregation. Conservatism is what fought for anti-miscegenation. Conservatism is what fought for making it a crime to merely be gay. Conservatism is what fought against marriage equality. Conservatism is what fights against religious freedom for non-Christians. So no, Conservatism is not the least oppressive."

Thank you for confirming my point of not understanding what I said once against. I said "traditional conservatism", Traditionalist conservatism, also referred to as classical conservatism, traditional conservatism or traditionalism, is a political and social philosophy emphasizing the need for the principles of a transcendent moral order, manifested through certain natural laws to which society ought to conform in a prudent manner.

It is not against change it is against change that is not prudent. Something you know nothing about.

Unlike liberalism it does not reject prior moral ties and traditions because they contain valuable lessons tested over long period of time trough trial and error. And unlike radical lefty religions it is not ideological, it does not chase utopia.

“The conservative "thinks of political policies as intended to preserve order, justice, and freedom. The ideologue, on the contrary, thinks of politics as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society and even transforming human nature. In his march toward Utopia, the ideologue is merciless.” ― Russell Kirk

“Kirk defined the ideologue as one who “thinks of politics as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society and even transforming human nature.” Unleashed during the most radical phase of the French Revolution, the spirit of ideology has metastasized over the past two centuries, wreaking horrors. Jacobinism, Anarchism, Marxism, Leninism, Fascism, Stalinism, Nazism, Maoism—all shared the fatal attraction to “political messianism”; all were “inverted religions.” Each of these ideologies preached a dogmatic approach to politics, economics, and culture. Each in its own way endeavored “to substitute secular goals and doctrines for religious goals and doctrines.” Thus did the ideologue promise “salvation in this world, hotly declaring that there exists no other realm of being.” ― Russell Kirk, The American Cause

Technically communist were conservatives of the statue que, their regime. But in philosophical and ideological sense classical conservatism and conservatives of any regime are not the same. As I've explained the difference between ideologues and those who adhere to prudence in conservation. Not as tool for power.

"So in a Free-Market Capitalistic system, there should be no reason that sex workers would be prohibited. You say that would be suicide, well that is because you are injecting your own religious morals into it. "

No I am not arguing on religious morals, its simply a fact. It is self destructive by its very nature. Unfortunately you are too blinded by your own religion to understand the consequences. History is quite clear, you commercialize sex and indulge in hedonism and the society collapses into chaos, degeneracy, violence and ends.

Various world religions did not include morals about sexual behaviors because they don't like sex, but because they are aware of its destructive as well as constructive nature. And if there are no bounderies, there are no society. And no society means no survival for most people in history.

Apperntly this self evident truth is a mystery to you. It has nothing to do with religion, it is what religion adopted because it is destructive. But you would not know anything about that, would you?

"Considering I am of the "Left" I probably know more about it than someone who builds up strawmen and scapegoats. You cannot have Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian values mixed. Greco-Roman values were quite hedonistic and homosexuality was quite openly practiced with no issue. That's like saying you are taking a mix of Christian and theistic Satanist values."

Dude, what is your address, I'll mail you common sense books and some history books so you don't embarrass yourself. God, you really are hopeless. Its like arguing with a flat earthier.

"ou are so scared of this Marx bogeyman that I am honestly surprised you aren't in favor of disarming the populace just because Marx was in favor of guns. Communism is just a political system, no different than Capitalism or Socialism or Fascism or any of the others. They are just means for governing, they have nothing to do with moral codes or metaphysics or philosophy."

Unreal. Everything you just said is 100% wrong. The level of stupidity now amazes even me and I've seen your comments before. Forget it I don't really want to wast anymore time on someone like you. Your worse than other guy, what's his name, MiddleWay. Useful idiot to the core and proud of it. Unbelievable.

God, I wish I could turn you into a person living under communist regime and you are send to gulag to see how that works, because there is no other way you will get it. You obvious won't read anything about it and you blindly bealive in the lefty religion as salvation to all world problems, like all the useful idiots before you, until they found themselves shot or in gulags because they were no longer useful.

Maybe you should read about Mao's little Red Guards that are like you, until he shipped them off in China's gulags when they stopped being useful. Jeez, for crying out loud, read something other than communist manifesto that you seem to read like its a bible.

@Krunoslav I think we are at an impasse because we aren't arguing with the same facts or understanding of reality, and it seems doubtful that we ever will.

You are still classifying anything and everything that you disagree with as Marxism and Communism. Just because Marx may have agreed with a notion, you consider that notion full-on Marxism. So Marx thought women should have civil rights, so women asking for civil rights is "Cultural Marxism" and leads to the destruction of society. Again, I am quite surprised you haven't done this with gun rights... though I guess not really, as your Christian Dominionism lets you fetishize guns while classifying women as property.

Traditionalist conservatism, also referred to as classical conservatism, traditional conservatism or traditionalism, is a political and social philosophy emphasizing the need for the principles of a transcendent moral order, manifested through certain natural laws to which society ought to conform in a prudent manner.

It is not against change it is against change that is not prudent.

But who decides what is prudent? Who decides what this "moral order" is? What are "natural laws"? You claim I don't understand Conservatism with my list of the human rights atrocities in the US. Well, maybe not being American you are ignorant of our history, but American Christians were behind many of the fights against civil rights. Christians argued that the Bible made it clear that slavery was moral, that women were property, that the races shouldn't mix, etc. Based on dominant Christian majority voices, the decided upon "morals" were that White Christian Males were superior and deserving of privilege, and everyone else was subhuman. So yeah, even "Traditional Conservatism" by your definition would have claimed civil rights for women and minorities were not prudent.

And again you misuse words. You say Conservatism is just an ideology while Liberalism is a radical religion. No, they are both ideologies. Liberalism does not "chase utopia", unless your definition of a radical unrealistic utopia is offering people civil rights and freedom? If anything, Conservatism is more of a religion, as it refuses to change with the times and instead sticks with a specific interpretation of an objective dogma. You say Conservatism embraces "prior moral ties and traditions because they contain valuable lessons tested over long period of time trough trial and error." What was the trial and error though? Is giving women and gay people civil rights not keeping with the tradition of trial and error to see what works? At what point do we lock down the trial and error period and say only this way goes from now on? You are basically saying Conservatism says white men have ruled for centuries, let's stick with that, everyone else is worthless and should be grateful they aren't burned for fuel. Again, good thing you aren't American, because we rejected the "trial and error prior traditions" of monarchist England and slavery. Seems like you'd hate it here.

Your little Kirk quote says Conservatives preserve freedom. How can that be so if they are against freedom for some?

You love quotes so much, I have some for you as well.

I cannot help fearing that men may reach a point where they look on every new theory as a danger, every innovation as a toilsome trouble, every social advance as a first step toward revolution, and
that they may absolutely refuse to move at all.

Alexis de Tocqueville

Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals.

Mark Twain

Conservatism discards Prescription, shrinks from Principle, disavows Progress; having rejected all respect for antiquity, it offers no redress for the present, and makes no preparation for the future.

Benjamin Disraeli

A Conservative Government is an organized hypocrisy.

Benjamin Disraeli

Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose.

George Will

You have no actual evidence that enabling sex work destroys a society. There is no actual evidence that allows gays to marry or trans people to exist destroys a society. You have no justification other than your antiquated religious ways. Try and provide an actual argument for why gay people should not get married, without using religion to justify it or getting into slippery slopes.

No, actually I am 100% right.

Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.

Karl Marx

Marx was in favor of guns. And no, Communism has nothing to do with metaphysics. I don't even know what drugs you are on to think that.

I wish I could turn you into a person living under Islamic theocratic rule so that you could see how it works, because there is no other way you will get it. You obvious won't read anything about it and you blindly believe in the fringe-right theocratic religion as salvation to all world problems, like all the useful idiots before you.

Maybe take a day off of the Communist bogeyman outrage and identity politics. It'd be nice to see a post of yours one day that doesn't include the terms Marxism, Communism, Useful Idiot, or Trans.

@JacksonNought Yeah we are not operating from same point of view, that is more than clear. And you are wrong. If I agree with you, we would both be wrong. At best I can agree to disagree.