Who is this woman? What was her occupation? What was she famous for? If you can fathom that the woman on the left is the same as the one on the right, what in God’s name did the wages of time inflict on this poor soul. She looks like she swallowed a whale.
Sisera: I guess he would say you believe the philosophy but just not how it is being applied.
You should know by now that fanatical anti-Communists are almost always wildly irrational, typically pathological liars and usually reactionary shits. You should know by now that fanatical anti-Communists are almost always wildly irrational, typically pathological liars and usually reactionary shits.
Not that Communism is great or that there is no rational reason to oppose Communism of course. There is a rational way to oppose Communism, but most anti-Commies don’t seem to abide by it much.
I mean there ought to be space for pro-free speech, pro civil liberties liberals and progressives who are anti-Communists, but they never seem to pop up much.
I mean, Communists do violate a lot of civil rights and there are some serious problems with democracy in Communist states.
Witness the recent violent demonstrations in Vietnam for instance. Those demos are arguably leftwing or at least nationalist demonstrations protesting against objectively rightwing policy by the Vietnamese Communist government to set up more free enterprise zones with 99 year leases. The protesters fear that these will quickly be bought up by rich Chinese and Vietnam will just become a Chinese colony again as it was for centuries. I would support the protesters in this case, but here you see a Communist government enacting rightwing policy in the face of a Leftist opposition by the people. There’s a serious lack of democracy there.
Those of us who oppose police state tactics, support freedom of speech and assembly, extensive civil liberties, etc. would find that these values of ours are not supported by Communists at all.
But there are not a lot of good liberal or progressive rights-based people among the anti-Communists for whatever reason.
Hardline anti-Commies almost always tend to be conservatives or reactionaries, and I include the Democratic Party in the conservatives here.
Typically as you get further left, a lot of social democratic parties don’t really care about Communism. They are not going to implement it of course, but a lot of them think if you do, that’s your business. A lot of social democratic governments in Europe supported Cuba, the USSR and the Sandinistas and a lot even supported the FARC. The social democratic revolutionary PRI government of Mexico had warm relations with Cuba and Nicaragua. They even supported the FMLN guerrillas in El Salvador. They were headquartered in Mexico City. But the modern PRI is not even social democratic anymore, or its gone over the European garbage of rightwing social democracy.
Of course all the real left social democrats are gone now, and the only “social democrats” left are rightwing jerkoffs. Many of the parties in the Socialist International now would be characterized by this new rightwing social democracy. The fact that social democrats around the world have all become rightwingers and more or less neoliberals shows me that the Marxists were correct about social democracy. They always said it was bankrupt and unworkable. I think it worked fine for a while, but it probably always had the rightwing seeds of its own destruction planted within it somehow, and now they are bearing fruit.
Perhaps some of my commenters can elucidate the rightwing trend in social democracy, the reasons for it, and whether social democracy was doomed from the very starts, as I suspect, weighted down with its own contradictions.
Sisera: So what does that mean then? You believe rich people are inherently oppressors who don’t deserve rights but then White men are okay?
Most of them are oppressors, of course. Don’t you even understand class politics or the nature of capitalism at all. Those rich people who are pursuing their economic self interests in the class war, well of course they are our oppressors. The oppressors of me and mine anyway. I suppose they see us as oppressors.
Marxist theory doesn’t say that anyway. It just says that when the rich pursue their self interests in the class war, everyone who’s not rich gets fucked. You want to call that oppression? You are welcome to. If you side with the rich, you are an idiot. Why would you side with your class enemies. Most of them are oppressors, of course. Don’t you even understand class politics or the nature of capitalism at all.
Those rich people who are pursuing their economic self interests in the class war, well of course they are our oppressors. The oppressors of me and mine anyway. I suppose they see us as oppressors. Marxist theory doesn’t say that anyway. It just says that when the rich pursue their self interests in the class war, everyone who’s not rich gets fucked. You want to call that oppression? You are welcome to. If you side with the rich, you are an idiot. Why would you side with your class enemies?
The rich are our class enemies. Does that mean they oppress us? I dunno. When they’re in power, they screw us over. All of the rich hate democracy, lie like rugs, and support violence, murder, terror, genocide, coups, and dictatorships anywhere the people take power.
Personally, I think all conservatives and reactionaries are pure filth. I wish they would all drop dead tomorrow. That way they would be where they belong: in graves. They’re nothing but pure garbage. Show me a reactionary or conservative anywhere on Earth that’s actually a human and not a lying, sadistic, murderous piece of scum. There aren’t any!
In a democratic society, of course the rich get their rights, but they abuse the fuck out of them, and anytime they people take power, the rich start using violence, coups, death squads, rioting, judicial and legislative coups, etc. to get their way. We let the rich take power all the time. They won’t let us take power at all. I’m glad the Chinese Communists took away the rights of the reactionaries.
Look what would happen if they had rights? See Venezuela, Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Honduras, Haiti, Brazil, Paraguay, Colombia, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Philippines? That’s what happens when you give the rich and the reactionaries any rights at all. Right now they would be burning China to the ground like they are doing to Venezuela and Nicaragua because they are furious that a people’s government got put in.
If that’s the way they are always, always, always going to act, why give them rights? So they can destroy your country and take down any democratically elected government they don’t believe in?
They try to destroy by antidemocratic means any people’s or popular government any time it gets in.
And when they take power themselves, they usually put in a dictatorship.
This is what happens if they don’t get their way and the people elect a democratically elected people’s government:
Attempted coups by street violence: Nicaragua, Ukraine, Syria, and Thailand.
Attempted coups by economic warfare: Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Nicaragua.
Coups by legislative means: Paraguay and Brazil.
Attempted legislative coup: Venezuela.
Coups by judicial means: Brazil.
Coups by direct overthrow of the state: Honduras, Haiti, Venezuela, and Egypt.
Attempted coups by direct overthrow of the state: Ecuador and Bolivia.
Coup by insurgency: Haiti.
Attempted coup by insurgency: Syria.
Coups by direct invasion: Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Panama, Libya, and Grenada.
This is what happens every time they get into power, especially if they take over a people’s government:
Right-wing death squad authoritarian regime installed: Honduras*, El Salvador, Argentina, Brazil*, Guatemala*, Chile, Philippines*, Uruguay, Bolivia, Indonesia*, and Ukraine*.
No I don’t have a problem taking away rights from reactionary fucks! Why should we give them rights? Give me one reason! One! One reason!
Is this off some TV show? How did they set this up anyway?
I really hate this guy mostly because he’s a reactionary, but honestly, almost every single thing he says is true.
He’s right that it’s insane that you can talk to a female student behind closed doors anymore. That’s insane! Way to go feminists! Way to backwards, bitches!
Sexual impropriety? What the Hell is that? Can you define it? Define it. Define sexual impropriety. See? You can’t. This Orwellian concept has no definition at all. Truth is, sexual impropriety is anything a woman says it is! Isn’t that great? Now we have a real definition we can all live with. I do want to know what his sexual impropriety bullshit charges are though, just out of curiosity.
Right. Women are not as interested in things as men. So women in academia are not going to be as much into those fields that focus on things. Well, that’s obvious! I don’t even think women like ideas very much. The airy world of pure ideation, the realm of the prowling intellectual, is pretty much a male thing. It’s not that women can’t conceptualize this stuff – it’s more that they think it is flat out boring. I have met women with IQ’s very close to mine – I recall one woman with an IQ of 143 – but she simply could not fathom why I would engage in some wild Herculean task of chopping up German into 138 languages. Why in the Hell would you even do that in the first place? Was her attitude. She was just as smart as I was, not one bit less, but her brain worked differently, being a typical female brain. Women are just as smart as we men are, but their brains work differently so they are interested in different things than we are. Which is fine of course. Vive la difference!
Of course, the more women dress up to be sexually attractive, the more they will contribute to sexual harassment (What the Hell is that anyway?) in the workplace. The more women sexualize themselves to make them look sexually enticing to men, the more men are going to be turned on by them, so the more women will interact with them in a sexual manner because they are getting turned on. I mean, it’s not rocket science, right.
And yes, lipstick does in fact mirror the swelling and reddening of the labia during sex. That’s why it exists in the first place. And I believe cheek blush is based on the same thing. And yes, high heels do indeed mimic a sort of estrus in females, more specifically, heels directly sexualize women by making them appear more as they do in the sex act. Which is, after all, why women wear heels in the first place. Of course.
Women are innately competitive, of course. They especially compete for men. Anyone knows that. And they compete on the basis of beauty too. I know this because women told me so. They told me that women dress up for other women, not for men. I never believed it until I heard it from them.
Of course a man has to remove about 90% of himself when he’s around women, particularly in the case of Peterson, a professor who is banned from having any sexual feelings or even thoughts for that matter. I have to do it myself.
Of course politeness trumps truth with women. Any man knows that. Hell, I learned that in high school!
Of course women manipulate men sexually to advance in the workplace. Duh! Anyone knows that.
Of course makeup is sexually provocative, but I do not agree with Peterson that makeup should be banned in the workplace.
Of course there’s a war on masculine behavior among boys. Boys being banned from throwing snowballs is a straight up war on masculinity itself. Even picking up snow off the ground was seen as toxic masculinity. Of course the bad boys didn’t care and broke all of these stupid rules. Only the good boys obeyed the rules not to act masculine. The worst boys, who probably needed to act less masculine, were not deterred at all. So all you are doing is neutering the mildest displays of masculinity in the best of boys, putting at the back of the pack, while shoving the worst boys to the front. Good job feminists! And he’s correct, in such a dispensation (a topsy turvy morality turned upside down Sadean one at that) the worst boys will get the most women and the most psychopathic males will be fathering the most children while the most decent males will father few if any kids. Way to go feminists!
Of course a transwoman is not a real woman! A transwoman is a man who thinks he’s a woman. His delusion that he is a woman is so fixed that he often has surgery to try to turn himself into some sort of a fake woman, but a man is a man is a man. No man can ever be transformed into a woman. Of course not. Why would anyone think a man can be turned into a woman? That’s ridiculous, I mean given our current technology anyway.
Ok this moron Peterson just compared Chairman Mao, of all people, to trans activists! How ridiculous! Mao was a puritan. The single most awful thing about Peterson is his idiotic fanatical anti-Communism. This dumbass has even covered his entire home with socialist realist paintings just to remind himself, every day mind you, even evil those damned Commies are. Anti-Communism is probably the single driving force behind all of Peterson’s intellectual oeuvre. And that’s where he runs right off the cliff, just like Coyote in the cartoons, following his cartoonish Roadrunner boogeyman of Communism right over the edge of all reason and sense.
And this is what I mean when I say this guy is a reactionary and he can go take a long walk on a short pier. Sure, he’s right most of the time facts-wise, but his mind is just oh so wrong. He’s motivated by sheer puerile idiocy and reaction. Take your anti-Communism and shove it up your ass, Jordan.
He follows online PUA’s because he finds them interesting psychologically. Well, they are saying a lot of psychologically interesting things and most of what they say is flat out true. Look. Let’s get real. PUA’s are all about success. Men don’t mess around with BS and get lost in wildernesses of psychological defenses like women do. Men’s whole raison de etre is “do what works, and all else be damned.” Men don’t care what the theory is as long as it works. If it works and it smells like roses, fine. If it works and it smells like ordure, well, you hold your nose and plow forth anyway because if it works it works, stink or not, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
These PUA’s are absolutely not going to waste any time on bullshit that doesn’t work. That’s something a woman would do. Women would obviously waste endless time on projects that don’t work simply because the ones that did work were so awful. Women would think, “That’s awful, so it can’t possibly work,” and then focus on some feel-good solution that smells like roses but fails every time. Women aren’t concerned with the destination. They’re concerned about the road you take to get there. If it’s a horrible road, they’re not driving on it. They’re taking the scenic route to feel better about themselves, no matter if it gets you anywhere or not.
The idea that these PUA’s would have wasted all these years of intense study on things that don’t work. Men are far too practical for that. These guys conduct nearly controlled double blind studies to test their theories.
And at the end, Peterson violates Godwin’s Law by equating SJW boneheads and fools with literal Nazis. No, Jordan, no. SJW’s are not Nazis. If they are like anyone, they are like Commies, and Commies are not Nazis as you probably think, you silly man.
Peterson gets an 85% rating, but when he’s wrong, good God is he wrong.