Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 121 to 160 of 162

Thread: The Rise of Trumpism

  1. #121
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Ancapistan
    Posts
    2,430
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    I just find it utterly jarring that Christian Europeans conquer, dominate, colonize, crusade, enslave, destroy, pillage, and plunder virtually unimpeded for centuries upon centuries but when (according to some) "the chickens finally come home to roost," somehow Europe's shady, inhumane past vanishes into thin air and they suddenly become victims on the verge of being besieged by barbarian hordes. The unmitigated gall is astounding. To some, this is nothing but karma and I must say, you aren't taking it very well. And make no mistake, arguably, the Islamic Turks, Arabs, Persians, etc... are also getting their fair share of universal "karma." Maybe one day people will learn that regardless of our differences, we're similarly shit at the core and we should try to overcome that together.
    And we still are enslaving and exploiting the third world today, only difference from the pre-WW1 age from today is that do it by propping up corrupt puppet regimes instead of sending in own our troops. The west wants the third world to stay poor so we can continue having excess to their cheap labor and resources, without our whole economy would utterly collapse.

    The strategy amongst marxist today centers around assisting the third world to overthrow their puppet regimes and obtain sovereignty, which in turn would cause an economic crisis in the west and thus set the stage for revolution within the first world itself. If you've been paying attention to at China then you also know that they investing heavily into developing Africa, and there is a very good reason for that. It's time for and capitalism and western imperialism to come to end.

  2. #122
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    205 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    Wrong. And I’m going to be generous and just list the major European ethnic groups within various European countries.

    UK (according to the 2011 census): English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, Irish, British (including the Cornish)
    Belgium: Flemish, Walloon
    Spain: Andalusian, Aragonese, Asturian, Balearic, Basque, Canary Islanders, Galicians, Leonese, Valencian, Cantabrian, Castilian, Catalonian, Extremaduran
    Switzerland: German-Swiss, French-Swiss, Italian Swiss, Romanch
    France: Alemannic Germans, Arpitan, Basques, Bretons, Catalans, Corsicans, Flemings, Occitans.

    That list is by no means exhaustive, but I just wanted to prove three points, that 1.) unsurprisingly, you don’t know what you are talking about; 2.) that you were disingenuously speaking in coded language meant to single out non-ethnic European people as somehow being incapable of integrating with ethnic Europeans without significant strife; 3.) that “social policies” rooted in unifying people through economic incentives, shared values, and laws that codify inalienable human rights can indeed bring peoples together. Don’t believe me? Take a gander:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_integration

    The thing is this: reasonable people understand that it can take time (with a few bumps and bruises along the way) for different cultures to acclimate to each other and that's ok. Humans are tribal, narcissistic and stubborn--we need time, hell, even when we look alike, speak the same language and come from a similar place (look at early Irish immigrants in the US). Some of you seem to be incapable of understanding that ALL cultures change and evolve over time and that's both normal and ok.

    But you know what doesn't help the integration process along? Hatred and fear mongering.
    So the minor differences between cultural/ethnic groups residing within European nations somehow compares between the vast cultural/ethnic differences between migrants and Europeans? That is like saying cutting off the tip of a finger is the same as cutting off an arm or cutting off a capilliary is the same as cutting off an artery. Huge slippery slope you got there.

    Like I said before, my views for European colonized nations (US, Canada, NZ, Australia) where they were originally Native American, Maori and Aboriginal Australian is where I don't mind ethnic groups immigrating as long as they integrate and assimilate into a melting pot.

    As you already know I am Canadian so this is not a NIMBY scenario, it is me rejecting migration into Europe largely on ethical grounds. One of which is that it is occuring under false pretenses: economic migration parading itself as refugees. The other is the displacement of the original ethnic people of European nations regardless of how diverse they were beforehand.

    just find it utterly jarring that Christian Europeans conquer, dominate, colonize, crusade, enslave, destroy, pillage, and plunder virtually unimpeded for centuries upon centuries but when (according to some) "the chickens finally come home to roost," somehow Europe's shady, inhumane past vanishes into thin air and they suddenly become victims on the verge of being besieged by barbarian hordes. The unmitigated gall is astounding. To some, this is nothing but karma and I must say, you aren't taking it very well. And make no mistake, arguably, the Islamic Turks, Arabs, Persians, etc... are also getting their fair share of universal "karma." Maybe one day people will learn that regardless of our differences, we're similarly shit at the core and we should try to overcome that together.

    Having said that, I don't believe in unfettered immigration, especially along the lines of what we've recently seen. I think that there must be a healthy respect for the fact that 1.) resources have limitations, 2.) most people need gradual change and time to adjust to "difference," and 3.) with that "difference" comes some potential culture clashes and problems that must be addressed honestly and responsibly. But then again, the migrant crisis is a crisis, and does not reflect normal trends. Sweden is particularly burdened because other countries don't pull their weight, whether from of a lack of desire (Denmark), an inability to handle the load (Serbia and Croatia) or both (Poland)--although Poles don't mind "burdening" other EU nations with their own people, including mine.

    Lastly, I believe that most of the current influx of immigrants should go back to their countries once there is greater stability in their lands and that moreover, they actually do want that for themselves. But when people are in dire need, I believe that humanity owes it to ourselves to help, especially when a certain group of humans have literally benefitted off the backs of those now knocking down their doors. It's quite simply really.
    Wait, so two wrongs make a right? Because Europe colonized nations in the past that makes it acceptable for them to slowly self destruct due to mass migration as a result of incompetent politicians? If Danish and Polish politicians are more resistant and reject migrants than Swedish and German politicians then that is a failure of Swedish and German politicians and the success of Danish and Polish politicians. Those in power should control the flow of immigration, not allow it blindly. If China, Japan or South Korea did what Europe is doing now, I would be just as disturned. Any nation rapidly imploding its ethnicity and culture with thousands of years of history is bothersome to watch.

    What’s befuddling to me is how we are a personality typing forum and you can’t read under my avatar, at the very least, that I’m an enneagram 8w7. Lol And an ENTJ who had his primitive ass Fi values stepped, which is never pretty. But I came back to the discussion because I’m just too petty to let you get away with being wrong.
    I distinctly remember you having only LIE followed by several question marks until you just added 8w7 sx/so recently. So don't play that trickery with me. Regardless, 8w7 sx/so does fit you well given your general behavior. Anyways, it seems like you genuinely believe in your views intellectually and ethically rather than merely virtue signal so I will give you props for that.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  3. #123
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    970
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    it is me rejecting migration into Europe largely on ethical grounds
    Out of curiosity, what are those?

    Most refugees will return to their countries once the war is over. Not many people want to come to Europe, adapt to a new culture/language, etc. Otherwise they would have came before the war started.

  4. #124
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    205 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY View Post
    Out of curiosity, what are those?

    Most refugees will return to their countries once the war is over. Not many people want to come to Europe, adapt to a new culture/language, etc. Otherwise they would have came before the war started.
    I am fine with Syrian refugees entering Europe, that is not the immigration that bothers me, which is a very small part of it. What bothers me is the economic migrants posing as refugees and taking advantage of the refugee crisis to get into Europe. Why do economic migrants get to enter Europe with the same standards of a refugee? It is mind boggling, they should be allowed to enter Europe with the criteria of someone seeking to immigrate into any country with a formal process to prove they will benefit the country and integrate into the country. Every nation around the world functions in this way except for the EU and its immigration laws that it has imposed on its member nations in Europe.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  5. #125
    Alonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    381
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    So the minor differences between cultural/ethnic groups residing within European nations somehow compares between the vast cultural/ethnic differences between migrants and Europeans? That is like saying cutting off the tip of a finger is the same as cutting off an arm or cutting off a capilliary is the same as cutting off an artery. Huge slippery slope you got there.
    1.) NOPE. First off, the differences between migrants and Europeans are not as "vast" as you say:



    a.] Do you know whose intervention set off the generations of strife in modern Syria (and the rest of the Middle East, FWIW)? The French and British, Quelle surprise! Before that, the Syrians fell under the Ottomans, and before that, the Arabs and before that, they featured prominently in Hellenic and Roman antiquity where they were a part of a thriving network based around the Mediterranean Sea, which is why phenotypically and culturally (more broadly), they are almost indistinguishable from Southern Italians, Greeks, Albanians, Lebanese, Turks, etc.... Moreover, you do realize that Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo are Muslim majority European countries, that have been that way for a very long time? My point is, in actuality, there is very little substantial difference between a large amount of the migrants and populations already present within Europe. From a Swedish standpoint, a Greek, Bosnian, Albanian, Georgian, Turk, Afghani, Syrian, and Iraqi are essentially all the "the same shit" = not Swedish and from somewhere warm. Moreover, the Pakistanis, Indians and West Africans primarily come from former European colonies; the Eritreans are primarily Christian; the Somalis are a bit more problematic, tbh--having said that, members of the former Yugoslavia enacted all kinds of brutality upon each other, on European soil, as Europeans, only a few decades ago! None of the new migrants have brought that kind of wrath and violence.

    And fret not, Europe is still overwhelmingly Christian, albeit far more secularized Christianity in varying degrees depending on the nation. Secularization has helped us come together, though we still retain some of our individual Protestant/Lutheran/Catholic/Orthodox traditions and that's fine. Personally, I believe that Islam will follow suit. In Sweden, less than a quarter of the estimated %5 Muslim population are actually practicing Muslims. Times change, people change, cultures change and evolve--that's normal and follows human tradition. I don't understand why that is such a hard concept to grasp.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    As you already know I am Canadian so this is not a NIMBY scenario, it is me rejecting migration into Europe largely on ethical grounds. One of which is that it is occuring under false pretenses: economic migration parading itself as refugees. The other is the displacement of the original ethnic people of European nations regardless of how diverse they were beforehand.
    Sorry, can't care about this. The bulk of these displaced refugees come from countries where European colonizers/imperialists/aggressors took part in their displacement and disenfranchisement, over time contributing exactly to where we are now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Wait, so two wrongs make a right? Because Europe colonized nations in the past that makes it acceptable for them to slowly self destruct due to mass migration as a result of incompetent politicians? If Danish and Polish politicians are more resistant and reject migrants than Swedish and German politicians then that is a failure of Swedish and German politicians and the success of Danish and Polish politicians. Those in power should control the flow of immigration, not allow it blindly. If China, Japan or South Korea did what Europe is doing now, I would be just as disturned. Any nation rapidly imploding its ethnicity and culture with thousands of years of history is bothersome to watch.
    This is...sigh. The problem here is that you just don't understand how humanity works. Or Europe, for that matter. lol

    Since when has any European nation ever comprised some monolithic ethnic identity? I'll tell you > NEVER. European identity has never been static, but always dynamically in motion, ever subject to change and large cultural upheavals. The majority of European DNA reflects the coming of the West European Hunter Gatherers, then the Neolithic farmers from Anatolia, then the Indo-Europeans from the Steppe, and so forth. Are the peoples that define the modern UK the same culturally as the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, etc... who came well over 1,200 years ago? Are modern Italians the same culturally as the Romans? What about the Greeks? Is modern Scandinavian culture still based on pillaging and plundering in search of land and resources? Is Spanish culture now the same as it was when the Moors ruled Andalusia?

    NO. European peoples have always been a melting pot. Having said that, as an avid world traveler/world citizen, I somewhat selfishly love the notion of distinct cultures and traditions being preserved so that I can indulge in them. I want there to be Tuscan culture, Catalonian culture, Bavarian culture, Han culture, Yoruban culture--I love that humanity is so different because I find that to be fascinating. But I'm not ignorant to the fact that innately, culture is not static. It evolves and changes. And quite frankly, some cultures need to change. Not every cultural artifact deserves preservation (the US obsession with guns, female genital mutilation, honor killings). And "outside" influence from other cultures can spur on this change. Humanity has always benefited from the intimate exchange of different ideas and methods, some of which can only come from perspectives arrived at the world over.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    I distinctly remember you having only LIE followed by several question marks until you just added 8w7 sx/so recently. So don't play that trickery with me. Regardless, 8w7 sx/so does fit you well given your general behavior. Anyways, it seems like you genuinely believe in your views intellectually and ethically rather than merely virtue signal so I will give you props for that.
    Thank you, and likewise.

  6. #126
    Alonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    381
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy View Post
    And we still are enslaving and exploiting the third world today, only difference from the pre-WW1 age from today is that do it by propping up corrupt puppet regimes instead of sending in own our troops. The west wants the third world to stay poor so we can continue having excess to their cheap labor and resources, without our whole economy would utterly collapse.

    The strategy amongst marxist today centers around assisting the third world to overthrow their puppet regimes and obtain sovereignty, which in turn would cause an economic crisis in the west and thus set the stage for revolution within the first world itself. If you've been paying attention to at China then you also know that they investing heavily into developing Africa, and there is a very good reason for that. It's time for and capitalism and western imperialism to come to end.
    I agree with you that unbalanced or unhinged capitalism, as I like to call it, has been the bane of the world in many ways and its destructiveness by far precedes the current ongoing crisis in the Middle East > the organization of human trafficking and slavery, the dispossession of native and foreign lands by way of imperialistic expansion, armed trade, the plundering of indigenous technology, quota and tariff barriers on imports of poorer countries, monopolistic trade practices, inhumane child labour atrocities, the ruination of rural and city life, etc.... Even many ancient civilizations, in part, utilized a form of "war capitalism" in order to expand their prosperity by way of the forcible appropriation of land and labor, albeit with the cooperation of a primitive form of "the state" and "state-sponsored" greed, corruption and murder. It's also undeniable that historically and rather uncoincidentally, "barbarism" and cultural/ethnic/national/religious/racial inferiority have been the justifications and rationales provided for why the displacement, subjugation and wholesale slaughter of certain peoples were warranted, when "capitalistic" greed and expansionism were the true motives.

    All that being said, as it pertains to the current migrant crisis, I think it's a bit over simplistic to suggest that financial gain and interests are the sole reason for the crises in the Middle East just as it's over-simplistic to suggest that religious ideology is the primary source of contention; both are not mutually exclusive and in many ways, I believe that there is substantial overlap. From a macro-historical point of view, hyper-religiosity and zealotry tend to promote and encourage humanity's most destructive impulses: judgmental behavior and attitudes, intolerance, narrow mindedness, self-centeredness (read: narcissism), hypocrisy and subsequently, oppression. In the US, the Christian Evangelicals, for example, who claim to be "pro-life," pro-family values and pro-Jesus (who, according to their own bible, was extremely tolerant and sought out the disenfranchised and stigmatized) tend to be the most violent, gun-toting/obsessed, "God hates fags" endorsing, climate change denying, science/logic hating, misogynistic, racist, xenophobic and bigoted; they commit race-based massacres in churches, bomb abortion clinics, kill the doctors, and commit all sorts of acts of terrorism (allegedly) on the basis of their faith and hyper-religiosity. And yet they are rarely framed as the terrorists they actually are.

    Therefore, it doesn't surprise me that these hate mongering "Christians" also tend to support "Big Oil" and an extreme fiscal conservatism rooted in unfettered capitalistic gain that displaces and disenfranchises. What people don't understand or refuse to understand is that Christian Fundamentalists/Evangelicals and Islamic Fundamentalists/Jihadists are BOTH conservative/right-wingers who essentially have the same thinking and modus operandi, though they emanate from different ends of the continuum; however, they are, in fact, along the same continuum. When two opposing forces are narrow-minded, self-centered, intolerant, aggressive and greedy, OF COURSE, there will be destructive, seemingly never-ending and uncompromising outcomes. At the core, what unfettered capitalism and religious zealotry both encompass and embody is a lack of balance and moderation.

  7. #127

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    367
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I heard there have been annual droughts in the middle east and north africa for nearly a decade.

    Worst ever in 800 years the year the Syrian Civil War started? Weird.

    We are not JUST ideas. We are also animals.

  8. #128
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    5,398
    Mentioned
    665 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post

    What people don't understand or refuse to understand is that Christian Fundamentalists/Evangelicals and Islamic Fundamentalists/Jihadists are BOTH conservative/right-wingers who essentially have the same thinking and modus operandi, though they emanate from different ends of the continuum; however, they are, in fact, along the same continuum. When two opposing forces are narrow-minded, self-centered, intolerant, aggressive and greedy, OF COURSE, there will be destructive, seemingly never-ending and uncompromising outcomes. At the core, what unfettered capitalism and religious zealotry both encompass and embody is a lack of balance and moderation.
    @Alonzo, you might want to read the free ebook on this site: https://www.theauthoritarians.org/

  9. #129
    Alonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    381
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    @Alonzo, you might want to read the free ebook on this site: https://www.theauthoritarians.org/
    Thanks a lot--this is right up my alley and seems to corroborate many of the beliefs I already hold. Though I can already foresee the sweat beads of exasperation accumulating on my brow, I'll definitely give it a read.

  10. #130
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    5,398
    Mentioned
    665 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    Thanks a lot--this is right up my alley and seems to corroborate many of the beliefs I already hold. Though I can already foresee the sweat beads of exasperation accumulating on my brow, I'll definitely give it a read.
    It encompasses a lot of what you have surmised. It also shows the consequences of Authoritarian belief systems.

    Since I'm slightly amoral, I tend to look only at the consequences of belief systems. It was an eye-opener when the Authoritarians blew up the world twice. The assholes.


    To me, it looks like, Put the Authoritarians in charge, and everyone dies.
    Get rid of all the Authoritarians, and you lose 40%. <Deal.

  11. #131
    Alonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    381
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    It encompasses a lot of what you have surmised. It also shows the consequences of Authoritarian belief systems.

    Since I'm slightly amoral, I tend to look only at the consequences of belief systems. It was an eye-opener when the Authoritarians blew up the world twice. The assholes.


    To me, it looks like, Put the Authoritarians in charge, and everyone dies.
    Get rid of all the Authoritarians, and you lose 40%. <Deal.
    lol Hear, hear!

    It actually disappoints me when people (most definitely including myself, as evidenced by this thread) succumb and submit to our baser instincts as humans because we have much higher capacity and potential than other animals; for some odd reason, I tend to expect peoples who've seen and encountered the brunt of human apathy, cruelty, oppression and injustice to understand the destructiveness of such things and resist it (regardless of the form it may come in > capitalistic, communistic, christian, islamic), as opposed to adopt it. But I suppose being acculturated and socialized at the hands of dictators, authoritarians and other vicious sociopaths codifies, normalizes and produces greater apathy, cruelty, oppression and injustice. To quote Trump, "Sad."

    Yes, humans are animals, and so we innately possess many a "primal," "survival of the fittest" instinct and drive, but we also comprise a class unto ourselves, and possess the capacity for limitless conceptualization, creativity, innovation, and abstract thinking, which allows for immense compassion, empathy and logic. I believe that it's important to understand what our weak points and caveats are, but remain steadfast in adopting and practicing higher ideals and standards. That is the only way we can co-exist on the same planet together in peace, or at least, a greater peace. The pursuit of human survival should be logical and not primal; rigorous logic will find the most beneficial way for all. The capacity for expanded thinking is what makes humans special and different--we can actually think our way out of these ultimately arbitrary "factions"; we've shown that we have this capability. It may not be easy all the time, but it's possible. History has shown us time and time again that resorting to primal "base" instincts leads to massive bloodshed, unrest and incivility. At what point do we all (some of us have already received the memo) learn and think higher as opposed to shrink back to our darkest, most primitive impulses?

    Having said that...

    Karl Popper,
    The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, (1945).



    Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.




  12. #132

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,305
    Mentioned
    226 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    @Alonzo, you might want to read the free ebook on this site:https://www.theauthoritarians.org/
    Quote Originally Posted by The Authoritarians
    Why Authoritarian Followers Believe What They Believe

    Compared to most people, studies have shown that authoritarian followers get their beliefs and opinions from the authorities in their lives, and hardly at all by making up their own minds.
    The Hitler movie "Downfall" (also known for generating the meme "Hitler's outrage") has been particularly enlightening to me about this phenomenon, because it has depicted that the people who were close to Hitler weren't so much afraid of him and therefore had no choice but to follow him out of fear of punishment, but rather they chose to follow him out of their own accord, and chose to be loyal to him more than anything, and made that into their own identity as a blind follower and a loyalist of Hitler. They quite respected Hitler rather than resented him. How else can you explain not revolting after Hitler had committed suicide, and faithfully following the order of Hitler of having his body burned after his death?

    But it's also the chicken or the egg thing. Did they really chose to follow him out of their own free will, or were they actually so afraid and fearful of Hitler, so much so that they've convinced themselves that it was a good thing that they were so loyal to him and blindly obeyed him without question? That Hitler was actually this military genius and a supreme leader that he had thoroughly convinced himself and others that he was, and the fact that they were such loyal followers of Hitler was only more proof that they were also supremely good and loyal? (Either way, they had no choice but to follow him, so they needed a convincing justification).

    My guess is that it's more the latter than the former. Another guess is that this was perhaps a development of their childhood strategies, where they had to cope with living with and surviving having authoritarian parents, where they were in the process of creating and forming their egos and survival strategies of their own. And the ad-hoc strategy that they've developed was to blindly follow and adopt the views of the stronger persons in their presence.

    I think that "Authoritarian Followers" tend to have very weak and fragile egos of their own, and so they often have to assimilate and be engulfed in the presence of egos that are much stronger and pushier than their own. They have no capability to properly defend themselves when they're assaulted by other stronger egos. So you know, these people are often actually quite meek and gentle when you get to know them, even generally quite good and moral. And Trump is this person who has bullied his way onto the top, and he has done it very quickly and successfully, like say Hitler. So they have good reasons to fear him.

    So I think it does good to try to "humanize" Trump and his followers, in the same way that you can humanize Hitler and his followers. But far from absolving their guilt and responsibilities, this actually strengthen their need for responsibility, because they chose to do evil when they had the choice to do good. You can't just say that that is just so and it cannot be helped. But of course, this requires the knowledge on how to be good, which we may be lacking at some point.

    Most Trump followers are probably more afraid of him more than anything at the root of it. And I don't know about Trump. It could be that he's so maladjusted and narcissistic that he can no longer be helped, at least not easily. But you know, he's also a victim of his own environment that he grew up in.

  13. #133

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    367
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The more you step back, the more others step forward to fill the space. Hitler let people think he was what they needed him to be. I doubt any people on the forum right now understand one cent about how Hitler did what he did in a face to face basis. He made them believe.

    Trump doesn't have the capacity. But that's okay, because mankind evolved and this is not the same scenario.

    I'm predicting this all ends in a whimper. Baring some further bad development, Trump's presidency will be over before you know it. He will declare success, ofc, and talking with North Korea will be the feather. The wall, well what could we do we tried and the democrats such and such.

    The problem is spiritual in nature anyway.

    Hitler and Trump and this idea of followers are in another galaxy from each other. Hitler was a kind of evil shaman, yet was plugged into the intent of millions of German people. Trump just has self serving purpose. He plugged into the intent to grow his own image. Which is why his power is of a lesser kind. Still powerful, but not long lasting. He isn't a true leader, although he leads.

    I think the American people set him up as a massive Patsy. Unconsciously wanted to win. When you are growing up in your individual life you have to know how awful you can be yourself, something Peterson brought to the world's attention. This is a part of the Country's maturation. A foot note to remind to never do that again. That would be the lesson if American can pull through this. It won't pull through unscathed.

  14. #134
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    5,398
    Mentioned
    665 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    The Hitler movie "Downfall" (also known for generating the meme "Hitler's outrage") has been particularly enlightening to me about this phenomenon, because it has depicted that the people who were close to Hitler weren't so much afraid of him and therefore had no choice but to follow him out of fear of punishment, but rather they chose to follow him out of their own accord, and chose to be loyal to him more than anything, and made that into their own identity as a blind follower and a loyalist of Hitler. They quite respected Hitler rather than resented him. How else can you explain not revolting after Hitler had committed suicide, and faithfully following the order of Hitler of having his body burned after his death?

    But it's also the chicken or the egg thing. Did they really chose to follow him out of their own free will, or were they actually so afraid and fearful of Hitler, so much so that they've convinced themselves that it was a good thing that they were so loyal to him and blindly obeyed him without question? That Hitler was actually this military genius and a supreme leader that he had thoroughly convinced himself and others that he was, and the fact that they were such loyal followers of Hitler was only more proof that they were also supremely good and loyal? (Either way, they had no choice but to follow him, so they needed a convincing justification).

    My guess is that it's more the latter than the former. Another guess is that this was perhaps a development of their childhood strategies, where they had to cope with living with and surviving having authoritarian parents, where they were in the process of creating and forming their egos and survival strategies of their own. And the ad-hoc strategy that they've developed was to blindly follow and adopt the views of the stronger persons in their presence.

    I think that "Authoritarian Followers" tend to have very weak and fragile egos of their own, and so they often have to assimilate and be engulfed in the presence of egos that are much stronger and pushier than their own. They have no capability to properly defend themselves when they're assaulted by other stronger egos. So you know, these people are often actually quite meek and gentle when you get to know them, even generally quite good and moral. And Trump is this person who has bullied his way onto the top, and he has done it very quickly and successfully, like say Hitler. So they have good reasons to fear him.

    So I think it does good to try to "humanize" Trump and his followers, in the same way that you can humanize Hitler and his followers. But far from absolving their guilt and responsibilities, this actually strengthen their need for responsibility, because they chose to do evil when they had the choice to do good. You can't just say that that is just so and it cannot be helped. But of course, this requires the knowledge on how to be good, which we may be lacking at some point.

    Most Trump followers are probably more afraid of him more than anything at the root of it. And I don't know about Trump. It could be that he's so maladjusted and narcissistic that he can no longer be helped, at least not easily. But you know, he's also a victim of his own environment that he grew up in.
    I'm not entirely sure how or why Authoritarians are the way they are. Certainly, many people who test as Authoritarian will move away from those beliefs when they are exposed to different cultures and different viewpoints.

    One thing to be cautious about: Authoritarians comprise a large percentage of the population, so it is quite likely that conditions exist that makes their natural selection in the population advantageous.

  15. #135
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Ancapistan
    Posts
    2,430
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    I'm not entirely sure how or why Authoritarians are the way they are. Certainly, many people who test as Authoritarian will move away from those beliefs when they are exposed to different cultures and different viewpoints.

    One thing to be cautious about: Authoritarians comprise a large percentage of the population, so it is quite likely that conditions exist that makes their natural selection in the population advantageous.
    The potential merit I see in authoritarianism is it's ability to impose conditions upon people that they might be initially resistant towards, but maker stronger, smarter and happier in the long run, like a parent making their kids eat spinach instead of candy. The problem with Trump and his supporters is that they are also very right wing and would rather give people outside their narrow circle the middle finger, rather then acting to benefit people more broadly and collectively.

    If we combined authoritarianism with USSR-style socialism instead in rich and powerful country like the United States we see unimaginable levels of progress and human advancement. Normies and simpletons think socialism doesn't work because the USSR apparently collapsed but fail to realize the tremendous amount of economic growth and scientific advancement that happened under socialism. When the Soviet Union implemented it's command economy in 1928, the GDP per person around $2500, about the same as capitalist Latin America at that time. By 1989 , it was around $7000 per person in the USSR while Latin America was still around $4500-5000 per person. Then you also have to consider the destruction they faced WW2 and the cold war sanctions they endured. All this economic growth while maintaining abundance of workers rights, social programs and scientific advancement that lead them to being to first to reach space. They collapsed because the US, which had a far bigger and already industrialized economy when the USSR was founded, forced it into an arms race they couldn't sustain while they still had so much catching-up left to do and the Soviet leadership decided to throw in the towel against the wishes of many of the people. Immediately when the USSR collapsed NATO went ham on yugoslavia who no longer had any protection.

    So fuck these capitalist and right-wingers who are holding back us because they want to hold on their power, rather then being willing to let go and do what's best for people as a whole.

  16. #136
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,501
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy View Post
    The potential merit I see in authoritarianism is it's ability to impose conditions upon people that they might be initially resistant towards, but maker stronger, smarter and happier in the long run, like a parent making their kids eat spinach instead of candy. The problem with Trump and his supporters is that they are also very right wing and would rather give people outside their narrow circle the middle finger, rather then acting to benefit people more broadly and collectively.

    If we combined authoritarianism with USSR-style socialism instead in rich and powerful country like the United States we see unimaginable levels of progress and human advancement. Normies and simpletons think socialism doesn't work because the USSR apparently collapsed but fail to realize the tremendous amount of economic growth and scientific advancement that happened under socialism. When the Soviet Union implemented it's command economy in 1928, the GDP per person around $2500, about the same as capitalist Latin America at that time. By 1989 , it was around $7000 per person in the USSR while Latin America was still around $4500-5000 per person. Then you also have to consider the destruction they faced WW2 and the cold war sanctions they endured. All this economic growth while maintaining abundance of workers rights, social programs and scientific advancement that lead them to being to first to reach space. They collapsed because the US, which had a far bigger and already industrialized economy when the USSR was founded, forced it into an arms race they couldn't sustain while they still had so much catching-up left to do and the Soviet leadership decided to throw in the towel against the wishes of many of the people. Immediately when the USSR collapsed NATO went ham on yugoslavia who no longer had any protection.

    So fuck these capitalist and right-wingers who are holding back us because they want to hold on their power, rather then being willing to let go and do what's best for people as a whole.
    The way I see it, those who advocate for collectivism, whether it's nazism, fascism, or socialism have some explaining to do. Once you reject individualism and individual rights in favor of collective ones, this opens up the door to all kinds of abuses "in the name of" the majority/people/nation etc. The collectivism you advocate has caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of human beings, individuals. In my exchanges with Marxists, they seem to justify these killings as done in the name of some higher good, collectivism.

    Our minds are individual, there is no such thing as a "collective mind" thus there is no such thing as collective rights, since rights are based on our capacity to use our thinking minds freely. For example, free speech is a right because it is a garant of free thought. Those who want to suppress free speech want to suppress free thought. If there were any such thing as a "collective mind", there'd be no need for disagreement and thus for free thought. The fundamnetal right is the right to life. The pursuit of happiness is also a right. All of these are based on freedom of thought. Private property is also a right because all property is a reflection of someone's thinking mind.

    Authoritarianism attempts to shut down free thought by telling people what's better for them, but they don't really know. Sure sometimes they might get it right, but the point is that this kills people's ability to make their own choices. You are responsible for your own choices, ultimate responsibility. This is the whole Plato vs Aristotle debate.

    I'm not denying that some people were better off under the USSR economically, but that doesn't justify goulags and purges. The problem with what you're saying is that the rights of some are worth sacrificing for the well-being of others, correct me if I'm wrong.

    My point here is that even if socialism did/does work economically, it would still be wrong. This is where I think most liberal capitalists do a pretty terrible job of defending their positions, because their arguments are consequentialist. I think most people don't really understand classical liberalism, not you necessarily, but lots of people I hear criticizing it, though that's probably because the arguments of those who "defend" liberal capitalism are shallow and weak. Their argument goes thusly "well, capitalism increases our standard of living, so it's good". That is true, but first you have to get people on board with wanting a better standard of living, many people on the left reject that increasing one's standard of living is good in the first place. So the debate is really about people's root philosophy, not about "what works".
    Last edited by Uncle Ave; 04-06-2019 at 11:13 AM. Reason: fckn typos


  17. #137
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Ancapistan
    Posts
    2,430
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    The way I see it, those who advocate for collectivism, whether it's nazism, fascism, or socialism have some explaining to do. Once you reject individualism and individual rights in favor of collective ones, this opens up the door to all kinds of abuses "in the name of" the majority/people/nation etc. The collectivism you advocate has caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of human beings, individuals. In my exchanges with Marxists, they seem to justify these killings as done in the name of some higher good, collectivism.

    Our minds are individual, there is no such thing as a "collective mind" thus there is no such thing as collective rights, since rights are based on our capacity to use our thinking minds freely. For example, free speech is a right because it is a garant of free thought. Those who want to suppress free speech want to suppress free thought. If there were any such thing as a "collective mind", there'd be no need for disagreement and thus for free thought. The fundamnetla right is the right to life. The pursuit of happiness is also a right. All of these are based on freedom of thought. Private property is also a right because al property is a reflection of our thinking minds.

    Authoritarianism attempts to shut down free thought by telling people what's better for them, but they don't really know. Sure sometimes they might get it right, but the point is that this kills people's ability to make their own choices. You are responsible for your own choices, ultimate responsibility. This is the whole Plato vs Aristotle debate.

    I'm not denying that some people were better off under the USSR economically, but that doesn't justify goulags and purges. The problem with what you're saying is that the rights of some are worth sacrificing for the well-being of others, correct me if I'm wrong.

    My point here is that even if socialism did/does work economically, it would still be wrong. This is where I think most liberal capitalists do a pretty terrible job of defending their positions, because their arguments are consequentialist. I think most people don't really underastand classical liberalism, not you necessarily, but lots of people I hear criticizing it, though that's probably because the arguments of those who "defend" liberal capitalism are shallow and weak. Their argument goes thusly "well, capitalism increases out standard of living, so it's good". That is true, but first you have to get people on board with wanting a better standard of living, many people on the left reject that increasing one's standard of living is good in the first place. So the debate is really about people's root philosophy, not about "what works".
    I'm not going to deny that achieving communism would ultimately require violence and the deaths of some people at some point. But what would you prefer, for everyone to be spared from violence but live in extreme discontent brought about from a deeply flawed system, or instead deal with the problem by any required means knowing it will bring greater happiness in the long? I'm sorry but I'd choose short but meaningful life over a long but miserable one. Telling people to only be responsible for themselves doesn't solve problems. Seizing power through force and then apply ideas to all society does solve problems, and under communism would solve problems for all. Countless died pointlessly in the past for kings and other self-serving rulers, so why not being willing to fight now when we actually we something that's worth it?

    As a side note, the death rate in gulag camps actually improved dramatically in Soviet Russia compared what they were in Tsarist Russia.





  18. #138
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,501
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy View Post
    I'm not going to deny that achieving communism would ultimately require violence and the deaths of some people at some point. But what would you prefer, for everyone to be spared from violence but live in extreme discontent brought about from a deeply flawed system, or instead deal with the problem by any required means knowing it will bring greater happiness in the long? I'm sorry but I'd choose short but meaningful life over a long but miserable one. Telling people to only be responsible for themselves doesn't solve problems. Seizing power through force and then apply ideas to all society does solve problems, and under communism would solve problems for all. Countless died pointlessly in the past for kings and other self-serving rulers, so why not being willing to fight now when we actually we something that's worth it?

    As a side note, the death rate in gulag camps actually improved dramatically in Soviet Russia compared what they were in Tsarist Russia.


    That's an interesting question, however, I don't see myself as having to choose between two bad options and needing to pick the lesser evil. I'm not saying what we have now is perfect, but it's closer to what I'd like to see than socialism.

    Interesting graph. However, I think it's fair to note it measures only the mortality rate of people who were imprisoned, not the amount of prisoners in and of themselves. I suspect Stalin imprisoned way more people than the Tsars did, perhaps the death rate was lower in terms of percentages under Stalin. I still suspect more people died under Stalin however (in goulags). I can't say for sure given the information is limited.
    Last edited by Uncle Ave; 04-06-2019 at 03:03 PM.


  19. #139
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    205 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    I know this is a late response, but I have been busy with real life and preoccupied with the cheating thread I made so I didn't have time to formulate a response to your post and post-poned it until now. Anyways, this diagram best exemplifies the new immigrants that are arriving in Europe and changing the demographics of European nations:



    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    a.] Do you know whose intervention set off the generations of strife in modern Syria (and the rest of the Middle East, FWIW)? The French and British, Quelle surprise! Before that, the Syrians fell under the Ottomans, and before that, the Arabs and before that, they featured prominently in Hellenic and Roman antiquity where they were a part of a thriving network based around the Mediterranean Sea, which is why phenotypically and culturally (more broadly), they are almost indistinguishable from Southern Italians, Greeks, Albanians, Lebanese, Turks, etc.... Moreover, you do realize that Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo are Muslim majority European countries, that have been that way for a very long time? My point is, in actuality, there is very little substantial difference between a large amount of the migrants and populations already present within Europe. From a Swedish standpoint, a Greek, Bosnian, Albanian, Georgian, Turk, Afghani, Syrian, and Iraqi are essentially all the "the same shit" = not Swedish and from somewhere warm. Moreover, the Pakistanis, Indians and West Africans primarily come from former European colonies; the Eritreans are primarily Christian; the Somalis are a bit more problematic, tbh--having said that, members of the former Yugoslavia enacted all kinds of brutality upon each other, on European soil, as Europeans, only a few decades ago! None of the new migrants have brought that kind of wrath and violence.
    Regardless, this kind of ties into my original point that having outsiders entering Sweden, Germany, etc... is the main crux of the issue. Sweden should remain Swedish, Germany should remain German. Having different ethnicities enter countries in massive numbers dwindles down the culture of that country and it becomes something else. The similarity of Southern Europeans with neighboring regions south of it does not somehow make it appropriate that mass amounts of migrants are entering Europe. Italy should remain Italian, France remain French and so on. That is what the primary issue is and European nations losing their national identity and culture and becoming global countries without an identity or culture is not a good thing IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    And fret not, Europe is still overwhelmingly Christian, albeit far more secularized Christianity in varying degrees depending on the nation. Secularization has helped us come together, though we still retain some of our individual Protestant/Lutheran/Catholic/Orthodox traditions and that's fine. Personally, I believe that Islam will follow suit. In Sweden, less than a quarter of the estimated %5 Muslim population are actually practicing Muslims. Times change, people change, cultures change and evolve--that's normal and follows human tradition. I don't understand why that is such a hard concept to grasp.
    Europe is still overwhelmingly Christian for now, but it will not last long at this rate. Christians like their ethnic natives are destined to become a minority within their own nations if mass immigration keeps up at this rate. I'm not as optimistic that Europe will remain dominant Christian at this rate, maybe it will be equivalent to Islam and they will be competing religions within European nations, it's really hard to say. I'm also not as optimistic that Islam will adapt and become more secular in the near future, maybe in the distant future, but that is too far away to matter for now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    Sorry, can't care about this. The bulk of these displaced refugees come from countries where European colonizers/imperialists/aggressors took part in their displacement and disenfranchisement, over time contributing exactly to where we are now.
    The refugee crisis occurred largely because of the Syrian Civil War where US and Russia have been involved and not Europe. To go as far back as European colonizers is certainly stretching it quite a bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    This is...sigh. The problem here is that you just don't understand how humanity works. Or Europe, for that matter. lol

    Since when has any European nation ever comprised some monolithic ethnic identity? I'll tell you > NEVER. European identity has never been static, but always dynamically in motion, ever subject to change and large cultural upheavals. The majority of European DNA reflects the coming of the West European Hunter Gatherers, then the Neolithic farmers from Anatolia, then the Indo-Europeans from the Steppe, and so forth. Are the peoples that define the modern UK the same culturally as the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, etc... who came well over 1,200 years ago? Are modern Italians the same culturally as the Romans? What about the Greeks? Is modern Scandinavian culture still based on pillaging and plundering in search of land and resources? Is Spanish culture now the same as it was when the Moors ruled Andalusia?

    NO. European peoples have always been a melting pot. Having said that, as an avid world traveler/world citizen, I somewhat selfishly love the notion of distinct cultures and traditions being preserved so that I can indulge in them. I want there to be Tuscan culture, Catalonian culture, Bavarian culture, Han culture, Yoruban culture--I love that humanity is so different because I find that to be fascinating. But I'm not ignorant to the fact that innately, culture is not static. It evolves and changes. And quite frankly, some cultures need to change. Not every cultural artifact deserves preservation (the US obsession with guns, female genital mutilation, honor killings). And "outside" influence from other cultures can spur on this change. Humanity has always benefited from the intimate exchange of different ideas and methods, some of which can only come from perspectives arrived at the world over.
    The natural evolution of culture and ethnicity within European nations is vastly different than the forced artificial migration of non-Europeans. One of which happened over time organically and allowed a culture and an ethnicity of some form to be retained. The other will likely result in the dissolution of the native culture and ethnicity. All that will emerge from this is either multiculturalism in the near future, which is the native culture competing with outlying cultures and a global culture or non-culture where the main culture is globalism driven by consumerism where no one identity exists. The minute differences between cultures within a nation does not compare to the vast difference between migrant culture and native culture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    Thank you, and likewise.
    Thanks.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  20. #140
    Alonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    381
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Regardless, this kind of ties into my original point that having outsiders entering Sweden, Germany, etc... is the main crux of the issue. Sweden should remain Swedish, Germany should remain German. Having different ethnicities enter countries in massive numbers dwindles down the culture of that country and it becomes something else. The similarity of Southern Europeans with neighboring regions south of it does not somehow make it appropriate that mass amounts of migrants are entering Europe. Italy should remain Italian, France remain French and so on. That is what the primary issue is and European nations losing their national identity and culture and becoming global countries without an identity or culture is not a good thing IMO.
    Sigh. Repeating the same debunked shit over and over again will not make your “point” any more valid than it already isn’t. I handily destroyed your “original point” when I pointed out that the various European peoples/cultures have always been an evolving hodgepodge of other peoples and cultures, and that such an evolution is par for the course as far as humanity is concerned. What part of that is so difficult for you to grasp?

    These days, couscous is one of the most popular types (read: “typical”) of French cuisine, though the people who brought it to France are from North Africa; 30 years ago, Beef bourguignon, originating from the Burgundy region of France, was the most preferred dish. CULTURE CHANGES. Fucking DUH. From decade to decade, what constitutes “Frenchness” will change, as has ALWAYS been the case. I feel like an idiot for having to explain something so obvious to anyone possessing the slightest bit of knowledge about “people" and our inherent qualities over time and through time.

    Furthermore, according to that map of yours, countries like Portugal and Spain, for example, are being “invaded” by the very. fucking. peoples THEY actually invaded to begin with–Angolans and Cubans are inherently socialized with the overarching aspects of Portuguese and Spanish social-cultural-genetic legacies (i.e., language, religion, shared DNA, etc...). The same applies to the British/Indians and French/Algerians. These are not wholesale cultural takeovers we’re talking about here and your presenting them as such only makes you look rather ignorant and uninformed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Europe is still overwhelmingly Christian for now, but it will not last long at this rate. Christians like their ethnic natives are destined to become a minority within their own nations if mass immigration keeps up at this rate. I'm not as optimistic that Europe will remain dominant Christian at this rate, maybe it will be equivalent to Islam and they will be competing religions within European nations, it's really hard to say. I'm also not as optimistic that Islam will adapt and become more secular in the near future, maybe in the distant future, but that is too far away to matter for now.
    I mean...did you even stop and bother to decipher the map you yourself posted, in defense of your shaky premise situated upon active fault lines?

    First off, the majority of the immigrants “invading” European nations not only seem to be other Europeans but are predominantly CHRISTIAN ones, as well, i.e, the Poles, Serbians, etc....

    a.] In May/June of 2015 (after the Migrant Crisis began) the European Union conducted the Eurobarometer survey, where it concluded that 43% of the population are Christians; Muslims were found to comprise 3.3%, Jews were the 0.4% and members of other religions were the 1.6%. Unaffiliated peoples comprised 40.4%; atheists and agnostics were 22.8% and 17.6%, respectively.





    By no stretch of the imagination do Muslims constitute the greatest existential threat to European Christians; if anything, it’s the non-believers and those who don’t practice at all. No/low information + fear + your runaway imagination do not a good combination make in these types of discussions.

    2.) Thank god, your lack of “optimism” about the secularization of Muslims bears no weight on reality according to the data–because, in the end, that’s what actually matters. France’s Muslim population, one of the more sizable ones in Europe, hovers around a measly 5-6% according to the Pew Research Center. Similarly to Sweden, the vast majority of Muslims in France adhere to a system of values and a religious practice that co-exists within the norms of French society. In other words, stop placing so much of what you feel on unfounded stretches of the imagination and focus on what we actually know to be true and have found to be the case, over time, in a plethora of situations found across the globe/among humanity > more often than not, those with less power and agency (like impoverished Muslims) are swallowed up by the culture of the majority; they are NOT like powerful, invading war machines (Normans, Spaniards in the Americas, etc...) that, though small in number, still managed to dominate socio-culturally/politically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    The refugee crisis occurred largely because of the Syrian Civil War where US and Russia have been involved and not Europe. To go as far back as European colonizers is certainly stretching it quite a bit.
    Ummm...The Syrian Republic was recognized as a sovereign state in 1945 (only about 75 years ago) and became de-facto independent in April 1946 from the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon. It was British and French interventionalist policies that first CREATED the decades-long mess and environmental underpinnings that would eventually give way to sectarian, divergent factions (the Assad family) within the region all vying for control at the cost of internal stability. WHY? WHY must I tell you that bad decisions carried out in the past often have severe consequences and repercussions for today? Those with arguments like yours love to “throw the rock and hide your hand.” It’s perfectly fine to call Africa a “shit hole,” for example, and solely look to the various African raised dictators that helped to “rip their own people and lands apart,” but ignore how that terrain was well laid by the Europeans that not only first sewed chaos and instability but directly/indirectly continued to exacerbate it. I find that these “blind spots” are often rooted in bigotry, willful blindness and obtuseness or just flat out ignorance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    The natural evolution of culture and ethnicity within European nations is vastly different than the forced artificial migration of non-Europeans. One of which happened over time organically and allowed a culture and an ethnicity of some form to be retained. The other will likely result in the dissolution of the native culture and ethnicity. All that will emerge from this is either multiculturalism in the near future, which is the native culture competing with outlying cultures and a global culture or non-culture where the main culture is globalism driven by consumerism where no one identity exists. The minute differences between cultures within a nation does not compare to the vast difference between migrant culture and native culture.
    So you’d call the Danish Vikings raiding (read: murdering, plundering and pillaging) the coast of England for decades before deciding to put down roots (setting up farms, homesteads) that they also murdered and fought for vociferously in 865 a non-“forced,” “natural evolution” that happened “organically?” Lol

    Where are the ships, swords, axes and accompanying violence, metaphorical or otherwise, possessed by the latest breed of Muslim invaders? Even still, the seemingly bloodthirsty (but in actuality, resource-starved) Danish Vikings would go on to eventually meld with the local Anglo-Saxon populations, infusing their own customs and traditions into the larger Anglo-Saxon culture (its Christian religion, especially), that would again soon take shape with the violent, and I do mean, VIOLENT incoming of the Normans. Is that what you all "organic?" lol

    I mean, I know that IEEs are Ni-ignoring, but gotta say, you’re fast approaching caricature and satire. I can concede that the rate of the aforementioned clash of cultures, though always having existed, is indeed speeding up (thanks in part to technological advancements and subsequent globalization), but at the very least, it is undeniably less bloody and violent than it used to be. That has to count for something. In some ways, we are actually making progress as a species. What I would love to hear from many of those who think like you is an argument for why the things we've accepted as "culture" should endure, particularly in light of MY premise, the one most often reflected throughout human history, that our cultures and their artifacts are always in a state of flux.

  21. #141

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,305
    Mentioned
    226 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Back then it was the Islams that were advanced, civilized and honorable, while it was the Christian crusaders that were the murderous pillagers and plunderers. One of the great Islam leaders Saladin was even known for paying captured Crusaders some money to return to their home as an act of mercy, and he was quite respected by the Christians. Islams were in their golden age, while the Christians were entering into the dark ages.

    What we now have as "Europe" is the result of the invasions of the "barbarians" (Germanic tribes) into the Roman Empire. They were the tribes of uncivilized invaders and pillagers. And the reason why they got "civilized" is because they got assimilated into the Roman culture. There is no certainly no genetic or biological basis for their nature.

    Things do change over time, and even a culture of invading and plundering change for the better.

    This whole idea of "Islam as uncivilized barbarian invaders" is almost certainly a propaganda, in the same way that created the ideological divide propaganda of "the civilized West vs. uncivilized communist Reds".
    Last edited by Singu; 04-16-2019 at 04:49 AM.

  22. #142
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    TIM
    EII-Ne
    Posts
    1,280
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coeruleum View Post
    Trump has been in office quite a while, but still, I think I know the explanation for the rise of Trumpism: the dumbing down of American universities. Since everyone and their dog now gets a university degree "to survive in the economy," universities have nothing to do with the development of intellect any more. So now there are very few smart people, and evil smart people like Trump (let's just call a spade a spade, OK?) lead around all the stupid people into doing their biddings. Evil thriving when everyone becomes stupid seems like a good explanation for Nazi Germany too, but doesn't mean we have to compare Trump's government to Hitler to validate criticism of it. Isn't the fact that he pretty much looks and acts like a Disney villain enough to really, seriously criticize him on?
    Trump is the result of long-term economic decay in the United States that has recently turned into a more precipitous decline post-2008. Especially since the 1980s, but partly the 70s as well, workers have been disempowered. Standard of living has declined, and decreasing mobility has allowed the country to splinter into a state where it has become vulnerable to people like Trump. People are angry at how much their lives suck, and they see Trump as the fix-it man. Failing that, he's the guy they weren't supposed to vote for, so they used him to send a message.

    A decrease in cultural homogeneity is probably also partly to blame. Postmodernism is the result of a rise of a plurality of beliefs and ethnicities in place of what was once a monolithic unit that made communication and agreement much easier in the past.

    These two factors together probably explain Trump quite well. These same factors are what led to the rise of Hitler. The early 1900s had the Great Depression as well as a flourishing of liberal ideas like sexual freedom, women's rights, and socialism in general. That time was economically unstable like today, and many people probably feel "set upon" because challenges to deeply held values and beliefs have risen to the surface. People have been confronted with the fact that they are cogs in a machine, once again. They have seen the abyss of modern times, and they cry out.

    People are afraid today just like they were then. When people are scared, they look for daddy. Hitler was "daddy" and so is Trump.

    The primary difference between World War II-era Germany and today is that Hitler rose to power in a country which, while quite strong, was not the undisputed lord of the Earth. The United States is the most massive power on the planet, with a military larger than the most powerful 10 countries beneath it combined.

    The United States has a longer history of democracy than the Germany of that era did, and that history provides it with more stability, because people still believe in the democratic process to some degree. But if people lose their feeling and belief in the United States, what could arise from the wreckage might make Nazi Germany look like a kindergarten brawl.

    I'm not sure where this quote comes from, but it's accurate: "History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme." People operate according to the same principles that have always guided them. Democracies of ancient Greece were well-known to devolve over time into despotism. I'm not saying that's what will happen in the USA. But it's a good idea to at least remember past trends.

    Finally: if you think Trump is bad now, wait until he doesn't have to worry about re-election.
    Last edited by Aramas; 04-16-2019 at 07:29 AM.

  23. #143
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Ancapistan
    Posts
    2,430
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post

    The primary difference between World War II-era Germany and today is that Hitler rose to power in a country which, while quite strong, was not the undisputed lord of the Earth. The United States is the most massive power on the planet, with a military larger than the most powerful 10 countries beneath it combined.
    While the US does have the world's most powerful military, it's relative strength has actually been decreasing for the past few decades. Any halfway developed country can nullify a large portion of US military power through cheap options like anti-ship missiles. I heard somewhere that going to war with even a mid-tier country like a Iran would be absurdly costly for the US.

  24. #144
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    TIM
    EII-Ne
    Posts
    1,280
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy View Post
    While the US does have the world's most powerful military, it's relative strength has actually been decreasing for the past few decades. Any halfway developed country can nullify a large portion of US military power through cheap options like anti-ship missiles. I heard somewhere that going to war with even a mid-tier country like a Iran would be absurdly costly for the US.
    Not good for the USA especially considering that this country doesn't have a lot of good will to stand on. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

  25. #145
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,299
    Mentioned
    226 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    The loser of the war ends up paying all the costs....US made a big mistake not taking all of Iraq's oil after the invasion (to the victor go the spoils).

  26. #146
    Alonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    381
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kill4Me View Post
    The loser of the war ends up paying all the costs....US made a big mistake not taking all of Iraq's oil after the invasion, at that point its not stealing (to the victor go the spoils).
    No.

    FWIW, it's this kind of short-sighted "thinking" (and actions based off of this "thinking") that ultimately fuels support for ISIS and related groups that understandably loathe America and "lash out" (with rippling consequences) due, in part, to its unabashed greed and hypocrisy--the invasion was based on a false premise (WMDs) that has undermined America's strategic effectiveness as a global leader and diminished any "moral authority" it used to possess. Nobody takes a dumb, transparently fake ass bitch (read: America) seriously and the morons who orchestrated the invasion of Iraq didn't possess the intelligence and foresight required to see that not all goals/endeavors/problems can be solved with the application of sufficient force (and wanton thievery), without any concern for the internal politics of the country/region about to be invaded and what consequences might arise the day after. What you're suggesting would even surpass the disastrous idiocy of what they actually did do. "Taking all of Iraq's oil" would've likely warranted a full-time, open occupation, with ever-increasing enemies in the region and fewer allies, leaving America isolated with a fucked up standing/reputation as an energized global Jihad reaped chaos and destruction upon her at home and abroad. The amount of money made from the stolen oil would've eventually been eaten up by the defense spending and maintenance of the military-industrial complex.

    Furthermore, true winners possess the ultimate power, which allows for fairness, justice, and magnanimity--it is God-like; reveling in spoils stolen from the weak and disenfranchised is left to middling sociopaths.

  27. #147
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    TIM
    EII-Ne
    Posts
    1,280
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kill4Me View Post
    The loser of the war ends up paying all the costs....US made a big mistake not taking all of Iraq's oil after the invasion (to the victor go the spoils).
    What do you mean not taking? US corporations had their hands all over it.

  28. #148
    yurkey Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    /t16t/
    Posts
    1,223
    Mentioned
    66 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    What do you mean not taking? US corporations had their hands all over it.
    IIRC, the US gets most of its oil from Canada now; it doesn't make sense to import.


    Petro-wars are meant to kill off anyone who trades oil exports for anything but USD.
    "Fighting war for oil" is the misconception. It's more to deny oil to anyone else, unless they use our hyper-liquid currency to get it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Shut the fuck up, dumbass.


  29. #149
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,299
    Mentioned
    226 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Iraq made a ton of money with oil in the past...billions. This past December, Iraq averaged 3.7 million barrels per day in oil exports and 6.1 billion in Revenue. So there was a ton of money to be made in taking their oil...it would bring in a lot of dough over time for the United States of America....export earnings, gdp, budget revenues, all would likely soar. An extra 6.1 billion in Revenue per month give or take never hurts. Huge mistake.

  30. #150
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Ancapistan
    Posts
    2,430
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    pillage the village

  31. #151
    Alonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    381
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kill4Me View Post
    Iraq made a ton of money with oil in the past...billions. This past December, Iraq averaged 3.7 million barrels per day in oil exports and 6.1 billion in Revenue. So there was a ton of money to be made in taking their oil...it would bring in a lot of dough over time for the United States of America....export earnings, gdp, budget revenues, all would likely soar. An extra 6.1 billion in Revenue per month give or take never hurts. Huge mistake.
    ^^More myopic Ti + disastrously shitty Ni.

    Besides the likely deterrents to such an undertaking I've already put forth, what you suggest would have violated international law under multiple statutes. Annnnnd, you're done.

  32. #152
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    24,606
    Mentioned
    592 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    ^^More myopic Ti + disastrously shitty Ni.

    Besides the likely deterrents to such an undertaking I've already put forth, what you suggest would have violated international law under multiple statutes. Annnnnd, you're done.
    and you like to drive the point home
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  33. #153
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Ancapistan
    Posts
    2,430
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    ^^More myopic Ti + disastrously shitty Ni.

    Besides the likely deterrents to such an undertaking I've already put forth, what you suggest would have violated international law under multiple statutes. Annnnnd, you're done.
    He disagrees because he thinks the US should just invade and blow up the countries that try hold us to international law too and that the US would surely win a war with everyone cuz MURICA.

  34. #154
    xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,117
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The US couldn't take all of Iraq's oil because it was defeated -- the American army is apparently not proficient at fighting guerrilla wars in Asian countries. Lots of American oil firms still got lucrative contracts to develop oil fields, but because of heavy opposition from Iran-backed populist forces inside the government, many contracts were awarded to Chinese and Russian companies.

    Following the invasion, Iraq has become dependent on trade with Iran, and people with Iranian loyalties now operate at every level of government, which would have been unimaginable under Saddam Hussein. Iraq is actually exempted from certain American sanctions on Iran because of this close relationship.

    The invasion wasn't just immoral, it was also stupid: America basically gifted an entire country to its arch-nemesis!



    As for Iran's nuclear program, the Iranians have a much better weapon: they can mine the Strait of Hormuz, through which a quarter of the world's fossil fuel production is shipped. The price of oil would skyrocket almost instantly.

  35. #155
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    5,398
    Mentioned
    665 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    This article has a pretty good explanation for the rise of Trumpism:

    https://getpocket.com/explore/item/t...=pocket-newtab

  36. #156
    xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,117
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Many Trump voters probably do feel left-behind economically in terms of skills, and probably find that the ground is shifting under their feet in ways they can't control. They've been abandoned by both mainstream parties and certainly deserve empathy and advocacy.


    But it's also true that a lot of Trump supporters are just stupid. It is isn't politically correct to say, but it's the truth. I want to be polite and only accuse them of having a persecution complex that's out of whack with reality, but you have to be kind of stupid to believe that White people are being replaced by rictus-grinning Jewish puppet-masters.

  37. #157
    Alonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    381
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Many Trump voters probably do feel left-behind economically in terms of skills, and probably find that the ground is shifting under their feet in ways they can't control. They've been abandoned by both mainstream parties and certainly deserve empathy and advocacy.


    But it's also true that a lot of Trump supporters are just stupid. It is isn't politically correct to say, but it's the truth. I want to be polite and only accuse them of having a persecution complex that's out of whack with reality, but you have to be kind of stupid to believe that White people are being replaced by rictus-grinning Jewish puppet-masters.
    They cut off their nose to spite their face by routinely voting for politicians and a political party (Republicans way, WAY more so than Democrats--we can't equivocate on this) that do not have their best economic interests in mind but pander to them with culture/identity politics by way of scapegoating those who don't deserve it (minorities of all stripe). It just blows my mind that poorer, "Middle American" red states are routinely subsidized and funded by rich, coastal blue states and yet they vote utterly corrupted, cynical, diabolical politicians (*ahem* Mitch McConnell *ahem*) into power that seek to systematically decrease the tremendous amounts of aid they receive while somehow enriching the pockets of the elite. How does somebody with rotten teeth and who is up to their neck in medical debt go to a voting booth and cast a vote for Mitch McConnell. HOW? Makes no sense unless they're a dullard plebeian.
    Last edited by Alonzo; 06-02-2019 at 10:32 PM.

  38. #158
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    5,398
    Mentioned
    665 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    ... How does somebody with rotten teeth and who is up to their neck in medical debt go to voting booth and cast a vote for Mitch McConnell. HOW? Makes no sense unless they're a dullard plebeian.
    They place the welfare of their tribe over their own welfare, and they are obedient to authority. This can be a really noble and evolutionarily advantageous thing to do (when it doesn't devolve into racism), but the rulership of their tribe is exploiting them for personal gain.

  39. #159
    Alonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    381
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    They place the welfare of their tribe over their own welfare, and they are obedient to authority. This can be a really noble and evolutionarily advantageous thing to do (when it doesn't devolve into racism), but the rulership of their tribe is exploiting them for personal gain.
    If only they realized that in America, one's "class" is also a significant tribe worth considering, and that poor whites have a lot more in common with poor people of color than they do with wealthy white elites, especially Republican ones that do nothing but gas light them into believing their station is nothing more than either 1.) a lack of effort/will/hard work [read: not pulling themselves up by the bootstrap] or 2.) the brown boogie man creeping across the border vying for the jobs poor whites don't even want.

  40. #160

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,314
    Mentioned
    932 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    If only they realized that in America, one's "class" is also a significant tribe
    there are 2 classes: rich (who own means for labor) and poor (all the rest)
    that "america" is just a crazy capitalistic camp for peoples' torture to keep the control above them by rich class

    there is nothing else significant to "realize" in current politics. this situation exists for centuries of post-feudalism era. any socium where people are devided by anything, where they are not equal (by money or other) - is antihumanistic torture system. it allows to survive, but not to live. majority is kept below human's possibilities and suffers physically and emotionally. it's unnatural system where only technology develops and quantity of people rises. the quality of life is shit for all. including for the minority of higher class. all this appeared in agriculture age long ago and then progressed

    you discuss politics on levels which mean nothing as will change nothing
    to make the life better needs system's change, and also peoples change to accept that new system. the rest is illusions by which people are manipulated, misleaded. who cares how much money you'll have and what laws there will be if your life will be the same in essence and you'll feel almost the same despite those changes may to be

    Try to think about socium from higher and more general levels than you are indoctrinated to see it. Look what happened during the last thousands of years with people. The live by the same life, despite laws and technologies. They live rather badly. Do not even think it can be to feel better in the life or relations between people mb other than war and competing, supression and dominating, with the suffering for all sides.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •