Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:14 pmUnited Muscovite Nations wrote:Someone give me a topic to effortpost about.
the most beautiful woman you have ever seen
the most beautiful woman you have ever seen
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
RWDT XX: The System Is Kapp Putsch
Page 430 of 499
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:14 pmthe most beautiful woman you have ever seen
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:15 pmPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:15 pmProctopeo wrote:Imperium Romanum Sanctis wrote:
There's a fringe theory out there that Biden will choose Hillary as his running mate, beat Trump, and then be forced to resign due to his worsening dementia. Vice President Clinton would then assume the presidency.
It would make for one hell of an election year. Something to give 2016 a run for its money.
Tbh though, him choosing Hillary as his VP would definitely jeopardize his chances
Oh definitely, 100%.
He's already going to have an uphill battle as things stand. Choosing Hillary as a running mate would just tank his campaign before it even begins.
But the thing is, as things stand, I can't discount the possibility of the DNC making that kind of a decision.
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:15 pmQuestarian New Yorkshire wrote:Joohan wrote:
Could I see your analysis? I'm a bit of a 3rd positionist myself ( though not a fascist ), and i'd love to see your take.Now, regarding fascism and libertarianism:
I got really interested in politics at too young an age and my mom bought me a book which listed all the "political positions" and explained all in a few paragraphs each. Really there were very many. It was like the wikipedia category page for "political views" but in a book form because no internet rip.
Most people think about politics that way. They take "a position", follow its prima facie logical conclusions, and leave it at that. I'm a libertarian, so I want to legalise weed. I'm a fascist, so I want to hang pedos and ban muslims. Et cetera. Whatever. Either way, you end up with a range of normative preferences. Your other choice is to be a French deconstructionist, where you just look at society and break down the structural relations and explain what you think is wrong rather than take any real normative view.
Imo both of those are bad: we are arrogant to think that we can slice human social org into chunks of pie. Most of it is probably unknown. We have a very limited idea of how humans can properly interact in complex ways. Most academic research is nonsense. Until recently in our history we were more or less just chimpanzees with sentience! We are a truly ancient species with truly ancient habits, to think that we can choose "this system which prescribes this normativity" is madness, and to think that we can really break down what's going on by just sitting in classrooms and studies writing about increasingly esoteric concepts is madness as well.
Any system of human social organisation is going to recognise that whether or not we want it to. The world of political philosophy is really the graveyard of trying to understand humans. My suspicion is that humans exert power over each other because they can, first and foremost, secondly for psycho-sexual pathological reasons, and thirdly because they can get stuff that way, either women or stuff, or both. That's more powerful than "political philosophy."
Libertarianism and fascism are both ideas that are obsessed with power and industrial society*, even though libertarianism often looks agrarian, but everything fundamental to libertarian thought is industrial. Their response to the loss of power in industrial society is to build a new power and a new hierarchy. Of course both ideas have their own mysticism too, and I don't need to speak more on mysticism of fascism and libertarianism, which should be self-evident. But humans are pretty mystic (and in fact, most of their psycho-sexuality is rooted in mysticism) and they will allow the merger of mysticism and social power freely. In fact for many "ideologies", not just libertarianism and fascism, power and mysticism are so tightly joined that we could say that mysticism and power are almost the same thing. That would make sense too. Homo sapiens sapiens understands the natural world fundamentally through super-naturalism**, so it makes sense that power and mysticism are so related.
But if we strip the mysticism away, all that is left is naked power. We can see clearly that libertarianism is the ideology of pure power. Power and the means to power are property. And of course we do not need to say much about fascism and power. That's why I said libertarianism and fascism are the same thing. But I was not banned for that. I was banned for saying libertarians are little mussolinis, which was not literal but taken literally.
* in ancient time man could always flee to the woods. I use industrial society to mean a society which people can't leave.
** this is the statement that sets my position apart from "we just act on instinct"
Do you read Carl Jung?
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:16 pmJoohan wrote:Well... I mean, if you believe that morality isn't objective and is completely subject to individuals own interpretations ( and then acknowledge everyone has different interpretations ), then they are by definition amoral.
Edit: a better word would be self interested
That's only "amoral" if you, for some strange reason, believe that morality must be objective and that subjective morality is, for some reason, not valid.
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:16 pmYesJoohan wrote:
Do you read Carl Jung?
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:17 pmImperium Romanum Sanctis wrote:Proctopeo wrote:Never underestimate the capacity for the DNC to shoot itself in the foot. Though "above 1%" is an exaggeration, they're betting it on Biden this time. Probably.
There's a fringe theory out there that Biden will choose Hillary as his running mate, beat Trump, and then be forced to resign due to his worsening dementia. Vice President Clinton would then assume the presidency.
It would make for one hell of an election year. Something to give 2016 a run for its money.
"Fringe" is really underselling how batshit insane and completely divorced from the real world this theory is.
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:17 pmCisairse wrote:Imperium Romanum Sanctis wrote:
There's a fringe theory out there that Biden will choose Hillary as his running mate, beat Trump, and then be forced to resign due to his worsening dementia. Vice President Clinton would then assume the presidency.
It would make for one hell of an election year. Something to give 2016 a run for its money.
"Fringe" is really underselling how batshit insane and completely divorced from the real world this theory is.
Stranger things have happened.
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:18 pmJoohan wrote:Do you read Carl Jung?
we would be living in 3020 if freud and Jung were in synthesis
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:19 pmUnless you can point to a case where a VP with a failed electoral record (I.E. lose their most-recent contest), then I don't see how that could be the case.
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:19 pmPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:19 pmPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:19 pmCorporate influence on culture can be broken down into two main thrusts of degeneration, the first being degeneration of collective wealth and the second being the degeneration of moral behavior, the latter of which creating a feedback loop into the former. Corporations typically require a steady stream of income, but, being dependent on consumer spending, have to make up the shortfalls for their expenses in a few brief times of year. The way they solve this is that they take out massive loans (often from other corporations or banks that also are in debt) which they use to invest in what will make them profit in the spending-seasons. This is, however, extremely fragile, because it means the entire system is held up by debt, meaning if there is a consumer spending shortfall, the companies default on their loans, crashing the economy faster than a plane with a big guy on board.
As an insurance against this, companies advertise their largely superfluous luxury products to a public that doesn't need them; however, the companies make these products ubiquitous in such a way that they create a problem for the solution they're trying to sell you (lack of cell phones wasn't a problem in the 1940's, but now that they are everywhere, they're totally necessary), which dramatically increases the costs to keep potential employees competitive, furthering the cycle of debt (because to remain competitive, the working class must take on great amounts of debt). The end result is that the entire economy is run on glorified IOU's, and money is only worth what people think it's worth.
Sorry if that was jumbled, I'm operating on 2 hours of sleep in the last 24 hours.
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:20 pmPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:20 pmNew haven america wrote:The Marlborough wrote:Judaism's cultural influence on the West has been pretty minimal. Western Judaism only started to culturally influence *some* parts of the West only relatively recently at a noticeable level, the most prominent example being the United States. The main cultural influences on the West have been Christianity and the Greco-Roman world.
What religion did Christianity break off from?
You mean like 2000 years ago?
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:21 pmUnited Muscovite Nations wrote:Bear Stearns wrote:
Corporate influence on culture
Corporate influence on culture can be broken down into two main thrusts of degeneration, the first being degeneration of collective wealth and the second being the degeneration of moral behavior, the latter of which creating a feedback loop into the former. Corporations typically require a steady stream of income, but, being dependent on consumer spending, have to make up the shortfalls for their expenses in a few brief times of year. The way they solve this is that they take out massive loans (often from other corporations or banks that also are in debt) which they use to invest in what will make them profit in the spending-seasons. This is, however, extremely fragile, because it means the entire system is held up by debt, meaning if there is a consumer spending shortfall, the companies default on their loans, crashing the economy faster than a plane with a big guy on board.
As an insurance against this, companies advertise their largely superfluous luxury products to a public that doesn't need them; however, the companies make these products ubiquitous in such a way that they create a problem for the solution they're trying to sell you (lack of cell phones wasn't a problem in the 1940's, but now that they are everywhere, they're totally necessary), which dramatically increases the costs to keep potential employees competitive, furthering the cycle of debt (because to remain competitive, the working class must take on great amounts of debt). The end result is that the entire economy is run on glorified IOU's, and money is only worth what people think it's worth.
Sorry if that was jumbled, I'm operating on 2 hours of sleep in the last 24 hours.
Yes. Therefore, we must abolish private corporations.
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:22 pmNew haven america wrote:The Marlborough wrote:Judaism's cultural influence on the West has been pretty minimal. Western Judaism only started to culturally influence *some* parts of the West only relatively recently at a noticeable level, the most prominent example being the United States. The main cultural influences on the West have been Christianity and the Greco-Roman world.
What religion did Christianity break off from?
Modern Judaism and Christianity share a common ancestor, one is not a descendant of the other.
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:23 pmPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:23 pmnow this is dangerous postin. but it is sincere, and seirous:
I didn't explain the psycho-sexual pathology surrounding fascism which I think applies to libertarian as well in that post. Mostly I didn't think it needed explaining but of course it does.
I think fascism is a psycho-sexual pathology that arises from a sense of inadequacy, possibly a sense of sexual inadequacy or physical inadequacy. I won't push this point too far, but Hitler couldn't get it up and Mussolini felt emasculated often because he felt he was too short and dwarfy for women. His favourite sexual position was to push women over his desk and stand on his toes and have at it from behind.
I think that when people can't square their sense of inadequacy with their own personality, like they can't accept it, they want to punish themselves but they can't, so they become obsessed with punishing others in lieu of receiving their own sexual punishment. That's why violence to fascists is so exciting. To normal people we want to minimise violence. We want the authorities to handle criminals but we want them to do it with minimal violence that is necessary, whereas fascists always want to employ violence not as a tool but for its own sake because it excites them: especially it excites them sexually to live out their own punishment fantasies but on other people.
And of course they pick usually on people weaker than them. Weaker countries. Weaker people. Women. Minorities. Etc. Because then they can REALLY live out the punishment, because you can't punish someone for being better than you and they don't want to punish themselves for being better. They find the mirror of their own perceived inadequacies. Lots of Nazis were homosexuals, in the Waffen-SS there were even lots of crossdressers. We might even connect a fascist obsession with cleanliness and order with a Freudian anality. They are anally retentive in terms of racial hygiene and anally expulsive in terms of their idea of public politics.
The rest of fascist politics are just things that will help them stay in power. There's not much true ideology there. They co-opt whatever they need to ensure they win and they can carry out their program.
I hate fascism. On so many levels. For so many different reasons. We should squash them wherever and whenever they appear, forcefully.
I didn't explain the psycho-sexual pathology surrounding fascism which I think applies to libertarian as well in that post. Mostly I didn't think it needed explaining but of course it does.
I think fascism is a psycho-sexual pathology that arises from a sense of inadequacy, possibly a sense of sexual inadequacy or physical inadequacy. I won't push this point too far, but Hitler couldn't get it up and Mussolini felt emasculated often because he felt he was too short and dwarfy for women. His favourite sexual position was to push women over his desk and stand on his toes and have at it from behind.
I think that when people can't square their sense of inadequacy with their own personality, like they can't accept it, they want to punish themselves but they can't, so they become obsessed with punishing others in lieu of receiving their own sexual punishment. That's why violence to fascists is so exciting. To normal people we want to minimise violence. We want the authorities to handle criminals but we want them to do it with minimal violence that is necessary, whereas fascists always want to employ violence not as a tool but for its own sake because it excites them: especially it excites them sexually to live out their own punishment fantasies but on other people.
And of course they pick usually on people weaker than them. Weaker countries. Weaker people. Women. Minorities. Etc. Because then they can REALLY live out the punishment, because you can't punish someone for being better than you and they don't want to punish themselves for being better. They find the mirror of their own perceived inadequacies. Lots of Nazis were homosexuals, in the Waffen-SS there were even lots of crossdressers. We might even connect a fascist obsession with cleanliness and order with a Freudian anality. They are anally retentive in terms of racial hygiene and anally expulsive in terms of their idea of public politics.
The rest of fascist politics are just things that will help them stay in power. There's not much true ideology there. They co-opt whatever they need to ensure they win and they can carry out their program.
I hate fascism. On so many levels. For so many different reasons. We should squash them wherever and whenever they appear, forcefully.
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:24 pmPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:25 pmPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:25 pmPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:27 pmPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:27 pmQuestarian New Yorkshire wrote:Mussolini felt emasculated often because he felt he was too short and dwarfy for women. His favourite sexual position was to push women over his desk and stand on his toes and have at it from behind.
Wait, is that true? Do you have a source?
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:27 pmI have read it, I will try to find it.