/kc/ - Krautchan

Highest Serious Discussion Per Post on Endchan


New Reply on thread #38756
X
Max 20 files0 B total
[New Reply]

[Index] [Catalog] [Banners] [Logs]
Posting mode: Reply [Return]

thumbnail of 1447436502212.jpg
thumbnail of 1447436502212.jpg
1447436502... jpg
(143.17 KB, 646x1024)
No. 38756 [Preview] [Reply]
Actions 
I want to have a thread about Communitarianism.

What is Communitarianism?

Thesis/Problem:

Monopolistic-Crony CAPITALISM-Corporatism-Mercantilism

+/vs

Antithesis/Reaction:

Judaic-Talmudic COMMUNISM-Cultural Marxism-Kabbalism

=

Synthesis/Solution:

COMMUNITARIANISM

https://alarkintexas.wixsite.com/website/post/communitarianism-first-things-first

Its the word most people have never heard, but it affects our lives the most. It's global to local which means its implemented locally but on a global level. 

Two things that are key to communitarianism is

1. Technological slavery

2. Depopulation
No. 38761 [Preview] [Reply]
Actions 
We might be slow and small to reserve a whole thread for this, but worse topics were opened so yeah.
I didn't care for that video you shared previously.
From the sound of it it's redundant. There's nationalism already, that could have a sub-genre. But this looks like leaving out the nationalism since it's not presentable since WWII.


No. 38777 [Preview] [Reply]
Actions 
I'm not really sure what it's supposed to entail exactly. Of course everybody talks about community involvement and such so what is the actual agenda here? What is the plan and why?

The only aspects to it I can think of I quickly rule out as being unrealistic. For example if forming communities where the wealth of the community is taxed and goes back into that community the end result would just be basically South Africa, you would have rich gated communities where all the wealth pools surrounded by a landscape of poverty.


No. 38781 [Preview] [Reply]
Actions 
In fact I have to return to that video, and it's message because of that blogpost in OP.
> COMMUNITARIANISM = Monopolistic-Crony CAPITALISM-Corporatism-Mercantilism + Judaic-Talmudic COMMUNISM-Cultural Marxism-Kabbalism
It's piling up some crap the author thinks we have to be very afraid of, creating just another label. Because simple Marxism in itself just isn't frightening enough. And what a conspiracy it's the billionaire and the commie henchman jewing you again. The Nth iteration of the same thing since the early middle ages' anti-jewish polemics.
Yeah, it's bad that they work like a mafia (sometimes as literal criminal organization, sometimes just simply with favoritism) but I don't get it why we need to chew on it again and again just with a little different seasoning.



No. 38795 [Preview] [Reply]
Actions 
 >>/38794/
The blog consists of a bunch of namecalling and unrelated info. Only a very short part tells what Communitarianism is (at "What is communitarianism?" subtitle) but even there it just gives a DDG search link instead of getting the books of Communitarianist writers and introduce it through what they write.
And what's written at that part is all good, nothing supports the long namecalling part the author of the blogpost produces above.
And some of those links... info from the website of the "Anti-Communitarian League". It's like learning about Hitler from books made in the Soviet Union. Or learning about the Jews from Der Stürmer. Well, all can contain actual usuable information, or can be useful if the context is know, but still.




No. 38835 [Preview] [Reply]
Actions
thumbnail of commies.jpg
thumbnail of commies.jpg
commies jpg
(1.87 MB, 2662x2464) 
That link says that there is some new system (Communitarism) that wants to replace classic liberal system, and install inequality before law, remove private rights, control people, remove individualism etc. But did these things actually existed not in the minds of naive USA citizens with their amendments? Did society really had equal 
rights that will be crushed by neo-feudalism?

I think people just discovered that their imaginary liberal (in classic terms) civic society doesn't really exist and never been. But still think that there is something that is destroyed right now, but actually it is just how things worked for long time.

Also:
> control over all means of production.

It is like 1900 again.


No. 38856 [Preview] [Reply]
Actions
thumbnail of red-star.jpg
thumbnail of red-star.jpg
red-star jpg
(422.58 KB, 808x404) 
 >>/38835/
> equality before law, private rights, personal freedom, individualism, etc.
> But did these things actually existed
I'm not sure about the US, but I have some observations, complemented by the experience of others, and supported by history.
I have some run ins with the law and even getting a warrant to appear as a witness in a police investigation isn't a comforting feeling, now imagine what's it like expecting the police to arrest you at home, it's not something that wide slice of society have to experience since 1990. But it was the daily reality for them in the 50's Hungary, with the authoritarian government searching for "class enemies" and "saboteurs", making arrests, holding show trials, executing, torturing on a whim, forcible resettling people, confiscating their property and possessions. All these aren't happening now.
Yeah, maybe one needs to be connected to emerge in life, but it's just for the mediocre, those who have some talent and some ambition with that, and makes the effort can rise in rank or prestige (ofc relations will be made during the process). Back then for every position they needed the approval of the party. For higher offices, and positions they had to take political courses and they had to excel in them to be considered "presentable", even if they lacked on their chosen field in talent. While a considerable part of the clientele changes every time a new government gets elected, it's only in the public sector.
I heard about occasions (from lawyers, practitioners), when results of trials were prearranged even these days. When there is a will, pressure will prevail. But it is rare, and trials and lawsuits are kinda-sorta can be called fair. Back in the communism, there was a line which certainly decided the fate of many more cases.
In all the areas you mentioned we lived through changes. I can't say we are the most free, but definitely freer than before. In the US this goes even further. We have things to lose, they have too, and a lot.
So to that question, my answer is yes those things do actually exist.

 >>/38848/
> Capitalism needs communism to form the dialectic.
Yes, that sounds very Marxist. The unity of opposites via their struggle.
But capitalism and communism aren't a dichotomy, the first is an economic system the second is a political ideology, and a type of society.















No. 39032 [Preview] [Reply]
Actions 
 >>/39031/
Broadly, I believe that the entire industrial K-12 curriculum is tailored to instill technocratic values onto its students, even ignoring the whole left-right dialectic.
You aren't organically taught there; after school, people often go to different colleges, and work for someone else to gain money to pay to live on someone else's property, and then play video games as a copout.

No. 39044 [Preview] [Reply]
Actions 
 >>/39028/
First we laugh about it. Then we are a bit afraid of it. Then we adjust to it. Thats how I see it. Wasn't that how it was in communist countries? They made jokes about how it really was, but in the end they had to conform to the rules. 

I see technocracy (scientific dictatorship?) as just a tool for communitarianism.



No. 39052 [Preview] [Reply]
Actions 
 >>/39044/
People are making fun of things they are afraid of, to alleviate the stress. So fear comes first, then comes the humour.
But we don't joke only with things we fear, we like to make parodies of others. For me those videos are that. It makes fun of SJWs and points out the absurdity of the American left-lib insanity.
> Wasn't that how it was in communist countries? They made jokes about how it really was
Yes, but the fear came first. The dark '50s. Then by the late communism on the Hungary, political humour was openly allowed as an outlet.
> they had to conform to the rules.
They had to conform to the rules because people faced overwhelming odds. Local governments were backed by the whole Soviet power, and even the satellite states kept each other in line.




No. 39071 [Preview] [Reply]
Actions 
 >>/39059/
Humour isn't escapism. Sometimes it is used to accept reality or make dealings with reality, processing it if you will. But humour in its core is just recognizing or presenting something that doesn't fit, an irregularity.
Let's see a common example: cat videos, or of children. Yes people like them because they fugging cute dawww but also because they are funny. They show something irregular, making people smile (and share it with their folks). Cat in socks, stepping weird. Kid pulling his baby blue plastic potty onto his head. These are funny. Are they escapism? Not really, that's more like fantasy. Just because these raise the mood of the people it doesn't mean it is escaping reality (I give you that they can be consumed as such). Also why would reality equal something bad that make people avoid it?
I think political humour builds on absurdity. It recognize the preposterous, or creates it by extrapolating the situation. Again in its core it's simply something that is off. And it isn't escaping reality, but helps with facing reality.

That video is a parody of a certain mental gymnastics some people is willing to engage in.

No. 39079 [Preview] [Reply]
Actions 
 >>/39071/
I think humour is more like a vent. But is that so good? It reminds me of the delphi technique.  I wonder if people 2000 years ago used to same humour as we do. Its so self depreciating today. 

Also. I've noticed that lefties/marxists don't have any sense of humour. I wonder why that is.




No. 39085 [Preview] [Reply]
Actions 
 >>/39079/
There are many types of humour and many uses. People joke l'art pour l'art (I do it here often, just because I find something funny and don't care if others do or not, but it won't disturb me if they do), or people joke for social acceptance, etc.
Judging humour in the past isn't easy. We lack the context that made things humorous. This causes problems to historians, back in the day, like 19th century and first half of 20th, they concentrated lot on the events. What happened back then? But since then scientists interested more in answering the question "how did they live". And homour was part of their daily life just as now. And there are researchers who explore the humour of the people of the past. They find it's hard to pinpoint jokes due to lack of context which otherwise had to be obvious for the people of that era. They suspect many of the sources that are/were used to write the story of the events contain quite a few jokes and japes, and shouldn't be taken seriously.







No. 39103 [Preview] [Reply]
Actions 
 >>/39099/
You may have written that in jest but cs lewis wrote about that in his book abolition of man. 

"This is one of the many instances where to carry aprinciple to what seems its logical conclusion produces absurdity. It is like thefamous Irishman who found that a certain kind of stove reduced his fuel bill byhalf and thence concluded that two stoves of the same kind would enable him to
warm his house with no fuel at all. It is the magician's bargain: give up our soul,get power in return. But once our souls, that is, ourselves, have been given up, thepower thus conferred will not belong to us. "

http://www.basicincome.com/bp/files/The_Abolition_of_Man-C_S_Lewis.pdf



No. 41094 [Preview] [Reply]
Actions 
Great podcast with a few guests.

https://grizzom.blogspot.com/2020/11/the-brizer-show-20201109.html

I think anyone with a functioning brain can see clearly this year that the system is communitarianism.


No. 41143 [Preview] [Reply]
Actions 
 >>/41142/
Is that really a prison?
There's a reason why prisons are like prisons. It you check it, you'll see no criminal code says "it is forbidden" or similar, those laws just say, if you do X you have to give Y in return. This can be money for example (in the form of a fine), or the life of the perp (capital punishment). Or he can pay with a certain time from his life: "you took away that purse, we take away a year". So they deny him the right to decide about mostly anything in his life, from the freedom of movement, to choosing his meals. They restricts what he can see, hear, touch, taste, smell. Without noticing and knowing the difference between being in the prison and not it would lose the meaning.

No. 41146 [Preview] [Reply]
Actions 
 >>/41143/
> Is that really a prison?

Sure.
> Without noticing and knowing the difference between being in the prison and not it would lose the meaning.

For you, and other prisoners. I presume that was the point: you won't even think about getting out if don't know you are in. And obviously Sweden implies that not everyone is a prisoner! So there are still those who can tell the difference, the jailers themselves for one.

No. 41149 [Preview] [Reply]
Actions 
 >>/41143/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon

the panopticon is a good example I think. 

"the fact that the inmates cannot know when they are being watched means that they are motivated to act as though they are being watched at all times. Thus, the inmates are effectively compelled to regulate their own behaviour."

read the wiki page attila


No. 41158 [Preview] [Reply]
Actions 
 >>/41146/
The whole idea behind prison is to give feedback to the prisoner that he was a very bad guy. Crime and punishment.
A person can be captive without being in a prison, slavery is a good example for that. And maybe I would rather use that term for what Swebernd suggested.

 >>/41149/
They know where they are tho. Well, what he said:  >>/41150/



Post(s) action:


Moderation Help
Scope:
Duration: Days

Ban Type:

59 replies | 11 file
New Reply on thread #38756
Max 20 files0 B total
[Index] [Catalog] [Banners] [Logs]