Page 32 of 32

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Posted: 10 Nov 2017 19:29
by Summerlander
Global socialism would solve the problem of labour and wealth distribution. This would be done with the aid of factual information---as Marxism originally intended---rather than sovereign propaganda. The theory is near perfect by itself, if not too idealist within a framework where, ultimately, society (the whole entity) comes first and the citizen second. The citizen comes second because it is assumed that once the social cogwheels are in motion, the communist terminus ad quem will evenhandedly make individuals valued and indispensable to the nation. A functional society then becomes our sole purpose.

The problem, as inferred, is that Marxist strategics only tell us what should be done to reach a classless society. It seems to assume that the socialist struggle will eradicate human greed by subverting capitalist systems. The economical equation, as it were, rightly demonstrates that capitalism is labile ground for the promised revolution, but ignores the resentment felt by dispossessed nobility and gentry---besides the insatiable dictator at heart!

Deutschland has always had a ruling imago in mind and any candidate who didn't fit its jingoistic criteria stood little chance. Adolf Hitler was well aware of this when his party deposed the Weimar Republic. He convinced the public that they had been victimised and stressed the need for ultra-nationalism. To a great extent, he was the ideal personification of the vox populi when Germany was down. That's how the führer exercised his charismatic persuasion from the offset. And he knew he had to deliver in order to render a whole nation beholden to his caprice. So the people would be emotionally tied: The Fuhrer helped us; he knows where we're coming from; his propositions must always be right; we owe him allegiance and must accomodate his beliefs; he's a godsend and his word is ample proof about who the enemy is. (And so it came to be that the blood libel against Jewry---which festered amongst Christian zealots prior to the Vatican's Second Council---along with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion canard, were taught as logical facts to German children.)

The difference between terrorists and dictators is that the former want to obtain fast results through fear and violence whereas the latter insidiously take advantage of the status quo. Nonetheless, morality is a useful concept which---in assuming everybody can be reasonable while acknowledging egoist clashes---panders to our wish for safety, wellbeing, mutual respect and dignity. So, nothwithstanding the objective nonexistence of universal ethics, a deontological ideal is still required to uplift justified mores in the community. Ultimately, the need for control is anthropically nascent and tied to the natural drive for survival.

Morality is a feature of human psychology and an ideal that still requires exploration and refinement on a scientific as well as philosophical level. We have hedonic propositions that recommend the immediate quenching of desires; we have utilitarian alternatives than can seem ethically counterintuitive short-term albeit beneficial to a majority in the long run. The literature on the subject is rich and progressive---ranging from Confucianism, to the ethics of Spinoza, Kant, Russell, and finally arriving at contemporary musings by the likes of Grayling, Harris and others in the realm of secular humanism.

Needless to say, religious scripture is outdated on the matter. The use of religion and the reasons behind it in humankind's infancy is allusively illustrated by the Ricky Gervais movie The Invention of Lying. This poignant comedy depicts examples of how religion and superstition are tools for control and comfort when reality is too painful to bear for the unprepared mind and fear of chaos is perpetual. You fear annihilation? No problem. There's an afterlife; you are immortal. Are you unhappy? Heaven awaits you provided that you follow certain rules of conduct in this life. Having an existential crisis? The Big Man in the sky made you for a divine purpose incomprehensible to all. This Guy is better Hitler! You have to love and fear Him. He is responsible for the good, the bad and the ugly. The lord does whatever the fuck He wants and you have to venerate Him because He knows everything and is the be all and end all. Everywhere and nowhere. The perfect dictator with an indisputable totalitarian recipe.

In atheistic circles, it is said that women have a higher proclivity for such beliefs (or that their wishful thinking is stronger), but religion is undoubtedly man-made! In scripture and gospel, women are utterly exploited by men: from a nefarious and egocentric male desire to silence, inculpate and objectify the opposite gender. Adam, it seems, is the real culprit for having attempted to dissuade Eve from the Tree of Knowledge. Men, we once were led to believe, aspire to the summum bonum and therefore could never reach a depth of psychopathy whereby profound lies are told. Women have always tried very hard to see the putative sanctity of manhood which was, after all, made in the image of the Creator.

It is no wonder that wives tend to penalise mistresses more than their two-timing husbands. It is a wonder, however, how feminists have not rebelled against the main offender in the Levant and the world beyond! I still chortle when I recall this excerpt from Gervais's satirical fantasy: 'The world's gonna end unless we have sex right now!' How many men would use this line in a world where every statement is taken to be true? :mrgreen:

Yes, an alien invasion would bring us closer together ... :geek:

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Posted: 21 Nov 2017 15:25
by LoneDreamer
Summerlander wrote:Global socialism would solve the problem of labour and wealth distribution. This would be done with the aid of factual information---as Marxism originally intended---rather than sovereign propaganda. The theory is near perfect by itself, if not too idealist within a framework where, ultimately, society (the whole entity) comes first and the citizen second. The citizen comes second because it is assumed that once the social cogwheels are in motion, the communist terminus ad quem will evenhandedly make individuals valued and indispensable to the nation. A functional society then becomes our sole purpose.

The problem, as inferred, is that Marxist strategics only tell us what should be done to reach a classless society. It seems to assume that the socialist struggle will eradicate human greed by subverting capitalist systems. The economical equation, as it were, rightly demonstrates that capitalism is labile ground for the promised revolution, but ignores the resentment felt by dispossessed nobility and gentry---besides the insatiable dictator at heart!

Deutschland has always had a ruling imago in mind and any candidate who didn't fit its jingoistic criteria stood little chance. Adolf Hitler was well aware of this when his party deposed the Weimar Republic. He convinced the public that they had been victimised and stressed the need for ultra-nationalism. To a great extent, he was the ideal personification of the vox populi when Germany was down. That's how the führer exercised his charismatic persuasion from the offset. And he knew he had to deliver in order to render a whole nation beholden to his caprice. So the people would be emotionally tied: The Fuhrer helped us; he knows where we're coming from; his propositions must always be right; we owe him allegiance and must accomodate his beliefs; he's a godsend and his word is ample proof about who the enemy is. (And so it came to be that the blood libel against Jewry---which festered amongst Christian zealots prior to the Vatican's Second Council---along with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion canard, were taught as logical facts to German children.)

The difference between terrorists and dictators is that the former want to obtain fast results through fear and violence whereas the latter insidiously take advantage of the status quo. Nonetheless, morality is a useful concept which---in assuming everybody can be reasonable while acknowledging egoist clashes---panders to our wish for safety, wellbeing, mutual respect and dignity. So, nothwithstanding the objective nonexistence of universal ethics, a deontological ideal is still required to uplift justified mores in the community. Ultimately, the need for control is anthropically nascent and tied to the natural drive for survival.

Morality is a feature of human psychology and an ideal that still requires exploration and refinement on a scientific as well as philosophical level. We have hedonic propositions that recommend the immediate quenching of desires; we have utilitarian alternatives than can seem ethically counterintuitive short-term albeit beneficial to a majority in the long run. The literature on the subject is rich and progressive---ranging from Confucianism, to the ethics of Spinoza, Kant, Russell, and finally arriving at contemporary musings by the likes of Grayling, Harris and others in the realm of secular humanism.

Needless to say, religious scripture is outdated on the matter. The use of religion and the reasons behind it in humankind's infancy is allusively illustrated by the Ricky Gervais movie The Invention of Lying. This poignant comedy depicts examples of how religion and superstition are tools for control and comfort when reality is too painful to bear for the unprepared mind and fear of chaos is perpetual. You fear annihilation? No problem. There's an afterlife; you are immortal. Are you unhappy? Heaven awaits you provided that you follow certain rules of conduct in this life. Having an existential crisis? The Big Man in the sky made you for a divine purpose incomprehensible to all. This Guy is better Hitler! You have to love and fear Him. He is responsible for the good, the bad and the ugly. The lord does whatever the fuck He wants and you have to venerate Him because He knows everything and is the be all and end all. Everywhere and nowhere. The perfect dictator with an indisputable totalitarian recipe.

In atheistic circles, it is said that women have a higher proclivity for such beliefs (or that their wishful thinking is stronger), but religion is undoubtedly man-made! In scripture and gospel, women are utterly exploited by men: from a nefarious and egocentric male desire to silence, inculpate and objectify the opposite gender. Adam, it seems, is the real culprit for having attempted to dissuade Eve from the Tree of Knowledge. Men, we once were led to believe, aspire to the summum bonum and therefore could never reach a depth of psychopathy whereby profound lies are told. Women have always tried very hard to see the putative sanctity of manhood which was, after all, made in the image of the Creator.

It is no wonder that wives tend to penalise mistresses more than their two-timing husbands. It is a wonder, however, how feminists have not rebelled against the main offender in the Levant and the world beyond! I still chortle when I recall this excerpt from Gervais's satirical fantasy: 'The world's gonna end unless we have sex right now!' How many men would use this line in a world where every statement is taken to be true? :mrgreen:

Yes, an alien invasion would bring us closer together ... :geek:

What you said about Marxism is quite interesting, but I feel complete equality is impossible, considering that inequality is a part of life.

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Posted: 21 Nov 2017 16:01
by LoneDreamer
DreamerMan99 wrote:I like your points on Marxism Summerlander. I think many fail to realize how much social engineering and thought-policing goes on behind closed doors. Especially during the eras that communism was being to spread throughout eastern europe. The people in power in the US held their power through capitalism and democracy. They would go to whatever extent necessary to maintain their power, even if the current system wasn't the most beneficial to society. Am I trying to say that those iterations of communism caused a better quality of life than early 1900's USA? No, but I am trying to say, that those in power will go to any means necessary to maintain their power and influence, through the use of social engineering, propaganda, war and demonization of the conflicting ism.

Many of the previous iterations of communism have failed because they were spear headed by the wrong types, during revolutions where regions were unstable and people were unhappy enough to try anything, especially those that said to empower the lowest common denominator, the uneducated farmers and factory workers, the dirt poor. There living situation and quality of life was already so low under the previous rulers. It's similar to how Hitler rose to power. It was a nation that only knew dictatorships, they were broken economically and socially, people were angry and people wanted change. He was a man who knew how to take advantage of the destabilization. He too used socialism and nationalism as many of his talking points to gain admiration!

And you could argue, yes marxism it may just be against human nature. I believe it is. Greed is inherent in humanity, it's seen everywhere. Never has a society existed without materialistic greed or a desire for power over others. Someone is always willing to take advantage and rise to the top, whether it be maliciously or not. And the product of all that power behind one person often causes them to do whatever it takes to maintain that. Because morality doesn't exist, it all boils down to opinion, and when one person dictates what is wrong and right, acceptable and not, and good for that nation's people, then that is the truth. Government is always "right", because they write the laws, they engineer the next generation, they run the schools that teach history, and they are in charge of the police that hold physical power over you.

Personally, I don't see any system ever working forever. Nothing is ever "right" since morality and societal values are constantly changing. For the rest of human history, we will cycle through small periods of peace, then destabilization, then a long period of changes, then something new, and over and over again this will continue. Systems of control are not natural, they are something we have created. Humans were not meant to live in such complex societies peacefully it would seem. Even in ancient man and other primates, we see small communities were one of the few ways it worked. The most free humanity has ever been was when we were tribal, wandering nomads. But every iteration of social control is a decision over freedom, or safety.

However, at the same time, tribalism is one of the biggest separators of our society! Identity, religion, and culture are cancers to our world. left leaning against right leaning, Blacks against white, christian against muslim, muslim against jews, USA against mexico, sunni against shia, pakistan against india, even small cultural differences that cause hatred for eachother when the original perpetrators of that problem between the two groups are long since dead, but you still hate those other people because they happen to be the same color as them. When we learn to abandon this and see others as simply human, I think a lot will change for our world.

The only way I could imagine this happening is authoritarian powers trying to kill off religion, ideology and culture, resulting in a dystopian society, or a serious threat to the planet that we all come together on. Maybe if aliens invaded, we could use tribalism to our advantage, and seperate into Earthlings and invaders, and finally have something to come together on. :lol:

You are right about freedom and tribalism. To have a stable civilization, some amount of control is required. But it is more successful than tribalism. Almost all of our progress happened through civilizations. Absolute freedom is not possible with humans, it will result in destabilization and destruction of all our intellectual progress as a species. We had absolute freedom when we were cavemen, but had we stayed like that we would have had not makes much progress. Regarding your opinion on religion, hatred and stuff. Your idea wouldn't work always, for example regarding india and Pakistan, Pakistan was created because Muslims of india thought that they were too sIferior to Hindus. Most Pakistanis still have that inborn hatred for india and Hindus as well. You can't expect them to have peace talks, the only thing that can be done is fight back. There are places where this won't work, sometimes violence is the only option. If unnecessary peace talks are done, it will result in aggressors completely overpowering you, like we can see in Europe being taken over by jihadis. This kind of thing is inevitable because humans are selfish, and when we tolerate more than necessary and think about unnecessary peace, it will only result in you being exploited by the aggressor and will end you. This idea of a cosmopolitan world is currently impossible. As humans are unwilling to give up their regional identities and even if it happens, it will further result in the exploitation of the weak. This innate nature to separate is always present in humans. Only way humans can unite is in case of extraterrestrial attack. Even then I feel the truce will be temporary, because once the danger is gone, we will start fighting again. All this is just my opinion though. :)

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Posted: 23 Nov 2017 02:24
by Summerlander
I feel you. 8-)

You guys made some interesting points. It reminds me of why I like these deep discussions; there is a lot to think, explore and talk about. We definitely established that Marxism, although ideal, isn't congruous with humankind's present state. The Soviet Union certainly gave socialism a bad name. Trotsky's day was unfortunately brief thanks to Stalin and the existent communism barely sets an example in a world where what seems to be profoundly appealling to our egotistic, motivation-seeking species is capitalism, greed and vanity.

The world has too many competing ideologies---many laced with noxious superstition and wishful thinking---because we are different on so many levels; we essentially differ in genome, background, upbringing, interests and, well ... image. But there is one absolute thing that we all share: sentience.

That should be enough for us to respect one another because we are all capable of suffering; we are naturally set to wither and die so why not make our time valuable together, right? We need science and common sense to pave the way to progress. We need philosophy and ethics. We can't give up. :geek:

Surviving an alien invasion would definitely change the world in one sense: it would be a pretty historical moment of great significance which would still be interpreted in a myriad ways and you can bet your bottom dollar that religion would try to match the event to a scriptural scene, thus suiting their needs.

Many of us wouldn't admit to being wrong and accusations of being incapable of seeing the 'signs' would fly high ... How can we come to a consensus? By heeding the truth about the world. Reason. :idea:

But we can't give up. We must never stop striving in the name of progress. How many of you think humanity is worth saving? :|