Left vs right is a LIE.

It is constructed entirely to distract, divide and confuse the the American people and keep them from using their brains to think for themselves.

Apparently it works very well.

NOTHING will ever change by voting, if it could make change it would probably be made illegal. So don't follow blindly, take a step back from it all, take a look at the bigger picture. Forget your differences and look at just how similar you are.

While you bicker and argue amongst yourselves the supposedly UNITED, states of America becomes more and more like Stalin's dream through the Collectivist/communist polices enacted by both left and right.

They are laughing at you all while they u...

Left vs right is a LIE.

It is constructed entirely to distract, divide and confuse the the American people and keep them from using their brains to think for themselves.

Apparently it works very well.

NOTHING will ever change by voting, if it could make change it would probably be made illegal. So don't follow blindly, take a step back from it all, take a look at the bigger picture. Forget your differences and look at just how similar you are.

While you bicker and argue amongst yourselves the supposedly UNITED, states of America becomes more and more like Stalin's dream through the Collectivist/communist polices enacted by both left and right.

They are laughing at you all while they use your tax money to imprison and poison you, it's time people woke up to one of the greatest deceptions mankind has ever seen and took a stand against a corrupted Totalitarian system. that will only ever enslave them through the widespread use of deception.

Infowarrior, Communism is a GOOD thing. It's not the authoritarian boogieman that McCarthy painted it as. It is what you get when a place becomes a truly Christian nation, with everyone taking care of everyone else, and everyone being prosperous, instead of there being rich people and poor people.

Oh, and Left vs. Right isn't a lie. Republican vs. Democrat is a lie, because that is Right vs Right. There is no Left among the main political parties in the US; it all leads to fascism. If America is lucky, it can pull off a Right-Centre government, like it has right now, but that is an exception.

Conservatism isn't a rational political impulse. It's all passion with no logic. It'...

Infowarrior, Communism is a GOOD thing. It's not the authoritarian boogieman that McCarthy painted it as. It is what you get when a place becomes a truly Christian nation, with everyone taking care of everyone else, and everyone being prosperous, instead of there being rich people and poor people.

Oh, and Left vs. Right isn't a lie. Republican vs. Democrat is a lie, because that is Right vs Right. There is no Left among the main political parties in the US; it all leads to fascism. If America is lucky, it can pull off a Right-Centre government, like it has right now, but that is an exception.

Conservatism isn't a rational political impulse. It's all passion with no logic. It's borderline sociopathy. We shouldn't be inviting those people to form a government; we should be getting them psychological help so they can learn to show some simple human kindness!

"Communism is a GOOD thing" - a deluded fool

That explains a lot.

Would that include the part with a ONE party system?

Now to tend to that woefully invalid christian argument.

""Marx had clearly identified organized religion as a threat to the worker because the loyalty of individual workers should be to each other, not to a supreme being. As a result, Stalin took steps to limit the power of religion in the USSR. Churches and mosques were closed and converted into schools or movie theaters. Religious icons were melted down, and meetings were banned throughout the country. Religion was forced to go underground, in order to hide from the prying eyes of Stalin's police." ...

"Communism is a GOOD thing" - a deluded fool

That explains a lot.

Would that include the part with a ONE party system?

Now to tend to that woefully invalid christian argument.

""Marx had clearly identified organized religion as a threat to the worker because the loyalty of individual workers should be to each other, not to a supreme being. As a result, Stalin took steps to limit the power of religion in the USSR. Churches and mosques were closed and converted into schools or movie theaters. Religious icons were melted down, and meetings were banned throughout the country. Religion was forced to go underground, in order to hide from the prying eyes of Stalin's police."

As for it not being the "Authoritarian bogey man" try telling that to the millions who have been exterminated by their own Government in China, numbers that make the Holocaust look like someone stepping on an ant farm.
Then there are those who still live under oppressive Communist/socialist regimes like in North Korea, Vietnam, China, Romania, the other soviet republics, Cambodia, Ethiopia etc why not ask them if they think it a good thing? Or better yet pick one go live there then report back to us.

Oh that's right I forgot you wouldn't be able to due to the heavily restricted internet access.
Which for all intents and purposes has the freedom of a fly without wings, it is so restricted that literally nothing goes in or out without prior government approval. Much like the Rockafella crime family are proposing and Obama's Cybersecurity bill would.

Russia rejected communism for a good reason many years ago, at the fall of the Soviet Union and they are still dealing with the fallout from it.

"At its birth, socialism promised the emancipation of labour, a society founded on workers' control in which work would be transformed from drudgery done in the pursuit of profit to collective activity done in the service of human needs. Yet workers in the 'socialist states' today cry out against the same kind of alienation and dehumanization denounced by the earliest critics of industrial capitalism. Indeed, so demeaned have workers become in the world's largest 'communist' country, China, that the Chinese government has offered to lease out its labourers to western corporations, promising docility and labour discipline in exchange for foreign currency."


Meanwhile, all the states of Easte...

"At its birth, socialism promised the emancipation of labour, a society founded on workers' control in which work would be transformed from drudgery done in the pursuit of profit to collective activity done in the service of human needs. Yet workers in the 'socialist states' today cry out against the same kind of alienation and dehumanization denounced by the earliest critics of industrial capitalism. Indeed, so demeaned have workers become in the world's largest 'communist' country, China, that the Chinese government has offered to lease out its labourers to western corporations, promising docility and labour discipline in exchange for foreign currency."


Meanwhile, all the states of Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union included, have seen the emergence of mass workers' movements that are demanding basic rights and freedoms.
Such working class resistance has exposed the pretence of the claims by these regimes to be workers' states that are charting the course to a new society of freedom.

“The goal of socialism is to lead to communism.”
- What socialism is useful for, according to Vladamir Lenin.


Socialism encompasses components of both fascism and communism which are in fact more similar than most of the sheep realize, the means may differ but the end result remains the same. It is a scientific dictatorship.

Someone remind me, I forgot the abbreviation for a National Socialist. I know the long form was like National Socialist German Worker's Party...

Deluded as always, Inforwarrior. There are currently NO communist nations on earth. There is not a single nation that follows the path of true communism, so comparing anything to any of the nations that currently use the "Communist" label is ludicrous and moronic. True communism is nothing like either those countries, or the boogieman that McCarthy screamed at Americans about.

True communism is well defined by Jesus Christ; in that everyone works for the betterment of all; where everyone uplifts each other for everyone's benefit.

You can quote mythical concepts of socialism and communism until you're blue in the face, but they are still completely irrelevant to what the real...

Deluded as always, Inforwarrior. There are currently NO communist nations on earth. There is not a single nation that follows the path of true communism, so comparing anything to any of the nations that currently use the "Communist" label is ludicrous and moronic. True communism is nothing like either those countries, or the boogieman that McCarthy screamed at Americans about.

True communism is well defined by Jesus Christ; in that everyone works for the betterment of all; where everyone uplifts each other for everyone's benefit.

You can quote mythical concepts of socialism and communism until you're blue in the face, but they are still completely irrelevant to what the reality of the concepts are. Real communism only exists in this world in small communes; often religious in nature, and they exist in peace and prosperity — the same way the world could be if not for the greed of capitalists.

Capitalism is about uplifting the self, at the expense of your fellow man. How could it be anything but horrible? This pathological, antisocial, oppressive system is what you want to pass off as "freedom"?

Hah! What a joke!

Darkeforce

Fascism, Democracy, communism, socialism, Capitalism, etc, are all Collectivism and tools of the elite used to control and enslave. No-one should be allowed any kind of authority over another EVER.

Wherever and whenever another has the opportunity to be Authoritative over another you will find greed corruption and deceit. Collectivism breeds it like a Petri dish.
No matter how good the initial intentions may have been. This applies to both religion and politics.

Just because the majority rule or vote for something it doesn't always follow that decision is moral or even lawful under common or natural law which supercedes ANY authority. Just in case you are unaware of common l...

Darkeforce

Fascism, Democracy, communism, socialism, Capitalism, etc, are all Collectivism and tools of the elite used to control and enslave. No-one should be allowed any kind of authority over another EVER.

Wherever and whenever another has the opportunity to be Authoritative over another you will find greed corruption and deceit. Collectivism breeds it like a Petri dish.
No matter how good the initial intentions may have been. This applies to both religion and politics.

Just because the majority rule or vote for something it doesn't always follow that decision is moral or even lawful under common or natural law which supercedes ANY authority. Just in case you are unaware of common law, in its simplest form it is that you may do as you please as long as you do not cause loss or harm to another, this covers everything with nothing excluded and is the foundation upon which constitutions and rights are built.

Only when no-one has authority over another can anyone ever be free, Truly Free, not free to do as we tell you or free to be deceived and controlled.
True freedom the likes of which hasn't been seen in well over 8 millennia, at a time when there were no leaders, only teachers and wise folk who didn't demand respect but instead were venerated for the gifts and talents they possessed.

I never even once said I was for capitalism, to be honest I despise money and personal gain.
The only things I possess are tools which enable me to perform certain tasks.
Just because I am against its polar opposite it does not automatically follow that I advocate it.

I honestly pity you, for your closed mind must shutter out a wealth of beauty and understanding you will never know or be able achieve.

Now since you obviously lack the ability to engage in civil debate, I would prefer it If you did the apparently "christian thing" and simply turned the other cheek brother.

Speaking of which isn't darkeforce an odd name for someone who claims to follow christian ideology?

Infowarrior is an Anarchist; the path to social dissolution and death. He's advocating a dead-end system.

There always has to be some Authoritarianism, Infowarrior. Humankind descends into chaos when there isn't. The Lord of the Flies is a prime example of that. Complete Libertarianism leads to Right by Might, and civil liberties disappear as violence escalates.

As for who enforces the rule of treating everyone like you would want to be treated, it is simply everyone. "Elders" can be voted for democratically, and changed as needed. That's how true communism works. Of course, to really make it work, you have to destroy the concept of money. That is what keeps the tyranny of Capitalism opera...

Infowarrior is an Anarchist; the path to social dissolution and death. He's advocating a dead-end system.

There always has to be some Authoritarianism, Infowarrior. Humankind descends into chaos when there isn't. The Lord of the Flies is a prime example of that. Complete Libertarianism leads to Right by Might, and civil liberties disappear as violence escalates.

As for who enforces the rule of treating everyone like you would want to be treated, it is simply everyone. "Elders" can be voted for democratically, and changed as needed. That's how true communism works. Of course, to really make it work, you have to destroy the concept of money. That is what keeps the tyranny of Capitalism operating — you create an artificial essential need, and then you deprive people of it.

No, my mind isn't closed. It's quite open, and I see a great many things, like the atrocities of Capitalistic systems and the slow death of freedom and liberty in America in exchange for Fascism.

As for my name, stop reading it without the "e" on the end of "Darke", and refer to one of the more archaic definitions of that word; meaning "Mysterious". What's so unChristian about being named after a mysterious force?

To Darkeforce I first say this; I wasn't implying your username was evil in nature or origin and I am well aware of the archaic definition of Darke, which is why I remarked upon it. As it appears to have pagan connotations.

Secondly, do not be so quick to judge. The closest thing to an ideology that I follow would be a relatively new one known as Individualism and Not Anarchism.

Pure Anarchism (there are many hundreds of variations) can be defined as "a state or region, without laws or governance"


Individualists however, believe that the legitimate power of government includes the protection of life, liberty, and property. They have no problem with legalized coercion when restricted t...

To Darkeforce I first say this; I wasn't implying your username was evil in nature or origin and I am well aware of the archaic definition of Darke, which is why I remarked upon it. As it appears to have pagan connotations.

Secondly, do not be so quick to judge. The closest thing to an ideology that I follow would be a relatively new one known as Individualism and Not Anarchism.

Pure Anarchism (there are many hundreds of variations) can be defined as "a state or region, without laws or governance"


Individualists however, believe that the legitimate power of government includes the protection of life, liberty, and property. They have no problem with legalized coercion when restricted to these areas. However, it is necessary to define that there are basically three types of legalized coercion: an oligarchy (rule by an elite minority), a democracy (majority rule), and a REPUBLIC (LIMITED majority rule).

In a Republic, the primary purpose of limitations is to protect the Life, Liberty, and Property of Individuals and minorities against the passion, Greed, and Ignorance of the majority. Traditionally these limitations which are founded upon the principles of Common Law, are written into what we know as a Constitution, it is agreed that everyone must follow them, including agents of government itself, who are given or lent authority by the consent of the governed, but do not hold any authority themselves, there is a difference.

(COMMON LAW - That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. The system of
jurisprudence that originated in England and which was latter adopted in the U.S. that is based on precedent instead of statutory laws.)

As long as there is a respect for the wisdom and necessity of those limitations and as long as they keep a watchful eye on their own government to insure obedience,Republics Are The Embodiment of Individualism and produce the best social order humanly possible.

The government of the United States was a True Republic up until about 1900. After that, the old generation passed away and was replaced by a new wave that had no understanding of the need for limitations on government. Instead of distrusting government officials, they began to look up to them as gods and saviours. They embraced the principle of democracy, and it has been a downhill road to serfdom ever since.
An example of pure Democracy in action. Is a lynch mob. There is only one dissenting voter, and He is at the end of the rope!

The Founders of the American Republic were well aware that they were attempting to create something fundamentally different from what had been done before and...

The government of the United States was a True Republic up until about 1900. After that, the old generation passed away and was replaced by a new wave that had no understanding of the need for limitations on government. Instead of distrusting government officials, they began to look up to them as gods and saviours. They embraced the principle of democracy, and it has been a downhill road to serfdom ever since.
An example of pure Democracy in action. Is a lynch mob. There is only one dissenting voter, and He is at the end of the rope!

The Founders of the American Republic were well aware that they were attempting to create something fundamentally different from what had been done before and even different from what their constituents expected. They were expected to create a new monarchy to replace the old. Instead, they set out to create something so different that they often referred to it as an experiment.

The experiment was that they created a state with substantial limitations on its power. They built a beta model, not for a government, but a Protectorate. They wanted their creation to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens but NOT to govern them. Unfortunately, they made the mistake – and I think it was a fatal mistake – of referring to their creation as a government. They simply borrowed the common word that applied to the monarchies of Europe and assigned it to their new invention. The purpose of a government , by the very nature of the word, is to govern. Once they accepted that word, the experiment was destined to fail.

A protectorate is negative in its function. It acknowledges the legitimacy of collective force but only for the protection of life, liberty, and property. A government, by contrast, is positive in function. It assumes the right to use collective force for any purpose it wishes, so long as it can claim that it is for some “good” purpose. Predator politicians can always come up with an appropriate justification for that.

Had the Republic been described as a protectorate from the outset, every time Americans speak of it they would be reminded that its purpose was to protect them, not to govern them, and this would have gone a long way to perpetuate the Founder’s intent. To be sure, this by its...

A protectorate is negative in its function. It acknowledges the legitimacy of collective force but only for the protection of life, liberty, and property. A government, by contrast, is positive in function. It assumes the right to use collective force for any purpose it wishes, so long as it can claim that it is for some “good” purpose. Predator politicians can always come up with an appropriate justification for that.

Had the Republic been described as a protectorate from the outset, every time Americans speak of it they would be reminded that its purpose was to protect them, not to govern them, and this would have gone a long way to perpetuate the Founder’s intent. To be sure, this by itself would not have been sufficient to prevent the predator class from infiltrating the protectorate and turning it into a government after all, but it would have been a great deterrent and could have slowed the process for another hundred years. It was, after all, a beta model. Like all experiments and first releases, it inevitably would fall to future users and future generations to improve upon its design, not scrap it.

A PROTECTORATE is NOT ANARCHY

The next freedom construct must be a protectorate, not anarchy. It has to be an improvement on the original American Republic. It has to include a statement of political philosophy, such as The Creed of Freedom, that will spell out the philosophy of liberty as well as the structure and function of the protectorate. It will include a warning against allowing the new model to be converted back into a government. All of these things are possible, and it is up to those who have witnessed the decline of the Republic and who have understood that collectivism is the great destroyer, to become the architects and builders for new protectorates within every country on the planet.

Government as opposed to a Protectorate could only ever work for the good of the people, if it was entirely separate from the the influence of financial and religious systems, to my knowledge this has never been attempted. There is currently far too much greed in this world for that, to begin with it would require the concept of money to be abolished, as Darkeforce mentioned, that is one small point on which I think we might agree. But trying to fix Collectivism with more Collectivism is a pointless and futile task.

The illusion of opposites has become a myth of gigantic proportions. On one side - supposedly the Left side - there are Leftists, Communists, Socialists, Marxists, Neo Marxists,...

Government as opposed to a Protectorate could only ever work for the good of the people, if it was entirely separate from the the influence of financial and religious systems, to my knowledge this has never been attempted. There is currently far too much greed in this world for that, to begin with it would require the concept of money to be abolished, as Darkeforce mentioned, that is one small point on which I think we might agree. But trying to fix Collectivism with more Collectivism is a pointless and futile task.

The illusion of opposites has become a myth of gigantic proportions. On one side - supposedly the Left side - there are Leftists, Communists, Socialists, Marxists, Neo Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, Liberals, Progressives, and (in The U.S.) Democrats. On the other side - supposedly the Right side - we have Rightists, Nazis, Neo Nazis, Fascists, Conservatives, Neoconservatives, Reactionaries, and in the U.S. the so called "Republicans" who in actuality want nothing to do with a Republic, because they move to implement policy that undermines the very nature of a True Republic.

Almost all modern political debate is framed by these words; yet, there are very few who can or will define what they mean except to their own satisfaction. There is no universally accepted understanding that will be accepted by advocates and critics alike. The only possible exceptions are those that bear the names of authors, such as Marx, Lenin, and Mao, because it could be argued that they represent the views expressed in their writings. However, there is still the formidable task of accurately summarizing those views to everyone's satisfaction.

Social mores and religious beliefs sometimes divide along the Left-Right political axis. Those on the Left are more likely to embrace life styles that those on the Right would consider improper or even sinful. Those on the Right are more likely to be church-going members of an organized religion. But these are not definitive values, because there is a great deal of diversity on both sides. Republicans smoke pot. Democrats go to church.
Social or religious values cannot be included in any meaningful definition of these groups.


Be that as it may, the degree to which there truly are definable qualities to these labels is the same degree to which we can understand that they are similar. For ex...

Social mores and religious beliefs sometimes divide along the Left-Right political axis. Those on the Left are more likely to embrace life styles that those on the Right would consider improper or even sinful. Those on the Right are more likely to be church-going members of an organized religion. But these are not definitive values, because there is a great deal of diversity on both sides. Republicans smoke pot. Democrats go to church.
Social or religious values cannot be included in any meaningful definition of these groups.


Be that as it may, the degree to which there truly are definable qualities to these labels is the same degree to which we can understand that they are similar. For example, if there is any doubt of the similarity between the collectivism of Marx and the collectivism of Hitler, all one has to do is read Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto, and Mein Kampf. The point is that, when the labels are removed and the underlying ideologies are examined, we come inexorably to the conclusion that every one of them is built upon the foundation of collectivism. We are expected to choose sides when, in reality, there is no substantial
difference between them. Life under Communism vs. life under Nazism are not healthy choices. No matter which side we choose, we are on the side of collectivism. That is the trick.
There are elements of collectivism that are common to all of these seemingly opposite forces. Collectivists on the so-called Left and Right both agree that:

1. Rights are derived from the state;
2. The group is more important than the individual;
3. Coercion is the preferred method to bring about reform;
4. Laws should be applied differently to different classes;
5. Providing benefits (redistributing wealth) is the proper role of government.

There are some fundamental flaws in your treatise. First and foremost, there is no provision in the American Constitution to protect property. In fact, the protection of property is inherently destructive to the freedom of the people. Thus any sort of liberty founded upon the protection of property is doomed from the start.

Second of all, the American Democrats are not a left-wing impulse. They are Right Wing as much as the Republicans are. The US doesn't have an official left-wing impulse, which is the main reason for its many problems. Unlike the rest of the civilized world, there is no effective left-wing movement to counterbalance the overweighted right-wing impulse, making a truly fair...

There are some fundamental flaws in your treatise. First and foremost, there is no provision in the American Constitution to protect property. In fact, the protection of property is inherently destructive to the freedom of the people. Thus any sort of liberty founded upon the protection of property is doomed from the start.

Second of all, the American Democrats are not a left-wing impulse. They are Right Wing as much as the Republicans are. The US doesn't have an official left-wing impulse, which is the main reason for its many problems. Unlike the rest of the civilized world, there is no effective left-wing movement to counterbalance the overweighted right-wing impulse, making a truly fair, centrist nation utterly impossible.

So long as the US clings to a definition of "Freedom" that includes oppression of the people, and maniacally destroys any hint of a health left wing, it can only be a disaster in action.

What you are advocating, Inforwarrior, is something that human kind advanced beyond (for the most part) shortly after the signing of the Magna Carta, and that is the oppressive rule of the Überclass over the enslaved lower classes, and that is something that civilized people just cannot abide.

I'm not entirely sure you even read all of that.

If you had you would have seen that by its very definition a True Republic is the exact opposite of tyranny, as it keeps the power firmly in the hands of the people. But it requires certain provisions not present in the original republic to prevent it from being corrupted by those who would enslave us. which is what has happened because it was imperfect

The original Republic was only a prototype, they didn't even know what they were building as it had never been tried before so they were bound to be some kinks to iron out, only it was never allowed to refine itself as by 1900 certain interests had begun to view its existence as a threat. If...

I'm not entirely sure you even read all of that.

If you had you would have seen that by its very definition a True Republic is the exact opposite of tyranny, as it keeps the power firmly in the hands of the people. But it requires certain provisions not present in the original republic to prevent it from being corrupted by those who would enslave us. which is what has happened because it was imperfect

The original Republic was only a prototype, they didn't even know what they were building as it had never been tried before so they were bound to be some kinks to iron out, only it was never allowed to refine itself as by 1900 certain interests had begun to view its existence as a threat. If it had been allowed to become what it was intended to be, a protectorate. People of other countrys would have wanted the same.

Cue revolution on an unprecedented scale, this could not be allowed when the British failed in their military retribution they didn't simply go home and forget about it, they used subterfuge, propaganda and deceit instead and implemented control via the banking system.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws" - Mayer Amschel Bauer(Rothschild) (Founder of the Rothschild Banking Dynasty)

The massively corrupted banking system is what keeps it all going the Federal Reserve, Bank of England etc are all private companys yet they, although only instruments themselves, pull many strings. The same is just as true in a communist country as it is in fascist and democratic ones.

You have at least caught on to the similarities between the Democrats and Republicans but you are still too caught up it the myth of political left and right, it is only intended to distract, mislead and keep you from addressing the core of it which is Collectivism. They are alike because they are both merely different manifestations of the same ideology. It is the core principles of Collectivism that are the problem, not the way they are represented.

The axiomatic differences between Liberal and Conservative, and Authoritarian and Libertarian are very real, Infowarrior; although the cause for those differences may very well be mental illness, rather than a difference in opinions. The the very difference between the two extremes of human nature; Greed and Benevolence. At first, people tried to measure this difference politically using a one-axis scale; measuring from Conservative (Greed) to Liberal (Benevolence), but it was quickly found to be missing an aspect; people's belief that their stand should be authoritatively enforced. Thus, the difference between the political extremes that you claim doesn't exist actually expanded into a 2-ax...

The axiomatic differences between Liberal and Conservative, and Authoritarian and Libertarian are very real, Infowarrior; although the cause for those differences may very well be mental illness, rather than a difference in opinions. The the very difference between the two extremes of human nature; Greed and Benevolence. At first, people tried to measure this difference politically using a one-axis scale; measuring from Conservative (Greed) to Liberal (Benevolence), but it was quickly found to be missing an aspect; people's belief that their stand should be authoritatively enforced. Thus, the difference between the political extremes that you claim doesn't exist actually expanded into a 2-axial grid. Several other axes could be added, but the Liberal/Conservative and Libertarian/Authoritative axes are basically essential. To deny that those exist is to deny the very nature of Man.

Mankind most definitely has Greedy Impulses and Benevolent Impulses, and the Left/Right gradient is the tangible representation of the difference between how much the people in the world trend toward each impulse.

So it's hardly an illusion; it's a representation of Human Nature.