Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No Land, that the white man has gone to enact such cycles of this madness has endured, Not in Africa, Not in India, Not in China or any of the places that such acts have been engaged and pursued.
Let me say, I appreciate your very passionate post. But, while many of your observations were correct, I don't think you completely understand the cause.
I have a policy in life, I always assume everyone to have good intentions. Because everyone imagines themselves to be a good person. Though as you know, the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
Think of the communists for a moment, the Soviet Union, China. They obviously committed many atrocities. But why? Were they evil people? Did they want to do evil things? So what was it that "forced their hand"?
As I often say, this is a Darwinian world. A lot of times, to do good, requires doing evil. While I am myself a pacifist, what should I do if someone comes to my house to kill me and my family?
The socialist ideology rests on the principle of, "Doing the greatest good for the greatest number". But this is really just another way of saying, "Sacrifice the few for the good of the many". Which in practice, is just another way of saying, "The end justifies the means".
I have no desire to defend European imperialism on principle. But European imperialism was merely the reaction to world power dynamics. With each imperial power, using imperialism to gain control of resources, to feed their economies/industries, to become more powerful.
So why is it that these imperial powers wanted to become so powerful anyway? You can of course argue that their goal was to dominate the world. Or on the other hand, you can see that the only way to defend yourself in this world, is to become the most-powerful.
While Americans like to pretend that we rule the world through freedom. The truth is, we rule the world, because we are the most-powerful. And we only became that way, by conquering the natives, conquering other countries, even going to war against ourselves(Civil-War), and then building up a massive centralized-state, protecting/subsidizing our industry, building a massive fiat empire, and then a massive military-industrial complex, and an aggressive/interventionist foreign policy.
Basically, we didn't take this land, and win WWI and WWII with freedom. It took guns, and tanks, and planes, and bombs.
"The existence of one sovereign, exclusionary State necessarily supposes the existence and, if need be, provokes the formation of other such States, since it is quite natural that individuals who find themselves outside it and are threatened by it in their existence and in their liberty, should, in their turn, associate themselves against it. We thus have humanity divided into an indefinite number of foreign states, all hostile and threatened by each other. There is no common right, no social contract of any kind between them; otherwise they would cease to be independent states and become the federated members of one great state. But unless this great state were to embrace all of humanity, it would be confronted with other great states, each federated within, each maintaining the same posture of inevitable hostility. War would still remain the supreme law, an unavoidable condition of human survival.
Every state, federated or not, would therefore seek to become the most powerful. It must devour lest it be devoured, conquer lest it be conquered, enslave lest it be enslaved." - Rousseau's theory of the state, 1873.
The works are many, we are still in training to learn how to do it
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Let me say, I appreciate your very passionate post. But, while many of your observations were correct, I don't think you completely understand the cause.
I have a policy in life, I always assume everyone to have good intentions. Because everyone imagines themselves to be a good person. Though as you know, the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
Think of the communists for a moment, the Soviet Union, China. They obviously committed many atrocities. But why? Were they evil people? Did they want to do evil things? So what was it that "forced their hand"?
As I often say, this is a Darwinian world. A lot of times, to do good, requires doing evil. While I am myself a pacifist, what should I do if someone comes to my house to kill me and my family?
The socialist ideology rests on the principle of, "Doing the greatest good for the greatest number". But this is really just another way of saying, "Sacrifice the few for the good of the many". Which in practice, is just another way of saying, "The end justifies the means".
I have no desire to defend European imperialism on principle. But European imperialism was merely the reaction to world power dynamics. With each imperial power, using imperialism to gain control of resources, to feed their economies/industries, to become more powerful.
So why is it that these imperial powers wanted to become so powerful anyway? You can of course argue that their goal was to dominate the world. Or on the other hand, you can see that the only way to defend yourself in this world, is to become the most-powerful.
While Americans like to pretend that we rule the world through freedom. The truth is, we rule the world, because we are the most-powerful. And we only became that way, by conquering the natives, conquering other countries, even going to war against ourselves(Civil-War), and then building up a massive centralized-state, protecting/subsidizing our industry, building a massive fiat empire, and then a massive military-industrial complex, and an aggressive/interventionist foreign policy.
Basically, we didn't take this land, and win WWI and WWII with freedom. It took guns, and tanks, and planes, and bombs.
"The existence of one sovereign, exclusionary State necessarily supposes the existence and, if need be, provokes the formation of other such States, since it is quite natural that individuals who find themselves outside it and are threatened by it in their existence and in their liberty, should, in their turn, associate themselves against it. We thus have humanity divided into an indefinite number of foreign states, all hostile and threatened by each other. There is no common right, no social contract of any kind between them; otherwise they would cease to be independent states and become the federated members of one great state. But unless this great state were to embrace all of humanity, it would be confronted with other great states, each federated within, each maintaining the same posture of inevitable hostility. War would still remain the supreme law, an unavoidable condition of human survival.
Every state, federated or not, would therefore seek to become the most powerful. It must devour lest it be devoured, conquer lest it be conquered, enslave lest it be enslaved." - Rousseau's theory of the state, 1873.
I will say, it is good that you think into matters, pursuant unto some broader understandings.
You spoke of the Utilitarian Principle as point of reference,
{Utilitarianism is at play in may ways, but when it comes to theories, we have a mixed of interplay between all the variations of philosophical theories of which are often times a soup of many ingredient at play, when we look at our societies, both in American and around the Globe.} The history of mankind has studied itself for Centuries and found so my elements to be useful from each of the ancient philosophers of time. We don't adopt a single theory and become a whole society, it is a mix of much of a vast span of the human experience, extracting some from all area ares in the quest of man to find the functional mix. The paradox is that when such is engaged, it also continue throughout the theories to mix and match, juxtapose one against the other in an ongoing array of variations. Thus we grow, we learn, we change and we transform.. we do this through much discussion, debate and collaborations, including through conflicts, challenge and warring efforts of many types of warring conduct.
We don't know conclusively "how to live" but we have ideals, values and those are too made greater or lesser and even in some situation, they too become juxtapose one against the other in an ongoing array of variations. Under, within and through Religious Ideologies the same continues. The guideline likely most dominant in America is the Bible. "BasicInstructionsBefore LeavingEarth"
Even so, within the Book it chronicles the many challenges of man, and defer's to the premise of God as the default to basis of our being. It outlined for us, Ten Commandments, which the whole of our Legal system can be made to fit within those Commandments, and then we are given One Rule, "which works the same throughout the world of the ideal as to mans relations and interrelations with mankind.
Thus, equally so as spoken earlier, then we have Categories that Help us frame up the daily as well as general life summary of what is of right unto self, and what free's self from vice, but also bonds self to righteousness. They are the Seven Deadly Sins and the Seven Heavenly Virtues. We to seek to juxtapose one against the other in an ongoing array of variations. We are of a convoluted soul in the mixture of all such things. The struggle is both on a individual level, but as well on a sociological level, and then interplay engages to be equally so on our Political and our economic functions as to the continual crafting of and within the execution of our living experience. Then we have Ideological systems of what is "governance". We may label them by their many names and types, but they all seek to be a system of governance.
What we find but often deny, is that within each system there is some of the mix of each of the other systems. But we seek to make claim of a definite, when what is definite is that a governance system is a mix of the many systems of governance. This may be even more so relevant under what we call Democracy, but it is not void in various other frames of governance.
We do find that the "Utility" as in Utilitarianism is a central elements across all such. For the mere fact it must pursue the good that is best for the masses.
We often look for the "finite conclusive solution", and therein is where we become "dogmatic within not just systems, but in self, that we often negate elements in the cycles of juxtaposing changes and how the elements of premise rearrange on a continue interacting function. Thus we develop Policy to try and infuse some regulatory governance within the systems to make them function for the betterment of all. We find no Utopia, but we can and we do find workable peace making functions.
Peace does not mean everyone is satisfied fully, but peace does assure that we make less aggression to harm, and violate the Golden Rule to a far lesser degree than if we did not do so.
Regulatory process is a necessity, therefore policy is a must to promote what is a civil society.
The premise point of "Money is the Root of All Evils"... is a point we should consider, in which we do in some respect, as it is often said, when truth is pursued in the system functions, "follow the money"...
Again, the Bible has already told us this:
1 Timothy 6:10
10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
We know well these things, but the vices of man, heeds not, thus so when his desperation overtake him, he begin to confuse want with need and he allows greed to enter, then he has allowed the tool of Avarice to infect him and over time, it will as it often does, consume him.
We have to be of great care when we push and rush and choose leader, and select them based on the drama game that has become a centered game in our society as it relates to campaigning, people say what the they think the people want to hear, even when the results will produce devastation's and hardships, people get caught in the hubris of the process and we result to elect leader, by the premise of their campaign have demonstrated to us nothing more than ethically deficient proclamation of system matters and of matter about themselves. We jump in head first, and follow the drama spins, and today, Media Sound Bits, for the promotion of drama as a form of both entertainment, and posse styled mob developments, we make choices, never knowing our premise of how we select and what we cast our votes to elect is based on the crafted and manufactured and flawed prophetic happenings. We omit and negate the premise of what is governance, and we have made flawed what is freedom... Thus so we forget quickly, that responsibility if the founding basis of freedom...
We vote based on the bluster and hubris of the candidate and over time we suffer many misfortunes of great magnitude that cast a shadow into coming decades.
It may take Generations and Centuries, before we truly become an educated and informed society, to the point of being qualified to "self govern", this is well known by those who campaign, so they gain position and they dictate, based on their ideas, not the ideals of the people, nor of the values that best serve the people, then we have a system that pits on flawed premise against another, because our voting public is uninformed as to the concerns of matters and how those matters of concern best fit into developing a better system, that meets with the utility which functions best in self governance.
We have much work to do, if we don't destroy ourselves, future generations may well come to better understanding, in being knowledgeable in and through the multi-variant of a conglomeration of factors that are in a cycling juxtapose that continually pushing us to "think deeper" and pursue greater clarity in what choices we make and those we invest ourselves to undertake.
We have a lot of work to do, and the better we invest ourselves to do the work of "LEARNING" the better we can prepare and leave for the Future Generations a better world than that which we are today, living within.
I think you are wrongly associating "White Nationalism" with "White American Nationalism". Of course, as I told the White Nationalists, there is no such thing as white culture. Thus there is no such thing as a White nation. And any attempts at White Nationalism, will be as it is in Europe, with each entity feeling itself to be under attack, and again wanting separation for its own protection.
Basically, White Nationalism manifests itself only in the presence of non-Whites. Much like a Christian identity only manifests itself in the presence of Muslims, atheists, etc. Without the "outsider", Christians revert back into being Catholics and protestants. Or even Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Mormons, etc.
There is only Christian solidarity in the face of non-Christians. There is only white solidarity in the face of non-whites. And likewise, there is only black solidarity in the face of non-blacks, just as there is no African-solidarity in Africa.
And as we should know, whites were happy to butcher each other by the tens of millions during WWI and WWII. The notion of white solidarity is absurd.
I am not a White Nationalist. I am merely a nationalist, in the truest sense of the word.
To understand what I mean. Imagine it like, the government completely collapsed tomorrow, as in there were no police at all, no Army, no authority. All the shelves of all the stores were empty. What do you do? Where do you go?
In a year's time, what does the world look like?
Or in short, what would the world look like, if government/society were voluntary?
Who are the kinds of people who would voluntarily cooperate with you for a common benefit? Who are the people you can really trust?
The saddest thing about what you have presented in simple clarity... is the fact that many will fail to grasp the broad realism of these elements.
What is real and true, is the simplicity of it all. but man confounds himself within the complexities that resolve to present simplicity. While captured in the counterargument, man gets hung up and distracted, thus voiding out the simplicity of the matter of point and fact.
Here is a simplicity that should escape no one...: It does not matter where one goes on this planet, and what people other is encountered, if one is in need of a blood transfusion, any people will do to find a blood type, that is suitable for the transfusion.
Here is the absurdity, of which man generates of fictions. If one has a transfusion of blood from white man to black man, it does not change the skin tone, the hair texture, nor the ethnicity to become the same as the one the transfusion came from. If man goes around the world and mate with any people from any place, it will produce an offspring that has the DNA of both, and that offspring will have the composition of both and still will have a blood type that fits within the categories of blood type.
We simply let our eyes fool us, and then we shape our minds around fictions, until we push and make claims of distinctions, which are more a matter of habit and environmental grooming, more so than there being in fixed in frame category of mindset based on the skin color on come into the world at birth.
We make fictions and then fill it with a convoluted brand of drama, and chase the excitement through conflict and generated challenges. When all is said and done, "Every Living being, who walks by their own volition via healthiness, needs, "food, water, shelter" and likely the engagement of interactions with a mate. and by the instinctive nature that exist be it man, or animal, the innate drive is the engagement with group inter-activeness, because we as living entities on this earth, have an instinctive need for communion with other man and animals in this life.
A dog is not in image like a man, nor is a man like in image unto a dog - but they have found want and need to bond in being interactive, supportive, caring and they will each be protective of the other.
This should teach us something. Nor is a dog of concern about what its hair color is, nor how many colors are in the composition of its hair, and the dog, has no concern of such, when it engages with man. We stand back and look upon it, as "simply the beauty of the dog".... yet, how and why can't we look upon the reality of man, regardless of his color or his hair texture and simply see the beauty of man?
We go so far as to try and claim ourselves as special by stating what we don't like, rather than looking for the common among what we like and supporting the other and each other to like or dislike this or that, such as the simplicity, some people like red apples and some like green apples and some like both. then there are others who may not even like an apple. Does it make them more or lesser of a man? Likely not. it simply is one who has a option of choice in the matter concerning apples, and unless one is of some allergic irregularity unto an apple, they are free not only to choose, but to change their mind about their choice. Still it makes none any more or lesser of a man.
We have a long ways to go to figure out what matters. We've been beat down so as people, over a long period of time, trying to force compress us into "boxes of limitations", until we have been systemically groomed to fight as being some who fight to get in the box, and some fight to get out of the box and some fight about which box, to get in or out of..... Yet, God did not place us in the boxes, that is a construct of man, by man. A system of communal society need not be people from this or that box, or people who have not been boxed, or people who are compressed into this or that box, or banned from this or that box... The society is the natural state of man.... Community is and has all natural inclination to become and be a composition of all variants of groomed mankind, as well as un categorically groomed man.
Then we come to what is Governance.... but a system which help man, become a community with a basis of civil regard and respect of other man, and how man can support community, which has the capacity to develop task and unison in task, to become both industry and other business or trades that all serve the function to serve society as a whole, with all its variations of those who like and those who dislike this or that, or who choose this model vs that model, and etc........... and so is, the raw framework that evolves into systems without our world...
We shackle ourselves within our biases and prejudices, and then blame the world for us submitting to our own biases and becoming a victim unto our prejudices, it evolves in some cases that people lose the basic ability to appreciate themselves.
It may take Generations and Centuries, before we truly become an educated and informed society, to the point of being qualified to "self govern"... we have a system that pits on flawed premise against another.
You assume that the reason people behave so irrationally, is because they are ignorant. Thus, in your mind, it is your job to educate them.
And once they know what you know, basically once they know the truth, then they will be forced to agree with you.
While facts do have an effect on someone's worldview. We know that facts aren't the only factor. The truth is, even people who know all of the facts, will come to different conclusions. But why?
The simple answer is, "Because people want to believe, what they want to believe. And they want to believe those things they find useful."
Think of religion for a moment. If you are given the decision between believing in god, and not believing in god, with the absence of real facts either way, on what basis would you make your decision?
That is simple, the people who generally benefit from believing in god, will believe in him. And those who don't, won't. The same basic logic can be applied to everything else in life.
Thus, the real cause of our differences of opinion, are not the product of ignorance, but the result of differences in individual interests.
Basically, the reason the people in Oklahoma tend to be skeptical of climate-change, isn't because we are more ignorant than anyone else. We know the facts just as well as anyone. The actual reason for our skepticism, is because the economy here is so dependent on oil and natural gas. Basically, it isn't in our interests to believe in climate-change.
And likewise, the people who advocate for climate-change, are overwhelmingly people who see it in their interests. Either they are scientists who depend on government grants, or they are environmentalists who were already opposed to our use of fossil fuels, plastics, chemicals, etc. Or they are people skeptical of capitalism and corporations.
Those are the real battle lines. Facts have nothing to do with it.
When Donald Trump ran for president, whether he was honest or not, the reason people believed him, was because they wanted to believe him. And they will stick by him, regardless of what anyone in the media says about him, so long as they believe it benefits them.
If you actually want to destroy Trump, facts accomplish nothing, you have to give an alternative. You must appeal to human-nature.
Human-nature is immutable. You cannot overcome it. At best you can use it to your advantage.
We have a lot of work to do, and the better we invest ourselves to do the work of "LEARNING" the better we can prepare and leave for the Future Generations a better world than that which we are today, living within.
The world is never going to get any better. Progress is a fraud. The world only gets worse.
The assumption that the world is getting better, rests on the belief that the point of life is either to be rich and to have lots of stuff, or to live as long as possible.
These don't give meaning to life, and they don't even make us happy. On the only measures that truly matter, so-called progress has been a nightmare.
In wealthy Western countries, the suicide rate is many times higher than in poor countries. Depression, substance-abuse, loneliness, hopelessness. Let-alone degeneracy, single-parent families, child-abuse, neglect, insecurity, etc.
The failure of liberals is their inability to understand what gives life meaning and purpose, and to design a society accordingly.
Then we come to what is Governance.... but a system which help man, become a community with a basis of civil regard and respect of other man, and how man can support community, which has the capacity to develop task and unison in task, to become both industry and other business or trades that all serve the function to serve society as a whole, with all its variations of those who like and those who dislike this or that, or who choose this model vs that model, and etc.
You're making governments seem far too noble. Think of the entire history of the world, is that really why all these governments existed?
I would concede that governments do want to create a community for the purpose of cooperation, and to promote industry/trade. But this cooperation has long been the cooperation of slaves, for the benefit of masters.
At best, you can argue that the sheep are better-off under the rule of the shepherd, who protects them from the wolves. Basically, that although government limits our freedom, and takes our money; that without government we would be unable to defend ourselves. And thus, we should band together, even against our will, for our own good.
The truth of "the state", is just as Mikhail Bakunin explained back in 1873...
"Modern states have reached precisely this point. Christianity serves them only as a pretext or a phrase or as a means of deceiving the idle mob, for they pursue goals which have nothing to do with religious sentiments. The great statesmen of our days, the Palmerstons, the Muravievs, the Cavours, the Bismarcks, the Napoleons, had a good laugh when people took their religious pronouncements seriously. They laughed harder when people attributed humanitarian sentiments, considerations, and intentions to them, but they never made the mistake of treating these ideas in public as so much nonsense. Just what remains to constitute their morality? The interest of the State, and nothing else. From this point of view, which, incidentally, with very few exceptions, has been that of the statesmen, the strong men of all times and of all countries from this point of view, I say, whatever conduces to the preservation, the grandeur and the power of the State, no matter how sacrilegious or morally revolting it may seem, that is the good. And conversely, whatever opposes the State's interests, no matter how holy or just otherwise, that is evil. Such is the secular morality and practice of every State."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chance and Change
We shackle ourselves within our biases and prejudices, and then blame the world for us submitting to our own biases and becoming a victim unto our prejudices, it evolves in some cases that people lose the basic ability to appreciate themselves.
Lets pretend you could throw the entire world together into a single country. Would that be a good thing? Would we all get-along splendidly? Best-friends-forever?
You pretend that prejudice and biases have no reason for existing. Or that, if it wasn't for demagogues like Trump, everyone would get-along marvelously.
Discrimination/prejudice/bias/etc are just defensive mechanisms. Because people are different. People disagree with each other. And in some cases, they disagree with each other violently.
The real question I have for you is, "Why do you want to share a country with me?"
Why do you want to share a country with anyone for that matter? Am I not just an obstacle to your own happiness?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The works are many, we are still in training to learn how to do it
