D
DÛke
Guest
...
"The Duke" can kKuF himself...
"The Duke" can kKuF himself...
R
Reverend Love
Guest
....you got proof? If so I want to see it. That be a cool party trick.
R
Rooser
Guest
Hilarious, Lotus Mox.
Sadly, most of my fellow Americans would read this and just get mad, but that's when you can tell that you've hit on a vein of truth.
You see, conservative Americans get mad when you argue effectively against them. When you argue poorly, they just feign maturity and point out the logical flaws in your argument.
Sadly, there are too many stupid liberals saying stupid things these days; you can't blame the conservatives for thinking that they have things right.
Anyway, good job, Lotus Mox.
My response to some of the issues brought up here:
1) Comparing contemporary Germany with Nazi Germany is absolutely ignorant. Admittedly, the whole Berlin Wall fiasco probably put a damper on the nation recovering naturally, but wouldn't it stand to reason that the post-war power structures in Germany were established by the victims of the Nazis, not the remnants of them? I mean, I don't know what history books you read, but don't you think that the people most damaged by the Holocaust were the Germans themselves? Yeesh! It's like holding America responsible for British atrocities committed before the 1770's. Comparing today's Germany with Nazi Germany just follows the sad logical fallacy of nationalism. Do you really see the gestalt whole of "Germany" as some static, unchanging beast? Pathetic.
But hey, let's assume for a moment that the comparison is valid. Excusing America's atrocities on account of they were indicted by an equally atrocious society just follows the primitive logic of two wrongs making a right. I hate to use the most cliched comparisons, but it seems that my fellow Americans haven't even taken a simple logic class. There's the classic example of the smoker who warns you against smoking. It is the fool who dismisses their warning with, "Why should I listen to you, you smoke."
So even if Germany was some evil, selfish, imperialistic nation, it would only mean that they know what they're talking about even more.
The whole thing reminds me of Republicans who accuse Democrats of being "closet-Republicans." The argument is essentially that Democrats are lumpy white guys too, and take money from lobbyists too, and are only acting in their self-interests. Well, the Republicans are exactly right. The Democrats are hardly liberal, and no good for our nation, but the Republicans seem to miss the irony of shouting, "Ha! You guys are selfish oinkholes just like us!"
2) Duke, you're being a little too absolutist. I agree with what you're saying, and I, like you, am upset to find that most Americans are ignorant of basic concepts such as cultural imperialism - what you call "Americanization." But you are jumping to too many conclusions about America. Most simply, you have to understand that a LOT of Americans were against the war, and a LOT of Americans understand the nature of the corrupt forces that govern them. The "zoo" is what you see on television, and it may speak for many Americans, but certainly not all of us. What you need to understand is that Hollywood's unstoppable wave of mass-media-shlock does not represent America at all. The true voices of the American people do not get widely distributed, or they get silenced entirely. The movies that come out of Hollywood are not the movies Toni Morrison or Nathaniel Hawthorne or Mark Twain or Ursula K. Le Guin or any number of genuine American artists would be making if they made movies. Instead they are a product of the ideals and desires of a number of corporations, many of which are not even American. Sony, (Japan), and Vivendi, (France), are the best examples of superconglomerates which own many aspects of so-called "American" media. Most American corporations are able to make so much money so quickly because they are able to abuse government subsidies in Europe and Asia - the same government subsidies that were designed to give Eurasian companiesa fighting chance against America. Most "American" companies make more money in Europe and Asia than they do over here - a fact I'm sure you're aware of - which means that products are tailored to sell to them, not to us. "Americanization" is in fact "Globalization." These giant companies are not seeking to make everybody more American, they are seeking to make everybody more like everybody else. The "culture" spouted through these channels is designed to be generic, homogenzed, global. It is pandering to the lowest common denominator. It is made only to appeal to the most basic of human desires. Wouldn't it follow that a capitalistic conquest of the world would involve making a product line which could be sold to everybody in every country everywhere? It has nothing to do with "being American", even if the American government is the one which benefits the most from this imperialism. What you need to consider is that the average American person is just as disenfrachised, just as powerless to this oppressive cultural imperialism as your average European.
With each passing day, the cyberpunk cliche of corporations ruling the world instead of national governments becomes more of a reality. It is only a coincidence that Hollywood, located on American soil, is the nerve center of all this. Blaming America for everything is short-sighted, because national boundaries are becoming increasingly meaningless in this age of globalization. If you continue to blame America, you will never solve the real problem; the companies themselves need to be attacked, that's where the power lies.
The only crime the general American populus is guilty of is its sheepish nature. Your typical American is easily fooled, easily led into conformity. Your typical American is the unwitting tool of the oppressive corporate minority. Americans are defensive and very stubborn if asked to question the dominant ideologies, (I think the strong reaction of Reverend Love is proof of that). Admittedly, this is quite a lot to be guilty of, but in a way, it makes the typical American the most sympathetic lot.
We are the brainwashed. We are the oppressed.
We are the ones in most need of saving, not blaming.
If you truly think we are hopeless, vile creatures, than the machinations of the mass media have already won. We simply need our eyes opened. The forces of oppression are spread across the world; the US Government is simply their mercenary-for-hire.
Sadly, most of my fellow Americans would read this and just get mad, but that's when you can tell that you've hit on a vein of truth.
You see, conservative Americans get mad when you argue effectively against them. When you argue poorly, they just feign maturity and point out the logical flaws in your argument.
Sadly, there are too many stupid liberals saying stupid things these days; you can't blame the conservatives for thinking that they have things right.
Anyway, good job, Lotus Mox.
My response to some of the issues brought up here:
1) Comparing contemporary Germany with Nazi Germany is absolutely ignorant. Admittedly, the whole Berlin Wall fiasco probably put a damper on the nation recovering naturally, but wouldn't it stand to reason that the post-war power structures in Germany were established by the victims of the Nazis, not the remnants of them? I mean, I don't know what history books you read, but don't you think that the people most damaged by the Holocaust were the Germans themselves? Yeesh! It's like holding America responsible for British atrocities committed before the 1770's. Comparing today's Germany with Nazi Germany just follows the sad logical fallacy of nationalism. Do you really see the gestalt whole of "Germany" as some static, unchanging beast? Pathetic.
But hey, let's assume for a moment that the comparison is valid. Excusing America's atrocities on account of they were indicted by an equally atrocious society just follows the primitive logic of two wrongs making a right. I hate to use the most cliched comparisons, but it seems that my fellow Americans haven't even taken a simple logic class. There's the classic example of the smoker who warns you against smoking. It is the fool who dismisses their warning with, "Why should I listen to you, you smoke."
So even if Germany was some evil, selfish, imperialistic nation, it would only mean that they know what they're talking about even more.
The whole thing reminds me of Republicans who accuse Democrats of being "closet-Republicans." The argument is essentially that Democrats are lumpy white guys too, and take money from lobbyists too, and are only acting in their self-interests. Well, the Republicans are exactly right. The Democrats are hardly liberal, and no good for our nation, but the Republicans seem to miss the irony of shouting, "Ha! You guys are selfish oinkholes just like us!"
2) Duke, you're being a little too absolutist. I agree with what you're saying, and I, like you, am upset to find that most Americans are ignorant of basic concepts such as cultural imperialism - what you call "Americanization." But you are jumping to too many conclusions about America. Most simply, you have to understand that a LOT of Americans were against the war, and a LOT of Americans understand the nature of the corrupt forces that govern them. The "zoo" is what you see on television, and it may speak for many Americans, but certainly not all of us. What you need to understand is that Hollywood's unstoppable wave of mass-media-shlock does not represent America at all. The true voices of the American people do not get widely distributed, or they get silenced entirely. The movies that come out of Hollywood are not the movies Toni Morrison or Nathaniel Hawthorne or Mark Twain or Ursula K. Le Guin or any number of genuine American artists would be making if they made movies. Instead they are a product of the ideals and desires of a number of corporations, many of which are not even American. Sony, (Japan), and Vivendi, (France), are the best examples of superconglomerates which own many aspects of so-called "American" media. Most American corporations are able to make so much money so quickly because they are able to abuse government subsidies in Europe and Asia - the same government subsidies that were designed to give Eurasian companiesa fighting chance against America. Most "American" companies make more money in Europe and Asia than they do over here - a fact I'm sure you're aware of - which means that products are tailored to sell to them, not to us. "Americanization" is in fact "Globalization." These giant companies are not seeking to make everybody more American, they are seeking to make everybody more like everybody else. The "culture" spouted through these channels is designed to be generic, homogenzed, global. It is pandering to the lowest common denominator. It is made only to appeal to the most basic of human desires. Wouldn't it follow that a capitalistic conquest of the world would involve making a product line which could be sold to everybody in every country everywhere? It has nothing to do with "being American", even if the American government is the one which benefits the most from this imperialism. What you need to consider is that the average American person is just as disenfrachised, just as powerless to this oppressive cultural imperialism as your average European.
With each passing day, the cyberpunk cliche of corporations ruling the world instead of national governments becomes more of a reality. It is only a coincidence that Hollywood, located on American soil, is the nerve center of all this. Blaming America for everything is short-sighted, because national boundaries are becoming increasingly meaningless in this age of globalization. If you continue to blame America, you will never solve the real problem; the companies themselves need to be attacked, that's where the power lies.
The only crime the general American populus is guilty of is its sheepish nature. Your typical American is easily fooled, easily led into conformity. Your typical American is the unwitting tool of the oppressive corporate minority. Americans are defensive and very stubborn if asked to question the dominant ideologies, (I think the strong reaction of Reverend Love is proof of that). Admittedly, this is quite a lot to be guilty of, but in a way, it makes the typical American the most sympathetic lot.
We are the brainwashed. We are the oppressed.
We are the ones in most need of saving, not blaming.
If you truly think we are hopeless, vile creatures, than the machinations of the mass media have already won. We simply need our eyes opened. The forces of oppression are spread across the world; the US Government is simply their mercenary-for-hire.
T
train
Guest
What would be a grand cause...
War is just a show of might, and savageness... all rolled into a single laser guided nuclear weapon that can blow the smitherines out of evertything but cockroaches...
"It is a work of Art, lasting only until the shooting stops..."
then we look for the next butt to kick!!!...
Midnight Barbecue anyone?!....
R
Rooser
Guest
Duke is smart for not blindly condemning war.
Conflict is inevitable, maybe even necessary, to human existence.
However, I don't think any of us, (Or anybody else for that matter), are knowledgeable enough to make a judgment on whether or not a war is "grand." Moral questions are best left out of the hands of humans, lest we simply replace one dominant ideology with another.
Conflict is inevitable, maybe even necessary, to human existence.
However, I don't think any of us, (Or anybody else for that matter), are knowledgeable enough to make a judgment on whether or not a war is "grand." Moral questions are best left out of the hands of humans, lest we simply replace one dominant ideology with another.
T
train
Guest
Which we do our best to, by use of force...
"Sad the thought, that thought, can be buried and forgotten, only to turn around and bite you in the butt, after it digs itself out..."
R
Reverend Love
Guest
NONONONONONONONO.....
Bantering along, pointing out obvious hypocrisies in vague convoluted arguments, while questioning America's institutions is NOT the issue at hand.....
I'll ask you...is it true John Wayne, A.K.A. the Duke can kKuF himself?
The ball is in your court gentlemen...
Bantering along, pointing out obvious hypocrisies in vague convoluted arguments, while questioning America's institutions is NOT the issue at hand.....
I'll ask you...is it true John Wayne, A.K.A. the Duke can kKuF himself?
The ball is in your court gentlemen...
D
DÛke
Guest
...
I have always tried my best to be cautious of basic instincts and those who mouth everything base as if it was the definite glory and the ultimate peak of man's existence.
I think it is ironic that some say man is "by nature" an animal of this or that instinct, and no other; that man cannot go beyond. Those people, too, I call subhuman - they fail to see what is great in man and focus on "nature." Nature? You want to talk about nature? Well then! Let us include the thought of higher spiritedness as a part of Nature, for we do indeed speak of good, better, best, and beyond. I smell something of charming baseness in those who claim that man "cannot" be that thing or this thing, it reveals how much such poor souls have limited themselves.
If we want to talk about Nature, then we will talk like this: that what we do, whatever it is, is a part of nature, and not unnatural, not anti-nature. We think of many subjects, we have many ideas, and we can push many limits - all this, too, belongs to our Nature. And those who have dismissed this are the unrestrained, "free loving," "liberal" subhumans who at the same time condemning the higher taste in our Nature, conclude that it is only Nature when we abide by our instincts, as if questioning our instincts is not also a sheer part of our Nature. Maybe even higher Nature...
train, like the good and many, has before exclaimed something like "man cannot go beyond his instincts." Gizmo, like train and train's "background," says that we are mere animals, simple, pathetic - eating, sleeping, and breathing animals, and hardly anything more.
Although this type of diseased thinking tries to make man ugly - as ugly, as simple, as nothing as possible, it quite proves the other side of the argument. They say instincts are Nature, hence we are "given" instincts to obey, but is not commanding our instincts also part of our Nature? Our power over our instincts, our "control," is that not, too, Nature herself working in the background as we make our choices, as we wish to commit an action or not?
The silly fact is, these people see the ugly in man, and want others to see it, live it, and never go beyond, that is, never have control over his instincts, never have that command, that other part which is Nature all over again! These men are, in essence, what I deem as the disease of our humanity, the sick, the foolish, the unrefined...
...yet, I will not exclude them from Nature! On the contrary, they are, too, by Nature the way they are. But let us, for once, not exclude the higher taste of man from Nature. More importantly, let us admit that, as being a part of Nature, there are inferior human beings who only see, feel, and think of what is base in man, who only act within that confined domain of thought and desire, who, perhaps, have no ability whatsoever to realize and experience a higher sense of taste, and thus they think it is impossible, as it is "beyond Nature."
...still, however, they claim to have rights as equal as all other men, that they have that inborn "right" to freedom, the right to right. They claim that we are "all the same." Their baseness they project into what is, what is real, what is true, what life is. Here I offer my proposition: that we have not earned our rights and our freedom by simply being "born." Many things are born every second, many animals and subanimals, inferior animals, are born...we cannot accord a sense of freedom and right until it has been earned, until the person becomes freedom, and hence, demands for no "rights." What? Of course! It was no mistake! I implied that demanding for freedom and rights is the act of unfree, typical base men. "To be free" - what does that mean to us today? Free from what? Free towards what? Free to do what? If we cannot begin to answer these, we - or they - should not begin to cry for their freedoms, hence, they know nothing of their freedoms. But here we encounter the subhuman's thirst for being himself: a base man, a "mere," an inferior animal. The freedom he demands is precisely this: the freedom to be inferior, to obey the instinct and "Nature" without commanding and questioning, that is, without coming in touch with what really is Nature: the ability to abide by all of Nature, and not simply fall under the enslavement of what is basest in man. Amongst the symptoms of this inferiority, we see the strive for Happiness, we see the Aristotelian "happiness as its own end" coming into full view; we see the Sadean "pleasure is Nature," to have "pleasure" as our measure of what is "good" and "bad"; we see the utilitarian lie, naked and unashamed of itself, clearly making baseness the rule which man should comply with. And how appealing all of this! - it, after all, frees the unfree, giving them the right to be...unfree...to be....base...to be themselves as inferior parasites, alas, inferior men who are the rule and who do rule.
...the attempt to satisfy the taste of the majority - that is, what is subhuman - as far as I am concerned, is a sickness felt even by the majority themselves. Their problems are endless, and what constitutes their problems? Their freedoms, or, their being free when they are still confined, when they are born into confined spaces, into chains, into inferiority in thought, feeling, and taste.
America, to underline it once more, is the brightest sun, the most warming place, the greatest liberty and happiness for what has been called "man" so far. It is, in fact, the happiness of the basest instincts, the right to pursue happiness of the basest feelings, the liberty and free expression of the ugliest in man, and to fulfill the "American Dream": drowning in the shallowest garbage lot on Earth. That is America. What's that? You say my bashing of America is "getting old"? Oh, believe me, even I am bored of it! As young America is, it has already aged and became ancient. If we must move forward, we must treat it as an antiquity, as a test, as a failure on the part of man to recognize higherness. As young as this America is, it is already wrinkled and quite ugly for its age...
All this prepares my reply to Rooser:
...at the end, I admit: my job is not to enlighten, to "liberate," to "save," and not even as little as inform. My job is to exploit and embarrass anyone who dares claim he is an "individual," that he is "worthy." My job is to put an end to all actors who lay their hands on what does not belong to them. My job is to end their "rights," seeing how they have not earned any of them, seeing that their only claim to their "rights" is "being born, therefore, must be free."
...you say they are "easily fooled." Well then! Do we need to enlighten those who easily fall? You see, they do not even recognize their sicknesses, they do not recognize that they are by every sense of the word sick, do you think they would accept anyone who attempts to even suggest this? Even if they do! Even if they do! Indeed, even if they do! We cannot work that hard on the weak and the pathetic...we cannot risk freeing the unfree once again, by attempting to "liberate" them and "save them." It is not my job, and let those who attempt to do it at least have the honesty to admit that, what is ugly belongs to ugliness even after it had been beautified - it releases side effects. Take the case of "tolerance" I described few posts earlier - you know there is something subhuman in the background when you see concepts that attempt to replace good manners with "good politics." We cannot, therefore, cleanse what is unclean, because it will fall again...and again...
...this poses a great problem, of course, but I will stop here.
I have always tried my best to be cautious of basic instincts and those who mouth everything base as if it was the definite glory and the ultimate peak of man's existence.
I think it is ironic that some say man is "by nature" an animal of this or that instinct, and no other; that man cannot go beyond. Those people, too, I call subhuman - they fail to see what is great in man and focus on "nature." Nature? You want to talk about nature? Well then! Let us include the thought of higher spiritedness as a part of Nature, for we do indeed speak of good, better, best, and beyond. I smell something of charming baseness in those who claim that man "cannot" be that thing or this thing, it reveals how much such poor souls have limited themselves.
If we want to talk about Nature, then we will talk like this: that what we do, whatever it is, is a part of nature, and not unnatural, not anti-nature. We think of many subjects, we have many ideas, and we can push many limits - all this, too, belongs to our Nature. And those who have dismissed this are the unrestrained, "free loving," "liberal" subhumans who at the same time condemning the higher taste in our Nature, conclude that it is only Nature when we abide by our instincts, as if questioning our instincts is not also a sheer part of our Nature. Maybe even higher Nature...
train, like the good and many, has before exclaimed something like "man cannot go beyond his instincts." Gizmo, like train and train's "background," says that we are mere animals, simple, pathetic - eating, sleeping, and breathing animals, and hardly anything more.
Although this type of diseased thinking tries to make man ugly - as ugly, as simple, as nothing as possible, it quite proves the other side of the argument. They say instincts are Nature, hence we are "given" instincts to obey, but is not commanding our instincts also part of our Nature? Our power over our instincts, our "control," is that not, too, Nature herself working in the background as we make our choices, as we wish to commit an action or not?
The silly fact is, these people see the ugly in man, and want others to see it, live it, and never go beyond, that is, never have control over his instincts, never have that command, that other part which is Nature all over again! These men are, in essence, what I deem as the disease of our humanity, the sick, the foolish, the unrefined...
...yet, I will not exclude them from Nature! On the contrary, they are, too, by Nature the way they are. But let us, for once, not exclude the higher taste of man from Nature. More importantly, let us admit that, as being a part of Nature, there are inferior human beings who only see, feel, and think of what is base in man, who only act within that confined domain of thought and desire, who, perhaps, have no ability whatsoever to realize and experience a higher sense of taste, and thus they think it is impossible, as it is "beyond Nature."
...still, however, they claim to have rights as equal as all other men, that they have that inborn "right" to freedom, the right to right. They claim that we are "all the same." Their baseness they project into what is, what is real, what is true, what life is. Here I offer my proposition: that we have not earned our rights and our freedom by simply being "born." Many things are born every second, many animals and subanimals, inferior animals, are born...we cannot accord a sense of freedom and right until it has been earned, until the person becomes freedom, and hence, demands for no "rights." What? Of course! It was no mistake! I implied that demanding for freedom and rights is the act of unfree, typical base men. "To be free" - what does that mean to us today? Free from what? Free towards what? Free to do what? If we cannot begin to answer these, we - or they - should not begin to cry for their freedoms, hence, they know nothing of their freedoms. But here we encounter the subhuman's thirst for being himself: a base man, a "mere," an inferior animal. The freedom he demands is precisely this: the freedom to be inferior, to obey the instinct and "Nature" without commanding and questioning, that is, without coming in touch with what really is Nature: the ability to abide by all of Nature, and not simply fall under the enslavement of what is basest in man. Amongst the symptoms of this inferiority, we see the strive for Happiness, we see the Aristotelian "happiness as its own end" coming into full view; we see the Sadean "pleasure is Nature," to have "pleasure" as our measure of what is "good" and "bad"; we see the utilitarian lie, naked and unashamed of itself, clearly making baseness the rule which man should comply with. And how appealing all of this! - it, after all, frees the unfree, giving them the right to be...unfree...to be....base...to be themselves as inferior parasites, alas, inferior men who are the rule and who do rule.
...the attempt to satisfy the taste of the majority - that is, what is subhuman - as far as I am concerned, is a sickness felt even by the majority themselves. Their problems are endless, and what constitutes their problems? Their freedoms, or, their being free when they are still confined, when they are born into confined spaces, into chains, into inferiority in thought, feeling, and taste.
America, to underline it once more, is the brightest sun, the most warming place, the greatest liberty and happiness for what has been called "man" so far. It is, in fact, the happiness of the basest instincts, the right to pursue happiness of the basest feelings, the liberty and free expression of the ugliest in man, and to fulfill the "American Dream": drowning in the shallowest garbage lot on Earth. That is America. What's that? You say my bashing of America is "getting old"? Oh, believe me, even I am bored of it! As young America is, it has already aged and became ancient. If we must move forward, we must treat it as an antiquity, as a test, as a failure on the part of man to recognize higherness. As young as this America is, it is already wrinkled and quite ugly for its age...
All this prepares my reply to Rooser:
Do you not smell the irony of that sentence? From what I gather of your post, you are at least aware of a common misconception, a common symptom, a disease that is spreading around like wildfire. And then you tell me that you "need saving"? Do you need saving? As far as I see it, you seem to have already saved yourself from that escalator of "good" and "happy" citizens who rot in their baseness and think it is only Natural, that it is the only "Nature" possible for man. But you say you need "saving"? No. The same way in which you come here and appear as a full human being before me, in the same manner in which you grew up, with a little consciousness and a sense of higher taste, in that same manner...I ask...why are the others blind to this? Why are the majority of people blind and in "need of saving" when, amongst them, there are good people who see it clearer? Who saved them?...
...at the end, I admit: my job is not to enlighten, to "liberate," to "save," and not even as little as inform. My job is to exploit and embarrass anyone who dares claim he is an "individual," that he is "worthy." My job is to put an end to all actors who lay their hands on what does not belong to them. My job is to end their "rights," seeing how they have not earned any of them, seeing that their only claim to their "rights" is "being born, therefore, must be free."
...you say they are "easily fooled." Well then! Do we need to enlighten those who easily fall? You see, they do not even recognize their sicknesses, they do not recognize that they are by every sense of the word sick, do you think they would accept anyone who attempts to even suggest this? Even if they do! Even if they do! Indeed, even if they do! We cannot work that hard on the weak and the pathetic...we cannot risk freeing the unfree once again, by attempting to "liberate" them and "save them." It is not my job, and let those who attempt to do it at least have the honesty to admit that, what is ugly belongs to ugliness even after it had been beautified - it releases side effects. Take the case of "tolerance" I described few posts earlier - you know there is something subhuman in the background when you see concepts that attempt to replace good manners with "good politics." We cannot, therefore, cleanse what is unclean, because it will fall again...and again...
...this poses a great problem, of course, but I will stop here.
N
Nightstalkers
Guest
Please do, just scrolling down this far has given mesa a bigeth headache
D
DÛke
Guest
...
I really do not understand why those who have nothing constructive to say still insist on saying something. Do they not realize that it reveals their idiocy?
Long post? Ignore it.
Uninteresting subject? Ignore it.
A heated discussion? Ignore it.
Can't handle it? Ignore it.
But even that is a hard task to those who have nothing to add...
...from hiding their stupidity for too long, they desire to express it whenever possible. Almost beyond their control. The energy just bursts...
I really do not understand why those who have nothing constructive to say still insist on saying something. Do they not realize that it reveals their idiocy?
Long post? Ignore it.
Uninteresting subject? Ignore it.
A heated discussion? Ignore it.
Can't handle it? Ignore it.
But even that is a hard task to those who have nothing to add...
...from hiding their stupidity for too long, they desire to express it whenever possible. Almost beyond their control. The energy just bursts...
N
Nightstalkers
Guest
Ah, Duke is a flamer in the heat of idiocity as a whole contributes to the surpreme factor of some idiotic discreptancy. Why should a normal person have to express his point in the indignant articles which could have easily been sumed up in a short, simple post? It is all in your eyes, the beholder, what you view what I have to say on a subject which is entitled Daddy..., which to us, doesn't knit a darned whole much when utilizing a whole super computer to process the whole of a long overused source you people like to call the internet. When I have to bring some thought to the auto reply service which utilizes nothing of my time, whatsoever, and have to come down to most peoples level for just to post one little post which will waste that much research time; sometimes taking me away from important duties to the institute and other such important tasks at hand. Whether it be to the fundamental nature of a genome, or the health of a sick animal, it will be in my best interest to keep off this service when I have ten to twelve other idiots vying for my attention as it is. I'm starting to test this automated seprvice of mine for completely unrelated reasons. yes I would like to take a vacation, and no, I will not get out of your hair for a minute and actually read that friggin page of insight into your delapidated mind.
Sorry, I think that I've been going to the craft for way too long
Sorry, I think that I've been going to the craft for way too long
D
DÛke
Guest
...
Awww...
I smell envy.
Awww...
I smell envy.
N
Nightstalkers
Guest
We smell a cranky old man who doesn't have anything else to do except waste me time. You, the Duke, are giving yourself way too much of a tedestal to sit upon, (Gold me friend, does not suit you.) and should get off of your high scale dealer seat, and get a job instead of wasting your days on a delapidated website....
Hmm, This is getting to me.
(See! PaCo is a flamer!!!)
Hmm, This is getting to me.
(See! PaCo is a flamer!!!)
Attachments
R
Reverend Love
Guest
This coming from someone with 1348 posts....
T
train
Guest
And this is coming from someone with 3865...
That sure was a big paragraph to type just to say 3 words...
Anyhow...
All that matters - is that all Americans understand the we are Warmongerers....
That sure was a big paragraph to type just to say 3 words...
Anyhow...
All that matters - is that all Americans understand the we are Warmongerers....
D
DÛke
Guest
...<laughs>
Let me continue!
And this is coming from a guy who is dreaming of a "CPA RPG," who looks at "soulbonding" as something at all, who talks to himself...and, in any case, who utters nonsense, that he is a nothing in these forums?
Well, I'll be damned if I take advice from such a parasite!
And you know, train...you are amongst few in here whom I respect. I stand before your honesty and salute you wholly.
Let me continue!
And this is coming from a guy who is dreaming of a "CPA RPG," who looks at "soulbonding" as something at all, who talks to himself...and, in any case, who utters nonsense, that he is a nothing in these forums?
Well, I'll be damned if I take advice from such a parasite!
And you know, train...you are amongst few in here whom I respect. I stand before your honesty and salute you wholly.
R
Rooser
Guest
Well, Duke, while we may have a similar impression of the world and of America, I must say I disagree with your elitism.
My earlier post, at least the part directed at you, was mostly trying to mark a difference between the corrupt American government and the American people, most of whom may be stubborn and ignorant, but not animals. But perhaps trying to leave a sliver of hope for America is mere sentimentality?
Anyway, you raised some interesting questions about the segregation of man and nature. I agree that too many confine human potential within the ill-conceived boundaries of "nature", and I find your optimism on human capacity, on progressiveness, to be inspiring. But is there not value in understanding that all things human are borne out of more primitive, animalistic instincts. I don't think we ever fully transcend those instincts, we simply, how should I say, reshape them. I could expound on this, but not without further prodding from you.
Still, I find your elitism disturbing. I find elitism disturbing because it is inherently founded on ideals, and ideals are too rigid, too inflexible for my tastes. Replacing one dominant ideology for another is not the answer, that is, unless your idea of utopia is a series of circular revolutions.
My favorite analogy for the hypocrisies of elitism is the French Revolution. In their haste to destroy the ruling class, they filled many boats with condemned priests, nobles, etc. and capsized them. What happened was the rivers became so rotten that many Revolutionaries died of disease.
My earlier post, at least the part directed at you, was mostly trying to mark a difference between the corrupt American government and the American people, most of whom may be stubborn and ignorant, but not animals. But perhaps trying to leave a sliver of hope for America is mere sentimentality?
Anyway, you raised some interesting questions about the segregation of man and nature. I agree that too many confine human potential within the ill-conceived boundaries of "nature", and I find your optimism on human capacity, on progressiveness, to be inspiring. But is there not value in understanding that all things human are borne out of more primitive, animalistic instincts. I don't think we ever fully transcend those instincts, we simply, how should I say, reshape them. I could expound on this, but not without further prodding from you.
Still, I find your elitism disturbing. I find elitism disturbing because it is inherently founded on ideals, and ideals are too rigid, too inflexible for my tastes. Replacing one dominant ideology for another is not the answer, that is, unless your idea of utopia is a series of circular revolutions.
My favorite analogy for the hypocrisies of elitism is the French Revolution. In their haste to destroy the ruling class, they filled many boats with condemned priests, nobles, etc. and capsized them. What happened was the rivers became so rotten that many Revolutionaries died of disease.
D
DÛke
Guest
...
You don't need to tell me that we disagree. That we see eye to eye on the surface of the issue is not what I call agreement at all.
You speak well of my "elitism," and you seem to fear the dangerousness of my "ideals." Well, then. It seems that you have figured out what my ideals are, that you can pinpoint to me where, exactly, I inserted a new goal to peruse, a new idol to kneel before. But...I will hear many excuses and yawning before I see you showing me what my "ideals" are. That I seem elitist to you...forgive me when I say: is it not only natural to seem elitist when you state a profound opinion, whatever it is? We can at once declare all strength of mind as "elitist." Any found principles, we can call "ideals" and products of dark dogma...etc.
I will not accept your separation between “American government” or “American ideals” versus the poor and innocent American people. I will not divide the issue to justify someone or some group, no matter how many. Freud divided the mind to forgive and pay homage to the sickness of the average man; Jung did the same. Few divided the human into soul and body, to give count to what they did not like in man, and to create some type of “ideal,” an ideal that rests beyond man. Others, like mentioned in my earlier posts, see Nature only as the ugly, crude, unrefined and uncontrolled instinct in man. I will not forgive someone by lifting his shame, his incapacity, his inadequacy as a human being, his subhumanity, in order to clean him and make him anew, to make him appear and merely appear as something worthy. What is America and American, first, believe it or not, is due to a sick majority of people who, like you say, fall all too easily to the traps of the government and media. Well, there is our problem! – our problem is the weak and pathetic who fall that easily; our problem are those who we ought to save, to put it in a way of your manner.
You don't need to tell me that we disagree. That we see eye to eye on the surface of the issue is not what I call agreement at all.
You speak well of my "elitism," and you seem to fear the dangerousness of my "ideals." Well, then. It seems that you have figured out what my ideals are, that you can pinpoint to me where, exactly, I inserted a new goal to peruse, a new idol to kneel before. But...I will hear many excuses and yawning before I see you showing me what my "ideals" are. That I seem elitist to you...forgive me when I say: is it not only natural to seem elitist when you state a profound opinion, whatever it is? We can at once declare all strength of mind as "elitist." Any found principles, we can call "ideals" and products of dark dogma...etc.
I will not accept your separation between “American government” or “American ideals” versus the poor and innocent American people. I will not divide the issue to justify someone or some group, no matter how many. Freud divided the mind to forgive and pay homage to the sickness of the average man; Jung did the same. Few divided the human into soul and body, to give count to what they did not like in man, and to create some type of “ideal,” an ideal that rests beyond man. Others, like mentioned in my earlier posts, see Nature only as the ugly, crude, unrefined and uncontrolled instinct in man. I will not forgive someone by lifting his shame, his incapacity, his inadequacy as a human being, his subhumanity, in order to clean him and make him anew, to make him appear and merely appear as something worthy. What is America and American, first, believe it or not, is due to a sick majority of people who, like you say, fall all too easily to the traps of the government and media. Well, there is our problem! – our problem is the weak and pathetic who fall that easily; our problem are those who we ought to save, to put it in a way of your manner.
I will my Carpel-Tunel Syndrome wasn't so bad so I could log on more often (typing hurts these days).
Okay...so, Duke wants to know why I can hate Nationalism, but act like a 'Nationalist'. Simple. I believe in the concepts this country was founded on, but don't like most of the people that live in it. If you want to call me a 'Nationalist' then I must repeat Nightstalker's subliminal text. I am not a label. I have opinions. If some large group of sheep shares my opinion, so be it. I'm not one of them.
I think wars are great. They serve many purposes:
1. population control at its best.
2. Change. Usually I don't like drastic changes but w/o it things get stagnate. Just look what happened to this country because we haven't had any change in the past century or two.
3. Entertainment. I get bored easily. Wars keep me amused.
...
you know, looking at how things are going of late, I predict a massive, global change sometime in the next 25 years. I'm not talking global warming or a nuclear war, but a massive socio-political change that will redifine everything that we know. I'm not sure how or why. I just know it will...
-Ferret
"It'll be fun to watch!"
Okay...so, Duke wants to know why I can hate Nationalism, but act like a 'Nationalist'. Simple. I believe in the concepts this country was founded on, but don't like most of the people that live in it. If you want to call me a 'Nationalist' then I must repeat Nightstalker's subliminal text. I am not a label. I have opinions. If some large group of sheep shares my opinion, so be it. I'm not one of them.
I think wars are great. They serve many purposes:
1. population control at its best.
2. Change. Usually I don't like drastic changes but w/o it things get stagnate. Just look what happened to this country because we haven't had any change in the past century or two.
3. Entertainment. I get bored easily. Wars keep me amused.
...
you know, looking at how things are going of late, I predict a massive, global change sometime in the next 25 years. I'm not talking global warming or a nuclear war, but a massive socio-political change that will redifine everything that we know. I'm not sure how or why. I just know it will...
-Ferret
"It'll be fun to watch!"
N
Nightstalkers
Guest
Wow, and to think we would have let everyone figure out why we condone war.
not to mention all of the free shtik you get if your actually "around" the countries being invaded. Now to get rid of about a thousand gallons of crude oil...