Hate Unlimited

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Hate Unlimited

Post by Dachshund »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:12 am

Iran had a democratically elected leader until he pissed off GB and the US by having the AUDACITY to want Iran to have control of its own oil. For this reason they replaced him with their puppet Shah. What other country would put up with that? Syria was NOT a primitive crap hole before the US decided it would be fun to attack it. Nor was Iraq. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was very tolerant of different religions. He also hated radical islam and kept a very tight rein on it.



Dear Vegetable,



I can't get over what a naive, potty-mouthed, little "muppet" you are. You even make me laugh sometimes, that is, until I realise that there are countless thousands of other individuals who probably endorse your views and are eligible to vote in elections in the West. That's not so funny.




Let's deal with Saddam Hussein first. Saddam Hussein was a ruthless, brutal dictator. He murdered an estimated 1,000,000 of his own people in Iraq, most of whom were innocent of any crime. He was also a sadist who (along with his two sicko sons: Uday and Qusay) had thousands of Iraqis imprisoned and subjected to horrifying methods of torture that were so appalling I will spare you the details; as well as this, he and other senior members of the Ba'arth party authorized: campaigns of state terrorism; mass murder/genocide; ethnic cleansing; rape; chemical warfare using nerve gases like "Sarin"; forced disappearances; deportations, etc; between 1979 and 2003. Saddam was a real "Sweet Heart", Veggie. So tell me, what would you think if that kind of shit was going down in New Zealand ?




Saddam Hussein was a VERY secular person. He was a Ba'arthist, that is, a member of the Ba'arth party who were an ANTI-RELIGIOUS, socialist, political, group. Saddam always made it clear that he was, personally, an ATHEIST, (at least, until he thought he might get some traction against the US by rallying pan-Islamic support). Saddam Hussein was NOT a religious person.You might be an Iraqi Christian, a Sunni Muslim or a Shia Muslim or a devotee of some other faith; provided you did not engage in any kind of public, political protest against Saddam and his Ba'art party government, you would basically be left in peace. In fact, from the time he became President of Iraq in 1979 right up to his final demise, Saddam Hussein's closest and most trusted adviser was a Catholic. I am referring to Tariq Aziz who was first, Saddam's Foreign Minister, and then promoted to become Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq. Although he was an Arab nationalist, he was a member of the Chaldean Catholic Church in Iraq. No secret was ever made of the fact as far as I am aware; for Saddam, the fact that Aziz was a Christian was irrelevant - a non-issue. (Though I must say, I am puzzled at how Aziz could have claimed to be a Catholic in good faith given some what what he must have known was taking place in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's reign as President in terms of human rights violations, etc ? ).



Saddam came from Tikrit - a traditionally Sunni (Muslim) city, and after he came to power as President of Iraq in 1979, he promoted many of his neighbours and relatives, who formed a gang that was inherently quite anti- Shia and disposed to favour Sunni Muslims. Anyway, in short, the fact is that Saddam, in religion, was an atheist; while in CULTURE, he was a Sunni. Saddam did not believe in Allah, therefore Saddam was not a bone fide Muslim (or Islamist of any kind).



THE GULF WAR (1990-91)



Vegetable...




You keep on bitching about the US ( and it's "bitch", the UK) being the "bad guys" who fucked up the Middle East by waging war on nations like Iraq. I don't have time to go through all of the US - led military interventions in the Middle East to explain to you how they were justified. I do agree with you though that the US-led invasion if Iraq by George W. Bush in 2003 had nothing to do with any prior intelligence reports confirming Saddam Hussein was manufacturing/harbouring so-called "Weapons of Mass Destruction" inside Iraq. George W. Bush and Tony Blair lied to the West about this, which I think was (morally speaking) very wrong; but geopolitics is a very tricky business and sometimes, IMO, "corners have to be cut" and "rules bent" in order to avoid what would otherwise be monumental disasters for the West. To cut a long story very short, it only takes two words to explain why it was that the US (and its Western coalition allies) launched military invasions that they have in the Middle East to date: (1) OIL; (2) ISRAEL.That's all you need to know, Vegetable. So, I'll finish off by explaining the rationale of one US invasion of the Middle East, namely, what is generally called "The Gulf War" (1990-1991). This particular conflict was all about OIL, not ISRAEL (at least not primarily; although Saddam did launch lots SCUD missiles at Israel during the conflict which became a cause of tremendous concern for Bush. But let's not go into that, the story is complicated enough as it is). If you wanted me to give you an account of instances where OIL and ISRAEL were a casus belli for the US invasion of the Middle East, I would need to write a separate post.I'm going to presume that the "Gulf War" of 1990-91 was chiefly about OIL.




OK, so what happened was that Saddam Hussein started the whole "Gulf War" off by illegally invading Kuwait in 1990. So, if you want to know who was responsible for all the deaths and damage (and there were lots of both) that Iraq suffered as a consequence of the "Gulf War", there you have it - Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990, with the intention of seizing control of Kuwait's rich oil fields. Saddam wanted Kuwait's oil because he had recently chalked up some very big debts fighting the Iran - Iraq war, AND because having control of Kuwaiti oil, would give him tremendous political bargaining power as the global gate-keeper to essentially ALL of the Middle East's oil reserves,



I say, "all" of the Middle East's oil, because no sooner had Saddam invaded and conquered Kuwait ( which he managed with ease due to the superiority of his military power), he then set his sights on Saudi Arabia and began to mobilise his armies toward the Saudi border. You must bear in mind that in 1990 Saddam Hussein had a the world's 4th largest military force; ironically, because the United Stated had supplied Iraq with weapons to help it in its fight against Iran (!)



Thus, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait posed a major geopolitical oil crisis, because if Saddam gained control of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia ( and he would, BTW, have easily crushed Saudi Arabia again due to the fact the Saudis were no match for him militarily in term of troop numbers and weapons of war: artillery, tanks, fighter jets, etc.) he would have control of over 20% of world oil reserves and become the world's dominant oil power.




"NO BLOOD FOR OIL !!" - "NO BLOOD FOR OIL !!"




What you don't seem to understand Vegetable is that in 1990, OIL was the life-blood of advanced, industrialised Western nations, like the US and UK. The West needed a CONSISTENT, RELIABLE and AFFORDABLE supply of crude oil to function, and that includes piddly, little, Western nations like New Zealand. In the West in 1990-1, just about EVERYTHING depended on stable, access to reasonably-priced crude oil. Just think Veggie, if the US had not stopped Saddam in 1991, you might not have had any electricity in the evenings to send your bolshy posts to "Philosophy Forum" (if computers and the internet had been invented at the time) ! Imagine THAT ! :shock:



Without oil, the US (and other Western nations) would, to give you an idea, have had:



* No petrol and diesel to run their cars and trucks

* No jet-fuel (kerosine) to power airplanes

* No lubricant oils and greases essential for the running of of car/boat/truck/jet/motorcycle/helicopter and other engines.

* No paraffin wax which is extensively used in making the packaging for frozen foods.

* No plastics, no PVC pipe or polypropylene/polyethylene plastic containers, no carbon-fibre products.

* No asphalt to construct roads and highways/motorways.

* No way to synthesize many vital prescription medicines.

* No fertilizers, soaps, insecticides, detergents.

* No petrochemical feed-stock.

* No way to grow harvest food crops like wheat, corn, etc; since there would be no way to run the tractors and other agricultural machinery needed.

* No way to manufacture many perfumes.

* No heating for houses in winter.

* No electricity.




To continue. The US sees Saddam in the process of trying to seize control of its oil supply and George Bush thinks to himself: (1) Saddam is an unpredictable, power-mad psychopath (true); (2) If he gets control of the Middle East's major oil "tap" he can open it and close it whenever he wants, that would place nations like us, the US, who are vitally dependent on Middle Eastern crude oil in an extremely vulnerable and undesirable situation; (3) Saddam could then manipulate the price/supply of Middle East crude oil, to use it as a political weapon against America and other nations of the West ( and THAT would be unthinkable).




So George Bush says to himself: "I've gotta stop this crazy p**** now, before things spiral out of control any further." BTW, the use of military force to stop Saddam, was very much George Bush's personal call. Bush was receiving lots of mixed messages about how to handle the crisis from his top advisers in his the White House at the time. Most were counselling restraint and to hold back on the use of military force and try using economic sanctions against Iraq instead.



It's was a big call for Bush to send Americans into war again against a regime in foreign country, because even in 1990-1, the US public was still spooked by Vietnam, and they definitely did not want a replay. So, before long, America's "cognitively challenged" Left a diverse assortment of liberals, progressives, socialists, neo-Marxists and the kind of cultural Marxist "pea brains" who were members of Herbert Marcuse's "New Left" in the early 1970's were out in force. They realised that they had a great excuse now to take to the streets and march and demonstrate and protest. And sure enough, every night on the news you would see thousands of young (late teens - 40's) white Americans chanting: "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!" - "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" and "WE WONT DIE FOR THE PRICE OF GAS; UNCLE SAM GO KISS MY ASS,", etc; and carrying placards that read: " BUSH the BUTCHER of BAGHDAD", and such like. You need to understand, like I say, that was all jolly good fun for these people. This was how they got their kicks - their cheap thrills, this was how they infused "true purpose" into their meaningless lives. The great irony is, of course, that had Bush not stopped Saddam Hussein dead in his tracks, Saddam may well have consolidated his control on the supply of crude oil from the Middle East, and America might well have found itself having to pay inordinate prices for the oil it had to import from Saddam. And guess who would be the first little piggies to scream "blue murder" when inflation and unemployment, etc; started to go through the roof ? Yep, that's right, the loud-mouthed liberal, progressive, neo-Marxist nit-wits. When they can't afford to put petrol in their VW "Beetles", when their electricity bills are so far through the roof they can't play their "Pink Floyd" vinyls anymore, when they're so cash-strapped, (because they lost their jobs due to chronic stagflation) that they can't buy themselves new pairs of Levi's 501 denim jeans any more, or Italian suits, when the price of their favourite Chardonnay or craft beer or cannabis is beyond their means, as are Doc Marten boots, getting another hipster tattoo, having their hair re-died blue or orange and so on. Well, its outrageous, they cry, something will have to be done !! We'll need to organize giant demonstrations and protests in Washington because our freedom is clearly under attack, our human rights are being violated, our democracy is falling apart, etc. :evil: Sorry, but I really hate the political left in the West in whatever form it comes: liberals, progressives trendy socialists, you name it. I hate them because their arrogant, loud-mouthed, stupidity/ignorance is actually a very dangerous threat to Western European culture/civilization which is objectively superior to any other high culture that has ever emerged in the 6000 year history of human civilization.




These people are the Americans who would not have a problem with handing Saddam Hussein control the price of the crude oil their own country needed to import from the Middle East in order to survive as a relatively civilised society. They just didn't understand that if Saddam - (a 100% arsehole who absolutely hated America) - were in charge of the Middle East's oil reserves he might - for any number of reasons, - decide to to substantially raise the price of the crude oil for America and keep doing so on a regular basis. These people didn't understand that when the cost of the crude oil that was sold to the US by Saddam to America went up, as it almost certainly would have done, it would automatically result in increased US manufacturing costs, which in turn would lead to increased prices for US consumers at the till. Moreover, as prices rise, so does inflation, and unemployment, and high levels of "stagflation" can put SEVERE pressure on democratic institutions and can also lead to growing political protest, social unrest and potentially violent social conflict/strife. (It was high inflation generated by a socialist, Labour government in the UK during the 1970's that led to a 6% unemployment rate, and, in 1975, resulted in the birth of the "Sex Pistols" punk rock band, and, trust me, THAT was the UGLIEST and NASTIEST piece of anti-culture that England has ever produced :D ) Finally, falling real living standards can prompt a "Brain-Drain" of some of the country's most mobile and able people, thus leaving the country with a diminished labour force. Also, high inflation can bring an end to progress in reducing poverty.




FINAL REFLECTION : THE US MEDIA WAS THE SAME IN 1990-91 AS IT IS TODAY : LOONY, LIBERAL and LEFTIST




I can still clearly remember the start of the air war in Iraq, it was, in fact, (I just checked the date on Google) the 17th of January, 1991. The day before, Saddam had thumbed his nose at a final UN ultimatum to pull out of Kuwait. On the 16th of that month, George Bush appeared on my television evening news saying pretty much: "That's it, it's on - the war". He looked and sounded like he was totally fed-up and pissed off, but I still thought to myself, "Nah, it'll never happen, even Saddam Hussein's not THAT crazy, he'll back down at the last minute for sure." On the 17th I was glued to my television watching coverage of events in the Gulf and suddenly CNN is beaming us a "night-vision, fluoro green" silhouette of the city of Baghdad. Baghdad looked like it was spotted with lots and lots of bright, white balls of light, some of which were moving. It turned out the lights were a dazzling mixture of: exploding US Navy Tomahawk Cruise missiles; exploding bombs from American Stealth fighter bombers and 1000's of rounds sent up from Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery, trying to score a lucky strike on invading the American F-117a "Stealth" Bombers which could not be seen or heard by the Iraqis as they approached and then unleashed their laser-guided bombs on strategic sites in Baghdad.




The other thing I clearly remember is how a CNN news team approached one of the American Stealth Bombers pilots just after he had returned from his bombing mission that night. The pilot has just gotten out of his F-117a's cockpit and was walking across the tarmac of the landing zone. A female CNN news journalist approached him and asked for a comment; "What was it like ?" (or something similar) she said. This young pilot is obviously still pumped full of adrenalin from the excitement of his first taste of real war, and he shouts: "It was TREMENDOUS (!), it was AWESOME (!), Baghdad was LIT UP LIKE A CHRISTMAS TREE !" Ten minutes later CNN had lost the plot entirely - they were in a state of politically correct hysteria, they had a major bee in their bonnet. The young pilot's comment was furiously condemned by the PC "thought police" at CNN who found the comparison between the lights of war (an evil war waged by George Bush) and the lights on a Christmas tree ( a symbol of moral good) absolutely outrageous and appalling. CNN was beside itself with righteous indignation for hours and replayed the "Stealth" pilot's "lit up like a Christmas tree" remark what seemed to me, like 1000 times. As far as CNN were concerned this, was the biggest bomb to explode that whole evening - a "PC bombshell", never mind that US pilots were risking their lives all through that night - lets talk instead about the shocking horror of politically incorrect language ! It goes to show how CNN haven't changed a jot in 30 years, if anything I would say they are even worse now, in terms of the hard leftist-liberal spin they put on their reporting, and the kind of fake news it creates, than they were even in the 1970's.



So, have you learned anything about why the US were forced to invade Iraq in 1991, Veggie ? George Bush wasn't the "bad guy", the real villain was Saddam Hussein.



When I next have time, I'll be happy to continue teaching you about US Foreign Affairs (just let me know) and how America always tried to do the right thing. Mostly, America was successful and you can thank God for that Vegetable; because even though you don't realise it, guys like Ronald Reagan and George Bush, for instance, saved your, little, bitchy, chicken, white, KIWI arse BIG TIME.




Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)
Last edited by Dachshund on Mon Sep 30, 2019 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9142
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Hate Unlimited

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Dipshit above has no reading comprehension whatsoever and has the nerve to call ME 'vegetable'. Does anyone bother to read his tedious testaments to delusional egomania?
You are beyond creepy little weiner man. Slink off back to your creepy basement full of Nazi memorabilia and blow-up Margaret Thatcher and pommy queen dolls and god know what other horrors you have down there stuffed into your freezer.
Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Hate Unlimited

Post by Dachshund »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 1:18 pm Dipshit above has no reading comprehension whatsoever and has the nerve to call ME 'vegetable'. Does anyone bother to read his tedious testaments to delusional egomania?
You are beyond creepy little weiner man. Slink off back to your creepy basement full of Nazi memorabilia and blow-up Margaret Thatcher and pommy queen dolls and god know what other horrors you have down there stuffed into your freezer.
Dear Vegetable,


Thank you for your thoughtful and civilized response to my post correcting your misunderstanding of the Gulf War (1990-91).


I notice that you are also very critical of the American coup d'etat that removed the democratically elected Iranian official Mohammed Mosaddagh in 1953.


My response to your condemnation of this action by the US would be that I do not have much faith in the democratic process under even the best of circumstance, let alone with the electorate are predominantly a mob of illiterate Muslim peasants.


Secondly, Mosaddagh's nationalisation of Iranian oil production dealt a severe blow to the British economy. Britain was/is a civilized, Christian nation. Iran is not, Iran is a primitive, violent, Islamic "shit-hole", and any revenue it did manage to generate from the nationalisation of its oil reserves would ultimately be used for fomenting strife between itself and the West.


Thirdly, Mosaddagh was moving far too close to the Soviet Union politically. He was manipulating and being manipulated by the Tudeh Party of Iran - an Iranian communist party - at one of the hottest periods of the Cold War. It was hardly surprising that this caused EXTREME distress in the West.


With respect to the Cold War...because you are a silly "young" girl, who probably doesn't know what the Cold War was all about, let me tell you. The Cold War was a global battle between the the communist Soviet Union ( a force of evil) and the West ( a force for good). You need to understand that the USSR was utterly dedicated to completely destroying Western civilization. Their ultimate goal was to conquer the world by exporting armed revolution. And that is what the bastards were doing all throughout the third world at the time. If you think I'm making this up, official documents were discovered in the Kremlin archives after the collapse of the USSR in 1991 confirming that Soviet's official policy was global domination. Like Ronald Reagan famously said, the USSR was an "Evil Empire."


Getting back to Mosaddagh's involvement with the Iranian communists; for Iran, a state with enormous economic and political potential to have allied itself with, if not be under the control of the Soviet Union, was, in 1953, the biggest political nightmare that the West could imagine.America and the UK were both fearful - and with good reason IMO - that Iran could become, like the nations of Eastern Europe, simply another Soviet client state. and that the USSR would gain its long - sought warm water ports, right in the heart of one of the most important strategic regions in the world.


That's why the CIA ousted Mosaddagh, there was no telling which way he might jump. He had to be removed, the risk he posed was too great.


Aroha xxx



Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9142
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Hate Unlimited

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Dachshund wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 6:47 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 1:18 pm Dipshit above has no reading comprehension whatsoever and has the nerve to call ME 'vegetable'. Does anyone bother to read his tedious testaments to delusional egomania?
You are beyond creepy little weiner man. Slink off back to your creepy basement full of Nazi memorabilia and blow-up Margaret Thatcher and pommy queen dolls and god know what other horrors you have down there stuffed into your freezer.
Dear Vegetable,


Thank you for your thoughtful and civilized response to my post correcting your misunderstanding of the Gulf War (1990-91).


I notice that you are also very critical of the American coup d'etat that removed the democratically elected Iranian official Mohammed Mosaddagh in 1953.


My response to your condemnation of this action by the US would be that I do not have much faith in the democratic process under even the best of circumstance, let alone with the electorate are predominantly a mob of illiterate Muslim peasants.


Secondly, Mosaddagh's nationalisation of Iranian oil production dealt a severe blow to the British economy. Britain was/is a civilized, Christian nation. Iran is not, Iran is a primitive, violent, Islamic "shit-hole", and any revenue it did manage to generate from the nationalisation of its oil reserves would ultimately be used for fomenting strife between itself and the West.


Thirdly, Mosaddagh was moving far too close to the Soviet Union politically. He was manipulating and being manipulated by the Tudeh Party of Iran - an Iranian communist party - at one of the hottest periods of the Cold War. It was hardly surprising that this caused EXTREME distress in the West.


With respect to the Cold War...because you are a silly "young" girl, who probably doesn't know what the Cold War was all about, let me tell you. The Cold War was a global battle between the the communist Soviet Union ( a force of evil) and the West ( a force for good). You need to understand that the USSR was utterly dedicated to completely destroying Western civilization. Their ultimate goal was to conquer the world by exporting armed revolution. And that is what the bastards were doing all throughout the third world at the time. If you think I'm making this up, official documents were discovered in the Kremlin archives after the collapse of the USSR in 1991 confirming that Soviet's official policy was global domination. Like Ronald Reagan famously said, the USSR was an "Evil Empire."


Getting back to Mosaddagh's involvement with the Iranian communists; for Iran, a state with enormous economic and political potential to have allied itself with, if not be under the control of the Soviet Union, was, in 1953, the biggest political nightmare that the West could imagine.America and the UK were both fearful - and with good reason IMO - that Iran could become, like the nations of Eastern Europe, simply another Soviet client state. and that the USSR would gain its long - sought warm water ports, right in the heart of one of the most important strategic regions in the world.


That's why the CIA ousted Mosaddagh, there was no telling which way he might jump. He had to be removed, the risk he posed was too great.


Aroha xxx



Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)
You pompous, conceited, warmongering little cock. Loathesome and intellectually stunted waste of resources. So far up yourself that with a bit of luck you will completely disappear up your own arse one day.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6206
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Hate Unlimited

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

commonsense wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:44 pm But how do we limit hate. Or more to the point, how could we limit or curtail hateful behavior?

How does hate take seed in human minds?

Can there be a strategy that would channel a basic human emotion into a quiet state?

More police? More cannabis? What?
More hate...look at all the conflict trying to live in peace has caused the world.
commonsense
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Hate Unlimited

Post by commonsense »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:54 pm
commonsense wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:44 pm But how do we limit hate. Or more to the point, how could we limit or curtail hateful behavior?

How does hate take seed in human minds?

Can there be a strategy that would channel a basic human emotion into a quiet state?

More police? More cannabis? What?
More hate...look at all the conflict trying to live in peace has caused the world.
Understood. But aren’t conflicts the result of incompatible self interests and an unwillingness to compromise, rather than attempts to live peacefully?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6206
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Hate Unlimited

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

commonsense wrote: Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:36 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:54 pm
commonsense wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:44 pm But how do we limit hate. Or more to the point, how could we limit or curtail hateful behavior?

How does hate take seed in human minds?

Can there be a strategy that would channel a basic human emotion into a quiet state?

More police? More cannabis? What?
More hate...look at all the conflict trying to live in peace has caused the world.
Understood. But aren’t conflicts the result of incompatible self interests and an unwillingness to compromise, rather than attempts to live peacefully?
My opinion?

Compromise eventually leads to internal conflict, over time, when people look back at there decisions...the ugly truth is people go back and forth into old age trying to figure out who they are and what they are.

This problem magnifies in light of the number of options in ideologies, religions, etc. that exist as options... especially in older age when people not only have time to reflect and the passions let up, but when facing there mortality which becomes resolute and clearer every year...youth obscures this, same with good health, family, friends, and a general loose fluidity to life that disappears as things become tighter and tighter specifically time.

Compromise does not hold to this in the long run because it leaves room for doubt, doubt leads hold to a polarity or change within the internal characteristics of the individual making the decisions as well as the populace at large.


Extremism obviously doesn't do the job either, one polarity results in another and a rhythmic tension of alternating political parties (as well as values) leads to spiral where everything eventually distills down to base appetites as the common denominator.

This democracy, as a tension between dualistic means of not just procuring basic goods but what even basic goods are, is political alchemy. It distills, over the course of time, the group spirit or "zeitgeist" in such a manner where a sense of unity eventually takes holds. It is no coincendence that democracies, a people driven by base appetites, distill into a more unified group of oligarchy which distills into a single tyrant.

It is all alchemy at the end of the day. Break one thing into two, then recombine it into one until a base essence occurs. It is the movement of one thing into a more condensed one thing.

The base grounding of techno-democractic society where expression is the key value is strictly appetite of image with image being the new "experience". Nothing deep. Nothing we dont already know. Very simple except we choose to forget it. Image is experience, we have videos of people's reactions to videos...

But the problem is that this desire for "image as experience" leaves an unscratched itch in the psyche because we know, deep down, it is just an image. This leaves a sense of cognitive dissonance. So eventually you will see, globally, a dichotomy between people who accept this world as image and seek to transcend it, another that it is all image and we need to immerse ourselves in it based off the appetite for control. The "holographic universe" theory, increased cynicism, etc give some reflections to this.

However this "imaginary" state of viewing the world, partly fed by the practice of living through and seeking entertainment which is ingrained as a habit in the youth, will reflect into how people view life. It will be meaningless, the everyday, and what will be "meaningful" is what you can "will" or "create". The problem is the extreme of this "externalizing" of an unexplored internal life leaves a sense of darkness as to what is going on inside, thus leading to a projection of this ignorance at a mass scale.

Without this internal reflection, base desires become the basic "dirt" or "mud" which covers any clarity within the psyche. It blocks an experience of lucidity or clarity which we can see is greatly desired, but misunderstood, simply by our continual distillation of technology into higher and higher definition of sound and visual expression.

So left with the psyche, being akin to a thick mud we are left metaphorically speaking with an inherent desert that reflects itself in a variety of ways ranging from war, to exploitive industry, to low birth rates, to fragmented sexual relations, to broken traditions, to a general sense of dissolussionment over the nature of a reality which is strictly image. Don't find it a coincidence that western materialism and obsession with image won't find a way to exploit a holographic universe theory.

The problem is how far can desire be exploited?

What the world desires, desires not needs, is someone who goes beyond irrational hate...someone who embodies a spirit of desolation. This spirit underlies hate, but is more primal and cathartic and is the underlying ghost of materialism.

People ironically dont want peace, they want the world to fit according the pattern they assume...and if one steps back and looks, there are alot of fucking patterns. They want it to fit according to that pattern not because it is peaceful, but because the pattern leads to contradiction and this contradiction leads to a sense of excitement through turmoil. One day people will just be burnt out with excitement they will want something beyond the hate or drama (which excites them) and seek a pure destruction of everything. It will be a false unity.
commonsense
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Hate Unlimited

Post by commonsense »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:54 am
commonsense wrote: Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:36 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:54 pm

More hate...look at all the conflict trying to live in peace has caused the world.
Understood. But aren’t conflicts the result of incompatible self interests and an unwillingness to compromise, rather than attempts to live peacefully?
My opinion?

Compromise eventually leads to internal conflict, over time, when people look back at there decisions...the ugly truth is people go back and forth into old age trying to figure out who they are and what they are.

This problem magnifies in light of the number of options in ideologies, religions, etc. that exist as options... especially in older age when people not only have time to reflect and the passions let up, but when facing there mortality which becomes resolute and clearer every year...youth obscures this, same with good health, family, friends, and a general loose fluidity to life that disappears as things become tighter and tighter specifically time.

Compromise does not hold to this in the long run because it leaves room for doubt, doubt leads hold to a polarity or change within the internal characteristics of the individual making the decisions as well as the populace at large.


Extremism obviously doesn't do the job either, one polarity results in another and a rhythmic tension of alternating political parties (as well as values) leads to spiral where everything eventually distills down to base appetites as the common denominator.

This democracy, as a tension between dualistic means of not just procuring basic goods but what even basic goods are, is political alchemy. It distills, over the course of time, the group spirit or "zeitgeist" in such a manner where a sense of unity eventually takes holds. It is no coincendence that democracies, a people driven by base appetites, distill into a more unified group of oligarchy which distills into a single tyrant.

It is all alchemy at the end of the day. Break one thing into two, then recombine it into one until a base essence occurs. It is the movement of one thing into a more condensed one thing.

The base grounding of techno-democractic society where expression is the key value is strictly appetite of image with image being the new "experience". Nothing deep. Nothing we dont already know. Very simple except we choose to forget it. Image is experience, we have videos of people's reactions to videos...

But the problem is that this desire for "image as experience" leaves an unscratched itch in the psyche because we know, deep down, it is just an image. This leaves a sense of cognitive dissonance. So eventually you will see, globally, a dichotomy between people who accept this world as image and seek to transcend it, another that it is all image and we need to immerse ourselves in it based off the appetite for control. The "holographic universe" theory, increased cynicism, etc give some reflections to this.

However this "imaginary" state of viewing the world, partly fed by the practice of living through and seeking entertainment which is ingrained as a habit in the youth, will reflect into how people view life. It will be meaningless, the everyday, and what will be "meaningful" is what you can "will" or "create". The problem is the extreme of this "externalizing" of an unexplored internal life leaves a sense of darkness as to what is going on inside, thus leading to a projection of this ignorance at a mass scale.

Without this internal reflection, base desires become the basic "dirt" or "mud" which covers any clarity within the psyche. It blocks an experience of lucidity or clarity which we can see is greatly desired, but misunderstood, simply by our continual distillation of technology into higher and higher definition of sound and visual expression.

So left with the psyche, being akin to a thick mud we are left metaphorically speaking with an inherent desert that reflects itself in a variety of ways ranging from war, to exploitive industry, to low birth rates, to fragmented sexual relations, to broken traditions, to a general sense of dissolussionment over the nature of a reality which is strictly image. Don't find it a coincidence that western materialism and obsession with image won't find a way to exploit a holographic universe theory.

The problem is how far can desire be exploited?

What the world desires, desires not needs, is someone who goes beyond irrational hate...someone who embodies a spirit of desolation. This spirit underlies hate, but is more primal and cathartic and is the underlying ghost of materialism.

People ironically dont want peace, they want the world to fit according the pattern they assume...and if one steps back and looks, there are alot of fucking patterns. They want it to fit according to that pattern not because it is peaceful, but because the pattern leads to contradiction and this contradiction leads to a sense of excitement through turmoil. One day people will just be burnt out with excitement they will want something beyond the hate or drama (which excites them) and seek a pure destruction of everything. It will be a false unity.
You seem to have a great deal of insight about people.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6206
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Hate Unlimited

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

commonsense wrote: Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:26 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:54 am
commonsense wrote: Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:36 am

Understood. But aren’t conflicts the result of incompatible self interests and an unwillingness to compromise, rather than attempts to live peacefully?
My opinion?

Compromise eventually leads to internal conflict, over time, when people look back at there decisions...the ugly truth is people go back and forth into old age trying to figure out who they are and what they are.

This problem magnifies in light of the number of options in ideologies, religions, etc. that exist as options... especially in older age when people not only have time to reflect and the passions let up, but when facing there mortality which becomes resolute and clearer every year...youth obscures this, same with good health, family, friends, and a general loose fluidity to life that disappears as things become tighter and tighter specifically time.

Compromise does not hold to this in the long run because it leaves room for doubt, doubt leads hold to a polarity or change within the internal characteristics of the individual making the decisions as well as the populace at large.


Extremism obviously doesn't do the job either, one polarity results in another and a rhythmic tension of alternating political parties (as well as values) leads to spiral where everything eventually distills down to base appetites as the common denominator.

This democracy, as a tension between dualistic means of not just procuring basic goods but what even basic goods are, is political alchemy. It distills, over the course of time, the group spirit or "zeitgeist" in such a manner where a sense of unity eventually takes holds. It is no coincendence that democracies, a people driven by base appetites, distill into a more unified group of oligarchy which distills into a single tyrant.

It is all alchemy at the end of the day. Break one thing into two, then recombine it into one until a base essence occurs. It is the movement of one thing into a more condensed one thing.

The base grounding of techno-democractic society where expression is the key value is strictly appetite of image with image being the new "experience". Nothing deep. Nothing we dont already know. Very simple except we choose to forget it. Image is experience, we have videos of people's reactions to videos...

But the problem is that this desire for "image as experience" leaves an unscratched itch in the psyche because we know, deep down, it is just an image. This leaves a sense of cognitive dissonance. So eventually you will see, globally, a dichotomy between people who accept this world as image and seek to transcend it, another that it is all image and we need to immerse ourselves in it based off the appetite for control. The "holographic universe" theory, increased cynicism, etc give some reflections to this.

However this "imaginary" state of viewing the world, partly fed by the practice of living through and seeking entertainment which is ingrained as a habit in the youth, will reflect into how people view life. It will be meaningless, the everyday, and what will be "meaningful" is what you can "will" or "create". The problem is the extreme of this "externalizing" of an unexplored internal life leaves a sense of darkness as to what is going on inside, thus leading to a projection of this ignorance at a mass scale.

Without this internal reflection, base desires become the basic "dirt" or "mud" which covers any clarity within the psyche. It blocks an experience of lucidity or clarity which we can see is greatly desired, but misunderstood, simply by our continual distillation of technology into higher and higher definition of sound and visual expression.

So left with the psyche, being akin to a thick mud we are left metaphorically speaking with an inherent desert that reflects itself in a variety of ways ranging from war, to exploitive industry, to low birth rates, to fragmented sexual relations, to broken traditions, to a general sense of dissolussionment over the nature of a reality which is strictly image. Don't find it a coincidence that western materialism and obsession with image won't find a way to exploit a holographic universe theory.

The problem is how far can desire be exploited?

What the world desires, desires not needs, is someone who goes beyond irrational hate...someone who embodies a spirit of desolation. This spirit underlies hate, but is more primal and cathartic and is the underlying ghost of materialism.

People ironically dont want peace, they want the world to fit according the pattern they assume...and if one steps back and looks, there are alot of fucking patterns. They want it to fit according to that pattern not because it is peaceful, but because the pattern leads to contradiction and this contradiction leads to a sense of excitement through turmoil. One day people will just be burnt out with excitement they will want something beyond the hate or drama (which excites them) and seek a pure destruction of everything. It will be a false unity.
You seem to have a great deal of insight about people.
Who knows...like I said "my opinion".
MonacoMonkey
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:28 pm

Re: Hate Unlimited

Post by MonacoMonkey »

There can be no (true) love without hate.

Enough said.
nothing
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: Hate Unlimited

Post by nothing »

But how do we limit hate. Or more to the point, how could we limit or curtail hateful behavior?
People who suffer their own self-induced ignorance(s) religiously scapegoat the cause(s) of their own self-induced suffering(s) as owing to the fault of others, giving rise to:
How does hate take seed in human minds?
"us vs. them"
"believer vs. unbeliever"
etc.
Can there be a strategy that would channel a basic human emotion into a quiet state?
Sever the principle divide: believer vs. unbeliever.

The House of Islam will continue to sow hatred/divisiveness towards their "us vs. them" cause of Allah: to kill all "unbelievers" who do not submit to Islam. Approx. 270 000 000 people are dead as a result of Islamic jihad, hence their need to forcibly suppress criticisms of the 'state' which is what you see as the censorship of right-wing politics from the fascist Left, because the Left is Islam.

Islam is the global root of fascism and Hitler fell into the puppetry of the Islamic Mullahs, hence the genocides against Jews.

All of the hatred/divisiveness being manufactured for Trump right now is a bought-and-paid-for Islamic attack against the West. Their entire immigration scheme is an invasion, hence China is not taking any chances and re-educating their Muslims to stop with the hatred.
More police? More cannabis? What?
More truth: the House of Islam has been lying to the Muslims for over 1 000 years. The West has recently learned some extremely important facts that absolutely undermine the notion that so-called "Mecca" even existed in the time of Muhammad, and all of the mosques built up until ~730CE are facing Petra in South Jordan, which is where all of the trade happened and the *real* birthplace of Islam is. The Muslims are therefor bowing in the wrong direction, as Muhammad can't have established a direction of prayer towards Mecca: this did not happen until well after his death.

This is the reason for "Islamophobia": the House of Islam has a rational fear that if such information became widespread, Islam is liable to implode/collapse, hence their multi-billion dollar industry of "Islamophobia" silencing criticisms of Islam/Qur'an/Muhammad as, once again, Islam is the real root of fascism and they project/blame Jews/Christians/Atheists/Unbelievers etc. for everything they are themselves guilty of.

Once you understand the principle pathology of Islam: projection/scapegoating such that the accuser is accused, it defines the entire Left because it is the same mental illness - such people believe their own personal feelings are the most important thing in the entire universe and to say Muhammad was an infidel man hurts the Muslims' feelings - as if they are not worshiping Muhammad as an idol for a living.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Hate Unlimited

Post by Arising_uk »

Dachshund wrote:...
If you do, you're wrong. So why, in your opinion, did the the US/UK prosecute the Gulf War ?
...
For the US?
1. Because Iraq was getting too chummy with the Russians as they were beginning to understand the value of American promises, ask the Kurds about this.
2. Because Iraq attacked the oil clearing house of Kuwait.
3. Because the Saudis needed them to move their bases out as their fundamentalists were pointing-out that there were infidel boots on the 'holy land'. Always amazed how the Yank supports the biggest promoter of fundamentalist Wahhabi Sunni Islam?
For the UK?
Because Tony Blair thought it a bad thing that the US was going to act unilaterally in the face of international law and tried to give it some legitimacy but was too stupid to listen to the F.O. or learn from our history.
PS: What would you say if the Arabs or some other species of "Rag-Heads" started dropping bombs on Noiseyland because they wanted to conquer it and turn all the Pakeha females into sex-slaves ?
You mean like the Yanks who have killed a few million people over the last couple of decades?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6206
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Hate Unlimited

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Arising_uk wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:31 am
Dachshund wrote:...
If you do, you're wrong. So why, in your opinion, did the the US/UK prosecute the Gulf War ?
...
For the US?
1. Because Iraq was getting too chummy with the Russians as they were beginning to understand the value of American promises, ask the Kurds about this.
2. Because Iraq attacked the oil clearing house of Kuwait.
3. Because the Saudis needed them to move their bases out as their fundamentalists were pointing-out that there were infidel boots on the 'holy land'. Always amazed how the Yank supports the biggest promoter of fundamentalist Wahhabi Sunni Islam?
For the UK?
Because Tony Blair thought it a bad thing that the US was going to act unilaterally in the face of international law and tried to give it some legitimacy but was too stupid to listen to the F.O. or learn from our history.
PS: What would you say if the Arabs or some other species of "Rag-Heads" started dropping bombs on Noiseyland because they wanted to conquer it and turn all the Pakeha females into sex-slaves ?
You mean like the Yanks who have killed a few million people over the last couple of decades?
Really, look at Britians history...hell America was a British Colony. Look at all the people they kill to establish it.
Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Hate Unlimited

Post by Dachshund »

Arising_uk wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:31 am
Dachshund wrote:...
If you do, you're wrong. So why, in your opinion, did the the US/UK prosecute the Gulf War ?
...
For the US?
1. Because Iraq was getting too chummy with the Russians as they were beginning to understand the value of American promises, ask the Kurds about this.
2. Because Iraq attacked the oil clearing house of Kuwait.
3. Because the Saudis needed them to move their bases out as their fundamentalists were pointing-out that there were infidel boots on the 'holy land'. Always amazed how the Yank supports the biggest promoter of fundamentalist Wahhabi Sunni Islam?
For the UK?
Because Tony Blair thought it a bad thing that the US was going to act unilaterally in the face of international law and tried to give it some legitimacy but was too stupid to listen to the F.O. or learn from our history.
PS: What would you say if the Arabs or some other species of "Rag-Heads" started dropping bombs on Noiseyland because they wanted to conquer it and turn all the Pakeha females into sex-slaves ?
You mean like the Yanks who have killed a few million people over the last couple of decades?
Dear Tosspot,



Yes, the Gulf War (1990/91) was about oil. (I mean , "No Shit Sherlock" !).



The Soviets and Iraq were chummy for many years, but NOT in 1990. Gorbachev was critical of Saddam's occupation of Kuwait on 2nd January ,1990, and the Soviets supported a UN Resolution authorizing the use of military force, if necessary to enforce an arms embargo against Iraq. So your first point is BS, Tosspot !


Saddam started stealing oil from Kuwait oil field by slant-drilling across the Iraq-Kuwait border. The Kuwaitis didn't like it, but their military was weak compared to Saddam's and there was nothing they could do to stop it.. Saddam's military was the 4th largest in the world in 1990. So Saddam then proceedes to intimidate the Kuwaitis by mobilizing his fighter jets, tanks and artillery, etc; sending them to line-up along the Iraq-Kuwait border. Then Saddam invites the Kuwaiti President to "talks" in Baghdad , where he issues the Kuwaitis a blunt ultimatum, "Pay up X Billion dollars asap" or I'm going to invade you and take over.



The Kuwaiti's ignored Saddam's threat and so the Iraqi army invaded and very quickly overpowered and seized control of Kuwait and it rich oil fields. The Americans were extremely concerned at this development. Then they become even more concerned when Saddam set his sights on Saudi Arabia and its oil. Like Kuwait, the Saudis were not a match militarily for Saddam's army/airforce, and when the Iraqi military started rolling toward Saudi Arabia, the Saudis, understandably started to shit themselves.



The American don't need to be told that if Saddam manages to take control of the Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields (i.e. the majority of middle Eastern crude oil) he could open and close the supply taps at will as far and often as he liked , thus exercising pretty much total control over the price of oil sold to the US, the biggest customer in the crude market. This would , of course,place a very powerful political weapon in Saddam's hands.



To continue. The Americans were in a quandry about what to do. George Bush's political advisers urged the use of economic sanctions against Iraq as a means to resolve the crisis. The spectre of Vietnam was, you see, looming large in the minds of many senior White House strategists; (the American public would not want to hear that US soldiers were being sent to fight on the ground in another foreign war) "How long would the sanctions take to work ?", asked Bush. "Well, ermm, we're not, ah, exactly sure", Mr President". Bush found this unsatisfactory and approached then US Armed Forces Chief, General Norman Swartzkopf. He said to Schwartzkopf, "How long would it take you to get air power over there?" "I can have them on the way in 2 hours", said Swartzkopf. Bush then called a press conference announcing that America was "at war" with the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. The Saudis, BTW, had happily agreed to allow the "Infidel" US forces onto their sacred turf. (Funny that ?)


Anyway,to cut a long story very short, what happened is that American Forces absolutely devastated Saddam's invading armies. A lot of the initial work was done by "Stealth" F117 bombers, and later by M1A1 Abrams tanks. By the time the operation was completed, very few American ground soldiers, pilots or tank crew had lost their lives in the fighting. In my opinion, the Americans should have taken out Saddam in 1991 while they had the chase, but for a number of political reasons, they didn't topple him.



So, young Arising_UK, was the Gulf War justified? Yes, it most certainly was !. In 1990, America was heavily dependent on a reasonably priced, stable supply of imported crude oil from the Middle East. If a dictator like Saddam Hussein were to gain control over oil prices, he could potentially wreak havoc in the US - the most advanced industrialised state in the world - oil was almost literally America's life-blood !. Hippies like you were chanting "No Blood For Oil !", in 1990, forgetting that if, if a madman like Saddam Hussein was to start shutting down American access to reasonably priced crude oil - which he could do very simply by opening or closing the crude oil taps at will- countless numbers of Americans would die as a result.


Regards



Dachshund (Der Uberweiner) WOOF !! WOOF !!...........................(Beware the dog).
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9142
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Hate Unlimited

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

FFS. Most sheeples don't feel hate (or much of anything else), which is WHY we have wars. If all the people who claim to 'love people' and spend their time posting ridiculous shallow crap and hearts to their 15000 Facebook 'friends' were genuine, then we wouldn't have wars. A lot of things deserve to be hated (and I'm not talking about those phonies who virtue-signal their way through their shallow little lives, bleating on about how they 'hate racism and intolerance'). They are only mouthing unoriginal platitudes that are an acceptable and non-threatening way of fitting in on social media (then eagerly count all the 'likes' they get). They don't really HATE racists. I'm pretty sure that 99.99% of the time they don't even think about them. If they 'hate hate' so much then why are they just the ones posting red poppies and 'lest we forget' garbage on their pages? 'Lest we forget' arseholes who thought it would be a fun adventure to go off and slaughter people in their own countries who have never done them any harm.
The people who actually FEEL things unfortunately often end up dead by their own hands because all the bullshit finally drives them round the bend.
It has been proven that the internet and especially 'smart' phones make people into superficial morons. THAT certainly explains a lot.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/nz/blog ... -us-stupid

https://fortune.com/2016/02/03/nicholas-carr-internet/
Post Reply