This guy is my new hero.

[Rooser]

You might be jumping to too many conclusions with your theory there, Duke. While it is very very probable that the Middle East will be eventually converted into McWorld, such a process will be of no benefit to the current administration. As I am not sure how familiar you are with US Law, I would like to point out that a President is limited to 2 terms, or 8 years, and then he's out of office for good. For Bush, (Or I really should say Cheney, since he's our real President anyway), the best-case scenario is he's in office until 2008, and he likely does not have time to build the corporate ties needed to extort money on the capitalistic development of Iraq. Even if another Republican is elected in 2008, they will likely have different corporate allegiances - ones that can exploit the Middle East in other ways. So, yes, what you say is true, but for the current administration it really is all about the oil. Future exploitation will be left to the next administration.

 

[Astranbrulth]

You know, I think in the end we are all pretty much right. I've thought about it, and basically we know already that it would benefit the USA to have a "United States Clone" in the Middle East. Not only would it consolidate America's influence there in an (Arab) land other than Israel (which everyone in the M-East hates), but it would be used as a springboard for cultural colonisation of the surrounding countries.

However, what I dispute with you, DUke, is that the oil revenues will primarily be used to benefit Iraqi's. Oh, yes , a few selected elite' might see some of that money, but the vast mass of the oil wealth will be exported to America, or sold on its behalf to third parties. Iraq will be worse off than under Saddam, because at least when he was in power, the wealth stayed in the country.

Look at my previous post for an idea as to how the bill for "reconstruction" will be inflated over 100 times the true amount. It will be much easier to steal the oil directly than to wait for a consumer base to develop and sell goods to achieve profit. How come other potential customer bases like Nicaragua and Afghanistan were never "developed" into a customer base? Naturally, I agree with DUke when he says that Iraq will be "Westernised", and that oil revenue will pay for that - but where I disagree with him is that this is the primary goal. The immediate goal is to suck the country dry. Later on, as Rooser says, if the country is turned into "McWorld", it will be at the behest of future administrations.

However, I do urge all interested parties to go look at an article published in the Guardian by Michael Meacher. It is entitled "The Bogus War on Terrorism", and normally I would be very sceptical about the sort of claims that Meacher makes in it, because they sound like the half - informed crackpot theories that one continually runs into. Except for the fact that this fellow writes like he knows what he is talking about, and the fact that he is an ex-Minister of Blair's government. The link : http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1036693,00.html

This is why Bush is so scared of the UN coming into the picture. Because if the UN has control (however inefficiently) of the oil revenues, there may be the sticky problem of the Americans never actually seeing much of the enormous profits that they wanted. It may also, in the long run, mean that the "Americanisation" of Iraq may not occur properly.

The US's fundamental mistake is to think that everyone yearns for its brand of "freedom", and frenzied capitalism. The cheap superficiality of Western culture in general (which, as Rooser and Ferret said, distracts people from looking at the greater issues in the world) is precisely what nauseates me. I'm tired of being told how I should look, what I should buy, how I must think, what I should buy, what I must buy .... am I repeating myself? Sorry.

God forbid that Iraq becomes a clone of this hegemonic institution.


-- Astranbrulth --

 

[Spiderman]

Well, you guys can argue about the whether or not it's about oil or influence or what the intentions of the US is in that area. I'm more drawn to Rooser's post and his three examples. I don't think it's quite as simple as "accepting the way things are" as those examples paint it. Tatoos limiting where you work? The last thing I heard is that businesses are run by people with their own preferences, and aside from blatent discrimination like sex or race, they can have who they want to work for them, and if they don't want people with tatoos, find another job. When that tatoo person has their own business, they can hire who they want.

Same with the sister. Find a place to work where appearances don't matter.

Guy with the attitude is a bit different; if the point was to try to change the guy's attitude, obviously that's probably not going to work. Look at the people on this board, for example. You can discuss stuff with him but if he turns you off, don't. Simple as that.

 

[DÛke]

Astranbrulth and Rooser - is it really a big deal, in any event, where the oil will end? No. Your argument is great, and I agree with it wholly, except that you're looking from present perspective. I, on the other hand, am looking at it from tomorrow’s and days after tomorrow perspective. You talk about the current U.S. administration and the future U.S. administration as if there will be some holy difference between them. When we're talking about the United States, we're talking about an agenda: I see your point when you say the immediate goal is to suck Iraq dry. But I don't see your point when you differentiate between the current administration, the 2004 administration, the 2008, the 2012, etc. Let's be true to ourselves: the U.S. is currently in Iraq, it has already written its agenda therefore. Let's face it, they cannot simply leave - no one desires them to leave. They destroyed many things, amongst which they destroyed the glue to the entire nation, the Iraqi government. It does not matter what administration we're talking about: a new government must be established, whether under Bush, the next president, the one after him, or whomever. Our honesty must be precise here in that we know, almost factually, that whatever new set up there will be in Iraq, it will necessarily be an American-influenced one. Period. This new, "free and democratic" taste will be placed in any time: maybe under Bush, maybe under someone else. But it has to be placed. The future has already written itself the very second the Iraqi government collapsed. If we agree that the future government will necessarily be American, largely speaking, then we must agree that it is also necessary that capitalism and the entire means of business must follow. You can't have an American government without oppressing your citizens, without brainwashing them, leveling them, mistreating them, raping them. In the long run, which is in any case more important than the short run and present-day talk, Iraq must become not as you say, Westernized - no - rather...Americanized by every terrible sense of the word. The U.S. cannot leave Iraq - furthermore, no one wants the U.S. to leave Iraq, and the U.S. knows that. It contributed to Iraq's collapse, it must contribute by full to its reconstruction. Now, few of us, by now, know exactly what this fatal "reconstruction" means. It's superfluous that I should go over what the term implies.

Again, I agree with what has been stated previously, and obviously you guys can agree with much of what I have to say here...the difference is that you're looking at it from today, I'm looking at it from tomorrow...While Americans, American enthusiasts, positivist, and supporters, are hardly looking at all.

Please don't be fooled by the likes of Ferret. He doesn't realize what he's talking about. Do you live in America, Astranbrulth? (Nevermind, just looked at your profile) Because you would know "good" people like Ferret exist quite everywhere - they seem intelligent, but they're not. Being an individual, free, good, "liberated," is in fashion with Americans. You would dismiss and completely try to pretend that he and his types don't even exist, as soon as you see through their thinness (they're very thin, they speak of their "opinion," which is the opinion of every rebel and anarchist, any resenting filth of society). Everyone is a pretender - despising America is fashionable, in fact, despising all government is fashionable for them. It makes you "cool." It makes you "thoughtful." These people are anarchistic, rule-less, without principles whatsoever. Do not be taken by their anti-American sentiments. They're more worthless than the average redneck who is honest enough to say "I love my country!" Chances are, if you realize the speaker was born in American, or is in love with the American Dream, or believes in American Freedom, who loves the "progress" of his country, or the "happiness" possible in his country, you generally can look down at such a species: it's beneath you...

Avoid contamination. Stay away.

 

[DÛke]

...

I would like to underline the fact that I wouldn't mind the invading and overpowering of other nations. This I have said before. I am not against "war," and certainly I'm not against America's war. I'm indifferent to the war itself. What I care about is the aftereffect of the war, and who is in the war. In this case, the lowest species of man has declared its war on one of the greatest cultures in the world.

For example, if I knew that Egypt was invading Iraq, I wouldn't mind much. Germany against Iraq? even better! But America? Americans? The thought of it alone sickens me. There is no reason for the war other than widening the market. That's not a reason. That's not a purpose. That's just American. If there is indeed some intellectual plan, some attempt to "better" the species, to experiment with species, I'll be all for it. But the plan is simple: get more customers, at any cost. Decisions that effect the species, and believe me - capitalism and the way in which an American lives his life does effect him psychologically - the life style has a psychological downside still in the dark and not mentioned anywhere. Invading Iraq meaning effecting Iraq, if not infecting it...

 

[Ferret]

Originally posted by DÛke
Please don't be fooled by the likes of Ferret. He doesn't realize what he's talking about. Do you live in America, Astranbrulth? (Nevermind, just looked at your profile) Because you would know "good" people like Ferret exist quite everywhere - they seem intelligent, but they're not. Being an individual, free, good, "liberated," is in fashion with Americans. You would dismiss and completely try to pretend that he and his types don't even exist, as soon as you see through their thinness (they're very thin, they speak of their "opinion," which is the opinion of every rebel and anarchist, any resenting filth of society). Everyone is a pretender - despising America is fashionable, in fact, despising all government is fashionable for them. It makes you "cool." It makes you "thoughtful." These people are anarchistic, rule-less, without principles whatsoever. Do not be taken by their anti-American sentiments. They're more worthless than the average redneck who is honest enough to say "I love my country!" Chances are, if you realize the speaker was born in American, or is in love with the American Dream, or believes in American Freedom, who loves the "progress" of his country, or the "happiness" possible in his country, you generally can look down at such a species: it's beneath you...

Avoid contamination. Stay away.

Well, if all you can do is attack my personality instead of my actual logic, I take that as an absolute compliment. Thank you. Thank you very much.

-Ferret

"BTW, if you actually read the content of my post, I was AGREEING with you!"

 

[Astranbrulth]

DUke -- Fair enough, I understand what it is that you're saying. In the end, Americanisation of Iraq is inevitable, if the States has it all its way, no matter which administration is in power. I did say in another thread that I like to think in extremes, in this case perhaps my thinking is not extreme enough.

Ferret -- you and DUke agreeing!? It can't be! Although if I look at the actual reasoning, he is pissed with the actual IDEA and Institution and flavour of "America" (tm) , not only the fact that the two parties are two sides of one coin.

Whether one is a Democrat or a Republican, you are essentially voting for the same flavour, but with different packaging. Pepsi or Coke, anyone? And the sad thing is that due to the way "democracy" works, straight snout - counting inevitably leads to monolithic parties that dominate because to cast your vote anywhere else is to waste it. So we vote for the largest party that most reflects our ideals, even if it really doesn't.

Big choice, this.

DUke -- Modern War is not a cleanser, where the strongest will triumph and the weak die. Nowadays war is just too random - stand in the wrong place at the wrong time, and it doesn't matter if you are Schwarzenegger or Peewee Herman, that bullet / mortar shell / 500 kg bomb is going to kill you all the same. In fact, I would say that modern warfare is more conducive to killing off the more courageous, rather than the weak who avoid being in the firing line.

I'll be honest, I have always been a bit of a war nut, checking out the use of arms and tactics through the ages, the evolution of modern and ancient warfare etc. But despite all the excitement over how "cool" war is, I do recognise the fact that war is a stupid solution to most problems. It nearly always results in more strife down the line, with more unbalancing of the world. It chews up resources, destroys the environment, forces people to be refugees when they could be building something useful.

A more efficient way than war to "better the species" is to make stupidity a crime. Every five years there are these tests, consisting of a complete mental and physical and moral (?) examination. The 2 % of the lowest scoring are sterlised, and with the result that in a millenium or so there would necessarily be an "improved" model of mankind.

Hmmm... I suppose I'd better put on the asbestos suit for the last comment.

-- Astranbrulth --

 

[DÛke]

...

Hush your words before you wake the ancients!

The man species cannot be bettered. It can only be degraded. When we speak of "bettering," we are, firstly and consquently, speaking of process in which man was degraded in order to want to become "better," once again.

In my eyes, man is perfect. It is the subman that is imperfect. But can we alter nature? can we remove the subinstincts from that peculiar subspecies of man in order to have them behave "better"? Rather, do we want them to lay hands on this "better"? do we want just anyone, particularly the subspecies, to claim betterness? They are already trying hard to replicate a purity of heart that exists within a noble soul, a noble soul by nature. However, where this subanimal lacks in this natural nobility, he substitutes: when he lacks freedom, he makes a law of freedom, he makes it a rule, a strive, a constitution. When he lacks happiness, he makes a dream out of it. When he lacks respect and love for others, he creates tolerance. When he lacks truth, he creates reason. When he distrusts his instincts, he invents rationality. As opposed to subjectivity, he likes objectivity. When he lacks in general, he invents a God. When he is in his utmost of sickness, he calls himself a "believer." And after he acquires to himself all these diseases, he calls himself a "good citizen."

You see, my friend, this wretched fella has already tried, and is still trying everyday, to resemble Nature herself, little does he know that his Nature, particular to him, is wretched from the beginning. To fix him - is that possible? is that desirable? is that...laughable?

Laugh at every lost soul, my friend, but do not call it from its abysses, from its unconscious existence, from its sleep. For when you do, you will only have them sleep walk, and not wake walk...

We have today all too many “individuals.” You see, even these ugliest of all individuals have already laid claim on individuality and what it psychologically means to be an individual. Laugh at them – they exist to make us weary and pessimist ones laugh. Point your finger and laugh...at their worthlessness...

...and every chance you get, crush them, leave them realize how empty they are, and that is as empty as emptiness itself. Laugh at them and step all over them. For that you were created: to crush the inferior with charm and words...

 

[Astranbrulth]

Ack!

I can see this thread veer off - topic even as I write this. Who was it that said - "Why do we always end up debating DUke and his ideas?" Was it Train? While I don't mind flaming the evil Great Satan for weeks on end, I feel that I must speak further on the issue that you raise.

I'm afraid I must try and pin you down, DUke. What exactly is it that you believe? I can hear echoes of Nietzche in your words, but then again, not quite.

You claim that man is perfect. I understand that you refer to your ideal man , and not to the "subspecies". I also understand that you claim that these qualities are intrinsic to the nature of the "perfect" man, that what we generally refer to civilisation is nothing but a veneer to cover the subhumanity of most people. Thus you feel somehow that civilisation is a lie, invented to cover that which we truly are.

Feel free to correct me at any point, if I am misrepresenting your views, or have glossed over something you feel is important.

Now, here I come in.

I believe that : Man is the product of billions of years of evolution. There is no "perfect" man. Yet. I ask you: what exactly do you mean by "perfect"? Because I see "man" as a work in progress, our form as we know it is a temporary one, merely a point along an evolutionary line that leads almost to infinity. (If we don't kill our species first, of course).

The idea of perfection boils down to - for me - to the question, the reason, of why we are here, in this universe. And my answer, because I am an atheist, and because I am trying to be truthful, is both : "There is no reason" and "I don't know".

But what I do know is that all species in general have always evolved to be more complex, adaptable and intelligent. And that species with these characteristics have survived. And that in the end, survival of the species is what matters.

But I do not believe that survival at any cost is acceptable.

Here I ask - what is it that makes us human? Forget about "soul" and "spirit" and all these concepts that cannot be proved. Roughly, we are human because of our capacity for complex thought, our empathy to others, our self awareness and for our ability to suppress our base desires in order to achieve some greater goal. The greater our capacity for these things, the more "human" and "perfect" we are. According to me, anyways.

This is where my big disagreement with you, DUke, comes in.

Because I believe that self control, control over one's base desires and urges is part of the battle against our animal aspect (despite the fact that I lose the battle frequently, when I play Magic or Diablo, and I should be studying) and that through this trial we become stronger and better humans. Better able to take decisions, to appraise situations and control our lives.

I don't think that anyone is simply born perfect. I believe that some people have more capacity and potential than others, and that it is ultimately up to them to achieve that potential, to see their animal flaws and correct them, and ultimately "be all they can be". I agree with you that most people never move beyond what they were born as, that all the "civilising" in the world can't do more that put filler in the cracks of their failed selves.

But at least let civilisation keep them out of the way of their betters.

However, the tools are out there. Almost everyone has a brain and mental capacity with the ability to improve itself. Knowledge is not hidden, unless it be under an avalanche of trash mass culture.

This is why I think that the species can be improved.

Because genes pass on good or bad traits, and by weeding out the weak genes, we would by necessity eventually create a "better" man, better able to reason, act and control the animal within.

Better able to SURVIVE.

In the end, if one is aiming for eternity, perfection is mandatory.

-- Astranbrulth --

 

[TomB]

Originally posted by Astranbrulth
DUke -- Modern War is not a cleanser, where the strongest will triumph and the weak die. Nowadays war is just too random - stand in the wrong place at the wrong time, and it doesn't matter if you are Schwarzenegger or Peewee Herman, that bullet / mortar shell / 500 kg bomb is going to kill you all the same. In fact, I would say that modern warfare is more conducive to killing off the more courageous, rather than the weak who avoid being in the firing line.

Astranbrulth, you're forgetting DÛke comes from a culture that thinks it's ok to specifically target civilian populations, just to make a statement that they don't like the way things are at the moment. And one of the ways they do it is to make their weak become their strong by strapping on a bomb and blowing themselves up along with as many of their enemies as they can manage.

So they're culling their own herd while decimating ours...

Originally posted by Astranbrulth
A more efficient way than war to "better the species" is to make stupidity a crime. Every five years there are these tests, consisting of a complete mental and physical and moral (?) examination. The 2 % of the lowest scoring are sterlised, and with the result that in a millenium or so there would necessarily be an "improved" model of mankind.

The trouble with that idea is: Where do you stop? I mean, ostensibly, you could take out the "bottom" 1% by sterilizing any infant born with a birth defect, but since they rarely reproduce you might not need to worry about it.

So we should do testing on the rest then, huh? But whose criteria should we use? The American model? That'll never go over. A European one? Chinese? Arab? Jew?

Obviously you couldn't give the same test to all the different races, even if you translated the text into all the different languages. There are too many variations culturally that would screw up the results between countries.

Hell, there are too many variations within each country to make a comprehensive test on a country by country basis! I can't speak for the rest of the world, of course, but here in the US you'd need a different test for blacks, whites, hispanics, native americans, etc. as well as different tests for urban areas, rural areas, farming communities, etc.

I can just imagine the nightmare of trying to make something like this fair for everyone...

Do you select your candidates for sterilization from a global pool? Or do you want to break it down by continent, or country? Sub-divide it up on a regional basis? And what happens if, say, the US and the Brits adopt this plan, but the French and the Italians choose not to go along (Imagine that! ). What do you do then? Do you go ahead with this "Brave New World" plan unilateraly? Or do you wait around to implement it when ALL peoples have chosen to sign on together?

Yeah, I can see something like that happening...

Finally, have you ever seen the movie "Gattica"? Once the human genome is mapped, and the science of gene alteration evolves a bit, we won't have the "stupid" problem anymore.

Then we'll have a whole new set of problems...

 

[DÛke]

...

TomB:

Astranbrulth, you're forgetting DÛke comes from a culture that thinks it's ok to specifically target civilian populations, just to make a statement that they don't like the way things are at the moment. And one of the ways they do it is to make their weak become their strong by strapping on a bomb and blowing themselves up along with as many of their enemies as they can manage.

Remarkable! In case you haven't noticed, my background is, in fact, that of Arabian, but I, on the other hand, am not what Arabs would call "loyal" to the Arabian look on things. But even then, what needs defending will be defended: no one yet has been able to give any sensible reason why, first, it is not sensible to target civilian populations to make a statement.

Would you not be whining all the same if they would use a Nuclear bomb on a government building? would you not neigh all the same, like a horse, if they had the means to use "sophisticated" methods? Yes, you would. The fact is, it's not the means they use that annoy you, but that they oppose you in the first place. Can you tell me with all honesty that you would look at the matter differently if they use American methods of negotiation? and that is to say, no negotiation, rather, just seek out and take whatever they desire by the means of overpower? You would whine and neigh all the same, perhaps even louder!

You want no opposition to your overpowering nation. Perhaps you're even stupid enough to claim that your nation does not blatantly make use of force. Of course it doesn't! When you own that much destructive capabilities, you have the power of intimidation. Physical force becomes superfluous. So don't speak to me about your "civil society," or your "civil war," or your "civil methods of negotiation." It's only civil because it is intimidating to other nations...

Supposing you enter my house uninvited. Supposing I haven’t your riches – I haven’t the guns, the ammo, and the machinery to do what you can do. Do you suppose it is illogical for me to grab any knife, any rock, any chair, anything whatsoever, to hurt you? Rather, the only thing out of rationality here is me just watching you come in as if you were invited! Suicide bombers wouldn’t be suicide bombers if they had the ability to rise to power. They would be…American. They would use intimidation.

Astranbrulth, wow. The first part of your interpretation is good enough. You do miss over some very important points, but that's not your fault: I hadn't mentioned specifically what these points are. But the second half of your argument, in which you are presenting your view on things, which is quite an evolutionary view, you spiral downwards. And...your are mistaking if you think you can pin point me.

Astranbrulth:

But at least let civilization keep them out of the way of their betters.

Civilization does not keep them out of their superiors. Civilization covers their inferiority to equalize them with the superiors. One of the slight side effects can be seen clearly: example, everyone is an "individual." Where the truth is, however, only very few, very numbered few constitute this "individual" today. Every other individual is yet subspecies. Civilization is a war declaration against man and the rise of the subhuman.

Roughly, we are human because of our capacity for complex thought, our empathy to others, our self awareness and for our ability to suppress our base desires in order to achieve some greater goal. The greater our capacity for these things, the more "human" and "perfect" we are. According to me, anyways.

We are not capable of complex thought. Do not use the muddled language, especially when talking to me. We are not one and the same. We are human or subhuman. We are inferiors and superiors. There is a numberless gab in between the two natures. Inwardly, they are different species. Outwardly, they may look all the same: because the subhuman has been quite successful at duplicating the "noble effect," which is only present in the rarest of the rare. A noble man does not know what "tolerance" means, he does not realize what "suppressing basic and base instincts" means, he does not get what "reason" and "complex thought" are - he is being his being at every second. The counterfeiters, however, whom are present everywhere literarily, who have plagued the world in its entirety, think in terms of "tolerance," how much to tolerate, what to tolerate, how to tolerate; they think of reason, reasoning, "complex thinking," common sense; they think of freedom, how much freedom they can acquire, freedom as a number to them which measures how "free" they are; they think in terms of how "intelligent" they are, how much grasp they have on the world's history, philosophy, and especially the sciences and politics. That is the subhuman. The noble man, however, doesn't know of this, but is a manifestation of such qualities. Everyone else is a clone. That you speak of "man as a complex thinker," it only reveals so much about you...

Because genes pass on good or bad traits, and by weeding out the weak genes, we would by necessity eventually create a "better" man, better able to reason, act and control the animal within.

There are so many comical complications in here, that I will only mention few. First, are you exactly that naive to make such an assertion that life can be altered into something better if only we could control the genes? Life is more than genes. Life is existence. Life is interaction. Life is psychological, which is not genetical, but fatal. Second, what makes you think that the very instincts which have originated the sciences and the strive for science are not the very instincts of civilization which tries to clone the ideal human being? in fact, does it not sound quite curious when you suggest that "everyone can finally become an ideal human being," does that not sound precisely a cause caused by very counterfeit civilization, which can never be itself, but only strives to become something else? What makes you think that the very science which you're so proud of, is not the product of decline, of degeneration of instincts to that depth, in order to want a redeemer, be it a God or a science? what does it say when this subhuman is that inferior to the point that he needs fixing? and, at the end, what have we fixed? we haven't fixed, but altogether and perhaps for the final time only masked reality. At the same time, you have killed life as well: no more are there noble human beings - everyone is the same, and if this "same" is not exactly ideal, who would be the truely noble man to talk his mouth off? who would be the "fixer"? No one...everyone is the same...

 

[Astranbrulth]

TomB -- Yes, blowing up civilians to make a point is rather a poor show. However, I agree with DUke that if suicide - bombing oneself is the only weapon one has, then use that weapon. In South Africa when the ANC blew up civilians etc. I don't recall too many people overseas condemning the actions. Rather, they concentrated on the Apartheid cause of the bombing, and celebrated the brave 'freedom fighters'.

As I said in the very first post to this thread, there will be another 9-11 sooner or later, and to a great many people these suicide bombers will be freedom fighters. To me it is important that America understands that it brings these disasters upon itself.

If I were the survivor of one of the families murdered by Americans at a checkpoint, I would have no problem in strapping a bomb to myself and taking a few of the bastards with me.

** Secondly, in my mind, a self - regulating society that I touched on could never be imposed. That would (a) never work and (b) necessitate the inclusion of a lot of junk DNA. It would have to be a society of selected volunteers, all agreeing and accepting the principles that they live by.


DUke -- I would have been disappointed with anything less than your reply, vaguely complimenting me while also affirming my sub humanity. Your vitriol never fails to brighten my day

You are correct, in that I have an evolutionary outlook on things. Let me freely admit that your philosophical knowledge is much greater than my own, (partly because I am drawn to logical, concrete causes and effects), I have only dabbled in the field. This is possibly why I find it hard to penetrate the core of your argument. One the one hand you deny religion (and God??) but on the other you postulate the spontaneous occurrence of a noble man, 'perfect' in every aspect. Are you now talking about *genetic* perfection or *spiritual* perfection? Because if you admit to spiritual perfection, then we are starting to acknowledge the existence of God, and all the consequences of that. And, it seems to me, that if we talk about genetic perfection, then, according to the laws of nature, we are talking of the "master race", because genes get passed on.

Do I seem to hear Plato's Forms in your argument? Or am I imagining it?

Are you saying that : "There is a perfect, Noble Man, an ideal that life instinctively strives for, but that 'civilisation' leads us away from the Noble Man, regressing the species" ?

If this is so, then I say to you SO WHAT!? The Noble Man, as I understand it, is in your view independent from the people around him. It does not matter if society is sick, he will *have* to rise to the top by virtue of his superiority. Because he is perfect, he cannot be corrupted by the taint of the masses, because he knows who he is, is fundamentally happy with this and acts accordingly.

So what exactly is the problem? Eliminating every last "subhuman" will not necessarily make the human species great, because you do not believe that (if I understand correctly) "nobleness" is genetic. Rather will create a bunch of noble savages, grubbing around in the wilderness for food. And when they die, their children will also regress, because "nobleness" is not passed on.

"Life is psychological, which is not genetical, but fatal. " -- Honestly, I have no clue about what you are saying. It seems important, could you clarify?

Finally, I am not advocating direct genetic engineering, if that is what you are thinking. The sort of evolutionary process I envision would be by nature very slow(by human starndards), somewhat inaccurate and imprecise. It could be many generations of weeding before a marked improvement in the standard of human is seen.

-- Astranbrulth --

 

[Spiderman]

As I said in the very first post to this thread, there will be another 9-11 sooner or later, and to a great many people these suicide bombers will be freedom fighters. To me it is important that America understands that it brings these disasters upon itself.

So, since the US chooses to respond in whatever way, the organizations responsible for such suicide bombings thus bring the retaliation upon themselves?

 

[Astranbrulth]

Spiderman -- Of course. It is their tough oink if they get killed etc. Even if that is the only way they can protest, they must expect to pay for the consequences. But do not then expect to have a halo about your head when you have massacred civilians at roadblocks, dropped cluster bombs on villages and shot people at random.

You are then no better than the suicide bombers of 9 - 11.

You cannot expect to oppress and isolate, occupy and impose cultural hegemony, and still expect people to love you for it.

I think it is time to look into the mirror, and see that, in fact, there is no halo, no wings, and that you are covered in dirt like everybody else.

-- Astranbrulth --

 

[Spiderman]

I was just trying to clarify that you were fair to both views, since it wasn't immediately evident as you only mentioned one initially.

However,

You cannot expect to oppress and isolate, occupy and impose cultural hegemony,

If it's not being done militarily, I see no real reason behind one side taking violent action in response.

 

[DÛke]

...

Astranbrulth, I know this may sound strange coming from me, but I don't believe you're low enough to be classified as a subhuman. One that low would have been offended by now, or at least had turned away never to look at me the same, maybe flaunt few unpleasant remarks here and there, you...however...smile! in return! How damn refreshing! You are worthy of my time.

Astranbrulth:

You are correct, in that I have an evolutionary outlook on things. Let me freely admit that your philosophical knowledge is much greater than my own, (partly because I am drawn to logical, concrete causes and effects), I have only dabbled in the field. This is possibly why I find it hard to penetrate the core of your argument. One the one hand you deny religion (and God??) but on the other you postulate the spontaneous occurrence of a noble man, 'perfect' in every aspect. Are you now talking about *genetic* perfection or *spiritual* perfection? Because if you admit to spiritual perfection, then we are starting to acknowledge the existence of God, and all the consequences of that. And, it seems to me, that if we talk about genetic perfection, then, according to the laws of nature, we are talking of the "master race", because genes get passed on.

Let me clarify few things. I deny religion completely, that's true. But I don't deny the chance of God. I am exactly in the middle of path, between belief and unbelief. I find that those who claim to "believe" are quite innocent to the matter they believe in - we are speaking about a miracle here! something so profound, so inhuman, so beyond human, so impossible! How can anyone easily utter the words of belief as if it was an everyday language? how can anyone rest at the fact that he believes? do they feel what they are choosing to believe in, do they feel its grandness, its impossibility, its risk, do they behold its impenetrable depths? And yet how easily they claim they "believe." I would imagine a one who believes to be endlessly preoccupied with the enigma of belief - one has not a chance to live this modern life, with its conventionalities and thinness. Yet...how with such ease they claim they "believe," with such dissatisfying vulgarity that offends anyone who hears; so easily spewed from the very mouth of the subhuman, we hear "I am a believer" - as easily and automatically he inhales and exhales the air which he does not care about, he claims he believes, with the same exact carelessness...

...on the other hand, how much responsibility must one claim to say he does not believe, that he is an "atheist." What a profound claim! It is as deep and thought-provoking, as enigmatic and heart-throbbing as the one who says he believes. And yet, like the believers, he who says he does not believe is always overtaken by the same businesses and rush of living, that he, too, forgets what life is. Die uns das leben gaben, herrliche Gerfühle...Erstarren in dem irdischen Gewühle! The ecstasies that launched us to this life in which we live today, congeals in the muddled business of living! The unbeliever is as empty of passion, spirit, as empty of life, as the believer, who is supposed to be the example of a great life.

...everyone says he believes, everyone says he disbelieves, and yet our believers and disbelievers are one and the same - they are both hasty businessmen, drawn to conventionalities, avoidant of anything thoughtfully difficult, fearful of risks, and in the end, living as a machine would: they strive for one thing - happiness and peace of mind. Everything else is unimportant. Their entire life is nothing more than a basic principle of pursuit of sensual pleasure and avoiding psychological pain...

…and yet to believe or to disbelieve: it is the same story, with the same psychological demands and pains. But who is ever so meditative enough today, who is...responsible...enough to claim whether he believes or disbelieves, to in fact choose the grounds on which he stands? who is strong enough, who has the capacity and depth?

…and what if there was a one who is exactly this meditative upon this inexhaustible matter? He will remain in the middle of the path, exactly believing and disbelieving, doubting and embracing, holding and letting go, and that is, forever sustained in the web of his very being. One realizes at the end that it’s not a matter of belief or disbelief, rather a matter of something entirely different, far more profound and sublime than mere belief or disbelief. What matters is God? What matters the lack of God? The issue returns to itself over and over again, and the issue has always been and will always be...man. It is our own mortality, our impending death, the passing of time, the meaninglessness of life without our own desires, that is the entire subject, and not merely "God"!

At this rate, one never arrives to the end! One lives in eternity! Who ever had a morality or a law that didn't seek the end of all actions? Rather, not all actions need an end or a purpose! But it is the wretched modern man that demands for an end to all means, when honestly, some of us, few of us, are capable of the mean alone - what matters is the end?

If you ask me to be precise, I will sound offending to the common ears: I believe in God. I disbelieve in God. I know the answer, but I know nothing at all. Do not mistake me for he who says he "does not know" or that he "cannot know." Oh, far beyond that I am! far too knowing! Yet I know nothing at all...

To speak about the rest of your case, at this point, I must say that you exactly strike me where nobody has hit me yet. The matter of "spiritual" versus "genetical." I don't think there is a specific "form" which the noble man necessarily abides. In fact, far less strict and "formed" he is. This "ideal" man of which I speak is, however, "spontaneous" as you say, and in that I mean that purity of heart, to him, is not a compulsion. It is not a law. He tolerates because he is greater, not because of you or I tell him to. He does not follow the law - he is great enough to be the very spirit of the law. He is, perhaps, the example upon which laws and rules are build. He is a Christ. He is a Buddha. He is a Socrates. His life is restrained not "for good," but out of this natural beauty and cleanliness of which I speak. He is, if anything, not good - he simply is, and it is the onlookers and passersby who call him this "good." He is not a philosopher, or a "thinker," not a prophet, not a legend, not a hero - he simply is himself involuntarily, out of Nature, and in his case, it is a noble nature which every inferior animal attempts to clone by the means of education, preaching, “religion,” “virtue,” “philosophy,” “God,” in short: civilization…

…civilization is precisely this sickness and strive to inwardly become what this noble man is, but they establish this not inwardly, not naturally, but outwardly – scientifically, philosophically, "objectively." This endless strive to achieve what other men did not achieve is superfluous and will lead to the dead end for humanity.

...if there's a God, when there's a God...his joke is clear: they who belong in heaven are born from the very light of heaven. They who are born inferior and "fallen," fall from the very rejection that God bestowed upon them. They are "accidents." Hence, they have their laws, morals, religions, reasons, sciences, philosophies, and an entire history and civilization all striving for one goal and one goal only: to “better” the way in which we live, that is: to live with ease and peace, as the noble men have, as the noble men will. But that is all very comical. One day man will realize that his strive is futile – that those whom are doomed, are doomed from the very beginning, and those whom are great, are great from the very beginning as well. One day, a day which draws near, a day which I draw near, is coming, where man realizes his fatality...

There will be no law in this universe, no morality, no philosophy, no science, that can accomplish the spontaneity of the noble man. He is exactly this rare and this noble, this precious: no one has the right to be him, except he who is him…

Who is deep enough to hear what I'm by now not saying, but merely sighing?

 

[Ferret]

Originally posted by Astranbrulth
As I said in the very first post to this thread, there will be another 9-11 sooner or later, and to a great many people these suicide bombers will be freedom fighters. To me it is important that America understands that it brings these disasters upon itself.

Right, we were just asking for it - the same way that a woman that wears a reasonably nice outfit is asking to get raped...

-Ferret

"Jealousy should never be an excuse to kill..."

 

[Chaos Turtle]

Welcome Astranbrulth (yeah I know I'm rather a bit late with that). Good to see yet another intelligent soul on the boards. And not even a subhuman! Anyways, though it's way off the topic, I am enjoying immensely your and DÛke's exchange. Just thought I'd let you know.

 

[Astranbrulth]

DUke --

----------------------
How can anyone easily utter the words of belief as if it was an everyday language? how can anyone rest at the fact that he believes? do they feel what they are choosing to believe in, do they feel its grandness, its impossibility, its risk, do they behold its impenetrable depths?
-----------------

That is so true. If I ever were to believe in any religion as it is written, I know that I would be impossible to deal with, precisely for what you have said. The obsession with the deviance of the world would occupy every moment, not to mention that I would try to make everyone 'see the light'. Expect me to rock up clutching religious pamphlets...

-----------------------
...on the other hand, how much responsibility must one claim to say he does not believe, that he is an "atheist."
-----------------------

Let me be more accurate in my definition of "atheist". I do not entirely exclude the possibility of there being a greater force that created the Universe and all its things. If this power would be sentient in the way in which we understand it, I don't know. I know not if we *could* understand it.

However, what I do reject is a God as written in the religions of which I have some knowledge of. The Universe is so vast and varied, and our insignificant blot on the edge of a small galaxy so insignificant, that to imagine that a power created this place just for our ... um ... insignificant species is too absurd for me to accept.

The "man sized" God in the Bible, for example, who is obsessed with sex and with who you do it and how you do it etc. just sounds like a reflection of man's own unconcious, and man's own obsessions. Too ... small for the maker of this place. Read the Bible and you hear the echo of a man's voice bouncing back at you through time.

-------------------------
…civilization is precisely this sickness and strive to inwardly become what this noble man is, but they establish this not inwardly, not naturally, but outwardly – scientifically, philosophically, "objectively." This endless strive to achieve what other men did not achieve is superfluous and will lead to the dead end for humanity.

and

they who belong in heaven are born from the very light of heaven.
--------------------------

I think that I understand what it is that you are saying. That civilisation is merely the cloth that covers the man, that all it does is to make all *appear* to be the same, that it does not recognize great spirits because all are equal.

That civilisation is merely a search for the Noble, a search that can never be completed, because Nobility is "born" into, not found.

That in fact civilisation offends you because it tries to emulate that which cannot be emulated; it is *this* audacity of civilisation that offends you.

If I am understanding correctly.

Nevertheless, I repeat myself. Even if your theory is correct,

( and I will annoy you by telling you I don't believe that there can be greater beings that spontaneously arise; rather I believe in a variety of greys, from almost pitch black to near white. It is very hard to conceive of absolutes in a Universe where almost nothing is absolute, least of all organic life) *

still I cannot understand why you reject civilisation, other than on the basis of vulgarity alone. Noble Man is *destined* to rise, to forge his own path through life, so what is the difference if he be alone in the world or is surrounded by a billion morons? He is equally alone.

What do you exactly propose be a better medium for the growth of your Noble Man?


Spiderman -- You said :

---------------------
If it's not being done militarily, I see no real reason behind one side taking violent action in response.
---------------------

Has it not been done militarily? Is Israel not the hand of the USA in the Middle East? Did the United States not keep thousands of troops in the M-E before 9-11, even? Is it not classified as military to sponsor revolutions in other countries that will end up killing thousands of people?

Even then, one does not need to apply military pressure in order to kill people. The USA is very fond of trying to use sanctions as leverage to force nations to bend to its will. These never work (to change the governing system) and only end up in causing the death by malnutrition of the most vulnerable, and the collapse of the economies of the affected countries. Then the ruination is blamed on the system that was in place during the sanctions, not the sanctions themselves.

Lacking the tools and influence to respond in kind, these peoples will obviously turn to violence as their only resort.


Ferret -- You said :

-----------------------
"Jealousy should never be an excuse to kill..."
-----------------------

True, true.

Then how about the USA stop being jealous about the fact that other lands are floating on oceans of oil and it is coughing up its last drops from the Texan reserves? When is the USA going to stop casting envious glances over the natural reserves of the rest of the world and learn to make do like the rest of us? No...there are millions of SUV's to run....

When are you people going to get the message: The rest of the world does not necessarily want what you have.

They want to be left alone

If you want to truly change the ways of the world, then do it by example.


-- Astranbrulth --


*and you will tell me that the likes of me cannot annoy you

 

[Spiderman]

Has it not been done militarily? Is Israel not the hand of the USA in the Middle East? Did the United States not keep thousands of troops in the M-E before 9-11, even? Is it not classified as military to sponsor revolutions in other countries that will end up killing thousands of people?

Sorry, that's a large stretch from your original statement

You cannot expect to oppress and isolate, occupy and impose cultural hegemony, and still expect people to love you for it.

Especially the cultural hegemony claim.

And no, Israel is not the "hand" of the US, since the US can't even force Israel to keep to its side of the "road map of peace".

The US kept troops in the ME mostly at the invitation of the countries where they were (and have even pulled out of Saudi Arabia, which was a major beef with bin Laden).

Cite direct involvement to support your initial statement.

Even then, one does not need to apply military pressure in order to kill people. The USA is very fond of trying to use sanctions as leverage to force nations to bend to its will. These never work (to change the governing system) and only end up in causing the death by malnutrition of the most vulnerable, and the collapse of the economies of the affected countries. Then the ruination is blamed on the system that was in place during the sanctions, not the sanctions themselves.

Sanctions could probably be worked better, especially if every country paid attention to them, but they're certainly better than military action, on both sides.