you’d have to unpack this statement because there much more to it. of course, there is a slave ethos or psychology that is characterized by experiencing joy in submission of some kind, whether it be to a god or a king or whatever. but this isn’t all that is meant by detractors of the history of the jews. what they’ve done, instead, is characterize the jew’s need to be underhanded and deceptive as a measure of weakness… rather than possessing the brute strength to directly and openly wage a war. but remember, they had neither the numbers or the resources to do so, and so had to resort to such measures. on this account they’d not really be practicing a slave-morality in relation to their oppressors, but rather a more strategic, more cunning form of warfare that was necessary for those who hadn’t the numerical strength.
your homeboy nietzsche held the same opinion as myself here, and was careful not to confuse the different kinds of meaning of ‘slave-morality’. if anything was slavish about the jews, it was their submission to their god.
but that don’t mean nuthin, bro. marxism is a description of, and set of instructions for, a certain kind of organized society. anybody can get a’hold of it and try to implement it. you’d not call pol-pot a jew, would ya? that’s what i’m tryn to tell you; the ideas of marxism have no racial or cultural origin.
and again, if you do have a entire continent of self-identified ‘jews’ who are behind a marxist movement, and who believe what they are doing is sanctioned by the silly religious nonsense they believe, they’d simply be wrong. god didn’t invent marxism. nature did. evolution did.
That’s the thing, the redeeming quality. Everybody loves an underdog story.
If you’re oppressed, feel victimized, then ultimately you can see the ‘magic’ of Jewry and Judaism. It’s very compelling and attractive to those who have been forced into abject slavery and ultimate suffering.
This does not mean or imply though, to ‘forgive’ or ‘accept’ victim-politics or religion. History still dictates, there are winners and losers all throughout history.
My favorite portion of history is when societies, nations, states, and regions violently collapse. It’s like having a clean slate to go with where everyday is like Christmas.
In this transformation those that were winners find themselves becoming the new losers and watching people fall from glory or grace whimpering to themselves, “Why is this happening to me?” Well, for me that is just pure beautiful poetry being sung.
Yes, I guess you can say I revel in such thoughts as it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
It’s also a time where those who were deemed the losers have the grand opportunity to shed their shackles and rise to the top. Out with the older order and in with the new.
…Christianity is a Jewish slave religion with a slave morality…cough**cough"
Capitalism has it’s basis in the modern industrially revolutionized mode of.production, where as only a money chamger adhered to the Jewish stereotype.
Capitalism did not begin with changing money, it started with modes of changing methods of production.
Christian values before vested changes in moral artifacts, such as those which occurred in the early stages of.production, where there were unionized protections against means of production , such as child labor laws.
The connections between the two types of changes are tedious, and very far flung the product of a regressed symbolic value missong a lot over variables in productive values.
That may explain the difficulty in Stalin’s efforts to revise premises that have gone out of hand, and why the Soviets now down on the Hungarians, who took advantage of the weakness of the Communist Internationale , beginning in France.
Another badly wrangled and misinterpreted argument about Stalin’s assassination by Jewish doctors for Beria’s assassination, is equally bereft of reality. I am not even sure this argument can hold up today, even on it’s face, and some even consider the revision to be the product of the anger represented by ghost writers who Stalin used to write the revision.
Stalin’s daughter was interview when
she defected, but I don’t remember any of this becoming mentioned , or, entertained.
My spotty flow of reading and replying fits with the idea of no process-flow, and still retain the connexion of a backward nexus to evolving forms this forum is taking.
Yes, but does that overly sure with the original basic assumptions between the sources of capitalism (protestant etchic) and of socialism (judeo{christian}) ethic ? Your suggestion is a minor sub-plot to a major plot that , if we could travel back in time, have no objective -future relationship, and oracles would not cover connections , as they did individulot selected epochs, that were read to leaders.
Zero_Sum wrote :
It’s not a stereotype, up until the Trump agency Jews controlled the Federal Reserve for almost thirty years.
In order to develop a stereotype , both, types have to be incorporated into the one. The administrative/executive stereotype may be typical of modern and post modern history , but does rise to stereotype.
This may be a trite arguable point, but after all, the devil is in detail.
No, not quite. All who have known me in other incarnations know my situation and how I derived the synthesis, that enabled me to replicate both sides of this argument.
I was other than Meno, then, and didn’t appreciate the fact that iOBJECTIVELY, both sides of the argument, one, apparently as a flowing Heglelian dialectical synthesis, and, two, the new material version, diluted for popular expectations.
The pretty 5 year economic plan, was a propaganda tool, not true in any sense , excepting the desire of planners to saturate public confidence toward labor, which proved disastrous to dissenters, who actually became slaves in the salt mines of Siberia.
Lenin’s fabrication , noted above , included the Marxian utopia.
indeed, but that’s a truism and explains nothing. what needs to be understood is the behavior of soliciting sympathy, the purpose it serves. here morality becomes weaponized; those who lose must resort to hijacking the conscience of the winners into experiencing feelings of guilt because they lack the means to directly regain power over them. but what is forgotten in the criticism of the ‘loser’ is that the loser is doing the same thing the winner is doing… trying to gain the upper hand. so when the winners win, it’s noble, but when the losers win, it’s ignoble and underhanded.
this demarcation ironically reverses the slave-mentality (i did a vocaroo audio on this very thing a year ago). first we have the stage; slave interprets master’s caprice as bad, as ‘evil’. second stage; winner/master interprets slave’s revolt as ‘bad’, as ‘evil’. here, the master/winner engages in the same weaponized moralizing that the slave engaged in directly following his loss of power. now, it is ‘bad’ to not want to remain the loser, says the winner… and that’s the dumbest shit i have ever heard.
now it becomes especially ugly when we apply this analysis to what has been done, and is being done, in the dialectic between the ruling class and the working class. note that the initial power gained by the ruling class was not established by direct force, but rather through the same kind of underhanded deception that is now being scrutinized in the hands of the losers, the working class. the ruling class was able to convince the working class that something other than a direct show of force gave them their right to their position… and this would involve telling the long story of the rise of the aristocratic class to power (which i’m not obliged to tell because it would take too long). suffice it to say that this initial rise to power was not the result of an affirmative show of strength by the ruling class, but rather the result of a lack of organized effort by the working class to keep their power. and what caused this long, drawn out process of losing executive power to the ruling class was cateorically identical to the moralizing that the losers, the slaves, the workers, now execute in an attempt to regain their original power.
so you have a ‘master’ class that gained its status by underhanded and deceptive means… then has the audacity to try and convince the ‘slave’ class, which it successfully subordinated by weaponizing morality, that they should accept their fate rather than revolt. like i said… the dumbest shit i have ever heard.
i take a great leap here and say something you’ll not understand… something that will immediately shock you and strike you as absurd. i’m using a metaphor you like to think in terms of, here. the aristocratic/capitalistic ruling class’s entire pathos is feminine and ignoble. in the same way you might see women as being experts at manipulation and able to access power through indirect means, the ruling class has done the same thing through ‘philosophy’, through ‘ideology’. the rise to power of the bourgeois class is an activity perfectly characterized as feminine; accessing power deceptively and then persuading those from whom it was taken that they should feel guilty in wanting it back.
now i’d not use that metaphor myself because it over-generalizes… but i did anyway because it’s in a way you might be able to understand. i’m trying to simplify something extremely complicated so it’s easily accessible to you.
it’s another irony i sit nicely on as i watch the political philosophers go with great amusement. conservatism is the very incarnation of the feminine pathos, while… let’s just call it 'marxism ’ because that’s how everyone understands it these days… is at its core is the embodiment of ultra-masculinity and nobility. okay… let’s say that capitalism is dionysian, while socialism is apollonian. will that work for you?
i know, i know. this is probably very disturbing to you and i apologize for that. i’ve been known to turn whole centuries upside down in one fell swoop.
All I know is that if you get more slaves than masters an uprising, insurrection, and revolution is always inevitable.
And being poor working class it is why my variation of fascism is a socialist one.
I do not admire, praise, and elevate inequality as a natural given that should just be, I think it should be lessened or constantly restrained in the name of maintaining social order.
I know we’ll never get rid of inequality but we can at least try to lesson it as much as possible because societies where inequality spirals out of control almost always collapse in on themselves much like the current United States right now.
marx never advocated such idealistic nonsense as ‘equality’. that’s a reg-flag word invented by right-wingers to obfuscate the theory and distract people away from it. if you make marxism seem like a fairytale, people won’t pay any attention to it. another one is this ‘utopia’ baloney marxism is supposed to be about. more bullshit made up by morons who don’t know wtf they’re talking about, or purposely lying to maintain that distraction.
perfect example; listen to peterson numb-nutts think he’s making a point against marx in this first video.
there’s no difference here. national socialism is pseudo-marxism by country and is concerned only with the interests of one’s own working class. in this way its an immature and underdeveloped full marxism.
marxism in the form of nationalism was fashionable for 20th century fascists because at that point in history, ‘race’ was still important. well except for mussolini, who was light years ahead of hitler in this respect.
Almost all gains in history have been made through all-out warfare, by which any gains are protected by an establishment anyway. It doesn’t matter how well the Industrial revolution profits, how well capitalism, or any hypothetical marxist-socialist market profits, if you can’t protect those profits by a standing army. You seem to have a philosophical blindspot in this area. The historic ‘high’ classes are aligned with military might. The upper-classes dictate the order of the armies. Any hypothetical “redistribution of wealth” presumes a military uprising. The 20th Century was most dangerous because the world’s wealth was still being held in Swiss Banks, which Europeans will go to war to protect. In fact World War 1 and 2 were both about protecting Central European banks and power, represented by the political powers (Austria-Hapsburg and then Nazi-Germany). Wealth was transferred West, to America, which is the primary reason the world became polarized as it is today.
Ah yes, soooo complex, use small words so I can understand… eye-roll
Your perspective is not mine. I view social-policies as extension of genetic tribalism. Power is what really matters, and boiling everything down, especially political philosophy.
If you can’t enforce your ideas by Reason, then you must use (Physical) Force, which means, a military.
Communist-Marxist ideals are Eastern European and do not reflect the idealism of Western European elitism. The social policies do not mesh.
And it doesn’t matter, because if you have no Kin, then you have no greater motivation to begin with. All social upheaval comes from Kin-Selection.
oh i see it, and i’ve explained how it happened. through a gradual transitioning of citizen’s productive roles as the society grows larger and requires more complex forms of management. from the minimalist form of society consisting of citizens that are workers, soldiers and law enforcement combined, to the more advanced societies in which the ‘priest’ and ‘legislator’ class emerges as a luxury, as a result of the surplus wealth created by the workers. then begins the philosopphical process of convincing the productive class that these priests and legislators and kings are necessary (sometimes by divine providence, e.g., receiving excalibur from the lady of the lake). meanwhile, to stay any revolt by workers who are smart enough to be suspicious of this, the ruling class gives special interests and privileges to the military class in exchange for their protection. and thus was structured the hierarchy of a society organized by the ruling class to keep them in power.
so i’m not denying anything you’ve said. not only do i agree, but i’m describing how it happened. or rather, how it got to the point where there could exist a useless and parasitic class of aristocrats in no danger of being usurped. yeah but that shit didn’t fly for long in russia, did it? the industrial proletariat was a little smarter than the old feudal peasantry (well except for these peasants), and only one rifle away from being a mobilized soldier. and the conditions are always ripening more for something like this to happen, because the number of workers always exceeds the number of military personnel ready to defend against an uprising.
Russian people never had a centralized government; their Steppic continent was/is too big. Russians are Scandinavian and Norse people, mixed with Steppic Mongolians and Huns. They’re nomadic peoples, clannish and tribalist. Russians have traditionally had an inferiority complex toward Europeans, out of envy of their cultures, especially the French whom they admire more than others (Napoleon conquered Russia). Russians are naturally industrialistic and communistic. When it comes “naturally” to one race/ethnic group, that’s different than any supposed Marxism/Communism which is inflicted upon others. Many ethnic groupings are elitist and want no party in any hypothetical “universal brotherhood” or “proletariat of the workers”.
Most workers are simple-minded buffoons, and you know this very well. They don’t have leadership qualities, which are monopolized and indoctrinated by the elitists anyway. There are few ‘noble’ qualities within the working-populace.
French anti-Elitism, wrought out of contempt, is not the same as Russian anti-Elitism, wrought out of an inferiority complex. Russian people aren’t really ‘respected’ within Western and Southern European countries, perceived as invasive outsiders, tacky, gawdy, lacking sophistication, still retaining many ‘barbarian’ qualities of their ancestors. The English in particular, sneer upon Russian (and therefore Communist sentiment).
The Western World is still anti-Communist, due to the Anglo antagonism. This is relevant today, as the Neo-cons, Neo-libs, demonize Russia and Eastern Slavs, every chance they can get, accusing Trump of “colluding” with them, just because they’re a bunch of fucking losers.
that’s gotta be a pretty frickin small ‘grouping’ if it consists only of elitists. usually on planet earf, in order for a group to increase in size, it has to successfully manage it’s environment and divide up the labor involved in doing it. so if you got a group of only ‘elitists’, they’re either living off the wealth snatched from some other group, or on their way out (because none of them wanna work). dawkins once created an analogy model to describe what is called an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS), and he used a community of birds to do it. in this community there are three types of birds, as follows:
grudgers: birds that will pick mites off of birds that pick mites off of them.
suckers: birds that will pick mites off of birds that don’t pick mites off of them.
cheats: birds that don’t pick mites off of other birds, but allow other birds to pick mites off of them.
and he explains how the cheat type is the only anomaly that wouldn’t allow a community with an ESS to exist. if you did the math, you’d see why. a community with cheats would result either in extinction, or extinction. you could have a temporarily stable group of cheats and suckers, but eventually nothing would be left but the cheats… and then nothing would be left at all… because they’d all die of mite infestation.
only a group of grudgers and suckers, or a group of grudgers and grudgers, or a group of suckers and suckers, would have an ESS.
now this analogy works well to describe the kind of relationship the ‘cheat’, which is the’elite’ (modern capitalist) would have to its community. so your hypothetical grouping of only ‘elite’ isn’t something realizable unless we’re talking 800 a.d. barbarism or post-apocalyptic mad max. which is to say, you can do your whole ‘kinsmen tribal’ thing, but it would have to be as a cult that rented out an apartment building or warehouse to live in and made its money trading stocks.
but that’s too easy, too simple. the grand project of mankind is more than that, and it involves building social ecosystems that are sustainable indefinitely. and to do that, we gotta get rid of the cheats or we’ll all go extinct.
and this is why i can’t pay any attention to these silly philosophy forum cliques made up of conservative nordic wanna-be alpha-males who play philosophy as if it were a dungeons and dragons role-playing card game. no, you guys are not, and will never be, the noble warriors of truth, nor will what the few of you ever say at a philosophy forum amount to more than a hill of beans. king arthur is dead, and we have killed him. stop stammering about your virtue like a blue-bottled priest! (that was a nietzsche re-mix, btw)
