Hey, we want to be part of the hate!

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 02:14
VIEWED: 18566
PAGE 11 of 23

PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:00 PM

Quote:
The only thing I do vehemently disagree with is the tendency to assume that such ambitions MUST exist or would inevitably result, or that there is an undeinable connection between mass murder or child labor and socialism. Socialism is a utopian system but it is not an inherently evil system.

Ah, the snark which started the fire. I think y'all missed my point. This is an accountability free zone. Ergo, to post something outrageous. Hence my snark on socialism. I did it because I assumed everyone else would be too chicken to. A whole bunch of threads are filled with people biases against groups or ideologies, etc. coming in and they starting a totally wasteful firefight.

Obviouse, socialism can work. Most people make the mistake of defending socialism by using Sweden or some other capitalism democracy that's not really particularly socialist, or really working all that well, relative to its own history, and surrounding neighbors. Sweden's only actual socialism was the defacto national socialism of its pseudo neutrality in wwii.

Cuba would be a much better example for the defense. Someone could argue that cuba demographically is the same as the dominican republic, and yet is run quite well as an *actual* socialist state.

But let me say something about good and evil. Evil is created by good. If you don't define good, then there is not evil. If you define good, then it's opposition is evil, by definition. This being the real opposition, not just anything which happens to be not you, but anyone who opposes you, Al Qaeda say.

Now, if your good as a utopian vision which must be fulfilled, eventually, the true devotee of the utopian would be to force its fulfillment by whatever means necessary. If the end result is automatically superior, or superior to the extreme, indeed essential, possibly a very pre-requisite for the survival of the human race, then that justifies any means to achieve that end.

Which brings us where we are today. Anyone who has scratched the surface knowns that what drove Bush and Clinton was most certainly not Bush and Clinton, they were part of a Machiavellian game. Bushes and Clintons are inherently corrupt, and therefore willing to enact any policy that their advisors see fit, as long as they get their cut, without considering the effects on anyone else, or on that which they are sworn to uphold, should it, in this case, happen to be a fundamentally opposing ideology.

The advisors of the Bushes and Clintons who set policy are avowed socialists, and we all know this is not a conspiracy, they've said so countless times. They've stopped saying it because the word has finally taken on the negative tint that it earned during WWII. But read back, and all of the Perles and Brezinkskys that hide in the shadows are socialists. Not, lightly, but quite affirmedly.

This is where globalism comes from, the natural outgrowth of an agenda of social equality which was carried to its natural conclusion by Trotsky to world revolution being essential for the existence of such equality, which is precisely what the neocons, neolibs, are after. An end to conflict, and egalitarian world, they are the pillars of good. They don't sit in their halls discussing Mwahahahahah, we're so evil, let's see how much we can do for Satan today, au contraire, they see themselves as good. Good Socialists, carrying out the absolutely essential agenda to save mankind from itself.

Sure, part of the problem with such an ideology is that, like many, but more than most, it creates a very large prize, and that is bound to attract some bad apples who are actually in it for the evil, and think "well, if this requires such unchecked authority, it would be fun to dismember children." But for the most part, the larger share of the evil comes from the desire to do good. Torture policies were written up by people who did not see themselves as evil, but as good, and that this was a necessary part of their agenda. I don't know if they believed this would yield them better information, but they knew it would foster an

JADEHAND

Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

But, for a reference point, it's been 20 years since the Cure song "Killing an Arab." It's not new.

Actually, it's been 28 years. The Album "Boys Don't Cry" was released in 1980. Also, I hope you aren't implying that "Killing an Arab" is a racist song. It's not. It was inspired by Albert Camus' book The Stranger (also known as The Outsider). The book deals with existentialism, and the title "Killing An Arab" was taken from a passage where the main character thinks about the emptiness of life after killing a man on a beach. It is about someone who has killed an Arab on a beach and is thinking about it in retrospect, observing the body.
So kinda the opposite of what just reading the title may make you think.

I'm sorry you feel you were attacked by members of this board. I try to avoid RWED because most threads here end up descending into name calling and reciting made up "facts". Surprisingly, the "side" that goes there first is about a 50/50 split from what I've seen, which admittedly isn't everything.

If only more people followed the wisdom of Mal. "I've given some thought to moving off of the edge. I'm thinking somewhere in the middle."

I only started reading here, 'cause I wanted to be part of the hate......

Be well.

"I've looked into a million laughing unhappinesses. In every bar and on the TV. But I know the real thing. I can remember. I can almost tell you how it is." - Trap the Spark - Happiness is the Road - Marillion
"Our forefathers died for the pursuit of happiness, not the sit around and wait for happiness." -Barney -HIMYM

JADEHAND

Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

The very definition of gullibility is not believing facts which conflict with your worldview, while chug-a-lugging whatever wacky kool-aid does regardless of it's validity.

The wonderful edge of folks like that around here is that by their actions, and their idiocy, it allows easy discrediting of their entire position and anyone who holds it, if I didn't know better I'd say they were strawman carriers workin for the other side - but alas, they actually believe this shit, or believe in the agenda behind it, which'd be hi-larious if it weren't so pathetic.

Sadly, I honestly can't tell if you're talking about the far Left or the far Right, because you've managed to accurately describe both.

"I've looked into a million laughing unhappinesses. In every bar and on the TV. But I know the real thing. I can remember. I can almost tell you how it is." - Trap the Spark - Happiness is the Road - Marillion
"Our forefathers died for the pursuit of happiness, not the sit around and wait for happiness." -Barney -HIMYM

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:23 PM

I have it on mp3, never assumed it was a racist song. But people choose topics for a particular reason (vampires have been in vogue ever since aids struck. That's no coincidence, why do you think Bram Stoker wrote Dracula?) But this is a recurring theme, to draw from the past to address the situation of the day.

The indifference to killing an arab in particular I always thought was a reflection of the actions of the time. Middle east conflict has already flared up again with a little help from our friends. I think the choice was social commentary, all I'm saying.

Thanks for joining the hate. I think that no one on this thread has yet commented that it is also a quote of course.

RUE

Thursday, January 15, 2009 4:34 PM

Just a quick post:

Any ideologically-driven system can be considered utopian, not just 'socialism'. Capitalism - you get people competing to make and sell ever better, more inventive and cheaper 'stuff', which leads to a consumer's economic paradise, or as the Chinese used to say 'pigs in heaven'. Right ? Social Darwinism - you get people competing economically which leads to the weak dying off and improvement of 'the race'. Right ?

All of these ideologies seek to define some essential good that comes out of them, making their outcomes a utopia.

So, DT, according to your theory, anyone who subscribes to a utopian scheme - and that includes GHWBush and GWBush, Cheney, Friedman (either Thomas or Milton) - could be accused of being a potential jihadist for their particular brand of ideal.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, January 15, 2009 5:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
The only thing I do vehemently disagree with is the tendency to assume that such ambitions MUST exist or would inevitably result, or that there is an undeinable connection between mass murder or child labor and socialism. Socialism is a utopian system but it is not an inherently evil system.

Ah, the snark which started the fire. I think y'all missed my point.

Ah, I see. I thought this was going to be snark-free hate. *biggrin*

Quote:

But let me say something about good and evil. Evil is created by good. If you don't define good, then there is not evil. If you define good, then it's opposition is evil, by definition. This being the real opposition, not just anything which happens to be not you, but anyone who opposes you, Al Qaeda say.

I'll disagree with this. :)

There is no evil. I am fully capable of defining good without defining "evil". I can identify undesireable, angering, incomprehensible, sad, horrifying, disappointing and disgusting... but not evil.

Evil is a Very Lazy Concept. I think I posted abou my relationship with this word in my earlier hate-contribution.

CAUSAL

Thursday, January 15, 2009 5:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

I have quit posting, hell I have quit reading most of the threads for the same reason.

Me, too.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

CHRISISALL

Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Ah, I see. I thought this was going to be snark-free hate. *biggrin*

BWAHAHAHAHAH!

Quote:

Evil is a Very Lazy Concept.

But it works for Star Wars & Harry Potter.

Real life... not so much.

The evil Chrisisall

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:50 PM

Kathy,

give me some credit for having a brain, please.

I only assign the term socialist to those who assign it to themselves. Obviously there are other utopian visions.

Neoconservatism, as defined by its founder, Irving Kristol:

"A Neoconservative is just a socialist who was blindsided by reality"

My mention of Joe Macarthy the other day, saying I live in fear of the day when Americans wake up to to find their country run by the followers of Max Shachtman and his Trotsky Communism, or words to that effect.

Those are there words. Irving Kristol and Max Shachtman, along with Allen Bloom, Leo Strauss, these are the *icons* of the globalist neocon/neolib academic thinktank community. The people who have advised the last four presidents, or more, with ever increasing numbers, have been direct disciples of these very same self proclaimed leaders of American Socialism. It's not a random label stuck on someone. These are guy who shouted "we are the American socialist movement" from the rooftops, and did it for decades. They come from the American Communist Party, the Socialist Workers party, the democratic socialist caucus, the social dems, and the neoconservatives, self defined as "Socialists who are not conservatives, but who support the conservative movement."

Sorry for the rant, but these are hard cold facts. This isn't labelling, and it's not conspiracy, I'm calling them exactly what they call themselves. Hell, they're proud to call themselves that. Let's throw in Tony Blair, neocon, globalist, and created of "New Labour."

Now, if you want to label them something else, go right ahead. It might be perfectly fair to call them corporatists. As I think it was Strauss, put it, why build up a govt. agency to control the social affairs when you might lose an election and find that agency controlled by someone else? Wouldn't it be better to privatize it as a corporation and thus always maintain control?

Hence we have Halliburton and Blackwater, whathaveyou, but there was no change in goal here, only a minor tactical shift. I don't entirely agree with Finn's definition, this is not about how much of it is controlled by govt per se, but how much is controlled, vs. what is laissez faire. The socialist govts. of Europe in WWII were well intermingled in govt. and corporate affairs, as is our own govt. which is sliding into socialism. It's not soviet socialism, it's corporatism of some sort, sure, but it's merely one permutation of the idea.

The notion that "corporate america" has taken over govt. is absurd. Take a look at corporate america. It's in the tank. If it were controlling govt. which has spend 25 trillion or so over the Bush presidency, then they would be swimming in cash. No, it's a handful of corporations, mostly constructed through some govt. relationship, like the ones I mentioned, or married to the govt. like the banks of the federal reserve, or, and this is the furthest removed, the pharmaceutical companies who now get the majority of their revenue from the govt, and almost all of the rest from the insurance industry, and not from consumers, this is hardly a laissez faire economic system.

Sorry for ranting, but I do know what I'm talking about. You are painting it as if the redneck is just throwing labels at anything he doesn't understand, as if I picked up any anti american group and called it Al Qaeda. If I recall at some point someone called Bin Laden a socialist. Now *that* was an absurd statement, and it was definitely not me.

Now, if it happens that you don't see it, perhaps you're not looking. It's right in front of us, with almost no disguise at all, and rewinds to the 50s 60s and 70s, they didn't disguise it, they heralded it from every street corner. Hence, the watergate revolution, the leading american socialists cornering their entry into govt.

Now, sure, you can be a socialist, and not like *these* socialists, Chavez is a socialist, and a pig and a moron, but he doesn't like our back room Rahms and Karls. Castro is a pretty decent socialist leader, and he hates these gu

RUE

Thursday, January 15, 2009 8:43 PM

DT

"Dyed in the wool socialists, and self proclaimed ..."

But - when they themselves realized the old labels didn't fit anymore, and gave themselves new labels, you didn't go with the new self-proclaimed ones.

Granted, people sometimes make up new names to confuse others about the same old things: torture becomes 'enhanced interrogation' or 'alternate procedures', prisoner of war becomes 'enemy combatant', increasing pollution becomes the Clear Skies Act, clear cutting trees becomes 'healthy forests' ... well, I know you get the idea.

But new words and names are also used to draw important distinctions. That's why we use ant, pinhole, paint spot, and pebble to distinguish between 'small dark things'.

I think, historically, the Neo-Cons changed from what they used to be to what they are now - which is why they have a different name from what they used to have to what they have now.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE