The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

[Age]

E
v
e
r
y
b
o
d
y

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
s

t
h
e

f
a
c
t

y
o
u
'
r
e

c
l
u
e
l
e
s
s
.

Here is ANOTHER VERY CLEAR Falsehood AND UNTRUTH.

I
t
'
s

t
r
u
e
.

LOL "wizard22".

[Sculptor]

it begins with an obvious DEEP FAKE of Biden admitted to voter fraud.

No, Sculpty, Biden really said that. I know it's hard for your 'cognitive dissonance' to process it, but it's true.

He really said it.

Yes and pigs can fly.

Serious mate, you need to take things more seriously.
What kind of world do you live in?
When and where did he say it, and about what?

Try and use your brain.
Why would he admit to that?
THink...
This is your moment to shine.

Answer these questions.

I'm still waiting for your PIZZA gate response.

[commonsense]

Is it that you refuse to believe that Trump has commited a crime, or is it that you just don't care?

Democrats and Republicans are both corrupt and commit crimes—but Democrats are far, far worse.

Trump uncovered the Democrat money-laundering operation in Ukraine, where the former Obama administration, particularly Biden, were enriching and ingratiating themselves. This was Trump's "number one" crime, to the Democrats. They tried to impeach Trump, for uncovering their filthy scandal. They were paying themselves millions upon millions, of tax payer money, using this loophole.

Trump also uncovered the Democrat voter-fraud schemes and tactics. They had to stop an Election in progress, to 'find' mass votes to flip key counties, at 3-4am after Election Night. Democrats needed more time, because they were set to lose a second time. Hence January 6th, where Trump loyalists protested the Steal.

Holy Fuck! You have not only drunk the koolaid, you have bathed in it!!!

[commonsense]

LOL
LOL
LOL

'you' SAY 'this' as though you could do SOME 'thing'.

'you' are, OBVIOUSLY, completely and utterly USELESS and could do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING here, AT ALL, "wizard22".

Adhere to the OP and discussion/debate at hand, or leave.

What are your opinions on Trump? If you don't have any, then you're just spamming my thread.

Again, the thread is not yours to own. If you don’t like the direction it’s taken, redirect or get off.

[commonsense]

I thought once a thread is started it’s everybody’s threat. I’m pretty sure that the forum rules apply even if you think it’s your thread.

I wrote the OP, not you nor anyone else.

If somebody like Age comes into my, or your, or anybody else's thread, and SPAMS it WITH his OFF-topic CAPS lock PARADE, people can ask him to leave their threads or mock him relentlessly for being so socially clueless and autistic. He doesn't seem capable of learning how to change, at this point, sadly.

I agree with you about Age. I doubt that many even read his posts. I skip his and the posts that reply to him.

But the OP didn’t limit itself to, or even mention, ex-president Trump.

[commonsense]

I
m
A
g
I
n
E

b
E
i
N
g

T
h
I
s

O
b
N
o
X
i
O
u
S

G
o
O
D


o

n

E.

N

O

w

S


T
o
p


R
e
a


D
I
N

g
a
G

e

[commonsense]

In fact US media actively spiked, censored, banned any and every "election denial" on all the social media platforms!

"No Evidence" my asshole, it's easy to say "no evidence" when you gouge your own eyes out!

But FOX Entertainment and “News” Network lost a multi-BILLION dollar lawsuit to Dominion about promotion falsehoods that you say were spiked. That’s a fact. That’s evidence.

[commonsense]

Fucking hell you really are a damn moron.

You keep saying "No evidence! No evidence! No evidence!" but it's on video recording...

How long are you going to ignore what's in front of your face?

Democrats have always secured the dead & buried, graveyard vote. This shouldn't be a surprise to people.

Lies, flat out lies, have been video recorded by Fox and others.

[mickthinks]

You keep saying "No evidence! No evidence! No evidence!" but it's on video recording...

If you had proper evidence, why would you have wasted your time posting this bullshit: viewtopic.php?p=665302#p665302

Oh that's right! It's because you are dishonest. You debate in bad faith. There is no point in discussing your ideas with you because you misrepresent everything including your own opinions. Your only purpose is to fuck with us. And that isn't a minor problem in a discussion group like the Philosophy Now Forum. It's of paramount importance.

So, let me put this to you again:

If you are interested in sharing genuine ideas, you can demonstrate that by freely and readily rejecting ideas that cannot be sustained, even when they are ideas that you introduced into the discussion. Can you do that?

[Immanuel Can]

They claim to be "Democrats", but they don't want Republicans to be allowed to democratically choose their representative.

That's because, despite their love of the nomenclature, there is never any such thing as "Democratic Soclalism."

In that phrase, then never can mean "democratic," in the way you mean it -- namely, one person one vote, and you vote for whomever you wish. What they mean, when they use the word in conjunction with Socialism, is that Socialism is supposed to be in the interests of all "the people." But it does not mean they get to vote for whomever they want, and it especially means they don't get to vote not to participate in Socialism.

By "the people," Democratic Socialists only mean "everybody who agrees with Socialism." If you don't, you're a deplorable, an anti-revolutionary, a Nazi, a Right-Winger...and not a person, in any sense that counts politically. You have been (they say) "dehumanized," and "alienated from humanity," and are thus incapable of realizing what the "true interests of the people" are. You're "anti-democratic," they say, because you are against Socialism, which is the only possible option that can be "on the side of the people." (These things, by the way, are all their wording, not my own. You can find it in their own literature.)

They're not crazy. They're what Jordan Peterson called, "ideologically possessed." Socialism's ideology has them in its embrace as securely as if they were demon-possessed. They can't think outside of its paradigm anymore (what they call "the people's standpoint") and can't even see the other side as a reasonable or free people.

Socialism itself is a totalizing theory. That is, as they themselves can tell you, it is not expected to work at all until everybody, and they mean everybody within a system is under its control and obedient to it. Since that has never happened, they can insist, "Real Socialism has never been tried." What they mean is, "We've never gotten sufficient control of everybody to destroy every hint of opposition to Socialism." And that, too, is why Socialism must kill. It must eliminate opposition utterly, in order to realize its aspiration to control the total trajectory of history.

Most ordinary Socialists understand little of this. They actually don't read the difficult Socialist literature, far less Marx or Marcuse. So instead, they become what the Communists came to dub "useful idiots," who, in good-natured but misguided empathy, buy into the program without understanding the theory in any deep way. But "useful idiots" are also completely disposable, when they fail to embrace Socialisms unsavoury deeper theories; so they will have to become more and more cruel in its service, or become the objects of the Socialist ideologues' own cruelty to "reactionaries" and "betrayers of the revolution."

Silencing, abusing, economic exclusion, confiscation, incarceration, gulags, torture and murder: that is Socialism's descending order of hellish measures. Once somebody joins that team, they're on the slippery slope of these Socialist "correctives."

[mickthinks]

That's because, despite their love of the nomenclature, there is never any such thing as "Democratic Soclalism." ...

This is MAGA-demented gibberish, Manny, from beginning to end.

That's because, despite their love of the nomenclature, there is never any such thing as "Democratic Soclalism." It's MAGA Trumpism aka Christian Nationalism that has given up on democracy.

... they don't get to vote not to participate in Socialism. This makes no sense. Can I vote not to participate in Neoliberalism? Or do I merely get the chance to vote against neoliberal candidates (who may nevertheless win enough votes to get elected to power without my vote)?

By "the people," Democratic Socialists only mean "everybody who agrees with Socialism." No they don't. You've just made that up.

If you don't, you're a deplorable, an anti-revolutionary, a Nazi, a Right-Winger...and not a person, in any sense that counts politically. Calm down! It's time to take your meds, dude.

Have I made my point or do you need me to go on?

[Immanuel Can]

That's because, despite their love of the nomenclature, there is never any such thing as "Democratic Soclalism." ...

This is MAGA-demented gibberish, Manny, from beginning to end.

The problem with your theory, McT, is that I'm not from America, and not a "MAGA" anything. You're just mistaken. And I'm very, very well read in the literature to which I've referred.

For example,

By "the people," Democratic Socialists only mean "everybody who agrees with Socialism." No they don't. You've just made that up.

https://newdiscourses.com/2023/01/the-people/. Lenin said it, Marcuse said it, Mao said it, Lifton documented it...Socialist theory holds that non-Socialists are "alienated from their own humanity," because they fail to "take the people's standpoint" (i.e. the Socialist perspective). As such, they are not fully "humanized" until they abandon their independent thought, and become one with "the people" by joining the Socialists program.

I hate to tell you this, and I mean you no insult: but if you don't know this, then the Communists recognize you as one of their (what they call) "useful idiots," meaning the ignorant masses who do not know actual Marxist theory (what they call the "trained Marxists") but who only know Socialism at the level of its public propaganda. Their "useful idiots" don't have any idea what is the real theoretical basis of Marxism, or in what its major texts say; they're only familiar with the superficial professions of intent to "help people" or "advance history" or "be on the side of the oppressed" that Socialism uses to bamboozle the naive.

[Gary Childress]

That's because, despite their love of the nomenclature, there is never any such thing as "Democratic Soclalism." ...

This is MAGA-demented gibberish, Manny, from beginning to end.

The problem with your theory, McT, is that I'm not from America, and not a "MAGA" anything. You're just mistaken. And I'm very, very well read in the literature to which I've referred.

For example,

By "the people," Democratic Socialists only mean "everybody who agrees with Socialism." No they don't. You've just made that up.

https://newdiscourses.com/2023/01/the-people/. Lenin said it, Marcuse said it, Mao said it, Lifton documented it...Socialist theory holds that non-Socialists are "alienated from their own humanity," because they fail to "take the people's standpoint" (i.e. the Socialist perspective). As such, they are not fully "humanized" until they abandon their independent thought, and become one with "the people" by joining the Socialists program.

I hate to tell you this, and I mean you no insult: but if you don't know this, then the Communists recognize you as one of their (what they call) "useful idiots," meaning the ignorant masses who do not know actual Marxist theory (what they call the "trained Marxists") but who only know Socialism at the level of its public propaganda. Their "useful idiots" don't have any idea what is the real theoretical basis of Marxism, or in what its major texts say; they're only familiar with the superficial professions of intent to "help people" or "advance history" or "be on the side of the oppressed" that Socialism uses to bamboozle the naive.

One thing is for sure. Some will lose and some will not or else some will win and some will not.

Either way, if there is a God, then God plays favorites. And if there is not a God, then not-a-God plays favorites. And if God is for some then God is not for all and if God is for all then God is not for some. God is pathetic and not-a-God is pathetic. Fuck this world.

[mickthinks]

I'm not from America

Never said you were, dude. I said your post was MAGA-demented gibberish. You can become MAGA-demented by drinking the same Kool-Aid from the same toxic sources.

Marcuse said it
Nonsense! Marcuse famously said "The people recognize themselves in their commodities; they find their soul in their automobile, hi-fi set, split-level home, kitchen equipment" . You might read that as only socialists find their soul in their automobile etc. but I can assure you nobody in their right mind will agree with you. It's hard to imagine clearer proof that when Marcuse said "the people" he meant ordinary people.

But by all means cite something Marcuse actually wrote that supports your contention, if you can.

[Immanuel Can]

This is MAGA-demented gibberish, Manny, from beginning to end.

The problem with your theory, McT, is that I'm not from America, and not a "MAGA" anything. You're just mistaken. And I'm very, very well read in the literature to which I've referred.

For example,

By "the people," Democratic Socialists only mean "everybody who agrees with Socialism." No they don't. You've just made that up.

https://newdiscourses.com/2023/01/the-people/. Lenin said it, Marcuse said it, Mao said it, Lifton documented it...Socialist theory holds that non-Socialists are "alienated from their own humanity," because they fail to "take the people's standpoint" (i.e. the Socialist perspective). As such, they are not fully "humanized" until they abandon their independent thought, and become one with "the people" by joining the Socialists program.

I hate to tell you this, and I mean you no insult: but if you don't know this, then the Communists recognize you as one of their (what they call) "useful idiots," meaning the ignorant masses who do not know actual Marxist theory (what they call the "trained Marxists") but who only know Socialism at the level of its public propaganda. Their "useful idiots" don't have any idea what is the real theoretical basis of Marxism, or in what its major texts say; they're only familiar with the superficial professions of intent to "help people" or "advance history" or "be on the side of the oppressed" that Socialism uses to bamboozle the naive.

One thing is for sure. Some will lose and some will not or else some will win and some will not.

Actually, everybody loses, with Socialism. At first, it seems like "the People" are winning, and "the oppressors" are losing. But those dubbed "oppressors" or "right wingers" or "reactionaries" by the Socialists are only the first to die. After that, it's the "useful idiots": because once the true "enemies of the revolution" are all dead or disabled, then Socialism blames its failures on the next level: those "not sufficiently committed to revolutionary principles." Those are the "useful idiots."

But after the "useful idiots" have all been abused or killed, Socialism continues to fail, and the elites still need excuses to continue the system. So they resort to what they call "purges": the next level of half-aware patsies, the slightly-more-useful-and-slightly-less-idiotic are all eliminated. And when utopia fails to appear, this process continues. Eventually, it even begins to eat members of the elite...who either die in their beds or are strung up in the public square, like a Ceaucescu or Mussolini. But the world Socialism promises never arrives. Equality and justice never appear. And this powers the Socialists' need for a continual source of scapegoats -- for otherwise, how can one explain the failure of this "ideal" system to deliver? One can only postpone hope...and explain its lack of appearance by way of the activity of "betrayers of the revolution."

But, to shift gears to your final remark, that not everybody gets the same thing in this world, one way or the other, isn't really surprising. People come from different starting points, make different choices, and live different lives. Why would we suppose that everything should simply end up the same?

Justice is getting "just what one deserves." And that many people do not get their just deserts in this world is one testament to the fact that it is not in this world that justice is achieved. It's in the next one: and anybody who does not believe in the next world is simply going to have to reconcile himself to the facts of inequality and injustice. They cannot be eliminated in the present world.

But it need not be any counsel of despair that they are not levelled here. There is a world yet to come. Even Marx understood all too well that that next world makes all the difference.