Good post, but you cannot convince looters of the truth. Christ, look at Germany. Split right down the #@&%ing middle. One side communist, one side somewhat free. Free side kicked the commie side @$$! I mean, it was the Detroit Lions vs. Every Superbowl Winner ever plus they had machine guns! How messed up does your eco-politico system need to be to turn freaken Germans into paupers? For fun, they pickle cabbage, for crying out loud. (and I like it, BTW) Look at Cuba, 30 people will jump into a shoebox if you tell them it will float just to get the #@&^ away from that hellhole. Naw, the socialists will not stop, no matter how many bodies they pile up. They are sure that if they just spill enough blood that their dreams will come true.
Well, West Germany was used as a showcase by the west, money poured in there so maybe it was exaggerated a bit but East Germany was a dismal failure. When the wall came down trillions had to be invested in East Germany just to get the infrastructure up to snuff. I guess these communist idealogues here in the USA blame the capitalists for the fall of Russia or something. I don't see their reasoning at all.
What do you think of the neo-conservative ideologists who were Trotskyist, Marxist, Shachtmanist communists with totalitarian ideas - but then became anti-Soviet (and supposedly "anti-communist") while continuing just as politically radical - wanting their ideology to saturate all of society in a totalitarian way... then adding to the anti-Soviet stance with social conservativism, but taking it a step further - as the radicals they are projecting their beliefs - into wholeheartedly hatred of counter-cultures and being outright bigots ... what do you think of these ideologists? Like the Kristol family, David Horowitz, James Burnham, Richard Hofstadter (even researched "paranoia" as a social motivator) and their ilk... They were flag-bearers of the type of ideology with the worst kind of aggression towards society, stumping personal freedoms, aiming for assimilating everyone into their type of alignment and ideas - to "make society ordered", and fleshing out their political goals with "logic" and "research". They became anti-Soviet after concluding that the Soviets were anti-Semitic and thus became "anti-communists", but they continued their core beliefs - just like communists and still supporters of totalitarianism, authoritarianism. Instead of focusing on humanity, human socialism - they started focusing more on their own ethnic group and supporters - becoming (ethnically) social "conservatives". I am a strong supporter of personal freedom, and closest to anarcho-capitalism as a political idea. I don't think anarcho-capitalism is sufficient, so that's partly why I don't declare myself libertarian or an anarcho-capitalist - as well as me being strongly antinomian just like many post-structuralists (e.g Michel Foucault). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciplinary_institutions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madness_and_Civilization (Foucault)
I believe Darth Vader said it best " This technological terror that you have created is insignificant compared to the ways of the force." This force on Earth is people. Information, while formidable in it's own right, is impotent in the face of people who have a cause they believe in. I give you the suicide bomber. I give you zealots of all religions and colors. Information is knowledge. Knowledge does not necessarily correlate with wisdom or sanity, which are always in short supply. What is "effective" manipulation? Convincing 19 men to fly into buildings, a woman to walk onto a bus and evicerate its passengers with bomb, or 1.3 billion Chinese that Communism is the correct political path demonstrates that people, not information, are the power and should be treated accordingly. Save the cheerleader. Save the World.
The ET database error prevented me from adding these links to the above post earlier... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmentality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerial_state (James Burnham and neo-conservative elite theories) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingsoc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(philosophy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Dominance_Theory (meritocracy, right-wing/neo-conservatives authoritarians etc) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism Bonrat08, you seem to be a science fiction enthusiast - with an emphasis on fiction. You just describe the "power"/"insanity" of religion and faith. If you actually look into philosophy - you get the core without the special effects, Big Mac and fries... dumbed down consumption. Then you might not be so easily duped by the bias of stereotyping, ethnic bashing, ethnic role casting and ethnic polarization in films and the media - or even the glorification of religious morale and institutions in films. Education and openness is how to combat the oppressive, corrupt elitists who cling to their domination on society. Just like measurable intelligence has been increasing over the last decades, democratic foundations and the importance of personal freedom are pillars evolving into stronger structures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocentrism (neo-cons) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism (neo-cons) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_superiority (disregard for laws, rules - e.g international laws) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor's_justice ("winners write history" bullshit) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War (religious "reasoning" for warring)
Perhaps you could expand your intellect beyond your snide arrogance and ethnic chip on your shoulder and provide examples of how this has worked in the past or could work in the future. Future governments will undoubtedly beat a path to your door.
I actually have written hundreds of posts about that here on this forum, but as for "past examples" - the Internet is a rather "new thing" - the "information revolution" and all that stuff... "Ignorance is bliss" - the religious will just filter out anything they don't like. You should read up a little instead of just watching entertainment... oops, "edutainment." Besides, it's neo-conservativism that I don't like - along with other totalitarian or authoritarian crap ideas. Crap political ideas: collectivism, communism, neo-consevatism, objectivism ... same political radical ilk all of them. People like Marx, Kristol, Rand are seriously whacked by trying to be smart, but basing their theories in the false premise of "universally absolute truth" so that they can try their power projection outwards and dominate others by polarization, creating a culture of fear and perpetual warring -- just like the Abrahamic religions do to polarize everything into "us and them." They corrupt society to benefit their goals of revenge and dominance -- "justice" that they may decide as potential "victors". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_fear http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares (how the neo-conservatives use fear as motivator) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religion
A pattern presents itself. Maybe you should ask yourself why you find it necessary to demean whomever you are speaking to before conveying some (IMO) rather lucid thoughts, critics, and opinions. That could prove to be self illuminating as well as interesting. I agree with your politics however timing and delivery are the cornerstones upon which a message is conveyed. It serves no purpose to cloud insight with diminishing observations.