|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm looking forward to your considered response to this one, Thundercloud. Just remember, you have friends here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes Thundercloud, I look forward to your response as well. My stomach is already churning, however, I will defer to you as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday April 26, @02:58AM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Frankly, I'm not really sure WHAT to make of this guy.
He's a bit like Makow(SP?) he has tid bits of truth and the rest, well, I don't know.
As far as Indians wanting to make "the white man suffer", I know of NO Indians who feel this way, includeing myself. When I and other Indian-activists say we want equal rights we mean EQUAL RIGHTS. That means for EVERYONE; White, Indian, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Hindu, Jewish, gay, straight, male, female.
Would we like to have our land back? To be honest, yes. However many of us would agree that we (Indians) have many people of different ethnicities that we love as friends, neighbors, even wives and husbands, if we marry outside our ethnicity, and many of us do. What are we gonna do, Say everyone without Indian blood has to leave the country? That is not only silly but, frankly, un-realistic. My Mother is Cherokee Indian, My Father is Scotish-Irish. I don't think I want my Dad to be kicked out of the country because he isn't of native herritage.
Frankly, this whole notion of punishing an entire group of people for something that OTHER people, who happen to be of the same ethnicity, did 100 years ago escapes me. I've never understood it.
As far as A.I.M. (the American-Indian movement) is concerned. I don't know if it's true that it was formed upon communism. (I am not currently a member of A.I.M..) I do know certain members of A.I.M. who honestly DO come off that way. Russell Means might be an example of this. Although I have idolized Means in the past, He has done and said some things that have, frankly, embarrassed me as an Indian. For instance Russell is fond of saying that America "is a patriarchy!" And in his book "Where White-men fear to tread" he seems to drip hate for white people. (However that attitude seems to have softened, some now.) However He has really done ALOT to help Indian people. And it was he and Dennis Banks that inspired me to become an Indian activist as well.
As Indian activists our duty is to fight against people who are prejiduce towards us and violate our civil and constitutional rights. Some of those people are White men. But some of those people are white WOMEN. And some are black, Asian, etc. Our beef isn't (or shouldn't be) against any given racial or ethnic group but against any INDIVIDUAL(s) who mean us harm. That INCLUDES other INDIANS! Again in Russell Means' book he even says, himself, that; "At one point I had more INDIANS on my "hit-list" than I did White people."
And, yes, Feminists do INDEED hate the "Indian warrior male" image. But then feminists hate ANY "symbol" of a powerful male PIRIOD. Feminist groups have nothing but contempt for American-Indians in general. Why? Frankly, I believe it is partialy racism, on their part, but also because they are ignorant of Indian cultures. They believe (the way alot of people still un-fortunatly believe) that Indian societies were *sigh* patriarchal.
What they don't know (or care to know) is that in most of our tribes the warrior societies had a fair number of FEMALE warriors. Women were not banned from this. Hollywood has never, to my knowlege, EVER depicted our warrior-societies ACCURATLY! IE. NEVER showing female warriors.
As far as all things political, in our tribes, Men and Women BOTH had and have EQUAL voice. We traditional Indians are BIG on harmonic BALANCE. That is to say EQUALITY.
In many tribes the warriors would not go to war at all unless the women's council permitted it!!
Yeah, that's a patriarchy! (sarcasam)
The statement "Communism loves Indians". I personaly take exception to that. It doesn't take a "rockett-scientist" to figure out that My people would be a HELL of alot WORSE under communism than we are under the existing form of government, in America. We (Indians) would be in the same position the Iraqis were, under Sadam Hussien. Oh, Yeah, THERE'S a step up...!
Is there still discrimination against my people?
You better believe it! I know Blacks say they have it worse than anybody. Well, guess again.
This post is already too long so I won't go into detail as to "how bad it is for American Indians". Just please take my word for it when i say it's BAD. However, We Indians aren't going to make things better for ourselves by casting ALL WHITES as our enemy. What about those Whites that have helped fight for Indian civil rights, like Marlon Brando and Robert Redford...? are they and others like them the enemy no matter what they do because of their ethnicity? If any of us as Indians say "yes" to that question then we are just as bad as those people who hate us for OUR ethnicity and beliefs.
It is true that communism is a religion of hate. And those Indians that subscribe to this religion of hate are no brothers and sisters of mine. They are dis-functional, at best.
Yes, What was done to us was VERY wrong. What is being done to us now, by SOME, is JUST as wrong. It SHOULD make us angry! It makes ME angry.
But do we Indians right this wrong by useing the same wrong that has been used against us? How will that solve anything? How could that possibly make US right??
To end this staggering bigotry against us, we MUST take the high-road. We MUST use TRUTH as a weapon. The truth when yeilded as a weapon hurts only the guilty. not the INNOCENT.
Any traditional Indian worth his salt knows that the universe is ruled by the law of reciprocity.
What we do always comes back to us. because life is a circle. all things in life are a part of the circle. Communism is hate. Hate is a vicious circle. proveing that not ALL circles are sacred. If we are going to win the "war" against us. we must do so in the ways our ancestors would want us to. and that is in an honorable and sacred way. There is NOTHING sacred in or about communism, or hate. Any of us who would use these weapons to justify our ends, isn't just as bad as our enemy..., They ARE our enemy.
-Thundercloud.
"Hoka Hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud:
Sorry I'm a little late in writing this. I want to thank you for your very thoughtful response to the essay by Yeagley. It was a pleasure to read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday April 27, @12:20PM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas.
Thank you.
Was it as exhausting for you to read as it was for me to type??
I had to go lay down after wards.
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was it as exhausting for you to read as it was for me to type??
I had to go lay down after wards.
No, quite the contrary. I enjoyed reading it and found it invigorating.
Hope you had a good rest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equality is made as visceral as human flesh, and interracial sex its ultimate expression.
Sounds like Adolph. I think we may be getting some heavy doses of extremist, right wing idiocy here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 25, @04:30PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Damn that article is awful. Not just for its content, but for how badly written it is. Hyperbolic to the max...makes Ann Coulter look positively soporific in comparison. And this guy is a college professor? Yikes.
"In the case of the American Indian, it’s “I want what you took from me—the land!” That works just as well. Never mind that Indians fought and lost. America “wronged” the Indian."
Yeah, no matter that the American gov't signed treaties with Indian nations...and then reneged on them. More than once. No matter that the gov't forced Indians out of their homelands and into reservations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article strikes me as a rant more than anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 25, @07:28PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Please no more news articles from Dave, first we get the cantankerous prophet the nutbar at savethemales.ca, now this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget that the nazis were also a socialist party. meaning they were extreme left. That Hitler's design of the the nationalist socialist workers party was because of Musolini. Musalini was a communist activist/writer in his college days.
The thing about socialism (as it is seen as a stepping stone into communism) it always has a target group. The germans had the jews the feminists today have men and or all things privately run. They try to bait racially as well as homosexuals into their cause. Waging the class warfare against the conservative realm-namely white straight men.
The only thing rightist about Adolph's pow wow (sorry for the pun thundercloud I was hoping you would laugh with me)was the staunch nationalism. That stuanch nationalism was enforced upon germany because of its enourmous debt to the rest of the world.
It was either pay of the debt or go to war. The germans needed money to go to war and the jews had it. That is when all the hate diatribe started against the jews. The jews were selfish, or greedy, underhanded. They were inferior --what ever the press could conjur up to demonize the jewish people in order to make it easier to crush , murder and steal from them.
This is the exact same thing feminists have done to men. Bogus sexual harrassment charges are encouraged because it is a form of wealth and power transfer. Bogus studies are produced all the time to demonize men. Men are held back from schools, discouraged from learning to read. God the list goes on. Anything that you see as a transfer of wealth and power from men to women is because of the socialist agenda.
Countries like Canada, New Zealand, Australia are rich with this dichotomy. The US was crumbling fast thanks to the feminist/communists there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday April 26, @07:40PM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
"Don't forget that the nazis were also a socialist party."
...and North Korea calls itself a democratic republic does that make it one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"...and North Korea calls itself a democratic republic does that make it one?"
LOL and your statement doesn't make an arguement either.
Fundementally socialism is the transfer of wealth. The Nationalist Socialist party of germany prided themselves on transfering wealth. Namely the wealth of the jews to the Nazi kiddies. Uh where did Hitler get such a great idea? Musilini maybe, who was doing some great transfers of wealth himself.
How many millions of people died in the 20th century because of socialism? 100 million, 150 million?
VAWA which denies men all their rights is a form of socialism. All those dv centres are socialist, and in order to keep the ball rolling they need a target group for their diatribe. If they don't have that the whole cash cow caves in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday April 27, @11:51AM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
LOL communism and fascism are two opposing viewpoints. They are complete and utter opposites. Communism proclaims that everyone should be equal. Fascism proclaims that the strong should take from the weak. Neither system has worked out to the utopian ideal that they believe in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Duh, communism is still primarily about extortion. Communism sounds pretty but it takes a real facist to enforce it. LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article strikes me as a rant more than anything else.
It's a rant all right. There's no problem with having a difference of opinions, and I definitely differ with this guy and with Henry Makow. (We recently had a rant by him linked and discussed on this board.)
I'm starting to be concerned, however, with what might be an attempt by right wing radicals to co-opt the men's movement. Yes, there are communist tendencies among many feminists, but that's far from the entire story of feminism. Many women of every political persuasion are happy to believe and spread anti-male hatred and lies to further their individual and sometimes collective agendas.
I think we should be wary of reactionary endeavors to paint feminism as nothing more than an expression of communism. It's something quite different from that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many women of every political persuasion are happy to believe and spread anti-male hatred and lies to further their individual and sometimes collective agendas.
I will add that there are many men across the political spectrum, who do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 25, @11:13PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Thomas, frankly I get tired of the whole everyone that disagrees with me is a communist. What's the point in even having the word communist if if doesn't mean anything. I would be dissapointed if this place was co-opted by hard right wing types since I've found so much information and hope from this place.
-Andrew74
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I find amazing is how many people fall into this whole "Left-wing is the opposite of Right-wing" trap. Stalin is associated with the extreme Left-wing, while Hitler is associated with the extreme Right-wing.
Today's notion of "left" and "right" are NOT opposites. They're simply different sides of the same altruistic coin. Both sides preach that you must sacrifice yourself to some greater collective "good", whether it's called "The State", "The People", "The Race", whatever....
Both sides deny the supremacy of the individual.
Both sides advocate strict economic controls over the economy. (Communism openly advocates public ownership of the means of production. Fascism advocates private ownership IN NAME ONLY, while the State still has exclusive control over said property. The one who controls property is the true owner of it, regardless of who's name is on the deed.)
Both sides rely on the use of brute force to achieve their objectives. (Force which is NOT used in self-defense or retaliation.) It must also be noted that some within each group advocate the use of "democracy" to achieve their objectives. This simply means that the public votes for said goals, but force is still required to achieve them. Without a gun to enforce it, "democracy" amounts to nothing.
Both are forms of collectivism. The individual is nothing more than a cog in the machinery of the State. The individual is important only to the extent that he/she contributes to the well-being of the collective.
Communism and fascism are the same altruistic entity, only wearing different masks.
What's the true opposite? Laissez-faire capitalism. It's the only system where physical force is barred from social relationships; where each person must deal with another on a voluntary basis, as traders; where force is used only in self-defense, and only against those who initiated it; where the individual has inalienable rights, including the right to property, and the government's only function is to protect the rights of the individual; where your "right to life" does NOT mean that others must provide you a living.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I think we should be wary of reactionary endeavors to paint feminism as nothing more than an expression of communism. It's something quite different from that."
Though I whole hardedly agree with you that the men's movement should not be co-opted by a reactionary process I dissagree with the assertion that feminists are not all communists. It has always been the left wing that has supported and promoted feminists ideals.
If the men's movement is ever going to be something than it has to play both sides of the fence.
I would like to hear of one agenda that the feminists promote right now that isn't inline with communist/socialist parity.
My beliefs are of 'individual rights' vs the state. I am opposed to big government in everyway for either right or left. If it matters. But my beliefs in god urge me to look out for the next generations. So that they don't fall into a world of tyranny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday April 26, @08:06PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
"Though I whole hardedly agree with you that the men's movement should not be co-opted by a reactionary process I dissagree with the assertion that feminists are not all communists. It has always been the left wing that has supported and promoted feminists ideals.
If the men's movement is ever going to be something than it has to play both sides of the fence."
Why thank you for allowing a mere left-winger/centrist such as myself a place in the movement. Well, unless I'm just being played since I'm on the other side of the fence.
With the power women have in our society do you really think man-hating would end under a system of complete laissez-faire captalism? Considering many companies have embraced feminism as can be seen through frequent man hating commercials, movies and products do you really think unbridled captalism will magically usher in an era of utopia and gender equality?
"I would like to hear of one agenda that the feminists promote right now that isn't inline with communist/socialist parity."
This would be impossible since the words socialism and communism are just emotionally charged buzzwords used by you that basically mean anything that you don't agree with. This is similar to how feminists use buzzwords like patriarchy to mean anything they disagree with.
I hate to argue with fellow men's movement people but really can't our movement be open to all of any political spectrum. Once we've brought men back up to a level playing field then we can go on worrying about what is the best political system. Can't we dispose of politically charged rhetoric and statements such as communism loves indians and instead focus on our goal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With the power women have in our society do you really think man-hating would end under a system of complete laissez-faire captalism?
Methinks you don't quite grasp just what laissez-faire capitalism actually is. It isn't about a specific group having power, it's about individuals having power over their own lives and property. If you earn it, it's yours. Period. That applies to poor, middle class, and rich.
Of course man-hating would continue. After all, in a truly free society (pure capitalist), there is no thought-police. You can't and shouldn't control what people think and feel. But that's not the point. The real question is "Would you be compelled to fund anti-male social programs in a free society?" The answer is obviously "no". In a free society, you can't be compelled to fund programs with which you disagree. If you don't agree with the policies of the local battered women's shelter, you are under no obligation to fund it. If you do wish to fund it, it would be completely voluntary. Same for a battered men's shelter. Same for any social program.
Considering many companies have embraced feminism as can be seen through frequent man hating commercials, movies and products do you really think unbridled captalism will magically usher in an era of utopia and gender equality?
That's another error. You think that capitalism is about utopia and equality. Well, in a sense, it IS about equality: Equality before the law. However, it is most emphatically NOT about metaphysical equality. In a capitalist system, you are not guaranteed success in life, and nobody else is obligated to provide you with success. You are not promised metaphysical equality with any other person. Capitalism isn't about egalitarianism, it's about freedom.
That brings up a good point: Contrary to what many socialists claim, capitalism has never "failed". It can't "fail". It never made any grandiose promises it can't keep. It never promised utopia, thus it's unfair to criticize it if it doesn't deliver utopia.
...socialism and communism are just emotionally charged buzzwords used by you that basically mean anything that you don't agree with.
The same goes for capitalism. It has a definite, concrete definition, that being "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market" per Dictionary.com. I would add to this that it isn't just the means of production that are privately owned, but anything which the individual earns. If you earned it, it's yours, and nobody, including government, has the moral right to take it from you by means of force.
In short, laissez-faire capitalism is the only system which bans physical force from social relationships. If you wish to obtain something, you must obtain it by trading value-for-value. You must negotiate for it VOLUNTARILY.
Any system (ANY system) which introduces physical force as a means of obtaining a value, is not true capitalism.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Can't we dispose of politically charged rhetoric and statements such as communism loves indians and instead focus on our goal."
I don't know about the 'communism hates or loves indians', my comments weren't based on that. As far as your buzzwords go, you still didnt even take the effort to point out one area, oh I know, simply because you can't. Nice distraction though, top awards for evasivness.
"Why thank you for allowing a mere left-winger/centrist such as myself a place in the movement. Well, unless I'm just being played since I'm on the other side of the fence. "
I didn't allow you to do anything. I was merely making a point. Maybe I should have pointed out how the jewish community who are really neither left or right but a mesh of the two, have a firm foundation in government on either side of the coin.
"With the power women have in our society do you really think man-hating would end under a system of complete laissez-faire captalism? Considering many companies have embraced feminism as can be seen through frequent man hating commercials, movies and products do you really think unbridled captalism will magically usher in an era of utopia and gender equality? "
It would be more the laws we should be concerned with, and ya, its been primarily marxist gender fems that have been pushing those anti-male egalatarian laws. I guess some little piggies are more equal than others.
I guess next you'r going to tell me that 'real communism has never really been enacted yet'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday April 27, @11:31AM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
"I guess next you'r going to tell me that 'real communism has never really been enacted yet'."
Why would I say that considering I'm not a communist. Oh, I forget communism is anything you don't agree with. Oh, oh there's a commie behind that corner, no there's one under my bed, ah the red menace is taking over. Give it a rest McCarthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Why would I say that considering I'm not a communist. Oh, I forget communism is anything you don't agree with. Oh, oh there's a commie behind that corner, no there's one under my bed, ah the red menace is taking over. Give it a rest McCarthy. "
Still no response of any merit. How am I not suprised. The issue Im making here is how communists have decided to subvert america. They've done this by wipping out men's rights and destroying the family. Take out dad and set up a million and one socialist organizations to replace him.
The socialist ventures in this country are not progressing because of necessity but because of agenda and fuck whoever stands in its way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday April 27, @11:54AM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
I believe it was feminism that was doing this not communism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, this goes beyond feminism, socialism, or communism. All the various "-isms" wherein society tells the individual that he must sacrifice his interests to some greater "good" ultimately are produced by philosophy. And the philosophical base of all these altruistic "-isms" came from the perverted mind and pen of Immanuel Kant.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And the philosophical base of all these altruistic "-isms" came from the perverted mind and pen of Immanuel Kant."
The bastard!!!
I'm pretty sure the umbrella "ism" you're speaking of is postmodernism, which generally values communality and self-sacrifice. It arose as a response to the shortcomings of modernism, which values individual agency and self-expression.
The little I know of objectivism would place it purely and squarely in the camp of modernism.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday April 27, @12:24PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
(((" Give it a rest McCarthy."))
Is that Jenny or Charlie McCarthy?
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday April 27, @02:13PM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beneath the electrified cherry tree, the Master pauses thoughtfully, then dips his brush and gracefully writes:
Anonymous puke
Resorts to Ad Hominem
Smells Like Troll Spirit
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday April 27, @02:57PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Rule #1 of internet geekhood: Use as many latin words as possible in an attempt to confuse opponent and actually sound intelligent. Then go back to bursting pimples while fuming about how those lazy shiftless poor bastards are stealing all my money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then go back to bursting pimples while fuming about how those lazy shiftless poor bastards are stealing all my money.
If they're depending on government to take, by threat of force, a portion from the have's to give to them (the "have-not's"), then they are stealing, no matter how much "compassion" and "love" rhetoric it's wrapped in.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men are the only obstacle to total control. Once men are subjugated taking over will be like walking through warm butter, women are not a threat to the state but will be victimized by it just as much.
Women who support feminism are only being fattened for the kill. I recomend Orwells Animal Farm and 1984.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
