Bonrat08, you wrote some rather weird stuff in your first reply to me, then you proceeded to make some claims about me. That does not go unanswered. From your first reply - knowledge is of course correlated to wisdom - stating otherwise would be completely bullshit. While fundamentalist extremists from all camps are unstable at best in relation to the general population, the rest you wrote was silly. For neo-conservatives -- they are completely scum in my view. A centrepiece of their ideas is the 2004 book written by neoconservatives Richard Perle and David Frum "An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror" where they say they want to stop all peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, invade Syria, issue compulsory biometric US identification cards and promote public citizen reporting of suspicious persons - to stem immigration of possible terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. That seems pretty police state wise to me... and a recipe for perpetual war, suppression and oppression at the cost of any civil liberties. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingsoc , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state and http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2004/01/30/frum_perle/index.html Neo-conservatives stand for almost everything I oppose in political ideas, and they are promoting totalitarian and authoritarian rule. They are mostly former Marxist communists, Trotskyists, Shachtmanists and extreme left-wing (but ultra-nationalist) ideologists. That is called national-socialism by most of us - fascism to many - which is what they are today. They became the other extreme of the scale of what their ancestors suffered through the Holocaust - and pure fascists. Of course many of their supporters have little insight into the philosophical foundations of their policies - just like with any party or political movement - but they get their ideas from the "logics" and "research" provided by the central neo-conservative policy makers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalsocialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism (anti-communism, corporatism, militarism, nationalism, authoritarian totalitarianism) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Socialists for decades have been labeling failed and failing socialist governments as communism, Nazism, fascism, right wing, Marxism, saying how bad all those are, but we really got it going because our system hasn't failed yet. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, National Socialist German Workers' Party, Socialist this Socialist that. Point out the failures of socialism and they always say, "If we could just get the right people to run it this time.'' Find a human that is not interested in power, corruption and self-interest. Creeping socialism in the US from both parties. What individual choices are left if you only have one choice, the government's way. What is left for an individual citizen capable of doing anything without intrusion. Where can anyone go just to be left alone. There is no New World to discover and start over. The US was the last chance.
The US was supposed to be "a Christian paradise", "the city upon a hill"... and truly "exceptional." Well, that was the propaganda dribe thinking anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Exceptionalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_upon_a_Hill As an individual - you were left little chance by the corruption from the greedy and those amassing the "power elite." Slavery and social domination has been key in the US - as "the American dream" to make lots of money easy and fast, just do better than others. Too bad respect for individual rights and civil liberties do not go hand in hand with this ideal when leading with corrupt people without integrity or ethics. There is nothing to stop those who get a free card to abusing the confidence of others - no regulation, no oversight - fine, but they corrupted the system and saturated all of society - which showed that some kind of consensus must be met. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_elite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerial_state (elite theory, "old-money", neo-conservative extreme subjectiveness/greed) Such a possible social consensus is frequently called a "social contract," and this is a central thing in any democracy and anarcho-capitalism - truly free market capitalism, and the strongest individual liberty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract (democratic foundation, social trust) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism All of the Americas has been thoroughly racist ever since they were colonized, and with the dominant religious fundamentalism in the US - it became a "beaming light" for supremacist thinking - a "chosen people" - being beyond international law, making the law as "victors." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chosen_people (all US presidents need to have religion on their side) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor's_justice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocentrism The US pressuring Iraqis to accept future permanent US military bases, or they will immediately undermine any Iraqi security: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7682213.stm http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=176929
The Neocon Reader (by Irwin Stelzer, Grove Press, 2004) "The anthology's more significant achievement, however, may be in its presentation of lesser-known views on domestic policy, such as a relative lack of concern over federal deficits." http://www.amazon.com/Neocon-Reader-Irwin-Stelzer/dp/0802141935 Neo-cons frequently "misrepresent reality" - such as in this book referenced above. They take Margaret Thatcher and other's as "proof" of their theories - trying to appear "mainstream," while they ideologically scorn the containment policies of foreign policy realism from the Reagan era - which they frequently describe as "flawed." Instead they promote aggressive pre-emptive attacks - and to destroy enemies using every available means - economically, militarily and culturally. They are the most extreme "subjective" ideologists out there, interpreting anything at their own whim and will - radicalism even throughout their own minds and perceptions. They see everything from their own absolute beliefs of the world. Their characteristic type of humour, where they whimsically turn any criticism into something "positive" is easily identifiable from their simple minded supporters - just like George W. Bush who gives a "two thumbs up" on everything, no matter how dire. http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2004/05/bush-doctrine-thumbs-no-matter-what
Thereâs a saying âkeep you friends close and your enemies closer.â Thereâs a corollary: âChoose your friends wisely, but choose your enemies even more carefully.â Who you choose as your enemy doesnât just define you â it defines your strategy and tactics, thus forcing you to become your enemy in order to defeat him. Being the mirror image of your enemy doesn't make you a better alternative, it just makes you the opposite. Yes, I am silly, and will remain so. Real change for the better does not present itself from variations or contradictions of the existing status quo. All of the Ism's you embrace and or disdain were constructs outside of a much more base society and were "silly" before they were embraced. Time, circumstance, and philosophy will determine the success or demise of our society. Fluidity, and acceptance of reality and ideas are more important than defining doctrines. In the end, everyone lies, so the best one can hope for is truth unto oneself. Demean Instruct, Demean Instruct. You seem incapable or unwilling to change. Here are some alternatives.....Instruct, Demean....or Instruct, Demean, Instruct. Of course, subtlety is always appreciated.
Bonrat08, it would be interesting to know what kind of political ideas you support, as you can certainly produce a lot of weird sentences. I have written quite a lot about polarization here on this forum - and how it is being used by e.g neo-cons and is a key feature of Abrahamic religion. You seem to state silly things like "everyone lies" - and believing it. Maybe because you lie to yourself, it shows you might need professional help.
When Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer.â Close your eyes. If there is anyone else in there, just tell them to leave or start your own Fight Club! :eek:
Congrats on your new style. You are capable of change. The new format of Demean, Demean definitely sends a message without the ambiguity of thought. If the last bastion of a scoundrel is the flag where do condescending intellects condemn those with a different thought process? They're coming to take me away, ha ha. They're coming to take me away. I leave you to the very personal prison of your own mind. We're done. Thank you for not smoking.
Gringinho what you fail to realize with your whole study of polarization is that your only studying one pole. As much as the neocons are to blame the socialists are to blame as well.
NeoRio1, social/intellectual polarization happens when two groups/persons interact and they repel each other. That is when they start constructing beliefs and "information" that supports their opposition to the other. Then it becomes a scale where degrees are applied and measured to see what can be claimed to be belonging to one's own set of ideas and what belongs to "the enemy camp." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_of_truth This is evident in the Left-Right spectrum of politics, and it is evident several places in Abrahamic religion - "good vs evil", "us vs them" - "Jews vs Arabs" etc. They all evolve into stronger polarization, and the most extreme are those which are ideologically founded - just like with the fundamental extremists of religions - Christians, Muslims, Jews ... Therefore their polarization is a result of their interaction and projection, interpolation of their beliefs outward - instead of strengthening themselves inward like their religion should be doing. They often choose to corrupt their surroundings instead. Libertarians and most anarchists are opposed to collectivism, communism, totalitarianism, authoritarian rule.