I think it’s pretty clear there is some significant truth to this. The problem with other governments is they are governments of sociopaths, for sociopaths by sociopaths. In a democracy, the sociopaths have to pretend they are not sociopaths and things as a system are going well. Because they only have to pretend well enough to fool the retarded, it is nothing to brag about. But they also have to make sure that those who are not retarded can’t find explanations to show the retarded what is actually going on. They have to appear not to fit the critiques of the non-retarded. That adds a bit more to the challenge.
We could skip all the tension this creates and just go for some other form of government and the sociopaths will then have complete control of all media and they don’t have to pretend much. It’s cleaner, but I think still worse.
The optimists will claim that there is a way to ensure that only non-sociopaths will have power. Let’s hope they’re correct despite what has always happened nearly immediately.
For me democracy is an insidious form of government because it gets the people to believe they have a freewill when in reality there is none. It makes people believe they have options or choices in the structure of government when in all reality none of it is real.
Democracy is the most dishonest form of government ever created.
I’m not sure why you’re claiming that I’m making a distinction; after all, I’m talking about humanity, not life in general. Secondly, I am talking about a blockage of perception, not disinterest. Our civilisation has conditioned us to no longer perceive things as we once did, thereby alienating us from the raw essence of nature rather than merely providing protection. This encourages us to believe that we are separate from nature rather than being part of it, and it leads us to view everything from a utilitarian point of view.
Our lack of capacity for empathy is not “as it is meant to be.” You can be attentive to those close to you without being inattentive towards the rest of the world, and hiding behind layers of fear, prejudice, ideology, and self-protection. This isn’t about regarding everyone with the “exact same disposition,” which is a straw man that you seem to like setting up. You can feel the affinity of our common humanity and consider the common good as primary rather than treating others with disrespect.
It is indeed paradoxical, but not in the way you suggest. We are creatures that need to live in harmony with nature, which is why traumatised human beings return to it for solace and recovery. After generations of migrating from the land to cities, we have lost our connection to the biosphere that guarantees our existence and the balance that supports our biology.
For generations, we have hurt each other and perpetuated trauma in our modern subcultures. Yet at the same time, we sing about yearning for something we cannot quite name. We allow ourselves to be distracted by short-term benefits and fads, disfiguring ourselves in the process. We fall into addiction and compulsive habits and ultimately disrespect each other because of our dependencies. This perpetuates suffering.
Remember, I am not talking about ‘most of life’, but humanity. The very idea of being a ‘prime species’ stems from our arrogance and sense of alienation. We are breaking the laws of sustainable life and coexistence. Rather than improving itself, humanity has focused on defeating the very thing that sustains us. It’s like a baby biting off the nipple it sucks on.
Without meaning to offend, this is peak witlessness and an example of what I have been saying. Jay Austin, Lauren Geoghegan and their acquaintances were killed by five IS members, looking for a target in order to perpetrate a terrorist attack. Yet another example of religious extremism by traumatised human beings, perpetuating the trauma they experienced. We have such people in Western countries as well, fevered individuals driven crazy by their alienation.
If we do not find a way to respect the relational principle and stop the violence inflicted by those in power, we will never heal, and the violence will continue. It is obvious that trauma cannot be healed by good intentions alone, yet as long as we fail to recognise the illness, we will only react to the symptoms. In virology, an important fact is that anyone attempting to treat someone with a virus should not be a carrier themselves.
Once again, your infection by the figurative ‘virus’ I’m talking about is evident. The survival of the fittest has been misinterpreted as the survival of the strongest, which is quite a different concept. If humans were unable to cooperate and reciprocate, they would not have survived. The earliest sign of sophistication discovered by archaeologists was a healed femur fracture, which would have meant death in the animal world. Similarly, if we are unable to cooperate and coexist in the future, our species will die out when our technology fails us.
Our attempts to build supply chains and feed the world have been based on our ignorance of the planet’s sustainable systems and of how humanity has survived in the past. We have altered natural habitats, causing them to die, but we have also seen how restoring the natural balance to those habitats can bring them back to life in a relatively short period of time. Hopefully, we can learn this lesson globally before it is too late.
Once again, reducing what I said to ‘cuddling each other’ ignores much of what I have been saying. This just goes to show how blocked your perception is. You are insensitive to the interactions that keep you alive every day and to your reliance on cooperation.
Too few people encounter the external world, while too many merely process and analyse data. Rather than understanding the world, most people are concerned with manipulating it by focusing on specifics, details and fragments, while missing the big picture or the ‘Gestalt’.
Those engaged in recovering our dynamic perception learn to see with a ‘beginner’s mind’ and remain open to possibility, whereas many people simply focus on the familiar and what seems certain. It is our ability to tolerate uncertainty that enables us to comprehend things that our civilisation is increasingly unable to: ambiguity, metaphor, irony and humour.
If our world continues towards fixity and stasis, ignoring the dynamism and flow of the world, fundamentalism, which sees things as explicit and decontextualised, will spread. This approach has no eye for the implicit or the context. Instead, it will associate itself with the inanimate and largely overlook the animate. It is not surprising, then, that our society is imbalanced in favour of autism and schizophrenia. It is obtuse, overconfident, prone to confabulation, angry and often proven wrong.
This is where you demonstrate everything I have said in your own words. Your political preference seems to guide your words rather than your perception, as you ignore the fact that the US has always been exploitative. It seems that you fail to recognise the world you live in, like a goldfish in a bowl. You oppose my words because they do not align with your selfish values. You choose to overlook the inequity that pervades your country, and you force it upon the rest of the world.
Your nation was built on genocide and slavery, and its incredible self-confidence is born out of ignorance of the pain it has caused the world. The British were just as bad, but at least they had the decency to boast about it in private. American workers are among the most exploited people on the planet despite working extremely hard, and your racism is proverbial. What you call “liberalism” is in fact the attempt by some people to establish some kind of balance and solidarity, but you greedily perceive it as egotism, because the accusation you rail against others is in fact a confession. In your world, it is all about “me”!
Diversity is not inherently evil because human differences, whether cultural, ethnic, intellectual, or personal, are a natural feature of humanity rather than a defect. Diverse societies can generate new ideas, broader perspectives, and greater resilience by drawing on a wider range of experiences and talents. For example, a diverse city typically offers a much wider range of restaurants, cafés, markets, and ingredients. Someone in a city such as New York City, Los Angeles, or Houston can easily enjoy Mexican, Ethiopian, Korean, Indian, Vietnamese, Lebanese, and dozens of other cuisines without travelling far.
While conservatives who are scared of diversity often worry about social cohesion, rapid change, or the loss of shared traditions, diversity itself does not destroy community; the real challenge is finding ways for different people to participate in a common civic culture. History suggests that societies flourish not by eliminating differences, but by creating institutions and values that allow people with differences to cooperate, contribute, and live together peacefully.
There is no political system in which some people do not influence things in front of or behind the scenes. Hoping otherwise is utopia. The main difference between democracy and the other systems is in terms of who are the official rulers and how they are chosen. Rich, and more generally influencial, people always have their way to collaborate perfectly with whatever government system is in power. Dictatorships make things easier for them, but democracies also suit them.
Governments can care about the citizens, but this does not mean that rich people do not have their way. One does not exclude the other. Good politicians try to achieve what they can do, given the power games happening between those that truly control the economy.
My main criticism on the theoretical communism is the mentality that all problems in society have to do with the rich/poor dichotomy. Many things are messed up because there are not sufficient social agreements to push in the proper direction.
Let’s take the example of public health. In many European countries there is quite strong public health system, in US it is so weak that without private insurance you do not have solutions in serious health problems. Both Europe and US have capitalists and ultra rich that control the economy. So, why in one case you have good public health care and in the other not?
The answer is on the societies. In US, both right and left are so focused on the free economy, that they reject ideas of public funding. In Europe, both right and left support public health care, even at the expense of higher taxes. The wealthy do not give a crap which system a country chooses, in both cases they can increase their wealth.
Without massive social approval, a democratically elected government cannot make drastic changes. If you imagine a communistic system, sorry but this experiment has failed miserably. They do not care about all citizens, they care for the party.
Can it exist across all segments of society?
What of the mentally ill and the homeless that would not do anything to better their own situation even if you forced them to?
If anybody on this forum knows about the homeless it is me as I was in homelessness for almost fifteen years straight.
Do the mentally ill deserve any less compassion from society? They deserve shelter at the very least. Having a place to call home or residence should be a human right for all people including the mentally ill and the homeless.
No. Its not about deserving.
By the very principle you should never help anyone who does not ask for help.
Not only because its a waste of resources and time, but also because you are trying to force something that is unwanted.
Help is warranted only for those who want to better their situation.
I do not and have never believed handing out fish. You teach how to catch fish.
And until it works, for those few steps which still require a shoulder to lean on, you can be there to help.
But altruism is a disease. Has been for a long time.
The notion of taking care of everything and everyone, that just instills a rot in society.
The entire ghetto culture, the way the ppl like the blacks in the usa and gypsies in europe are, was entirely due to this disease idea.
Oh you are a 60 IQ minority living in it’s own shit and piss, fcking its own children? Here have some money so you do not need to do a single f about your situation. We will enable you. We will enable the pigstall lifestyle and make sure that all 8-13 kids you get, will learn the same life standards you did.
Welfare society, altruism and “help” has created some of the worst issues and examples that exist within society.
Help can never be self-evident. It needs to be conditional and warranted only when it leads to a stable outcome.
