Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Why Marxist Organizations Like BLM Seek To Dismantle The "Western Nuclear Family"

  1. #1

    Exclamation Why Marxist Organizations Like BLM Seek To Dismantle The "Western Nuclear Family"

    Why Marxist Organizations Like BLM Seek To Dismantle The "Western Nuclear Family"

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...rce=whatfinger

    by Tyler Durden Mon, 07/27/2020 - 21:05

    Authored by Bradley Thomas via The Mises Institute,

    One of the most oft-cited and criticized goals of the Black Lives Matter organization is its stated desire to abolish the family as we know it. Specifically, BLM’s official website states:

    We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

    This idea isn’t unique to BLM, of course. “Disrupting” the “nuclear family” is a commonly stated goal among Marxist organizations. Given that BLM’s founders have specifically claimed to be “trained Marxists,” we should not be surprised that the organization's leadership has embraced a Marxian view of the family.

    But where does this hostility toward the family originate? Partly, it comes from the theories of Marx and Engels themselves, and their views that an earlier, matriarchal version of the family rejected private property as an organizing principle of society. It was only later that this older tribal model of the family gave way to the modern “patriarchal” family, which promotes and sustains private property.

    Clearly, in the Marxian view, this “new” type of family must be opposed, since the destruction of this family model will make it easier to abolish private property as well.

    Early Family Units in Tribal Life

    Frederick Engels’s 1884 book The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State provides a historical perspective of the Marxian view of the development of the modern Western family unit and its relation to property rights. (Engels, of course, was the longtime benefactor of and collaborator with Marx.)

    In reconstructing the origins of the family within a Marxian framework, Engels traces back to the “savage” primeval stage of humanity that, according to his research, revealed a condition in which “unrestricted sexual intercourse existed within a tribe, so that every woman belonged to every man, and vice versa.”

    Under such conditions, Engels explained, “it is uncertain who is the father of the child, but certain, who is its mother.” Only female lineage could be acknowledged. “[B]eing the only well known parents of younger generations,” Engels explained, women as mothers “received a high tribute of respect and deference, amounting to a complete women’s rule [gynaicocracy].”

    Furthermore, Engels wrote, tribes were subdivided into smaller groups called “gentes,” a primitive form of an extended family of sorts.

    These gens were consanguineous (i.e., included people descended from the same ancestor) on the mother’s side, within which intermarrying was strictly forbidden. “The men of certain ‘gens,’ therefore, could choose their wives within the tribe, and did so as a rule, but had to choose them outside of their ‘gens,’” Engels explained. And “marriage” at this stage was a “communal” affair, meaning that multiple partnerships between men and women was closer to the rule than the exception.

    Because mothers were the only parents who could be determined with certainty, and the smaller gentes were arranged around the mother’s relatives, early family units were very maternal in nature and maternal law regarding rights and duties for childrearing and inheritance were the custom.
    Transition to the “Pairing Family”

    This was the state of affairs for thousands of years, according to Engels. Over time, however, there emerged what Engels referred to as the “pairing family,” in which “A man had his principal wife…among many women, and he was to her the principal husband among others.” This was in no small part due to the “gentes” within tribes developing more and more classes of relatives not allowed to marry one another. Due to these increasing restrictions, group marriage became increasingly impossible and ever more replaced by the pairing family structure.

    Under this structure, however, the role of mothers was still dominant. Quoting Arthur Wright, a missionary among the Seneca Iroquois tribe, Engels notes, “The female part generally ruled the house….The women were the dominating power in the clans [gentes] and everywhere else.”

    The fact that women all belonged to the same gens, while husbands came from separate gentes “was the cause and foundation of the general and widespread supremacy of women in primeval times,” Engels wrote.

    “In the ancient communistic household comprising many married couples and their children, the administration of the household entrusted to women was just as much a public function, a socially necessary industry, as the procuring of food by men,” he added.

    As society evolved, as Engels described it, from “savagery” to “barbarism,” an important evolution was man’s development of weapons and knowledge that enabled them to better domesticate and breed animals.

    Cattle and livestock became a source of wealth, a store of milk and meat. “But who was the owner of this new wealth?” asked Engels. “Doubtless it was originally the gens,” he answered, referring to a collective, or group ownership over the sources of wealth. “However, private ownership of flocks must have had an early beginning.”

    “Procuring the means of existence had always been the man’s business. The tools of production were manufactured and owned by him. The herds were the new tools of production, and their taming and tending was his work. Hence he owned the cattle and the commodities and slaves obtained in exchange for them,” Engels explained. This transition marked an early passage from “collective” property to “private” ownership over property—particularly property in productive resources.

    Such a transformation, Engels noted, “brought about a revolution in the family.”

    Part of that revolution involved a shift in the power dynamics of the household.

    “All the surplus now resulting from production fell to the share of the man. The woman shared in its fruition, but she could not claim its ownership,” wrote Engels.

    The domestic status of the woman in the house, which had previously involved control and distribution of the means of sustenance, had been reversed.

    “Man’s advent to practical supremacy in the household marked the removal to his universal supremacy,” and further ushered in “the gradual transition from the pairing family to the monogamic family” (what we would consider the nuclear family).

    With the superior status acquired, Engels wrote, men were able to overthrow the maternal right to inheritance, a move he described as “the historic defeat of the female sex.”

    The family unit’s transition to a male-centered patriarchy was complete, according to Engels. Much of the blame for this can be attributed to the emergence of private property and men’s claim over it.

    How to Overcome the Patriarchy?

    In the Marxian view, therefore, the modern nuclear family runs counter to the ancient “communistic” household Engels had earlier described. It is patriarchal and centered on private property.

    “In the great majority of cases the man has to earn a living and to support his family, at least among the possessing classes. He thereby obtains a superior position that has no need of any legal special privilege. In the family, he is the bourgeois, the woman represents the proletariat.” The family unit, rather than the collective tribe, had become the “industrial unit of society.”

    The overthrow of this patriarchic dominance can only come, according to Engels, by abolishing private property in the means of production—which he and those steeped in Marxist ideology blame for the patriarchy.

    “The impending [communist] revolution will reduce this whole care of inheritance to a minimum by changing at least the overwhelming part of permanent and inheritable wealth – the means of production – into social property,” he concluded.

    What would this new social arrangement look like, according to Engels?

    The care and education of children becomes a public matter. Society cares equally well for all children, legal or illegal. This removes the care about the “consequences” which now forms the essential social factor – moral and economic – hindering a girl to surrender unconditionally to the beloved man.

    In this we see early echoes of the modern left’s current refrain attacking “patriarchy” and the nuclear family as essentially capitalist and private property–based institutions.

    In this, BLM is no different from other Marxist groups. The organization’s goals extend far beyond police abuse and police brutality. The ultimate goal is the abolition of a society based upon private property in the means of production.
    Last edited by Anti Federalist; 07-28-2020 at 10:31 AM.
    There are only two things we should fight for.
    One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. - Smedley Darlington Butler



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Well if Joe Biden were to win America would never be the same again and i am not sure if the GOP would ever win again either. The democrats might just become the fascists.

  4. #3
    Thus, Marxists strive to create and cultivate militant victimized feminists, further breaking down and dividing the culture.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  5. #4
    They are satanists and seek to destroy all that GOD has ordained.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  6. #5
    This has been considered racist by some around here in the past, watch it again.

    If the stampman tells you to kiss his ass, shall he get away with it and live? Don't let your courage cool, or a few bullies scare you. We've nothing to fear but slavery. Love your liberty, and fight for it like men who know its value. Once lost it will never, never be regained.
    -Hugh Ledlie, 1774.

  7. #6
    It would be nice to "remantle" the family into something less nuclear and more clannish. It's a far stronger institution. The nuclear family barely lasted a century.
    NeoReactionary. American High Tory.

    The counter-revolution will not be televised.

  8. #7
    Nothing happens in a vacuum, calling out just 'marxists' or 'socialist' ' BLM' alone just hovers around the visible signs on the surface even if this premise is accepted as valid. This being a political forum, we shoul examine indepth who are the enablers of 'marxists, socialist, BLM'? Present times have turned out to be the golden age for marxists, socialists ( to much grief of lots of free-enterprise free-marketeers) and the important question is why?

    Pointing to just Obama-Trump elections would still miss the mark as the root cause for massive popular disdain for the opposite of Obama-Trump were 8 years of Bush-Cheney and key players among enablers of all that is going on were all those who stood with Bush-Cheney's free-enterprise for 8 years.

    That said, 'God, Family, Country' or 'Family, God, Country' used to be a statement of pride for many Americans going back deacades/centuries, Trump gets huge credit for revrsing that order on its head with Country-First leadership and both Trump/Obama (alongwith their supporters) get credit for adding 'Gay Marriage' to the nuclear family portraits.
    In any case, kids growing up today will no longer face the issue being discussed here thanks to bold leaderships of Obama-Trump (or rather of Bush-Cheney) as their definition of nuclear family would be very different than that of the nostalgic "Western Nuclear Family" being discussed in the article.


    BLM likely not a monolithic group,but why it is being painted as "bad" at a time when it is taking a stance against police brutality?

    More importantly, names of modern families/LGBTQ CIVIl Righst champions like Obama-Trump/'follow the money' top donors are absent in this article that is supposed to be on the the 'nuclear family' preservation and convenient villain 'BLM' is being scapegoated?


    These news from other thread might relate to this discussion:

    Meet the wealthy donor who's trying to get Republicans to support gay marriage
    washingtonpost
    Apr 4, 2014 - It especially fits with his role as one of the foremost backers of LGBT .... Like fellow Republican donor Sheldon Adelson, Singer is staunchly ...


    Trump top donor Sheldon Adelson-Funded Paper Israel Hayom Prints Gay Dad Ad



    Donald Trump On The Issues :
    Extend Civil Rights Act to apply to gays and lesbians. (Aug 2016)

    Trump appointed Gorsuch’s Supreme Court opinion for LGBTQ rights sends a shudder through conservative ranks
    June 17, 2020
    WASHINGTON — Justice Neil M. Gorsuch was President Trump’s first choice for the Supreme Court and a conservative’s dream — until he wrote this week’s landmark opinion extending civil rights protections to LGBTQ employees nationwide.

    Another major pro LGBTQ civil rights step by Hallmark following recent SCOTUS ruling and ahead of Christmas 2020.
    At this point, there is no news report saying that US Embassy in Moscow and other world capitols are being instructed by Trump administration to send out such inclusive cards for coming Christmas parties.



    Hallmark will now feature LGBTQ stories in Christmas movies
    By Kiely Westhoff
    July 24, 2020



    Gay Teacher Of The Year Fans LGBTQ Pride In Viral Photo With Donald Trump
    Nikos Giannopoulos “celebrates the joy and freedom of gender nonconformity” in a photo with Donald and Melania Trump.

    A Milestone: All Of The Walking Dead's Relationships Are Now Interracial Or LGBT
    Nov 14, 2018
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertc...acial-or-lgbt/

    June 27, 2020
    US embassy defiantly unfurls Pride flag as Russia prepares to vote to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman
    The US embassy in Moscow, Russia has raised a Pride flag in clear defiance of an upcoming vote that will effectively stop same-sex marriage



    From:
    Trump is selling ‘LGBTQ for Trump’ T-shirts for Gay Pride month

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by enhanced_deficit View Post
    BLM likely not a monolithic group, but why it is being painted as "bad" at a time when it is taking a stance against police brutality?

    BLM founders already came out and said they are trained marxists. Their language, website, and demands as an organization and their affiliations with ANTIFA are more than enough evidence to paint them as "bad" for America.

    And yes they are quite monolithic now especially after hundreds of millions of dollars has already been pledged in their name and to their organization.

    More obvious trolling from @enhanced_deficit. Why is this troll still allowed on this forum?
    @Ehanced_Deficit's real agenda on RPF is to troll:

    Nobody spends this much time copy & pasting the same recycled links, photos & talking points. Does anybody even know where this troll stands on any issue?

    7 years and 25k posts later, the forum still does nothing & members still think they're replying to real posts

    Know the deceptions of a paid troll HERE (Post #3)



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    I just posted this on my Farcebook timeline. It will likely be seen because...well it's my b'day. Anyway....I doubt I'll get much love for this. Oh and I tagged a friend who is a black Christian conservative but is using the BLM logo at the moment.

    When I read the attack on the "Western prescribed nuclear family" at the BLM website I was shocked. Actually when I heard their website being read over the radio I thought this was an attack from a right-wing preacher until I realized I was listening to a "progressive" radio station that supported the goals. The idea that the "western prescribed nuclear family" (which existed in Africa before western civilization) is somehow incompatible with the "village" concept is patently ridiculous. Blacks have historically lived in nuclear families that were supported by villages. In fact that's true of white families as well. Do you know why there is no such thing as a homeless Amish person? Because the Amish "village" comes together to build the homes. But they also live in very traditional nuclear families. I don't think most blacks, who are culturally conservative, understand what's going on or what's at stake. BLM is at its core an attack on standard family values. Note I'm not saying this to be anti-LGBTQ. You can be LGBTQ and still support the concept of the nuclear family and still believe that under ideal conditions children need both an actual male and female role model. Some lesbian couples will have a male friend in their life for that very purpose for example. But the idea of "cisgender privilege" is a joke. Nobody should be harmed because of what he or she decides to do to his/her body, but I shouldn't be shamed with a "privilege" label just because I do not make that choice. A movement that should be about black lives really has morphed into something else. Or rather it was designed to be something else from the beginning. I know I will likely be attacked for saying this. I do not care.



    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Why Marxist Organizations Like BLM Seek To Dismantle The "Western Nuclear Family"

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...rce=whatfinger

    by Tyler Durden Mon, 07/27/2020 - 21:05

    Authored by Bradley Thomas via The Mises Institute,

    One of the most oft-cited and criticized goals of the Black Lives Matter organization is its stated desire to abolish the family as we know it. Specifically, BLM’s official website states:

    We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

    This idea isn’t unique to BLM, of course. “Disrupting” the “nuclear family” is a commonly stated goal among Marxist organizations. Given that BLM’s founders have specifically claimed to be “trained Marxists,” we should not be surprised that the organization's leadership has embraced a Marxian view of the family.

    But where does this hostility toward the family originate? Partly, it comes from the theories of Marx and Engels themselves, and their views that an earlier, matriarchal version of the family rejected private property as an organizing principle of society. It was only later that this older tribal model of the family gave way to the modern “patriarchal” family, which promotes and sustains private property.

    Clearly, in the Marxian view, this “new” type of family must be opposed, since the destruction of this family model will make it easier to abolish private property as well.

    Early Family Units in Tribal Life

    Frederick Engels’s 1884 book The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State provides a historical perspective of the Marxian view of the development of the modern Western family unit and its relation to property rights. (Engels, of course, was the longtime benefactor of and collaborator with Marx.)

    In reconstructing the origins of the family within a Marxian framework, Engels traces back to the “savage” primeval stage of humanity that, according to his research, revealed a condition in which “unrestricted sexual intercourse existed within a tribe, so that every woman belonged to every man, and vice versa.”

    Under such conditions, Engels explained, “it is uncertain who is the father of the child, but certain, who is its mother.” Only female lineage could be acknowledged. “[B]eing the only well known parents of younger generations,” Engels explained, women as mothers “received a high tribute of respect and deference, amounting to a complete women’s rule [gynaicocracy].”

    Furthermore, Engels wrote, tribes were subdivided into smaller groups called “gentes,” a primitive form of an extended family of sorts.

    These gens were consanguineous (i.e., included people descended from the same ancestor) on the mother’s side, within which intermarrying was strictly forbidden. “The men of certain ‘gens,’ therefore, could choose their wives within the tribe, and did so as a rule, but had to choose them outside of their ‘gens,’” Engels explained. And “marriage” at this stage was a “communal” affair, meaning that multiple partnerships between men and women was closer to the rule than the exception.

    Because mothers were the only parents who could be determined with certainty, and the smaller gentes were arranged around the mother’s relatives, early family units were very maternal in nature and maternal law regarding rights and duties for childrearing and inheritance were the custom.
    Transition to the “Pairing Family”

    This was the state of affairs for thousands of years, according to Engels. Over time, however, there emerged what Engels referred to as the “pairing family,” in which “A man had his principal wife…among many women, and he was to her the principal husband among others.” This was in no small part due to the “gentes” within tribes developing more and more classes of relatives not allowed to marry one another. Due to these increasing restrictions, group marriage became increasingly impossible and ever more replaced by the pairing family structure.

    Under this structure, however, the role of mothers was still dominant. Quoting Arthur Wright, a missionary among the Seneca Iroquois tribe, Engels notes, “The female part generally ruled the house….The women were the dominating power in the clans [gentes] and everywhere else.”

    The fact that women all belonged to the same gens, while husbands came from separate gentes “was the cause and foundation of the general and widespread supremacy of women in primeval times,” Engels wrote.

    “In the ancient communistic household comprising many married couples and their children, the administration of the household entrusted to women was just as much a public function, a socially necessary industry, as the procuring of food by men,” he added.

    As society evolved, as Engels described it, from “savagery” to “barbarism,” an important evolution was man’s development of weapons and knowledge that enabled them to better domesticate and breed animals.

    Cattle and livestock became a source of wealth, a store of milk and meat. “But who was the owner of this new wealth?” asked Engels. “Doubtless it was originally the gens,” he answered, referring to a collective, or group ownership over the sources of wealth. “However, private ownership of flocks must have had an early beginning.”

    “Procuring the means of existence had always been the man’s business. The tools of production were manufactured and owned by him. The herds were the new tools of production, and their taming and tending was his work. Hence he owned the cattle and the commodities and slaves obtained in exchange for them,” Engels explained. This transition marked an early passage from “collective” property to “private” ownership over property—particularly property in productive resources.

    Such a transformation, Engels noted, “brought about a revolution in the family.”

    Part of that revolution involved a shift in the power dynamics of the household.

    “All the surplus now resulting from production fell to the share of the man. The woman shared in its fruition, but she could not claim its ownership,” wrote Engels.

    The domestic status of the woman in the house, which had previously involved control and distribution of the means of sustenance, had been reversed.

    “Man’s advent to practical supremacy in the household marked the removal to his universal supremacy,” and further ushered in “the gradual transition from the pairing family to the monogamic family” (what we would consider the nuclear family).

    With the superior status acquired, Engels wrote, men were able to overthrow the maternal right to inheritance, a move he described as “the historic defeat of the female sex.”

    The family unit’s transition to a male-centered patriarchy was complete, according to Engels. Much of the blame for this can be attributed to the emergence of private property and men’s claim over it.

    How to Overcome the Patriarchy?

    In the Marxian view, therefore, the modern nuclear family runs counter to the ancient “communistic” household Engels had earlier described. It is patriarchal and centered on private property.

    “In the great majority of cases the man has to earn a living and to support his family, at least among the possessing classes. He thereby obtains a superior position that has no need of any legal special privilege. In the family, he is the bourgeois, the woman represents the proletariat.” The family unit, rather than the collective tribe, had become the “industrial unit of society.”

    The overthrow of this patriarchic dominance can only come, according to Engels, by abolishing private property in the means of production—which he and those steeped in Marxist ideology blame for the patriarchy.

    “The impending [communist] revolution will reduce this whole care of inheritance to a minimum by changing at least the overwhelming part of permanent and inheritable wealth – the means of production – into social property,” he concluded.

    What would this new social arrangement look like, according to Engels?

    The care and education of children becomes a public matter. Society cares equally well for all children, legal or illegal. This removes the care about the “consequences” which now forms the essential social factor – moral and economic – hindering a girl to surrender unconditionally to the beloved man.

    In this we see early echoes of the modern left’s current refrain attacking “patriarchy” and the nuclear family as essentially capitalist and private property–based institutions.

    In this, BLM is no different from other Marxist groups. The organization’s goals extend far beyond police abuse and police brutality. The ultimate goal is the abolition of a society based upon private property in the means of production.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePaleoLibertarian View Post
    It would be nice to "remantle" the family into something less nuclear and more clannish. It's a far stronger institution. The nuclear family barely lasted a century.
    The nuclear family has always been the core of the extended family or what you are calling the "clan." The attack on the nuclear family and the extended family has been the same which is industrialization and post modernism. People move away from their extended family for economic reasons (find a better job) and the two income family requirement puts strain on the nuclear family.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  13. #11
    The language over at BLM's website is very clear.

    But for some reason @enhanced_deficit is trying to convice us that somehow BLM is not as "bad" as we all think? Why is E_D trying to give BLM a softer image here on RPF? Curious minds would like to know.

    We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.

    We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.

    We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

    We foster a *****‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).

    We cultivate an intergenerational and communal network free from ageism. We believe that all people, regardless of age, show up with the capacity to lead and learn.
    https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/
    Last edited by eleganz; 07-29-2020 at 11:11 PM.
    @Ehanced_Deficit's real agenda on RPF is to troll:

    Nobody spends this much time copy & pasting the same recycled links, photos & talking points. Does anybody even know where this troll stands on any issue?

    7 years and 25k posts later, the forum still does nothing & members still think they're replying to real posts

    Know the deceptions of a paid troll HERE (Post #3)

  14. #12
    We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts”
    $#@!ing idiots...that's required because of increased tax burdens and "easy credit".
    There are only two things we should fight for.
    One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. - Smedley Darlington Butler

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by eleganz View Post
    BLM founders already came out and said they are trained marxists. Their language, website, and demands as an organization and their affiliations with ANTIFA are more than enough evidence to paint them as "bad" for America.

    And yes they are quite monolithic now especially after hundreds of millions of dollars has already been pledged in their name and to their organization.

    More obvious trolling from @enhanced_deficit. Why is this troll still allowed on this forum?
    That's a very good question.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    $#@!ing idiots...that's required because of increased tax burdens and "easy credit".

    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again."
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-28-2018, 08:35 PM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-22-2015, 06:43 PM
  3. Newt Gingrich George Will says "Gingrich, who would have made a marvelous Marxist..."
    By Agorism in forum 2012 Presidential Election
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-05-2011, 06:38 AM
  4. Black Chamber of Commerce President Blasts "Marxist," "Brownshirt" Obama
    By smartguy911 in forum 2012 Presidential Election
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-06-2011, 10:45 AM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-30-2011, 06:42 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •