Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 46

Thread: Democracy in Egypt?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Democracy in Egypt?

    Will it finally happen? Your opinion.

  2. #2
    Bananas are good. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Rift
    TIM
    C-EIE, 7-4-8 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,632
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I hope not, for their sake.
    What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.

    Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).

    For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.

    -Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's a revolution.

    And Big Media is not happy. A democratic wave like this, like happened in Europe in the 1840s, wasn't supposed to happen. It wasn't "in the script". You can see the consternation of the ruling elites of American media by just looking in the headlines.

    Gamma NT elites appear to be incensed at the potential economic repercussions. This wasn't in the script.

    They need to get their hands on Mubarak. If they catch him or his son, they should probably kill them. If they don't, it'll be their blood that gets shed.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm noticing a pattern to the people who seem alarmed by what's going on in Egypt. There is frequent negative use of terms like "suddenly", "void"... a definite Ni tone to it, with a lot of discussion about financial connotations.

    It seems that the enemies of what's going on in Egypt are primarily ILIs.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I suspect Mubarak is cognitively unable to let go of power. He won't step down willingly and will have to be removed by some other means.

    Reports now that the police are devolving into gangs and looters. A thousand inmates have escaped from a local prison (why just a thousand)? All of this seems overwhelming a sign of state control. It reminds of how Saddam emptied the jails in advance of the invasion of Iraq, and ordered his troops to abandon their uniforms and heavy gear, and begin the insurgency.

    It would make sense for a high-functioning sociopath like Mubarak to leverage fear of chaos as a means of justifying his continued reign.

  6. #6
    Creepy-male

    Default

    haha it actually makes me want to cheer for the egyptians when people start talking about "what about the economy". Shut up grab a shovel and do some labor, metaphorically speaking that is. People obsess over money, especially in the current situation. I think the human issues far outweight the finicial issues and I am skeptical whether if there were not economic repercussions if we would give two shits about their little uprising.

    Socially Americans have no understanding or respect for middle eastern cultures, typically.

    Economically we have extreme respect for them because of our connection with their resources.

    What kind of message is that, we hate your shitty society, but we do business with you, so we can sustain our lifestyle.

    Its one thing to express concern because of the the interconnection between the economy and people. But it really pisses me off how much people rant on and on about money. And its a stereotype but all people want to spend it on is on stupid stuff, like mercandise, TVs, amusement park trips, fancy cars, and all this stuff, oh and lots of food so they can get real fat.

    Its one thing if people are spending that money to create stuff, build things, infuse culture and beauty and ingenuity in the world around them with those resources. But fuck me, it always seems like where I here the most outrage is one of the "types" that have no respect for those kinds of things.

    It really just seems like greed, people in america just need to metaphorically get back to the earth and work, metaphorically speaking. We are used to a materialistic consumeristic society, that is destroying the soul of the younger generation, all so that the retired baby boomers who have given up on actually "living" can go on their cruises, and buy medication, so that they can go on another cruise next year while they wait to die.

    I don't really know the entire issues in egypt, but it seems extremely shallow to point towards the economy. Oh lets come in and play the game of geopolitics for our economic interest. Imo some expert thats knows what the fuck they are talking about and knows the human cost should come in and shut up all the nervous greedy voices and put them in line.

    Fuck I could rant forever and ever about this....

    American society is so fucked up... its good qualities have been systematically buried beneath tons of shit.

    However like I said as to the particulars of this incident I am not well informed, I just hope whatever happens that the world is better for it in the end.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Mubarak appears to be setting the stage for a massacre.

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa...ex.html?hpt=T1

    When it happens, he will formally join Saddam Hussein in the pantheon of dictators. The repercussions will be far reaching, affecting even the United States. Along with the disappearance of the 1.5 billion Egypt receives in U.S. aid, there will be sanctions and embargoes, limiting Egypt's ability to export oil.

    Another possibility is that he's going to try to get an opposition group or two on his side through bribes. Divide the opposition. Then just let the people protest in a contained space until they grow frustrated and return to waiting.

    Someone needs to massacre him already. And his cabinet.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 01-31-2011 at 05:52 PM.

  8. #8
    cunnilingus epilepsy inducer
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,428
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Mubarak appears to be setting the stage for a massacre.
    I'm not sure Mubarak has enough support in the military for that kind of move.

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa...ex.html?hpt=T1

    When it happens, he will formally join Saddam Hussein in the pantheon of dictators. The repercussions will be far reaching, affecting even the United States. Along with the disappearance of the 1.5 billion Egypt receives in U.S. aid, there will be sanctions and embargoes, limiting Egypt's ability to export oil.

    Another possibility is that he's going to try to get an opposition group or two on his side through bribes. Divide the opposition. Then just let the people protest in a contained space until they grow frustrated and return to waiting.

    Someone needs to massacre him already. And his cabinet.
    Another possibility is that he steals some state money and runs off to Europe or America to die in peace.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The difficulty with assessing Mubarak is that he's a high-functioning sociopath: although his primary aim is to get his way, he respects the superego as much as possible. He seems to see controlling the superego as a means to getting his way, but he is also seems to have a sense of responsibility for the welfare of the superego itself. He is the will to autocratic rule, the very symbol of the god king. I think the comparisons to the Pharaohs, in that sense, are apt.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Apparently Mubarak's address yesterday was a signal for a counter attack: Mubarak would rather engulf his country in violence than let go of his throne. Reports now that plainclothes police loyal to him -- a modern day Egyptian version of the Roman Praetorian Guard, or private army -- are attacking the protestors. Mubarak made clear that he intends to stay in Egypt until he dies, and today's bloodletting makes clear that he's serious about it.

    I think what were seeing here is the sociopath's characteristic distinction between "right society" and "wrong society": people who exalt values opposite their preferred values are the "wrong society", and hence, are the problem with society in general. But instead of trying to integrate and persuade, the sociopath sees this as a clarion call to war, to beat the values, or at least their social expression, out of existence.

    Apparently money is the main issue. Commentators have remarked that the military controls the economy in Egypt. If people are protesting instead of working, then the brass is losing money. In theory, the commentators argue, this would pressure the army to remove Mubarak. Of course Mubarak is aware of this possibility. The other alternative is to force the protests to end by making a concession in the name of "law and order", and then using the ideology of law and order as a shield. Of course whatever the law "is", he who has the most force makes the rules, especially in Egypt.

    The Egyptian leadership has shown its true face. Now it will be up to Obama to hold them to account for their crimes. One thing is for certain: the army will not act against Mubarak nor defend the protestors, unless it segments into pro- and anti-Mubarak camps. And why not? Egypt has no real enemies save the al Qaeda, who are mostly routed anyway.

    I recommend the opposition attack the Muslim Brotherhood before attacking Mubarak, because the Brotherhood will be just as bad as Mubarak was, if not worse. Any country trying to embrace democracy needs a clean slate, and that means getting rid of the existing leadership, which is steeped in corruption and mindful of a million personal secrets.

    Just ask Vladimir Putin.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 02-02-2011 at 08:44 PM.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    When observing the behavior and tone of high functioning sociopaths, we see a mixed picture. Sometimes the behavior of the individual is distinctly self-serving, and others it appears to be genuinely concerned for others or even altruistic. Which is the true intent of the individual?

    In the course of individuation, a sociopath at once reaches out to society with intent to exploit it. However their hatred of it is so strong that they must give into society itself and allow that it transform them that they would have the opportunities that obligation-based thinking permits. It is their sense of obligation to values which they despise, not society itself. Society, after all, can be useful in that it protects its members.

    It does not seem to me like these two worlds can be properly reconciled. The differences are too great. Rather, I think that what happens in the case of such a person is a Jehkl and Hyde situation, where the individual has at once two distinct selves with distinct faces. This because they at once want to exploit others even as they desire the confidence that they will be protected from exploitation themselves. Then their intentions are inconstant.

    And yet, both the intentions seem to lead to the same end. Their selfish real selves and their psychotic outer-selves both find rationale for the positions they adopt: the unbalanced psychotic perspective offers that a key plank in the defense against sociopathy be disgarded, being supposedly based on an incorrect assumption. Thus sociopathy gets its way. The socially psychotic individual follows the reverse path, starting with argument and gradually fixating themselves on power that they see as vital to their cause in that it prevents people from voicing disagreements and thus, challenging the initiative to dominance for their ideology. Thus, both socially psychotic and antisocial personalities can find agreement on the same deplorable means.

    While there is no rule that sociopaths and the socially psychotic must be estranged internally, the role of socially concordant individuals in the lives of either type can be exceptionally instrumental in helping the social side see its error. The reaction of the antisocial side is one of denial, arguing that society has been corrupted. Thus, the two personalities are distinct, but both managing to find meaning in the same means.

    But the key theme in understanding either personality is this: eating the "forbidden fruit" of knowledge, whether delusional or antisocial, is an act in and of itself, and as research shows, we become what we do.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 02-04-2011 at 11:52 PM.

  12. #12
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,648
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Okay, things are getting complicated in Egypt. I don't know enought about the current situation to join the discussion... but why does Obama mess with that? I don't get it why everybody sees it as matter of course that the American government is involved in this. It's just not their business, not at all. Why can't they just shut up and leave them alone? Really, nothing against Americans in general, but this pisses me off.
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  13. #13
    Creepy-Korpsey

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MegaDoomer View Post
    Okay, things are getting complicated in Egypt. I don't know enought about the current situation to join the discussion... but why does Obama mess with that? I don't get it why everybody sees it as matter of course that the American government is involved in this. It's just not their business, not at all. Why can't they just shut up and leave them alone? Really, nothing against Americans in general, but this pisses me off.
    US intervention in Egypt isn't a recent development:

    From the Camp David peace accords in 1978 until 2000 (the latest year for which figures are available), the United States has subsidized Egypt's armed forces with over $38 billion worth of aid. Egypt receives about $2 billion annually--$1.3 billion in foreign military financing and about $815 million in economic support fund assistance --making it the second largest regular recipient of conventional U.S. military and economic aid, after Israel. In 1990, the United States also forgave $7.1 billion in past Egyptian military debt in return for Egypt's support of Operation Desert Shield. In addition, Egypt receives excess defense articles worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually from the Pentagon. The announcement that 23,000 U.S. troops will be based in Egypt to conduct biannual military training exercises (Operation Bright Star) may have longer term implications for U.S. aid to the region, as might Egypt's willingness to support U.S. efforts against the Taliban.
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...www.google.com

  14. #14
    Creepy-Snaps

    Default

    Lol @ the thread title.

    And don't know... is democracy really all that good? =\

  15. #15
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,648
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Korpsey View Post
    US intervention in Egypt isn't a recent development
    I know, US intervention is not a new thing in general. What scares me is the fact that this government is powerful enough to let everyone dance to their tune. Take Germany is an example. The state's sovereignty regarding foreign policy is an illusion. Nobody actually wanted to send Soldiers to Afghanistan, it's even part of our constitution that armed forces can only be mobilized in the state of defence. But as a NATO state, you know, people have to obey orders.
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  16. #16
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MegaDoomer View Post
    I know, US intervention is not a new thing in general. What scares me is the fact that this government is powerful enough to let everyone dance to their tune. Take Germany is an example. The state's sovereignty regarding foreign policy is an illusion. Nobody actually wanted to send Soldiers to Afghanistan, it's even part of our constitution that armed forces can only be mobilized in the state of defence. But as a NATO state, you know, people have to obey orders.
    Not to mention Germany is all uptight about that entire world war two thing. I heard something saying that culturally Germans don't like the idea of sending soldiers to occupy other countries because its a touchy subject after the nazi imperialism.

    There are other things I heard, like Germans don't like showing national pride for the same reasons, the Nazi thing, and one of the only situations where they really get close to showing national pride is in soccer.

    Honestly its an extremely interesting issue because foreign intervention is a luxury the US takes for granted, most people see the German and Japanese Imperialism of WWII as a negative, but seem to not mind when its Imperialism invading Iraq/Afghanistan. To be fair there are slight differences but there are enough similarities to raise the issue. And one has to wonder whether the legitimacy the US has to foreign intervention isn't solely a function that they were the "good guys" in WWII. How would America feel if Germany decided to invade Afghanistan after a terrorist attack on there nation and decided to stop by Iraq because of Saddam Hussein and UN Weapons Inspections. I think people would feel uneasy and require an explanation from Germany especially in light of WWII.

    It's an interesting issue, and by saying "good guys" I don't mean to imply all Americans are pure and noble and all Germans are evil or anything... generally I think most people lie somewhere in between and where the real cards are dealt are in the politics. Germany got dealt a bad hand with the Nazis and most people being somewhere in between had their doubts/fears but it still happened mainly because of an individuals powerlessness before the government. The United States didn't get dealt that hand, they were relatively new, beginning to come into their own as a major world player, the conditions were purely different, but I don't think its ridiculous to think that just because we have all this culture of "freedom" that it isn't conceivable to fall into the same trap that Europe fell into with fascism. Its extremely possible, and I think that there is nothing "German" about genocide or imperialism. Its common in humanity at large. Genocide occurs today in Africa and other regions in the world, and Imperialism has existed since the Roman Empire.

    I think its a good issue to question the legitimacy of foreign intervention.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Genocide and imperialism are primarily conservative traditionalist concepts. There is a relationship between racism and psychological trait denialism: although trait denialists condemn trait theories like socionics as labeling, there is an unintended consequence in that in trying to be good people, traditionalists are like to emulate reformers. Trait denialism ("nothing is absolute") is the estrangement of instability processors (which reformers give priority) from stability processors (that traditionalists favor). To try to be as "reformer-like" as possible, it is like that traditionalists will adhere strongly to cultural norms. This goes double for their cognition. Thus a side-effect of prohibiting discussion of personality traits in a culture is attention to the alternative, that is ascription of natural tendencies of a person to their race. Flat, simple logic as oppose to the deep, analytical logic of say, Model A.

  18. #18
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Genocide and imperialism are primarily conservative traditionalist concepts.
    I'd say right wing but not conservative necessarily.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    There is a relationship between racism and psychological trait denialism: although trait denialists condemn trait theories like socionics as labeling, there is an unintended consequence in that in trying to be good people, traditionalists are like to emulate reformers. Trait denialism ("nothing is absolute") is the estrangement of instability processors (which reformers give priority) from stability processors (that traditionalists favor). To try to be as "reformer-like" as possible, it is like that traditionalists will adhere strongly to cultural norms. This goes double for their cognition. Thus a side-effect of prohibiting discussion of personality traits in a culture is attention to the alternative, that is ascription of natural tendencies of a person to their race. Flat, simple logic as oppose to the deep, analytical logic of say, Model A.
    I don't think their is a relation between traditionalism and racism, if there is its a function of poor cultural evolution. Being "traditional" in the south say directly after the civil war, meant standing by slavery. Interestingly enough I think "traditionalism" is a good philosophy under the mantra of "If it isn't broke don't fix it". Sometimes people get things right the first time culturally and then its good to be a traditionalist. The same way people in film will have better original films than sequels, because the first time there was that magic and people got it right, and the second time around they fucked it up. I think traditionalism is largely a function of the politics of the time, and what it means to be a "traditionalist" is linked intimately to the events going on in politics.

    In america, being a traditionalist in a pre-1960's sense means being a slight bit "racist". It means supporting interventalism against the favorite state enemy (communism, terrorism). The socio-political struggle of the 60's and 70's was partly concerned with the Vietnam war. It means supporting racial stereotypes and segregation, estranging minorities, not necessarily hating them, but wanting to keep separate. Civil rights was another socio-political struggle of the 60's and 70's. There were tons of issues. If it were not for that history people wouldn't view an american "traditionalist" or conservative as being pro-war and racist. Cultural development in america politics can be thought of terms of the baby boomer era, the modern era of america, from about 1950 to 2000, slowly fading down and meshing with the information age, the computer age, postmodernisation and generation-X beginning around the 1980's. Reagan is becoming the model for a conservative and issues are turning more towards an odd mixture of tea party, neo-con, and evangelical.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The Republicans are moderating as the Tea Party becomes more extreme. They are fast becoming a center-right party.

    As I've explained before, traditionalism is a function of preference for stability. Clear, unambiguous boundaries and controlled growth. Also, emphasis on bloodlines/DNA as a determinant of behavior and personal character. When I say conservative, I mean positivist. Positive stability is that which does not change because it is good; when estranged from negative instability ("change is needed"), a mind that exalts it becomes intolerant of change. This is the foundation of racism as a "corruption of the blood". Racists do not observe that when something is destroyed, it was because it failed to adapt. They see only decline, which they blame on forced negative changes. They are themselves determined not to change, therefore they see change around them -- any change -- as an enemy. How to stop change? Engulf it, hence imperialism. The Jews do not relent of their culture, however, thus they could not be controlled by imperialism. This is why Hitler wanted them destroyed.

  20. #20
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    The Republicans are moderating as the Tea Party becomes more extreme. They are fast becoming a center-right party.
    Nah I think the Tea Party draws in both Libertarians and Republicans... Republicans themselves are getting on the Tea Party boat because economy is the major issue in politics. When things turn to Social issues, the Republicans will have to split off from the Libertarians in the Tea Parties.

    Lots of things are possible if Tea Parties persist when this happens, they could inevitably create a Third Party becomubg a Green Party like thing or get absorbed into Republicans and permanently change the Political Environment between the two giants.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Positive stability is that which does not change because it is good; when estranged from negative instability ("change is needed"), a mind that exalts it becomes intolerant of change. This is the foundation of racism as a "corruption of the blood". Racists do not observe that when something is destroyed, it was because it failed to adapt. They see only decline, which they blame on forced negative changes. They are themselves determined not to change, therefore they see change around them -- any change -- as an enemy.
    I think racism is ultimately more complex than just this one facet, being resistant to change, specifically cultural intermixing.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    How to stop change? Engulf it, hence imperialism. The Jews do not relent of their culture, however, thus they could not be controlled by imperialism. This is why Hitler wanted them destroyed.
    Nah I don't see Imperialism as a resistance to change, imperialism is about expanding a sovereigns influence over a larger populus. It's about acquiring more influence for the imperial nation. Not all historic empires have attempted to control or convert foreign cultures. All an empire does is really shift the power at the highest levels to the empire rather than to their own sovereign king or ruler.

    That is a good thing if you like the empire and hate your ruler, and its a bad thing if you hate the empire and love your ruler. However then there are people that are neutral and never legitimately see themselves as "citizens" but as "individuals" and generally they remain indifferent unless it personally affects them.

    I think the nazi phenomenon was in part related to racism already inherent in European culture, and that Hitler managed to tap into this, and he needed a scapegoat because in his mind everything German was pure and noble, so it was convenient for him to believe Germany lost WWI and was suffering economic problems because of the Jew and not because of Germany. And further you know the bad stereotypes about Jew's and money that have existed forever.... it makes sense to demonize Jewish people in times of economic hardship. Hitler needed somewhere to deposit his negativity and it was convenient to believe it was because of the Jews, he was amazingly good at propaganda and convinced hundreds of people to this lie which was already inherent in the culture in Europe. It was so compelling because, 1 - it tapped into already existing bigotry, and 2 - it gave people an excuse for their short comings, it gave them a scapegoat to explain why they weren't gods on earth, it was like an answer for why the world was imperfect. It was an amazingly well told lie, that still attracts people today unfortunately, the "jew" has become more of an abstraction to most people, than actually an ethnicity. Any body being grounded I think realizes that imperfection isn't because of any group of people, but is something everyone struggles with.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hitler believed that stuff about Jews. He really actually believed it.

    Or are you merely offering the above as a hypothesis?

  22. #22
    Creepy-male

    Default

    I know he believed it, I'm explaining why I think he believed it.

    There is a difference between the truth and beliefs... I think people sometimes really somewhere deep down know the truth but choose to believe something different, its kind of like the defense mechanism of denial, or how delusional people are.

    The actual truth gets repressed in the subconscious so that the delusional beliefs can exist. Usually people develop delusions when they don't like the "truth", like say a child that was raped, may repress these memories and believe they were never raped, only later to have these experiences re-emerge from their subconscious.

    I could get more into the details of my hypothesis but you should read up some stuff on Hitler, like when he really got serious about the Nazi stuff was after WWI, he thought it was his purpose to "save germany" and he was convinced the Jews backstabbed the germans and thats why germany lost the war, it was actually a popular conspiracy among some germans post WWI and even has a name for it.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    I know he believed it, I'm explaining why I think he believed it.

    There is a difference between the truth and beliefs... I think people sometimes really somewhere deep down know the truth but choose to believe something different, its kind of like the defense mechanism of denial, or how delusional people are.

    The actual truth gets repressed in the subconscious so that the delusional beliefs can exist. Usually people develop delusions when they don't like the "truth", like say a child that was raped, may repress these memories and believe they were never raped, only later to have these experiences re-emerge from their subconscious.

    I could get more into the details of my hypothesis but you should read up some stuff on Hitler, like when he really got serious about the Nazi stuff was after WWI, he thought it was his purpose to "save germany" and he was convinced the Jews backstabbed the germans and thats why germany lost the war, it was actually a popular conspiracy among some germans post WWI and even has a name for it.
    You're seriously starting to piss me off. At this point, I think you're trolling.

  24. #24
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    You're seriously starting to piss me off. At this point, I think you're trolling.
    Ok are you pissed because of my views on Hitler

    or are you pissed because I suggested you read more on it and you think you are an expert and took it patronizing

    because simply saying your pissed isn't particularly obvious

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." - Benjamin Franklin

  26. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    Ok are you pissed because of my views on Hitler

    or are you pissed because I suggested you read more on it and you think you are an expert and took it patronizing

    because simply saying your pissed isn't particularly obvious
    Dude I've read a number of books about Nazi Germany. I've read so much about the subject that I don't care to read anymore about it. I read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, among others including 2 or 3 having to do with Hitler himself.

    Bottom line: intolerance of social inclusivism + weak Ti = racism

    I may or may not have met someone who had a personality striking reminiscent of Hitler, right down to the self-taught articulation. She may or may not have went out of her way to make jokes about retards.

  27. #27
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Dude I've read a number of books about Nazi Germany. I've read so much about the subject that I don't care to read anymore about it. I read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, among others including 2 or 3 having to do with Hitler himself.
    So what your getting angry because I disagree with your opinions or because you took what I said as patronizing.

    I didn't mean it really offensive, I've just read up a lot on Hitler and WWII and wasn't sure if you had. Apparently you have lol... but that doesn't mean you need to rage.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Bottom line: intolerance of social inclusivism + weak Ti = racism
    Yea I'm sure you pulled that straight out of the books you've read.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    I may or may not have met someone who had a personality striking reminiscent of Hitler, right down to the self-taught articulation. She may or may not have went out of her way to make jokes about retards.
    I won't comment, there is probably no one worse to be compared to than Hitler.

  28. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I hate being right. I was hoping I was wrong and that he was going to leave, but no, he insists on the hard way out.

    Such is the destiny of a charismatic sociopath.

  29. #29
    force my hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,334
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, it looks like Mubarak stepped down and handed control to the military.

    I've been watching Al Jazeera in the background the past couple of days, and after he stated yesterday that he was staying, people were even more pissed than ever... and then less than a day later the 'abdication'... powerful stuff!
    SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype

  30. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't know if the army chief of staff bluntly telling the president he won't be obeyed any longer counts as "violent removal" or not. In any case, he didn't go willingly.

    This was a 100% Beta enterprise from the start. All the major figures appear to have been IEIs. I think it goes without saying that the leadership of IEIs in this strong military country was a key factor in the army's refusal to engage the protestors. The implication is that duality wins revolutions.

    It would be worth it to do a study on other "peoples' revolutions" in history and examine the effect of dual relations on the outcomes.

    HA may also have been important. Consider the following article:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/af...test.military/

    In this article, we see the situation unambiguously framed as a matter of the (arguably SLE-dominated) army choosing between Ti constitutional process and Fe adoration. We see how it turned out.

    I think this whole turn events is an opportunity for socionics-based political analysis to prove itself. I'd to hear your all's opinion as to whether the defeat of Mubarak and his economy-based regime by the beta NF revolution and subsequent progression to beta ST rule was quadra progression in action.

    In essence, this reminds of Britain's Glorious Revolution.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 02-13-2011 at 01:11 AM.

  31. #31
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    I suspect Mubarak is cognitively unable to let go of power. He won't step down willingly and will have to be removed by some other means.

    Reports now that the police are devolving into gangs and looters. A thousand inmates have escaped from a local prison (why just a thousand)? All of this seems overwhelming a sign of state control.
    Uh.... how much do you actually know about Egypt? of course it's state, and military control.

    It reminds of how Saddam emptied the jails in advance of the invasion of Iraq, and ordered his troops to abandon their uniforms and heavy gear, and begin the insurgency.
    ?

    It would make sense for a high-functioning sociopath like Mubarak to leverage fear of chaos as a means of justifying his continued reign.
    This seems like a totally arbitrary "logical conclusion"

    It's not about Mubarak at all, IMO.
    I'm glad the protesters are deciding to stay (apparently ?) until a government by the people is set up.
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  32. #32
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    When observing the behavior and tone of high functioning sociopaths, we see a mixed picture. Sometimes the behavior of the individual is distinctly self-serving, and others it appears to be genuinely concerned for others or even altruistic. Which is the true intent of the individual?
    You'd make a terrible political analyst I think. You're way too focusing on the individual and trying to 'understand his psychology', and completely avoiding the actual power dynamics of the situation.
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  33. #33
    cunnilingus epilepsy inducer
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,428
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    I don't know if the army chief of staff bluntly telling the president he won't be obeyed any longer counts as "violent removal" or not.
    I have a strong feeling the military never really fully obeyed Mubarak.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/...s-military-inc

    The protesters are trying to overthrow a system not a president and the military is the system they're trying to overcome.

    This was a 100% Beta enterprise from the start. All the major figures appear to have been IEIs. I think it goes without saying that the leadership of IEIs in this strong military country was a key factor in the army's refusal to engage the protestors. The implication is that duality wins revolutions.
    The military is reported to own 40% of the Egypt's industry/commerce, some are saying the army didn't fire because they consider the protesters their customers. So you could easily interpret the military as being a gamma dominated organisation.

    It would be worth it to do a study on other "peoples' revolutions" in history and examine the effect of dual relations on the outcomes.
    I won't count this as a revolution until the protesters overthrow the system. It isn't over until it's over.

  34. #34
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    These revolutions are a once in a generation(?) type event where people from all quadras unite against a government.

    Take this LSE (imo) woman who is a prominent figurehead and coordinator of the Yemeni uprising:
    http://english.aljazeera.net/program...916701492.html

    Somewhat refutes the notion that Betas are the only quadra capable of carrying out revolutions.

    ftr & imo,

    bin ali - iei
    mubarak - sle
    gadaffi - eie
    etc.

    Means that Betas are prominent players in the counter-revolution. It's also been my experience dealing with Ni valuing individuals (including Betas), that they can be fatalistic and skpetical of massive potential change to the point of being overly cynically derisive of anyone who attempts it, especially if they're not being personally ground down by the status quo.

    Which really complicates the theory of quadra progression...
    Last edited by xerx; 03-20-2011 at 06:47 AM.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  35. #35
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    gadaffi - eie


    Another one for EIE.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  36. #36
    High Priestess glam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,388
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    These revolutions are a once in a generation(?) type event where people from all quadras unite against a government.

    Take this LSE (imo) woman who is a prominent figurehead and coordinator of the Yemeni uprising:
    http://english.aljazeera.net/program...916701492.html

    Somewhat refutes the notion that Betas are the only quadra capable of carrying out revolutions.

    ftr & imo,

    bin ali - iei
    mubarak - sle
    gadaffi - eie
    etc.

    Means that Betas are prominent players in the counter-revolution. It's also been my experience dealing with Ni valuing individuals (including Betas), that they can be fatalistic and skpetical of massive potential change to the point of being overly cynically derisive of anyone who attempts it, especially if they're not being personally ground down by the status quo.

    Which really complicates the theory of quadra progression...
    nah i don't think that this undermines the theory of quadra progression, if anything it is proof of it, and explains why Beta ultimately fails. ultimately Beta groups are unwilling to give up power, and often end up fighting amongst themselves because of it. it's true that Betas are, as you say "skeptical of massive potential change", but that goes for their whatever their respective position is. so the counter-revolutionists will be just as unwilling to give up the struggle as much as the group/s that they fight against are. ultimately the strife between warring Beta groups cripples whatever stability used to exist, leaving Gamma to take over - ending the now impractical and unsustainable ideologies of the Beta period in favor of societal stability and progress.

    also i don't think of Beta as being the only quadra capable of carrying out revolutions. Alpha is also revolutionary. i do think Gamma and Delta are not, as quadras they are meant to be practical stabilizers, but that doesn't mean that individual Gammas and Deltas won't become part of revolutions themselves. if there is a mass revolution, people of all quadras may be taking part, but they are usually following some revolutionary idea that was probably devised by Alpha and made into an strict ideology by Beta.

  37. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glamourama View Post
    nah i don't think that this undermines the theory of quadra progression, if anything it is proof of it, and explains why Beta ultimately fails. ultimately Beta groups are unwilling to give up power, and often end up fighting amongst themselves because of it. it's true that Betas are, as you say "skeptical of massive potential change", but that goes for their whatever their respective position is. so the counter-revolutionists will be just as unwilling to give up the struggle as much as the group/s that they fight against are. ultimately the strife between warring Beta groups cripples whatever stability used to exist, leaving Gamma to take over - ending the now impractical and unsustainable ideologies of the Beta period in favor of societal stability and progress.

    also i don't think of Beta as being the only quadra capable of carrying out revolutions. Alpha is also revolutionary. i do think Gamma and Delta are not, as quadras they are meant to be practical stabilizers, but that doesn't mean that individual Gammas and Deltas won't become part of revolutions themselves. if there is a mass revolution, people of all quadras may be taking part, but they are usually following some revolutionary idea that was probably devised by Alpha and made into an strict ideology by Beta.
    ^ what she said.

    It seems like Muslim countries can only change so much. Yes, democracy can come BUT... it is fragile and as we saw in the Gaza Strip, can become little more than a vehicle for entire nations of people to unite in slaughtering people of other nations over religious creeds. Forgive me for being a little skeptical of democracy after the 2010 elections, but I've seen enough evidence that human nature, in the aggregate, is unable to use democracy effectively.

    I wonder how effective Gaddafi will be in marshaling international support. It seems to me nations will react based on what they think the U.S. attitude towards them would be in a post-Gaddafi world. Conservative projectionists here remain true to the Bush Doctrine and are eager to project U.S. military might to defeat every non-democratic government on earth. Their defeat (and mass death) is inevitable and that's why I'm not rooting for the U.S... the sooner the Tea nuts get themselves in over their heads and die, the better.

    Interesting: the African Union has called for a stop to the bombings in Libya.

    Meanwhile, there seem to be some opposition figures posting on Dem Underground. Let's see from the horse's mouth what's going on over there....
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 03-20-2011 at 11:05 AM.

  38. #38
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glamourama View Post
    nah i don't think that this undermines the theory of quadra progression, if anything it is proof of it, and explains why Beta ultimately fails. ultimately Beta groups are unwilling to give up power, and often end up fighting amongst themselves because of it. it's true that Betas are, as you say "skeptical of massive potential change", but that goes for their whatever their respective position is. so the counter-revolutionists will be just as unwilling to give up the struggle as much as the group/s that they fight against are. ultimately the strife between warring Beta groups cripples whatever stability used to exist, leaving Gamma to take over - ending the now impractical and unsustainable ideologies of the Beta period in favor of societal stability and progress.

    also i don't think of Beta as being the only quadra capable of carrying out revolutions. Alpha is also revolutionary. i do think Gamma and Delta are not, as quadras they are meant to be practical stabilizers, but that doesn't mean that individual Gammas and Deltas won't become part of revolutions themselves. if there is a mass revolution, people of all quadras may be taking part, but they are usually following some revolutionary idea that was probably devised by Alpha and made into an strict ideology by Beta.
    This is a poignant description of some (many?) revolutionary changes. The downfall of these regimes, however, hasn't occured because of infighting amongst Beta factions (with the possible exception of Libya, since former Gaddafi loyalists are leading the rebels). It's also not always the case that Betas fail - they can succeed for very long periods of time (e.g. 30+ years) if they can eliminate all opposition (Gaddafi, Saddam, Stalin), or make compromises to stay in power (Mubarak vis a vis the Egyptian army), which begs the question: which quadra does the egyptian army belong to?

    In Egypt, the most effective weapon was mass strikes by union workers to shut down the economy, which is essentially civil disobedience, being inclusive of all quadras owing to its pervasive social extent, as well as lack of predication on any singular type of ideological rhetoric except for the implicit social democratic message. Don't get me wrong, I agree that revolution is like crack to some Betas, but this time there was clearly more going on.

    If the egyptian army is a gamma institution as suggested, then are we witnessing a shift to delta as a result of the uprisings? If so, the fact that it took a massive social upheaval to potentiate that change (when the expectation is a smooth bureaucratic transition from gamma to delta, or even from beta to gamma) does imo add another dimension to quadra succession.



    Also should mention, it's not just Betas who are playing some counter-revolutionary role:

    bashar al-asad (syria) - lii (I think, some sort of IJ anyway)
    king abdallah (jordan) - sei
    queen rania (jordan) - ese (really sure)
    gulf state emirs - not sure, some freaky mix of all the quadras...



    Somewhat off topic, but a good example of a Beta (sle) organization in a Middle Eastern context is Hezbollah in Lebanon. They're a mobilized, regimented army of willing martyrs steeped in Islamic ideological/theological rhetoric whose primary mandate is the protection of their land and people, and the annihalation of aggressors against their homeland. They're also ceaseless activists with centralized programs to feed and educate the poor in their area. They're led by a charismatic leader (Nasrallah) - who is sle if I ever saw one.
    Last edited by xerx; 03-21-2011 at 10:39 AM. Reason: cleared up the language
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  39. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Xerxes you haven't offered a whit of evidence that Mubarak is beta.

    I read a speech by the man and all it was was a torrent of Gamma Ni and Te.

  40. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It appears the Yemen uprising will be successful. I'm seeing a pattern: in those states where the army is respected, democracy appears to be making strides. In these states, Islam is not as strong as in the monarchy states. But in the monarchy states, the invincibility, due to Vatican-like religious authority, of House Saud, appears to be holding the line. Libya is not a monarchy, and Gadhafi is anti-democracy (no really, he's completely anti-democracy by virtue of his philosophy -- an aristocrat in the sense we know of it to the core, just read his book -- "one leader will always rise anyway, so just screw the rest"). Gadhafi doesn't like relenting of his position, or accepting defeat on an issue, that's why he's dictatorial. (I'll be addressing this issue in the conflict res thread later).

    The U.S. appears to have screwed up -- it went after Gadhafi when the real target was Syria, an ally of Iran's. Obama is facing an impeachment effort, according to Dem Underground -- the mainstream media is trying to contain news of it, apparently, to keep the left demobilized, but the Dems in Congress are furious. We are seeing the implosion of the Obama presidency before our eyes, and no wonder given what has happened over the past couple years.

    And I'm wondering how much longer the UK government is going to hold, particularly with the Liberal Dems in rapid decline across the isle. This may also bring Burlusconi down, for that matter, or at least hasten his departure.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •