psychoslice
Veteran Member
mmmm, mmmmmm ?.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The world is being taken over by fruitcakes. What's an appropriate response?
- Thread starter sandandfoam
- Start date
As a socialist person, and so therefore, someone who deeply believes in traditionally leftist values, I can't but notice that lots of European people complain about the incompetence and indolence of their respective left-wing-parties. This is evident.
Obviously, when a nation feels betrayed by the politicians they have always believed in, they are disposed to change political ideas and to vote for nationalist parties, which are the only ones which promise to defend the interests of a nation, instead of external interests.
Recently, in my country, the 60 % of the people voted against a reform that was proposed by the former Prime Minister (who had to resign after that) and whose party is called Partito Democratico.
Evidently these so called Democratic Parties are not liked by the people, lately.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Too cold. I suffer from white-finger.....
Look, I like that nice Mr Trump.
Well, that's a fib, but the thing is this...... The levels (in our Leaders) of corruption, deception, underhand killing, devious dealings have been so great for so long, our apparently sweet political leaders later being discovered as cheats, liars, killers, pederasts, drug peddlers, thugs and Gawd knows what else, that to be aware that here is a leader who hides absolutely nothing about himself....... is different, that's all.
And next time, maybe US citizens will take a little more time, think a little more carefully.... about who should run their country and be its figure head?
To the extent that I can see a logic in ever lending prestige to nationalism, it is only as a reaction to the collapse of a given community's higher aspirations. As damage control, so to speak - albeit unavoidably a form of damage control that is loaded with a strong dose of voluntary self-delusion.
The current nationalistic / right wing wave is particularly dangerous IMO. It has no chance at all of being actually constructive - often enough it actually announces that it will not be - yet it is hard to ward off, mainly because it is a reaction to a very real, very widespread and very deep (if seriously mishandled) crisis of the legitimacy of political representation.
The very nature of that crisis comes from it not being the fault of anyone specifically. Our human natures demand having specific people to turn to in order to make demands, seek guidance or assign blame. But our ambitions and numbers have grown to the point where that is not really a reasonable expectation anymore. It may well be that human beings never really learned any better than what is necessary to sustain a feudal system, and for that reason we keep hoping to establish more representative systems only to then twist them into barely-disguised feudalism and demagoguery. Because feudalism we understand, while more ambitious systems such as republic and democracy we would have to trust other people to sustain and shape on our stead.
It would seem that this reality frustrates us all to the point that radicalization has become unavoidable. Deep down we just do not want to keep living in a world where these things happen - where racism is coming back, where it is no longer possible to hope to become richer than our parents, where job opportunities are becoming rarer and less rewarding than they used to be, where we have to deal with so many uncertainties and concessions that did not even exist a few decades ago, where so many people end up living on the streets, both shaming us and making our lives less safe - you name it.
In a nutshell, our proud and ambitious societies have been falling under their own weight, as our ambitions so decisively outgrow our care for making those goals sustainable. Some form of collapse and recovery is necessary. The best way is definitely by making population levels more manageable and putting a lot of effort into raising general educational and social integration levels and redistributing some wealth. The far easier, more likely and worse way is by increasing military and social conflicts in order to promote somewhat cathartical, if deeply deluded, destruction. Once our ambitions are destroyed, they stop causing quite so many unreasonable demands.
The current nationalistic / right wing wave is particularly dangerous IMO. It has no chance at all of being actually constructive - often enough it actually announces that it will not be - yet it is hard to ward off, mainly because it is a reaction to a very real, very widespread and very deep (if seriously mishandled) crisis of the legitimacy of political representation.
The very nature of that crisis comes from it not being the fault of anyone specifically. Our human natures demand having specific people to turn to in order to make demands, seek guidance or assign blame. But our ambitions and numbers have grown to the point where that is not really a reasonable expectation anymore. It may well be that human beings never really learned any better than what is necessary to sustain a feudal system, and for that reason we keep hoping to establish more representative systems only to then twist them into barely-disguised feudalism and demagoguery. Because feudalism we understand, while more ambitious systems such as republic and democracy we would have to trust other people to sustain and shape on our stead.
It would seem that this reality frustrates us all to the point that radicalization has become unavoidable. Deep down we just do not want to keep living in a world where these things happen - where racism is coming back, where it is no longer possible to hope to become richer than our parents, where job opportunities are becoming rarer and less rewarding than they used to be, where we have to deal with so many uncertainties and concessions that did not even exist a few decades ago, where so many people end up living on the streets, both shaming us and making our lives less safe - you name it.
In a nutshell, our proud and ambitious societies have been falling under their own weight, as our ambitions so decisively outgrow our care for making those goals sustainable. Some form of collapse and recovery is necessary. The best way is definitely by making population levels more manageable and putting a lot of effort into raising general educational and social integration levels and redistributing some wealth. The far easier, more likely and worse way is by increasing military and social conflicts in order to promote somewhat cathartical, if deeply deluded, destruction. Once our ambitions are destroyed, they stop causing quite so many unreasonable demands.
Also, as it turns out, only our artificial technological advancements allow us to bypass the natural barriers that separate people and allows globalism, just as much entirely a political construct, to even exist.
The idea that it is more natural to want to group everybody together when compared to being tribal is absurd given even a cursory look at anthropology or history.
I just don't see how. Nations are not at all "natural" barriers, but rather entirely artificial, often embarrassingly so.
Tribalism is indeed more natural in the sense that it arises so spontaneous.
It just turns out that it does not even approach being good enough for humanity at the current levels of its challenges.
We will transcend tribalism, or we will collapse in a spectacular, most harmful manner in order to take refuge in it. There is no third option.
No, Nationalism is about giving careful consideration to the challenges faced vs. the potential rewards gained with respect to both who faces the challenges and who reaps the rewards.
You forget that it is globalists who are actively seeking to so destroy the ambitions of the people. "Why would you think you could make as much as your dad or grandfather? There is an endless supply of cheap labor around the world, just give up on your job, it isn't ever coming back." Nationalists are telling that sentiment where to go and saying "The job can come back if we make it come back."
No, not all. But many nations or groups of nations developed along similar lines due to geographic isolation. Geography is one of the natural people builders.
We've seen how globalism works. It serves much to few and little to many. It distributes the resources of successful middle classes to the wealthy and cheap labor countries. Plus, not everyone reaching out globally has your best interests at heart (besides as offered above) or may be incompetent at realizing their good intentions. Look at Marxism and how it's global outreaches devastated many countries. Or the ravishing of nature under Capitalism. Globalism as a political philosophy isn't equipped to deal with its own destructive flaws, which is why we need nationalistic governments in global cooperation.
That is wholly unevidenced. We could accept both our tribalistic and collective desires and come to a differentiated understanding.
What you describe above would be management. For whatever reason, you are leaving unmentioned the "nation" part, which corrupts the very idea from the core.
Whoever advocates inconsequentialism I would not support (consciously, anyway).
In any case, that is no excuse for nationalism, which solves nothing and promises much at great damage.
To the extent that I can understand what you say above, it seems to be a complaint about the loss of job security because there is a more competitive world out there.
I don't really know where to begin, but if it is an attempt at convincing me that nationalism is somehow defensable, it just isn't working.
My point exactly. That is indeed what nationalists are doing. Thanks for reminding me so that I did not have to.
One that has gone for good, unless you are somehow proposing that there should be a war against modern transportation or something comparable.
In any case, it is not like modern nations as such were even contemplated until such a time when those geographic barriers were already obsolete.
I see no reason to take this fiction you are presenting at all seriously. Nor do I see why anyone would.
You may have seen something that you call globalism work. Nor you nor me nor anyone else have seen the kind of globalism that is necessary for humanity to survive with any measure of peace and security with a population that will reach just about ten billion around 2050, because humanity has never truly learned it. It is just too different from what we are used to.
Nationalism is poison, and no amount of dismay with whatever you call globalism will make that any less true.
Which is how it must be, if for no other reason because mathematics do not bow to human pride and irrationality. I take it that you disapprove?
To the extent that I understand what you mean here, again, we are talking about what is necessary out of moral considerations alone.
If you want to convince me that there is something wrong with that you will have to elaborate it considerably. I would rather not make assumptions about what would make a country both wealthy and labor-cheap, for instance.
True, but barely of any relevance at all. That changes nothing and even mentioning it is an attempt at distortion by way of undeserved emphasis.
What of them? Why do you expect me to think of Nationalism as a necessary alternative or remedy for those? Again, that would make no sense at all.
Nonsense.
Sure, if the zombie apocalypse comes to pass, or some comparable calamity comes to destroy nearly all of humanity.
In all other conceivable scenarios, though? No, we can not. There is no logical way to even attempt it.
Last edited:
Care to tell me then? I still have nearly no clue.
By the way...your speech about nationalism sounds sterile, because if the majority (let's say 80 %) votes for a nationalist party in order to close the borders and to stop illegal immigration, does it mean they are all wicked?
They can seem wicked in other people's eyes...but this is how democracy works.
Otherwise there is tyranny, that is imposing illegal immigration to a population that doesn't want it.
We can't destroy democracy.
By the way,,..Luis. It seems you want to imply that if the majority of a nation votes for someone who is a nationalist, this means that democracy is a failure, because the people have been manipulated.
People are not that stupid...they want to protect their country, their resources, their safety.
It's not about ideology...it's all about economics. I understand they can be considered selfish...but nations are sovereign....and decide about their resources, which are exhaustible.
One last thing: it is very probable that Trump won because he promised the American people that he would have closed the southern border and stopped illegal immigration.
Shall we say that the Americans who voted for him are wicked because they don't want clandestine immigrants? There is already the a legal immigration system which is something safe and good for the United States.
I can consider Pena Nieto wicked because if he really cared for his people, he would do something to improve the economic situation of his country.
Last edited:
She does? I was trying to understand how come anyone listens to so many unsustainable certainties. No way I will trust any claims from her, even about the time of the day.
That people listen to her at all shows that Italian politics, too, are in a sad shape. I could gather no coherent message whatsoever from her ramblings.
No. It means that they do not mind being manipulated into wickedness, I guess.
I am left scratching my head attempting to figure what you mean here, in any case.
Free elections are a part of democracy. A society commiting effective suicide by way of voting stupidly is also a part of democracy, I suppose.
What is the point?
Uh, what?
Oh, we can and we are well on our way to, unfortunate as that is. It is probably too late already.
Why? Does family corrupt the idea of social cooperation from the core?
When your options are someone who says they will fight for you and someone who tells you to lay down and take whatever comes to you the choice isn't hard.
It is a suggestion that the damages caused by globalism must be addressed. You can't just hurt people to the benefit of the wealthy elite and expect there not be a reaction. As it so happens the reaction to unaddressed wrongs of globalism is nationalistic in nature.
Not at all, just that we accept that disparate people exist who have different cultures, wants and needs.
This is the kind of inanity that gets proposed by communists when pointed out with the failures of communism. You don't get to choose fantasy-land utopia globalism; it isn't an option. You have to pick whether or not to support real world practical globalism as it actually exists.
There will indeed always be disparities in wealth and resources, but we don't need to advance a system that artificially drives such disparities.
Bwahaha. Tell me, what moral considerations say that towns and families should be devastated in order to provide higher corporate profits?
How could I ever imagine that as we reach out globally some of the hands reaching back have knives is relevant to whether we should seek to have some consideration for protecting ourselves from those knives.
Balderdash.
And here I thought I was a misanthropic pessimist. Differentiated understanding is no more unreasonable than marxist post-scarcity or globalist world union. Far less so in some cases (post scarcity just isn't a possible thing).
You'll have to explain how we couldn't all come to understand each other as separate and different, but come amicably to solutions when in disagreement. That is how we ideally navigate our personal lives every day.
Last edited:
Are you comparing families with nations while constrasting them with the global community, then?
I don't think that can really work.
If you say so. I would rather discuss the real world.
Addressing a real problem by embracing purposeful insanity, then?
I don't think I can be expected to have any sympathy nor respect for such an attitude.
And I can assure you that I will not. Not that I would have a choice, mind you...
I'm sure you don't think any of the myriad examples of distinct groups cooperatively existing while retaining their independence would work.
You have noted that the economic destruction caused by globalism is morally just and a natural outcome and that any sense of protecting their community from the ravages of globalist economics is inherently corrupt and poisonous. What else is that other than telling them to just accept the harm done?
Funny. Do you now want to discuss the impact of real world globalism as it actually exists and leave your imaginary "Globalism that humanity needs" in the bin?
You say things like "corrupt" and "poison" and "insanity" with no context or meaning behind the terms. How is a nation demanding that the corporations that prosper in their borders provide an amount of work to meet the labor needs of the populace insane?
Last edited:
Well...finally a person who really understands that nationalism today has the exclusive purpose to protect the economic interests of a sovereign country, and it is absolutely not about insane ethnographic ideologies.
I will give a practical example: the United Kingdom. It deals with a very tiny island with a huge population which keeps increasing because of immigration. Massive immigration, unemployment, social distrust, loss of competitiveness, induced the British people to vote for Brexit, and rightfully so. Since I know very well that the plan of the EU Bureaucrats is to increase the wealth of the ECB bankers, at the European countries' expenses, the British took the right decision.
Nationalism in Europe means to say no to a financial banker élite that has been stealing a lot from European countries.
Nationalism means that the resources of a country are limited and we cannot sustain this massive immigration from Africa, but we can use that money to help those African countries prosper , by teaching them our economic systems.
Nationalism is a sacred word, because European countries lost their sovereignty in the very moment banks became private. A bank is supposed to be national and exclusively controlled by the state, which will control inflation, unemployment rate, interest rates.
I stopped discussing with @LuisDantas because either he doesn't answer my direct questions, or he tries to avoid the point by speaking of something else. I really don't understand why he acts like that. He avoids speaking about Economics, he restlessly repeats that Nationalism is a poison.
If you are a governor, your only duty is to protect the economic interests of your country...and if you have enough money you can help other countries
I see. So, Great Britain which is much smaller than Montana and has a huge population of 64 Million people, has the resources to sustain an uncontrolled and unstoppable immigration?
Despite all the sacrifices made by the British people through hard work, keeping the birth rates low?
Unfortunately the resources of a country are limited and employment is a very limited resource.
So, in Britain, I will also say : British first. It's their island. Same thing as for any other European country.
Last edited:
Nationalism is tribal hubris. It's pride and arrogance. It's placing your group's interests above those of other groups. It's an unwarranted sense of superiority coupled with a willingness to exploit 'lesser' tribes and enforce dominance militarily, if necessary.
Nationalism disparages Christ's teachings of love of neighbors, brotherhood, equality and co-operation.
Nationalism disparages Christ's teachings of love of neighbors, brotherhood, equality and co-operation.
Last edited:
That is actually true. What is this independence you speak of?
The world is just one, and people depend on each other even if they are set on claiming otherwise.
From my perspective, you are clinging to mirages in order to avoid discussing the real issues.
There is probably little point in persisting on such mismatched clashes, on that much I agree.
I do refuse to lend respectability to nationalism. That is not really negotiable. It is not even hypothetically worth of my time, let alone my attention.
Jedster
Well-Known Member
Seems to me that the people who we call nutcases(at least in the so-called free world), where we have free elections, are voted in accorording to the law of each country.
We vote them in and then diss them. Groundhog politics.
Go figure(a great American expression)
Maybe we should be looking more at ourselves.