Log in

View Full Version : Do I Hate All Leftists? - The Answer May Surprise Some of Yo



Old Friend
25th February 2003, 07:08
Somebody took a poll question in order to get an idea of how far my hatred for the left ran. Hopefully, my answer initiates a response from those who are willing to question or ponder what I have said. Hopefully, my answer is as thought provoking as the question posed to me. I really had to think about this, even though I was never able to arrive at a conclusion that fell within any of the categories below.


Stormin Norman,
What do you think of left-wingers?
1)Hate them, kill them
2)Hate them, but don't kill them
3)Love them
4)Like them
5)Neutral

It depends on the degree of their liberalism. If for instance, they wish to free Mumia, pack the courts with activist judges, and further denigrate the social fabric of our society, I find myself staunchly opposed to their vile corruption. If they wish to replace free-market ideals with socialism, exchange freedom for the dictates of a political elite, or facilitate the entry of our enemies into our country, I must do all that I can to fight them. At this juncture violence remains unwarranted, as they have yet to cross that line in the sand. However, if they become successful in subverting the second amendment rights of Americans, and follow through with the next logical step, then it is time for action.

You must understand. I have many friends who are considered to be liberal. I live in a college town, and I am often hard-pressed to find anyone who hasn't been tainted with some form of Marxism or another. I can make arguments to my friends, and engage in decent conversation, without any blood being spilled. By some miracle in nature, we are able to recognize the goodness in each other despite the obvious differences.

That's the problem with the left today. They have been able to convince otherwise decent people that the government should manage an increasing number of aspects of their lives. Free health care, cradle to grave social services, and other lame-brained ideas sound good to people who do not contemplate the necessary trade off. That is where I come into play. I ask the questions that others avoid. I articulate the threat that I perceive coming from the left.

Even today, many moderate liberals are finding out that those who claim to represent their ideals are further on the fringe then they would like. The Democratic Party is imploding, and will go the way of the Whigs. Hopefully, a more reasonable attempt is made to represent those who are left leaning, but still fundamentally American in nature. Today's democrat should go ahead and merge with the Communist party, for the difference between the two is minuscule. They are in the process of doing this, as their attempts to undermine America, in order to instill a more organized social structure, inevitably aligns them with Leninists.

When they shift further to the left, this will make room for a populist movement that will become the next catchall party. Hopefully this can be done peacefully, but we have seen the difficulty of convincing the democrats to abide by the rules of the game. From gerrymandering district boundaries, committing election fraud, refusing to play by the established rules of the game, and obstructionism with respect to judge appointments; the more ground the democrats lose, the more desperate they become. When their power within the political system is threatened, I would not put anything past them, for they appear to have more respect for their brand of elitism than American principles.

No, I am not after the decent, hardworking Americans who, by product of their rapid socialization have been duped into believing that anything can be gained by relinquishing responsibilities to the government. I am not after anyone. However, it is the liberal’s lust for power and property that is not rightfully theirs that will place me in a position to defend the ideals that I hold dear. For now, we should work on unmasking the unspeakable evil that hides behind the sick, the poor, the elderly, and the downtrodden.

Have you ever been witness to a person who volunteers for extremely difficult duties? Jobs that place them in contact with those who are down on their luck. Sometimes, the people volunteers seek to help remain hideous to look at, and live in filthy conditions. I have seen the dedicated individuals that help these poor souls, and have analyzed them. Generally, there are two varieties; those who genuinely wish to help others, and those who seek some sort of satisfaction by viewing man at his worst. They are often hard to tell apart, but the trained eye might be able to catch a glimpse of this unimaginable motive force. If you have seen the ugliness of those who would pretend to care for others, while deriving satisfaction from their misery; then you would have some understanding of what warrants my fears. If these demons of virtue have the conscience to exploit such weakness on a small scale, imagine the results of employing such treachery on a large scale. Yes, I think you know what it is that I am alluding to, for I think that you have seen its unmatched destruction. The Great Leap Forward, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Spanish Inquisition and Conquest in the Americas, the Eugenics Movement, and Sharia Law were all masked behind a egalitarian wrapper. One must understand that Hitler rose to power on promises mirroring the convictions espoused by today’s liberal. Should I have reason to suspect that the veritable nature of the men making these claims has somehow changed, or would I be wiser to err on the side of caution, noting the impressive cyclic patterns present throughout history?

I can not tell you whether or not the devil exists, for my faith is not that strong. However, I will stand behind the evidence for the existence of evil that can be recognized in some of histories most notorious and deadly events. One thing that I can say for certain is this; if such a powerful entity did exist, he would most certainly wrap himself in the shroud of altruism until the pieces of the board game favored his victory.

Old Friend
25th February 2003, 07:52
None of the 4 people who have opened this thread, so far, care to remark? Come on, I expected more from such outspoken insects. When I here the shrieking of communists on the streets protesting war, I am often reminded of the sounds the locusts would make when they infested my little town in the Mid-West. Incessant and lacking intelligence.

(Edited by Old Friend at 9:54 am on Feb. 25, 2003)

Aleksander Nordby
25th February 2003, 09:43
Wy was you banned

Old Friend
25th February 2003, 10:17
Short answer = ask James, or if you would like a true account read the new policy forum at the top of the opposing ideologies page.

While you're asking questions, why don't you ask James what he did with my work on global warming? It was one of my better works. James is the embodiment of everything I hate. He has the desire to destroy what he is incapable of creating.

Old Friend
25th February 2003, 10:38
Actually, on second thought, I would like to revise my answer to the poll question. Don't worry, this will be much shorter.

Okay!

Scratch options 3, 4, and 5. I am still torn between the first two choices. I hate it when I am this wishy washy. Ine Meni Mini Mo.

suffianr
25th February 2003, 14:31
They are often hard to tell apart, but the trained eye might be able to catch a glimpse of this unimaginable motive force. If you have seen the ugliness of those who would pretend to care for others, while deriving satisfaction from their misery; then you would have some understanding of what warrants my fears. If these demons of virtue have the conscience to exploit such weakness on a small scale, imagine the results of employing such treachery on a large scale.

You've been reading some Stephen King lately, haven't you?

Psychologically, it's impossible to measure altruism. Or even pinpoint the source of motivation that inspires people to do good.

Various Social Psych theories abound, ranging from supporting individual idealism to enhancing self-image, however, to each his/her own. But I've not been privy to the suggestion that people volunteer out of ill feeling or malicious intent, maybe you'd like to elaborate on some case studies, Herr Freud?

Nice metaphor for communism, though. But your argument is nothing new, Old Friend (or should I say, Stormin' Norman?). Nor is your attempt to resurrrect your old threads to spew more exhausting drivel in your unrelenting indictment of our political beliefs. Least of all is your perception that a Predator Avatar reinforces the notion that you're back, and you mean business! :bigggrin:

Anyway, you left us a little high and dry? You'd kill us, but that doesn't mean you hate us, right? :)

Pete
25th February 2003, 14:47
I haven't read your post, I admitt, but I am sure you don't hate me!

Hampton
25th February 2003, 18:59
How about nobody cares what you think of leftists. He's my take: instead of "cyber suicide" try the real thing this time.

Eastside Revolt
25th February 2003, 20:03
Good to see ya back fat-boy

Xvall
25th February 2003, 23:26
Hampton, I will ask that you do not encourage suicide. I know that no person is stupid enough to try to kill themselves just because you said so; but avoid that anyways.

Palmares
25th February 2003, 23:33
Looks like Norman is still stormin.

Hegemonicretribution
26th February 2003, 19:34
Maybe I read wrong, but you almost agreed with some of the theory of the left then, but were scared because past attempts at utopic leadership have ended badly? That ain't so bad. Also what you said about the state, what about anarchy? Come as far away from it as you can. Also everyone can progres according to their ability, and start on an EQUAL playing field, not only some with oppurtunities at the cost of others....

But then againyou did prove yourself to be the arrogant asshole that i read in my brief experience of your posts.

Moskitto
26th February 2003, 19:59
i've decided that it sucks and i can't trust anyone so i'm gonna be extremely clever with what i do.

Old Friend
27th February 2003, 07:00
Moskitto,

Since you are one of the people on this site who I happen to respect, I would like you to clarify. I am extremely curious about this rather vague statement.

Thanks,

Stormin Norman

Old Friend
27th February 2003, 12:50
suffianr,

British Doctor Murders 15 Patients (http://www.iht.com/IHT/TB/00/tb020200.html)

Hell, if there is a whole law practice dedicated to nursing home abuse, it is easy to see the truth of my statements. (http://www.nursing-home-abuse-elderly-abuse-attorneys.com/)

Ever heard of Munchausen by Proxy syndrome (http://www.mbpexpert.com/definition.html#FACTITIOUS%20DISORDER), This sort of behavior is similar to what I was explaining. It is when someone hurts themselves or there children in order to receive attention by care workers or professionals. They do it to receive some sort of sick gratification. I think it may be the reverse of the behavior I mentioned earlier.

Have you ever heard of hero syndrome? (http://archive.sportserver.com/newsroom/nt/801hero.html) It is similar to the Munchausen by Proxy except the inflicted does harm to other people or objects, instead of themselves or their own families. Sometimes arson is committed by firefighters in order to feel important. Sometimes people sabotage other people or create their own problems to solve, so they can feel needed. Largely, it is driven by feelings of inadequacy.[/url]

We live in a world where it is not uncommon for the media to sensationalize the slaughter of innocents, where women who drown there children are given their fifteen minutes of fame. We live in a world where people have come to the realization that killing the unborn is a justifiable matter of choice. We live in a world where child molestation has become a matter of "normalcy", a world where the victims are forgotten, and the criminals elevated to the status of celebrities.

Despite all the trauma that exists, there are people out there who wish to do their small part to make the world a better place. Volunteerism is on the rise. However, in this fucked up world of ours, there is reason to believe that a segment of this admirable population might have motives that are less than pure. Do I question the motives of people whose actions appear to be selfless? Unfortunately, yes.

One need only to look at the charitable institutions in this country to understand my cynicism? When the advocates for the downtrodden use the poor as an excuse to commit fraud, I have no trust left. If I can not trust the good reputations of the oldest charities in this world, why should I trust the aims of socialism? Would it not be reasonable to expect this sort of corruption to scale up? Why should I trust people who celebrate the deaths of those who died at the world trade center to keep my best interest in mind? From what I have seen here on this site, you communists are to be trusted the least.

suffianr
27th February 2003, 14:22
Why should I trust people who celebrate the deaths of those who died at the world trade center to keep my best interest in mind?

That's not true. To the best of my knowledge, no one "celebrated" such a thing here.

Unless your definition of celebration is demanding a proper inquiry regarding the event or questioning the quick burst of retribution meted out to the Afghans afterwards, no, there was no such celebration.


sc4r
27th February 2003, 17:08
You attack a caricature vision of what socialists stand for and then expect them to defend beliefs which they do not hold; beliefs which only exist in the minds of right wingers.

No genuine socialist wishes to see the state take either control or responsibility for our lives. Quite the opposite.

But on the basis of your mistaken idea of our ideals you profess a hatred so strong you avow you would kill to sustain it. A more rational response would be to find out what it is that your enemies are actually in favour of. Few, if any, socialists would ask that anyone support a socialist movement merely because of the name; if you find a movement calling itself socialist which advocates state control over your life or is not 100% committed to democracy then it is not socialist and I would no more support it than you would.

Socialists demand only (and I do mean only) that democracy is made effective. Within the framework of democracy they themselves advocate a change in the laws which govern ownership of rights to production. They advocate this position because they correctly perceive that such laws are just man made conventions upheld by consensus, not as some capitalist would have you believe something written into the fabric of the universe or part of any vague ‘natural’ order. They further perceive that such rights allow some people to effectively dictate how other peoples lives will be ordered and run. These rights allow some people to demand that, amongst other things, our planet be polluted and our people placed in what amounts to economic slavery. We do not believe those things to be just , and neither do genuine capitalists, but we disagree with genuine capitalists about how such injustices can be prevented.

The argument with the genuine thinking capitalist is about the validity of one socio-economic lawset as opposed to another not about goals; and as such professions of hatred are misplaced. The argument with another sort of capitalist is about democracy; these capitalists do not of course actually believe in democracy and as such are merely demanding that their wishes should take precedence over those of others. It is unavoidable that conflict results with such people, because their paradigm is one of opposition and conflict. They demand to be allowed to do as they please and no self respecting person can allow that the wishes of another should take automatic precedence.

Disagreements about welfare, social programs and the like are not intrinsically anything to do with the argument about socialism or non-socialism. These are independent arguments and again there is no right or wrong, merely one set of opinions about how we wish to run our lives rather than another. If it were possible to allow people to opt in or out of such programs I am quite sure that most socialists would allow it to be so; but it realistically is not. So socialist again say that we will not allow one person to dictate to many what should or should not be the framework for their lives. Socialists (and other left wingers) merely demand that democracy should decide because it is the only practical way to reconcile the differing demands of individuals without resorting to mere transient displays of individual power. In other words without either dictating or acceding to dictatorship.

By all means oppose movements calling themselves socialist if you perceive that they are not. By all means express your personal opinion of how lives should be run. But before you do so make an attempt to learn what it is that these movements actually are, and to do this you must understand what theoretical socialism is. You cannot do this from a position of preavowed hatred.

Of course if you flat do not believe in democracy and are in fact willing to do whatever is necessary to allow you to dictate to others then nothing that can be said will convince you and nothing can prevent you from being in permanent conflict with those who do because they will no more allow you to dictate to them than you will allow them to dictate to you; but they have a non-violent solution, you do not.

IHP
28th February 2003, 03:02
While we of the left fit into two more extreme options (ie. 1 and 2) how do you divide leftists into each. What I mean is, how, in your eyes, is one leftist worse than another therefore warranting death, whereas you simply hate others?

--IHP

Palmares
28th February 2003, 04:17
I'm left-handed

Old Friend
28th February 2003, 09:54
While we of the left fit into two more extreme options (ie. 1 and 2) how do you divide leftists into each. What I mean is, how, in your eyes, is one leftist worse than another therefore warranting death, whereas you simply hate others?

The choice is clearly up to those on the left. They remain the revolutionaries. The extent of their actions will determine the recourse. For example, once the left decides to move outside the predetermined rules of the game, and bypass the laws in order to implement their proposed method, as they did during the Bolshevik Revolution, it will become necessary to fight fire with suffocation. As soon as they make there move and give away their position, these pockets should be isolated and extinguished. The heat is building, combustion is imminent, a fire line must be created now, in order to achieve quick containment. Refuse/resist as Max Calvera once said.

sc4r
28th February 2003, 10:54
Quote: from Old Friend on 9:54 am on Feb. 28, 2003
[once the left decides to move outside the predetermined rules of the game,

The rules of the game have been written and are implemented by economic facists. Of course we must be prepared to step outside these rules if neccessary because they are formulated to prevent us achieving true democracy within them.

The situation in the UK right now is highly illustrative we have a leader who is prepared to ignore the wishes of 85% of the people and who is supported in this by a parliamentary system which means that anyone opposing his wishes risks the loss of patronage upon which their position relies.

But I wonder what you think you mean by stepping outside of the rules. Armed insurrection in a developed country is not going to happen because it could not be successful.

Old Friend
28th February 2003, 11:10
Are you claiming that a patron-client network exists in Great Britain?

sc4r
28th February 2003, 11:15
Am I claiming that an MP who wants to get on is better off not rocking the boat of the party he belongs to and that this pretty directly means not expressing views which conflict with that of the party leadership !!???

Errrr, yes I am.