Your insults unfortunately mean very little to me.
I must say, that your suggestions "I need a girl" indicates to me you have read very little of the philosophy I have mentioned. There are few things which are universal amongst men of greatness, whether artists, tyrants, or warriors... one of those things is however they eschew the pathetic existence of a man made a slave to the vagina.
The simple fact you have made this post indicates you are not interested in changing the world in any meaningful way. Creativity is lost to you, because every time you stick your bitch a little bit of your own masculinity disappears into the female void, lost to the world forever. Your freedom, your passion, all sacrificed to the vaginal bottom line.
What is life to you? Serving and fucking some stupid bitch. The issue here is I recognize a greater future for humanity. You have a narrow vision, one based on animalistic desires, and devoid of true human passion. That is the easy path, it shouldn't be any surprise you can attain it with little effort.
Enjoy your life. I however, make large sums of money profitting off the decadent materialistic society in which you are just one slave and consumer. I have no trouble spending $2K on incredibly beautiful prostitutes when I feel like indulging my beastial desires.
Hello Thomas Hobbes, paging Thomas Hobbes; someone is plagiarizing your ideas from "Leviathan".
It was actually Plato who contributed most to the concept of an enlightened aristrocracy.
The hint should have been my rather numerous assaults on democracy, which Plato vehemently condenmned.
Overall, Plato's Republic is the primary book of the anti-democracy movement. Hobbes was actually more of a classical scholar than a political philosopher. He produced one of the best translations of Thucydides' book the Peloponnesian War, and it was a standard translation for some time. Socrates lived right at the end of the Peloponnesian War, and saw Athens defeated.
Needless to say, Plato and Hobbes both gained much of their anti-democractic views from the disasterous events of the Peloponnesian War, the difference is Plato lived to see them all, including the execution of Socrates.
Given Hobbes' focus, its safe to say he was popular only because he articulated an entire period's history in english, in one rather large book.
In any event, its not a very difficult concept... accusing mye of plagiarism is rather shallow.
Its like saying that I am plagiarizing Newton because I say gravity exists. These are very basic ideas, and both Plato and Hobbes wrote far more than I have here.
For thousands of years people have struggled to gain their freedom from tyrants. Only within the last few hundred years have people been able to take part in running a country.
Are you so obscenely naive that you actually believe that? Sometimes I cannot believe the level of misinformation floating around on the internet. You know why the internet is worthless? The same reason democracy is worthless: the vast majority of people are incredibly stupid!
Before a few thousand years ago, there WAS no civilization. Freedom was irrelevant. If you didn't want to be a part of your tribe, no one forced you! You would just leave. In such a situation, you might not be subject to the will of the tribe's chief, but you might meat a wild boar much more interested in eating you than telling you what to do.
That was true all the time until the last two hundred years or so when the population of humans stretched to every habitable part of this planet. No one ever forced you to do anything. You always had the option of running away.
This is not even getting to the other major issue: it is the tyrants you condemn that created a civilization within which fellows such as yourself could do something besides hunt and gather fruit. Tyrants grabbed ahold of selfish, aimless people and forced them to be a part of his vision, or leave the tribe. In time, people flocked to the cities created and maintained by wise leaders. They would much rather trade some of their freedoms to live in a paradise free from constant threats of attack, and where creative arts could flourish in peace. Cities of the past had much more trouble keeping people OUT of their cities, than keeping them in.
Groupthink has never worked, just as it doesn't work with the internet. A leader has always been required, whether it was the tribe chieftan, a consul, an emperor, or one of the various "executives" of the twentieth century usually called presidents.
You unfortunately live in a world where your reliance on others seems superficial and unnecessary, and you do not see how a community unified behind their common goal of survival was once an absolute necessity. Freedom meant nothing if you were dead.
Is your own voice worth so little to you? You have sold yourself short.
Do you really think your voice matters? One of 6.8 billion??? Do you think because you can sit here and post on slashdot, or anywhere else on the internet that you will ever affect great change in the world? That you will be able to affect the minds of a meaningful number of people? You clamor for free speech, yet you can do nothing more than whimper.. all the while you delude yourself into thinking anyone really gives a fuck what you say or do.
Sooner or later, your own frustration with your own powerlessness, your own impotence will reach a critical point... lets hope you handle it well.
There is a lot more to the world than just the US economy. Read Nicholas Kristofs NYTimes column today, where he describes the genocide currently taking place in Sudan. Read about the ethnic cleansing and state sponsered rape that is taking place. Then tell me again that the most important thing is that the US economy is strong so that you can own a two story house and drive a Buick and eat a Red Robbin and wear Dockers.
Why would anyone in the US give a shit about the people in Sudan? The people there are barely human. They live in homes less advanced than the homes of a common beaver. They spend their lives rioting and fucking like animals. Agriculture is still largely an unknown concept. Without the aid given to them by Europeans, they would for all intents and purposes be living in a society far less advanced than Greece of 3000 years ago.
They are in their predicament due to their insatiable sexual desire which has resulted in a population far greater than they can ever hope to support.
The most humane thing to do would be to sterlize them all, let them live out their lives and then the world will be free of the cosmic mistake which ocurred in that foresaken place.
Here in the US, a politician is judged on whether we are able to buy a Chevorlet or a Cadilliac. In other parts of the world, people are worried about whether their villiage will be wiped out.
Me thinks you are filled with egalitarian fantasies of a one world government. Why don't you focus on your own community instead of reading newspapers and complaining about the existence of people you know nothing about. We don't have to worry about being wiped out in the same fashion as them.
We have created a civilization for that purpose. It is up to the Sudanese to move into the 1st century. Or maybe even the 21st century if they really are up to the challenge. Of course, we know it will never happen.
This tech has been around for ages, and it always worked well for me.
Last time I tried any of this stuff was with the VoiceType Dictation that came with OS/2 4.0. This was about October of 1996.
I had no problems controlling Netscape 2.0, and the dictation worked great in Ami Pro 3.0. I did have to set up some custom controls to get netscape to work... but otherwise it worked ok.
I think the problem is you have to annunciate carefully and properly.
Really, I don't see how this is news. This tech has been around for a decade.
I don't see how that can be. Was democracy even present at that time? My impression was that there was no such as democracy at that time.
Socrates lived during the collapse of Athenian democracy after the Peloponnesian War. His student and lover Alcibiades played a major role in that defeat, and another one of his students Critias lead the oligarchy that ruled Athens during the Spartan occupation. Plato actually lived to see the end of democracy.
Perhaps you should read some of these books as you clearly are gravely mistaken about what Plato wrote about.
You can resist and live life the way YOU want it to be.
That is the naivete of youth. You can never live life the way you want, that is my point. If your parents did not raise you to speak or learn to eat the proper foods, you would have died before you could formulate this thought. The State is merely an extension of your immediate family.
A human can NEVER live the way "he wants", his choices and paths are always predetermined by those who preceeded him.
Conformists copy the rest; but I don't!
You clearly copy the manner of speaking of others. Why don't you create your own language? You can speak that to yourself.
Your meaning in life seems to be outside your reach...
When you read Plato's Republic I will accept your criticisms, but you are at a stage in life where your understanding of the meaning of life is very limited. Why ignore the brilliant people who have come before you? You are truly ignorning thousands of years of wisdom. Use your youthful energy to read these books, and don't waste your time trying to reinvent the wheel. You aren't smart enough. I am not smart enough.
I don't know much about Plato's Republic but I have never heard anyone consider it to be fascist of any kind. If anything, it seems to be the basis of democracy.
Unfortunately, it is the exact opposite. The book is at its heart a direct attack on democracy, and seeks to put in its place an entirely different society that is ruled by philosopher kings. The book has nothing to do with a Republican form of government, the title is as it originality meant.. Res Publica... the people's business. Many of Plato's dialogues attack democracy, btw.
Your definition of art is very narrow. Why do I get the feeling that you are the type of person who would consider classical music to be art but not techno music?
I haven't really provided a definition. Aesthetics is the most difficult of philosophical studies so I won't bore you here with a tedious explanation. Its simply a personal opinion.
I'm the non-violent type. I hope I don't end up on any battlefield.
Of course you don't, but in time you won't have much of a choice. Wars are not fought for the petty reasons you imagine, they are fought for survival. The question is will the ideology you support be powerful enough to inspire enough people to sacrifice their lives so that you... and your ideology will prevail?
Humans should be free to do whatever they want, within some reason of course (eg. I shouldn't be free to kill you). If someone wants to hang around doing nothing, that's perfectly ok with it. If someone wants to spend their whole life trying find an alternative energy to modern fossil fuels, that's fine. If someone wants to contemplate the meaning of existence, they should be allowed to do that. If someone wants to spend all their time debating on internent message boards;) they should be free to do that.... People should be free to do whatever they want. Clearly this does not sit well with you because you want yourself--as well as all humans--to have some purpose. You still haven't figured out that the purpose of life is to figure out your own purpose. Instead of worrying about others and trying to force people into your mould, you should spend time contemplating how YOUR life should be...
Yes Yes, the very typical libertarian explanation for life. You haven't thought into this quite enough however, you also discount the man is a political animal. What if we all spoke different languages? Truly had different beliefs about everything? What if we just popped out children and told them they could do whatever they want?
The freedom you are describing only exists because a few thousand years ago, people joined together to form cities where their way of life was enforced. The variety of the world's cultures appeared then BECAUSE they were enforced. Only when human population encompassed almost all the usable land did this abstract freedom you advocate become popular. People can no longer be banished, they must live within a society.
The point is we force people into a mould every day. Whether it is language, school, laws, propaganda of television and media... the list goes on.
We haven't even touched on this issue of the inherent powerlessness of a single man from a civilzed point of view. Surely, a single man would have no means of surviving in the natural world as we have said. What of great arts? Where would Mozart be without a symphony? Where would our cities be without the beautiful buildings constructed by a plethora of expert craftsmen?
Man is a political animal who strongly desires to be a part of a community that exists for a purpose greater than simple survival. You have fallen into the trap of the bourgeoise illusion.
Yes, Plato's Republic is the basis for fascism. It is neither democracy, nor monarchy.
Obviously you are living the past. Like conservatives of all stripes, you miss the past. Your vision is nothing more than a romanticized past.
No, not really. I do however, want to build a better future. Also, if there is one thing that is missing from this world it is romance...
The people during the Renaissance seem great because Europe didn't have anything before it (dark ages).
Why don't you look up the definition of Renaissance and reconsider that statement.
The Leonardo da Vincis and the Michaelangelos have been replaced by the Einsteins, Plancks, and Hawkings.
Ahh, the postmodernist. I would argue technological advancements have done much to rob us of our humanity.
The Mozarts have been replaced by Steven Spielbergs, Stanley Kubricks and John Williams. Film has replaced plays and operas.
Spielberg is no artist. Kubrick makes the exact arguments I am making now. 2001 was a direct attack upon the postmodernist obsession with progress you are advocating right now. A Clockwork Orange deals specifically with the innate aesthetic tastes, contrasting the taste for blood with the taste for high culture art. I have also never considered anything dramatic to be particularly artistic. But that is another debate.
Clearly you haven't gotten over such changes.
The world is always changing, that is the nature of existence. The question is to what are we changing? History is made by those who seek to change the course of civilization. I have my vision, and you have yours... Perhaps we will meet on the battlefield someday and see which triumphs.
Most humans are slaves to the capitalist overlords. Until they are free their true potential will neve show.
Well, I'm being flamed by a frothing-at-the-mouth white supremacist, so I guess that's a good thing, but anyway
I have never stated any belief that one particular race is superior to another. A lion is different from a panther, is one necessarily superior than the other? Suggesting that people are different does not at all mean one is superior.
Pfft, dude, uncross your eyes. Wordplay requires the intentional and shared inversion of meanings; I even gave you a clue by using the word "irony," but as the saying goes, 'irony is wasted on the..." oh nevermind. 'Jumbo shrimp' and 'anarchy reigns' are in the category of humour known as oxymora. Look it up, golem.
Yes, that is a misuse of the term irony which is quite common today. Nothing you mentioned is actually ironic. A simple clue to remember what the word means is to remember the original greek meant "feigned ignornance". Why don't you read Wikipedia's Definition. Of course, you could actually read a little Plato and learn about it from the source.
But what am I trying to help you? After all you have declared this thread dead.
oh, btw... Hitler was no fascist. I was thinking more along the lines of Mussolini or Franco.
So what type of fascist are you? Who will be the "superclass" under your system? Are you a neo-Nazi? Or White Supremist? Or...?
Platonist. I advocate the society proposed in Plato's Republic. The superclass should be philosopher kings.
Well, history seems to suggest otherwise. The last time an "enlightened" leader wanted to unify certain people and create a super civilization, he caused the deaths of 50 million, and ended up killing more of "his kind" than anyone else in history.
Death is a part of life, and your numbers are wildly inflated. It is also fairly ignorant to associate Hitler with racism as you seem to be implying. The Waffen-SS had tens of thousands of volunteers from India and Tibet, and Germany's closest ally was Japan. The Americans didn't allow anyone non-white in their ranks, and the war against Japon was as racist as one can imagine.
But the events of WWII are but one small chapter in the ideological struggle between Athens and Sparta which began over 2600 years ago. Nazi Germany is also not really fascist, nor did they refer to themselves as such. Your banal comments have not even scratched the surface of a debate you seem to think is over.
I am referring more to the prosperity and culture which was fostered in Italy, France, and Germany prior to twentieth century. How many great philosophers, composers, artists came from that age?. The west today has no Michaelangelo, or Leonardo da Vinci, or Mozart... Western culture, for all intents and purpose is dead and has been for a half century.
For some sign of cultural unity you will have to turn your head east. The cultural rebirth in China and Malyasia is impressive.
I think that is the only point I agree with. I DO expect a revolution within my lifetime. I predict this will happen when capitalism collapses...
Then you will have to give some careful thought to alternatives, and the true motivation of existence. People are not going to die for a system which simply provides them with the most basic requirements of survival. Simple existence is not enough to rally a people to battle. I would be wary of attempting that.
And there are more of us than you think, most don't use the term "fascist" any longer due to the relentless propaganda of marxists such as yourself. I personally value the significance of the term irrespective of our modern twisting of meaning.
I can assure you however, I won't be the last. Maybe you are safe in North America, where the oppressive governments there imprison anyone with anti-democratic viewpoints... But the tide is rising in most of Europe, and certainly in the east. You have but to look at the various Front National groups through Europe.
Democracy is dead. Egalitarianism is dead. Global Capital is dead. Materialism is dead.
To simply exist is not enough, to be provided basic necessities, and have the time to indulge your base desires is not enough.
Only through unity of purpose towards an aesthetic ideal can civilization prosper. Only with the guidence of enlightened leaders can peace be maintained.
I suggest you prepare yourself, as the revolution will come in your lifetime.
True, in theory. I was being flip by saying there's no diff, but I was serious too, because we've never really seen communism, it's always a disguised variation on fascism, usually a form of state monopoly capitalism. Gramsci and his captors were birds of a feather: assh*les.
Then you really don't know what fascism is. You are stuck in the materialistic world of the present, where the cult of economics defines our lives. Fascism has very little to do with economics, and in fact seeks to transcend that inherently inhuman pseudoscience.
I don't ever recall an avowed communist or a fascist stating that seriously, much less a socialist. You're trolling.
Well, since we have clearly established your ignorance of fascism as a movement, part of your statement is irrelevant. As far as communism, where the standard of value is materialistic, all communist countries attempted to provide equal distribution of all material wealth to the people.
"anarchy reigns"
Oh, that's ripe! You do get the irony of that statement, right? Military intelligence, jumbo shrimp, and all that?
You are ignorant of the definition of the word "to reign". While it can mean actually ruling power, it also applies to general influence in this case of a type of governmental system: anarchy, the abscence of a governmenal system.
It is rather common to suggest that philosophical concepts "reign" when discussing their influence over a particular society at a particular point in time.
I just installed DOS 6.22 and Space Quest 6 under Virtual PC, and wow... it is such a great game. The graphics are colorful, the story is funny... it even has actual audio dialogue in most cases.
I actually felt like I was engaging in a mildly intelligent diversion, even though I was 15 the last time I played that game ten years ago. I have't felt that way for a while
Thats nihilism right there. Ideals cannot be achieved. And people wonder why our society is culturally bankrupt.
Totalitarian governments established everything of beauty and wonder in this world, only decadent democracies destroy them. Every great artist, every great architect, every innovative cuisin, every great composer... They all came from societies you would characterize as totalitarian.
There is substantial difference between fascism and communism.
Fascism is based on the princple that the best leaders should rule a country in the form of an oligarchy, that egalitarianism is a fiction, and that the standard of value that a state should pursue should be aesthetic, rather than materialistic.
Communism in principle rejects the concept that some are superior to others and thus should rule by that right, it is based on the concept of egalitarianism, and materialism is the sole standard of value.
Fascism is the modern form of Sparta.
Communism is the most depraved form of the democratic ideal, it seeks to make all people equal by force.
What we are finding in the world today is that the principles of socialism are incompatible with egalitarianism. Simply allowing anyone and everyone to reproduce is crushing socialist systems throughout the world. The ridiculous assertion that all people are equal in every way is reducing humanity to an amalgamated mass of practically inhuman swine, who do nothing but indulge in their base desires.
Egalitarian socialism is destined for failure wherever it is practiced because unrestricted human reproduction of any life form results in the inferior soon overtaking the superior. When that happens, society collapses and anarchy reigns.
Why can't the torch-bearer of democracy even remotely get this right? Is it because there is no federal standard, or do Amercians really not care that much?
This may come as a shock to you, but the system of government the United States currently enjoys is not and never has been a democracy. Popular election of senators did not start taking place until 100 years after the constitution was ratified. States were allowed to decide how Senators would be chosen.
This system of two houses, one elected by the people and the other not... was intended specifically to guard against the excesses of democracy which we are now experiencing.
And statistics plainly show that blacks make up a large majority of the criminal element. (Remember racists, correlation != causation, so you can't use this stat to further your agenda.)
It seems to me that if what you say is true, repatriating all African Americans to their home continent of Africa would rid us of a major criminal threat.
Lets also not forget the immense cost to society in terms of public assistance and the blight of housing projects, in which there are few non-black residents.
I dunno about that. I live in Brooklyn about 4 miles from all the antennas in Manhattan and my reception fucking sucks. Maybe I need to put an antenna on top of my building, but the $25 spiffy rabbit ears I got from Radio Shack just don't seem to do the job well.
But I can watch Star Trek Enterprise which is all I care about.
second, in the jail, criminals learn quite a lot interesting things and they meet other criminals. and after they are released they have more than enough knowledge and contacts to do much much bigger crimes.
Perhaps then, if we didn't have prisons and merely executed criminals we could avoid this effect?
There is no such thing as a "white race." Pale skin pigment is just a genetic trait, like hair or eye color, is widely distributed among people of different genetic backgrounds.
While that was an easy opinion to hold prior to the massive invasion of white homelands by non-whites, your argument holds little creedence today. It is as unnatural as declaring the sky red. Further, the sheer variety of beauty found in the white race alone is worth protecting. I shutter when I imagine the world where the brown hordes are 99.5% of the world's population... and only a tiny minority has red hair, or blond hair.. freckles, blue eyes...
Never the less, a simple a visit to certain countries (Haiti comes to mind) indicates some non-white races have very different sensibilities about what life and civilization is. The continued argument human nature, DIFFERENT human nature, does not cause such differences falls on deaf ears. In the 1960's the sheltered white majority could believe that education and public assistance could work... it had never been tried.
It is now 2004. Every non-white and non-oriental country is nothing but a hell hole. Civilization is unknown virtually all over the world. The American Negro has become infinitely worse in the past 40 years.
Especially in the US, most people have ancestors with the entire range of skin pigmentation.
This is a lie. 75% of the US population is white, the vast majority of them have no non-white ancestor.
Prior to the immigration reform act, non-whites were relatively rare in most of the country... except for a few blacks here and there in cities. Further, miscegenation was a crime in every state in the union.
Eugenics was always a stupid idea, and seems even stupider when we stand upon the brink of genetic therapy.
How is it a stupid idea? It has worked wonders everywhere it has been tried. The best example is the American Negro. They are by far the strongest humans on the planet. Their physical superiority is a direct result of selective breeding over just a few hundred years.
The ancient Spartans produced the best fighting force the world had ever seen, their women were considered the most beautiful... all Spartans were selectively bred.
Very soon, if a trait is not beneficial (such as white skin in lower latitudes) it will be possible to alter it to taste.
That is highly optomistic. Me thinks you are simply infatuated with the post modern ideal of technological progress at any cost. Further, you are missing the point... skin color isn't the issue. It is the continued reproduction and invasion by non-white races who are mentally inferior and incapable of civilized living.
Our understanding of what differentiates a human brain from an ape's brain is completely inadequate. Superficial appearence is important from a purely aesthetic standpoint, clearly most non-white races want to look white... But I am most concerned with the mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Your insults unfortunately mean very little to me.
I must say, that your suggestions "I need a girl" indicates to me you have read very little of the philosophy I have mentioned. There are few things which are universal amongst men of greatness, whether artists, tyrants, or warriors... one of those things is however they eschew the pathetic existence of a man made a slave to the vagina.
The simple fact you have made this post indicates you are not interested in changing the world in any meaningful way. Creativity is lost to you, because every time you stick your bitch a little bit of your own masculinity disappears into the female void, lost to the world forever. Your freedom, your passion, all sacrificed to the vaginal bottom line.
What is life to you? Serving and fucking some stupid bitch. The issue here is I recognize a greater future for humanity. You have a narrow vision, one based on animalistic desires, and devoid of true human passion. That is the easy path, it shouldn't be any surprise you can attain it with little effort.
Enjoy your life. I however, make large sums of money profitting off the decadent materialistic society in which you are just one slave and consumer. I have no trouble spending $2K on incredibly beautiful prostitutes when I feel like indulging my beastial desires.
Hello Thomas Hobbes, paging Thomas Hobbes; someone is plagiarizing your ideas from "Leviathan".
It was actually Plato who contributed most to the concept of an enlightened aristrocracy.
The hint should have been my rather numerous assaults on democracy, which Plato vehemently condenmned.
Overall, Plato's Republic is the primary book of the anti-democracy movement. Hobbes was actually more of a classical scholar than a political philosopher. He produced one of the best translations of Thucydides' book the Peloponnesian War, and it was a standard translation for some time. Socrates lived right at the end of the Peloponnesian War, and saw Athens defeated.
Needless to say, Plato and Hobbes both gained much of their anti-democractic views from the disasterous events of the Peloponnesian War, the difference is Plato lived to see them all, including the execution of Socrates.
Given Hobbes' focus, its safe to say he was popular only because he articulated an entire period's history in english, in one rather large book.
In any event, its not a very difficult concept... accusing mye of plagiarism is rather shallow.
Its like saying that I am plagiarizing Newton because I say gravity exists. These are very basic ideas, and both Plato and Hobbes wrote far more than I have here.
For thousands of years people have struggled to gain their freedom from tyrants. Only within the last few hundred years have people been able to take part in running a country.
Are you so obscenely naive that you actually believe that? Sometimes I cannot believe the level of misinformation floating around on the internet. You know why the internet is worthless? The same reason democracy is worthless: the vast majority of people are incredibly stupid!
Before a few thousand years ago, there WAS no civilization. Freedom was irrelevant. If you didn't want to be a part of your tribe, no one forced you! You would just leave. In such a situation, you might not be subject to the will of the tribe's chief, but you might meat a wild boar much more interested in eating you than telling you what to do.
That was true all the time until the last two hundred years or so when the population of humans stretched to every habitable part of this planet. No one ever forced you to do anything. You always had the option of running away.
This is not even getting to the other major issue: it is the tyrants you condemn that created a civilization within which fellows such as yourself could do something besides hunt and gather fruit. Tyrants grabbed ahold of selfish, aimless people and forced them to be a part of his vision, or leave the tribe. In time, people flocked to the cities created and maintained by wise leaders. They would much rather trade some of their freedoms to live in a paradise free from constant threats of attack, and where creative arts could flourish in peace. Cities of the past had much more trouble keeping people OUT of their cities, than keeping them in.
Groupthink has never worked, just as it doesn't work with the internet. A leader has always been required, whether it was the tribe chieftan, a consul, an emperor, or one of the various "executives" of the twentieth century usually called presidents.
You unfortunately live in a world where your reliance on others seems superficial and unnecessary, and you do not see how a community unified behind their common goal of survival was once an absolute necessity. Freedom meant nothing if you were dead.
Is your own voice worth so little to you? You have sold yourself short.
Do you really think your voice matters? One of 6.8 billion??? Do you think because you can sit here and post on slashdot, or anywhere else on the internet that you will ever affect great change in the world? That you will be able to affect the minds of a meaningful number of people? You clamor for free speech, yet you can do nothing more than whimper.. all the while you delude yourself into thinking anyone really gives a fuck what you say or do.
Sooner or later, your own frustration with your own powerlessness, your own impotence will reach a critical point... lets hope you handle it well.
There is a lot more to the world than just the US economy. Read Nicholas Kristofs NYTimes column today, where he describes the genocide currently taking place in Sudan. Read about the ethnic cleansing and state sponsered rape that is taking place. Then tell me again that the most important thing is that the US economy is strong so that you can own a two story house and drive a Buick and eat a Red Robbin and wear Dockers.
Why would anyone in the US give a shit about the people in Sudan? The people there are barely human. They live in homes less advanced than the homes of a common beaver. They spend their lives rioting and fucking like animals. Agriculture is still largely an unknown concept. Without the aid given to them by Europeans, they would for all intents and purposes be living in a society far less advanced than Greece of 3000 years ago.
They are in their predicament due to their insatiable sexual desire which has resulted in a population far greater than they can ever hope to support.
The most humane thing to do would be to sterlize them all, let them live out their lives and then the world will be free of the cosmic mistake which ocurred in that foresaken place.
Here in the US, a politician is judged on whether we are able to buy a Chevorlet or a Cadilliac. In other parts of the world, people are worried about whether their villiage will be wiped out.
Me thinks you are filled with egalitarian fantasies of a one world government. Why don't you focus on your own community instead of reading newspapers and complaining about the existence of people you know nothing about. We don't have to worry about being wiped out in the same fashion as them.
We have created a civilization for that purpose. It is up to the Sudanese to move into the 1st century. Or maybe even the 21st century if they really are up to the challenge. Of course, we know it will never happen.
the old axim is you cannot prove an unrestricted negative... which to a layman like the parent poster might seem to mean you can't prove ANYTHING.
or Algeria?
This tech has been around for ages, and it always worked well for me.
Last time I tried any of this stuff was with the VoiceType Dictation that came with OS/2 4.0. This was about October of 1996.
I had no problems controlling Netscape 2.0, and the dictation worked great in Ami Pro 3.0. I did have to set up some custom controls to get netscape to work... but otherwise it worked ok.
I think the problem is you have to annunciate carefully and properly.
Really, I don't see how this is news. This tech has been around for a decade.
Mediterranean culture?
Which mediterranean culture are we talking about here? Slavs in Greece? Italians? French? Jews in Israel? Berbers in Morocco? Egyptians? Turks?
As you can see, the cultures are of the Mediterranean sea are quite varied... you probably should be a little more specific.
Don't they have monthly passes in the UK?
I remember getting some all day travelcard or something... giving you unlimited usage for a day (or maybe it was a weekend)
I don't see how that can be. Was democracy even present at that time? My impression was that there was no such as democracy at that time.
Socrates lived during the collapse of Athenian democracy after the Peloponnesian War. His student and lover Alcibiades played a major role in that defeat, and another one of his students Critias lead the oligarchy that ruled Athens during the Spartan occupation. Plato actually lived to see the end of democracy.
Check out the Wikipedia Article on the subject.
Perhaps you should read some of these books as you clearly are gravely mistaken about what Plato wrote about.
You can resist and live life the way YOU want it to be.
That is the naivete of youth. You can never live life the way you want, that is my point. If your parents did not raise you to speak or learn to eat the proper foods, you would have died before you could formulate this thought. The State is merely an extension of your immediate family.
A human can NEVER live the way "he wants", his choices and paths are always predetermined by those who preceeded him.
Conformists copy the rest; but I don't!
You clearly copy the manner of speaking of others. Why don't you create your own language? You can speak that to yourself.
Your meaning in life seems to be outside your reach...
When you read Plato's Republic I will accept your criticisms, but you are at a stage in life where your understanding of the meaning of life is very limited. Why ignore the brilliant people who have come before you? You are truly ignorning thousands of years of wisdom. Use your youthful energy to read these books, and don't waste your time trying to reinvent the wheel. You aren't smart enough. I am not smart enough.
I don't know much about Plato's Republic but I have never heard anyone consider it to be fascist of any kind. If anything, it seems to be the basis of democracy.
;) they should be free to do that.... People should be free to do whatever they want. Clearly this does not sit well with you because you want yourself--as well as all humans--to have some purpose. You still haven't figured out that the purpose of life is to figure out your own purpose. Instead of worrying about others and trying to force people into your mould, you should spend time contemplating how YOUR life should be...
Unfortunately, it is the exact opposite. The book is at its heart a direct attack on democracy, and seeks to put in its place an entirely different society that is ruled by philosopher kings. The book has nothing to do with a Republican form of government, the title is as it originality meant.. Res Publica... the people's business. Many of Plato's dialogues attack democracy, btw.
Your definition of art is very narrow. Why do I get the feeling that you are the type of person who would consider classical music to be art but not techno music?
I haven't really provided a definition. Aesthetics is the most difficult of philosophical studies so I won't bore you here with a tedious explanation. Its simply a personal opinion.
I'm the non-violent type. I hope I don't end up on any battlefield.
Of course you don't, but in time you won't have much of a choice. Wars are not fought for the petty reasons you imagine, they are fought for survival. The question is will the ideology you support be powerful enough to inspire enough people to sacrifice their lives so that you... and your ideology will prevail?
Humans should be free to do whatever they want, within some reason of course (eg. I shouldn't be free to kill you). If someone wants to hang around doing nothing, that's perfectly ok with it. If someone wants to spend their whole life trying find an alternative energy to modern fossil fuels, that's fine. If someone wants to contemplate the meaning of existence, they should be allowed to do that. If someone wants to spend all their time debating on internent message boards
Yes Yes, the very typical libertarian explanation for life. You haven't thought into this quite enough however, you also discount the man is a political animal. What if we all spoke different languages? Truly had different beliefs about everything? What if we just popped out children and told them they could do whatever they want?
The freedom you are describing only exists because a few thousand years ago, people joined together to form cities where their way of life was enforced. The variety of the world's cultures appeared then BECAUSE they were enforced. Only when human population encompassed almost all the usable land did this abstract freedom you advocate become popular. People can no longer be banished, they must live within a society.
The point is we force people into a mould every day. Whether it is language, school, laws, propaganda of television and media... the list goes on.
We haven't even touched on this issue of the inherent powerlessness of a single man from a civilzed point of view. Surely, a single man would have no means of surviving in the natural world as we have said. What of great arts? Where would Mozart be without a symphony? Where would our cities be without the beautiful buildings constructed by a plethora of expert craftsmen?
Man is a political animal who strongly desires to be a part of a community that exists for a purpose greater than simple survival. You have fallen into the trap of the bourgeoise illusion.
Are you being serious or what?
Yes, Plato's Republic is the basis for fascism. It is neither democracy, nor monarchy.
Obviously you are living the past. Like conservatives of all stripes, you miss the past. Your vision is nothing more than a romanticized past.
No, not really. I do however, want to build a better future. Also, if there is one thing that is missing from this world it is romance...
The people during the Renaissance seem great because Europe didn't have anything before it (dark ages).
Why don't you look up the definition of Renaissance and reconsider that statement.
The Leonardo da Vincis and the Michaelangelos have been replaced by the Einsteins, Plancks, and Hawkings.
Ahh, the postmodernist. I would argue technological advancements have done much to rob us of our humanity.
The Mozarts have been replaced by Steven Spielbergs, Stanley Kubricks and John Williams. Film has replaced plays and operas.
Spielberg is no artist. Kubrick makes the exact arguments I am making now. 2001 was a direct attack upon the postmodernist obsession with progress you are advocating right now. A Clockwork Orange deals specifically with the innate aesthetic tastes, contrasting the taste for blood with the taste for high culture art. I have also never considered anything dramatic to be particularly artistic. But that is another debate.
Clearly you haven't gotten over such changes.
The world is always changing, that is the nature of existence. The question is to what are we changing? History is made by those who seek to change the course of civilization. I have my vision, and you have yours... Perhaps we will meet on the battlefield someday and see which triumphs.
Most humans are slaves to the capitalist overlords. Until they are free their true potential will neve show.
Free to do what? That is the important question.
Well, I'm being flamed by a frothing-at-the-mouth white supremacist, so I guess that's a good thing, but anyway
I have never stated any belief that one particular race is superior to another. A lion is different from a panther, is one necessarily superior than the other? Suggesting that people are different does not at all mean one is superior.
Pfft, dude, uncross your eyes. Wordplay requires the intentional and shared inversion of meanings; I even gave you a clue by using the word "irony," but as the saying goes, 'irony is wasted on the..." oh nevermind. 'Jumbo shrimp' and 'anarchy reigns' are in the category of humour known as oxymora. Look it up, golem.
Yes, that is a misuse of the term irony which is quite common today. Nothing you mentioned is actually ironic. A simple clue to remember what the word means is to remember the original greek meant "feigned ignornance". Why don't you read Wikipedia's Definition. Of course, you could actually read a little Plato and learn about it from the source.
But what am I trying to help you? After all you have declared this thread dead.
oh, btw... Hitler was no fascist. I was thinking more along the lines of Mussolini or Franco.
So what type of fascist are you? Who will be the "superclass" under your system? Are you a neo-Nazi? Or White Supremist? Or ...?
Platonist. I advocate the society proposed in Plato's Republic. The superclass should be philosopher kings.
Well, history seems to suggest otherwise. The last time an "enlightened" leader wanted to unify certain people and create a super civilization, he caused the deaths of 50 million, and ended up killing more of "his kind" than anyone else in history.
Death is a part of life, and your numbers are wildly inflated. It is also fairly ignorant to associate Hitler with racism as you seem to be implying. The Waffen-SS had tens of thousands of volunteers from India and Tibet, and Germany's closest ally was Japan. The Americans didn't allow anyone non-white in their ranks, and the war against Japon was as racist as one can imagine.
But the events of WWII are but one small chapter in the ideological struggle between Athens and Sparta which began over 2600 years ago. Nazi Germany is also not really fascist, nor did they refer to themselves as such. Your banal comments have not even scratched the surface of a debate you seem to think is over.
I am referring more to the prosperity and culture which was fostered in Italy, France, and Germany prior to twentieth century. How many great philosophers, composers, artists came from that age?. The west today has no Michaelangelo, or Leonardo da Vinci, or Mozart... Western culture, for all intents and purpose is dead and has been for a half century.
For some sign of cultural unity you will have to turn your head east. The cultural rebirth in China and Malyasia is impressive.
I think that is the only point I agree with. I DO expect a revolution within my lifetime. I predict this will happen when capitalism collapses...
Then you will have to give some careful thought to alternatives, and the true motivation of existence. People are not going to die for a system which simply provides them with the most basic requirements of survival. Simple existence is not enough to rally a people to battle. I would be wary of attempting that.
You haven't met me.
And there are more of us than you think, most don't use the term "fascist" any longer due to the relentless propaganda of marxists such as yourself. I personally value the significance of the term irrespective of our modern twisting of meaning.
I can assure you however, I won't be the last. Maybe you are safe in North America, where the oppressive governments there imprison anyone with anti-democratic viewpoints... But the tide is rising in most of Europe, and certainly in the east. You have but to look at the various Front National groups through Europe.
Democracy is dead. Egalitarianism is dead. Global Capital is dead. Materialism is dead.
To simply exist is not enough, to be provided basic necessities, and have the time to indulge your base desires is not enough.
Only through unity of purpose towards an aesthetic ideal can civilization prosper. Only with the guidence of enlightened leaders can peace be maintained.
I suggest you prepare yourself, as the revolution will come in your lifetime.
True, in theory. I was being flip by saying there's no diff, but I was serious too, because we've never really seen communism, it's always a disguised variation on fascism, usually a form of state monopoly capitalism. Gramsci and his captors were birds of a feather: assh*les.
Then you really don't know what fascism is. You are stuck in the materialistic world of the present, where the cult of economics defines our lives. Fascism has very little to do with economics, and in fact seeks to transcend that inherently inhuman pseudoscience.
I don't ever recall an avowed communist or a fascist stating that seriously, much less a socialist. You're trolling.
Well, since we have clearly established your ignorance of fascism as a movement, part of your statement is irrelevant. As far as communism, where the standard of value is materialistic, all communist countries attempted to provide equal distribution of all material wealth to the people.
"anarchy reigns"
Oh, that's ripe! You do get the irony of that statement, right? Military intelligence, jumbo shrimp, and all that?
You are ignorant of the definition of the word "to reign". While it can mean actually ruling power, it also applies to general influence in this case of a type of governmental system: anarchy, the abscence of a governmenal system.
It is rather common to suggest that philosophical concepts "reign" when discussing their influence over a particular society at a particular point in time.
Its definitely the quality of the games.
I just installed DOS 6.22 and Space Quest 6 under Virtual PC, and wow... it is such a great game. The graphics are colorful, the story is funny... it even has actual audio dialogue in most cases.
I actually felt like I was engaging in a mildly intelligent diversion, even though I was 15 the last time I played that game ten years ago. I have't felt that way for a while
Thats nihilism right there. Ideals cannot be achieved. And people wonder why our society is culturally bankrupt.
Totalitarian governments established everything of beauty and wonder in this world, only decadent democracies destroy them. Every great artist, every great architect, every innovative cuisin, every great composer... They all came from societies you would characterize as totalitarian.
There is substantial difference between fascism and communism.
Fascism is based on the princple that the best leaders should rule a country in the form of an oligarchy, that egalitarianism is a fiction, and that the standard of value that a state should pursue should be aesthetic, rather than materialistic.
Communism in principle rejects the concept that some are superior to others and thus should rule by that right, it is based on the concept of egalitarianism, and materialism is the sole standard of value.
Fascism is the modern form of Sparta.
Communism is the most depraved form of the democratic ideal, it seeks to make all people equal by force.
What we are finding in the world today is that the principles of socialism are incompatible with egalitarianism. Simply allowing anyone and everyone to reproduce is crushing socialist systems throughout the world. The ridiculous assertion that all people are equal in every way is reducing humanity to an amalgamated mass of practically inhuman swine, who do nothing but indulge in their base desires.
Egalitarian socialism is destined for failure wherever it is practiced because unrestricted human reproduction of any life form results in the inferior soon overtaking the superior. When that happens, society collapses and anarchy reigns.
Why can't the torch-bearer of democracy even remotely get this right? Is it because there is no federal standard, or do Amercians really not care that much?
This may come as a shock to you, but the system of government the United States currently enjoys is not and never has been a democracy. Popular election of senators did not start taking place until 100 years after the constitution was ratified. States were allowed to decide how Senators would be chosen.
This system of two houses, one elected by the people and the other not... was intended specifically to guard against the excesses of democracy which we are now experiencing.
And statistics plainly show that blacks make up a large majority of the criminal element. (Remember racists, correlation != causation, so you can't use this stat to further your agenda.)
It seems to me that if what you say is true, repatriating all African Americans to their home continent of Africa would rid us of a major criminal threat.
Lets also not forget the immense cost to society in terms of public assistance and the blight of housing projects, in which there are few non-black residents.
I dunno about that. I live in Brooklyn about 4 miles from all the antennas in Manhattan and my reception fucking sucks. Maybe I need to put an antenna on top of my building, but the $25 spiffy rabbit ears I got from Radio Shack just don't seem to do the job well.
But I can watch Star Trek Enterprise which is all I care about.
I have an old 15" CRT I would like to use just a few more months until I get some money to replace it.
The brightness is definitely near unacceptable, how do I increase the voltage?
second, in the jail, criminals learn quite a lot interesting things and they meet other criminals. and after they are released they have more than enough knowledge and contacts to do much much bigger crimes.
Perhaps then, if we didn't have prisons and merely executed criminals we could avoid this effect?
There is no such thing as a "white race." Pale skin pigment is just a genetic trait, like hair or eye color, is widely distributed among people of different genetic backgrounds.
While that was an easy opinion to hold prior to the massive invasion of white homelands by non-whites, your argument holds little creedence today. It is as unnatural as declaring the sky red. Further, the sheer variety of beauty found in the white race alone is worth protecting. I shutter when I imagine the world where the brown hordes are 99.5% of the world's population... and only a tiny minority has red hair, or blond hair.. freckles, blue eyes...
Never the less, a simple a visit to certain countries (Haiti comes to mind) indicates some non-white races have very different sensibilities about what life and civilization is. The continued argument human nature, DIFFERENT human nature, does not cause such differences falls on deaf ears. In the 1960's the sheltered white majority could believe that education and public assistance could work... it had never been tried.
It is now 2004. Every non-white and non-oriental country is nothing but a hell hole. Civilization is unknown virtually all over the world. The American Negro has become infinitely worse in the past 40 years.
Especially in the US, most people have ancestors with the entire range of skin pigmentation.
This is a lie. 75% of the US population is white, the vast majority of them have no non-white ancestor.
Prior to the immigration reform act, non-whites were relatively rare in most of the country... except for a few blacks here and there in cities. Further, miscegenation was a crime in every state in the union.
Eugenics was always a stupid idea, and seems even stupider when we stand upon the brink of genetic therapy.
How is it a stupid idea? It has worked wonders everywhere it has been tried. The best example is the American Negro. They are by far the strongest humans on the planet. Their physical superiority is a direct result of selective breeding over just a few hundred years.
The ancient Spartans produced the best fighting force the world had ever seen, their women were considered the most beautiful... all Spartans were selectively bred.
Very soon, if a trait is not beneficial (such as white skin in lower latitudes) it will be possible to alter it to taste.
That is highly optomistic. Me thinks you are simply infatuated with the post modern ideal of technological progress at any cost. Further, you are missing the point... skin color isn't the issue. It is the continued reproduction and invasion by non-white races who are mentally inferior and incapable of civilized living.
Our understanding of what differentiates a human brain from an ape's brain is completely inadequate. Superficial appearence is important from a purely aesthetic standpoint, clearly most non-white races want to look white... But I am most concerned with the mind.