What happened to all the dreams back in the 1970's?
I think they were tempered by double digit inflation and interest rates, grafitti, and the overall destruction of our cities. Those were the dark days.
What exists on the Moon that cannot be found or created at a price tag magnitudes lower on the Earth?
Energy. Read the article. Vast numbers of solar panels on the moon can collect solar energy and then it can be transferred to earth via microwaves. The cost will be cheaper and less hazerdous than using nuclear power, which is the only real alternative for the future. Fossil fuels are an impossibility, there are no more rivers fo hydroelectric, and windmills... welp I dunno.
but I do not see how going there will improve anything other than our nationalism.
And that is bad how? The American people are desperate for a cause greater than immediate gratification and mere existence. This could be a great outlet.
He is the ONLY candidate who has promised to withdraw from both NAFTA and WTO and re-establish national priorities of labor and full employment.
Unfortunately, he doesn't establish national priorities regarding the vast influx of alien peoples in the US. Nationalist priorities for trade is great, but simultaneously advocating policies which diminish the unity of your nation is the worst kind of hypocricy.
He is nothing more than an internationalist drone who understands the value of nationalist economic policies, but fails to understand exactly what a nation is. These people are the most dangerous, because their only goal is full employment to keep the masses happy. They still aim to fracture a people through cosmopolitanism. Without unity, we cannot rebel.
What I see in that man is the last ditch attempt by Internationalists to appease what is left of the American society, but it won't be enough. People are realizing that the loss of jobs is just the more immediate effect of this global conspiracy of ethnic cleansing. Who cares if you have a job if your entire way of life and your people are erased from the earth?
Actually, I think this goes back to Rome. All the people need is bread and games.
Bread is more important, as the opioid peptides it contains induces contentment. Mindless entertainment is sort of secondary. Staring at the wall endlessly wouldn't be possible until intravenous injection of opium derivatives was invented.
As far as the political commentary... How is O'Reilly any worse than Dan Rather or Peter Jennings? I would be more worried about people watching soap operas and reality TV. You may not agree with O'reilly, but at least he discussing real, meaningful issues.
Where are they going to get the money to do that? To support their art? You're saying they should just try and do that by themselves.
Yes, I say that.
I know people who have taken out mortgages to buy $200,000 violins, people who really are professional musicians with college degrees in music and a lifetime of experience. In fact, I don't know of any real professional musician who doesn't purchase their instruments themselves.
Nothing a rock musician uses comes close to the cost of a quality instrument used in an orchestra. Some of these instruments were made by masters dead for centuries now.
I understand the average rock musician thinks $2000 for an instrument is a lot of money, but it really isn't, not when its your entire life you're talking about. But the average rocker really has only been playing for a couple years at the most, whereas the man buying a $200,000 violin has been playing decades.
Pop music has enormous expenses, but that is only because of the work necessary to make the music popular. The instruments are so mass produced that they are cheap, the recording equipment can be rented. The fidelity of the sound is so distorted by technology, intricate details of classic workmanship is irrlevant.
Your knowledge of processors is impressive, but that is an X86 processor if I ever saw one. Maybe its a very OLD X86 processor... but it still is one none the less...
Every time corporations spend more money someone, somewhere along the line has a job and more jobs are being created.
Do you think just because you make a statement, we are to immediately believe it?
Wake up! It isn't happening! It won't happen!
Supply and demand works for people too. In time, human labor will be irrelevant for production. This is the inevitable result of technological progress. Now, you may want to believe there is something else over the rainbow, some new work that revolutionizes work... go for it.
But with every new advancement, we are driven a little further away from the basics of living, having a house, raising a family, and enjoying life. So what if it takes an army to power the next virtual reality world which will take the world by storm. It doesn't mean its a good idea!
There are too many people on this planet, and far more than are necessary to do any kind of work, now or in the future. We can either redefine how wealth is created and distributed, or allow supply and demand to take its course.
Internationalism has been an abject failure for the western world. We have witnessed the near total destruction of our way of life in a mere half century and it is progressing faster than anyone can believe. We must make haste if we are going to give a future to our children.
I agree with your general sentiment, but I thought it would be benficial to mention Arthur Andersen, what was once the premier auditor in this country.
Chicago suffered greatly because that company disappeared. An entire subculture was erased. I think it is for the better, but it was bad.
Lincoln Park rents definitely declined because of it...
China, unfortunately, is very vulnerable to nuclear weapons as the vast majority of their population is concenrated in the coastal regions.
The US has more than enough weapons to eradicate all life from these regions, resulting in 90% casualties in China.
China however, probably lacks enough weapons to lay waste to anything but our large urban areas. That would be bad, but we could recover.
If somehow, a defensive weapon is made which prevents nuclear weapons from functioning... Then you are probably right. China has a much larger army than the US could ever raise.
As a matter of fact, this is a subject I have thought about quite a bit lately... although I always took the "king" part a bit more metaphorically (-:
Well, you probably should. I think leader is a better term, as the best system would have multiple leaders, and not necessarily exclude women.
But lets discuss thie Hitler quote...
First, I think it is important to understand some things about National Socialism and Hitler. The word Aryan is actually an indo-european word, and is not racial in origin. It basically means "noble people". Another spelling is Iran, which is of course the modern name for Persia. The word is pretty much native to that region of the world.
The concept of Aryan people creating culture actually goes back to India, as their history seemed to indicate some great people came and developed a new culture. Germany never transformed a country, and Hitler never claimed it did. Much of Germany's history and culture has always been based on their conflict with Rome 2000 years ago, where they were the barbarians against the first European civilization.
Do I believe noble and magnanimous people create culture? that they are superior to the masses who are content with their life as it is at that moment? Yes, I do.
Do I believe this concept is necessarily racial or cultural? No.
Yah, I know, you aren't planning on eradicating an entire race of people. But you could. You'd have that power. Who could stop you?
No, but I do hope that the population of the world declines by about 50% in the next 100 years.
War does not happen because one man or even a hundred just wants to kill people. It is profoundly unwise to look at the world as being full of nutcases. Wars happen for a reason.
The big one over the history of humanity is food. Populations grow, they need more land, they fight with someone else. This is the #1 reason for all wars. The problem is unnatural reverence for life inevitably leads to war. It is a natural progression. When the population reaches a point which current technology cannot support from our land, some people will die. Its only a question of when or how. But, it is very difficult for people to accept that romantic feelings are the cause of war... it is the great dichotomy, the balance of nature. Two things, which seem so completely different are in fact quite related. If there was no romance, no procreation, there would be no war.
This is why the contrast between Aphrodite and Ares in antiquity was so popular.
Now as far as who would stop "me", I don't believe in internationalism as I have said... so war would be the result I suppose. That is the great thing about not wanting a one world government, there is always another power out there to stop you.
good ruler does not want the job, and thus in nearly any setup he won't get the job.
I don't agree. No one wants to see their society collapse, they want to further it. I also believe that teaching people to be noble leaders is very important. They may not be the leaders of the nation, but of their community, their sports team, their business. We have a need for noble leaders in so many places...
Also, rulers would chosen by a sort of council... so their wish to become leaders would be irrelevant.
This is how Western Democracies work, no one person has any significant amount of power without requiring the assent or cooperation of a few dozen or hundred other people.
Again, I don't agree. I think that democracy allows for the authority to rule to go into the hands of a few, those few who control the means by which to sway public opinion. Western democracies present false choices, which all lead to the same conclusion.
Public opinion is manufactured, it is not persuaded through rational discource. There are a handful of companies which control virtually all media enterprises in the US. Do you honestly think they will ever present an alternative viewpoint to the false dichotomy of republicans and democrats?
I will trust someone absolutely dedicated to his or her ideals long before I trust someone who panders to public opinion.
It's ignoring basic human nature.
No, I in fact revere nature. It is unnatural to believe all men are equal or that all men should have an equal voice in government. It is unnatural to believe all men should be guaranteed a certain life free of suffering without conditions of any sort. It is unnatural to allow the endless reproduction of the human race.
If you believe men are monsters, then nothing I say will convince you otherwise. By I submit that the ideals presented in western democracies and communist governments are corrupt, inhuman, and destructive to our legacy of civilization.
Further, I believe this corruption inevitably leads to war. Unrestricted population growth will lead to war, and the forced homoginization of internationalism will cause even more violent resistence throughout the world.
Can you name one long-term success of your system? Can you name a dozen?
Spain Chile Argentina Sparta Rome Florence Venice China, outside the communist years Japan Assyria Egypt Persia Israel Cart hage Minoa
and of course,
Germany
The list goes on. The question you should ask yourself is this: Would human beings have transcended their hunter gatherer life style if democracy was the rule in those primitive tribes?
I submit that democracy has been nothing but a failure, and that our culture and our humanity is slipping away at a rapid rate.
On a basic level, everything good for life is addictive. Eating, fucking, socializing, even killing. I would suggest reading the Hedonistic Imperative for more discussion about the physiology of addiction and how it regulates behavior.
This is really pretty standard stuff. I think perhaps you are confusing "good for life" with the general good. When I say good for life, I mean it keeps you alive (within the context of our evolution as communal predators) and allows you to procreate.
I apologize for not making that clear, but as I said this is psych 101 stuff. The physiology of addiction is pretty well understood these days.
I am curious however, what did you have in mind that was pleasurable but not addictive?
However, the fact that most manifestations of fascism (in the generic sense) in the interwar era did obsess on anti-Semitism or other exclusionist ideologies demands explanation.
No it doesn't. The Jews have provoked the mistrust and resentment of every host nation they have occupied over the last 2000 years since Jurusalem was destroyed in the early days of the Roman Empire. A more useful question would be why have the Jews been unable to live in peace with their neighbors in the entire history of their religion?
Truly, having been persecuted by every advanced culture since the first Olympic games were held is an impressive feat. That was nearly 3000 years ago.
We can attempt to psychoanalyze the fascist governments, but that really only makes sense if their actions were abnormal. Given the history of Jews in regards to being persecuted, as well as the entire identity of the religion being dependent upon this persecution, I think it makes more sense to examine the Jews. We are fast approaching 3000 years of Jews incurring the wrath of our neighbors. I think that is is enough.
Not to excuse the American treatment of the "indians". But the concept of a nation-state didn't exist in their culture, so it was pretty hard for america to "conquer" them in the same way that germany did to poland. It doesn't make it right, but it does make it different, and thus not a good justification of your argument.
I don't really see how. Americans wanted to settle in land occupied by Indians. These Indians did not want to leave, so the Americans made them. Germany didn't even get that far with Poland. Is the difference Poles were white? Had relatively modern weapons?
The nation state is nothing but a more advanced tribe. When the Romans were fighting to expand the empire beyond the Rhine into German lands, was that not a real war? So what there was no German state... fighting took place over land, and people died.
Of course, if I agreed with you I could simply replace what I said with the Mexican American War of 1846, or the Spanish American War of 1898. In both instances, the US was clearly the aggressor and both countries lost territory. Mexico lost 1/3 of its territory. I cannot see any difference between the Mexican/American conflict and the German/Polish conflict.
You're insane. Germany did not start the war out of a desire to unify the country, Germany started the war because its leader was totally fucking nuts, and he wanted to conquer the world
Great Britain directly controlled over 1/3 of the world in 1939, Germany controlled a country not much bigger than Texas. How precisely was Germany going to conquer the world? Why would they want to conquer the world? Why did they enlist so many people from non-german countries if that was their goal? The Waffen-SS was majority non-german by 1944.
Great Britain and France declared war on Germany because Germany attacked and conquered Poland, a peaceful neighbor that can't be considered a part of a "unified Germany" in any way that makes sense.
Poland was hardly a peaceful neighbor throughout history. Poland is also a very new country. Germany was conquering the parts of Poland which seperated Prussia, and areas which had been ethnically German since the 800's at least. I really don't see any difference between Jews wanting Israel and Germans wanting Prussia. That is their homeland. It makes sense they would want it. Further, even territorial expansionism is not unique to Fascism. All cultures strive to expand. Lets say Poland never was part of Germany when it in fact was. It would still have been pretty normal for Germany to expand. That is all America did with the Indians. Every culture at some point in the past, has attempted to enlarge its borders at the expense of a neighbor. That has nothing to do with fascism per se.
And Germany is not the only example, there's Italy, Japan, Spain, and a host of other minor Fascist nations. The net result has generally been a tremendous amount of destruction and death, and in most cases the near-total annihilation of the Fascist country. It's not just one example, it's every example of Fascism. This is not something that can be said of "modern liberalism".
Lets see. Great Britain, they never attempted to conquer other countries. France? no way. the US? Those Indians weren't people. Israel? muslims aren't people.
Why don't you try and find a country that hasn't attempted to conquer another.
And as far as near-total annihilation, It just happens that international finance arose at the same time as modern weapons. And, you will notice the Fascist countries did not always lay waste to the countries they were fighting. Paris and London seem in pretty good shape to me, compared to Berlin. Japan got nuked. Maybe fascist countries were fighting exceptionally ruthless enemies who killed more civilians than all previous wars in the history of mankind.
Forget about the suffering; how can a philosophy that has always lead its followers to utter self-destruction be the path to enlightenment?
Who said anything about enlightenment? I ain't no buddhist. Why don't you read that quote again.
Here's another one:
"To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities - I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not - that one endures."
Suffering is as necessary for a human as water is for a fish. Without it, our life ceases to be a human life.
I'm interested to know whether you aspire to be one yourself?
Sure, and I hope you do as well. I think the best way to make such a system work would be for everyone in the society to strive to be such a Philosopher King. I would envision some sort of organization which would ultimately choose the ruling body... I haven't given it a great deal of thought.. Sort of a Knights of the Round Table, or even the Ephors in Sparta.
I also think that I would consider someone who does not strive to that level of greatness to possess a character flaw of sorts. There are certainly differences in people, not everyone will attain that level. There is no excuse not to try however.
Also, by the way, I took a peak at your page and noticed your trip to Israel. All I want is a country like Israel. A small state, which furthers its own culture and actively engages in regular combat. Israel is a perfect example of fascism in action. It is hardly a democracy, it excludes non-jews from citizenship, military service is mandatory, there are laws which regulate cultural norms... In a mere 50 years they completely resurrected a state defeated nearly 2000 years ago by a long dead empire. Thats what I call cultural renewel!
If Jews can have such a state, so can I. Why are they the only country on earth which is allowed to maintain and further its own culture to the exclusion of all others? I know that I am not one of G-d's chosen people, but...
Likewise, Fascists who ignore the fact that the most horrible war and many of the most horrible events in human history were directly caused by Fascism and Fascist beliefs are basically holding their hands over their ears while screaming "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
It is not as simple as that unfortunately. Of course, you probably don't care too much about the beginnings of World War II. The desire of Germany to unify its country is nothing unusual or surprising, and more importantly had nothing to do with fascism. Whether or not that was a valid reason for Great Britain and France to declare on Germany is irrelevant to this discussion. Are we to suggest modern liberalism is inherently corrupt because Napolean was a war monger? No of course not.
I submit the war was in fact about internationalism versus nationalism, or as we call it today globalism versus anti-globalism. You are kidding yourself if you think that battle ended with Germany's surrender on April 19, 1945. In fact, I would say the battle is going on very much as we speak...
Your beliefs don't match. Your principles don't result in your desired product of a utopia, they result in megadeaths and extreme suffering.
Correction, my beliefs don't match your conception of life. I don't think you and I look at life in quite the same way. Here is a favorite Nietzsche quote of mine:
"You want, if possible - and there is no more insane "if possible" - to abolish suffering. And we? It really seems that we would rather have it higher and worse than ever. Well-being as you understand it - that is no goal, that seems to us an end, a state that soon makes man ridiculous and contemptible - that makes his destruction desirable. The discipline of suffering, of great suffering - do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far?"
No, I think there is not ENOUGH suffering in this world.
You do realize that Plato didn't really believe in his own model, don't you?
I know of quite a few respectable philosphy professors who would say The Republic is the only real book by Plato and that Socrates likely didn't discuss such ideas. The argument is a strong one. If he did, that alone would have been grounds for executing him.
In The Republic, he showed that in order to achieve such a system, you'd have to engage in a massive and utterly unrealistic regime of social engineering.
If anything, that was the most realistic thing he discussed. He was after all copying it from Sparta which used it extensively. Honestly, I don't think what Plato was proposing was that radically different from our current educational system in terms of the regime. So eugenics is out of favor, but social engineering sure isn't.
It's an interesting model to discuss, but I didn't get the impression he was actually advocating for it. I got the impression it was more like Ptolemy's model of planetary motion -- an interesting and useful model, but unreflective of the way things actually work.
We will likely never know. It cannot be discounted however that the book has been immensely influential over the last 2500 years. But ultimately it doesn't matter if he was advocating it or not. It certainly is not perfect, but it is the simplest way that I can explain to someone the concept of an enlighted aristocracy of the wise. It is something that has influenced so many for so long. Countless leaders have thought of themselves as philospher kings, but none have really tried to impliment a system of succession.
But I do agree with you, it is no blueprint. But it really helps someone understand where I am coming from, even from a purely theoretical standpoint.
Slashdot Mirror
What happened to all the dreams back in the 1970's?
I think they were tempered by double digit inflation and interest rates, grafitti, and the overall destruction of our cities. Those were the dark days.
What exists on the Moon that cannot be found or created at a price tag magnitudes lower on the Earth?
Energy. Read the article. Vast numbers of solar panels on the moon can collect solar energy and then it can be transferred to earth via microwaves. The cost will be cheaper and less hazerdous than using nuclear power, which is the only real alternative for the future. Fossil fuels are an impossibility, there are no more rivers fo hydroelectric, and windmills... welp I dunno.
but I do not see how going there will improve anything other than our nationalism.
And that is bad how? The American people are desperate for a cause greater than immediate gratification and mere existence. This could be a great outlet.
He is the ONLY candidate who has promised to withdraw from both NAFTA and WTO and re-establish national priorities of labor and full employment.
Unfortunately, he doesn't establish national priorities regarding the vast influx of alien peoples in the US. Nationalist priorities for trade is great, but simultaneously advocating policies which diminish the unity of your nation is the worst kind of hypocricy.
He is nothing more than an internationalist drone who understands the value of nationalist economic policies, but fails to understand exactly what a nation is. These people are the most dangerous, because their only goal is full employment to keep the masses happy. They still aim to fracture a people through cosmopolitanism. Without unity, we cannot rebel.
What I see in that man is the last ditch attempt by Internationalists to appease what is left of the American society, but it won't be enough. People are realizing that the loss of jobs is just the more immediate effect of this global conspiracy of ethnic cleansing. Who cares if you have a job if your entire way of life and your people are erased from the earth?
Ahh, the future... I can't wait. I get to simply exist. Whoopie!
Actually, I think this goes back to Rome. All the people need is bread and games.
Bread is more important, as the opioid peptides it contains induces contentment. Mindless entertainment is sort of secondary. Staring at the wall endlessly wouldn't be possible until intravenous injection of opium derivatives was invented.
As far as the political commentary... How is O'Reilly any worse than Dan Rather or Peter Jennings? I would be more worried about people watching soap operas and reality TV. You may not agree with O'reilly, but at least he discussing real, meaningful issues.
Where are they going to get the money to do that? To support their art? You're saying they should just try and do that by themselves.
Yes, I say that.
I know people who have taken out mortgages to buy $200,000 violins, people who really are professional musicians with college degrees in music and a lifetime of experience. In fact, I don't know of any real professional musician who doesn't purchase their instruments themselves.
Nothing a rock musician uses comes close to the cost of a quality instrument used in an orchestra. Some of these instruments were made by masters dead for centuries now.
I understand the average rock musician thinks $2000 for an instrument is a lot of money, but it really isn't, not when its your entire life you're talking about. But the average rocker really has only been playing for a couple years at the most, whereas the man buying a $200,000 violin has been playing decades.
Pop music has enormous expenses, but that is only because of the work necessary to make the music popular. The instruments are so mass produced that they are cheap, the recording equipment can be rented. The fidelity of the sound is so distorted by technology, intricate details of classic workmanship is irrlevant.
my bad. 8080, 8086...
The Game Boy Color is Z80 based.
Your knowledge of processors is impressive, but that is an X86 processor if I ever saw one. Maybe its a very OLD X86 processor... but it still is one none the less...
Every time corporations spend more money someone, somewhere along the line has a job and more jobs are being created.
Do you think just because you make a statement, we are to immediately believe it?
Wake up! It isn't happening! It won't happen!
Supply and demand works for people too. In time, human labor will be irrelevant for production. This is the inevitable result of technological progress. Now, you may want to believe there is something else over the rainbow, some new work that revolutionizes work... go for it.
But with every new advancement, we are driven a little further away from the basics of living, having a house, raising a family, and enjoying life. So what if it takes an army to power the next virtual reality world which will take the world by storm. It doesn't mean its a good idea!
There are too many people on this planet, and far more than are necessary to do any kind of work, now or in the future. We can either redefine how wealth is created and distributed, or allow supply and demand to take its course.
Internationalism has been an abject failure for the western world. We have witnessed the near total destruction of our way of life in a mere half century and it is progressing faster than anyone can believe. We must make haste if we are going to give a future to our children.
Is your self esteem so poor that you must resort to correcting people's spelling of an archaic and illogical language?
At least in your own head you ar far better than the rest of us... Enjoy it.
Auditors?
I agree with your general sentiment, but I thought it would be benficial to mention Arthur Andersen, what was once the premier auditor in this country.
Chicago suffered greatly because that company disappeared. An entire subculture was erased. I think it is for the better, but it was bad.
Lincoln Park rents definitely declined because of it...
And I beleive that this system should base meritocrocy entirly on speling. Oh, wait...
not everyone speaks english as a first language...
China, unfortunately, is very vulnerable to nuclear weapons as the vast majority of their population is concenrated in the coastal regions.
The US has more than enough weapons to eradicate all life from these regions, resulting in 90% casualties in China.
China however, probably lacks enough weapons to lay waste to anything but our large urban areas. That would be bad, but we could recover.
If somehow, a defensive weapon is made which prevents nuclear weapons from functioning... Then you are probably right. China has a much larger army than the US could ever raise.
It would certainly be an elegent way to deal with our population troubles though wouldn't it?
I thought that was the best part of my post...
And, you never had even a tiny bit of distant appreciation for the Klingons? Not a Star Trek fan?
As a matter of fact, this is a subject I have thought about quite a bit lately... although I always took the "king" part a bit more metaphorically (-:
Well, you probably should. I think leader is a better term, as the best system would have multiple leaders, and not necessarily exclude women.
But lets discuss thie Hitler quote...
First, I think it is important to understand some things about National Socialism and Hitler. The word Aryan is actually an indo-european word, and is not racial in origin. It basically means "noble people". Another spelling is Iran, which is of course the modern name for Persia. The word is pretty much native to that region of the world.
The concept of Aryan people creating culture actually goes back to India, as their history seemed to indicate some great people came and developed a new culture. Germany never transformed a country, and Hitler never claimed it did. Much of Germany's history and culture has always been based on their conflict with Rome 2000 years ago, where they were the barbarians against the first European civilization.
Do I believe noble and magnanimous people create culture? that they are superior to the masses who are content with their life as it is at that moment? Yes, I do.
Do I believe this concept is necessarily racial or cultural? No.
Yah, I know, you aren't planning on eradicating an entire race of people. But you could. You'd have that power. Who could stop you?
No, but I do hope that the population of the world declines by about 50% in the next 100 years.
War does not happen because one man or even a hundred just wants to kill people. It is profoundly unwise to look at the world as being full of nutcases. Wars happen for a reason.
The big one over the history of humanity is food. Populations grow, they need more land, they fight with someone else. This is the #1 reason for all wars. The problem is unnatural reverence for life inevitably leads to war. It is a natural progression. When the population reaches a point which current technology cannot support from our land, some people will die. Its only a question of when or how. But, it is very difficult for people to accept that romantic feelings are the cause of war... it is the great dichotomy, the balance of nature. Two things, which seem so completely different are in fact quite related. If there was no romance, no procreation, there would be no war.
This is why the contrast between Aphrodite and Ares in antiquity was so popular.
Now as far as who would stop "me", I don't believe in internationalism as I have said... so war would be the result I suppose. That is the great thing about not wanting a one world government, there is always another power out there to stop you.
good ruler does not want the job, and thus in nearly any setup he won't get the job.
t hage
I don't agree. No one wants to see their society collapse, they want to further it. I also believe that teaching people to be noble leaders is very important. They may not be the leaders of the nation, but of their community, their sports team, their business. We have a need for noble leaders in so many places...
Also, rulers would chosen by a sort of council... so their wish to become leaders would be irrelevant.
This is how Western Democracies work, no one person has any significant amount of power without requiring the assent or cooperation of a few dozen or hundred other people.
Again, I don't agree. I think that democracy allows for the authority to rule to go into the hands of a few, those few who control the means by which to sway public opinion. Western democracies present false choices, which all lead to the same conclusion.
Public opinion is manufactured, it is not persuaded through rational discource. There are a handful of companies which control virtually all media enterprises in the US. Do you honestly think they will ever present an alternative viewpoint to the false dichotomy of republicans and democrats?
I will trust someone absolutely dedicated to his or her ideals long before I trust someone who panders to public opinion.
It's ignoring basic human nature.
No, I in fact revere nature. It is unnatural to believe all men are equal or that all men should have an equal voice in government. It is unnatural to believe all men should be guaranteed a certain life free of suffering without conditions of any sort. It is unnatural to allow the endless reproduction of the human race.
If you believe men are monsters, then nothing I say will convince you otherwise. By I submit that the ideals presented in western democracies and communist governments are corrupt, inhuman, and destructive to our legacy of civilization.
Further, I believe this corruption inevitably leads to war. Unrestricted population growth will lead to war, and the forced homoginization of internationalism will cause even more violent resistence throughout the world.
Can you name one long-term success of your system? Can you name a dozen?
Spain
Chile
Argentina
Sparta
Rome
Florence
Venice
China, outside the communist years
Japan
Assyria
Egypt
Persia
Israel
Car
Minoa
and of course,
Germany
The list goes on. The question you should ask yourself is this: Would human beings have transcended their hunter gatherer life style if democracy was the rule in those primitive tribes?
I submit that democracy has been nothing but a failure, and that our culture and our humanity is slipping away at a rapid rate.
On a basic level, everything good for life is addictive. Eating, fucking, socializing, even killing. I would suggest reading the Hedonistic Imperative for more discussion about the physiology of addiction and how it regulates behavior.
This is really pretty standard stuff. I think perhaps you are confusing "good for life" with the general good. When I say good for life, I mean it keeps you alive (within the context of our evolution as communal predators) and allows you to procreate.
I apologize for not making that clear, but as I said this is psych 101 stuff. The physiology of addiction is pretty well understood these days.
I am curious however, what did you have in mind that was pleasurable but not addictive?
However, the fact that most manifestations of fascism (in the generic sense) in the interwar era did obsess on anti-Semitism or other exclusionist ideologies demands explanation.
No it doesn't. The Jews have provoked the mistrust and resentment of every host nation they have occupied over the last 2000 years since Jurusalem was destroyed in the early days of the Roman Empire. A more useful question would be why have the Jews been unable to live in peace with their neighbors in the entire history of their religion?
Truly, having been persecuted by every advanced culture since the first Olympic games were held is an impressive feat. That was nearly 3000 years ago.
We can attempt to psychoanalyze the fascist governments, but that really only makes sense if their actions were abnormal. Given the history of Jews in regards to being persecuted, as well as the entire identity of the religion being dependent upon this persecution, I think it makes more sense to examine the Jews. We are fast approaching 3000 years of Jews incurring the wrath of our neighbors. I think that is is enough.
Not to excuse the American treatment of the "indians". But the concept of a nation-state didn't exist in their culture, so it was pretty hard for america to "conquer" them in the same way that germany did to poland. It doesn't make it right, but it does make it different, and thus not a good justification of your argument.
I don't really see how. Americans wanted to settle in land occupied by Indians. These Indians did not want to leave, so the Americans made them. Germany didn't even get that far with Poland. Is the difference Poles were white? Had relatively modern weapons?
What about the Iroquois Nation?
The nation state is nothing but a more advanced tribe. When the Romans were fighting to expand the empire beyond the Rhine into German lands, was that not a real war? So what there was no German state... fighting took place over land, and people died.
Of course, if I agreed with you I could simply replace what I said with the Mexican American War of 1846, or the Spanish American War of 1898. In both instances, the US was clearly the aggressor and both countries lost territory. Mexico lost 1/3 of its territory. I cannot see any difference between the Mexican/American conflict and the German/Polish conflict.
then why are palestinians still kept in camps? why is Israel building a wall to seperate them from the rest of the Israel.
You're insane. Germany did not start the war out of a desire to unify the country, Germany started the war because its leader was totally fucking nuts, and he wanted to conquer the world
Great Britain directly controlled over 1/3 of the world in 1939, Germany controlled a country not much bigger than Texas. How precisely was Germany going to conquer the world? Why would they want to conquer the world? Why did they enlist so many people from non-german countries if that was their goal? The Waffen-SS was majority non-german by 1944.
Great Britain and France declared war on Germany because Germany attacked and conquered Poland, a peaceful neighbor that can't be considered a part of a "unified Germany" in any way that makes sense.
Poland was hardly a peaceful neighbor throughout history. Poland is also a very new country. Germany was conquering the parts of Poland which seperated Prussia, and areas which had been ethnically German since the 800's at least. I really don't see any difference between Jews wanting Israel and Germans wanting Prussia. That is their homeland. It makes sense they would want it. Further, even territorial expansionism is not unique to Fascism. All cultures strive to expand. Lets say Poland never was part of Germany when it in fact was. It would still have been pretty normal for Germany to expand. That is all America did with the Indians. Every culture at some point in the past, has attempted to enlarge its borders at the expense of a neighbor. That has nothing to do with fascism per se.
And Germany is not the only example, there's Italy, Japan, Spain, and a host of other minor Fascist nations. The net result has generally been a tremendous amount of destruction and death, and in most cases the near-total annihilation of the Fascist country. It's not just one example, it's every example of Fascism. This is not something that can be said of "modern liberalism".
Lets see. Great Britain, they never attempted to conquer other countries. France? no way. the US? Those Indians weren't people. Israel? muslims aren't people.
Why don't you try and find a country that hasn't attempted to conquer another.
And as far as near-total annihilation, It just happens that international finance arose at the same time as modern weapons. And, you will notice the Fascist countries did not always lay waste to the countries they were fighting. Paris and London seem in pretty good shape to me, compared to Berlin. Japan got nuked. Maybe fascist countries were fighting exceptionally ruthless enemies who killed more civilians than all previous wars in the history of mankind.
Forget about the suffering; how can a philosophy that has always lead its followers to utter self-destruction be the path to enlightenment?
Who said anything about enlightenment? I ain't no buddhist. Why don't you read that quote again.
Here's another one:
"To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities - I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not - that one endures."
Suffering is as necessary for a human as water is for a fish. Without it, our life ceases to be a human life.
I'm interested to know whether you aspire to be one yourself?
Sure, and I hope you do as well. I think the best way to make such a system work would be for everyone in the society to strive to be such a Philosopher King. I would envision some sort of organization which would ultimately choose the ruling body... I haven't given it a great deal of thought.. Sort of a Knights of the Round Table, or even the Ephors in Sparta.
I also think that I would consider someone who does not strive to that level of greatness to possess a character flaw of sorts. There are certainly differences in people, not everyone will attain that level. There is no excuse not to try however.
Also, by the way, I took a peak at your page and noticed your trip to Israel. All I want is a country like Israel. A small state, which furthers its own culture and actively engages in regular combat. Israel is a perfect example of fascism in action. It is hardly a democracy, it excludes non-jews from citizenship, military service is mandatory, there are laws which regulate cultural norms... In a mere 50 years they completely resurrected a state defeated nearly 2000 years ago by a long dead empire. Thats what I call cultural renewel!
If Jews can have such a state, so can I. Why are they the only country on earth which is allowed to maintain and further its own culture to the exclusion of all others? I know that I am not one of G-d's chosen people, but...
Likewise, Fascists who ignore the fact that the most horrible war and many of the most horrible events in human history were directly caused by Fascism and Fascist beliefs are basically holding their hands over their ears while screaming "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
It is not as simple as that unfortunately. Of course, you probably don't care too much about the beginnings of World War II. The desire of Germany to unify its country is nothing unusual or surprising, and more importantly had nothing to do with fascism. Whether or not that was a valid reason for Great Britain and France to declare on Germany is irrelevant to this discussion. Are we to suggest modern liberalism is inherently corrupt because Napolean was a war monger? No of course not.
I submit the war was in fact about internationalism versus nationalism, or as we call it today globalism versus anti-globalism. You are kidding yourself if you think that battle ended with Germany's surrender on April 19, 1945. In fact, I would say the battle is going on very much as we speak...
Your beliefs don't match. Your principles don't result in your desired product of a utopia, they result in megadeaths and extreme suffering.
Correction, my beliefs don't match your conception of life. I don't think you and I look at life in quite the same way. Here is a favorite Nietzsche quote of mine:
"You want, if possible - and there is no more insane "if possible" - to abolish suffering. And we? It really seems that we would rather have it higher and worse than ever. Well-being as you understand it - that is no goal, that seems to us an end, a state that soon makes man ridiculous and contemptible - that makes his destruction desirable. The discipline of suffering, of great suffering - do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far?"
No, I think there is not ENOUGH suffering in this world.
You do realize that Plato didn't really believe in his own model, don't you?
I know of quite a few respectable philosphy professors who would say The Republic is the only real book by Plato and that Socrates likely didn't discuss such ideas. The argument is a strong one. If he did, that alone would have been grounds for executing him.
In The Republic, he showed that in order to achieve such a system, you'd have to engage in a massive and utterly unrealistic regime of social engineering.
If anything, that was the most realistic thing he discussed. He was after all copying it from Sparta which used it extensively. Honestly, I don't think what Plato was proposing was that radically different from our current educational system in terms of the regime. So eugenics is out of favor, but social engineering sure isn't.
It's an interesting model to discuss, but I didn't get the impression he was actually advocating for it. I got the impression it was more like Ptolemy's model of planetary motion -- an interesting and useful model, but unreflective of the way things actually work.
We will likely never know. It cannot be discounted however that the book has been immensely influential over the last 2500 years. But ultimately it doesn't matter if he was advocating it or not. It certainly is not perfect, but it is the simplest way that I can explain to someone the concept of an enlighted aristocracy of the wise. It is something that has influenced so many for so long. Countless leaders have thought of themselves as philospher kings, but none have really tried to impliment a system of succession.
But I do agree with you, it is no blueprint. But it really helps someone understand where I am coming from, even from a purely theoretical standpoint.