NationStates Jolt Archive

Left for DEAD. Inquire within...
-------------------------------------

Any comments on these writings?

http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/menu.html
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/leftism2.html
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/leftism3.html
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/
http://ntwords.blogspot.com/

http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/lefshort.html
http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/leftism.html

Undiscovered by me until some 3 days ago. I'm quite taken aback by the
congruency of his conclusions and my own. Most of mine were developed by
interacting with leftists and those who see leftists as what they are HERE in
the NS General Forum.

I'm in DEEP gratitude to all those, left and non-left, on these forums (fora?)
who have been such good whetstones for sharpening my blade.

Thanks again,.. and y e s , I *DO* expect to be banned, again, for the 54th
time, for posting this.

..but that is of trivial concern. Free speech and the airing of ALL sides of
issuses, and just plain old good conversation, is the important thing.

Thanks again..!! :)

((deiakeos@yahoo.com))

-Iakeo (( Deiakeos ))

I suspect that if you're banned, it will be for posting. The content of that post is probably irrelevant at this point.

*sighs* Someone want to call Smokey before this explodes?

I suspect that if you're banned, it will be for posting. The content of that post is probably irrelevant at this point.
What is it about?

What is it about?

I honestly don't know. I didn't even know he was banned until I saw this post. But I suspect it's irrelevant now.

I honestly don't know. I didn't even know he was banned until I saw this post. But I suspect it's irrelevant now.
Oh okay.

What persnal freedoms are you talking about and who is he that has been misgueded to believe that he has persanl freedoms. Wake up and look around your only worth 32 sequential numbers to your government.


L

I'm lost...

I'm lost...

I don't think this is worth being found.

Id rather be having sex and smokig some gunja than re-posting after this.

I'm lost...
Same , but I am not gonna worry about it.

I read a bit of it, the guy is just wrong. He is misguided in his conclusions, establishes logical fallacies as arguments, and then proceeds to ignore whatever a basic observation would say about liberal.


"liberals seek change not just for the sake of change, but to fulfill their own ego"


WTF? Where the hell did he get that conclusion?

I read a bit of it, the guy is just wrong. He is misguided in his conclusions, establishes logical fallacies as arguments, and then proceeds to ignore whatever a basic observation would say about liberal.


"liberals seek change not just for the sake of change, but to fulfill their own ego"


WTF? Where the hell did he get that conclusion?

lol no shit

and this:
WHY ARE PEOPLE LEFTISTS?

The answer in five words: "Leftists need to feel superior".

Sounds more like the Christian right to me. They need to believe that their way of life is superior and the one and only way to live and need to push for laws to force that way of live on others. While liberals tend to push for a way of life that lets people be individuals and are more concerned with making laws that keep people from hurting each other or the environment.

Hey lets not turn this into a religion thread... remember the wise words of neo-k.

Sounds more like the Christian right to me. They need to believe that their way of life is superior and the one and only way to live and need to push for laws to force that way of live on others. While liberals tend to push for a way of life that lets people be individuals and are more concerned with making laws that keep people from hurting each other or the environment.
Sounds like any group that advocates fundamentally altering human nature or creating large, powerful governments. So, yes, the Christian Right, but American liberals (as opposed to Classic Liberals) as well.

Well, I can see why he figured he would be banned. Like it or not though, there is a few articles in there that are actually very well written and to a large degree spot on.

I'm not familiar with the famous words of neo-K

but sorry that is what I feel - religious people who push their views on others (not all religious people, but they are usually conservatives) do so because they feel that their views are superior and they push to have actions that don't align with their holy texts outlawed.

Well, I can see why he figured he would be banned. Like it or not though, there is a few articles in there that are actually very well written and to a large degree spot on.

Perhaps if you're a liberal-hater. Why has the word "liberal" become the new hate word in the american lexicon. Was the "N" word not strong enough anymore?

I'm not familiar with the famous words of neo-K

but sorry that is what I feel - religious people who push their views on others (not all religious people, but they are usually conservatives) do so because they feel that their views are superior and they push to have actions that don't align with their holy texts outlawed.
I make it a goal to try to talk about my religion on these threads as little as possible...

Perhaps if you're a liberal-hater. Why has the word "liberal" become the new hate word in the american lexicon. Was the "N" word not strong enough anymore?
You mean "Nasty-Ass Bitches"? First, that is more of a phrase; second, it never was used as a specific remark against liberals.
Anyway, I bet they only hate you for your freedoms.

You mean "Nasty-Ass Bitches"? First, that is more of a phrase; second, it never was used as a specific remark against liberals.
Anyway, I bet they only hate you for your freedoms.

Fiddly, you're like the clap, LOL, or darkman... I thought you burst into flames in another thread, hehe. Oh well, maby next time ;)

Fiddly, you're like the clap, LOL, or darkman... I thought you burst into flames in another thread, hehe. Oh well, maby next time ;)
I've been through worse.
By now you should know, if the main villain in a piece dies in a manner that leaves no corpse behind: he will be back. He will also probably be out for revenge, but since it's late and I'm writing a paper, I haven't got the energy for that.

Perhaps if you're a liberal-hater. Why has the word "liberal" become the new hate word in the american lexicon. Was the "N" word not strong enough anymore?

Well, I'm not a liberal hater but there are a few articles that are quite good in the lot that simply can't be denied away like it or not. The problem is they are one sided and read more like an inditement.

Liberal became a "hate word" at the hands of a bunch of little tiny different groups that couldn't get any traction by calling themselves what they really were. Democrats / Liberals added to the problem when they allowed some of these people to come to power within the party.

A quote in point that always hangs in my mind:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." (Norman Thomas, 1936 presidential candidate on the Socialist ticket)

Many of us respect the words of those that would cause harm to our system for a very long time. I can't blame them at all. If Liberals still have a clearly distinct ideology that represents the values they used to stand for, then they need to seperate themselves and protect their identity with all the vigor and zeal that they demonstrate in advancing the agenda of others. Quite frankly, I have seen very little evidence of what I percieve as a true liberal in our political system anymore. They may well be a thing of the past.

Perhaps if you're a liberal-hater. Why has the word "liberal" become the new hate word in the american lexicon. Was the "N" word not strong enough anymore?
NEWSPEAK.

...personally, i'd like to keep "honky" in the vernacular just a tad longer.
As for people being afraid of invocative titles, bestowed or earned, it basically adds up with the current war against a noun (Thanks, Bob's Own Pipe).
While we're at it, why not TWO wars against nouns? It seems that kind of fatuous bellicosity is the sharpest edge right-wingers have.

I suspect that if you're banned, it will be for posting. The content of that post is probably irrelevant at this point.

I love 'ya Lune..!!! :) And you're right, of course.

I got banned the last time for simply getting around the "banning barriers",
which are amazingly weak (obviously) by the way. It's not anything that I
said, per se.

In fact, with the exception of saying that I got what I would expect from
a "female canadian mega-poster on NS" in regards to some political
expression of hers, I've been amazingly non-corrosive under the Iakeonui
name.

Oh well.. :)

-Iakeo

I read a bit of it, the guy is just wrong. He is misguided in his conclusions, establishes logical fallacies as arguments, and then proceeds to ignore whatever a basic observation would say about liberal.

"liberals seek change not just for the sake of change, but to fulfill their own ego"

WTF? Where the hell did he get that conclusion?

That conclusion is drawn from observing leftists through history.

If you're not interested in either actually reading the text, or entertaining the
possiblility that leftism is a mental disorder akin to sociopathy, usually
because the mental framework of leftism (sociopathic juvenile ego
agrandizement characterized by massive control issues) appeals to you for
one reason or another, then there's no reason to characterize what you have
to say as anything but uninformed noise.

If you'd actual care to read and discuss the matter up for discussion, that
would be ore than welcome.

-Iakeo

Originally Posted by BLARGistania
I read a bit of it, the guy is just wrong. He is misguided in his conclusions, establishes logical fallacies as arguments, and then proceeds to ignore whatever a basic observation would say about liberal.

"liberals seek change not just for the sake of change, but to fulfill their own ego"

WTF? Where the hell did he get that conclusion?

lol no shit

"No shit" what? What do you actually mean by that comment?


and this:


WHY ARE PEOPLE LEFTISTS?

The answer in five words: "Leftists need to feel superior".

Sounds more like the Christian right to me. They need to believe that their way of life is superior and the one and only way to live and need to push for laws to force that way of live on others. While liberals tend to push for a way of life that lets people be individuals and are more concerned with making laws that keep people from hurting each other or the environment.

Your definition of "liberals" as "..push for a way of life that lets people be
individuals.." directly contradicts the authors definition of LEFTISTS as "those
who wish to subsume the individual into a 'collective' to be ruled over by
an 'intelligencia'".

Either you two are not talking about the same people, or someone is wrong.

My opinion is that you are talking about two different things. The "leftist
follower" is indeed interested in being a nice person who lets people be
individuals and wants to protect the weak (persons/groups/environment).

The "leftist leader" on the other hand is the power mad egomaniacal
sociopath.

Read more and be enlightened.

By the way,.. the "christian right" shows many signs of being a "collectivist
fascistic sociopathic leftist" set of organizations. The "collectivist fascist
sociopathic" part of that description is, of course, redundant as it's included
in the final term "leftist".

-Iakeo

I'm not familiar with the famous words of neo-K

but sorry that is what I feel - religious people who push their views on others (not all religious people, but they are usually conservatives) do so because they feel that their views are superior and they push to have actions that don't align with their holy texts outlawed.

And doing so is leftist behavior.

Many (if not most) "religious people" are indeed leftists, even if they describe
themselves as "rightist", just as Hitler was a leftist yet is constantly being
described as a rightist.

And the reason they are "leftist" is because of their BEHAVIOR, not because
of labels applied to them by some "expert". It is the "leftist way" to not
think/reason for yourself, and to take your orders from
the "commissar"/expert.

Anyone can call themselves, and anyone can call someone else, any label
they like. The proof is in the pudding. What does that person/group/thing
produce? That is their best description.

Superiority is borne out by the results of actions, not by some theory saying
it's superior.

Some things ARE superior to other things for what they do. That is the
nature of nature. If something is not demonstrably superior in result, and yet
claims to be such, then it MUST be exposed as a false superiority.


-Iakeo

Originally Posted by Liverbreath
Well, I can see why he figured he would be banned. Like it or not though, there is a few articles in there that are actually very well written and to a large degree spot on.

Perhaps if you're a liberal-hater. Why has the word "liberal" become the new hate word in the american lexicon. Was the "N" word not strong enough anymore?

It is a "hate word", as you say, because of what it represents. It represents
anti-individualistic, andti-freedom, fascist, censoring, irrational sociopathy in
method, intention and goal.

Just as "fascist" is a "hate word" (a phrase I really dislike by the way as it is
intrinsically meaningless), "leftist" describes, once it's meaning is established
by it's behaviors and results, an evil.

"Fascist", by the way is simply a specific subset of the leftist mindset (world
view).

Now, do you have any actual matter for discussion, or are you as interested
as any other leftist in having a meaningful discussion?

-Iakeo

And doing so is leftist behavior.
Anyone can call themselves, and anyone can call someone else, any label
they like. The proof is in the pudding. What does that person/group/thing
produce? That is their best description.
<snip>
-Iakeo

It really comes down to definitions. Since it has become common practice to call liberals "leftists" there is bound to be some offense taken to his claims. If I choose to personally define conservative as "authoritarian theocrat who is out to force their morals on everyone around them" and then started talking about conservatives using that as my basis, I would expect to get blasted as well.

-Addition
Yes, the way he chooses to define it may represent a bad thing, but that is simply not the widely accepted meaning of the word. Way to emulate politicians though, if you don't like how things are going, redefine words.

..Liberal became a "hate word" at the hands of a bunch of little tiny different groups that couldn't get any traction by calling themselves what they really were.

Democrats / Liberals added to the problem when they allowed some of these people to come to power within the party...

The "bunch of little tiny different groups" were the leftists who couldn't "get
traction" because people began identifying them AS leftists
(comminists/socialists) with proven leftist behaviors, at which point they
started calling themselves "liberals", which previosly was a description of
the "laissez-faire"-types (capitalists) who espoused freedom (from coercive
trade practices).

Once they "defused" their label ("liberals" were the good guys!) they
proceeded to simply continue their leftist behavior, which was eventulaly
noticed (proof is in the puuding, not the label) and the label "liberal" once
again described all those nasty repugnant leftist behaviors once again.

Thus, "liberal" as a label has been besmirched and made evil by the people
who use it in self description.

Most "liberals" now try not to describe themselves as liberals because the
name has been so thoroughly sullied.

Some "naive" leftists, those "leftist followers" (generally very nice people)
alluded to by the author, who insist on their own "righteousness" (which they
actually DO possess as they ARE nice folks) sometimes insist on holding onto
the "liberal" label as an earned "merit badge" that they have emotion invested
in.

Most "real" leftists, those "leftist leaders" [aka the pigs from Animal Farm),
have "Moved On" and now call themselves Democrats, trying to hide once
again, and are now (and have been for some time) sullying that label.

Some "suicidal" (mostly very old [invested] and very young [stupid]) "real"
leftists cling to the liberal label out of shear pig-headedness. (..back to
Aminal Farm again..)

The term "Democrat" will in the near future be treated exactly like the
term "Liberal" is now.

This is why "real" Democrats bristle when leftist behavior is exhibited by those
leftists calling themselves "Democrats" within the Democrat party.


-Iakeo

Originally Posted by Deiakeos
And doing so is leftist behavior.
Anyone can call themselves, and anyone can call someone else, any label
they like. The proof is in the pudding. What does that person/group/thing
produce? That is their best description.
<snip>
-Iakeo

It really comes down to definitions. Since it has become common practice to call liberals "leftists" there is bound to be some offense taken to his claims. If I choose to personally define conservative as "authoritarian theocrat who is out to force their morals on everyone around them" and then started talking about conservatives using that as my basis, I would expect to get blasted as well.

Absolutely. And of course using the term "leftist" as the epitome of evil-ness
is purposefully provocative. The reason is so that the really evil parts can be
talked about and gotten rid of.

*) If you are a "leftist", what does leftist mean to you?
*) Can you see how valid it is that the evil parts of the author's "leftist
behavior and mindset" are?
*) If you wish to "take back the label" of "liberal" and have it mean somethng
positive, what do you have to do?

The author DOES expect to get "blasted" by defining terms as he does. To
not expect such a thing would peg him as a moron, which he definitely is not.
He also isn't concerned in the least about BEING blasted, as that's WHY he is
making his views known in public! Specifically to expose an evil so that it can
be removed (or at least seen for what it is).

A typical "nice-guy" leftist follower type person is offfended when anyone is
provocative, because it "harms the general peace". That is well meaning, but
sheepish behavior, which is why leftist LEADER types LOVE leftist FOLLOWER
types. More sheep to shear.


-Addition
Yes, the way he chooses to define it may represent a bad thing, but that is simply not the widely accepted meaning of the word. Way to emulate politicians though, if you don't like how things are going, redefine words.


If he sees an evil, such as fascism, anti-individualism, anti-capitalism,
slavery, deceit and subversion, etc in "the left" (as self described) then is he
not allowed, if not OBLIGED, to speak up..?!

To the leftist, NO,.. he doesn't have the right to speak up because that
would be "rude" and "unhelpful to the community [collective]".

If you don't see those characteristics in "the left", then we can talk about
that then.. :)

(( By the way, as he defines "leftist", MUCH of the "right" as we "typically call
it" is more leftist in behavior than "rightist". This would indeed make
them "leftist" as best description of something is by it's behavior, not
it's "common" label. Thus,.. Hitler, the traditional embodiment of evil to the
left [and right by the way] was a LEFTIST [in behavior], so yet again
demonstrating the fratricidal nature of the left. ))

-Iakeo

Originally Posted by Sumamba Buwhan
Sounds more like the Christian right to me. They need to believe that their way of life is superior and the one and only way to live and need to push for laws to force that way of live on others. While liberals tend to push for a way of life that lets people be individuals and are more concerned with making laws that keep people from hurting each other or the environment.

Sounds like any group that advocates fundamentally altering human nature or creating large, powerful governments. So, yes, the Christian Right, but American liberals (as opposed to Classic Liberals) as well.

BINGO..!

We have a winner..!! :D

The "Christian Right" IS leftist... made up of leftist flocks (sheepish followers)
and leftist tyrants (fascist totalitarians).

Keep reading the "evil works of the right", such as the author's,.. it will do
you much good, whether you are a rightist or a leftist follower.

If you are a leftist leader, you're so far up your own sociopathy that nothing
will help you but your expulsion from normal society (usually accomplished by
willing exile to some terrorist haven, or suicide).



-Iakeo

(( By the way, as he defines "leftist", MUCH of the "right" as we "typically call
it" is more leftist in behavior than "rightist". This would indeed make
them "leftist" as best description of something is by it's behavior, not
it's "common" label. Thus,.. Hitler, the traditional embodiment of evil to the
left [and right by the way] was a LEFTIST [in behavior], so yet again
demonstrating the fratricidal nature of the left. ))
Then the better descriptor --better than sticking a "left" or "right" label on a person who only behaves partly that way --is that the person's particular behaviour is "leftist" or "rightist".