Left-Wing Discussion Thread II: Behind 700,000 Bunkers

[Tekeristan]

Heh, Satanism.

[Aillyria]

Heh, Satanism.

I'm not laughing.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Read the Podesta emails, there really is some creepy shit in elite circles trying to influence the population to do certain things, or even to usurp organizations (such as the Catholic Church).

I'm of the opinion that the elite (especially here in the US) is moving our society towards Satanism, or at the very least towards godlessness.

I think more the latter, I just think that godlessness leads to satanic actions, if not satanic beliefs.

[Tekeristan]

Heh, Satanism.

I'm not laughing.

Well, heh, sorry.
I personally fall more along the lines of influence and wealth, the latter just more of the former.

[The Widening Gyre]

Well the 'Cathedral' as envisioned by the nrx folks doesn't exist. Elite institutions tend to be a bit incestuous and groupthink-y, but I don't think there's a vast conspiracy to manipulate the public. That's just conspiracist mental training wheels.

Read the Podesta emails, there really is some creepy shit in elite circles trying to influence the population to do certain things, or even to usurp organizations (such as the Catholic Church).

I mean, that's a political party's inner circle though. I don't think it's shocking to see that sort of talk in a political organization in the same way I wouldn't think it's shocking to see it being talked about in a marketing firm or something. This isn't to excuse that sort of talk, mind, but rather to say that just as there was disagreement between the circle of people in Podesta's mailing list about Catholicism (see Arroyo) there's just as much disagreement within the 'elite' as a whole. Which is my point - there is no one 'elite' trying to pull society in one direction, but rather a multitude of different powerful interests tugging in different and sometimes overlapping directions depending on their own individual ideological ends.

[Collatis]

*checks thread title*
*sees this has not turned into the RWDT*

huh

[United Muscovite Nations]

Read the Podesta emails, there really is some creepy shit in elite circles trying to influence the population to do certain things, or even to usurp organizations (such as the Catholic Church).

I mean, that's a political party's inner circle though. I don't think it's shocking to see that sort of talk in a political organization in the same way I wouldn't think it's shocking to see it being talked about in a marketing firm or something. This isn't to excuse that sort of talk, mind, but rather to say that just as there was disagreement between the circle of people in Podesta's mailing list about Catholicism (see Arroyo) there's just as much disagreement within the 'elite' as a whole. Which is my point - there is no one 'elite' trying to pull society in one direction, but rather a multitude of different powerful interests tugging in different and sometimes overlapping directions depending on their own individual ideological ends.

Yeah, I tend to agree; which is one reason I'm skeptical of Marxian ideas of class conflict producing an end to history.

[United Muscovite Nations]

*checks thread title*
*sees this has not turned into the RWDT*

huh

Well, I've always been a regular in the thread; I even got mentions in the thread before I ever participated in it as "The Marxist-Leninist Anti-Pope of NSG."

[Aillyria]

I'm not laughing.

Well, heh, sorry.
I personally fall more along the lines of influence and wealth, the latter just more of the former.

I see that as an issue as well, that's why I'm socialist. I view capitalism as evil, socialism is how God wants us to live and cooperate.

[Collatis]

*checks thread title*
*sees this has not turned into the RWDT*

huh

Well, I've always been a regular in the thread; I even got mentions in the thread before I ever participated in it as "The Marxist-Leninist Anti-Pope of NSG."

I know who you are, UMN. The M didn't always stand for Muscovite

My comment was more in reference to the Cathedral and Satanist conversations.

[Valgora]

That's true; however, one still needs a revolution in order to get to socialism and communism.

Communism happens naturally. Class Struggle describes permanent state of society not process of change. For example there was no organised 'revolution' against, say, rural landlords in the West, they just gradually got rendered obsolescent and politically meaningless as a power by capital.

Socialism refers to improving the means of production and was needed in Russia and Third World as those states were behind. West can jump straight to communism. We are already moving towards communism.

Socialist revolutions have been reactionary, revisionist efforts by various successors to Christianity to contain Capitalism and thus Communism.

Whether or not the West is ready for Communism doesn't matter, because it still will require revolution.
Class struggle is the permanent state of society, but revolution is what will bring socialism and communism. The wealthy and those in power ain't going to just give up their power to the working class, it has to be taken.

Also, I still don't see how socialists are reactionary or revisionist.
One could argue that you are a revisionist since you want to skip the socialist stage (I don't use revisionist in that sense, but still).

I also don't see how they are efforts by successors to Christianity. In fact, I don't see what Christianity has to do with this.

What do you mean "contain Capitalism"? Because the point of socialism is to replace capitalism.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Well, I've always been a regular in the thread; I even got mentions in the thread before I ever participated in it as "The Marxist-Leninist Anti-Pope of NSG."

I know who you are, UMN. The M didn't always stand for Muscovite

My comment was more in reference to the Cathedral and Satanist conversations.

>tfw you got your old nation deleted because you didn't like another poster, so I continuously trolled them in more and more creative ways.
Don't be like me, don't be retarded; if you have 36,000 posts, don't throw them away to annoy someone so much that they block and report you. Probably my biggest regret on NSG.

[Aillyria]

Well, I've always been a regular in the thread; I even got mentions in the thread before I ever participated in it as "The Marxist-Leninist Anti-Pope of NSG."

I know who you are, UMN. The M didn't always stand for Muscovite

My comment was more in reference to the Cathedral and Satanist conversations.

I'm not a typical socialist, and wouldn't call myself a "leftist" in the traditional sense. I'm a socialist for spiritual reasons as much as socio-economic ones.

[Uiiop]

Communism happens naturally. Class Struggle describes permanent state of society not process of change. For example there was no organised 'revolution' against, say, rural landlords in the West, they just gradually got rendered obsolescent and politically meaningless as a power by capital.

Socialism refers to improving the means of production and was needed in Russia and Third World as those states were behind. West can jump straight to communism. We are already moving towards communism.

Socialist revolutions have been reactionary, revisionist efforts by various successors to Christianity to contain Capitalism and thus Communism.

Whether or not the West is ready for Communism doesn't matter, because it still will require revolution.
Class struggle is the permanent state of society, but revolution is what will bring socialism and communism. The wealthy and those in power ain't going to just give up their power to the working class, it has to be taken.

Also, I still don't see how socialists are reactionary or revisionist.
One could argue that you are a revisionist since you want to skip the socialist stage (I don't use revisionist in that sense, but still).

I also don't see how they are efforts by successors to Christianity. In fact, I don't see what Christianity has to do with this.

What do you mean "contain Capitalism"? Because the point of socialism is to replace capitalism.

They are basically trying to argue Landian Accelerationism is a Marxist tenet. Therefore any action that doesn't let the free market be is stalling socialism.

[The Eternal Aulus]

I know who you are, UMN. The M didn't always stand for Muscovite

My comment was more in reference to the Cathedral and Satanist conversations.

I'm not a typical socialist, and wouldn't call myself a "leftist" in the traditional sense. I'm a socialist for spiritual reasons as much as socio-economic ones.

Care to elaborate on the socialist for spiritual reasons part?

[Cekoviu]

Read the Podesta emails, there really is some creepy shit in elite circles trying to influence the population to do certain things, or even to usurp organizations (such as the Catholic Church).

I'm of the opinion that the elite (especially here in the US) is moving our society towards Satanism, or at the very least towards godlessness.

oh boy

[Trotskylvania]

Communism happens naturally. Class Struggle describes permanent state of society not process of change. For example there was no organised 'revolution' against, say, rural landlords in the West, they just gradually got rendered obsolescent and politically meaningless as a power by capital.

Socialism refers to improving the means of production and was needed in Russia and Third World as those states were behind. West can jump straight to communism. We are already moving towards communism.

Socialist revolutions have been reactionary, revisionist efforts by various successors to Christianity to contain Capitalism and thus Communism.

Whether or not the West is ready for Communism doesn't matter, because it still will require revolution.
Class struggle is the permanent state of society, but revolution is what will bring socialism and communism. The wealthy and those in power ain't going to just give up their power to the working class, it has to be taken.

Also, I still don't see how socialists are reactionary or revisionist.
One could argue that you are a revisionist since you want to skip the socialist stage (I don't use revisionist in that sense, but still).

I also don't see how they are efforts by successors to Christianity. In fact, I don't see what Christianity has to do with this.

What do you mean "contain Capitalism"? Because the point of socialism is to replace capitalism.

Stagism is Stalinist 'revisionism' though.

Stalin et al played a language game to justify their regime after its abject failure (no ongoing revolution in continental europe, the the subsumation of the working class to the dictates of the party "new class" serving as the directors of capital).

Marx and other early communists used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably, and made no distinction. Differences in usage, if there was a pattern at all, had more to do with the common vernacular of the language. The earliest distinction came to distinguish between the various leftists who served as the left-wing of capital: mutualists, anarcho-collectivists, utopians, etc. So a dichotomy of communist vs. collectivist became used in the First International; communists were the ones who wished to abolish the value form, while collectivists preserved it.

Marx spoke of lower and upper stages of communism. This lower stage of communism, which Lenin and some others in the communist movement started to refer to as socialism, has abolished the capitalist value form, and with it generalized commodity production, wages, money, class property, but is still stamped with the birthmarks imposed on it by its violent birth from capitalism. The labor voucher notion as a means of rationing according to contribution is part of this.

It was still communism, but still developing and not yet complete. What Stalinist ideologues did was conflate this lower-stage communism/socialism with the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the dictatorship of the proletariat further with the dictatorship of the party. As Marx put it, "Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

Marx chose the Paris Commune as a case-study/prototype for the dictatorship of the proletariat, and it was an entirely different creature from anything the Bolshevik regime ever assembled.

[Aillyria]

I'm not a typical socialist, and wouldn't call myself a "leftist" in the traditional sense. I'm a socialist for spiritual reasons as much as socio-economic ones.

Care to elaborate on the socialist for spiritual reasons part?

I'm of the opinion that it is complementary to the muslim (and general abrahamic) sense of community and asceticism. Caring for the less fortunate is integral to Islam. I believe capitalism is incompatible with Islam and moral life.

[Albrenia]

With the exception of edgy people who use Satan as an analogy for free choice, atheism actually is as incompatible with Satanism as any other form of religion. We can't worship an entity of pure evil if we don't believe it exists.

I'm not sure actual Satanists exist in any numbers anyway. Seems a bit of a self-defeating and illogical path to follow.

[Cekoviu]

Care to elaborate on the socialist for spiritual reasons part?

I'm of the opinion that it is complementary to the muslim (and general abrahamic) sense of community and asceticism. Caring for the less fortunate is integral to Islam. I believe capitalism is incompatible with Islam and moral life.

Yeah, I think that applies to most religions.

[Aillyria]

With the exception of edgy people who use Satan as an analogy for free choice, atheism actually is as incompatible with Satanism as any other form of religion. We can't worship an entity of pure evil if we don't believe it exists.

I'm not sure actual Satanists exist in any numbers anyway. Seems a bit of a self-defeating and illogical path to follow.

"My dear brethren, do not ever forget, when you hear the progress of lights praised, that the loveliest trick of the Devil is to persuade you that he does not exist!"


Yes, I must be "edgy" that I believe Satan exists and that our wonderful capitalist elites glorify him with their agenda and policies.

[Grenartia]

I'm of the opinion that the elite (especially here in the US) is moving our society towards Satanism, or at the very least towards godlessness.

oh boy

To be fair, America is basically Sodom.

Ezekiel 16:49

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

[Albrenia]

With the exception of edgy people who use Satan as an analogy for free choice, atheism actually is as incompatible with Satanism as any other form of religion. We can't worship an entity of pure evil if we don't believe it exists.

I'm not sure actual Satanists exist in any numbers anyway. Seems a bit of a self-defeating and illogical path to follow.

"My dear brethren, do not ever forget, when you hear the progress of lights praised, that the loveliest trick of the Devil is to persuade you that he does not exist!"


Yes, I must be "edgy" that I believe Satan exists and that our wonderful capitalist elites glorify him with their agenda and policies.

You don't strike me as being a Satanist, so no, you're not an edgy person who calls themself Satanist while simultaneously not believing in it.

As for the glorification, human greed and power seem to be all they are concerned about. Unless Satan is literally empowered by people being rich and powerful, I'm not sure how it applies.

[Ostroeuropa]

With the exception of edgy people who use Satan as an analogy for free choice, atheism actually is as incompatible with Satanism as any other form of religion. We can't worship an entity of pure evil if we don't believe it exists.

I'm not sure actual Satanists exist in any numbers anyway. Seems a bit of a self-defeating and illogical path to follow.

"My dear brethren, do not ever forget, when you hear the progress of lights praised, that the loveliest trick of the Devil is to persuade you that he does not exist!"


Yes, I must be "edgy" that I believe Satan exists and that our wonderful capitalist elites glorify him with their agenda and policies.

Ignoring theistic satanism a moment, Ayn Rand's similarity to the Levayen satanic church is acknowledged as obvious by Satanists.

Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence!
Satan represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
Satan represents undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates!
Satan represents vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek!
Satan represents responsibility to the responsible, instead of concern for psychic vampires!
Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his "divine spiritual and intellectual development," has become the most vicious animal of all!
Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
Satan has been the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!

+

The Nine Satanic Statements outline the basic ideology of LaVeyan Satanism, and have become some of the guiding principles of LaVeyan Satanism. They also served as a template for later publications by LaVey, such as his 1987 "Nine Satanic Sins".[25] Ayn Rand's influence on LaVeyan Satanism is apparent in the Nine Satanic Statements, leading some, namely Nikolas Schreck, to assert that the Statements are simply unacknowledged paraphrase of Rand's thoughts.[17] These accusations have been disproved, however.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satan ... e#Prologue

(Disproved as in, the plagiarism was disproven. They came up with the same ideas independently of eachother.)
Though there is a certain humor in supposing that Satanism is just Capitalism plagiarized.

So Randian Objectivist capitalism is pretty much the same thing as the Satanic church.
Don't tell the republican party.

[Aillyria]

"My dear brethren, do not ever forget, when you hear the progress of lights praised, that the loveliest trick of the Devil is to persuade you that he does not exist!"


Yes, I must be "edgy" that I believe Satan exists and that our wonderful capitalist elites glorify him with their agenda and policies.

You don't strike me as being a Satanist, so no, you're not an edgy person who calls themself Satanist while simultaneously not believing in it.

As for the glorification, human greed and power seem to be all they are concerned about. Unless Satan is literally empowered by people being rich and powerful, I'm not sure how it applies.

That's all you need to be concerned with to be an agent of Satan, tbh. Rich and powerful =/= greed, poor people are just as susceptible to becoming Satanists.

"My dear brethren, do not ever forget, when you hear the progress of lights praised, that the loveliest trick of the Devil is to persuade you that he does not exist!"


Yes, I must be "edgy" that I believe Satan exists and that our wonderful capitalist elites glorify him with their agenda and policies.

Ignoring theistic satanism a moment, Ayn Rand's similarity to the Levayen satanic church is acknowledged as obvious by Satanists.

Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence!
Satan represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
Satan represents undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates!
Satan represents vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek!
Satan represents responsibility to the responsible, instead of concern for psychic vampires!
Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his "divine spiritual and intellectual development," has become the most vicious animal of all!
Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
Satan has been the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!

+

The Nine Satanic Statements outline the basic ideology of LaVeyan Satanism, and have become some of the guiding principles of LaVeyan Satanism. They also served as a template for later publications by LaVey, such as his 1987 "Nine Satanic Sins".[25] Ayn Rand's influence on LaVeyan Satanism is apparent in the Nine Satanic Statements, leading some, namely Nikolas Schreck, to assert that the Statements are simply unacknowledged paraphrase of Rand's thoughts.[17] These accusations have been disproved, however.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satan ... e#Prologue

(Disproved as in, the plagiarism was disproven. They came up with the same ideas independently of eachother.)

So Randian Objectivist capitalism is pretty much the same thing as the Satanic church.
Don't tell the republican party.

I'm unsuprised by this, I've long considered Ayn Rand and her "Objectivism" as satanic.