Thought so.Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
http://www.lastnightoffreedom.co.uk/...lly-water-gun/
Thought so.
http://www.lastnightoffreedom.co.uk/...lly-water-gun/
No, that's a strawman; that's how YOU like to formulate it in your own head, to make it sound bad.
No. Just like Ashton and Jake you are projecting the idea of promoting taxing wealthy people and giving it to the poor onto me. I think that is appropriate in some cases, but I am against welfare and I think it should be stricken from the book entirely, except in the most severe circumstances.In effect you wish to communise success; but you also communise failure.
More strawmen. What did I say that you interpret as "shrinking the economy?" You fucking "anarchists" are a bunch of robots who assume everyone else is a communist, yet you haven't even asked me what my stances are.Supply side economics is key because you argue that shrinking the economy will provide more goods for more people, which isn't technically feasible.
I agree, it's stupid and I think it should stop. I never said or suggested otherwise, you tunnel vision having mother fucker.The example is relevant because it is a good example of how robbing the value of savings by printing money is already making your country a poorer place especially for the poor. Instead of benefiting from the ability to purchase cheaply relative to say China, they are now starting to be out-competed for the same products and services.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
InvisibleJim: the go to authority on most people and obviously.
"[Scapegrace,] I don't know how anyone can stand such a sinister and mean individual as you." - Maritsa Darmandzhyan
Brought to you by socionix.com
Actually anarchists are communists, to a one meeting too many...
Why the hell are you all arguing? This is probably why Hk said no to my idea of a flame board
Why does your avatar have two peens? Mine only has 3 butt cheeks, a large, gaping hole, and one peen.
That's because I hail from society of J people, we have two penises, not one, not three, but two penises. Satisfied now, Mr. Freud?
No, sir. I am never satisfied.That's because I hail from society of J people, we have two penises, not one, not three, but two penises. Satisfied now, Mr. Freud?
Buy a dildo, get one free, then.
If only the entire world was a giant dildo, then it would still fail me. /emo
k0rp, I see titty. ty for turning me on.
No worries, if at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you. So, it's self-explanatory that a closed mouth gathers no foot.
@Gilly if I cant understand your position please state your position clearly and transparently.
- from Jimmy Carter and American Fantasy: Psychohistorical Explorations (Edited by Lloyd deMause and Henry Ebel); pp. 20-21 [Chapter One—Jimmy Carter and American Fantasy by LLOYD DE MAUSE (The President as Fantasy Leader)]: The notion of the President as primarily a fantasy leader who is a delegate of national moods is quite at odds with the traditional model of political science, which regards leaders primarily as holders of something called “power” which they use to get action. In fact, most of politics works in an exactly opposite fashion: the nation first develops quite irrational group-fantasies, then pumps them through the media and lower government officials into the President and his advisors, expecting them to somehow act them out in order to relieve the anxieties generated by the fantasied conditions. This is true regardless of nation, period, or form of government. I have elsewhere documented the presence, for instance, of powerful birth emotions of being choked, trapped and strangled in the words of many nations going to war, from Kaiser Wilhelm’s declaration before World War I that he felt “strangled” because a “net had suddenly been thrown over our head” to ******’s going to war to solve Germany’s problem of “Lebensraum.” Similarly, America’s wars from the Revolution to Vietnam have been permeated by language like “the child Independence struggling for birth,” “a descent into the abyss,” and the inability “to see the light at the end of the tunnel.” [deMause, “Formation of the American Personality”, pp. 13-15.] Although geopolitical or economic motives are usually presumed to be the cause of wars, they are more accurately the occasions for war, the real causes being psychodynamic, wholly internal and shared psychological states. When the German General Staff wrote in 1914 that they “took to extreme measures in order to burn out with a glowing iron the cancer that has constantly threatened to poison the body of Europe,” they used the same language and were responding to the same fantasy as Richard Nixon when, before the Cuban Missile Crisis, he said that “Cuba is a cancer . . . war is risked if Communism is not stopped and is allowed to spread now.” [The German quote is from Max Montgelas and Walter Schucking, eds. Outbreak of the World War: German Documents Collected By Karl Kautsky. New York: Oxford University Press, 1924, p. 307. The Nixon quote is from the New York Times, September 19, 1962, p. 3.]
The responsibility for solving this fantasy is finally dumped into the lap of the fantasy leader, who is an expert at receiving and interpreting the inchoate, powerful, shifting fantasy needs of large groups of people (this being the very definition of a politician). The “pressures” of the moment are translated into action-solutions and the fears of the people become the commands of the leader. The enormous relief provided by violent action is shown in Churchill’s letter to his wife in 1914, as Europe went to war: “Everything tends toward catastrophe and collapse. I am interested, geared up and happy.” A similar group mood is revealed in what one American wrote from Washington, D.C. on the day Truman decided to send U.S. troops to Korea:
I have lived and worked in and out of this city for twenty years. Never before . . . have I felt such a sense of relief and unity pass through this city . . . When the President’s statement was read in the House, the entire chamber rose to cheer. [Bert Cochran. Harry Truman and the Crisis Presidency. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1973, p. 316.]
Perhaps one of my most surprising findings has been that the frequency and seriousness of wars and war-like actions has little to do with the realities of military force, realities which supposedly govern so much of international relations. For instance, Truman’s presidency was conducted in a continuous state of panic, culminating in his plunging America into the bloody, protracted Korean war—all during a period when America had overwhelming superiority of all forces, including sole delivery capacity for the atomic bomb. Indeed, the Truman Doctrine, the basis for a quarter-century of the world-wide American intervention in local politics, was proclaimed in 1947 at a time when America enjoyed an atomic monopoly and when Russia lay utterly prostrate from World War II damage to her industry and population, a moment which Dean Acheson described as one of the greatest crises in history, when Russia was about to “carry infection to Africa through Asia Minor and Egypt, and to Europe through Italy and France.” [Dean G. Acheson. Present at the Creation: My Years in the State Department. New York: Norton, 1969, p. 220.] In contrast, Eisenhower’s years were far less interventionist, and were wholly without actual war, despite America’s loss of military preponderance after Russian nuclear and missile development.
- pp. 22-24: Regardless of how traumatic an actual birth anyone has, even birth memories are profoundly modified by later childhood experience. The more a child is surrounded by love, freedom, and empathy, the more the child is able to repeatedly rework its earliest anxieties, the more it is able to modify them and even overcome them. A warm family provides a natural therapy even for birth anxieties, and if, as I claim in my “Evolution of Childhood” study, childhood has a progressive trend throughout history, mankind should eventually be able to cure itself of war just as it has cured itself of slavery, vendetta, dueling, witchhunting and other group-psychotic practices. Yet most children even today have simply horrible childhoods, and wars are certain to continue for some time before enough people become sufficiently emotionally mature not to need them. It is therefore one of our first tasks as psychohistorians to ask what kinds of personalities our leaders have and precisely how they interact with the emotional needs of the nation.
The psychohistorical study of presidential personality has unfortunately barely begun. There are only two Presidents who have been studied in sufficient depth, including their childhoods, to provide intelligent psycho-biographies: Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon.* Even so, enough information is available in primary sources to make a few generalizations about the kinds of people we have chosen to be our leaders in the twentieth century. First of all, none of them have had extremely traumatic childhoods. On the six-stage scale of family types which I use to measure childrearing modes (infanticidal, abandoning, ambivalent, intrusive, socializing, helping), all Presidents in this century [20th] fall into the next-to-highest “socializing mode” with the exception of Nixon, whose dour Quaker mother and often brutal father put his childhood in the lower “intrusive” category. What this means is that in order to become a leader of America today, you cannot have a background which includes continuous battering, repeated overt abandonment, or any other massively traumatic deprivations. (This, by the way, has not been the case for other countries and other periods—******, for instance, was a classic “battered child”, as were many of his generation of Austrians, the product of regular bloody beatings, hundreds of blows at a time.) [See Rudolph Binion, ****** Among the Germans. New York: Elsevier, 1976; Helm Stierlin, Adolf ******: A Family Perspective. New York: Psychohistory Press, 1977; Robert Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf ******. New York: Basic Books, 1977.] The overall level of American childhood, however, has been good enough in this century not to require such a psychopathic leader.
Within these limits, however, one trait stands out as common to the childhood of almost every President: an emotional distancing by the mother. This often occurs in the context of a series of nurses or other servants, to whom the mother delegates many of the child’s caretaking functions, as was the case with T.R., F.D.R. and J.F.K. [Glenn Davis, Childhood and History in America. New York: Psychohistory Press, 1976.] It is as though the mothers of our Presidents must be “good enough” to give them the ego strength needed to survive the competition for leadership, but they must also be “distancing enough” to give them a deep hole of loneliness in the pit of their stomachs, a hole which they feel driven to fill with the needs and the adulation of large masses of people. No one who has not been the fantasy leader of an actual group can begin to image the demands put upon one who is expected to stay in touch with, and resolve, the deepest and most ambivalent anxieties of the “led.” And generally only a deeply lonely person, who from childhood has expected to gain whatever approval and warmth he got by being the delegate of his mother’s needs and by performing in perfect tune to her wishes, however distorted, can be expected to become a professional politician. The sight of our fantasy leaders following our emotional commands is so commonplace that we no longer even note it. David Frost tells Nixon on TV to make statesman-like noises, and he becomes the all-powerful leader of the free world. Frost tells him to “apologize to the people,” and he cries and apologizes.
* See Glenn Davis, “Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Era: A Study in Individual and Group Psychohistory” in deMause, ed. The New Psychohistory. New York: Psychohistory Press, 1975, pp. 245-305. For Nixon, see both James W. Hamilton, “Some Reflections on Richard Nixon in the Light of His Resignation and Farewell Speeches” The Journal of Psychohistory 4(1977):491-511 and David Abrahamson, Nixon vs Nixon: An Emotional Tragedy. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1977. Other “psychobiographies” have little childhood information, and cannot be seriously considered as professionally adequate psychobiographies. Doris Kearns’ Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream, for instance, depended entirely on Johnson’s account of his childhood, with no attempt at any independent research into primary sources. Bruce Mazlish’s In Search of Nixon was written, he himself has said, only after proper funding was denied him to do a thorough job of going to Whittier to dig out the facts on his childhood. Nancy Gager Clinch’s The Kennedy Neurosis has one page on JFK’s severe childhood discipline, but again attempts no independent research into the sources. Freud’s book on Wilson is a disaster. And so on. It will be years before even a start is made on forming any general opinions on the personalities of American Presidents.
- from The New Psychohistory [1975] (Lloyd deMause, Editor); p. 10 [Chapter 1 - The Independence of Psychohistory by Lloyd deMause] . . . . it is probably true that my own work on the evolution of childhood was at least partly a response to problems encountered in the theory of economic development, as set forth in such books as Everett E. Hagen's On the Theory of Social Change: How Economic Growth Begins, where the crucial link needed to produce a take-off in economic development is shown to be just the kind of personality which I was later able to trace in the history of childhood as the result of the "intrusive mode" of parenting. Just as surely is the study of class intimately tied up with evolving psychohistorical patterns of dominance and submission, and the study of power dependent upon an understanding of group-fantasy needs and defenses.
- pp. 307-308 [CHAPTER 10 – Psychohistory and Psychotherapy by Lloyd deMause]: During the long summer of 1973, as the Watergate hearings began to reveal the full extent of the illegal activities of Richard M. Nixon, I would often have lunch with associates in the mental health field, and invariably our discussions turned to the personality of Nixon. Surprisingly, my friends each described for me quite similar profiles of his character. Previously, they said, it had seemed that Nixon was a typical obsessive-compulsive personality, reasonably well integrated, warding off a great deal of repressed hostility through typical defense mechanisms, chiefly overcontrol of himself and others, and through a variety of over-moralistic projects. In short, he had seemed little different than, say, the average compulsive businessman who was so frequently seen in psychotherapy.
But, with Watergate, it was becoming more and more evident that this appraisal of Nixon was superficial, that his compulsive traits were only protective coloration which allowed him to blend in with the pre-dominant American personality-type. Instead, it was becoming apparent that he was closer to the psychopathic personality-type, making paranoid lists of enemies and ordering their illegal surveillance and persecution, tape-recording secretly on a wholesale basis, and so on down the familiar list of Nixon-directed activities. Every one of the character-traits familiar to those who regularly treat psychopathic personalities began to be revealed: the shifting moral standards and patchy superego, the continuous confusion between what is right and what is narcissistically needed, the paranoid insecurity and compensatory grandiosity, the shallow inter-personal attachments, the lack of the capacity for guilt or even regret, the overcontrol combined with an increasingly unpredictable impulsivity.
Sometimes our lunch-table discussions went further, and we would speculate on whether a real analysis of Nixon’s childhood would confirm this diagnosis, since psychopathic personalities generally could be traced to a great deal of emotional abandonment and even violence in the family, whereas the family patterns of obsessive-compulsive personalities usually centered more on the problem of parental overcontrol and excessive demands. But regardless of the different turns our discussion took, we usually ended our luncheon with a weak joke, which usually ran something like: “Well, with all these awful things now coming out about Nixon, I sure hope he doesn’t feel he has to show he still has balls by pushing the little red button or something!”
Since at that time I had just started a scholarly journal of psychohistory, I made it a point to ask each of these psychotherapists if they would write up some of their professional opinions for publication, including the possibility that there was a danger of Nixon, like other psychopathic personalities, reacting to exposure and ridicule by having to prove his potency, and that this might take the form of precipitating an international nuclear crisis solely for personal interpsychic reasons. As you might suspect, all of my friends refused to commit their opinions to writing. It was not just that they were reluctant personally to state their opinions; beyond this, they appeared to believe that psychotherapists should not be allowed to express professional opinions on political problems, that somehow the professional status of the psychotherapist prohibited him or her from analyzing political behavior. “I’m a specialist,” was the feeling. “Let the social scientists handle political events.”
A few months later, on October 23, 1973, what we joked about, what we most feared, happened. Using as a pretext a completely insignificant political event, the Russian demand that they be allowed to include some Soviet troops in the U.N. Middle-East peace-keeping force, Nixon pushed the Red Alert Button, and two million American soldiers went into a state of war-time readiness, including the arming of 15,000 nuclear bombs. I don’t know what your personal response to this Red Alert was, but my own reaction was to go home, put my family and dogs into our car, and head north toward Canada. Luckily, as in the Cuban missile crisis, the Russian leaders recognized a case of machismo as well as my psychoanalytic friends did. They quickly backed off on their demand, and for a second time in a decade we all narrowly escaped being blown off the face of the earth.
- from The Truth Will Set You Free by Alice Miller: I described ******’s childhood in my book For Your Own Good, and many of my readers were aghast. One woman wrote: “If ****** had had five sons he could have vented his revenge on for the tortures he was subjected to in his childhood, then he would probably never have victimized the Jewish people. You can take everything you’ve suffered out on your own children and never get punished because murdering the soul of your own child can always be passed off as parenting, child-raising, upbringing.”
Not all my readers were able to accept this view of ****** and concede that his terrifying example demonstrates how evil comes about, how tiny, innocent children can turn into ravening beasts threatening not only their own families but the whole world. I was reminded that many children get beaten and otherwise abused in childhood, but they do not all turn into mass murderers. I took these arguments seriously and investigated the question of how children can survive brutal treatment without becoming criminals later in life. From a close study of many biographies, I established that in those cases where the victim did not turn into a victimizer, there was invariably some figure that had shown the child affection, the person I call the helping witness. Children with helping witnesses to turn to were able to gain awareness of the evil that had been done to them while at the same time identifying with the person who had shown them kindness.
- from The Psychopath Test by Jon Ronson; pp. 113-114: "What if the wife of a psychopath reads this?" I asked. "What should she do? Leave?"
"Yes," said Martha. "I would like to say leave. You're not going to hurt someone's feelings because there are no feelings to hurt." She paused. "Sociopaths love power. They love winning. If you take loving kindness out of the human brain, there's not much left except the will to win."
"Which means you'll find a preponderance of them at the top of the tree?" I said.
"Yes," she said. "The higher you go up the ladder, the greater the number of sociopaths you'll find there."
"So the wars, the injustices, the exploitation, all of these things occur because of that tiny percent of the population up there who are mad in this certain way?" I asked. It sounded like the ripple effect of Petter Nordlund's book, but on a giant scale.
"I think a lot of these things are initiated by them," she said.
"It is a frightening and huge thought," I said, "that the ninety-nine percent of us wandering around down here are having our lives pushed and pulled around by that psychopathic fraction up there."
"It is a large thought," she said. "It is a thought people don't have very often. Because we're raised to believe that deep down everyone has a conscience."
At the end of our conversation she turned to address you, the reader. She said if you're beginning to feel worried that you may be a psychopath, if you recognize some of those traits in yourself, if you're feeling a creeping anxiety about it, that means you are not one.
- pp. 158-159 (6. Night of the Living Dead): “Oh!” I said. “One more thing. When you see a crime-scene photograph – something really grotesque, someone’s face blown apart or something—do you react with horror?”
He shook his head. “No,” he said. “I think I intellectualize it.”
“Really?” I said. “It makes you curious? It’s absorbing? Like a puzzle to be solved?”
“Curious.” Al nodded. “As opposed to, ‘Oh my gosh, that’s frightened me!’ I’m not going to go sit in the corner of the room. What enters my mind is, What happened here? Why did it happen?”
“Your body doesn’t feel debilitated in response to the shock of seeing the picture?” I said.
Al shook his head.
I was leaning forward, peering at him over my glasses, carefully scrutinizing him. He quickly clarified, “Yeah, what enters my mind is, What happened here and how can it be prevented from ever happening again?”
“How can it be prevented from ever happening again?” I asked.
“You cannot be a leader and cringe from evil and badness,” he said. “You’ve got to face it.” He paused. “The basic definition of leadership is the person who rises above the crowd and gets something done. Okay?”
We had lunch before I left. Al seemed in surprisingly high spirits for a man who’d just been questioned on which psychopathic traits most applied to him. He had a little gold ax on his lapel. As we ate, he told me funny stories about firing people. Each was essentially the same: someone was lazy and he fired them with an amusing quip. For instance, one lazy Sunbeam executive mentioned to him that he’d just bought himself a fabulous sports car.
“You may have a fancy sports car,” Al replied, “but I’ll tell you what you don’t have. A job!”
Judy laughed at each of the anecdotes, though she had surely heard them many times, and I realized what a godsend to a corporation a man who enjoys firing people must be.
- pp. 145-147 (6. Night of the Living Dead): On the July 1996 day that Sunbeam’s board of directors revealed the name of their new CEO, the share price skyrocketed from $12.50 to $18.63. It was—according to Dunlap’s unofficial biographer John Byrne—the largest jump in New York Stock Exchange history. On the day a few months later that Dunlap announced that half of Sunbeam’s 12,000 employees would be fired (according to The New York Times, this was in percentage terms the largest work-force reduction of its kind ever), the share price shot up again, to $28. In fact the only time the price wavered during those heady months was on December 2, 1996, when BusinessWeek revealed that Dunlap had failed to show up at his parents’ funerals and had threatened his first wife with a knife. On that day, the share price went down 1.5 percent.
It reminded me of that scene in the movie Badlands when fifteen-year-old Holly, played by Sissy Spacek, suddenly realizes with a jolt that her tough, handsome boyfriend, Kit, has actually crossed the line from rugged to lunatic. She takes an anxious step backward, but then says in her vacant monotone of a voice-over, “I could have snuck out the back or hid in the boiler room, I suppose, but I sensed that my destiny now lay with Kit for better or for worse.”
Much as in Badlands, Al Dunlap’s relationship with his shareholders bounced back fast after December 2, and together they went on a year-long rampage across rural America, closing plants in Shubata and Bay Springs and Laurel, Mississippi, and Cookeville, Tennessee, and Paragould, Arkansas, and Coushatta, Louisiana, and on and on, turning communities across the American South into ghost towns. With each plant closure, the Sunbeam share price soared, reaching an incredible $51 by the spring of 1998.
Coincidentally, Bob Hare writes about Badlands in his seminal book on psychopathy, Without Conscience:
If Kit is the moviemaker’s conception of a psychopath, Holly is the real thing, a talking mask simply going through the motions of feeling deeply. Her narration is delivered in a monotone and embellished with phrases drawn straight from the glossies telling young girls what they should feel. If there was ever an example of “knowing the words but not the music,” Spacek’s character is it.
http://www.alice-miller.com/readersm...=2659&grp=0609
Individualism's contrivances have been getting a lot of undeserved attention recently. The following text regards my complaints of recent days against Individualism and its subtle but caustic attempts to step on other people's toes. Sure, Individualism can fabulize about how society is screaming for its morals. That doesn't change the fact that it will probably throw another hissy fit if we don't let it subject us to an intense barrage of misinformation, deception, and hidden propaganda. At least putting up with another Individualism hissy fit is easier than convincing Individualism's drones that many of the oleaginous omadhauns I've encountered are convinced that it's illegal to dispense justice—or, if it isn't illegal, then it ought to be. This view is loathsome by any stretch of the imagination and reflects how there isn't so much as a molecule of evidence that the government (and perhaps Individualism itself) should have sweeping powers to arrest and hold people indefinitely on flimsy grounds. The only reason that Individualism claims otherwise is that its thesis is that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel. That's thoroughly scabrous, you say? Good; that means you're finally catching on. The next step is to observe that Individualism has a natural talent for complaining. It can find any aspect of life and whine about it for hours upon hours.
Individualism would have us believe that it is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. To be honest, it has never actually said that explicitly, but if you follow its logic—what little there is—you'll see that this is its real point. I, speaking as someone who is not a psychotic fussbudget, am fed up with Individualism's mumpish and shallow behavior. Once we realize that, what do we do? The appropriate thing, in my judgment, is to hone in on Individualism's faults with laser-like precision. I say that because if it can one day reconstitute society on the basis of arrested development and envious malevolence then the long descent into night is sure to follow. As the oft-repeated saying goes, "Individualism's calumnies are founded on bald-faced lies". The importance of that saying is that it reminds us that Individualism has somehow managed to get the media to pay rapt attention to its immoral memoranda. I don't know what sort of Jedi mind control it's been using to pull that off, but I do know that of all of Individualism's exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: "We should all bear the brunt of Individualism's actions." I don't know where it came up with this, but its statement is dead wrong.
Individualism contends that fogyism is a sine qua non for mankind's happiness. What planet is it from? The planet Harebrained? The answer is too well-known to bear repeating, but I should comment that Individualism occasionally shows what appears to be warmth, joy, love, or compassion. You should realize, however, that these positive expressions are more feigned than experienced and invariably serve an ulterior motive, such as to force its moral code on the rest of us.
I myself wish Individualism would vanish into the same logistical nothingness that its arguments invariably lead to, but that's a story for another time. For now, I want to focus on the way that whenever a will-o'-the-wisp of gnosticism, however unreal, turns up anywhere, it is off at a trot. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. I truly reject Individualism's demands. I trust that I have not shocked any of you by writing that. However, I do realize that some of my readers may feel that much of what I have penned about Individualism in this letter is heartless and in violation of our Christian duty to love everyone. If so, I can say only that Individualism likes to produce precisely the alienation and conflict needed to go to great lengths to conceal its true aims and mislead the public. Such activity can flourish only in the dark, however. If you drag it into the open, Individualism and its vicegerents will run for cover like cockroaches in a dirty kitchen when the light is turned on suddenly during the night. That's why we must show you, as dispassionately as possible, what kind of unctuous thoughts Individualism is thinking about these days.
Individualism maintains that it is a model organization. That's not just a lie but is actually the exact opposite of the truth—and Individualism knows it. Why is Individualism deliberately turning the truth on its head like that? Any honest person who takes the time to think about that question will be forced to conclude that Individualism makes a lot of exaggerated claims. All of these claims need to be scrutinized as carefully as a letter of recommendation from a job applicant's mother. Consider, for example, Individualism's claim that the peak of fashion is to reduce our modern, civilized, industrialized society to a state of mindless, primitive barbarism. The fact of the matter is that we wouldn't currently have a problem with Jacobinism if it weren't for it. Although Individualism created the problem, aggravated the problem, and escalated the problem, it insists that it can solve the problem if we just grant it more power. How naïve does Individualism think we are? Truly, it has stated that bad things "just happen" (i.e., they're not caused by Individualism itself). One clear inference from that statement—an inference that is never really disavowed—is that the only way to expand one's mind is with drugs—or maybe even chocolate. Now that's just disgraceful.
I've managed to come up with a way in which Individualism's essays could be made useful. Its essays could be used by the instructors of college courses as a final examination of sorts. Any student who can't find at least 20 errors of fact or fatuous statement automatically flunks. Extra credit goes to students who realize that Individualism has been undermining liberty in the name of liberty. It's time to even the score. I suggest that we begin by notifying people of the fact that Individualism's allocutions are worse than the Black Death of olden times. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that Individualism must be surrounded by some sort of reality-distortion field. Why else would its stooges warrant that the more strepitant the communication, the more perspicuous the message? If it weren't for all that reality distortion they'd instead be observing that Individualism has a knack for convincing irritable quacksalvers that I and others who think it's a self-deceiving doryphore are secretly using etheric attachment cords to drain people's karmic energy. That's called marketing. The underlying trick is to use sesquipedalian terms like "intercommunicability" and "institutionalization" to keep its sales pitch from sounding profligate. That's why you really have to look hard to see that Individualism's belief systems have a long and unholy lineage. In particular, they're based upon all of the costive devices of the past: spheres of influence, balances of power, secret treaties, triple alliances, and, during the interim periods, appeasement of expansionism.
Individualism's supporters have recently enjoyed some success at using terms of opprobrium such as "tendentious bloodsuckers" and "closed-minded hooligans" to castigate whomever Individualism opposes. Individualism considers this a reason to kvell. In contrast, I consider it a reason to bring important information about Individualism's scummy allegations into the limelight.
You keep pushing yout ST world view in which the battle for power and politics are the same thing. But I'm sorry to tell you they are not.You seem to know little and talk much. Have you tried getting into politics?
Politics is something far more subtle. You see, people are like machines; they have a code inside them that gives them instructions on what to do. When they are born, they are governed by their instincts. Over the course of the years they complement instincts with learning; first, from their family, then from the society they live on.
They learn customs and rules. Some of them have a clear benefit attached to them; some don't. Usually, when something doesn't make much sense, it loses support and extingishes itself. On the contrary, what is proven to be beneficial is perpetuated. We call the net sum of knowledge politics. It's about what everyone agrees upon.
I'm writing a book and I'll share and example from it. Say they catch a thief. They open him a trial and he tries to demonstrate he's innocent, while someone else tries to prove him guilty. And here is where you must look carefully: a thief never disputes the legitimacy of a law that forbids stealing. This is, the notion that stealing is wrong is a matter of politics whitin that society and is a concept that everyone agrees upon; even the thief.
This is important because the true goverment is what they call the social contract. There is where any public power comes from and what Machiavelli called legitimacy. It's difficult to see if you're focusing your view on day to day events and from your individual perspective; but on an historical scale, it never fails to work that way.
And let me tell you that history shows us that any single individual has power to influence a society. It's just how we measure influence. Wealth? Fame? The most influential individuals are unknown to the masses. To have an impact it's just a matter of having sufficiently clear ideas. Most people don't understand the world; much less having valuable contributions.
[]
| NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
ST world view - that sounded funny.
I'm not pushing anything and I don't know where did you read it. I take it, you're one of those people that see and know what I didn't write/said. There's quite a few of them roaming this forum.
Oh and I can push you off a bridge.
Oh ye? I wrote a few myself on this forum. Now I have to listen very closely...I'm writing a book
Those people who defend him and accuse him, have names. You know, they go by established function(s). Just a future remark.They open him a trial and he tries to demonstrate he's innocent, while someone else tries to prove him guilty. And here is where you must look carefully: a thief never disputes the legitimacy of a law that forbids stealing. This is, the notion that stealing is wrong is a matter of politics whitin that society and is a concept that everyone agrees upon; even the thief.
And a thief does dispute the legitimacy of the law. The one I have had the pleasure(?) with was first in a squad car and cell after. He actually yelled like crazy that they [police] "should catch criminals and not innocent people."
I don't have to tell you where you can shove that Hobbesian model you go by.This is important because the true goverment is what they call the social contract.
No shit.And let me tell you that history shows us that any single individual has power to influence a society.
And you're accusing me of pushing my "ST world view" on you. In light of a Hobbesian society, this is what you do:
1) Submit,
2) Submit,
3) Submit.
Thank you, delicious.
Oh yes, you do. For a practical person like you, NFs seem useless and powerless. You can read between lines that you look down at anything theoretical. If I remember correctly, you said something like "you think a bunch of people in a forum can overthrow a government?". And the response to that is yes, they can. And they already did it. Call it Mubarak regime fall. And many other things that are happening now.
In a society NFs are catalyzers. We seemingly don't serve any practical purpose because we don't touch anything directly; our influence however, makes the rest to do quantum leaps. We would probably still live in caves if it was for people like you. I don't imagine people like you "wasting" time devising stuff such as intellectual property or human rights. You know, there is a dimension of reality that isn't obvious if you base your ideas only on day to day issues.
Were we talking in any other place it would be difficult for me to explain but here everybody knows about Socionics. You're ST. You're Aristocratic. You have an ego the size of the Everest. And you're arrogant. By itself that's not an issue; the problem here is that you are both arrogant and wrong. I can see from a mile away that you don't understand what you're talking about; yet you try to lecture us and ridicule.
[
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
Seriously, I'm going to have to offend you, I just can't do it otherwise. Can't sustain these "flashes of civility" as JWC3 nicely and fruitlessly put it when conversing with certain individuals. Again and again, you're putting words into my mouth I have never even uttered and you see things I just can't fathom nor do not know how you actually do that. You see things that aren't there. I really appreciate you making up a background story on my person seeing we didn't talk much if at all, and you want to see me the way you have written me, so I wouldn't want to shit on that book you're writing about me.
So once again, but this time, carve it on your ceiling so every time you go to sleep and wake up, you're going to see that "Absurd doesn't see, claim, state, preach that NF people are useless and powerless". This is going to allow you to no lose that thought. The thought I injected into your brain with my "powerful ST world view". I know it is going to be hard to add that line in your book about me - you actually have to resist my pushy and hungry for power ST world view, but you're going to make it. I emancipate you from my ST tyranny, fly childe, fly!
That's interesting. Didn't know the Mubarak regime is ripe in the U.S., and it is time to overthrow it. Anyway, don't let me stand in your way.And the response to that is yes, they can. And they already did it. Call it Mubarak regime fall. And many other things that are happening now.
I didn't lecture anyone, I just pushed my ST world view on you. And how am I wrong? Is it because I didn't agree with you on something really trivial?Were we talking in any other place it would be difficult for me to explain but here everybody knows about Socionics. You're ST. You're Aristocratic. You have an ego the size of the Everest. And you're arrogant. By itself that's not an issue; the problem here is that you are both arrogant and wrong. I can see from a mile away that you don't understand what you're talking about; yet you try to lecture us and ridicule.
Since you're unable to admit (as some people already pointed out) I'll be forced to prove:
To this point I prove:
1) That you have no fucking idea about what you're talking about. It is neccesary to formulate concepts to understand stuff, you know. If you don't formulate concepts then you're just a recording machine that just comes up with memories in a creative way. But don't worry, I don't judge you for this; I've got an ESE brother who is just like you and whom I discuss with all the time. I know how it works (to have weak intuition).
2) That you look down at theoretical stuff.
3) That you claim you underatand stuff simply because of your experience and that your experience is somehow more valuable than the theoretical knowledge of... well, let's be honest, compared to Absurd, insignificant figures such as Weber, Plato, Machiavelli. If that's not pushing your ST world view and I don't what it is.
But in an incredible display of arrogance you keep going on:
Really at this point I was pissing myself out of laugh...
Really, here is where you really crossed the line. Not only you keep pushing the practical shit, you go as far as to claim that just because we don't care to enter into the game of power, we don't know what we're talking about! It's like saying I can't speak about the moon because I've never been there...It's the same thing all the way, through and through. Be it direct and indirect democracy. It's not that the representative (indirect democracy) exploits the wishes of the people (the community), it's the other way around. Although when it happens we talk about corruption.
You seem to know little and talk much. Have you tried getting into politics?
Hell, it's the same on this forum like in real life. Hkkmr ask what you people want to get done, see on this site and you go blahblahblah and so on. But when he makes some kind of decision that is going to benefit only him, you go blahblahblah in uproar.
It's easy. Although he wasn't voted admin, that's the only difference.
So rolling back, stop spreading your poison, can you? You're unable to influence the world for better because you don't even understand it. Or worse, you think you understand it when you clearly don't.
[
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
No, I didn't know that. I can flood you with definitions, every single one I know, to which you're going to formulate your own concepts and and I am going to stand back thinking to myself "what the hell are you doing?", "are you really that knowledgeable to formulate your own?", etc.
I focus mostly on things that do actually work in real life. I'm not the epitome of idealist person like yourself, more like a social realist when it comes to things that ought to be done and action taken, besides talking with you I would rather win than get along no matter who you are, how you self-type, how many shitty statements you produce on the fly there to prove something. As for, again, formulating concepts, I would like to see how the ones you formulated in the political arena, the ones that work and not just float there, fare.
I did devise my own, one that actually works enriched by prisoner's dilemma and the like. It's somewhat akin to the Hobbesian social contract you spoke about but just couldn't name it properly. I bet if I showed you a spade you wouldn't be even able to say what it is.
I've got a pet monkey who is just like you, talks useless bollocks, and the produce of such nonsense I wouldn't be even able to sell to any one with half a brain.
I do look down at it. If it doesn't make any sense and leads to nowhere, then I discard it. Reason is a powerful tool when used properly.2) That you look down at theoretical stuff.
Alright, not only you talk bollocks and nonsense like a frigging nonce deprived of raw materials you could flog your bishop to, not to mention stick it where it doesn't belong, for if it were the Hammurabi Code employed on this site and I made judge, jury and executioner (which I am, in fact), I would personally see to it you be deprived of any limbs that have made your futile and meaningless existence you call life, terminated. If there is a god, then he spat on you destiny long time ago and delivered your carcass under my jurisdiction.3) That you claim you underatand stuff simply because of your experience and that your experience is somehow more valuable than the theoretical knowledge of... well, let's be honest, compared to Absurd, insignificant figures such as Weber, Plato, Machiavelli. If that's not pushing your ST world view and I don't what it is.
Not only you're completely illogical, for let's face it, typing some guy on the Internet two types already and not being able to actually decide as if voices in your head made you unable to, I'm going to take any kind of risk there is and just refer to you as a schizophrenic from now on.
Sue me or deal with it. A stands for Arrogance you useless NF person I do not want to know. Watch out and read closely, everyone, who happens to read it, I don't find NF people useless, only two of them.But in an incredible display of arrogance you keep going on:
Show me where did I write that. As for the Moon, go hug it.Really, here is where you really crossed the line. Not only you keep pushing the practical shit, you go as far as to claim that just because we don't care to enter into the game of power, we don't know what we're talking about! It's like saying I can't speak about the moon because I've never been there...
Haha! Fuck the world, the only thing I'm going to influence is my own and family's welfare. You know, big monies so I and them can pursue whatever they deem interesting.So rolling back, stop spreading your poison, can you? You're unable to influence the world for better because you don't even understand it. Or worse, you think you understand it when you clearly don't.
Last edited by Absurd; 10-14-2012 at 09:19 AM.
Individualism is never a truly healthy habit, but such is the world and that's why true capitalism works.
Perfect<------------------------------------------------------------------------------>Loops and Tings
Ambivert / Aggressor / Trailblazer / Nomad / Alpha Caretaker / Free Spirit / Kevlar Speed Demon / Ninja
In Medieval China, sure.
What do you mean by it's not healthy?
He means he can't eat it. Needs more pepper.
Comments like that aren't allowed here.
Come up with your admin list of comments that are allowed here.
You (hypothetical "you") can be as happy and self reliant as you want. Chances are you're lonely after accomplishing this.
Perfect<------------------------------------------------------------------------------>Loops and Tings
Ambivert / Aggressor / Trailblazer / Nomad / Alpha Caretaker / Free Spirit / Kevlar Speed Demon / Ninja
Elaborate.
I don't have to, hkkmr does it for me. This is what we would call ignoring/automatic Te. It works and it doesn't need my participation.
Alpha capitalism in a nutshell.
Interesting perspective. How does that match with your strong desire for autonomy?
I don't have to pay attention to whatever you say, then. Actually this reminds me of the time I worked in that crap tool job. One of the guys who has been doing his practice there when asked where is some city and how to get there for there was a client waiting, said "I have no idea, my brother does geography for me."
What is Gamma, Beta and Delta Capitalism, then? Take your time, I know you have to refer to hkkmr on those.Alpha capitalism in a nutshell.
Strong desire for autonomy is only a defense mechanism for my strong secret desire for dependency. My ideals of innocence are based upon a world where everyone is the same, where no one bullies another for selfish gain, where I can ask someone for a bowl of sugar and they can ask me for a gallon of milk and both know we'll always be there to help one another in rough times. I can only create such a perfect world if I dissociate myself from it, or create it myself (hence why I created my own forum for MBTI ISTPs). But this attitude leads toward a lonely existence where I believe there is no one else out there capable of such a thing.
Perfect<------------------------------------------------------------------------------>Loops and Tings
Ambivert / Aggressor / Trailblazer / Nomad / Alpha Caretaker / Free Spirit / Kevlar Speed Demon / Ninja
For the US, I think the government should exist but be small and managed mostly by smaller states.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Oh but you have to. Unless you want to join Betas in the zoo.
Then why do you ask me? Go find hkkmr. Tell him I sent you, and give me him a kiss on the cheek, left, right, no left.What is Gamma, Beta and Delta Capitalism, then? Take your time, I know you have to refer to hkkmr on those.
Why did you create your own forum? I didn't get it.
Also, I would have never thought you would be an advocate of dependency. I kind of get it though.
You mixed up hkkmr with jxrtes who has been of different opinion.
Simple. You're referring to somebody you agree with stating you don't have to do anything because it is done for you - all I asked was you actually show what has been done for you, unless you want to join the betas in zoo.Then why do you ask me? Go find hkkmr. Tell him I sent you, and give me him a kiss on the cheek, left, right, no left.
Two can play this game.
You misunderstood.
I'm Te and you can't ignore Te. Because you're not Beta/Alpha. You can be gamma if you want to, but you will have to pace your Te, you know, feel it and let it flow. Better watch out, or you will never be back to Delta-land. To Beta dungeons you will go. And live there forever. Mate. Eat. And write books.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
