> On May 5, 11:48 am, "tooly"
bellsouth.net> wrote:>>> On May 4, 5:20 pm, "tooly"
bellsouth.net> wrote:>>>> "tg"
earthlink.net> wrote in message>>
>>> Ptretty dam good rant, Tooly, I'll say! But doesn't this argument form
>>> logically apply to any political extreme which uses circumstances to
>>> their advantage, left, right or captialist. I say capitalist, thinking
>>> of PT Barnum and how he would exploit any situation coming or going. I
>>> mean he would not only exploit the pro, but the con to. Go down to the
>>> Barnum highlights to detect the anarchistic exploitation;
>>>
http://tinyurl.com/3c593s>>
>>
>>> Liberals and conservatives both play politics
>>
>>> If you listen to the radio or watch any of the cable news networks,
>>> you're probably already aware that the Democrats wanted 9/11 to happen
>>> and that the Republicans are Nazis. The liberals are trying to destroy
>>> George W. Bush unequivocally and the conservatives are oil barons with
>>> their eyes on the leftovers of Iraq. Undoubtedly, the level of
>>> political discourse in this country has taken a turn for the worse
>>> over the last couple of years. The liberal vs. conservative debate,
>>> while being unproductive, also sets a dangerous precedent in political
>>> discussion.
>>
>> I read all your post and it seems to sum up to a good point about
>> political
>> demarcation and the rationalizations either side would use. I have often
>> argued that what binds people together politically cannot be fully
>> explained
>> by language. But language is all we have and we play with it like
>> children
>> in a sand box, trying to somehow hold the other side at bay while
>> manipulating through sheer logic to destroy images and reveal as stupid
>> etc
>> for political gain. Truth is rarely of interest in political intrigue,
>> but
>> only to destroy the enemy.
>>
>> Something deeper binds us however. Something demarcs us as friend or
>> foe.
>>
>> I try to go to that 'deeper' element. This is why I say what is taking
>> place today has to do with race and sex.
>>
>> As real events that show demarcation...a kind of line in the sand drawn,
>> where political dividing lines can be better understood IMO, we need to
>> go
>> back to civil rights legislation here in the USA. The next year, as an
>> extension to that mindset, new immigration law was passed. This set into
>> motion the general socio-political landscape we see today and better
>> explains this vast polarization we see between right and left. In fact,
>> liberal and conservative today can no longer be correctly understood as
>> the
>> same philosophical clash it was before, that dated back to John Locke and
>> the ongoing upheaval of aristocracy and classism.
>>
>> In the 1960's it became about race and gender. Not just class.
>>
>> Actually, the gender element came a bit later as the civil rights
>> movement
>> revved up. In fact, that women were specified under this earth shaking
>> legislation to begin with was a last minute inclusion. As I've read,
>> southern democrats were trying to be protective of white women, as they
>> were
>> afraid civil rights law might be biased against for jobs. ERA and
>> feminism
>> rose to becomes it's own movement and ultimately was the true 'social
>> power'
>> behind the entire civil rights phenonemon [50%% of all voters are female,
>> and
>> 70%%+ of all working women vote liberal; but far more influential is the
>> Lygestrata affect, where sex is used to undermine the will of those
>> defending the "walls of the old realm"etc].
>>
>> Civil rights became a general movement to empower blacks. And then
>> hispanics. Or its antecedent...to disempower whites. And since white
>> women
>> were joining this march for their own interests as a gender, it became a
>> general insurrection against all things 'white male'...which also can be
>> seen as european or western civilization [it's values, ways, mindsets,
>> purview...all things]. Even our own kids now chant the mantras of black
>> music to pull down the walls of their own structures as provided by their
>> own heritage. White kids have been taught to hate their own kind [and
>> I'm
>> first to admit how emasulated we have now induced the white male to
>> become...pitiful]. It was NOT that way before civil rights.
>>
>> True, nothing is so simply as to be all one thing or another and each
>> issue
>> can argued on it's own merit. But remember, something binds us together
>> that allows us to recognize beyond the words and political intrigue. The
>> struggle is no longer about ideas, but a very real predator-prey thing
>> going
>> on.
>>
>> So, the general voracious IRE that we see...a genuine hatred and
>> vehiemence
>> coming from the left today, can be traced back to the same 'hatred and
>> non-alignment' as we see, perhaps in rap music per se [for example]. I
>> sometimes wonder if hate is like a 'yawn'...a 'catchy' behavior that
>> spreads
>> in social gatherings? But it is no great mystery when one understands
>> that
>> we have about two generations now that have grown up entirely under the
>> scope of certain 'civil rights' values being taught from kindergarten
>> through college. Like a reverse 'kinectic rorschach' test, people's
>> brains
>> have been induced to think and see only one way in those
>> institutions...and
>> like pavlovian dogs, to 'react' as conditioned lab experiments to respond
>> specifically to certain objects and words. "White male" has been
>> programmed
>> as 'Bad...evil'. USA, europe, America, Bush, republicans,
>> conservatives...all these ideas can be filtered into this single
>> overriding
>> programmed hysteria, and guilt by association...'white male = evil'.
>>
>> While it's true there is a great deal of 'game playing' and
>> rationalization
>> going on either side of the political struggle, it remains that something
>> stands above it all to 'identify' the members of either side. I've seen
>> much of what you say about Hannity...of course. But I also understand he
>> is
>> a warrior in the army I am member of and support his efforts nonetheless;
>> anything that might allow my own culture and right of way in the world to
>> be
>> regained.
>>
>> Either side is like this as you point out.
>>
>> And though I never 'before' put an angle on this struggle that is racial,
>> I
>> think civil rights has made it not a struggle of ideas as liberte'
>> intercedents pushed against tyrannical regimes since the days of the
>> French
>> Revolution, but exactly the thing it so decries as so wrong. And today,
>> all things have become RACIAL in scope, even as we bury the truth under
>> rugs
>> that now bulge in the room like a sleeping elephant no one wants to
>> acknowledge. New immigration IS about race and disparate culture. Civil
>> Rights IS only about empowering anything that is non-white and anti west.
>> Feminism IS about joining ranks with those 'enemies of the realm' to tear
>> down the castle walls of the former kingdom, by first tearing out the
>> heart
>> of the King that once ruled it.
>>
>> Intellectuals refuse to recognize the racial element, and insist on
>> keeping
>> the classist argument, where it is just the established being challenged
>> by
>> the anti-established. In the meantime, all of western civilization,
>> including europe and GB is being sold down the river; it's culture, way
>> of
>> life, and most importantly, a value system that allowed the greatest
>> sense
>> of justice to be enculcated at least to some degree in law to create the
>> orders we exist within. That value system is being trashed now. Europe
>> cannot even defend itself aginst the march of Islam anymore.
>>
>
> After the Irish immigants brought and popularized Catholicism to
> America, you could then create a similar argument, to yours about
> immigrants, that Protestantism was the only way for America and any
> other introduction in this social area would limit and censor
> religious freedom [of protestants that is]. And that there should be
> resistence to any other social philosophy.
>
> But it turns out that denominational pluralism has not destroyed
> Christianity.
>
> Likewise with Western European ethnicity and tradition, it should be
> able to mix well with other ethnicities and traditional
> superstructures. Maybe the real question should be addressed to why
> the Western European network of folkways ever really got to be so
> powerful and disproportionately represented on the cultural landscape
> in the first place.
>
>> Something has to be done. But what? Does the jungle simply reclaim the
>> attempt at a garden?
>>
>
> Each ethnic/traditional system must find its proper place in
> equilibrium with the others.
>
>> And white woman, led down a new primerose path to her own destruction in
>> the
>> world, will fight almost to the death to protect...not her new suitor,
>> but
>> pimp. Quite diabolical IMO.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> The average temperamental differences between the human sexes are also
> consistent with the generalities of mammalian biology. Women as a
> group are less assertive and physically aggressive. The magnitude of
> the distinction depends on the culture. It ranges from a tenuous,
> merely statistical difference in egalitarian settings to the virtual
> enslavement of women in some extreme polygynous societies. But the
> variation in degree is not nearly so important as the fact that women
> differ consistently in this qualitative manner regardless of the
> degree. The fundamental average difference in personality traits is
> seldom if ever transposed.
>
> The physical and temperamental differences between men and women have
> been amplified by culture into universal male dominance. History
> records not a single society in which women have controlled the
> political and economic lives of men. Even when queens and empresses
> ruled, their intermediaries remained primarily male. At the present
> writing not a single country has a woman as head of state, although
> Golda Meir of Israel and Indira Gandhi of India were, until recently,
> assertive, charismatic leaders of their countries. In about 7 5
> percent of societies studied by anthropologists, the bride is expected
> to move from the location of her own family to that of her husband,
> while only 10 percent require the reverse exchange. Lineage is
> reckoned exclusively through the male line at least five times more
> frequently than it is through the female line. Men have traditionally
> assumed the positions of chieftains, shamans, judges, and warriors.
> Their modern technocratic counterparts rule the industrial states and
> head the corporations and churches.
>
> These differences are a simple matter of record - but what is their
> significance for the future? How easily can they be altered?...
>
> ...So at birth the twig is already bent a little bit - what are we to
> make of that? It suggests that the universal existence of sexual
> division of labor is not entirely an accident of cultural evolution.
> But it also supports the conventional view that the enormous variation
> among societies in the degree of that division is due to cultural
> evolution. Demonstrating a slight biological component delineates the
> options that future societies may consciously select. Here the second
> dilemma of human nature presents itself. In full recognition of the
> struggle for women's rights that is now spreading throughout the
> world, each society must make one or the other of the three following
> choices:
>
> Condition its members so as to exaggerate sexual differences in
> behavior. This is the pattern in almost all cultures. It results more
> often than not in domination of women by men and exclusion of women
> from many professions and activities. But this need not be the case.
> In theory at least, a carefully designed society with strong sexual
> divisions could be richer in spirit, more diversified, and even more
> productive than a unisex society. Such a society might safeguard human
> rights even while channeling men and women into different occupations.
> Still, some amount of social injustice would be inevitable, and it
> could easily expand to disastrous proportions.
>
> Train its members so as to eliminate all sexual differences in
> behavior. By the use of quotas and sex-biased education it should be
> possible to create a society in which men and women as groups share
> equally in all professions, cultural activities, and even, to take the
> absurd extreme, athletic competition. Although the early
> predispositions that characterize sex would have to be blunted, the
> biological differences are not so large as to make the undertaking
> impossible. Such control would offer the great advantage of
> eliminating even the hint of group prejudice (in addition to
> individual prejudice) based on sex. It could result in a much more
> harmonious and productive society. Yet the amount of regulation
> required would certainly place some personal freedoms in jeopardy, and
> at least a few individuals would not be allowed to reach their full
> potential.
>
> Provide equal opportunities and access but take no further action. To
> make no choice at all is of course the third choice open to all
> cultures. Laissez-faire on first thought might seem to be the course
> most congenial to personal liberty and development, but this is not
> necessarily true. Even with identical education for men and women and
> equal access to all professions, men are likely to maintain
> disproportionate representation in political life, business, and
> science. Many would fail to participate fully in the equally
> important, formative aspects of child rearing. The result might be
> legitimately viewed as restrictive on the complete emotional
> development of individuals. Just such a divergence and restriction has
> occurred in the Israeli kibbutzim, which represent one of the most
> powerful experiments in egalitarianism conducted in modern times.
>
> On Human Nature - Edward O. Wilson 1978
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067463442X/qid=1036537594/
>
As always, your posts play to the elitist intellectual's point of view. One
thing I am trying to say is that such elites have lost sight of 'reality'.
They 'play' with the world like Gulliver would Lilliputians, and their
theories and intellect shows great prowess to see and understand. But it is
flawed and though often rationally sound, has nothing to do with what is
really taking place in the world. It is like alogrithms that might work,
and thusly are proclaimed 'correct', but it's not recognized they work only
within the very limited framework they were designed to function within.
For the intellectual, that is a world of language and reason that amount
mostly to word games in classrooms and text...a lesser thing than pure
consciousness and the much greater sphere of BEing we are [especially
sociall].
The intellectual purview today does NOT understand humanity...but only has
made a zoological study, much as we might horses or cows [ergo, we've become
little more than Goodall's baboons]. We have reduced our understanding of
ourselves within the college environment as backward and irrationally
ignorant [except within the walls of that institution of course], while
working to promulgate old culture to change toward the sterility of that
college. It is like a white wash, where an abundance is being erased for
the clinical accuracy of a blank room with 4 walls and little else. The
intellect 'alone' is a dead thing.
The elites understand behavior from afar, but not up close and personal, for
they have 'objectified' themselves to the point of alienation and now work
to alienate us all from the warmth of what we really are. Like the rich who
can seal themselves off in gated communities of luxury while 'moralizing' to
those who must survive the slums, intellectuals today 'know not' the mess
they make in the world.
And so...they tamper with the world and they are creating hell on earth for
human beings. Want proof? Look at human relations. Observe the family
unit.
If the intellectual wants to understand better, they need to embrace the
idea of 'good and evil, right and wrong'...that individuals have choices no
matter their circumstances, and by those choices, they betray an inner
spirit. It matters little if it's base is chemical or nervous in root, but
only that a functional humanity MUST declare behavior by this 'intimacy' or
else risk demoralization so complete that even the scientist will not be
immune to in time [actually, most particularly the scientist]. And the
intellectual MUST start with their own self to question the 'why' behind
their motivations. CONSCIENCE is what seperates a consciousness from the
mindless animal kingdom, and though intellectual elites carry power that
might even impress themselves, they remain just bigger animals in the jungle
who work to ruin the world for all in a much greater stupidity that cannot
recognize itself. There is NOTHING the new world elites are doing today
that is engendering greater conscience...but they are only promoting things
that delineate it and even oppress it. And most of it is just 'word' games
if one looks hard enough. The spirit exists beyond words and is
recognizable best with simplicity that goes far deeper than language can go.
And so, each banner being raised in the world such as feminism, civil rights
and minority empowerment, gay activism...each carry a certain 'spiritual'
efficacy to it. Whatever 'virtue' each of these movements once were founded
upon, has long since been used 'up' and today, all things stand 'political'
and no longer ideological, though we will continue to argue ideology as if
'wrong was being righted'. It is just one great surge of insurrection now.
If one gets on the bandwagon and hopes to profit in some way [such as
blacks, hispanics, white females, mexicans, muslims, ....you name it]...they
will identify themselves as liberal and will device their own particular
'rationalizations' to upturn the apple cart of civilization.
But the intellectual goes right on giving solace and comfort to this great
'uprising', unawares of the horrible deed they do. To the intellectual in
our colleges today, they have it all figured out and are changing things for
the better; showing up inequities, offering a better 'rational' way. What
they are really empowering however is a future world based upon
Afro-centrism [if we survive the islamic surge and terrorism that is].
Consider what a world that might be like. And women? No matter what you do
with them, they remain the inspiration [or lack thereof] that give winds to
the sail of men to gain and protect territory. To date, the elites have
only taken the wind from the white male's sail...and handed it over to
blacks and hispanics and islamics.
And thusly, the great invasions go unfettered and cultures being upended not
for 'positive change' but only to destroy western civilization.
