Karl

That's my Brian :-)

The deception begins when you isolate 'the government'. This creates an entity in the mind which acts as one unit, but that isn't the case, the state is built up of individuals who have greater or lesser influence. It's possible to have a bunch of Mafia criminals representing themselves as a Government through a political framework and media. In the end the ignorant voters are cattle who must be deceived by their handlers into imagining that there is a lawful Government of like minded individuals in place. It's hard to conceive of layer upon layer of men and women who are looking for favours from each other. It isn't a cohesive whole creating policies, but a series of cover ups for scams in which many are complicit or wilfully ignorant. It's not even as if it's moving towards a new world order, it's just a massed pack of crooks acting for individual gain that occasionally has to be turned into a publicly announced policy. These people have rigged everything from money, to markets, to health, education and defence. It's really pointless to try and figure out exactly who and why, it's mostly money and involves different players. As long as the people keep voting - and also even if they don't-as long as they pay their taxes, work, run legitimate businesses, believe Government is good and don't cotton on to the scam, then it will continue.

I think that's wrong. It's a layer cake. If you get the chance read the Fountainhead by Rand as it shows the interconectiveness of idealists, prestige seekers and thieves. I have been reviewing the 9/11 conspiracy theories and have concluded that this tragedy book ends the total western change in philosophy. To understand this new paradigm is difficult, it isn't possible to analyse one part, or one impulse, it must be contextualised and set into a matrix. It begins with a genuine belief that the West is safer if it introduces democracy into the Middle East. That there are such things as just wars that destroy dictatorships and free the people to reject religion and adopt secular, westernised democracy. However, every time this is attempted the result is that the people vote for even more religion - Muslim brotherhood for example. The countries go into collapse and we see the results today. These people are the idealists. The second group are the prestige seekers. These people aren't motivated purely by money, nor any idealism. They want to be associated with succesful governments and campaigns. Their drivers are fame, medals, honours and statues. They can be in politics, intellectual circles, universities, PR, marketing, infrastructure, defence, financier groups. The third group are the money makers. They don't care about either prestige, nor ideals, they just want to get as much money as fast as they can and the place where the cash fountains out without effort is from the idealists/prestige seekers. These people are really criminals to a greater or lesser degree, they are the thugs that do the bosses work in order that they get their pockets full of easy money in the fastest way possible. They can appear to be idealists, or prestige seekers, but are pure opportunists looking to score big with state policy. They might even twist state policy to make policies come about which will eventually benefit them. 9/11 is a prime example, not of a state created false flag, but of criminal groups that persuade prestige seekers of a course which will help them and plays right into the minds of the idealists. In any big company in the world we see this exact thing at work. In sales we look for the driver of the guy we are speaking to. Some want to save time because they are lazy (money), others are genuinely focused on improving efficiency (idealists), then there are the guys that want to look good to their bosses (prestige). The problem begins with the idealists and their philosophies. If they went to war purely to apply violence to the enemy, then they would lose their idealism of 'just' wars and regime change. Instead every war would be direct, viscious and with one outcome-the total surrender of the enemies philosophy. There would be no money to be made, nor prestige. Wars would be short, sharp and brutal. The Government would not be involved in reconstruction, training, nor education and so there would be no place for crony corporations to cash in-they would be on their own if they wished to become involved.

At least you should look into the available evidence. There is an essay by a fanatical communist that asked the question 'when did you know ?' . It asks the question of his Western intellectual colleagues about their blindness to the situation in Soviet Russia. A lot of intellectuals were wined and dined by the soviets, shown happy children, hospitals, housing projects, schools etc and came back to their countries expounding the benefits of socialism. At one time it was thought inevitable that Russia would overtake the West through the success of communist principles. When the Soviet Union began to collapse-and it would have collapsed a lot earlier if the USA/Europe had refused to trade with it-then these intellectuals went very quiet. They refused to comment on the collapse and their previous enthusiasm for socialism-they wrote many persuasive articles (paid for with soviet rumbles) which found their way into all the major media papers and magazines of the day. The essay I refer to was intended as an admission of ignorance by the author, he decided to stand up and admit he had been badly wrong and to prompt his colleagues to join the condemnation of such a barbaric system. The terrible death toll in Russia alone, thoroughly outstripped any numbers from Nazi concentration camps. Unfortunately, though we accept that fascism is evil because of that butchery and genocide, the terror of Soviet concentration camps and mass murder has been largely forgotten because the Russians are seen as the good guys who helped stem the evil Nazi tide. Socialism should be related to murderous genocide and terrible barbarism in exactly the same way as the Nazi's, but instead, fools go around sporting Lenin/Che tee shirts as if it's cool. Yet these people would not dream of wearing a Hitler tee shirt despite the similarities. If you have 20 minutes to read Eugene Genovese's essay 'the question' I think it might begin some more considered thinking on the issue. http://www.dissentmagazine.org/wp-content/files_mf/1353953160genovesethequestion.pdf

Without delving into the reasons why capitalism is the only freedom choice, simple evidence is available to you in Europe. East and West Germany show the phenomenally different rates of growth and standard of living. Where as the GDR (held up by Soviet Russia as their Jewel in the crown) lagged enormously in all societal measures, it was also a country of serious oppression ruled by a secret service and a huge network of imformants. You should note that there was never any incidence of West Germans desperate to cross the wall to East Germany despite there being little to nothing to stop them making that particular attempt. Whilst, the East Germans made many attempts to cross to the West despite the risk and very often their deaths. This instance alone should show that the more open capitalistic political system of the West was not only better for everyone's wealth and health, but it was many times more free and friendly as a society. In the GDR workers were given jobs, not according to potential, but as selected by the state, there was no loafing about getting welfare. If you weren't on the role call of political/nepotistic favouritism then even the most talented would find themselves doing the most degrading/dangerous jobs and living a very impoverished life. If you happened to show any signs of rebelliousness, or even connected to a family of a past dissident then you would be targeted for continued harassment and periods incarcerated. To even suggest socialism is a better system is irrational given the overwhelming evidence from Mao in China, to the USSR, Vietnam under pol pot and today in the collapsing country of Venezuela. The body count alone for these countries should scare the living hell out of you even if you don't subscribe to the idea that property ownership, freedom and standard of living have any importance. I'm afraid you are dangerously naive and idealistic, that is often the way with the young, but you should take a good hard look at the historical evidence - even those intellectuals that once were chief advocates for socialism have since rowed back having seen those results. If you add in the technical economic arguments regarding price discovery at a minimum then it's clear that socialism is impossible.

Dubious ....moi ?

political darts.

Just for Apech.....because I love cats https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=0.0&soc=0.0

I couldn't do the test because I disagreed with the premise of every question. It makes me go mental to be asked inane questions. I think it's because most people seem to be conditioned to fill in things and I've always bucked against it. I get the impulse to roll the questionnaire up and ram it down the neck of someone attempting to get me to label myself through their personal gating system. I won't even do it for fun-it's just 'fuck off'. My sense of humour vanishes to be replaced by a feeling of violation, or forced self immolation. I was once presented with a personality test at a job interview, at which point I read the first few questions and then moved it to the side of the desk without answering any questions. The interviewer kept looking at me, the at the test and back at me. It was like watching our cats waiting for their bowls to be filled with kitty chow-quite amusing was the puzzled, confused look. Eventually he asked if I was going to fill in the questionnaire, to which I replied that the answer to that was pretty self evident. Naturally I didn't get the job :-)

Did I bollox. I don't need tests to know what I think, in exactly the same way I don't read horoscopes to decide my future. My point, as with JB/Lerner, is that not only are all of these kind of tests a waste of time, but this one in particular is designed to herd the sheep-I don't need mint sauce to realise that it's spring lamb season. The fact that anyone can believe there is something called 'left' libertarian says it all :-/ First get educated on the primary, single thing which distinguishes libertarians 'the non aggression principle'. It's a flawed philosophy anyway, but this one principle denies taxation in any form what so ever. It isn't a pick and choose kind of thing despite the rubbish talked about it. So, if you are proposing that you can mix and match on a pragmatic basis, then the entire test and its conclusion are flawed. The result may as well be that Napoleon won the battle of Hastings, or Hitler was the star of Mary Poppins. Seriously, it's, this worthless pragmatic shite that confirms the very worst fears about human rationality. Why don't you just spin a fucking bottle.

:-) furry bundles or scratchy, bitey, purring joy. Hard to resist them.

Furry bundles of scratchy, purring, bitey Joy. I often fancy another one, but I'm of the opinion, from things I read through the cats protection league, that they shouldn't be allowed out, except in a protected run (both our previous cats got cancer which is said to be the result of contact in urban environments, of course in rural areas there are other predators). My wife thinks that cruel. So as we can't agree, it's easier not to have another. The cost of food, vets, Kennels and flea stuff makes it prohibitive as well. However I do like the daft little things.

We shouldn't be concerned with managing the planet, we really aren't in any kind of position to believe we have that control. We are stuck with digging up lumps, harvesting, building, burning, killing for food, manufacturing. The most efficient and best use of resources is laissez faire capitalism, which, we haven't got, only crony government corporatism. From that perspective we aren't making the best use of all resources at present and doing more damage than necessary. To that extent we can see the problem in the economic systems which are at melting point- that's the feedback we will get, the environmental issues might come, but they may do anyway.

That's like vote Trump or Clinton.....I would pass. I don't vote for the very reason that the political system is immoral. So, I have no preferences in the present system except to end it.

left libertarian guffaw guffaw.

For us Autumn is not a great time. We get little heat in summer anyway and it's the beginning of longer nights. Probably the worst part is the low light throughout the day-in the Northern UK we get a physiological condition known as SAD (seasonal something deficiency ?) it means low light, low vitamin D and various other issues. I like the leaves turning colour and walking on crispy days, but being stuck inside whilst it drizzles for days with temperatures in the low 10 s with low light and long nights is pretty miserable. Can't get the bike out either which is bad. I make the best of it, but can't wait for spring. Christmas and bonfire night relieve some of the winter blues, but God, January is long and often tough. Wisconsin sounds nicer.

No, they aren't as has been demonstrated. I'm not politically anywhere because I don't want the state doing anything but protecting rights through law and justice. It's a fine quiz for the simple minded, but for those of us with sufficient intellect it is not worth the effort to trawl through the questions which all contain logical fallacies and implicit idealism. No doubt I would be libertarian on their simple scale-wow, who knew how that would turn out given the obvious question style and simplistic scale. As I'm not libertarian - dur try again.

The questions don't cover it for me.

Define liberal. Most liberals today are total statists and are often given the moniker 'progressives' and we know that is a code for socialism which is entirely centralised and authoritarian. The 'authoritarians' are more the kind of people considered narrow minded by progressives - this is very funny to me because they are essentially spirit Mystics (the kind of Christian conservatives that like censorship and strict upbringing in church). Spirit Mystics are all for freeing the body to produce goods (all that hard work ethic and rugged individualism), anti-abortion, against gay marriage. This kind of thing irks the free minded muscle Mystics who are all about 'open' mindedness-turn on, tune in, drop out. These are the people the hark back to the days of Woodstock. They like new age philosophies, drugs, experimenting, but, just try and make them work or take responsibility. These guys are simultaneously pulling against the chains of the state, whilst lobbying the state to stop the vile capitalist exploiters and nature haters ( as they see them). The liberals try and tie up the body from doing much but kind of 'loafing' y'know smoking a spliff, minding the newts, hugging trees and writing crap poetry, or throwing paint on canvas as art-strangely happily taking the 'money' from the 'man' and lobbying for government subsidies for the art industry/environmental group/mung bean research.

Education is evolution. I mean here that education is the capacity to self learn for the sake of learning. It isn't like learning a skill but is more love of learning for the sake of learning. The people who do this are pure academics, the trouble is that today's academics are hell bent on preventing it because they are pragmatists and moral relativists-hence very persuaded by socialist collectivism. Rand wrote a book called 'for the new intellectual' which hoped to inspire a new generation of reason loving academics, but, in positions of influence (colleges, universities, schools, arts, media, publishers, advisers) we are light years away from the possibility. Maybe after we eventually suffer a complete crash to a new dark age (the subject of my novel as it happens) then we will discover reason again- either that or we wipe ourselves out, or something we could have perhaps prevented technologically occurs to which we have no longer the possibility of a solution. Anyway, you and I will likely be long gone by that time, so, unless it's a primary goal (as it is for me) then we can get on with gardening, tending the fish, having a glass of wine, watching the kids grow up, the music play and the Sun set.

Jesus, why don't they just say "sissy boys with tiny balls" and be done with it. I refuse to watch anything that uses the premise of an ad hominem up front to persuade the argument.

There are few 'pure' socialists and few 'pure' Christian fundamentalists. There is no left/right. Both pure socialists and pure Christians are about control -the socialists the body, the Christians the mind. In both parties the centrists are a combination of Christian, socialist democrat. The outer edges are the extreme religious republicans (old school old age testament) and extreme socialists which are those lobbying for feminism, BLM etc. The left right dichotomy is false. It always was. The closest we can get is a freedom index. Politicians for small state, real laissez faire capitalism, reduction of welfare, want the fed ended but not officially to become a state institution. Weirdly, those who are socialist actually don't want the state to stop drugs, or snoop on their communications, but call for the state in every aspect of capitalism.

"Rational animal" It's important to understand its a volitional consciousness. Using reason isn't automatic. We can choose to be ignorant, or to evade. Just because we have the faculty does not mean why act morally automatically. Animals can't help their actions, they are amoral, but humans can be immoral. I'm not sure what you mean by 'nothing for any other species' ? As humans we are forced to transform things into other things. Our evolution is now in our own hands. We have reason which gives us potentially unlimited capacity to learn, differentiate, integrate the entire universe. We seem to have become lost, reason became a threat to men who want power and so a philosophy was devised that destroyed reason.

What a pity this topic seems to have fizzled out. It was a good one. Come back Kuro. :-)

Thus my spreading of Objectivism and destruction of all kinds of mysticism. Most libertarians see the problem of anti-capitalism at work in our societies and reject foreign policies, but they don't think in a holistic sense. They see everything as abstract. It wouldn't occur to them that the danger might come from religious groups. Certainly its capitalism that has generated our wealth and strength which is now being eroded by the state, but capitalism is like red/white blood cells in the body that keeps disease at bay, but religious philosophy is not a disease of the body, but of the mind. It is the mind which is the tool of survival, so, poison the mind and capitalism dies as a result. This is why the Middle East is so backwards, it isn't that they don't understand capitalism, it's that religion makes it impossible to apply it.