That’s because you are a member of a political party! A PARTY!
You are not interested in philosophy, you are interested in kaffee klatsch and some “ideals” of political parties. Okay, I see; so: good bye.
You and your political party and all other political parties support the global bureaucracy!
People “around you do not decide to have or refrain from having kids every day” because they “decide” according to what is regulated by the global institutions and “think” (!) it were their own “decision”. There is a global bureaucracy that regulates anything and everything, and the “national states” have to implement what the global bureaucracy dictates (and it does dictate!). What you are saying, Uccisore, is nonsense, and you believe in this nonsense. Whether or not humans, especially Western humans, have children is determined by the global bureaucracy and the regulated markets. The people are not “free” - this is merely what your party leaders always say, have to say -, and there is no real democracy.
It is just your megalomania that makes you think people were “free” or have a “free will”. Humans are not “free” and do not have a “free will”. You are not “free”; no human is “free”; humans do not have a “free will”, but merely a relative free will.
You are more influenced, affected, as you think.
My solution of the demographic problem leads to more market!
Interestingly, I recall Ucci saying that this is exactly what the Marxists in your country are doing. So maybe the Democrats engineered this difference between conservatives and liberals by, strictly speaking, creating liberalism… but then conservatism would have to be a reaction to this on the part of the people, not a manufactured group to be pitted against the liberals.
I have to say however, that according to this theory, the master-minds behind this are not necessarily the Democrats themselves but the Marxists whom, Ucci tells us, are running the show ideologically from behind university pulpits. Marx died one and a half centuries ago; the current members of the Democratic party weren’t even alive then. There’s no reason to believe the current members of the Democratic party aren’t just from the same population of citizens who were duped (brainwashed, influenced) by Marxists from an earlier generation, and as American citizens, fervently believed (possibly also because they were brainwashed) that America was a country in which anyone could enter politics and change the world for the better (as they understood “better”) and so tried it out. Most likely, the truth is that the Democratic party has at least a few full blown (and secretive?) Marxists but I don’t see how you could escape it being a mix of a whole bunch of different persuasions, personalities, ideologies, and agendas. Someone who merely wants to put in some form of public health care, for example, might join the Democratic party because, hey, if there’s any party who’ll support him in this agenda, it would be the Democrats. You don’t need to be part of a secret Marxist plot in order to do that, you just need them backing you up (and possibly not even know they’re Marxists).
One thing I’ve been meaning to ask Ucci is if he could relay some of his experiences with the professors he claims to have been taught by, the ones he says were examples of the outspoken Marxists dominating the universities in his country. ← There, I did it.
I think that the defitions of the political ideologies are two much twisted in this thread.
Marx was not liberal by any streach of imagination. He was just the opposite. He believed in equality but equality is not liberalism. Capitilism is far more liberal than Marx, in the essence. One can make choice in the capitilism and democracy but not with Marx.
Socialism is liberal to the majority (average or poor). Capitilism is liberal to minority (rich and rare), though less than socialism. Thus, both are strict and liberal at the same time but to the different sections of the society. The crux of the issue lies in striking the right balance. Both extreames are dangerous thus should be avoided. An ideal government must be liberal when it is required but also strict too when it is required.
Leftist slightly misunderstand socialism. Socialism puts some burden on the citizen too, but those very people, who get benifit of the socialism, refuse to own their share of burden. They want that the government alone should own all the responsibilities and let them live freely as they like. Rightiest do not expect much from the government and do not want much interfere from it too.
People become socialist very easily if it is about receiving anything but become hardcore capitilst when it comes to giving something. An economically social becomes cultural capitilist when it comes to him. At that time, he does not want any interfere from the government.
Give me all what i want but do not ask me what i am doing with that.
That is the precise definition of a typical leftist or socialist nowdays. They have been forgotten that socialism deamds return gifts too from all the invitiees to the party.
Except for the ‘subtle’ part, yeah. Seems to me that all institutions of civil society from The Roman Catholic Church to the Boy Scouts do that, taken broadly. That I believe such institutions are important and good is why I’m a conservative and not a libertarian I suppose. That I prefer organizations that don’t have the legal power to tax, imprison or execute dissenters is why I’m not a liberal. Do you mean it in some more sinister way that doesn’t apply as broadly as what I describe? The good instututions that do this sort of thing are straightforward about their goals, and are working for the good of the people they are influencing.
By “subtle”, I mean influence that is unknown to the person, thereby causing their will to become what the influencer wanted without the person knowing why or who. Unconscious, unaware influence is more commonly known as “hypnosis”.
A young child has no choice but to be influenced by things without his awareness. Atheists complain that churches do that intentionally (as though governments don’t). Propaganda is specifically aimed at that purpose.
For a democracy, or any democratic assembly such as a simple jury, to function free of coercion, the members must be free of subtle influence. A governance trying to obtain and maintain complete control is too tempted to avoid engaging in subtle influence. Just about all politics these days is entirely a competition of subtle influence. The media does nothing else. An unaware populous is preferred by totalitarian governance, “liberal/communistic/socialistic”. And thus the democratic process is dysfunctional.
If there is any use in trying to “reform democracy”, it would have to entail a freedom from subtle, hypnotic influences, enhancing public awareness rather than media subterfuge and mainstream propaganda. That is why the media in the USA was to be free and uncontrolled in the USA. Unfortunately, in the USA, media is not at all free, nor film making or school teaching. Thus in the USA, there isn’t anything close to true democracy, but rather merely the attempt to be the greater devil of influence (just as Europe was before constitutionalism).
People in the USA want for only what they have been subtly influenced into wanting, these days. And the intention is to make it far more so such that literally no one wants for anything that hasn’t been designed before hand for them to want. And that includes a specific amount of dissidents to give the impression of uninfluenced will. That is what socialism is really all about, “the power to cause popular passion in chosen directions”.
And thus reproduction choices, ARE being controlled. But a part of controlling them is giving the impression that they are not controlled and in need of more governing. The arguing between the Yin and Yang of Liberal vs Conservative, Democrat vs Republican, is a passion-engine used to feed and create a subtle “god”. It is very largely mere distraction to allow for subtle influences to go undetected and thus effective.
Yes, those are the same videos I linked to in my last post. Glad we’re on the same page.
Oh, they’re disturbing all right–I had one of those it-can’t-be-real moments when I watched the Swedish Feminist blow a couple of caps into the guy’s skull.
I went to a party the other day… it was pretty wild and crazy, got really hosed… does that make me a “member” of it?
To start: I am sorry for the lengthy delay in response… School, both for my daughter and I restarted, it’s been taking up my time…
Ok, so if this is not passed as a law, that we simply get rid of the tax credits with for people with multiple children, then leave people along. I can live with this and I would see it as the free market, possibly, working to reduce the amount of children people have. If this is what you mean, I guess I’m on board.
The only real problem I’ve seen is that you have not really explained clearly what you mean… Bogging us down in attempting to understand what you mean…
