Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Ok. I will check, I simply took your metaphor as faith value. And the Lion is everything but what we need in a healthy society.
It's not about Foxes or Lion again. I made a little check on your theory and I understand the principles. There is a good idea in the sense that elites tends to renews themselves instead of disappearing through generation. This is a sociological reality.It's the idea that society would need "an equilibrium" between models of elites to keep society healthy or the "foxes" or "lions" become unstable and corrupted (the foxes would become manipulators and lion autoritarians).
From what I can see here, this aspect of the theory feels nice, but it is everything but a materialist analysis of elites. It's a psychological model and a simplificating one at that.
There is two major problem here:
1. It seems to make the fallacious assumption that an equilibrium is needed between these states of elites. This couldn't be more wrong. There are no healthy worlds with elites in them. But this require materialist mindset.
2. From where I see it, it seems to completely be blind to what we call "class interests".
So let me tell you rapidely what it is. Class interest, or you could say "material interests" are the interest that are inherent to your position in the chain of production or in the case of feodalism, chain of authority.
Material interests are the MAIN reason why I can't be friend with a cops or why racialized pêople need to be constantly on guard with white people or why the rich will very rarely be on the side of the people. Your position and the material interest that come with it will create point of interests that you will need to defend to keep the material privileges that were created.
The more your position will create material interest the more you will fight to maintain them. Which is why you won't probably see kings suddenly become peasants.
This means that the idea that an equilibrium is needed to stop the corruption of elites is simply bonkers. Mechanicaly, there can only be a form of fight to keep their interest through authoritarianism or cunning methods.
In other words, as long as there will be elites, elites will be against the people.
Ok. Let's try. Do you believe in meritocracy ?
Bees are cool too
It's not about Foxes or Lion again. I made a little check on your theory and I understand the principles. There is a good idea in the sense that elites tends to renews themselves instead of disappearing through generation. This is a sociological reality.It's the idea that society would need "an equilibrium" between models of elites to keep society healthy or the "foxes" or "lions" become unstable and corrupted (the foxes would become manipulators and lion autoritarians).
From what I can see here, this aspect of the theory feels nice, but it is everything but a materialist analysis of elites. It's a psychological model and a simplificating one at that.
There is two major problem here:
1. It seems to make the fallacious assumption that an equilibrium is needed between these states of elites. This couldn't be more wrong. There are no healthy worlds with elites in them. But this require materialist mindset.
2. From where I see it, it seems to completely be blind to what we call "class interests".
So let me tell you rapidely what it is. Class interest, or you could say "material interests" are the interest that are inherent to your position in the chain of production or in the case of feodalism, chain of authority.
Material interests are the MAIN reason why I can't be friend with a cops or why racialized pêople need to be constantly on guard with white people or why the rich will very rarely be on the side of the people. Your position and the material interest that come with it will create point of interests that you will need to defend to keep the material privileges that were created.
The more your position will create material interest the more you will fight to maintain them. Which is why you won't probably see kings suddenly become peasants.
This means that the idea that an equilibrium is needed to stop the corruption of elites is simply bonkers. Mechanicaly, there can only be a form of fight to keep their interest through authoritarianism or cunning methods.
In other words, as long as there will be elites, elites will be against the people.
Ok. Let's try. Do you believe in meritocracy ?
Bees are cool too
This is where we differ. I believe in hierarchies of people. You wish for a stateless society, but I believe this will lead to anarchy and suffering because the human condition will lead us to fight. I'd rather a just and righteous leader be in charge to prevent this, someone who rules honourably.
Elites will always exist, because humans are not equal in ability and skill. Who is superior at a task definitely has a genetic element - for example, people who are really tall are often good at basketball (this is a crude example, but you get the point). People cannot be atomised. You cannot simply replace one person with another.
There will always be leaders (elites), but I do not believe all elites are bad. At the moment, I feel we have too many 'talkers' and 'manipulators' (foxes) in the upper echelons of our governments and institutions, which leads to this subversive way of living.
The reason you cannot be friends with cops is because you cannot see past your own biases, bud. You assume them all wrong, and this is coming from someone who also hates the police.
You're not wrong that people will protect their interests. However, there is wiggle room there. I think it's all about what is 'fair'. I do not believe everyone is entitled to the same outcome by the virtue of existing. People who lead and contribute the most deserve more, but not everything. I've said before that I believe in welfare for the needy, but you must be careful to prevent vultures.
To be a little candid, I have ADHD - severe ADHD according to doctors - and I have never claimed for government payments for it despite being, by my doctor's own statements, the most likely person who'd need them. These doctors have remarked that on the contrary there are people who actively seek an ADHD diagnosis so they can claim these payments. Surely you'd agree that is predatory/insidious behaviour, right? It's outright pernicious because bad-faith actors weaken the justification for these benefits to exist in the first place, ultimately hurting those who need it most.
We'll never agree, but I think I understand. You seem to view everyone as the same. There is no difference beyond the superficial (race, for example). The peasant of today could be a King if only he wasn't held back or given the opportunity. I disagree wholly with this concept, but still value the concept of human dignity.
This is where we'll stop. It'll only become cyclical.
However, to answer your question briefly: No. I do not believe we live in a meritocracy. We've reached the point of full on monopolies where giants kill their competition in the crib. Our current system is broken. I believe our ancestors, the ones who built our current civilisations before they rotted, were greater than those who wear their boots, carry their name, but spit on the values that allowed them to rise in the first place.
It is a feature not a bug of empires and civilisations to go from meritocratic to oligarchical. Those who rose through competition wish to stifle anyone who threatens their own position.
Elites will always exist, because humans are not equal in ability and skill. Who is superior at a task definitely has a genetic element - for example, people who are really tall are often good at basketball (this is a crude example, but you get the point). People cannot be atomised. You cannot simply replace one person with another.
There will always be leaders (elites), but I do not believe all elites are bad. At the moment, I feel we have too many 'talkers' and 'manipulators' (foxes) in the upper echelons of our governments and institutions, which leads to this subversive way of living.
The reason you cannot be friends with cops is because you cannot see past your own biases, bud. You assume them all wrong, and this is coming from someone who also hates the police.
You're not wrong that people will protect their interests. However, there is wiggle room there. I think it's all about what is 'fair'. I do not believe everyone is entitled to the same outcome by the virtue of existing. People who lead and contribute the most deserve more, but not everything. I've said before that I believe in welfare for the needy, but you must be careful to prevent vultures.
To be a little candid, I have ADHD - severe ADHD according to doctors - and I have never claimed for government payments for it despite being, by my doctor's own statements, the most likely person who'd need them. These doctors have remarked that on the contrary there are people who actively seek an ADHD diagnosis so they can claim these payments. Surely you'd agree that is predatory/insidious behaviour, right? It's outright pernicious because bad-faith actors weaken the justification for these benefits to exist in the first place, ultimately hurting those who need it most.
We'll never agree, but I think I understand. You seem to view everyone as the same. There is no difference beyond the superficial (race, for example). The peasant of today could be a King if only he wasn't held back or given the opportunity. I disagree wholly with this concept, but still value the concept of human dignity.
This is where we'll stop. It'll only become cyclical.
However, to answer your question briefly: No. I do not believe we live in a meritocracy. We've reached the point of full on monopolies where giants kill their competition in the crib. Our current system is broken. I believe our ancestors, the ones who built our current civilisations before they rotted, were greater than those who wear their boots, carry their name, but spit on the values that allowed them to rise in the first place.
It is a feature not a bug of empires and civilisations to go from meritocratic to oligarchical. Those who rose through competition wish to stifle anyone who threatens their own position.
Last edited:
Hierarchies create dominations. Dominations creates oppressions .
I'm sorry, but this is the reality of hierachic systems. Oppressions will happen in hierarchical systems no matter what, there is no way to get around that.
Anarchism is the opposite of suffering. It's collective organisations. Please, go look it up. There are no reason for sufferings in anarchism. It's a system that is meant to prevent it.
They haven't always existed mate.
They don't need to be to make a collective society work.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
- Marx
Ok. How do you manage to get electricity ? Your own beautifully genetically crafted hand, or a common technological tool ?
Stop essentializing people based on their genetics. That is what Nazi did.
I don't want that.
You don't want that.
So stop. Just self reflect right now. Right freaking now.
Again, you talk about individual and you are ignoring to the material reality that I just explained. This is why I stopped making big blocs of text, you ignore them.
It's not about who leaders are, it's about what the system and their material positions will force them to do no matter how good or bad they are. This is materialism. Check it out.
Same thing, it's not about biases. It's about the understanding of the systems. REread what I explained in the previous post. Carefully please.
Hardly. It's a documented reality. It's the reason why we are still in capitalism today and not in paradise.
Class interests and others kinds (gender, race, validity etc.) will bend your will no matter how good you are and it is a constant struggle to prevent that from happening. This is why there is a constant struggle and why billionnaires exist.
You will have exceptions of course. But the only way for a real shift to happen positively in a person is for their material reality to change for the worst.
And you do not understand why this statement is shocking? This is literally what Nazi believed mate..
I'm really being too nice with y'all
This is a dream. Meritocracy doesn't exist and never will.
I know it's hard to get rid of this belief but keep trying. Bourdieu - from is grave - is laughing at you right now.
Psychiatry is a whole other can of whorm that I won't open right now. Just understand that people who seek help are RARILY doing it for money. Why ?
Being psychiatrized equate to being marginalized. Maybe you don't really understand that just yet, let it simmer, you will. I should know, this is what I'm living. And you perfectly had time to see this on this thread in 4K didn't you ?
No it's not, as I explained. I'm on the side of mad people and against psychiatrists. So this is not something you will find me agreeing with you.
BUT
I'm actually one of your ally here on this very topic. So perhaps you should consider carefully what I'm trying to tell you.
I will not be the one to tell you to seek treatment. But I will definitely be the one to tell you that if your reason for not seeking it is because you fear to be illegitimate to seek that help, trust me, you can't be farthest from the truth. You are perfectly legitimate in your condition, and people are perfectly legitimate to seek help even if psychiatrist disagree.
Be careful with them. Their material interests are not for you to be happy or better. But for you to go back on the chain of production.
Kinda. I consider everyone in their diversity. I'm simply choosing not to take them into account to divide them.
I'm sorry, but this is the reality of hierachic systems. Oppressions will happen in hierarchical systems no matter what, there is no way to get around that.
Anarchism is the opposite of suffering. It's collective organisations. Please, go look it up. There are no reason for sufferings in anarchism. It's a system that is meant to prevent it.
They haven't always existed mate.
They don't need to be to make a collective society work.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
- Marx
Ok. How do you manage to get electricity ? Your own beautifully genetically crafted hand, or a common technological tool ?
Stop essentializing people based on their genetics. That is what Nazi did.
I don't want that.
You don't want that.
So stop. Just self reflect right now. Right freaking now.
Again, you talk about individual and you are ignoring to the material reality that I just explained. This is why I stopped making big blocs of text, you ignore them.
It's not about who leaders are, it's about what the system and their material positions will force them to do no matter how good or bad they are. This is materialism. Check it out.
Same thing, it's not about biases. It's about the understanding of the systems. REread what I explained in the previous post. Carefully please.
Hardly. It's a documented reality. It's the reason why we are still in capitalism today and not in paradise.
Class interests and others kinds (gender, race, validity etc.) will bend your will no matter how good you are and it is a constant struggle to prevent that from happening. This is why there is a constant struggle and why billionnaires exist.
You will have exceptions of course. But the only way for a real shift to happen positively in a person is for their material reality to change for the worst.
And you do not understand why this statement is shocking? This is literally what Nazi believed mate..
I'm really being too nice with y'all
This is a dream. Meritocracy doesn't exist and never will.
I know it's hard to get rid of this belief but keep trying. Bourdieu - from is grave - is laughing at you right now.
Psychiatry is a whole other can of whorm that I won't open right now. Just understand that people who seek help are RARILY doing it for money. Why ?
Being psychiatrized equate to being marginalized. Maybe you don't really understand that just yet, let it simmer, you will. I should know, this is what I'm living. And you perfectly had time to see this on this thread in 4K didn't you ?
No it's not, as I explained. I'm on the side of mad people and against psychiatrists. So this is not something you will find me agreeing with you.
BUT
I'm actually one of your ally here on this very topic. So perhaps you should consider carefully what I'm trying to tell you.
I will not be the one to tell you to seek treatment. But I will definitely be the one to tell you that if your reason for not seeking it is because you fear to be illegitimate to seek that help, trust me, you can't be farthest from the truth. You are perfectly legitimate in your condition, and people are perfectly legitimate to seek help even if psychiatrist disagree.
Be careful with them. Their material interests are not for you to be happy or better. But for you to go back on the chain of production.
Kinda. I consider everyone in their diversity. I'm simply choosing not to take them into account to divide them.
I should note I pay for my own ADHD medication, but I only take my medication for work situations or when I am driving my family cross-country where I need more concentration. What I don't do is take hundreds of pounds for free from the government by claiming I need to hire a carer to make me do basic things (this happens here, look up PIP).
The rest is simply our differences here. I reject your own view of the world and have made mine clear. I am tired of the "Nazi" statement, I am far from that, but I also don't care if you accuse me of being one at this point. You'll sling mud unless someone 100% agrees with you.
You always accuse everybody of not engaging with your posts, but you do the exact same thing mate. It's tiring.
However, I think, unless I am misunderstanding things, that despite our differences in how to get there, both of us want a culture where people look out for each other and act generously and with good intent for the betterment of the community. In a sense that is 'communistic'.
Have a good evening.
The rest is simply our differences here. I reject your own view of the world and have made mine clear. I am tired of the "Nazi" statement, I am far from that, but I also don't care if you accuse me of being one at this point. You'll sling mud unless someone 100% agrees with you.
You always accuse everybody of not engaging with your posts, but you do the exact same thing mate. It's tiring.
However, I think, unless I am misunderstanding things, that despite our differences in how to get there, both of us want a culture where people look out for each other and act generously and with good intent for the betterment of the community. In a sense that is 'communistic'.
Have a good evening.
It's not "for free" mate. If you need that money to live, it's your right to access it. People fought and died for you to have that right. An healthy collective is a collective that can help people in need inside the collective. Anything else is fascism.
I don't remind you saying you lived alone on Mars, right ? You participated in one form or another to the collective, either physically or through other means like I'm doing right now, right ?
This means that you are not alone, you are part of a group. And when people inside a group have problem, only assholes leave them behind.
Yes I know because that what I need right now and the state even gave me access to one. And yet I refused/ignored the help precisely because I heard your kind of rethoric all my life and I now feel illegitimate. Even tho I should ask for one. Even tho I should have access to this help.
So instead of being helped and getting better in a year or two, it will take me a decade. (hopefully). Again, you are not preaching to someone who do not understand the subject. I'm live the subject. I suffered from that meritocratic mindset of yours, it the main reason why I waited YEARS to get treated thinking that I was illegitimate in my suffering, thinking that "I did not deserve" and thinkin that I should just work harder in order to get better. Through meritocracy and a lack of self reflection, I created my own suffering.
Only once I started to understand what I'm trying to tell you, that I started to get back control over my life, emotions and condition.
Like I said. Understand the basis of materialism, and your world will completely change.
Perhaps, I hope so at least.
Yes but it doesn't mean that you can't borrow their ideas. Meritocracy, strong leadership, eugenism, positions through genetic superiority..
It's the basis of fascism mate. I'm sorry.
For this reason, your are on the reactionnary side for me still. It's not that trying to shame you, I would love to tell you that you are a progressist or even a leftist or that we have ideas in common. But your vision of the world is harmfull and based on a lack of understanding of science and reality. And as long as we will talk about it, I will tell you as it is. I'm doing that both to prevent people from falling into your ideology and to shock you to get you to look beyond. I won't sugarcoat this.
You reactance is normal, I had the same when leftist did that to me too, but if you are really smart, you will get pass that and you will prove me wrong. By trying to understand why I'm saying what I'm saying.
By thinking beyond.
I don't remind you saying you lived alone on Mars, right ? You participated in one form or another to the collective, either physically or through other means like I'm doing right now, right ?
This means that you are not alone, you are part of a group. And when people inside a group have problem, only assholes leave them behind.
Yes I know because that what I need right now and the state even gave me access to one. And yet I refused/ignored the help precisely because I heard your kind of rethoric all my life and I now feel illegitimate. Even tho I should ask for one. Even tho I should have access to this help.
So instead of being helped and getting better in a year or two, it will take me a decade. (hopefully). Again, you are not preaching to someone who do not understand the subject. I'm live the subject. I suffered from that meritocratic mindset of yours, it the main reason why I waited YEARS to get treated thinking that I was illegitimate in my suffering, thinking that "I did not deserve" and thinkin that I should just work harder in order to get better. Through meritocracy and a lack of self reflection, I created my own suffering.
Only once I started to understand what I'm trying to tell you, that I started to get back control over my life, emotions and condition.
Like I said. Understand the basis of materialism, and your world will completely change.
Perhaps, I hope so at least.
Yes but it doesn't mean that you can't borrow their ideas. Meritocracy, strong leadership, eugenism, positions through genetic superiority..
It's the basis of fascism mate. I'm sorry.
For this reason, your are on the reactionnary side for me still. It's not that trying to shame you, I would love to tell you that you are a progressist or even a leftist or that we have ideas in common. But your vision of the world is harmfull and based on a lack of understanding of science and reality. And as long as we will talk about it, I will tell you as it is. I'm doing that both to prevent people from falling into your ideology and to shock you to get you to look beyond. I won't sugarcoat this.
You reactance is normal, I had the same when leftist did that to me too, but if you are really smart, you will get pass that and you will prove me wrong. By trying to understand why I'm saying what I'm saying.
By thinking beyond.
Maybe I've gone insane, but I actually feel like this conversation has become semi-productive, so I will continue to engage for now.
You are partly correct, especially where I highlighted. I have contributed to the systems we have. However, I do not need that money to live. I am doing semi-well due to some good fortune. A healthy collective can help those inside, but right now, I do not feel like I am in need. I receive medical treatment, but I do not need care payments at this present time.
However, I think your statement touched upon something more important to me at present. I do not believe our current collective is healthy. There is extreme social distrust, especially in my country. It isn't just racism or xenophobia - and the antipathy and hatred is not all one-way. We're also in a slow crawl towards financial devastation. I don't take out of both pride and social awareness of this fact.
Now this I have sympathy for. I've never fallen into the trap of not taking legitimate help when it is necessary. As stated before, I do not take government grants/payments because I do not need them. I did take their assistance in getting the medication I need through our NHS.
Whilst you do not need to hear it, you are the kind of person I mean when I say 'welfare should exist for those that are truly in need'.
Where my objection lies is in taking resources that aren't necessary. I have a job, so I do not need grants. I may not live luxuriously, but I can live, and taking anything more is taking from those who actually need it, and delegitimises those services.
Regardless of our political positions, you have my support in getting the help you need and I feel pity that you didn't accept help sooner. I believe I've shown this historically in DMs to you, even.
I'm glad there is at least some common ground here. We both want what is best for society, that should at least help us not hate each other, I'd hope. I know I don't feel any ill-will towards you, at least. :)
Now this is where things get interesting. I think this is the one of the greatest issues with making WW2 the creation myth of the west. It takes so many values that humans have held throughout history, and through the lens of 'but the Nazis' have convinced ourselves through fear of repetition that everything they believed was wrong.
I'm fond of the following argument: "If Hitler says the sky is blue, does this mean it isn't, just because Hitler said so?"
The reason I say this is because even broken clocks are right twice a day, and bad people can sometimes have correct viewpoints. We need to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Let me highlight, since I believe this is good faith, what I meant by 'genetics':
I do not believe in genetic superiority on a universal level. There is not an inherent social overclass based on a race of people. However, I do believe there is a genetic component to competency in certain fields. It has been proven that people from the African continent tend to have superior athletic ability. There are outliers, of course, and it does not mean every African is good at sports and every White person cannot 'ball'. However, it is proven that some people are better at certain activities than others. There are people who are visionaries, who we acknowledge are likely smarter than others. Through logical deduction, I do believe some people are more suited for civilisation building and leadership, and these individuals often end up becoming "elites" in our societies.
From my own study of history, it seems a common pattern that people gather around strong leader - Warlord, ideologue, prophet, visionary. I think it is impossible for humans to reach the stateless society that you crave because people want certainty, and they will often gather around those who can better mobilise them to achieve better results. These individuals often build a state for better security and acquisition of resources.
Leaders can come from any race, but they do exist. These individuals often create a strong community, society, or institutions that reaches an apex and then crumbles when progressively weaker/incompetent individuals who did not earn that position through competency take over. Meritocracy only exists at the genesis of civilisation. Those who paved the way give the reigns to their inheritors who they personally train. The first generation of inheritors tend to be competent, but over time, the values that created that successful society/community/institution are lost. We're currently here. I feel the unofficial American empire is dying. It's no surprise we're in a period of extreme social unrest.
I do not believe in 'eugenics'. I would never cull those with intellectual or physical disabilities. I think I have shown, in my desire for welfare for the needy, that I believe these individuals can play a role in society. If I had a downsyndrome or autistic child I would offer them the same love I'd give to an able-bodied/minded one. Once again, to be candid, I used to be a care worker, Logiko. That was until I saw a nurse abusing a resident and got fired for confronting them over the issue and bringing it to the powers that be.
Strong leadership is not bad in principle. Meritocracy isn't either (though there needs to be controls in place to prevent people creating monopolies which didn't happen this time). Earned positions through proven competence, not 'genetic superiority' is good.
If believing that makes me a Nazi, then I don't know what to tell you, bro. But having researched the Nazis as well, I can unequivocally state that I am not a Nazi, but I also do not care if you think of me as one.
My hope is for a new society to be built by strong leaders, one where we can learn from the mistakes of the past. History has proven that is as likely to happen as your stateless society, which is sadly, unlikely. Ah well, I'll remain an idealist.
You are partly correct, especially where I highlighted. I have contributed to the systems we have. However, I do not need that money to live. I am doing semi-well due to some good fortune. A healthy collective can help those inside, but right now, I do not feel like I am in need. I receive medical treatment, but I do not need care payments at this present time.
However, I think your statement touched upon something more important to me at present. I do not believe our current collective is healthy. There is extreme social distrust, especially in my country. It isn't just racism or xenophobia - and the antipathy and hatred is not all one-way. We're also in a slow crawl towards financial devastation. I don't take out of both pride and social awareness of this fact.
Now this I have sympathy for. I've never fallen into the trap of not taking legitimate help when it is necessary. As stated before, I do not take government grants/payments because I do not need them. I did take their assistance in getting the medication I need through our NHS.
Whilst you do not need to hear it, you are the kind of person I mean when I say 'welfare should exist for those that are truly in need'.
Where my objection lies is in taking resources that aren't necessary. I have a job, so I do not need grants. I may not live luxuriously, but I can live, and taking anything more is taking from those who actually need it, and delegitimises those services.
Regardless of our political positions, you have my support in getting the help you need and I feel pity that you didn't accept help sooner. I believe I've shown this historically in DMs to you, even.
I'm glad there is at least some common ground here. We both want what is best for society, that should at least help us not hate each other, I'd hope. I know I don't feel any ill-will towards you, at least. :)
Now this is where things get interesting. I think this is the one of the greatest issues with making WW2 the creation myth of the west. It takes so many values that humans have held throughout history, and through the lens of 'but the Nazis' have convinced ourselves through fear of repetition that everything they believed was wrong.
I'm fond of the following argument: "If Hitler says the sky is blue, does this mean it isn't, just because Hitler said so?"
The reason I say this is because even broken clocks are right twice a day, and bad people can sometimes have correct viewpoints. We need to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Let me highlight, since I believe this is good faith, what I meant by 'genetics':
I do not believe in genetic superiority on a universal level. There is not an inherent social overclass based on a race of people. However, I do believe there is a genetic component to competency in certain fields. It has been proven that people from the African continent tend to have superior athletic ability. There are outliers, of course, and it does not mean every African is good at sports and every White person cannot 'ball'. However, it is proven that some people are better at certain activities than others. There are people who are visionaries, who we acknowledge are likely smarter than others. Through logical deduction, I do believe some people are more suited for civilisation building and leadership, and these individuals often end up becoming "elites" in our societies.
From my own study of history, it seems a common pattern that people gather around strong leader - Warlord, ideologue, prophet, visionary. I think it is impossible for humans to reach the stateless society that you crave because people want certainty, and they will often gather around those who can better mobilise them to achieve better results. These individuals often build a state for better security and acquisition of resources.
Leaders can come from any race, but they do exist. These individuals often create a strong community, society, or institutions that reaches an apex and then crumbles when progressively weaker/incompetent individuals who did not earn that position through competency take over. Meritocracy only exists at the genesis of civilisation. Those who paved the way give the reigns to their inheritors who they personally train. The first generation of inheritors tend to be competent, but over time, the values that created that successful society/community/institution are lost. We're currently here. I feel the unofficial American empire is dying. It's no surprise we're in a period of extreme social unrest.
I do not believe in 'eugenics'. I would never cull those with intellectual or physical disabilities. I think I have shown, in my desire for welfare for the needy, that I believe these individuals can play a role in society. If I had a downsyndrome or autistic child I would offer them the same love I'd give to an able-bodied/minded one. Once again, to be candid, I used to be a care worker, Logiko. That was until I saw a nurse abusing a resident and got fired for confronting them over the issue and bringing it to the powers that be.
Strong leadership is not bad in principle. Meritocracy isn't either (though there needs to be controls in place to prevent people creating monopolies which didn't happen this time). Earned positions through proven competence, not 'genetic superiority' is good.
If believing that makes me a Nazi, then I don't know what to tell you, bro. But having researched the Nazis as well, I can unequivocally state that I am not a Nazi, but I also do not care if you think of me as one.
My hope is for a new society to be built by strong leaders, one where we can learn from the mistakes of the past. History has proven that is as likely to happen as your stateless society, which is sadly, unlikely. Ah well, I'll remain an idealist.
Last edited:
Ehhhhhh. He was, until he wasn't.
JFK was murdered by Israel for fucking with their shit.
He played both sides, and pissed everyone off doing it.
JFK's murder was mostly a warning to other European and American politicians: "We will kill you if you stand against us."
JFK screwing with Israel's nukes is what really did him in, IMO, but it might have been something deeper behind the scenes they never made public.
JFK was murdered by Israel for fucking with their shit.
He played both sides, and pissed everyone off doing it.
JFK's murder was mostly a warning to other European and American politicians: "We will kill you if you stand against us."
JFK screwing with Israel's nukes is what really did him in, IMO, but it might have been something deeper behind the scenes they never made public.
I'm glad this doesn't inder you too much. I know that hard core "AHDH" can be really tricky on a daily basis.
I agree. Our collective (i'm englobing the entire planet) is not healthy at all. It won't be as long as we keep the dominations up. But this only means that we need to work harder to be healthy and collective, we must absolutely not choose the individualistic path. We can do so much collectively.
Thanks this is truly appreciated, I recognize your empathy. This is why I keep trying to talk to you when I gave up with some others.
People here might think that I do.. but I never hated any of you. Truly, hatred is genuinely something I have forbidden myself to feel.
I know we all want the best for the world, I simply know (from experience) that wanting good and doing good are too different things.
If people could simply learn one thing from me it would be this: We are biased beings. Evolution created us that way to survive. But this is preventing some of us to see the best ethical path right now. Even when we are sure that we are right. This is why we have a collective duty to always self reflect and look beyond our own mindset and search for the most ethical path.
Ok. I get what you are saying. But do you understand why I'm not simply saying "it's nazism" but actually "it's a dangerous mindset" ?
Did you ever challenged that belief ? Because, trust me, it can be.
Yes, with training. Genetic merely plays a significant part in sports. At no point it is relevant enough to create a model of society out of this.
I will go farther and ask you another question, do you understand why eugenics are bad in the first place and why creating a society based on genetic values - like Nazi - is bad in the first place and not just because "Nazi did it" ?
Hardly. Intelligence is still something that is highly debated and a controversial scientific topic. There are actually many types of what we call intelligence. People are much more diverse than what we thought even 10 years ago.
I get that you have a belief. But did you ever challenged it. Because trust me, if you ask the right questions, I will.
Yes. But the reasons are sociological. Not genetic.
And yet there has been a pretty much successfull attempt in Eastern-Spain until it was repressed in blood by fascists....
Please, challenge this belief.
Actually, proto-communism existed at the genesis of the civilisation. Before the age of neolithic and the sedentarisation of people which created the condition for certain individual, mainly male, to privatize and accaparate some of the ressources, hunting-gathering groups where most likely collective systems build on needs and cooperation rather than competency. There might have been leaders, but not the kind you know. There were different kind of leaders for different task and they could be challenged collectively.
A good image for that is the strawhat crew. Luffy is the captain, yes. But he only help in one domain, he is not the leader of the group in every situations. Nami takes that role when she needs, Zoro too, Jinbe etc.
In a healthy collective, there is not one leader, there is a group with different individual who have different strenght. These individual will have an influence but no coercive power.
It's important to understand that the notion of "strong leader" as you know it and promote is actually quite a new concept for the human specie.
We don't need strong leaders. Everything in sociology (science) shows us that we actually need the opposite. So please, I beg you to challenge this belief system and look at the direction of materialist thinking, it will completely change your vision of the world.
Yes.. Perhaps, But. You just made a paragraph about it....
The only difference with the Nazi is that you didn't talk about erasing people with what you consider to be "lower genetics" but it is implied by the model of society that you are proposing. Do you understand why I say that?
I salute you for doing that. What you witness is called ableism. It's one of the domination system we want to stop.
It's the domination system that forged eugenics.
In a stateless and classless society, yes. Perhaps (even tho as I explained previousely, these wouldn't be the ssame type of leaders you know).
But not now.
Do you understand why I'm saying that meritocracy doesn't exist and will never exist simply because it can't exist ?
As I explained. Nazi were not creatives. They simply reused colonial tools and push capitalism and meritocracy to its limits.
It's not the Nazi part that you should be afraid of. It's the reason behind the fact that it is something done by Nazi.
Ask me the right questions, I will give you the right answers (within the limits of my knowledge of course)
Capitalism stripped away the meaning of the word "idealism". In reality, this refers to a philosophical path in which one believes in the power of the mind and spirit. It's the belief that ideas preexists over matter. (shematically)
So yes, you are an idealist. But not in the sense that you believe in utopia. Rather in the sense that you are reproducing the beliefs of old. The beliefs that the strong mind will prevail. And yes, it is idealist, because that's not reality.
To understand why, you need to look at the opposing philosophy : materialism. In which matter preexist concepts and ideas. This beliefs that environments shapes our thoughts and self. This is how centuries of scientific research tell us the world actually is.
So yes, you are an idealist. And I understand why this thinking is so appealing. It helps us cope with reality. But why not trying to be something more ?
There is wonder in the understanding of the world. In it's complexity. In the knowledge that we are much more influencial that we think. Iti's scary of course.. but liberating.
