50 U.S. Code Subchapter IV - COMMUNIST CONTROL
The Congress finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States, although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of individual views, and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at large for approval or disapproval, the policies and programs of the Communist Party are secretly prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the world Communist movement. Its members have no part in determining its goals, and are not permitted to voice dissent to party objectives. Unlike members of political parties, members of the Communist Party are recruited for indoctrination.... Unlike political parties, the Communist Party acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations upon its conduct or upon that of its members. The Communist Party is relatively small numerically, and gives scant indication of capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means. The peril [...] arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation[...]., and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including [...] violence. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United States. It is the means whereby individuals are seduced into [...] conspiratorial performance of [Communist] revolutionary services. Therefore, the Communist Party should be outlawed.
OUTLAW COMMUNIST PARTY USA
The CLINTON era Congress repealed the penalty for this, still in effect, clause.
50 U.S. Code § 781 - Repealed. Pub. L. 103–199, title VIII, §803(1), Dec. 17, 1993, 107 Stat. 2329
IT MUST BE REENACTED, IMMEDIATELY.
Communists must be arrested and imprisoned, slated for expulsion upon severity or multiple arrests. These organizations, by any name, must be given a swift boot.
Every side of the Ocean, we've all seen it, we all know it. It's a poison which we have allowed to creep.
Pic related.
Bump for Global Safety.
What should be the punishment for membership/activities?
We do need something.
>ama nigger
>ama
?? not familiar, is that the American Muslim Association?
DSA DC Metro
Pic Related.
The CLINTON era Congress repealed the penalty for this, still in effect, clause.
50 U.S. Code § 781 - Repealed. Pub. L. 103–199, title VIII, §803(1), Dec. 17, 1993, 107 Stat. 2329
IT MUST BE REENACTED, IMMEDIATELY.
Communists must be arrested and imprisoned, slated for expulsion upon severity or multiple arrests. These organizations, by any name, must be given a swift boot.
30 years in prison camp where inmates must farm for themselves.
Bump to Save the USA!
Let them build an actual communist society in prison and see how well it works?
Might do it.
Bump for Victory!
>The CLINTON era Congress repealed the penalty for this, still in effect, clause.
>50 U.S. Code § 781 - Repealed. Pub. L. 103–199, title VIII, §803(1), Dec. 17, 1993, 107 Stat. 2329
>IT MUST BE REENACTED, IMMEDIATELY.
Friendly reminder true Americans are communists.
Anti-communists are Conferates and traitors.
Skydiving?
These people arent communists, they say they are, but they would shout down any true marxist for being class reductionist. The globalist elite have officially ruined any chance of class solidarity by subverting the left into antagonizing certain sects of the proletariat merely because they are the same skin color as a good portion of the elite. The bourgeosie had this race won from the start, intersectional feminism and postmodernism are the new sacred cows, not communism or egalitarianism. They are foot soldiers of corporate controlllers seeking to rob our narion and people of their future. Still, running these people out would help tremendously.
So not so much on the free flight lessons?
>corporate controlllers seeking to rob our narion
You may not be wrong, the Fascists want the same things in appearance, everyone else takes care of their employees and their productions are protected by the State. But, of course, the profits and the taxes funnel to them.
True, but the Fascists recognize that the state at least offers more leverage for the Volk to hold people accountable. Overall, their ideologoy has some points that seem very good to me, though these points are also shown in parts classical (pre-enlightenment) conservative philosophy.
I can almost stomach Fascism, the problem is that, like Communism, it turns the Individual into a Percentage Point, and that inherently removes safety.
1. Everyone becomes expendable, on some point, when you cut enough layers.
2. Like in Communism, failure to produce and/or over-production end up punished by the State.
3. Because the State is involved in Business, those who revolutionize production or goods rarely gain the reward for the effort, as the State intervenes and supports established businesses profiting from stealing or waiting out patents.
Thus, you squelch innovation in two ways.
In any event, do you have any suggestions on how we go about making a punishment for membership? That's really what I'd like to hear about. What are ways to divert without martyring?
Honestly Ive no idea, but stoking the flames between postmodernists and marxists, since many marxists outright oppose the methods and reasons for many of the social and cultural movements the nu-left is doing. Look at that cringy maoist getting angry that the proletariat is being unnecessarily divided between white men and everyone else, so there are some real differences there that can be exploited.
true
Thankfully the law covers both communists and any successors to communism who seek to subvert and usurp the state. So we have both you and your retarded spawn covered.
>real differences there that can be exploited.
I am too concerned with blowback, and I am never one to send resources to my enemy. Let them promote their own causes. Strike at the root.
not my spawn, a bastard demon child homie g what
Thomas Paine was a proto-communist.
A true American hero.
McCarthy was a pansy, a coward.
I love how they act like Marxist theory had no influence on post-modernism.
Yes, post-modernism is the legitimate offspring of communism.
>the guy who attacked me and mine is a coward!
The communist lives in opposite world, where double think rules with a very friendly iron fist
Marx was a spy, sent to destroy European stability. His logic was terrible.
"Capitalism destroys the woman, the family, innovation and society, therefor we must destroy all traces of gender, family, innovation and society..."
The man literally never had a real job, he begged the wealthy for his wages and his house was not only unkempt, it was filthy. He hated to work, and thought it was literally below him. So of course he couldn't understand how much sacrifice and personal investment laborers and business owners invest in their production.
The only thing Marx really wanted was to be a warrior Tyrant, but he got Dictionary Brain +3 instead.
Communist can't be serious about their bullshit religion, Marx is a prophet, and like all prophets not sent by G-d they are full of shit.
But to write all monopolists as the hardworking low-level capitalist man betrays reality, many of these men have no accountability to the vast population that they claim to serve, and can and will stifle the competition to the point of establishing or strengthening the role of a state to secure its power. He was correct in saying that capitalism destroys these things in favor of economic capital and what not, but you hit the nail on the head inshowing how batshit nuts his solutions are, as these social ties and collective interests are a good migitating factor against the abuses he is so worried about. Not to mention the fucker just decided to slap as many words from the dictionary into his work to help seem smarter to the average prole and gain support, something that eventually distances himself from the very people he is trying to sway.
that's actually a great idea
round up every communist and force them to pool their money together and live in a commune where they put their theory into practice
>all monopolists as the hardworking low-level capitalist man betrays reality
Few Monopolists get to that place without being on top of their business every waking minute. Seriously, while the wealth and items (of which so many are very jealous) accrue, the monopolist must literally be on top of everything involving his product, all the time, lest he slide.
Yes, the European Monarchies supported Monopoly, and the Fascists who accepted Marx's mistaken goals have created similar monopoly in the US, on-going.
The problem, and I've said this alot in the last few days, is that while Capitalists gain their wealth by production, the Statist gains his wealth using the Sword.
The more you operate that the State has a say on Capital, the more those who want easy, or even monopoly, Capital will use violence to take it from the "low-level capitalist." The monopoly is a danger from the aspect that one person may decide who gets to use a product, possibly even if someone may live on a territory. The State is a danger from the aspect that one person may decide who lives and dies immediately.
Bumping, I still want solutions.
So far, the best we've seen is
>Force all Marxists to live on a Commune, no outside assistance.
The monopolist merely needs to grease the wheels of the state and win its favor in order to get its foot in the door to solidifying its power. It places itself above all of the needs and risks of that you claim they have, the monopolist doesnt need to keep ever vigilant of its competition, because the power gap is so severe, and its reach so wide, it can go through all proper channels and still strangle businesses. The state may hold the power to kill immediately and brutally, but the capitalist system holds the power to kill slowly and insideously, the result of the politician and the monopolist are the same, the main difference is the politician is usually held more accountable, and the monopolist is smart enough to slowly bleed his kill out over time. The sword you speak of is just as deadly, be it from metal or money.
>i outlaw you freedom to give you freedom
jewish logic
While we're at it, can we get normies to advocate the same for white nationalists?
>because the power gap is so severe
You can create that strawman of every monopoly, but it's not necissarily true. Monopolists, unless they own every square inch, will always face a competition threat, ASSUMING they don't have the Government, which is not uncommon.
The Statist always has the Government. The only out? Invasion/Revolution.
So, limit the State, and if you have Monopolists, they can't maintain via sword, and if you have Statists, they cannot Tyrant either.
If there was a serious "White Nationalist" threat, sure. The last National "White Nationalist" rally in DC had a couple dozen?
The Commies are literally openly trying to elect membership to DC.
Communist Control Act of 1954.
ALL liberals must die. They either shoot up schools, bash old lady faces in to steal their purse or enable those that do. Kill them all.
The real difference is that White Nationalists don't normally ask to violate the Constitution in whole. Most of them advocate for some sort of segregation, and few of them are so extreme as to argue all actions are legitimate.
Communists, by Marx himself, argue from outset all actions are legitimate. (not unlike the Koran and Hadiths).
Bump. Still looking for ways to punish membership.
>Stawman
Wrong, its clearly happening, and in many cases its true. Also, assuming a society with a lack of government is nonsensical, government is the staus quo, and any attempt to whisk the issue away to "anarchist land" is not pragmatic at all, governments have existed since mankind had more than enough people to establish a tribe, and people of authority. Getting rid of the state is simply out of the question. The way out is assuring that people keep the government accountable, though you could argue that they simply wont, which means chances are they people will also gladly be swayed into supporting monopolists in a anacap world, and in turn, a state or at least a non-free market scenario. The monopolists will gladly use their superior skills in the free market to establish a state, securing their satus a a protected class, usually utilizing their ability to not be held accountable as a private entity to do what they please. You keep using the sword metaphor, but youre really meaning force, which includes physical and economic force, both are very real and legitimate threats to people. Tyrants can be politicians and businessowners alike.
>its clearly happening, and in many cases its true
Yes, it is happening in the US because people have used the tools that are claimed to end monopolies and bad behaviors to keep and create monopolies. And in "some number" of cases it will happen temporarily.
But when you place the State in charge of Capital it happens 100% of the time.
What did that achieve?
"economic force" unless you mean the individual willingness to produce from resources, this is a misnomer. Nobody stops trade without the sword (force).
Im not saying all capital must be resigned to the order of the state, but at least some portion of it should be under control of the public through legislative means, the point of a large business is to serve the public trust or nation. As in economic force, Im referring to the ability to remove ones ability to participate in the free market through means of price gouging, promoting mass immigration to drive down labor prices,and similar practices done by monopolies and corporations, the trade of lower level business are stopped and snuffed out without ever using the "sword" like I keep saying, you think shooting or hanging by the state is the only way to kill someone, this is simply not true.
>the point of a large business is to serve the public trust or nation
What is a large business?
>epitomize free speech
>bans the communist party
I agree that communist are dumb retards, but if you give them a voice at least everyone will know that communist are dumb retards.
Whoops, was referring more to monopolies, as well as private entities of sufficient size, most likely to be determined by the general consenus/public.
Imprisonment for Communist membership for ten years..
Execution for all unpunished traitors, e.g. Cora Weiss, Jane Fonda, John Kerry, Weathermen, former SDS members who met with Communists officials, etc..
en.wikipedia.org
We absolutely should outlaw and attack communists and socialists.
>The Immigration Act of 1903, also called the Anarchist Exclusion Act, was a law of the United States regulating immigration. It codified previous immigration law, and added four inadmissible classes: anarchists, people with epilepsy, beggars, and importers of prostitutes. It had little impact and its provisions related to anarchists were expanded in the Immigration Act of 1918.
They weren't wrong! McCarthy was right!
Already addressed the apparent contradiction above.
>to be determined by the general consenus/public.
Rule by majority.
You're back to dealing with people like %'s, not as people. You've refused any benefit to being a dedicated laborer, by directing that those who are too successful must be cut off at the ankles to better "the public." Your semantic game ignores that "the public" ceases to exist when you remove all of the individuals within that group.
The entire goal is the individual, without this, you murder for a %.
When we put up with them, they use it to flagrantly undermine us and support our enemies.
They should not expect to be indulged, nor should we tolerate that behavior when they would not afford us the same freedom.
Based!
Helicopter rides when?! Please?!
>without ever using the "sword" like I keep saying, you think shooting or hanging by the state is the only way to kill someone, this is simply not true.
Clearly not. Except that when the State does it, we tend to accept the Presumption of Justice; when a Business does it, the State or the People, normally, steps in and creates an attempt at Justice.
We have to get the penalty re-enacted. In 1993, under the Clinton Admin, Congress retracted any penalty, though the clause making this group outlawed remains.
THAT shouldn't be too hard.
Start pushing, right now, don't take it for granted. Keep the issue on top of Jow Forums and elsewhere. Part of our Patriotism is protecting the republic and denying systems that would inherently destroy the Constitution. Part of making America great is removing the acceptability to be an active agent of a group that wants the US destroyed.
Percentages make a society, one can still be an individual. But no man is an island and to place the individual above everything will destroy a society, and in turn leave the individual in the very same predicament he created the society for-
to use the threat of force against all individuals in a society to follow certain rules established by him and the others in that society. He will end up with enemies at all sides and subject to the will of greater forces. A society is made by the giving up of certian aspects of individuality in exchange for weilding a portion of the power of the state. My goal is not the individual because the individual will gladly sell out his fellow man for his gain if not threatened by a force larger than his own, without limiting the individual to some degree, you open yourself up to the crabs in a bucket mentality. You weigh individuals far too greatly, when a balance between the man and the state is the most stable. Your rights of the individual only exist when backed by the power of the collective. True, I may be shackling a person to others in the sense that I want a certain sect of people to be held accountable for the actions they take when their effects touch more people than just them, and I consider that fine because these are the people who have the most capacity for exploitation of their fellow man and their nation. If they are doing things that benefit a good portion, much like the free market, than they will find the support where they need it.
I'm way ahead of you! We need a purge! They have NO place here!
So what is your problem with the "sword" question? Are you arguing that a business cannot use force agaisnt the individual? Are you arguing that form matters over the function? Either state or business, the effects are the same on the average person, being under the sword of another.
>no man is an island
So I may punish your neighbor for your mistake and you will feel it the same?
I may starve the person on the other side of town, and you will have the hunger pains?
No, justice is individual, or it's not justice.
> to place the individual above everything will destroy a society
To lie and claim you are putting society above yourself at all points is childish, a fantasy LARP, and simply impossible. It is noble to think of others, it is not rational to make all decisions based on them.
>he created the society for-
Many animals are gregarious with or without laws. Humans joined because they were families and there were resources. Everything of society is not planned, and it would be a violation of the theory of evolution if everything was.
>our rights of the individual only exist when backed by the power of the collective
Thank goodness I breath when I am ordered...
> a certain sect of people to be held accountable for the actions
Why a certain sect? Why isn't everyone accountable as an individual?
Further, returning to your theory that no man is an island, and so punishment for one can be visited on another...
>things that benefit a good portion
You sleep and eat to benefit a good portion? You go to humorous shows and write poetry to benefit a good portion? You choose your meal by flavors to benefit a good portion? You don't have to be disregarding of humanity to do any of these things, but it's a blatant misnomer to say that while you may spend your time in leisure disregarding the benefits others get from your time, it's suddenly wrong to do the same as you strive to produce.
The inherent rule in production, unless you're literally stuck in a Obsessive Compulsive loop, is to create something that other people want. This, inherently, suggests that you are, in fact, benefiting a good portion.
You are using a generalized society, so am I. In most societies, a murderer is brought to justice, and in your society you claim that is a job of the State. Of course, if the State becomes the murderer, which is inherent once people are %'s, who is there to complain? The option is far worse, you must war against the institutions which, by appearance, are justice.
Yes, there is a difference in form, one of them has the presumption of Justice, the other will be examined, and should be checked by the State.
We really tore into your sorry ass yesterday about Canadian food prices! I told you yesterday to fuck off with your collectivist bullshit!
Look familiar?
??
Anyway, do you have an appropriate punishment for joining the Communist party in the US?
>186933432
See
>186916386
Also, see pic related
Jow Forums faggot, go back to fagredit before you go back.
> You may punish your neighbor?
Did my neighbor violate the eukes established by the society, an institution he was a part of? And chise to interact with? Than yes.
>To claim you are putting a society above tourself is a LARP
I never said that, I said same level, meaning the greivances of the collective, if decided, can carry enough weight as as the individual, it is rational to stop my neighbor from lighting a fire with gasoline dreched all over his yard? Should we prevent others from doing this? It is his yard after all, but his choices are not affecting him solely. Is it rational to make sure that my fellow man does his public duty by voting and making his position known? Should I hold others who operate in this society to a certain level of participation in the system of governance? All of these answers to me would be yes, at a certain point, as decided by all the people in the society, the actions taken by the constituents may come under the supervision and paternalism of the collective/society.
>Many animals are gregarious with their laws, everything in a societ isnt planned
But a significant portion of it is, they decide what values, culture, and traditions they are going to create, they decide how they will allow a person to exercise authority.
>Breathe when I am ordered
You forget that someone not threatened by a collective force can simply get you to stop breathing forever, lets not be silly here
>Difference in accountability
Due to differences in ability, hierarchy in a society comes with a heirarchy of responsibilities and duties that one must burden themselves with, hence the term public servant.
>Good portion
I forgot how much of a benefit it was to import millions of non-assimilating foriegners into your nation, forcing down wages for the people in the society and in turn providing a larger burden upon all the people of said society.I forgot all the benefits of corporations keeping smaller business out of the free market by money sword
My work here is done. Scream away! See you tomorrow?
you dont need to outlaw them, all you need is free speech to debate and win
Is justice not constructed by the society? I think our difference may be along the lines of cultural and moral relativism, with you basis of jstice relying on the individual, and mine relying on it as a social construction, if thats the case, weve reached our ontological differences, so any more arguing might be unproductive, but if its not how would
>Should be checked by the state
work to serve your argument? Do you mean thar a state has a fundamental role in determining certain actions by the market? Or are you simply saying that the presumption of justice is that strong, to which we go back to the cultural relaticvist point I made earlier.
Can we outlaw the Nazi party as well as any party crying for an ethnostate?
You trying to link my post?
What exactly are you trting to say? At least the other user is willing to discuss.
It's yesterday all over again. Enjoy screaming in the dark.
I'll call /thread now. Because, that's what he does.
> I have no points to discuss so Im going to say youre screaming
Okay kiddo, got anything else to add to the conversation?
Do those DSA fags fall under this?
5/10 Bait. The Consititution shall no longer apply to communists.
>"b-bb-b yoo guys protekt all freeze peach?"
Not yours. Burn the American flag, fine. But don't go citing the 1st Amendment afterwards. All civil rights to communists/marxists are hereby null and void.
Nice job hiding flag btw faggot.
>Did my neighbor violate the eukes established by the society, an institution he was a part of?
Society is not an institution, it's the cumulative effect of individuals running into each other. Institutions are intentional from the outset. Society is a result of being in vicinity or contact.
> it is rational to stop my neighbor from lighting a fire with gasoline dreched all over his yard?
So suicide is rationally not acceptable to you. That's sensible because all laws give pretense to attempts to secure life, not end it, and violation of that core principle cannot end well. However, to claim a right to criminalize suicide, this is a distinction with a difference. One may restrain a madman, one does not charge him with a crime.
> they decide what values, culture, and traditions they are going to create,
You grew up with TV perhaps, but the values of humanity are mostly individually picked. I think there are inherent values applied by a deity which all humans recognize (no murder, no theft), but otherwise, buying a large house vs buying fast cars is completely individual value.
Traditions aren't normally decided, they start from experiences which occurred spontaneously from human creativity or interactions, and they are continued because someone/someones find them meaningful. Traditions collected make cultures. While it's not impossible to have them forced upon generations, to claim they are only a rationally chosen group decision is not true. Plenty of families have traditions that nobody else knows about.
>You forget that someone not threatened by a collective force can simply get you to stop breathing forever
It's not a collective force that keeps me from murdering. I'm clever enough to get away with it without you finding out, at least the first few times. It's a personal respect for life that keeps me from killing, not your societal rule.
They denied us debate on all open platforms in our own countries. Fuck them. No longer playing in their court. Never subscribe to their rules. Do not bend. Do not break. They deserve no quarter.
>hierarchy in a society comes with a heirarchy of responsibilities and duties that one must burden themselves with, hence the term public servant.
If one achieves a higher place in society, it's because they have burdened and succeeded with skills and duties they applied to themselves. Public service is NOT A HIGHER PLACE, you literally called them Public Servant, now you call them Higher? Servants as Masters?
>I forgot how much of a benefit it was to import millions of non-assimilating foriegners into your nation, forcing down wages for the people in the society and in turn providing a larger burden
Explain how this justifies your claim that labor is a ward of the State? You're strawmaning the idea that importation is controlled by business, when in reality the only way that is true is if business is the government, as you claim it should be. If business is distinct, then there is no impetus which should rock the institutions of a government to destroy order in the streets by mass importation on behalf of one business. It is, again, only when the State gets involved to save or punish a business that this could happen.
>I'll call /thread now. Because, that's what he does.
You're quite welcome to debate only the reasons that punishments for the Communist Party would or wouldn't work. I welcome that debate. We're simply on about something else right now.
If not. They should. Not working til 80 to feed millions of unemployed NEETs. Fuck La'Farteeshah and her 8 bastard children.
>Do those DSA fags fall under this?
I believe they absolutely would. As would any anti-fa.
Bump to Kill Commies.
You wonderful MOTHERFUCKERS! I love you all! I'm tired, sightly drunk, medicated, and ready to get to bed. WELL DONE!
Yet another reason to end this bullshit..
>youtube.com
For you Outlaw flavors.
Fascist and Communist parties are banned here. Don't want a rerun of those shitshows.
Thank you!
Pretty sure it would.
Of course, everyone deserves a trial.
But, then again...
>Society is not an institution
I think this is simply false, it may arise out of mere vicinity but I feel that it easily fulfills the defenition of an instistution.
>Distiction with a diffenrence
Interesting, mind elaboraring a bit more?
>Values applied by a deity
Theres our problem, I have no belief in deity determined morality. Unfortunately this might be where we have discissed to a point of agree to disagree, as your points are logically coherent to this main ontological assumption, and my assumptions may not align with them. However, good posts and discussion
>Traditions
Once again I feel theybare behaviors that creare a social or culutral benefit, and may be considered institutions, or at least a social behavior designed to promote collective identity.
>Personal respect for life
Once again, I feel that an individuals volition is simply not enough of a force to keep these rules enforced, at least in cases with other people, though I share this ideal.
Overall great points, but I think our ontological differences may keep us from finding a true place of agreement
I used the term servent in the sense that they must carry additional responsibility and accountability in addition to the ones they used to get there.
>Strawmanning that corporate interests influence the state
They do, their lawyers and lobbyists use the state to enact what they need, and since these private entities are not able to be held accountable, they can use the state to aid their own benefits while disregarding the nation or communities.
uh oh here comes the invidiualist!
Imagine how much rendered fertilizer they would produce to feed REAL livestock?