JFK - 50 years ago

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I'm still trying to chip away at the facade to get to the foundation, and a lot of times I notice attempts to either shield or even protect Marxism from the kind of critique and finger-pointing that other "isms" receive whenever something runs amok on a large scale. I've already mentioned the gun control issue, that's an easy one.

But let me run an "if...then" scenario and see if it fits these "isms".

When there are examples like Enron or Miliken (the 'Junk Bond King') or any number of rip-offs in the financial industry, you'll see in the analysis an indictment of not only the individuals responsible for the bad behavior, but for the entire notion of capitalism. None of it would have happened if not for the evils of capitalism, and similar sentiments.

So when there are examples like Jonestown, or pick any country that governs under Marxist philosophy, where things go terribly wrong and people get hurt as a result, isn't it fair then to point at least a questioning finger at Marxism, and ask if there is something inherent in the "ism" itself which leads to things going that horribly wrong as they did with Jones?

Yet it's hard to find this kind of across-the-board indictment when it's something like Marxism versus something like capitalism.

I understand how loyal some are to the Marxist ideals, but at the same time it's hard to understand why the efforts to deflect any kind of questioning of the ideology itself versus the individuals responsible for the malady are so strong when the bad guy is a Marxist, while any number of criminals who gamed the financial system are held up as examples of a bad system (capitalism) and that system (or 'ism') is more to blame than the bad individuals.

It feels like a double standard, and I guess trying to paint the JFK case into a more modern climate-of-hate scenario that existed in 1963 Dallas just tipped the scales of reason and logic too far.

Boil it down: When a self-described capitalist commits a crime, it's an indictment of capitalism, but when a self-described Marxist commits a crime, it's not an indictment of Marxism?

Ummmmmmmmmm .......... maybe it's that little fact that we live in a Capitalist system and not a Marxist one..... Hardly rocket science.... Oswald killed one person, Jones killed 900-something (many whom committed voluntary suicide). Those who game the financial system often effect millions  (long range/term negative implications for the US and world economies via the 2008 financial crisis, for example) and naturally their crimes call the system they gamed into question since they used that very system in order to work their crimes... Guys like Oswald or Jones hardly threatened some onslaught of Communism (neither did Vietnam, BTW and the financial system sure showed them!!!) nor did either of them beat people to death with copies of The Communist Manifesto (In Oswald's case he used a rifle courtesy of the free-market) so, the conceit is quite lost here.... And like I said before, it would be just as valid to blame Ted Bundy's crimes on his Republican campaign work if one were to assume that personal/political ideology has everything to do with the abhorrent behavior of any individual.

[Rocky Raccoon]

This is the most ridiculous topic I've seen on this board.

[guitarfool2002]

This is the most ridiculous topic I've seen on this board.

Yet you posted here. Good work, keep it up! 

[guitarfool2002]

I'm still trying to chip away at the facade to get to the foundation, and a lot of times I notice attempts to either shield or even protect Marxism from the kind of critique and finger-pointing that other "isms" receive whenever something runs amok on a large scale. I've already mentioned the gun control issue, that's an easy one.

But let me run an "if...then" scenario and see if it fits these "isms".

When there are examples like Enron or Miliken (the 'Junk Bond King') or any number of rip-offs in the financial industry, you'll see in the analysis an indictment of not only the individuals responsible for the bad behavior, but for the entire notion of capitalism. None of it would have happened if not for the evils of capitalism, and similar sentiments.

So when there are examples like Jonestown, or pick any country that governs under Marxist philosophy, where things go terribly wrong and people get hurt as a result, isn't it fair then to point at least a questioning finger at Marxism, and ask if there is something inherent in the "ism" itself which leads to things going that horribly wrong as they did with Jones?

Yet it's hard to find this kind of across-the-board indictment when it's something like Marxism versus something like capitalism.

I understand how loyal some are to the Marxist ideals, but at the same time it's hard to understand why the efforts to deflect any kind of questioning of the ideology itself versus the individuals responsible for the malady are so strong when the bad guy is a Marxist, while any number of criminals who gamed the financial system are held up as examples of a bad system (capitalism) and that system (or 'ism') is more to blame than the bad individuals.

It feels like a double standard, and I guess trying to paint the JFK case into a more modern climate-of-hate scenario that existed in 1963 Dallas just tipped the scales of reason and logic too far.

Boil it down: When a self-described capitalist commits a crime, it's an indictment of capitalism, but when a self-described Marxist commits a crime, it's not an indictment of Marxism?

Ummmmmmmmmm .......... maybe it's that little fact that we live in a Capitalist system and not a Marxist one..... Hardly rocket science.... Oswald killed one person, Jones killed 900-something (many whom committed voluntary suicide). Those who game the financial system often effect millions  (long range/term negative implications for the US and world economies via the 2008 financial crisis, for example) and naturally their crimes call the system they gamed into question since they used that very system in order to work their crimes... Guys like Oswald or Jones hardly threatened some onslaught of Communism (neither did Vietnam, BTW and the financial system sure showed them!!!) nor did either of them beat people to death with copies of The Communist Manifesto (In Oswald's case he used a rifle courtesy of the free-market) so, the conceit is quite lost here.... And like I said before, it would be just as valid to blame Ted Bundy's crimes on his Republican campaign work if one were to assume that personal/political ideology has everything to do with the abhorrent behavior of any individual.

What is it with citing the Ted Bundy case? Let's run the numbers just for entertainment's sake and see where the comparison falls flat, not just apples and oranges but apples and snow shovels.

Here's a previous quote:

How they apply their supposed beliefs/views in practical day to day life is what matters.

Ted Bundy's crimes were sexual in nature, the guy was a psychopathic serial murderer who was driven by various deviant sexual tendencies which included a fetish for corpses, if you believe the reports. So trying to link something political to crimes of a sexual nature doesn't come close to speaking to the motivation behind the crimes. He was driven to commit the crimes he did by violent sexual tendencies and some serious psychological issues. A classic psychopath, whose criminal M.O. was made unusual by the fact that he could put up a facade in order to facilitate his crimes. He wasn't on the fringe of what most people would call "normalcy", and his look and demeanor appealed to women who were his victims.

I'll make the case that Lee Oswald in at least one case was driven by politics and ideology. The case of Gen. Walker was mentioned, and rightfully so. He was a far-right firebrand of that era, and drew some attention for his various statements and public comments against communism. If we believe Oswald's wife Marina, and it may have even come in sworn testimony given under oath but I'm not certain, Lee Oswald had read an article about Walker in a communist publication, it angered him, and shortly after Oswald bought a handgun. Then another article appeared in the Dallas Morning News quoting Walker as saying things about eliminating Castro and his Cuban government - or something along those lines, you get the idea - and it again angered Lee Oswald and led to him buying the infamous rifle soon after.

And again if we believe the evidence, it was Oswald who began surveilling Walker's house which led to an assassination attempt where a rifle fired a bullet into Walker's house through a window where Walker was sitting, a bullet which grazed him but missed the "kill shot" by inches if that. And again the connection and belief is that Oswald fired that shot using the rifle he had purchased after Walker's anti-Castro statements set him off on another angry rant...if we believe Marina Oswald. Look it up.

Now, do we believe the JFK case was politically motivated? If we do, and if we also believe that Oswald was at least a shooter involved in the case whether or not his was the "kill shot", than we can add that to the Walker attempted assassination-by-rifle and say Oswald's motivation could be connected to politics. It was Walker's anti-Castro, anti-communist ranting which if we believe his wife at least set him off enough to buy two guns and actively use them.

Jim Jones: All the evidence is there in the form of the news crew's raw video footage when they accompanied the US congressman and his aide to "Jonestown" to investigate, as well as the actual audio of Jones preaching and speaking as his armed guards administered the poison to his followers. Listen to his own words, up to the very end. One of the things he mentions is how "they" were trying to destroy what he had built, "they" being the government which he had railed against and which he had set up his commune outside the US to counter.

What doesn't get said as much is that prior to Jonestown, Jim Jones and his followers were considered something of a powerful voting bloc in his region, where local and regional politicians knew he had his following and that translated into votes, so they courted his support. And Jones, again, on camera expresses himself as a Marxist and his "Jonestown" commune was set up under a Marxist theology and philosophy...it was after all a commune which included education and "re-education" if one of the followers questioned or tried to leave the commune. The "re-education" included physical punishment, and was enforced by armed guards. Does that sound familiar, at least the part about "re-education" if we add "camps" to the end of the word?

Hmm...Soviet Union sending "dissidents" like writers and intellectuals who openly questioned or disagreed with the USSR's government authority and policies to labor camps to be re-educated...Castro...China...North Korea...Cambodia...

Let's talk Cambodia for a minute: Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge, the "Killing Fields"...does it matter even in the least that Pol Pot fell under the spell of Marxism and Marxist teachings as a young man, joining various groups to study and learn the tenets of Marxist philosophy, and parts of which he would apply in his own methods of setting up a government as he assumed power. Which, of course, went horribly wrong as well and led to mass, open graveyards and the Killing Fields as they're commonly known.

But those will say Pol Pot wasn't really a Marxist, even though his philosophy and studies were formed in his younger years around Marxism. Have at it.

If Ted Bundy's crimes, which were ultimately of a sexual nature, can be linked to him working for a conservative politician, let's hear the case. I don't see how a sexual deviant's crimes can be traced to an economic or political philosophy, when the crimes themselves showed the man's motivations for committing them.

Yet we have Oswald who purchased two guns after a political gadfly whom he vehemently disagreed with made inflammatory comments which set him off, and who *acted* directly on at least one of those ideological disagreements by trying to assassinate the guy he disagreed with.

And that terribly chilling tape of Jones speaking to his flock as they're being systematically poisoned and killed on his orders is ranting about "them" wanting to take away the beautiful society he had built...Jones was also a psychopathic killer but what motivated him in the first place to set up his communal society called "Jonestown"? Was it not in part political in nature? Did he not teach and preach political theory at Jonestown as part of the daily regimen?

So connecting a political theory like Marxism to those cases is valid to at least consider since the "crimes" had some basis in differences in ideology and political theory. Connecting crimes of a sexual nature like Bundy's to much beyond the sexual and psychological issues of the criminal to an economic or political theory are near impossible because the crimes and their motivations had no connection to politics, ideology, or anything close.

If Bundy had volunteered for a local Democrat, would that have changed the example?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I still don't get it or see what the big deal is....  Crazy people have been killing for countless different reasons, be it sexual, political, nonsensical, for profit, etc etc, since the dawn of time .... You can't take two puny examples and make them a grand example of anything. Did Bundy's crimes CHANGE SEX FOREVER??? No, they did not.... We've been killing in the name of Capitalism for too long to try and trace back, and what has that changed forever?? I mean, countless wars for Capitalism and financial gain, and you sting up two little examples of insane people killing for their own twisted little reasons? Yeah, OK. It proves what? I mean shall we go ahead and list ALL the known reasons people have killed throughout history? Any dime store shrink could quickly shred through many of those alleged reasons anyhow, so there's no grand conclusion to be drawn.... Besides, we live in a Capitalist society that has been pummeling the earth blood red forever and two little guys killed some people for a different reason? Boo hoo!

[Bean Bag]

We've been killing in the name of Capitalism for too long to try and trace back, and what has that changed forever?? I mean, countless wars for Capitalism and financial gain, and you sting up two little examples of insane people killing for their own twisted little reasons?

You don't have to tell me.  Capitalism killed my sister.  Well, not my sister -- but a friend's sister.  Not his sister, per se -- but his dog, who was like a sister.  Actually, not a dog so much, as a pet fish.  I guess it wasn't really a fish -- but a video game character that he created, that was like a sister, named "Fish."  You know?  Capitalism, busted in one day while we were eating Cheetos and playing video games n' stuff, and like listening to Communist radio, I think -- and Capitalism like totally shot the place up.  Well, not really -- but, you know, virtually shot the place up -- in the video game.  It was totally awesome.  But so brutal, too.  So, like yeah.  You know, Fck Capitalism n' stuff.

[guitarfool2002]

I still don't get it or see what the big deal is....  Crazy people have been killing for countless different reasons, be it sexual, political, nonsensical, for profit, etc etc, since the dawn of time .... You can't take two puny examples and make them a grand example of anything. Did Bundy's crimes CHANGE SEX FOREVER??? No, they did not.... We've been killing in the name of Capitalism for too long to try and trace back, and what has that changed forever?? I mean, countless wars for Capitalism and financial gain, and you sting up two little examples of insane people killing for their own twisted little reasons? Yeah, OK. It proves what? I mean shall we go ahead and list ALL the known reasons people have killed throughout history? Any dime store shrink could quickly shred through many of those alleged reasons anyhow, so there's no grand conclusion to be drawn.... Besides, we live in a Capitalist society that has been pummeling the earth blood red forever and two little guys killed some people for a different reason? Boo hoo!

Two little examples...I'm assuming you mean Jones and Oswald?

How about Pol Pot? He set up a prototypical Marxist-agrarian society, what were the results again of that government, was it the Khmer Rouge? Perhaps I read it wrong, and misunderstood the death tolls, the seizure of Cambodian citizens' property including means of transportation, the mandated forced labor in the fields, and any number of crimes against humanity that happened barely 35 years ago.

That's satire.

As I see it, a lot of this is about salesmanship and marketing. If those who are presenting Marxism as a better option for American society or a replacement for the "evil" capitalism want to deliver the punch line of the sales pitch, they'd better make sure any traces of the examples like Jones and Pol Pot and Stalin and Mao and all the rest are completely erased from the history books.

Oh wait, some are already trying that...hmmm.

Okay, then try to make the case that Pol Pot, or Stalin, or Mao, or Jones, or any of the other previous leaders who claimed to be governing societies under the tenets of Marxism were not REALLY Marxists, but rather were confused, despotic, psychopathic, or simply unaware of their self-identities when they called themselves Marxists and espoused the ideals of Marxism publicly.

Oh wait, that's being done too. Damn, strike 2.

Ok, well they can always try to get a hip young Gen Y author...oh, sorry, a "Millennial" to be more current and hip with the terminology...to get the audience currently "binge watching" last season's run of "Girls" episodes they've had saved on their DVR's for oh so long, to put down the bowl of Kashi cereal swimming in warm vanilla Soy Dream milk substitute and read a point-by-point list of suggestions that could be called "Marxism 101", unless those Gen Y Lena Dunham and bland grainy cereal loving folks have already taken that course in college when it was still called "History 101".

Oh damn, that's just been done too.

Well, at least they should be honest about mentioning the failures of actually putting into practice within socieites an ideology if they expect everyone to forgo their iPhones, iPads, Lena Dunham, Soy Dream milk substitute, and any other spoils of capitalism which they currently enjoy in favor of Marxist theory ruling the day.

Mention what happened with these devout Marxists like Pol Pot, Stalin, Jones, etc.

And in at least one state, mentioning Pol Pot might cause some of these millennials and college-age folks to at least raise an eyebrow out of the Kashi if only for hearing the word "Pot", whether or not many of them are aware it was an actual person.

Because ultimately the ways to sell people on a negative will run out, and the sales pitch will turn to the positives of what you're pitching as the replacement. And as long as people are clutching iPhones, driving their own choice of cars, and watching Lena Dunham on demand on any digital device, it could be *tricky* to sell them on the joys of agrarian labor and massive regulation and control from a centralized government, including seizure of property and forced, mandated transportation...as the most viable replacement to the system they're currently enjoying.

Just try it honestly. 

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I still don't get it or see what the big deal is....  Crazy people have been killing for countless different reasons, be it sexual, political, nonsensical, for profit, etc etc, since the dawn of time .... You can't take two puny examples and make them a grand example of anything. Did Bundy's crimes CHANGE SEX FOREVER??? No, they did not.... We've been killing in the name of Capitalism for too long to try and trace back, and what has that changed forever?? I mean, countless wars for Capitalism and financial gain, and you sting up two little examples of insane people killing for their own twisted little reasons? Yeah, OK. It proves what? I mean shall we go ahead and list ALL the known reasons people have killed throughout history? Any dime store shrink could quickly shred through many of those alleged reasons anyhow, so there's no grand conclusion to be drawn.... Besides, we live in a Capitalist society that has been pummeling the earth blood red forever and two little guys killed some people for a different reason? Boo hoo!

Two little examples...I'm assuming you mean Jones and Oswald?

How about Pol Pot? He set up a prototypical Marxist-agrarian society, what were the results again of that government, was it the Khmer Rouge? Perhaps I read it wrong, and misunderstood the death tolls, the seizure of Cambodian citizens' property including means of transportation, the mandated forced labor in the fields, and any number of crimes against humanity that happened barely 35 years ago.

That's satire.

As I see it, a lot of this is about salesmanship and marketing. If those who are presenting Marxism as a better option for American society or a replacement for the "evil" capitalism want to deliver the punch line of the sales pitch, they'd better make sure any traces of the examples like Jones and Pol Pot and Stalin and Mao and all the rest are completely erased from the history books.

Oh wait, some are already trying that...hmmm.

Okay, then try to make the case that Pol Pot, or Stalin, or Mao, or Jones, or any of the other previous leaders who claimed to be governing societies under the tenets of Marxism were not REALLY Marxists, but rather were confused, despotic, psychopathic, or simply unaware of their self-identities when they called themselves Marxists and espoused the ideals of Marxism publicly.

Oh wait, that's being done too. Damn, strike 2.

Ok, well they can always try to get a hip young Gen Y author...oh, sorry, a "Millennial" to be more current and hip with the terminology...to get the audience currently "binge watching" last season's run of "Girls" episodes they've had saved on their DVR's for oh so long, to put down the bowl of Kashi cereal swimming in warm vanilla Soy Dream milk substitute and read a point-by-point list of suggestions that could be called "Marxism 101", unless those Gen Y Lena Dunham and bland grainy cereal loving folks have already taken that course in college when it was still called "History 101".

Oh damn, that's just been done too.

Well, at least they should be honest about mentioning the failures of actually putting into practice within socieites an ideology if they expect everyone to forgo their iPhones, iPads, Lena Dunham, Soy Dream milk substitute, and any other spoils of capitalism which they currently enjoy in favor of Marxist theory ruling the day.

Mention what happened with these devout Marxists like Pol Pot, Stalin, Jones, etc.

And in at least one state, mentioning Pol Pot might cause some of these millennials and college-age folks to at least raise an eyebrow out of the Kashi if only for hearing the word "Pot", whether or not many of them are aware it was an actual person.

Because ultimately the ways to sell people on a negative will run out, and the sales pitch will turn to the positives of what you're pitching as the replacement. And as long as people are clutching iPhones, driving their own choice of cars, and watching Lena Dunham on demand on any digital device, it could be *tricky* to sell them on the joys of agrarian labor and massive regulation and control from a centralized government, including seizure of property and forced, mandated transportation...as the most viable replacement to the system they're currently enjoying.

Just try it honestly.  

Just try what exactly? I just don't see what your point is here.

So there have been some dangerous Marxists in history? Sure. I've never argued that. Only I almost never take dictator's or ruler's supposed philosophies on face value since they always flaunt some line of bullshit. This has never ever been any different. But when Lee H Oswald and Jim Jones are held out there as alarming examples of some insidious strain of rampant Marxist/Socialist Satan-Bug, it's quite laughable. Lee H (allegedly) killed JFK 50 years ago and Jones killed/induced the suicide of his followers (with as healthy a dose of that time honored card that's handy for death and destruction: religion) 36 years ago! I mean, just look at all the Marxist/Socialist political assassins, murderous, Communist, cult leaders that quickly followed in their wake ..... er, wait ..... there really haven't been any ...... Meanwhile, how many people has the US killed in the name of the free market, keeping the military industrial complex fat and happy, and good old fashioned greed since Oswald and Jonestown? Shall I make a list? ... No, it's not necessary. We are perfectly safe here from Communism/Socialism/Marxism.

Look: we live in a Capitalist society. So, two puny, paranoid, drug addicted, confused, crazed, guys who weren't exactly hardcore right wing capitalists did a bit of damage several decades ago and both didn't even survive their own carnage. End of story.....

Hey, let's not forget Martin Luther King either! Who killed him? James Earl Ray: a right-wing, racist, redneck asshole. Am I sitting here yelling that he's descriptive of every right winger out there or Conservative philosophy in general? Absolutely not! That would be silly and insulting beyond words....

Oh, and just because people like iPhones and stuff, it doesn't mean they wouldn't rather they be made here instead of India. Life is full of contradictions but it's not necessary to just throw your hands up and accept something you don't agree with or that could be better. You don't have to hate/despise something to see how it could be improved. It's only healthy to strive for improvement all-around.

[guitarfool2002]

I'm all for improvement. But when the solution being offered to replace the current "bad" or "evil" capitalist system (in America specifically) has as checkered and as negative a recent past history as Marxism, at least those trying to sell a transition to the Marxist system need to be honest about its failings.

And most importantly, be upfront with the sacrifices and things people will be giving up that they currently enjoy in favor of the Marxist way of life.

It's easy to lecture to groups of college-age students on the joys of Marxism, and how "equal" and fair and everything else the society would be if we just willingly submit and change over to that system. It works in theory, therefore when it's actually applied to everyday life and the entire system is changed, it will work for everyone and in the name of the greater good, right? College students, high school students, etc...they're very gullible. They're easy to convince if a passing grade means buying in to a theory presented to them and on which they need to write a term paper to get a passing grade. Many of them are apolitical, therefore a "blank canvas" more willing to accept ideas when they're presented.

But the real test comes if and when they are asked point blank "What are you willing to give up in the name of Marxism?" should a situation arise where that becomes the way of life for them.

Ask the question: "What are YOU willing to give up?". Likewise, ask the question whenever the "pay your fair share" line gets thrown around, "What percentage is a fair share for YOU?". Then ask who determines what percentage YOU should be paying in if and when it's determined you're not pulling your own weight.

That is simple, basic, point-blank reasoning that anyone can understand. What are YOU willing to sacrifice in the name of the greater good.

And the results speak volumes. Which is exactly why the questions such as those are simply not asked, or even presented when these issues come up, in favor of selling on the negative that capitalism has gotta go...but in favor of what? And what will be sacrificed in order to do that?

Simple questions which don't get asked, or when presented to those selling Marxism and all its offshoots, a question which gets dodged and tap-danced around nearly every time it's raised.

And again, don't forget ol' Pol Pot. Or for that matter, Communist China in 2014. The Washington Post yesterday printed an article about Chinese journalists being targeted for various "re-education" methods once they've been critical of either the government or the government's policies...

...and, wait for it...the "re-education" is centered around Marxist theory and principles.

Big surprise, right?

2014. China. Washington Post. Freedom of journalists to write and express opinions calling for re-education in Marxist principles when they step out of line from the big centralized gov.

Big surprise indeed.

Don't strain too hard to see the point there. It all ties in. From 1963 to 1975 to 1978 to 1992 to 2013 and 2014 and beyond.

Again if someone wishes to sell the idea of abandoning the current capitalist model in favor of a theory which leads in 2014 to Chinese journalists being sent for Marxist "re-education" if they write opinions counter to the government's narrative, it's going to be an impossible sale. And rightfully so.

We don't want this.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Well put. I guess I just don't see there being any threat of Marxism on the horizon. Yes, college students will often read the work of Marx and toy in their heads with the idea and get into rambunctious intellectual debates at the campus coffee house, but then, just as you point out, they'll go back to their dorm and try and pick up chicks online with their Mac or iPhone. It's something people usually grow out of ..... But people will always try and fix problems they see in whatever system they live under.

Then again, asking "What would you give up for Marxism" is somewhat misleading. Another question would be "what would you give up to live in a society with a greater sense of community and common good"? I think many many people would be willing to give up an awful lot of the things we so enjoy but which are by-products, by and large, of our rather isolationist society. Like here in LA, most people would happily give up their cars if there was better public transportation and a greater sense of community rather than just spread out places where no one knows their neighbors. And in San Francisco (where I've lived) people are more than happy to give up both cars and owning a house in order to live in what feels more like a close-knit community and with little or no chain/corporate restaurants/shops...... Once again, nothing is as simple as the labels used to quantify and squash logical discussion.... And when I say "a society with a greater sense of community and common good" I don't mean a Marxist society and using the shortcomings of our present society as examples of things that could be improved, it is not simply bashing evil Capitalism and pimping for Marxism. Ideas are always welcome and necessary and the easy/lazy terms used to smack down ideas have no place in a society that hopes of moving forward.

[Bean Bag]

We've been killing in the name of Capitalism for too long to try and trace back, and what has that changed forever?? I mean, countless wars for Capitalism and financial gain, and you sting up two little examples of insane people killing for their own twisted little reasons?

You don't have to tell me.  Capitalism killed my sister.  Well, not my sister -- but a friend's sister.  Not his sister, per se -- but his dog, who was like a sister.  Actually, not a dog so much, as a pet fish.  I guess it wasn't really a fish -- but a video game character that he created, that was like a sister, named "Fish."  You know?  Capitalism, busted in one day while we were eating Cheetos and playing video games n' stuff, and like listening to Communist radio, I think -- and Capitalism like totally shot the place up.  Well, not really -- but, you know, virtually shot the place up -- in the video game.  It was totally awesome.  But so brutal, too.  So, like yeah.  You know, Fck Capitalism n' stuff.

I want to further address this silly Killing in the name of Capitalism    notion.  Cuz,I'm bored and find it so offensive.  Yes, I'm offended.  Frankly, this "thinking" is extremely dangerous.  The numbers are never researched and published -- but Capitalism has saved untold billions of lives.  And the opposite -- Statism -- has KILLED untold billions.  So, lies like this really need to be smacked around and humiliated.  Cauze that's what they deserve -- and all they're worth.  And I'm just the guy to do it.



Capitalism has helped human beings.  It has brought about the greatest advancement in the human condition, human dignity and liberty since the dawn of time. Capitalism unlocks the potential of the human spirit -- because it rewards it.  It recognizes that WE THE PEOPLE are the source of invention and innovation.  The source of dreams and the yearning for more and better.  That comes from PEOPLE.  That's an infinite well of progress.  Not Government regulation.  Or government dealing out "rations" they call "fairness."  All around you are the fruits of Capitalism.  It's individuals, pursuing dreams that results in human progress -- and Capitalism is the most supportive of that reality.

Following passions -- and creating things that other people enjoy.  Bettering all of humanity -- by UNLEASHING IT!!  Lifting us all up -- not by managing people and dividing up the rations -- that limits people.  Capitalism releases them to find it for themselves -- and rewarding them when they do.  Or even when someone else does.  We all advance!  The pie always grows, and people share.  JFK understood this.  Everyone does better with a Free Market.

People who say otherwise are either misinformed... or lying to you.



Statism is the opposite.  It can only contain people.  Manage them.  And succeeds in crushing them.  Iron fist.  Iron curtain.  Prison.  Statism can only take from the precious, dwindling few who have persevered in spite of the Statist -- until there are none left to take from.  It lies to the masses, that this theft will somehow be good for them.  Stealing from the rich man, they say, will better your condition.  Really?  How?  Even going so far as to say "its yours anyway, they got successful by taking it from you!"  Oh... wow.  Creepy.

What a lie.  What greed.  This theft hurts everyone... and only fattens the wallet of the theives, the Statist.  People who tell you otherwise are either misinformed... or lying to you.




I earn money... you earn money.  And unlike them... we took it from no one.  And if we earn more money... the same will be true.  But people want to believe the Statist lie.  Because it appeals to people's greed.  "I want what that guy got." That's as much thought as people put into it.  So shallow.  So corrupt.  The masses are coerced by their greed and jealousy -- and the Statist rakes it in.  The lied-to-masses are left waiting for the dwindling stolen property to trickle down (trickle down...)  The rations, Obamacare -- Statism.  Good luck with that.

And while they wait -- they produce nothing.  Except dependency.  And anger... quickly diverted by the Statist towards the rich, business, something... anything!  Just keep them off your trail!! says the Statist handbook.

Take "global warming" (which is an absolutely hysterical extension of this "thinking").  Somehow, man's progress is bad    Industry is killing the planet.  The Earth, just another victim of man's progress.  We did this, with our success.  What a crock.  Let me guess, the solution is to take more loot?  This time from everybody, right?  Shocking.  

Is this global warming?  No... it's Statism.  And it needs more money.



It's Statism, not Capitalism, that will turn vibrant colors to gray -- an oasis into a desert -- and fields of abundance into wastelands.  Statism leaves nothing but carnage and ruin.  Detroit.  The Statist never gets blamed, because the Statists controls much of the media for Propaganda purposes, the schools for Conditioning purposes and of course, the Government.  There wasn't a Capitalist 100 miles anywhere near Detroit's government.  The Car Companies, held captive by the Statist's henchmen (unions) and their blood sucked dry.  Parasites.




Statists must always find a new host to bleed.  And find a way to shift blame for the destruction they leave behind -- and for all ther continued and predictable failings.  Take this thread topic, even.  A Marxist commie kills the JFK and, well... shucks, Pinder says... "well, Capitalism -- kills more."  It's as close as they ever get to admitting defeat.  So rejoice.

[SMiLE Brian]

Bean, Terry McAuliffe and Bill Clinton's motorcade drove past where I was eating on Saturday night.

[Bean Bag]

Hopefully, you flipped them the bird   

[Moon Dawg]

 McAuliffe is a true prick.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Who the hell here is a "statist"?

You have a severe and painful lack of ideas, Bean.

Kicking around all your usual phantom enemies does not pass for intelligence or insight. I don't think you are capable of understanding the idea of making something better or more efficient. Just because I say "killing in the name of Capitalism" is does not mean I think Capitalism is evil or that Marxism is the way to go. Why don't you try THINKING for once and not just reacting and following your script just because it makes you feel big and bad? .... And "killing in the name of Capitalism" isn't some slogan on posters, it's just my own little term and it happens to be true. Of all people, YOU should be able to deal with it, accept it and still love Capitalism like I do! .... Things are complicated and messy and both work and don't work. That's life! Being a big crybaby whenever someone tries to understand the nuance in the details behind the little terms and definitions you bend over so happily for is the complete opposite of intelligent thinking. Putting up stupid pictures from a 5 second Google search is simply immature and stupid.... Roll over and go back to sleep until Obama is out of office or have something to bring to the conversation.

[Bean Bag]

McAuliffe is a true prick.

Yes, thank you!!  Seriously... policies/parties/and all the rest aside -- Americans usually pick the most agreeable person.  At least at the national level.  Obama more likable than Romney, more likable than McBain.  Bush more likable than Gore and what's his face, John Kerry.  Clinton more likable than Dole and Bush, the First.

But Terry McAuliffe?  He's the sh!t that you wipe off yer shoes -- and your friend asks "dude, what is that?"  And you exclaim, "I don't know!"  And your friend asks "does it smell?"  And you say, "dude, I don't know -- I'm not smelling it!"  And your friend replies "it kind of looks like that money bundler, the Clinton troll..."  And you say "Yeah... it does... Terry McAuliffe!  It's Terry McAuliffe!"  And your friend says "Dude, wipe it off... quick!  Wipe it off!!  You don't want to touch that stuff!!"  And you freak out "holy sh!t, it is!!  It's Terry McAuliffe!!  Sh!t!!!  What do I do!!!"  And your friend yells, "dude, throw your shoes away!!"  And you exclaim, "HOLY SH!T!!!"  And you run away, and head straight to the clinic for some tests.


Very bad, Virginia.  Very bad.

[Bean Bag]

If we could only listen in on these conversations... what's being said?