slug.com slug.com
8 1

LINK The idea of capitalism is a logical absurdity

Capitalism Is Not Capitalism
The logical destruction of capitalism.
Capitalism is based on the idea of private enterprise, meaning the private ownership of the means of production, which devolves down to the ownership of private capital. We see the practical failure of this kind of thinking. Capitalism Is Not Capitalism destroys the logical basis of the idea of private capital. Capitalism is founded on a logically incoherent idea.

Logical 5 Jan 21
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

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

Create your free account

8 comments

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

0

I will try, eventually, to re-read the whole thing again, but will you, at least try to explain to me why you think private ownership is illogical or incoherent?

You wrote: "In the language of capitalism private ownership in the real world, primarily means the state is a minority stakeholder in a commercial enterprise."

I'm not sure what dialect of the language of capitalism you speak, but, in the previous quote, you seem to not understand what private property, or private ownership means. You may be speaking of a seeming oxymoron, namely, democratic socialism?

Maybe you think a state has a right to steal citizens' private property? If so, that state is not a Capitalist State. The USA is not a Capitalist country, therefore. Maybe that's your point?

dmatic Level 8 Jan 29, 2020

There are only two possibilities, that I see, either man owns or God owns. If man owns one needs a jurisdictional figurehead, an owner. This is the state, the state represents the people. The state is given power over the people including the power to allocate resources. So the state always retains ultimate power over all property, but in terms of private property it is a minor shareholder being able to regulate but not directly administrate.

The people create the state as god to regulate them. But the people are the ultimate god and the state their servant. Yet to serve the people, as god, the state must overpower the people, thus defeating god in the name of the people, who was god. Its insane, irrational, illogical and it will never make sense.

@Edify Thank you. Appreciate your answer. You're thinking pretty deeply. Not sure I can get to your level, but let's start here: God owns everything, including people. Correct? People erroneously think they own themselves. "My body, my choice"...etc. Deceived. God is the only Sovereign. And He doesn't give Sovereignty to any other. In other words, everyone answers to Him and is accountable to Him. Correct? However, He has given a commandment to not steal, not even to covet, another's "property". His instructions for proper living include many that deal with honest business practices, just (fair and honest) weights and measures, honoring "borders" implying the property of others...So, how do we make sense of this?

He has granted us stewardship of His stuff. He has granted us a measure of authority to use His stuff so that we learn things, probably. He takes care of the sparrows and all His creatures even though they don't "own" anything. He owns it all. Yet, we see even animals defending their territorial "rights". So how do we all get along? By acknowledging His ownership of everything and being grateful that He gives us everything we need to live. Many many people are so focused on stuff and accumulating more and more for themselves so they become slaves to a system that uses them. What you and I want is liberty....from bondage.

Character is more valuable to God than wealth...correct? Yet, He teaches us and develops our character through dealing with all the suffering about "stuff".

So, where are we? God seems to have also given us "the state", and He also owns it. The state is accountable to Him as well, for the use of the authority or power He has granted it. You are so very right to notice that some think the state has all power and authority and they worship the state and try to please it so they can get what they need to live. They are slaves to an idol. The state, however, does not hold ultimate power. Only the power that God grants it. They may think they have ultimate power, but they, too, are deceived, for they will give an account to God.

There are things that people can learn about character, even if they are imprisoned by the state. Even an unrighteous "state". God has so planned it. However, His goal seems to be the establishment of His Kingdom on earth. A Kingdom has a king, who sets the rules for the people of His domain. The subjects of His kingdom submit to His instructions. So, the question is do people want to submit to a righteous, loving king, or to an unrighteous one?

@dmatic God allowed us the state. It is actually against Gods Will. God has ultimate power but he allows us to find our own way. If I was going to define a central problem it is this, the church is a social system based on accountability. So long as we have the state and the legal system we cannot be accountable to one another because we are wards or the state. We can either obey the state of God, it is not possible to do both.

Thanks for reading the piece and making relevant comments. It virtually never happens.

@Edify Well, Thanks for writing them. I already know what I think about stuff, so it's good to see how others are thinking as they make their ways "home". I certainly don't have everything figured out yet...but, I do know one thing, and that is that God knows what He is doing, and I trust Him, even when I don't understand. I don't think that is "blind faith", however, because I have "seen" Him operate in the past and He remains consistently faithful. After all....all things work together for 'good'....even when things seem to be bad.

Regarding your idea that we "can't" obey the state and God...may I ask you how you interpret Romans 13? thanks

@dmatic I suggest you read Samuel 8 as my response. In addition, I believe Romans also talks about obeying ones master as a slave, you think that also means God wants us to be slaves to humans/state?

@Edify I am not suggesting anything. I simply asked you about Romans 13. There are many varying opinions of its interpretation. Was just curious what yours was. I seem to remember that 1 Samuel 8 is about Israel wanting king instead of God?

1

Terms such as capitalism, liberal, conservative, progressive, and a number of others have warped in reference to their meaning through manipulation of the idea behind the term. Like gay used to mean happy, wicked used to mean evil or unkind intent, words meanings can be altered or just abused. The Liberal party in Canada refers to itself as being "progressive" but I have seen nearly nothing progressive from them, in fact quite the opposite. The world of legal jargon is famous for the double speak (double meaning) of words. Capitalism is a great thing when people can contribute in a business effort they believe in and want to support, thereby gaining some return for their input. However capitalism, banking, finance, international dealings have over time altered to become pretty ugly and difficult to trust. That's been happening for a long time, but it continues to become more and more ugly.

Capitalism is an incoherent idea and cannot be made functional.

@Edify To make a statement like that I need you to define capitalism. Capitalism, in my view, is an economic system that recognizes private ownership of wealth. Economics is the study of the production, distribution and consumption of wealth. To say that a capitalism cannot be made functional makes me wonder, too, what you mean by functionality.

@MadManatee In my understanding, there is a complete difference between capitalism and financialism. Capitalism without financialism is what we need to attain. But, I appreciate your understanding that words are often conflated and misunderstood. What do you think capitalism is?

@Edify Why do you think the concept of private property is non-functional?

@dmatic Personal property is use property, private property (misnomer) is commercial. It requires legitimization by the state. To have power to protect the state must have the power to regulate. Ownership of commercial private property is unworkable because there is and always must be tension between the investor, the state, and the people.

@dmatic I hate broadening arguments but capitalism (the argument the provision of capital warrants a share of the take), can only exist because the ownership is legitimized by the state. The state legitimizes by virtue of this capital. But capital itself is a fictitious claim. Fictitious claim gives rise to a fictitious legitimization of claim by a fictitious agent called the state.

@Edify OK, as I confessed earlier, I may not be smart enough to get to your depth of thinking, and, I don't have too much time left this morning, but I want to try to understand you. Commerce, as in commercial, simply means trading....usually, stuff for stuff, or services for stuff, or service for service, but it involves a voluntary entering in to an agreement...in a capitalist society. It would be good to talk about these things in terms of what they should be and not what they've been misconstrued to be..

Private property is the idea that everyone owns their own labor, for example. The state doesn't own it. Nor does the slaveholder. In a 'free' society, everyone owns their own labor, or effort. They may choose to enter into an agreement with another who will give them some stuff, materials, or capital, or wealth produced by another, for the labor that they will donate. The one who is trading the stuff for the labor owns the stuff being traded, too. But, once the agreement is fulfilled, the stuff and ownership rights to it have been transferred to the laborer.

He can now use his stuff how he sees fit. It's his. It is not the state's. It should be his property. He can choose to enter into an agreement to put some of his stuff into another enterprise that produces wealth to be traded. This agreement may include a share of the profit of the trading. Because, without the capital invested the wealth may not have been produced. Gotta go, for now...sorry

@dmatic That is the theory. Its all wrong. The problem I always have is do you and others expect me to re link you to the Blog Post or do you want me to copy and past the Blog here or do I try and rewrite all the arguments again? Because in my opinion I spend days writing the Blog so as to get past these kind of basic issues. If I wanted to talk basic definitions and ideas I would probably not even bothered to write the Blog.

@Edify If you don't want to discuss it, no problem.

@dmatic I do not want to tell you what is in the Blog. I actually wrote it for people to read. So so they could ask me what is in it.

@Edify I read the blog. Thanks

@dmatic There are two totally distinct, mutually exclusive ways of life. One path creates and even necessitates freeloading, the other eliminates it. All cultures embrace freeloading. Governments necessitates it. There is only one thing to discuss, do you support freeloading or not. If not we need to work together to eliminate it and part of this is the elimination of all agencies that produce and necessitate freeloading... and that includes capitalism.

@Edify I am simply at a loss to understand how capitalism produces and necessitates free-loading. What kind of an economic system are you advocating? As you know, the USA is not a capitalist government anymore. I would work to bring it back to such a world view, but....it appears the selfish desire for 'freeloading', as you properly describe it, is an immorality, that only righteous teaching may deal with. The socialist system of government education in this country is a very big opponent. How are you fighting it?

@dmatic I am starting a podcast, this is not specifically about the topic but it may help you to understand the broader framework. [anchor.fm]

@dmatic When you vote in a government, the government has power but no productive capacity. It has to take from the producer to pay its costs. Then it has to enforce its policies but the only way to do this by once more taking wealth from the producer. Capitalism is given ownership of resources it did not create and cannot own, The state gives private persons ownership to things it has no right to itself, so how can it assign ownership. This system is based on freeloading. IT is impossible to do anything else. If you are serious about learning about this system it is in its true form 6000 years old, and the solution requires you learn why and how this system fails and this is not going to happen here. You will just have to read the blog and the web site and contact me through the site if you have questions.

@Edify What you are talking about is unrighteous government and taxation, or theft, without consent. That is not capitalism. In fact, that sort of government is anti-capitalism, which is what we see in America.

@dmatic Your comment is based on your definitions. Even so if you can show me how capitalism can operate without using natural resources you have proved your point up until then capitalism is based on error and legal fictions. (Read the Blog post on ownership).

@Edify OK, I read your blog on ownership, and like I said, I think you are trying to make good points here and there of that long piece. To comment and answer that would probably take an extended answer or blog of my own. Thank you for taking the time and effort to write it.

Of course I use words that are based on my definitions to try to communicate. When trying to read and understand others' thoughts expressed with words they choose, I often have to look up words in the dictionary.

You seem to be trying to tackle a huge subject...namely, the injustices you think you see with the way people "organize" themselves and try to deal with "reality". A valid cause. You are trying to make the world a better place...thinking that if people understood reality the way you do, it would be fair and just?

If it helps, I will try to give a short overview of my perspective.

In the beginning, God.

By right of creation, He owns everything He created with His labor. That, of course, include humans, as well as "natural resources" as you define 'material', or created matter....the physical universe.

So, reality, that we find ourselves 'living' within, in His. He defines what is right and what is wrong in His creation.
He does not share His Sovereignty. Therefore, even though rebellious men want to make their own rules, and try to redefine what is right and wrong, to their own, seeming advantage, they do not have the 'right' to do what He says is wrong.

He told man to subdue His Creation and cultivate it...to culture it..to produce the fruit He is interested in...and to "rule" it with love. In other words, He gave man 'dominion' over His Creation.

We will all give 'account' of ourselves. We are stewards of His stuff. He has given us the power, or the right to create wealth. And, He has given us lots of instruction in how to live, but man and his cunning deceitfulness has tried to usurp God's place. This is anti-Christ....instead of Christ defining how to live, some men want to take His place and tell us what is right and wrong. It won't work of course, but God has His reasons for allowing it to continue for a while.

that's a start....later I will talk about ownership if you want me to....gotta go

@dmatic A reasonable summary. At least you do sound like you actually read the piece. And you are right, the theory is a Theory of Everything from Ontology to business model.

2

OK, I read the link. All of it. And, I can't decide if it is brilliant, or, the confused meanderings of someone who gets that something is wrong but doesn't quite know what it is. So, where to start?

Ownership. We should own what we create. Who else should own it? Well, if it is sold, then the created thing is owned by another. Correct? Does the state have a right to claim partial ownership of things created by its citizens? Why? There may be some reasons that we can talk about later. So, let's look at ownership again. Did we create ourselves? No. God did, so He owns us. And, by right of creation He owns all that He created. However, He has benevolently authorized us to create wealth, using His stuff. The definition of wealth in this context is: anything and everything made valuable by human effort. So, for example, He creates a tree and a forest of many of them on land He made, as well as many other "raw materials" from which to put human effort into to create other things for human consumption and use. So, the tree in the forest is "valuable" in a sense, but no one can use it unless someone "invests" the time and resources to go into the forest and cut it down and bring it to the mill or saw it up somewhere and make a chair in their shop, or whatever, and then bring the good to the marketplace.

Now, it is understood that the human that exerted the effort to make that tree "valuable" didn't create it, but God has authorized him to use it, though He charges the man 10%, for the labor that God put into the enterprise of making the raw material....the capital. Correct?

A question is: Does the state own the land or does God?

dmatic Level 8 Jan 23, 2020

Well done, you summarized the blog post pretty good. Did I not mention God and his role, to be honest I cannot remember but i think I would have, which makes we wonder if it was my writing that was the problem or your reading? Regardless, nothing worth correcting you on. The question as to who owns the land is going to produce a confusing answer. I am writing on this now, it ought to be done today. God owns the actual land... the state owns the title to the land. Government is a process by which mankind supersedes the will of God with his own will. I will let the new Blog Post fill out the details.

I refuse to believe you read the essay to the end. If it did not answer your question I seriously cannot understand why I even wrote it... the whole point of it so far as I can remember was to answer these questions. The way the world understands ownership is wrong,,, really really wrong and I will not go through it all here.

@Edify That's fine. So the way the world understands ownership is wrong. Guess I'll have to re-read your stuff to see if you understand what ownership is.

@dmatic Thanks. I have to warn you. My ideas are based on a way of thinking that creates a view of reality that rejects the way everyone thinks of it. a sure sign of mental illness except my ideas are based solely on logic and so there is no failed ideas, no inconsistencies, no problem without a solution. I do not need to be smart, I simply need to look at what makes logical sense given the perfect logic of the system itself. Thus the system solves its problems. In fact my claim is that if one fails in logic one resorts to law. If your outlook requires law (human) at some point I guarantee the position is flawed.

@Edify Could you direct me to some of your writing that defines "ownership" more specifically?

And "mental illness"? Most all of us are infected because we don't think correctly about reality. I do desire to think correctly....I suppose, judged by the One Who creates reality. If my opinion of reality differs from the Creator's, guess who is wrong?

@dmatic Odd request since on Jan 27 a Blog post was made specifically about ownership... [dextarian.net]

@Edify I hadn't seen that. Thanks for providing the link. Long piece. Many good points made.

I do have a question or two, of course....but you seem too busy to answer? No problem...but if you do have some time:
"...A new path must be established that rejects the intervention of man and restores the absolute suzerainty of God.

Politics as the practice of democracy and the establishment of government as a means of overthrowing God cannot solve the problem of the wayward child of God. Political activity and political participation is not a solution for the Christian or a program that can result in the formation or establishment of the Christian church."

I presume you meant sovereignty? (in the first quoted sentence) Governments ARE under God....and His sovereignty, whether they know that or not.

You suggest finding a 'path'...but then say it is not for the Christian to participate in politics?

You bring up a lot of good points, but I still have no idea, really, of what you are suggesting....sorry.

@dmatic If you cannot understand the detailed explanation you will not understand anything i say here. Its about logic versus liberalism.
Reality is logical or it could not be understood by us. It is symbolic or it could not be symbolized and communicated by us. We cannot create information out of that which is relative. Truth requires absoluteness or logical coherence. We cannot derive sense out of nonsense nor symbology out of that which conveys no meaning.
The idea of reality as a thing in itself which our truth can approximate but our minds never grasp nor our senses directly perceive creates a logical conundrum that cannot be rectified.
Truth cannot be contingent and if truth is not relative then reality if it is to exist at all has to be logical because only logic is absolute and only analytical truth eliminates contingent and relativistic theories of reality. [anchor.fm]

@Edify OK but what is the new path you speak of....that must be found. Do you know?

@dmatic [dextarian.net]

@dmatic [anchor.fm]

1

Did anyone follow the link and read the blog post... I am betting no one. [dextarian.net]

Logical Level 5 Jan 23, 2020
0

Okay, I understand every bit of that essay but got nothing from it. I don't find a point.

govols Level 8 Jan 21, 2020

Did you see it 1) destroys all of capitalisms logical pretensions 2) demonstrates a logical alternataive is possible

1

You should get a dictionary sir. but please, allow me:

cap·i·tal·ism
/ˈkapədlˌizəm/
noun
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

pri·vate en·ter·prise
/ˈprīvit ˈen📞ərˌprīz/
noun
noun: private enterprise
business or industry that is managed by independent companies or private individuals rather than by the state.

cap·i·tal1
/ˈkapədl/
noun
wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available or contributed for a particular purpose such as starting a company or investing..

means of pro·duc·tion
noun
noun: means of production
(especially in a political context) the facilities and resources for producing goods.

Perhaps you meant to illuminate us with wisdom from on high, but what you have written is gibberish.

Yes, totally illogical. But I may not have your intelligence... you explain the business that has no state intervention or legal claim on it.

If you did not follow the link then do doubt a snippet would not be understood... [dextarian.net]

@Edify
I'll use the author's own words

  1. "In the language of capitalism private ownership in the real world, primarily means the state is a minority stakeholder in a commercial enterprise"
    This is completely incorrect and unsupported.

2)"... What is ownership?"
Is this author on drugs? Questioning the definition of words is a hack trick meant to allow the questioner to disregard commonly held understandings

3)"We own what we create, and no one can legitimately possess what he or she has not created nor legitimately impose costs on another, as this is a surreptitious way of extracting assets created by someone and invalidating their rights of ownership".
This is actually a fair point. HOWEVER, it completely discounts voluntary transaction and joint ownership.

4)" The ownership of a stone is technically similar to the ownership of vast tracts of natural resources in the sense that in neither case is the ownership legitimate, as neither owner created what he claims he owns."
This is utter nonsense and totally ignores the system in which we operate.

5)"The fact that we are permitted to have a home and a vegetable garden does not open the door to global corporations"
Permitted by who? This author has little understanding of freedom and AGAIN voluntary transactions.

  1. I'll skip to the end. Nothing this author claims throughout this piece is supported by fact, reason, mutual understanding, history or law. It's gibberish.

7)"Until it can create a free market able to generate true accountability and separate out competing ownership claims compromising capitalism by resorting to socialism to support its claims seems nothing short of asking a fence to verify the goods you stole are indeed yours"
We have a way of "generate true accountability and separate out competing ownership claim" it's called our LEGAL system and "asking a fence to verify the goods you stole are indeed yours" STOLE from who?

Complete garbage argument.

@Boardwine I'm not sure it is garbage, my friend. I think we should give the author time and grace to try to understand what he is saying. He seems to be attempting to dig deep into our understanding, or misunderstanding, as the case may be, of our fundamental ideas concerning what is right.

@dmatic Perhaps. I’m of the mind that it’s an attempt to “ intellectualize” a fairly simple concept . In the end of course it’s all God’s creation but capitalism is at its heart simply a long series of mutually beneficial voluntary transactions. If we’re to accept the author premise no one owns or creates anything. That’s a path to the Stone Age imho.

@Boardwine I basically agree other than that this is my opinion, I think you are mixing me up with you, otherwise a good comment.

@Boardwine, @dmatic Its all about who owns what, who has the jurisdiction. One way of seeing it is looking at government as a process of superseding the will and rights of God with the will and legal rights of man.

@dmatic, @Boardwine I can only agree you managed not to understand a single point I made which I think is quite admirable. It would give us an incredible amount to talk about if I was willing to try and unravel your points and say what I actually said all over again. But I have learnt that if a person does not understand me the first time around the second time only adds to the things I have to explain all over again. I am finishing off another peice which elaborates on this essay from a slightly different angle. That will give you some more stuff to misunderstand. Please just say you are confused and save yourself and myself time I am sure neither of us have.

@Edify It's not a matter of misunderstanding. It's actually not even an original thought. This perspective has been around for longer than I have to be sure. I think it's really a conflation of several ideas. You state "....government as a process of superseding the will and rights of God with the will and legal rights of man."

God does not have rights. His existence is not relevant to the discussion.

You also state " It's all about who owns what, who has the jurisdiction"

In times past this question has been answered by the sword. The "right" of conquest.
Today we use the courts which factor in many things. Legal standing, first possession and a host of other facts.
Perfect? By no means. But generally agreed to and certainly better than the former.

As you see, hopefully at any rate, you argument does not confuse me. It's simply not a well thought out argument because 1) It assumes facts not in evidence 2) It argues from authority (God owns it all, therefore we can own nothing)3) It's illogical because we do, in fact, have a system that works through these questions.

But, I could be wrong. And thank you for posting something that is at least worth commenting on even if in an attempt to debunk it.

@Edify Part of the responsibility in communication is to understand, but also to communicate in such a way as to be understood. What is your aim, here?

@dmatic @Edify I was always taught the the responsibility for the message being heard and understood was on the sender.

@dmatic My aim is to explain to people what is wrong with the world and how to correct the problem. At the same time people who do not understand (unless there are some real grammatical errors) do not wish to.

@dmatic You either understand the message or it has grammatical errors. What grammatical errors did you find?

@Edify So you stance is because others seem not to "understand" your message, the fault is theirs as opposed to yours? Now, while I will agree that some things are simply beyond some peoples comprehension this certainly doesn't seem to meet that criteria and thus the fault must lie with the sender as opposed to the receivers.
If you aim is to " .... explain to people what is wrong with the world and how to correct the problem" you may want to consider a different style of communication.

@Boardwine No, totally wrong, what you write is what you thought would make your position stronger and give you something to write about. But I now get the chance to repeat myself and I love to keep saying the same thing over and over again. My point is that simple english sentences ought to be understood by anyone and can be if and only if the reader wants to understand them, If they are like you and are looking for a reason to dispute the other then there is nothing the writer can do. However, if there are grammatical or logical errors that is something the reader would note and could list,, unless he or she is a liar and a hypocrite and simply looks to discredit the writer because of ideological reasons. But I guess I do not have to tell you that.

@Edify Apparently you confuse understanding with agreeing. I understand your argument, it's merely a fools argument. And I'm not seeking to discredit the author simply pointing out the nonsense which he/she is spouting.

@Boardwine OK, I get that but it has to have meaning and relevance. If you just pull nonsense out of thin air it gives me no where to go and nothing to add. You wrote .... 4)" The ownership of a stone is technically similar to the ownership of vast tracts of natural resources in the sense that in neither case is the ownership legitimate, as neither owner created what he claims he owns."
This is utter nonsense and totally ignores the system in which we operate.

You reply is nonsense and I explain why in the Blog post. It is the fictitious was we think about ownership that I talk about. You fish out the comment and leave behind the explanation I have already given for the position.

0

Capitalism is Not Capitalism is an illogical statement.

dmatic Level 8 Jan 21, 2020

Exactly, you are the first one so far to understand my point.

1

Other than being the only thing that ever brought people out of poverty by a system of reward for innovation, and other than being the basis for all private business from the bakery to the butcher shop ... yeah, completely illogical! 🤣🤣🤣

You think that is great, you forgot the incredible invention of fire. If we had only listened to your ancestors we would not have invented electricity. But regardless of you progress will continue.

@Edify Whatever. Facts are facts. And fire is a natural element, not an invention.

Write Comment

Recent Visitors 15

Photos 11,776 More

Posted by GeeMacMexico admits it is a hotbed of drug trafficking, but not of drug use, according to its top politician.

Posted by JohnHoukReprising ShadowGate Documentaries: With Dr.

Posted by JohnHoukLest YOU Are Brainwashed to be Happy in an Age of Transformation Tyranny: Videos & Commentary to Refresh YOUR Memory to at Least Awaken Personal Resistance! SUMMARY: An examination of saved videos...

Posted by Weltansichtwell....doggies

Posted by MosheBenIssacMetoo in action

Posted by JohnHoukDr.

Posted by JohnHoukConnecting the Dots! Some AI Truth – What Used to be “Playing God” is Really “Playing Devil” SUMMARY: … Satan – the foe – has only one delusional recourse: Brainwash human souls ...

Posted by JohnHoukMy Intro to Documentary, ‘Let My People Go’ SUMMARY: Dr.

Posted by JohnHoukMedical Tyranny – A Look at mRNA Danger & COVID Bioweapon Exploitation SUMMARY: Medical Tyranny has become a fact of life that the brainwashing Dem-Marxists, RINOs and Mockingbird MSM work hard ...

Posted by JohnHoukDr.

Posted by JohnHoukIrritated With Transformation Yet?

Posted by JohnHoukVOTE TRUMP – Overcome Dem-Marxist/RINO Lies – Video Share SUMMARY: The first batch of shared videos reflects VOTE-FOR-TRUMP in the midst of Dem-Marxist/RINO government LIES.

Posted by JohnHoukA Look at Mike Benz, THEN Tucker Ep.

Posted by JohnHoukLooking at ‘The Great Setup with Dr.

Posted by JohnHoukEnlightening Videos of a Corrupted Society SUMMARY: … The thing is, TYRANNY today has become very multifaceted in how the socio-political infection of CONTROL has crept into the one-time Land of ...

Posted by JohnHoukMedical Tyranny Liars A Look at CDC, Big Pharma, MSM & Social Media Cartel Owners SUMMARY: I like the Natural News Anti-Medical Tyranny stand.

  • Top tags#video #youtube #world #government #media #biden #democrats #USA #truth #children #Police #society #god #money #reason #Canada #rights #freedom #culture #China #hope #racist #death #vote #politics #communist #evil #socialist #Socialism #TheTruth #justice #kids #democrat #evidence #crime #conservative #hell #laws #nation #liberal #federal #community #military #racism #climate #violence #book #politicians #joebiden #fear ...

    Members 9,397Top

    Moderators