Euro swings right, USA swings left?

[Handley_Page]

To each according to his needs, from each according to his wealth.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

ah, a quick response, 2am here, 10am there, you are alert early, m'dear....I also noted that the European 'right' is to the left of the American Democrats, both quasi-socialist by definition.

Thus, be not so quick to crow victory, you need to adjust to the playing field before you try for a goal.

ami

Who is crowing victory? I certainly haven't. I only pointed out the issue of fact that makes this thread irrelevant. It should be: USA swings left, Euro swings left too (by USA standards, at least; by European standards, it swings mostly centre).

 

[amicus]

Handley....just to be accurate:

"...The complete paragraph containing Marx's statement of the creed in the 'Critique of the Gotha Program' is as follows:

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs![1][2][3]

Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, all dictatorships, all the same, have the same creed, rob from the rich, give to the poor, even ole Robin Hood was a Socialist, but with a cause.

ami

 

[amicus]

Who is crowing victory? I certainly haven't. I only pointed out the issue of fact that makes this thread irrelevant. It should be: USA swings left, Euro swings left too (by USA standards, at least; by European standards, it swings mostly centre).

~~~

The point being? All the headlines were that the recent Euro Elections moved away from the previous direction and took a new one, call it what you may.

I choose to characterize it in the terms of a 'free' versus 'slave', society, with gradations as you please.

I personally think the world is on the verge of a mid 1930's re-arrangement of power structure. I think the USA can struggle through another "Carter" like one termer and restructure, but I think Europe will devolve into internecine conflict and the 'Euro' concept will fade as did the old concept of the 'League of Nations', but then, we shall see...shall we not?

Amicus

 

[Lauren Hynde]

~~~

The point being? All the headlines were that the recent Euro Elections moved away from the previous direction and took a new one, call it what you may.

I choose to characterize it in the terms of a 'free' versus 'slave', society, with gradations as you please.

I personally think the world is on the verge of a mid 1930's re-arrangement of power structure. I think the USA can struggle through another "Carter" like one termer and restructure, but I think Europe will devolve into internecine conflict and the 'Euro' concept will fade as did the old concept of the 'League of Nations', but then, we shall see...shall we not?

Amicus

The point being that apparently all the headlines you read are written by people who have even less understanding of European politics than you.

I know it's late for you, and you're probably not too awake, so let me repost your own words from the opening post of this thread:

I tried to make sense of Lauren's Euro Elections thread and came away convinced the entire thread is an apology for the perception that Euro Nations (...) are becoming tired of Nanny State Socialism and in the recent election voted more right than wrong. (...) [T]he fact of the Euro vote is clear; they are swinging away from the Left, for what ever purpose and/or outcome.

When confronted with the Right manifesto, you find it so far to the left of your own views, that you actually mistake it for the Left's manifesto and proceed to tear it apart. I guess we can all agree, then, that Europe is not "swinging away from the Left" as you put it.

So, the question is, what was the point you were trying to make with this thread to begin with?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Left's fatal flaw is its destruction of incentives to produce, and it always resorts to violence to force its victims to do what they would do voluntarily if there was anything to be gained for themselves.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Yeah, we're all still hurting from last weekend's election bloodbath, around here.

 

[oggbashan]

And our Left was savaged.

We're still ashamed of electing a White Supremacist to the European Parliament. He's outnumbered by the Greens.

Og

 

[amicus]

The point being that apparently all the headlines you read are written by people who have even less understanding of European politics than you.

I know it's late for you, and you're probably not too awake, so let me repost your own words from the opening post of this thread:


When confronted with the Right manifesto, you find it so far to the left of your own views, that you actually mistake it for the Left's manifesto and proceed to tear it apart. I guess we can all agree, then, that Europe is not "swinging away from the Left" as you put it.

So, the question is, what was the point you were trying to make with this thread to begin with?

~~~

The point is, now and always, that oppressing human individuality will always fail; that Utopian dreams of enforced mediocrity, will always fail and that human individual freedom and the method of existence, the free market, will always revive and rejuvenate an oppressed people.

You can take that to the bank.

Ami

 

[oggbashan]

Amicus - Why doesn't it work in the Middle East, in Africa, in parts of South America, in Russia and some of its former satellite states, in North Korea, and in China?

The democracies are outnumbered by those that deny people the rights the democracies have.

There has never been a time when democracies had a majority in the world.

Og

 

[Lauren Hynde]

~~~

The point is, now and always, that oppressing human individuality will always fail; that Utopian dreams of enforced mediocrity, will always fail and that human individual freedom and the method of existence, the free market, will always revive and rejuvenate an oppressed people.

You can take that to the bank.

Ami

In other words, the point is Amicus being Amicus regardless of factual events. I should have guessed.

 

[amicus]

Amicus - Why doesn't it work in the Middle East, in Africa, in parts of South America, in Russia and some of its former satellite states, in North Korea, and in China?

The democracies are outnumbered by those that deny people the rights the democracies have.

There has never been a time when democracies had a majority in the world.

Og

~~~

Dear Distant Friend Oggbashan with the cake hat; you move from the political to the philosophical and the metaphysical here, but I am not shy of presenting a reply, even at this very late hour for me.

Just as it took time for the species to evolve a cognitive facility, it has taken time to evolve from a herd mentality to a higher level of individual awareness.

I picture us, you and I, as an evolved species burdened with the baggage of the past, be it tribal, theological or monarchical. I also see us as a species still evolving into an unknown future, but one more predictable than ever before, because of those cognitive abilities.

It is a shallow and political assertion to state that there are a hundred more democracies since world war two than before, for many are failing and will fail and are less than pristine in terms of true Republics that protect and guarantee individual freedom. But it is a true statement, and to be accurate, there are 120 more Democratic nations than before world war two.

The future of the species is unknown and undetermined, from what I know, it will be what we, you and I, make it. I am not unaware of the sensitivity of the left that panders to the poor, it is a good thing and reminds us all of those less fortunate.

Lauren, who has taken an interest in this thread in return for my interest in hers, has faith in the communal future of mankind; I do not. I have knowledge that it is the individual that moves mankind forward, not the collective.

There cannot be a genteel resolution of these differences as the history of conflict confirms beyond the shadow of a doubt. That is so because there is passion and fervor in those of us who hold firm positions; it cannot be otherwise as competition is inherent in the nature of the beast.

We will meet on a battlefield one day; one will live, one will die. It is the way of things. I can only but acknowledge that.

Amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

OGG

William H. Calvin sez that societies thrive where they are forced to do so. That is, prosperity and peace arent the natural condition of humans.

It's a bizarre theory to wrap your mind around, but it does seem to be correct. When your neighbor is busy coping with pestilence, lions, tigers, and bears, they dont have the time or energy to fuck with you, unless fortune presents them with an opportunity to kill you at little or no cost to themselves.

He's right because you can observe the process acting within almost any social organization. Prosperity and peace are sustainable only where your neighbors are up to their asses in alligators.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Dear Distant Friend Oggbashan with the cake hat; you move from the political to the philosophical and the metaphysical here, but I am not shy of presenting a reply, even at this very late hour for me.

Just as it took time for the species to evolve a cognitive facility, it has taken time to evolve from a herd mentality to a higher level of individual awareness.

I picture us, you and I, as an evolved species burdened with the baggage of the past, be it tribal, theological or monarchical. I also see us as a species still evolving into an unknown future, but one more predictable than ever before, because of those cognitive abilities.

It is a shallow and political assertion to state that there are a hundred more democracies since world war two than before, for many are failing and will fail and are less than pristine in terms of true Republics that protect and guarantee individual freedom. But it is a true statement, and to be accurate, there are 120 more Democratic nations than before world war two.

The future of the species is unknown and undetermined, from what I know, it will be what we, you and I, make it. I am not unaware of the sensitivity of the left that panders to the poor, it is a good thing and reminds us all of those less fortunate.

Lauren, who has taken an interest in this thread in return for my interest in hers, has faith in the communal future of mankind; I do not. I have knowledge that it is the individual that moves mankind forward, not the collective.

There cannot be a genteel resolution of these differences as the history of conflict confirms beyond the shadow of a doubt. That is so because there is passion and fervor in those of us who hold firm positions; it cannot be otherwise as competition is inherent in the nature of the beast.

We will meet on a battlefield one day; one will live, one will die. It is the way of things. I can only but acknowledge that.

Amicus

You're an odd fellow, Amicus. You say that leftist regimes are always oppressive, that they rob and cripple and take by force. You see that there will one day be a battle between two philosophies: one one side, a tyrannical all-encompassing force that has doing nothing but crushing the bones of its enemies and friends alike, leaving nothing in its wake but devastation and free healthcare; on the other side, an individual armed with determination and an unshakable belief in free market. Who do you think would win?

Man is a political animal. It's the collective that brought us where we are today. The individual is a dead-end of evolution, and it was left for dead on the African savannah 200,000 years ago.

 

[amicus]

Lauren, some people believe Jesus was the son of God, was crucified and then arose and ascended to Heaven. You believe:

"...Man is a political animal. It's the collective that brought us where we are today. The individual is a dead-end of evolution, and it was left for dead on the African savannah 200,000 years ago...."

You may believe in the flying purple people eater if you wish, it is of no concern to me, as is your sexual preference, of no concern to anyone, however, when you post in a public forum that you dismiss the individual as the motive force behind all human action and since history and reality refute your belief a billion times over, one should have the temerity to at least admit it is a personal belief that flies in the face of reality.

All ideas, all inventions and creations, all innovations, begin in the mind of a single human being; they do not emerge from some diaphanous concept of a collective mind.

Both individual freedom and responsibility are individual characteristics that are meaningless in the context of the group.

Amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You're an odd fellow, Amicus. You say that leftist regimes are always oppressive, that they rob and cripple and take by force. You see that there will one day be a battle between two philosophies: one one side, a tyrannical all-encompassing force that has doing nothing but crushing the bones of its enemies and friends alike, leaving nothing in its wake but devastation and free healthcare; on the other side, an individual armed with determination and an unshakable belief in free market. Who do you think would win?

Man is a political animal. It's the collective that brought us where we are today. The individual is a dead-end of evolution, and it was left for dead on the African savannah 200,000 years ago.

AMICUS is right. Leftists are obsessed about controlling everyone.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Lauren, some people believe Jesus was the son of God, was crucified and then arose and ascended to Heaven. You believe:

You may believe in the flying purple people eater if you wish, it is of no concern to me, as is your sexual preference, of no concern to anyone, however, when you post in a public forum that you dismiss the individual as the motive force behind all human action and since history and reality refute your belief a billion times over, one should have the temerity to at least admit it is a personal belief that flies in the face of reality.

All ideas, all inventions and creations, all innovations, begin in the mind of a single human being; they do not emerge from some diaphanous concept of a collective mind.

Both individual freedom and responsibility are individual characteristics that are meaningless in the context of the group.

Amicus

Yes, Amicus. And you believe that you "have knowledge that it is the individual that moves mankind forward, not the collective", even in face of the entire history of humanity as proof of the contrary. The fact is, no one man ever changed anything unless he was part of society. No individual has ever accomplished more than survive unless he was part of a group. No individual, looking solely after number one, did shit with his life, and no individual, looking solely after number one, would even have the necessary drive to advance his fat ass, let alone humanity. Individual freedom and responsibility are an intricate part of living in society, of being part of a group. Individual freedom and responsibility outside of the context of the group is an evolutionary dead-end.

 

[Liar]

Aren't all primates basically small pack animals? Small packs natually cooperate more than they compete, to pool resources, prevent inbreeding and ward of bigger threats.

Society is a loosely gathered gaggle of small packs.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Aren't all primates basically small pack animals? Small packs natually cooperate more than they compete, to pool resources, prevent inbreeding and ward of bigger threats.

Society is a loosely gathered gaggle of small packs.

Precisely. There are some individualist primates too, of course, but they have a tendency to die in reclusion sporting long hair, beard, finger- and toenails.

 

[amicus]

Yes, Amicus. And you believe that you "have knowledge that it is the individual that moves mankind forward, not the collective", even in face of the entire history of humanity as proof of the contrary. The fact is, no one man ever changed anything unless he was part of society. No individual has ever accomplished more than survive unless he was part of a group. No individual, looking solely after number one, did shit with his life, and no individual, looking solely after number one, would even have the necessary drive to advance his fat ass, let alone humanity. Individual freedom and responsibility are an intricate part of living in society, of being part of a group. Individual freedom and responsibility outside of the context of the group is an evolutionary dead-end.

~~~

I purposely used the phrase "Have Knowledge", to avoid using the phrase, "I know", because I am familiar with the liberal mantra that no one can 'know' anything as a certainty, as no human can perceive reality objectively; in your opinion.

You are expressing a relatively new concept formulated by E.O. Smith, ah, I may have mis remembered the last name, but the concept is a highly debated and controversial speculation called, 'SocioBiology', which posits that man is a herd animal destined to live within his specific environment.

This is a really silly concept as the mind of man, the individual man, changes and modifies the environment to suit his own personal needs and desires.

If you view the world through the eyes of subjective mediocrity, which it appears you do, then one could understand your hatred and dismissal at that high end of the intelligence quotient that actually runs the world and creates the luxuries you enjoy as a herd animal or a hive residing proletariat.

Your entire philosophy, as you have described it, is disgusting and inhuman as the end result is to abolish those of ability and high intelligence and factor everyone into the mediocrity of herd existence.

How you can publicly ignore the great men of the past and present as if they never existed and never had an impact on society is a sign, to me, of a a mental incapacity on your part or an immersion in ideology so deeply as to ignore history and reality.

I was going to provide you a list of a dozen or so essential individuals that created seminal knowledge is as many fields, but perhaps someone else will remind you of the history you have apparently misplaced for the moment.

Amicus

 

[Dragonlipz]

~~~

I purposely used the phrase "Have Knowledge", to avoid using the phrase, "I know", because I am familiar with the liberal mantra that no one can 'know' anything as a certainty, as no human can perceive reality objectively; in your opinion.

You are expressing a relatively new concept formulated by E.O. Smith, ah, I may have mis remembered the last name, but the concept is a highly debated and controversial speculation called, 'SocioBiology', which posits that man is a herd animal destined to live within his specific environment.

This is a really silly concept as the mind of man, the individual man, changes and modifies the environment to suit his own personal needs and desires.

If you view the world through the eyes of subjective mediocrity, which it appears you do, then one could understand your hatred and dismissal at that high end of the intelligence quotient that actually runs the world and creates the luxuries you enjoy as a herd animal or a hive residing proletariat.

Your entire philosophy, as you have described it, is disgusting and inhuman as the end result is to abolish those of ability and high intelligence and factor everyone into the mediocrity of herd existence.

How you can publicly ignore the great men of the past and present as if they never existed and never had an impact on society is a sign, to me, of a a mental incapacity on your part or an immersion in ideology so deeply as to ignore history and reality.

I was going to provide you a list of a dozen or so essential individuals that created seminal knowledge is as many fields, but perhaps someone else will remind you of the history you have apparently misplaced for the moment.

Amicus

Ah, more TV history courtesy of Mon Ami; Spew nonsense and expect others to call it significant.....this isn't freshman philosophy, doncha know?

Got da list??? I didn't think so......More of your WhiteBoy Bullshit......

 

[Dragonlipz]

Mon Ami,
Suck from that right tit as long as you draw sustenance from it....when it goes dry (as it did many years ago - before Ann the WannaBe Russian Countess was born) best to suck on some of the real stuff.........not sure if ya ever, but it's great stuff: invigorating, intoxicating, and immoral to such as yourself. Yeah, on second thought, stick with the dry teat, it's all that you types can handle..........no sense overtaxing yourself......

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I purposely used the phrase "Have Knowledge", to avoid using the phrase, "I know", because I am familiar with the liberal mantra that no one can 'know' anything as a certainty, as no human can perceive reality objectively; in your opinion.

You are expressing a relatively new concept formulated by E.O. Smith, ah, I may have mis remembered the last name, but the concept is a highly debated and controversial speculation called, 'SocioBiology', which posits that man is a herd animal destined to live within his specific environment.

This is a really silly concept as the mind of man, the individual man, changes and modifies the environment to suit his own personal needs and desires.

If you view the world through the eyes of subjective mediocrity, which it appears you do, then one could understand your hatred and dismissal at that high end of the intelligence quotient that actually runs the world and creates the luxuries you enjoy as a herd animal or a hive residing proletariat.

Your entire philosophy, as you have described it, is disgusting and inhuman as the end result is to abolish those of ability and high intelligence and factor everyone into the mediocrity of herd existence.

How you can publicly ignore the great men of the past and present as if they never existed and never had an impact on society is a sign, to me, of a a mental incapacity on your part or an immersion in ideology so deeply as to ignore history and reality.

I was going to provide you a list of a dozen or so essential individuals that created seminal knowledge is as many fields, but perhaps someone else will remind you of the history you have apparently misplaced for the moment.

Amicus

I have knowledge, Amicus, that no single name you would have provided, "had you had time", would have been from an individual who produced anything outside of his group, anything that wouldn't have been for the benefit of his group. To convince yourself that the selfish individual has ever accomplished anything other than to masturbate in a cave is to deny civilization in any way you choose to describe.

I have knowledge, Amicus, that the selfish individual isn't even capable of reading the news, analysing results of elections, and come to his own conclusions. Instead, this individual relies on what he hears and reads, and then proclaims "It is the triumph of the individual! The Right has won!", even if all fact points to the contrary, even by his own admission, when confronted with the political manifesto of the winning Right.

I have knowledge, Amicus, that the selfish individual will always recur to the same sources, "headlines" and "they". I have knowledge, Amicus, that the individual will never come up with a response to the simple question "who are they?" and that when cornered, the individual will revert to the usual mantra of "the collective is mediocrity, it takes by force, it plunders, it is disgusting and inhumane", ignoring the simple fact that every single step forward in the history of man has been made for the betterment of the whole, and not of the individual.

 

[amicus]

I had mused that perhaps others might take you on in the individual versus the collective as it is such a simple refutation of your entire argument by mere self evidence.

That having not occurred, hang onto ur panties kid....here is the self evident rejection and refutation of your collective mentality:

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants


34. Joseph Lister
68. Julius Ceasar
PHILOSOPHERS
35. Sigmund Freud
69. William the Conqueror
1.Socrates
36. Marie Curie

79. Genghis Khan
2. Plato 37. Albert Einstein 71. Napoleon Bonaparte
3. Aristotle 38. Alexander Fleming
72. Robert E. Lee
4. Francis Bacon 39. Jonas Salk 73. Dwight D. Eisenhower
5. Rene Descartes AUTHORS POLITICAL LEADERS
6. John Locke
40. Sophocles 74. Constantine the Great
7. Voltaire 41. Virgil 75. Charlemagne
8. Jean Jacques Rousseau 42. Dante Alighieri 76. Queen Elizabeth I
9. Adam Smith
43. Geoffrey Chaucer 77. Oliver Cromwell
10. Immanuel Kant 44. William Shakespeare 78. Benjamin Franklin (Listen)
11. Karl Marx 45. John Milton 79. Catherine the Great
12. Friedrich Nietzsche 46. Charles dickens 80. George Washington
EXPLORERS 47. George Eliot
81.Thomas Jefferson
13. Marco Polo 48. Leo Tolstoy 82. Abraham Lincoln
14. Christopher Columbus 49. Emily Dickinson 83. Susan B. Anthony
15. Vasco da Gama 50. Mark Twain 84. Mahatma Gandhi
16. Ferdinand Magellan COMPOSERS 85. Winston Churchill
17. James Cook 51. Johann Sebastian Bach 86. Franklin D. Roosevelt
18. Roald Amundsen 52. George Frideric Handel
87. Martin Luther King
INVENTORS 53. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart RELIGIOUS LEADERS
19. Archimedes 54. Ludwig van Beethoven 88. Abraham
20. Johann Gutenberg 55. Frederic Chopin 89. Moses
21. Eli Whitney 56. Richard Wagner 90. Lao Tzu
22. Thomas Edison 57. Johannes Brahms 91. Buddha
23. Alexander Graham Bell 58. Peter Tchaikovsky 92. Confucius
24. Henry Ford 59. Claude Debussy 93. Jesus Christ
25. The Wright Brothers ARTISTS 94. The Apostle Paul
26. Guglielmo Marconi 60. Leonardo da Vinci 95. Saint Augustine
SCIENTISTS 61. Raphael 96. Muhammad
27. Galen 62. Michelangelo 97. Thomas Aquinas
28. Nicolaus Copernicus 63. Rembrandt 98. Martin Luther
29. Galileo 64. Claude Monet 99. John Calvin
30. Issac Newton 65.Vincent van Gogh 100. Joseph Smith
31. Charles Darwin 66. Pablo Picasso
32. Louis Pasteur MILITARY LEADERS
33. Gregor Mendel 67. Alexander the Great

~~~~

Ah, well, the list did not copy and paste as it appeared, so much the better as you will, if you care to, pick and choose the proper categories for these GREAT INDIVIDUAL MINDS, Most of whom were Caucasian Men and this particular list is far from complete, but sufficient to loosen your elastic.

One single man, a single mind, somewhere in time, created fire and tamed it for his use. Your collective social group probably burned him at the stake because his intellect frightened them and made them aware of their true intellectual insignificance.

Your 'social group' however you define it, is a construct, while man, the individual, is the reality upon which the construct is created, the essence of existence and the 'Fountainhead' of all knowledge.

Your 'collective' feeds and exists off the minds of these men and the wealth and beauty their ideas produce, and can properly be referred to as parasites.

Nibble on that for a while.

Amicus

 

[Lauren Hynde]

LOL

Amicus, you have knowledge, I am sure, that you are going to have to try a lot harder than that. Not one of the names on your list did anything outside of his/her own social group and that wasn't made for the betterment of that group, with the help of that group. It's self evident.

Come on, just one individual. Give us anything.