Authoritarian LEADERS/Social Dominants/Both (Now with Colors and Fonts!)
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Sunday, April 6, 2025 22:29
VIEWED: 4611
PAGE 5 of 7
Not just mental health care, but drug addiction and abuse should be folded in too, and treated as a purely medical problem rather than a criminal justice issue.
Make it a one body, one full-service system, instead of segregated parts working at cross purposes.
Of course, my reaction to the whole system is a bit like Gils reaction to the Dihoxulator his father had built.
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20021218
"Sparks": in this comic are based on hyperfocus ISTP personalities, one can imagine imma big fan.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Agreed.
Not one system of course: competing systems.
Our actual medical system is a mess, and its new govt subsidy will lead to even more hopeless corruption.
But I agree, all are conditions to be treated. Education, medicine, etc.
Phil Foglio might be another two degrees of separation.
I miss mental illness, my brain was so much faster... No perspective though. I could make amazing things, no connection to reality. I did build some awesome things. I'm still seeking that chemical balance between "normal" and "insane."
Insane is definitely smarter and more capable, esp. at large complex tasks involving a large number of variables. It's less realistic, though, and can can get focused on complex projects that may be great master plans but are impossible to put into action...
gnawing...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ah, well, my madness has a purpose, and a focus, and best of all ?
An ON/OFF switch.
You'll note that one of my memes is Try Reason FIRST, but reality is what it is, and sometimes reason doesn't work...
And I do believe Gil has the right idea about how to handle that.
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20080303
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20080305
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20080307
Although admittedly I am much more fond of his father, Klaus.
Damn good comic, very entertaining to an ISTP with Sparky tendencies themself.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
On off switch would be nice, what is it?
(love the ads)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey DT, it's always tough coming into a conversation that's been going on for 4 days, read it all in one sitting (as I have just done--more or less, some definite skimming and glossing goin' on over here 
) and then try to add to the conversation--feels kinda like trying to merge onto the freeway during rush hour, but here I go:
Way too much to go into point for point--and I generally try to avoid such, 'cause it so often leads to more misunderstanding, not less--but I'll take on just this li'l snippet as a microcosm, if you will, of what doesn't sit right with me from your posts on this thread.
Quote:First of all there's a choice of words that I find to be pretty thoroughly loaded, which you may not have noticed or intended as such: "openly admitted." I really doubt that. The Neocons are spin-doctors first and foremost. They're admitting nothing, they're framing the debate and you're just accepting their frame and calling it "objective." Neocons, 1; DT, Zero.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Neocons who created the Bush admin openly admitted to being socialists:
"A Neoconservative is a socialist who supports the conservative movement" - Irving Kristol, founder of neoconservatism.
"Socialists will never get elected on their own merits"
"A neoconservative is just a socialist who was broadsided by reality."
"A social dem [later:clintonista] is a socialist who was broadsided by reality but didn't press charges."
Mr. Kristol is a funny guy. Too bad he has killed so many people.
Now, folk on the Libertarian side of the discussion tend to use "socialist" and "statist" as pretty much the same thing. It's a right-leaning idea. Lefties, real lefties, commies and anarchists tend to see "statist" and "fascist" as the same thing, which is just their scare-words for bad right-wingers. The Neocons are happy to continue the confusion. But communism, actual miggy figgin' communism isn't statist at all. And socialism for the communist--the REAL leftists in the spectrum--is just a stage on the way to communism theorized by Karl Marx. The words "communism" and "socialism" have been completely redefined by the anti-Stalinists, the anti-Maoists. And then co-opted by the right-wing to discredit actual leftism. The philosophy and theory of "communism" and "socialism" have been completely drowned out by the PROFOUNDLY CORRUPT regimes that co-opted both terms.
At the heart of Neocon theory is the idea that the general populace cannot think for themselves and require a tiny Cabal to decide what's best for them. The Neocon's are fundamentally anti-egalitarian. And ALL so-called "leftist" leaders the right is so fond of pointing out--your Stalins and such--have only used leftist rhetoric to achieve power--none of 'em have ever ACTED on egalitarian principles.
What's hilarious is that the libertarians have aided and abetted the Neocons in discrediting the real Left, by claiming that the left are the ones who want "government" to decide what's best for everyone. You see what they did there? The Neocons and the libertarians are the one's who see government as an oligarchy, de facto, while the leftists believe government is by, for and of the people (or should be/can be). So when the Leftist says that government should decide what goes on, the leftist is talking about the actual will of the people. But when a Neocon or libertarian speak of government deciding, they always see oligarchy--AND THEN, ta-daaa! paint the leftist as a closet oligarch, or "authoritarian." Obama is the biggest power monger in the country! Check your premises, DT.
It's maddening. You and your side (nya, nya, DT's on a si-iiiide!
) have decided what communism and socialism MEAN now. Except, ironies of ironies, to the actual communists and socialists.So, your Neocon "openly admits" to being socialist? Bull. Shit.
"A Neoconservative is a socialist who supports the conservative movement."
No. A Neoconservative is a statist who will discredit leftist rhetoric any way he can.
[
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Chartreuse sounds like fun
Folk who fish crankbait for largemouth bass say, "If it ain't chartruese, it ain't no use".
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HK
You might have noticed that I don't get into partisan debates, and that usually when one comes up I tend to just whack people over the head and tell them to sit down and behave which has absolutely no effect.
That said, I'll answer your questions, but I don't want to get into a political argument. I have no stake in them and think they're a waste of time.
My only concern is the truth and that people cooperated to help each other find it. If I don't know something, I ask. If I'm pretty sure of something, I just point people in a direction, and they can go read up on it, and draw their own conclusions. I'm not out to convert anyone.
Okay, now specifically.
Quote:
First of all there's a choice of words that I find to be pretty thoroughly loaded, which you may not have noticed or intended as such: "openly admitted." I really doubt that.
Don't. You can go back and read them. Start with the early one, Max Shachtman, Leo Strauss, Irving Kristol, that whole crowd and their immediate underlings, who you know as the neocons, Bill Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz, and their social dems, who are part of the same think tanks, Brezinski, Khalizad, the whole list is pretty easy to assemble.
Back in the early days they made no effort to cover their tracks, they were pretty arrogant. Now they do, because they realize that their policies are unpopular. In the 60s and 70s they were real open about it, they even supported socialist candidates as third party, and then as democrats, but even after the Scoop Jackson disaster there was still a lot of open rhetoric about what they were doing, and a fair number of people were paying attention... Just not enough, or not the right people. Mainly, I suspect that the people who were warned shrugged the idea off as paranoia, that these neocons were conspiring to take over the govt. and dismantle the constitution, "oh, that's absurd" people of either party would have said at the time. Still, if you dig you can find some interesting and insightful analysis from contemporaries.
I'd say even up to 2001, there was some openness to the movement, but the first real attempt to cloak themselves was when Reagan nominated Jean Kirkpatrick, who was a member of the communist party, a fact that the neocons went out of their way to hide. So, like many things, you can watch this as a gradual shift.
Another thing you'll find when you dig is that the agenda in the 1970s for the neocons was very similar to what it is right now. That's part of the problem. The world has changed. They haven't. They're dinosaurs, and it's time political evolution moved passed them.
And yes, I grant that they would not admit it *now*. Unfortunately for them, they talk all the time and write even more.
Re: word use
I got into some arguments about this before. Socialism is short for social engineering. I have no idea how anyone intends to do that without a strong degree of central authority.
I think statist is a loaded word. It only has negative connotations, as does fascist. Sometimes I use these, but only as an insult, with a grain of truth, like re: Hugo Chavez.
Re: scare-words for bad right-wingers.
I don't think that the left has a real clear idea of the right, not saying that it's any better in reverse, but the left does label govts. as "right wing" on a completely random basis.
The right wing is probably more off base when it tries to ascribe motives to the left.
Quote:
The Neocons are happy to continue the confusion.
The word is dead. I think we have to call them "globalists" now, because post-bush you have a lot of these folk redefining themselves as democrats, and a lot who were in the back rooms in those think tanks who were always social dems coming to the forefront for the same groups with the same ideas. They're a bipartisan disease. They just seem to increase in govt. over time. I hope Obama can shoot better than he bowls because he's gonna have his hands full with these agendamonkeys.
Quote:
But communism, actual miggy figgin' communism isn't statistNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
(Holy crap, I think I just won the interwebz! This is the longest post I think I've ever written!!! Huzzah!)
Hey DT,
Oh well. You kinda get a lot of ideas about my intentions other than the one that rules me: expressing myself. I'm not jonesing over here. I did try to feature "the leftist point of view" and I may have gotten carried away. I don't consider myself a communist, though I grok it better than I do socialism. I like some of the communists I've known and think others of them are off their rockers. I am really annoyed about this disconnect between how actual leftists use the words "communist" and "socialist" and how their detractors use them. Why use a term to describe regimes that oppose communism at every level other than rhetoric just because they used the term themselves? Just doesn't seem fair, darn it!
I was trying to explain the profound disconnect between the way you seem to be thinking about the Left, and how the Left think about themselves. That was my big point and you thought I was trying to get in a fight with you. I played at getting in a fight with you (nya, nya, etc.) but I wasn't expecting a fight. I thought maybe I could say something about communism, because I know a lot of self-described communists--don't know that a lot of folk on this board can say that. I could be dead wrong.
And, waaaa, I've read Strauss and Kristol, that's how I know they are not egalitarians (I half heartedly went around looking for quotes but lost interest, 'cause I knew you'd read them). Egalitarianism is presented as anti-authoritarian in Altmeyer's book and I agree with that assessment. So I say egalitarianism is a leftist value because of the leftists I have known--no communist I have ever met believes that Stalin was a communist (and will go on at great length to explain exactly why at the slightest provocation)--Stalin called himself a communist, his party appropriated the mantle of communist, destroyed the meaning of the word, but they were fundamentally authoritarian in their views and policies.
When I talk to communists and socialist they never quote any of the neocons you mentioned. Those people may have been acting within the socialist or democratic parties, but that doesn't really mean much, does it? Their agenda is power, so they thought the socialist party success was their best, most direct way to power. Turns out they miscalculated, so they dumped their so-called leftist roots wholesale. To the authoritarian mind and to the social dominating mind, it's all just a means to an end. They're Machiavellian, yes, absolutely and that is why they're not leftist/progressive/populist/humane/socially responsible/trustworthy. That's was my point.
I didn't mean to be snarking at you with my rephrasing of your Kristol quotes--I was trying to rephrase them from a leftist point of view to show you how different a leftist point of view is from Kristol's. You were saying he was a socialist because he said he was a socialist and I was trying to show the illogic of that argument, by contrasting it with a leftist interpretation of those quotes. Oh well. Chaos and miscommunication, 1; HK, Zero.
Quote:Absolutely.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Back in the early days they made no effort to cover their tracks, they were pretty arrogant. Now they do, because they realize that their policies are unpopular. In the 60s and 70s they were real open about it, they even supported socialist candidates as third party, and then as democrats, but even after the Scoop Jackson disaster there was still a lot of open rhetoric about what they were doing, and a fair number of people were paying attention... Just not enough, or not the right people. Mainly, I suspect that the people who were warned shrugged the idea off as paranoia, that these neocons were conspiring to take over the govt. and dismantle the constitution, "oh, that's absurd" people of either party would have said at the time. Still, if you dig you can find some interesting and insightful analysis from contemporaries.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HK
Yeah, you win, I have work t do. I asked Frem to kick my ass if I started doing this too much...
I'll try
1. doesn't matter how people intend a word to mean, it matters what they actually do.
2. i humbly suggest not latching yourself to a political side, these are sinking stones, and alienate 1/2 the population at least. Election results in any country where communists run (and Chavez isn't arming them) indicate that this allegiance will alienate 96% of the population. In china it's law, and so you won't alienate anyone.
3. Instead, learn to talk the talk of all political viewpoints in case you get mixed up with political people. In those situations, then try to extricate yourself before you end up in politics (trust me, it's not a pretty site.)
4. Egalitarianism is a leftist value. Unlike PWL, it requires totalitarian control to take it to the logical conclusion. Nature is by nature, unequal. Equality is an artificial opposition. Absolute equality requires absolute control.
5. Altmeyer isn't a source. I treat him as a poster, with whom I disagree, on politics. He should stick to psychology for now.
6. Stalin didn't destroy communism, Lenin did. In a few short years he managed to kill 13 million, a larger genocide that the indian wars (12 million) or the slave wars(11 million) both of which took centuries. But it was always a flawed ideology, IMHO.
7. Why would communists quote neocons? That would be like Ahmadinejad quoting Bin Laden.
8. The neocons didn't *change* as people. They changed their tactics. In the 1970s they didn't see the need. This was because they didn't have the level of power that generates scrutiny. The change was in behavior. They were always willing to do "whatever necessary" but they changed their range of "necessary." Supporting conservatives became "necessary" then, hiding their identitiesy of Kirkpatrick became "necessary" then hiding their actual point of view became "necessary."
It wouldn't occur to me right off the bat that hiding my point of view was necessary. If I were in Mao's China, I might notice that being openly Taoist was a bad idea. But it's not going to occur in a friendly environment. I'm guessing that you're surrounded by liberals, and so it doesn't occur that these points of view in support of communism could potentially alienate the majority of the population. If you weren't surrounded by liberals, you might hold the identical point of view, but it would occur to you not announce it so clearly.
I'm not saying one situation is better than the other, or that recognition of unpopular viewpoints leads to machiavellians, just that machiavellians are limited by the same psychology as the rest of us. I don't want my house invaded by rampaging gangs of barbarians, so I don't put up a castle wall around my house. It has little to do with not being I'm paranoid.
The only thing that would seem abnormal would be to set up such defenses long *before* they seemed useful
9. Damn, now this is a long post.
Quote:
Remind me why we're fighting again?
We're not. I'm just pointing out that there's a 1/2 of the problem that you've missed: the left half. I mean *I* don't this: (a real right wing problem):
Someone asked Carbone if he would still be designing missile systems for the defense dept if Bush hadn't won the election, and he replied "Bush wasn't elected by the people. He was appointed by God." And he meant it.
But you have to see them whereever they are. I'm not saying there was no right wing lunacy in the Bush disaster, but that the neocons, specifically, weren't one of them.
If you were to have your idyllic communal collectivist society, I can tell you already what the result would be:
1. It would be more efficient, because you wouldn't produce excess (why does every human need a motorized transportation device? Or their own washing machine?)
2. It would be less competitive. Competition is the birthplace of innovation, because it forces artificial necessity.
We don't need to guess, these s
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dream:Quote:
Did/do you have a mental illness? It sounds like it--and there's a huge difference between "insane" and mentally ill, at least to most of us in the community. We try to avoid that word, given the stigma.
I miss mental illness, my brain was so much faster... No perspective though. I could make amazing things, no connection to reality. I did build some awesome things. I'm still seeking that chemical balance between "normal" and "insane."
Insane is definitely smarter and more capable, esp. at large complex tasks involving a large number of variables. It's less realistic, though, and can can get focused on complex projects that may be great master plans but are impossible to put into action...
Sounds like bipolarity or schiz, from the brain being so muh faster and being able to do amazing, but unrealistic, things. Just curious.
Cavalier: Wow...I think you win the typing competition hands down! Found it really interesting, nonetheless:Quote:
I agree with all those statements. As well as
I miss mental illness, my brain was so much faster... No perspective though. I could make amazing things, no connection to reality. I did build some awesome things. I'm still seeking that chemical balance between "normal" and "insane."
Insane is definitely smarter and more capable, esp. at large complex tasks involving a large number of variables. It's less realistic, though, and can can get focused on complex projects that may be great master plans but are impossible to put into action...the Neocons have simply redefined reality to suit their nihilist agenda--the "reality" they speak of is might makes right and all their policies bend to that malignant distortion of reality...Quote:
and
That's part of the problem. The world has changed. They haven't. They're dinosaurs, and it's time political evolution moved passed them.Quote:
Although there is still a big difference between "conservation" and "environmental"...but if you mean both are used as environmental labelse, I agree.
The problem is, once a word gets used, it gains meaning. You can see this through the entire etymological history of every language.Quote:
Yes, but I think those and the other words all need to be retired; they've become nothing buzz words to inflame the masses--I'm not sure you wouldn't get different definitions of each, and "democrat", "conservative", "facist" and all the other buzz words politicians have used to further their agenda these days. Also "powermonger"--it's a loaded term, despite how you define it. Specific definitions have become lost over time, and calling someone that based on the specific definition isn't effective in communication. It's a visceral word, as are all the others. As such, yes:
they were defined by Stalin and Mao, and also Lenin, and others THROUGH THEIR ACTIONS.Quote:
The whole left/right thing is a divisive political mechanism of TPTB to split us against each other.Quote:
I heartily disagree. Especially as concerns their ADMINISTRATIONS. I don't know both men personally, so I obviously can't say, but given the actions of their administrations, I think there are huge differences.
The whole left/right thing is a divisive political mechanism of TPTB to split us against each other.Quote:
Agreed, although I would say less to the degree you do; scandals still happen and the press isn't automatically friendly, even relatively, to what the two parties determine, IMO.
You must trade in the commodity of influence. Many people already have power. To get them to help you with your rise to power, you must make deals. As a result of these deals, you can be sure that elections will not be stolen from you, that campaign coffers will be full, no scandals will spill, or be fabricated, and during your campaign, the press will be relatively friendly.
I, like most people nowadays, vote for the "lesser of two evils". Voting for someone who is the best candidate does nothing anymore except waste your vote. I don't know how to
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME