By this time, you've all have heard of the Austrian senior citizen, that fathered not 1 not 2 but (+5) 7 - yes 7 - children from his own daughter held captive for over 24 years. I've heard of this sort of thing before. I took sociology in university, but nothing like this case.
The aftershock having initially struck me has since then worn off.
Now, I'm trying to empathize more with the daughter's struggle. I feel she should be viewed as a hero; which we often let our guards down because the media is so intense on exploiting what sells rather than real human interest? The reason I suggest this is, through such a hardship, nothing about it is endearing to me, however, because you or I cannot relate to such torcher or deprevation of freedom (on such a small scale) that the woman endured. It made me think, this woman isn't meant to be an inspiration, as if to say she had so much taken away from her - this in turn would be the western worlds view of such isolation. Which is why I believe for a person in her story to go through such an enormous struggle, the actions of her father be it through thinking intimidation or otherwise, something inside of her kept her strong enough to survive. She could have lost all hope, but now she has an opportunity to seek treatment in every way she deserves.
I suppose this makes her a hero in my eyes, not because of what her father did, but from the tragic aspect beneath it all, there is a life that the old man could have completely took from her - forever.
So I care to call her a tragic hero, not due to my own ignorance. That the fact remains she isn't living the good life from one moment to the next, she's a hero becasuse of misery that displaces our sense of the world which we live.
=========================
This kind of discussion resembles a time, as memory serves me correctly, that happened many - many years back. It's that this very type of logical argument, I take it has given me a rite of passage? What I'm trying to describe is a void, I could feel that I needed to pursue something greater, a certain mystery of my will. However, now that the time passed, and I can take yet another step back and look at what kind of a "brain-structure" I've developed, it's like looking into a mirror and saying, "I did it." It's reaching this kind of height due to intellect that reconnects me; it reminds me I was right to take the voyage in learning.
Nobody taught me this stuff, and fascism is something that is neglected in society today. It's an incomplete knowledge that hits you like a cemenet truck, unless you try.
When you really think about this subject matter, 'a paradox of the will' is an ingenius method of instruction.
======================
I want to hear more about old man's wife, who lived upstairs who apparantly didn't know anything about this whole thing. Twenty Four years? Three kids on the doorstep?
I won't cast her as a liar just yet, but I am calling shenanigans on the upstairs of that house. As of now, I haven't heard about her education level and if she herself was deprived in her own way.
And how do you compensate someone for 24 years of entrapment?
=======================
I think your right on taking the approach you have. I suppose re-reading my original opinion, sounds a tad over-glorifying the whole thing. There are more questions that deserve to be answered, and you hit some key points vegas.
But, from an outsiders perspective without really knowing what or why about the incest, to a certain degree we might never fully comprehend it. Therefore, we neglect to think about the other aspect when a case such as this is exposed. It forces us to think, think about how we handle the bigger picture and what role we may infer from victims of exploitation. My educated guess is that sometimes what we fail in not quite understanding, leads to impartial attitudes or purging ourselves into believing half-truths. For anyone to feel victimized sounds absurd, however, what might the first thing people on a natural instinct resolve? Again, my better opinion tells me people say, "OMG this is horrible." then remain satisfied unbeknownst turn off their tv sets and sit comfortably watching it to their hearts content without realizing it. I suppose it takes a type of internalizing or 'seperating' of what we see is normal in society, while not challenging the images that connect us to what we're watching.
My take on the matter is not personal, nor should it be, but typically the news audience might resort to minimalizing the painful reality. That is why I say she is a hero. The msiery she's suffered, is a struggle, but I witness something heroic in the sense her misery humanizes me because she survived.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Paradox of the Will
quote:
....are you meaning you're conflicted because a republican like Machiavelli wrote a guide on how to be a totalitarian monarch? there were quite a few pamphlets being published during his time, his is only notable because its a 'how to' manual, the others just talk about how great it would be. he's an interesting guy because we're not sure what his motives were for writing it, there are a lot of interesting theories that go deeper than him just being opportunistic.
Re; italics
In factuality, the question you revealed to me, colin, demostrates perfectly that it proves you understood fully the content of my message. Besides. . . the truth is subjective as my opinion is only one. A++.
Re; Merk
In all honesty, I cannot make what is the matter any clearer than I already had done. I simply stated that no one here is accusing you of anything (relating to my defense of colin persecuting you). What about the post confuses you? I said: because you keep back-peddling on the same issue that colin seems to provide you with alternatives which you've vehemently refused. That is to say, no matter what colin said you've rejurgitated the position you take. . . and that's fine. It says you beleive in what you think passionately. Please - no need to thank me. I felt obliged to clarify.
About the police-pratice jargon. . . don't take offense. It was nothing personal. That's all that needs be said about it. I said it to infer from the context I explained above^.
As for the Italian example, it was intended as a basis for modernist thought, from which I take Machiavelli as my example. Machiavelli supports the 'ideological school of thought' we've been discussing throughout this entire thread. The Prince is, IN MY OPINION, beyond a reasonable doubt a fascist's manual. There is nothing wrong with it. I use Italians as an example, relating to the fascist ideology which Machiavelli purported. You already mentioned yourself that fascist thought originated in Italy. I do not see why that should surprise you? Remember: fascists do not make an example of themselves. I stated already that fascist thought is based on free-thinking models. My observations of how Italians have been influenced, is entirely based on interpretation of Machiavelli's teachings. I simply cannot instruct this any clearer to you merk.
Quote
yeah i have difficulty with your rational of argument. you make an unorthodox statement and we're supposed to provide evidence to counter it.
That was either an attempt of irony bemusing merk, or a serious jest accoring to my use of rational thought? I will answer the latter. I believe that answer to your question is in my response above, if not to a tee, pretty close to the solution? There is nothing unorthodox in my opinion, because the subject matter of Machiavelli altogether is contingent with fascist ideology, which is the cause for Italian fascist movement, hierarchal, material ideology, as fundamental Italian archetype. That is the thesis of my argument(s) which are undeniably, (and presumably) presented therein.
=============================
Quote
I have trouble interpreting fascism as anything but a group dynamic.
^That I find hard enough not to reason against, because you're right, and I absolutely agree with you. So, to make this fair. . . I'm going to give back to you the 'confusion' you offered I hope I can at least try to clarify my position - in relating to your deductions.
What I liked about what you write re; both my opinion of Machiavelli and for lack of a better term what classify as "proletariate philosophy" credit to Marxist thought.
Both, run parallel and I find juxtaposition that we trace it as a paradox. . . if you can follow with me on this, let's call it for sake of argument a 'paradox of the will' where all men should be held as equals? Hypothetically, yes - we say of course 'why not', eh?
So, when I look at fascism based on both of your interpretations as conducive to my arguments, reflect rather identically, for no specific reason other than they represent models of a power struggle between man vs. hypocrisy. From that view point, let us now assume that beyond this rhetoric, we can identify with both Machiavelli vs. Marxist thought as one in the same for sake of argument. Ideologically, we are speaking of a different kind of power struggle, as you mentioned I failed to provide with evidence?
The 'paradox' I spoke of 'the will' is what binds the 2 different schools of thought. I think that behavior be it, machiavellian vs. proletariate is a power struggle. That should answer your question of "group dynamics". . . let me explain the 'why' with the 'how' silmultaneously happen? They happen both as interpretations; if you could imagine as equals man vs. man placed in a room, one with machiavelli's archetype of fascist ideology, the other is strictly proletariate. That is a power struggle. My point is, if unless you combine the two as working within a system, fascist thought as you mention is a 'group dynamic' will never prevail. Therefore, if you follow this as evidence toward an end, that end being fascist ideology, only one can be thought of in terms of self-interest. To clarify that 'end' albeit a desired - result or goal - the condition of a fascist movement is always present. Remember, in a room of different fascist thinkers, in this case the man vs. man act as seperate. However, the indifference between the ideologies can only create one thing, a fascist model against the state. No matter that the interpretations seem dismissive of each other, that dynamic will co-exist between rational schools of thought. The end result is not exactly the same, but, only one will prevail. . . in their minds. That is to say, each one or the other illustrates their fascist ideology as the critical proximity toward a group dynamic. Therefore, both will ulitmately lead it's own demise hitherto a 'group dynamic'. They believe they've achieved the same ends. Here is where the entire argument comes to futility: if you understand this next, everything in the argument will make sense to you. The answer is, no matter which ideology negates the other, - BUT - neither of them can in negating your autonomy.
~end argument
Colin + Mike ^ that I hope illustrates only some of the changes as you seem to have felt at odds with my arguements. If not, please know I've tried my best as has been no less done by.
P.S. This is going to sound as paranoia, however, I believe in every word I write. I know I can teach these concepts - and - I have so. The reason for my doubt is simple, since I've always been one to challenge former profs on no uncertain terms from university based on these types of subjective beliefs, what I learned is that I refuse to run from being questioned. When I think of former profs, they'd balk (for their own "reasons" albeit hypocritically) it was copping me out. I just have the feeling some of you might feel belittled as if I'm making things up? But - I am not whatsoever. This is only to give me peace of mind, that you know I'm aware.
....are you meaning you're conflicted because a republican like Machiavelli wrote a guide on how to be a totalitarian monarch? there were quite a few pamphlets being published during his time, his is only notable because its a 'how to' manual, the others just talk about how great it would be. he's an interesting guy because we're not sure what his motives were for writing it, there are a lot of interesting theories that go deeper than him just being opportunistic.
Re; italics
In factuality, the question you revealed to me, colin, demostrates perfectly that it proves you understood fully the content of my message. Besides. . . the truth is subjective as my opinion is only one. A++.
Re; Merk
In all honesty, I cannot make what is the matter any clearer than I already had done. I simply stated that no one here is accusing you of anything (relating to my defense of colin persecuting you). What about the post confuses you? I said: because you keep back-peddling on the same issue that colin seems to provide you with alternatives which you've vehemently refused. That is to say, no matter what colin said you've rejurgitated the position you take. . . and that's fine. It says you beleive in what you think passionately. Please - no need to thank me. I felt obliged to clarify.
About the police-pratice jargon. . . don't take offense. It was nothing personal. That's all that needs be said about it. I said it to infer from the context I explained above^.
As for the Italian example, it was intended as a basis for modernist thought, from which I take Machiavelli as my example. Machiavelli supports the 'ideological school of thought' we've been discussing throughout this entire thread. The Prince is, IN MY OPINION, beyond a reasonable doubt a fascist's manual. There is nothing wrong with it. I use Italians as an example, relating to the fascist ideology which Machiavelli purported. You already mentioned yourself that fascist thought originated in Italy. I do not see why that should surprise you? Remember: fascists do not make an example of themselves. I stated already that fascist thought is based on free-thinking models. My observations of how Italians have been influenced, is entirely based on interpretation of Machiavelli's teachings. I simply cannot instruct this any clearer to you merk.
Quote
yeah i have difficulty with your rational of argument. you make an unorthodox statement and we're supposed to provide evidence to counter it.
That was either an attempt of irony bemusing merk, or a serious jest accoring to my use of rational thought? I will answer the latter. I believe that answer to your question is in my response above, if not to a tee, pretty close to the solution? There is nothing unorthodox in my opinion, because the subject matter of Machiavelli altogether is contingent with fascist ideology, which is the cause for Italian fascist movement, hierarchal, material ideology, as fundamental Italian archetype. That is the thesis of my argument(s) which are undeniably, (and presumably) presented therein.
=============================
Quote
I have trouble interpreting fascism as anything but a group dynamic.
^That I find hard enough not to reason against, because you're right, and I absolutely agree with you. So, to make this fair. . . I'm going to give back to you the 'confusion' you offered I hope I can at least try to clarify my position - in relating to your deductions.
What I liked about what you write re; both my opinion of Machiavelli and for lack of a better term what classify as "proletariate philosophy" credit to Marxist thought.
Both, run parallel and I find juxtaposition that we trace it as a paradox. . . if you can follow with me on this, let's call it for sake of argument a 'paradox of the will' where all men should be held as equals? Hypothetically, yes - we say of course 'why not', eh?
So, when I look at fascism based on both of your interpretations as conducive to my arguments, reflect rather identically, for no specific reason other than they represent models of a power struggle between man vs. hypocrisy. From that view point, let us now assume that beyond this rhetoric, we can identify with both Machiavelli vs. Marxist thought as one in the same for sake of argument. Ideologically, we are speaking of a different kind of power struggle, as you mentioned I failed to provide with evidence?
The 'paradox' I spoke of 'the will' is what binds the 2 different schools of thought. I think that behavior be it, machiavellian vs. proletariate is a power struggle. That should answer your question of "group dynamics". . . let me explain the 'why' with the 'how' silmultaneously happen? They happen both as interpretations; if you could imagine as equals man vs. man placed in a room, one with machiavelli's archetype of fascist ideology, the other is strictly proletariate. That is a power struggle. My point is, if unless you combine the two as working within a system, fascist thought as you mention is a 'group dynamic' will never prevail. Therefore, if you follow this as evidence toward an end, that end being fascist ideology, only one can be thought of in terms of self-interest. To clarify that 'end' albeit a desired - result or goal - the condition of a fascist movement is always present. Remember, in a room of different fascist thinkers, in this case the man vs. man act as seperate. However, the indifference between the ideologies can only create one thing, a fascist model against the state. No matter that the interpretations seem dismissive of each other, that dynamic will co-exist between rational schools of thought. The end result is not exactly the same, but, only one will prevail. . . in their minds. That is to say, each one or the other illustrates their fascist ideology as the critical proximity toward a group dynamic. Therefore, both will ulitmately lead it's own demise hitherto a 'group dynamic'. They believe they've achieved the same ends. Here is where the entire argument comes to futility: if you understand this next, everything in the argument will make sense to you. The answer is, no matter which ideology negates the other, - BUT - neither of them can in negating your autonomy.
~end argument
Colin + Mike ^ that I hope illustrates only some of the changes as you seem to have felt at odds with my arguements. If not, please know I've tried my best as has been no less done by.
P.S. This is going to sound as paranoia, however, I believe in every word I write. I know I can teach these concepts - and - I have so. The reason for my doubt is simple, since I've always been one to challenge former profs on no uncertain terms from university based on these types of subjective beliefs, what I learned is that I refuse to run from being questioned. When I think of former profs, they'd balk (for their own "reasons" albeit hypocritically) it was copping me out. I just have the feeling some of you might feel belittled as if I'm making things up? But - I am not whatsoever. This is only to give me peace of mind, that you know I'm aware.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
What is fascism: the psyche
On human intelligence, thoughts, virtue of mind as one's soul, will, compassion, purity of heart etc.
Merk, we cannot argue about the same thing, people share ideas based in the topic at hand re; fascism. I'm in no way treating this as a good-cop-bad-cop "thing" to do. I can argue simply based on how patronized I feel, or how insulted it makes me, or why I dislike the practice you police this topic. . . but I do make valid points. I simply cannot force you to receive them. However, even this post warrants no belittling in sharing these ideas. I see what you write and then I agreed with you. To underestimate the other side from what you exercise would be wrong, but you treat it as selfish. I can even accept that.
What I will not accept, is someone telling me my opinion does not matter even when it does.
That is why I responded in colin's defense without resorting to personal attacks. I stated exactly why that is relevant to the topic.
In fact, fascism is an extremely important issue that few people understand as taboo as it might appear to most? Also, what inpires me to no end when relating to fascist ideology is driven by one main truth: that is in the ability to comprehend 'what is the most human thing to do'. We've already said to a certain degree what fascism entails is socialism at work.
I freely use Italian's as my example, because I admit that I hate Italians. Through that kind of thinking, it is a more liberal than racist approach. The main idea behind fascism how people equate the word 'hate' with racist beliefs than as result automatically assume that it is fascist. Nothing could be further from the truth. When saying: "I hate Italians." coming from a truly fascist frame of mind, that reference is exclusively liberal in ideology. In that view, you are free to express your thoughts, not to be confused with anti-semetic rhetoric. This is only an example to qualify the main difference between people synonymous with fascist thought, mistaking it for being purely 'racist'. If you've read my posts, the assertions I've made before this categorically stating that fascism works opposite from that level of ignorance. My example as I illustrate above justifies the ends of fascist thought, but, NEVER as a MEANS in itself. It is superimposed as a classic interpretation of liberal ideology in that it places human sacrifice in the heart of compassion toward fellowship. Remember, I said "NEVER as a MEANS in itself". Therefore, "I hate Italians." has no weight to it whatsoever. Basically, what I 've demonstrated in these paragraphs, the highest of academic officials have yet to compound into such an exact science. Think about that for a moment merk, and you in the US pay upwards of $40, 000 per calander year in order to attend Princton or Yale?
Liberal ideology is two-fold. The most important thing to guard in life is one's virtue and one's personal attachment to their autonomy. Aside from freedom, fear of having that kind of authentic personality is how the idea of fascism becomes a question. What are you're beliefs? How do you choose? What decisions can we create for ourselves depending on future events? Those are observations that link to the question YOU - yes you - asked merk.
Colin, I think covered a lot of the bases, according to what you mentioned, and I respect his intelligence for it. I don't say that to just anyone I meet either here or in the real world. You cannot just exclude a liberal attitude by claiming it's frozen in time. In fact, it is my view that juxtaposes your conservative one, and perfectly balances the discussion out!
Quite frankly, it's the best discussion I've had in a forum with you. Honestly, fascism is a fascinating concept to deal with on my own doing.
============================
Quote:
Fascism directly negates Marx's theory of a materialist interpretation of history, which is the cornerstone of Marxist thought. Also, bringing back what I said about liberalism and Fascism, the ideological design of Fascism is to place the state above the individual, whereas the liberal theory places the individual as above the state, basic Locke.
Good show lad. Nicely done!
Quote:
italian fascism, from what i've read, seems interesting
If you read the Prince by Machiavelli, it is a blue print for italian fascist thought, basically to make drones of each other in pursuing the elitist power structure model, classically man vs. man destroying itself. If you want to avoid reading it, I would reccomend observing all Italians, you'll realize they all look, and act alike. That will save you a lot of time and energy. If you read on Antonio Gramschi you'll probably be way better off, just don't take my word for it.
========================================
In colin's defense I'd have to agree with the fact, that in my opinion, merk makes it sound as if a barber-shop quartet should categorically be classified as right-wing pro-fascist movement? Ultimately, colin gives a fair counter-intelligent analysis. Merk has created a double edged sword while being persecuted, yes - persecuted - by colin. We're accusing merk of nothing, other than his flawed (what else is new?) approach to reasoning. For example: the real thing happening in the democratic race between Clinton/Obama, is that truly, bird-watching enthusiasts probably would be better suited for nomination. Colin is stating the obvious: that there are alternatives to fascism, that merk has completely ignored or either stubbornly refuses to acknowledge, is over-infused with Americanized whistle blowing conservative ideology. This is the same reason merk continues to insult Mike's more proper form of validation, mike strictly based on principle won't take a penalty for. Ethically we on the brighter side that care about rules; NOT TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE MERK. Colin has challenged you admirably well. Bravo colin. Bravo.
On the reverse side of the argument, merk continues to believe whatever he wants to. Fascism does not come with a label that reads, "retard friendly responses only". There can be no excuse when backing off that kind of argument, (note: I'm not trying to single out merk here, a lot of people act like this every time they feel challenged. . . I on the other hand have absolutely no respect for it.) merk will only believe what he wants to, such is American conservative ideology in its entirety. Merk unfortunately is not alone in his brand of thinking. So be it.
============================
One of the main reasons I'm at odds re; machiavelli, I find troubling when relating to such superficial power stuggle, is that there lacks purpose behind it. It seems as if a myth playing iiself out of - chance. - The mystery surrounding such ideology is also unclear, which leads me to believe that Machiavelli wrote this for some ulterior motive, other than as a hard core Roman Catholic deity of the sort? Perhaps it had great ambition in it's day, which is why it seems prevelant or at least relevant, but in no way am I tying words of the scripture as if the Bible were meant for Italian world domination. However, believe me when I tell you that may very well be what Machiavelli's intent inspired. Therefore, I take a lucrative look at how both Italians seem so seemingly narcissist in the real world? My thoughts in opinion of elitist Italian-archetype-figures, probably take it upon themselves as versace-look-a-likes to forbid any kind of experiencing real human emotion, or it becomes a weakness. In other words, emotion acts as a kryptonite. When you look at the renaissance or how Italians created the Opera as a form of concert combined with theatre in the art might help explain something.
The Opera is for a very wealthy statesman, "more" devoid, born "less" emotionally unto individuality.
When I come to think of Italians I live and work with in today's society where I feel it is their duty not to make it appear like I am an equal? As if I am not worthy to be in such company of strangers? Further to these observations, which I have substantial evidence of in my personal experience with Italians it is a kind of suffering, a sense of vague indifference when communicating with you.
Believe you me, the fat lady sings like there's no tomorrow if an Italians hand were to ever rock my cradle. . . that is to say, I do not stand for my tolerance being tested. I can't put it any clearer or any fairer than I have at this precise moment right now. Humility is such a strong virtue to possess, not for those that pose a detriment to me or my loved ones though.
Merk, we cannot argue about the same thing, people share ideas based in the topic at hand re; fascism. I'm in no way treating this as a good-cop-bad-cop "thing" to do. I can argue simply based on how patronized I feel, or how insulted it makes me, or why I dislike the practice you police this topic. . . but I do make valid points. I simply cannot force you to receive them. However, even this post warrants no belittling in sharing these ideas. I see what you write and then I agreed with you. To underestimate the other side from what you exercise would be wrong, but you treat it as selfish. I can even accept that.
What I will not accept, is someone telling me my opinion does not matter even when it does.
That is why I responded in colin's defense without resorting to personal attacks. I stated exactly why that is relevant to the topic.
In fact, fascism is an extremely important issue that few people understand as taboo as it might appear to most? Also, what inpires me to no end when relating to fascist ideology is driven by one main truth: that is in the ability to comprehend 'what is the most human thing to do'. We've already said to a certain degree what fascism entails is socialism at work.
I freely use Italian's as my example, because I admit that I hate Italians. Through that kind of thinking, it is a more liberal than racist approach. The main idea behind fascism how people equate the word 'hate' with racist beliefs than as result automatically assume that it is fascist. Nothing could be further from the truth. When saying: "I hate Italians." coming from a truly fascist frame of mind, that reference is exclusively liberal in ideology. In that view, you are free to express your thoughts, not to be confused with anti-semetic rhetoric. This is only an example to qualify the main difference between people synonymous with fascist thought, mistaking it for being purely 'racist'. If you've read my posts, the assertions I've made before this categorically stating that fascism works opposite from that level of ignorance. My example as I illustrate above justifies the ends of fascist thought, but, NEVER as a MEANS in itself. It is superimposed as a classic interpretation of liberal ideology in that it places human sacrifice in the heart of compassion toward fellowship. Remember, I said "NEVER as a MEANS in itself". Therefore, "I hate Italians." has no weight to it whatsoever. Basically, what I 've demonstrated in these paragraphs, the highest of academic officials have yet to compound into such an exact science. Think about that for a moment merk, and you in the US pay upwards of $40, 000 per calander year in order to attend Princton or Yale?
Liberal ideology is two-fold. The most important thing to guard in life is one's virtue and one's personal attachment to their autonomy. Aside from freedom, fear of having that kind of authentic personality is how the idea of fascism becomes a question. What are you're beliefs? How do you choose? What decisions can we create for ourselves depending on future events? Those are observations that link to the question YOU - yes you - asked merk.
Colin, I think covered a lot of the bases, according to what you mentioned, and I respect his intelligence for it. I don't say that to just anyone I meet either here or in the real world. You cannot just exclude a liberal attitude by claiming it's frozen in time. In fact, it is my view that juxtaposes your conservative one, and perfectly balances the discussion out!
Quite frankly, it's the best discussion I've had in a forum with you. Honestly, fascism is a fascinating concept to deal with on my own doing.
============================
Quote:
Fascism directly negates Marx's theory of a materialist interpretation of history, which is the cornerstone of Marxist thought. Also, bringing back what I said about liberalism and Fascism, the ideological design of Fascism is to place the state above the individual, whereas the liberal theory places the individual as above the state, basic Locke.
Good show lad. Nicely done!
Quote:
italian fascism, from what i've read, seems interesting
If you read the Prince by Machiavelli, it is a blue print for italian fascist thought, basically to make drones of each other in pursuing the elitist power structure model, classically man vs. man destroying itself. If you want to avoid reading it, I would reccomend observing all Italians, you'll realize they all look, and act alike. That will save you a lot of time and energy. If you read on Antonio Gramschi you'll probably be way better off, just don't take my word for it.
========================================
In colin's defense I'd have to agree with the fact, that in my opinion, merk makes it sound as if a barber-shop quartet should categorically be classified as right-wing pro-fascist movement? Ultimately, colin gives a fair counter-intelligent analysis. Merk has created a double edged sword while being persecuted, yes - persecuted - by colin. We're accusing merk of nothing, other than his flawed (what else is new?) approach to reasoning. For example: the real thing happening in the democratic race between Clinton/Obama, is that truly, bird-watching enthusiasts probably would be better suited for nomination. Colin is stating the obvious: that there are alternatives to fascism, that merk has completely ignored or either stubbornly refuses to acknowledge, is over-infused with Americanized whistle blowing conservative ideology. This is the same reason merk continues to insult Mike's more proper form of validation, mike strictly based on principle won't take a penalty for. Ethically we on the brighter side that care about rules; NOT TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE MERK. Colin has challenged you admirably well. Bravo colin. Bravo.
On the reverse side of the argument, merk continues to believe whatever he wants to. Fascism does not come with a label that reads, "retard friendly responses only". There can be no excuse when backing off that kind of argument, (note: I'm not trying to single out merk here, a lot of people act like this every time they feel challenged. . . I on the other hand have absolutely no respect for it.) merk will only believe what he wants to, such is American conservative ideology in its entirety. Merk unfortunately is not alone in his brand of thinking. So be it.
============================
One of the main reasons I'm at odds re; machiavelli, I find troubling when relating to such superficial power stuggle, is that there lacks purpose behind it. It seems as if a myth playing iiself out of - chance. - The mystery surrounding such ideology is also unclear, which leads me to believe that Machiavelli wrote this for some ulterior motive, other than as a hard core Roman Catholic deity of the sort? Perhaps it had great ambition in it's day, which is why it seems prevelant or at least relevant, but in no way am I tying words of the scripture as if the Bible were meant for Italian world domination. However, believe me when I tell you that may very well be what Machiavelli's intent inspired. Therefore, I take a lucrative look at how both Italians seem so seemingly narcissist in the real world? My thoughts in opinion of elitist Italian-archetype-figures, probably take it upon themselves as versace-look-a-likes to forbid any kind of experiencing real human emotion, or it becomes a weakness. In other words, emotion acts as a kryptonite. When you look at the renaissance or how Italians created the Opera as a form of concert combined with theatre in the art might help explain something.
The Opera is for a very wealthy statesman, "more" devoid, born "less" emotionally unto individuality.
When I come to think of Italians I live and work with in today's society where I feel it is their duty not to make it appear like I am an equal? As if I am not worthy to be in such company of strangers? Further to these observations, which I have substantial evidence of in my personal experience with Italians it is a kind of suffering, a sense of vague indifference when communicating with you.
Believe you me, the fat lady sings like there's no tomorrow if an Italians hand were to ever rock my cradle. . . that is to say, I do not stand for my tolerance being tested. I can't put it any clearer or any fairer than I have at this precise moment right now. Humility is such a strong virtue to possess, not for those that pose a detriment to me or my loved ones though.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Theory and practice
To participate in the methods and models of a true fascist mentality are as follows:
I'd have to agree that merk's argument is fundamentally sound. However, it is better known the lesser between two evils of fascism, that complacency is an issue that stems from merk's form of government. Which is to say that the complacency within a system, whether it is left-wing or right-wing bias, is a reflection of the entire citizenship of an autonomous state. Therefore, complacency can be identified as the insurance to maintain a status quo, thereby is a form of assembly (e.g. the citizen) within a country. What this means is that merk's assertion as it were true, that complacency to abide by such principles within an autonomous state can only be described as representing the Will of the Majority (i.e. status quo). Essentially this is an accurate view as Merk pointed out of man vs. state.
Complacency is thereby the main issue when instead, fascism as we know it can no longer hold the balance of power?
What this above statement signifies. . . is that if the balance of power is compromised, it is only because the will of the status quo has shifted against the norm, or as we can elude to it is in fact a revolt against the states power.
However, we must ensure that fascism cannot be confused with as a power struggle. It is my opinion that so many people within the status quo should be held accountable for their ignorance toward what fascism really is; when in reality people have no idea they take their personal freedom for granted by playing as puppets to the states ideological power. Truly, there is a ratification to be had, when people in general have no idea that they cause a power struggle against their fellow man: only helps reinforce the states power against the will of joe-public.
Furthermore, I articulate these as my own findings which I pass is based on fascism. A hero like Che Guevara was a true liberal.
====================================
re; mike
I am just going to say it; my argument word for word is not only fair but as close to fucking flawless as it gets when it comes to fascism (without the bull-shitting) no strings attached.
Therefore, I feel it is my duty to address your point of view, which I am quite positive details a somewhat, more or less, apathetic tolerance toward fascism. Apathetic in terms of how ignorance plays a part in the roles of individuals who have no idea what fascism really entails? You know it, I know it, vagrants have no clue about these details.
Fascism is not the source fighting against complacency. In order for you to make sense of what that actually involves, is that you cannot "help" a complacent individual, because they're in a sense always ignorant, not so much as deviant, to the norm(s) inherent in life or for sake of argument their daily misgivings upon passing to each other as individuals in society. Therefore, "fascism is not the source fighting against complacency" is in fact a true statement. If any individual is complacent, going through the motions, comfortable with what they live for, lead ordinary existence without challenge. So to speak of a fascist ideology is in fact the truth I am telling you, that is, any complacent individual that keeps the wheels turning, in a reality that is of capitalist interest, can only be labelled as 'enemy'. It is thereby important to remember, any individual in society no matter what rank they have be it stature, status, or position of authority, cannot impose their will on any other living sentient human being. This would include but not limited to all legal, law enforcement or high ranking government officials. This is relevant both in theory and practice, checks and balances, attributing to the method of a true fascist mentality.
^The above demonstrates if you can decipher + depict the medium behind the message the perception of a true fascist movement. In fact, fascism is a form of working within the system against the individuals (a blind status quo if you will) that act complacent for their own self-interest.
That was for you mike.
And yes I am a true fascist, a true fascist in my own idea is simple. If you act against the norm, you must act on charity to bring about change, the principle being: to act only toward an end(s) but never using any means necessary to achieve that end. You must always be on the defense. I know it, because I choose to live my life this way, in a manner of asking oneself "what is the most honorable thing to do?". Anyone who'd speak of fascism on any other terms only are lying to themselves.
========================
I honestly felt I was responding to the broader category of fascism, focusing on the rights of individuals as the cause against fascism. Therefore, without construing the original focus of definition, my approach was more so made to uncover, discover, and explain what fascism is in general? Therefore, I fully understand my intent was drawn to infer from another question other than what you implied.
=========================
I hardly think of fascism, in my opinion, as a viable form of concept hitherto ideology vis-a-vis "political" attribute. I look at it as an attitude based on a persons perception, which can only be based on observation. For example: in a constructive universe built of models which range in different rights, privileges, or hierarchy, there are extreme personalities that resemble the idea of a fascist leader and/or diatribe (of course) configuring to the totalitarian regime. This kind of a state cannot be singular, nor can it provide autonomy (as is protected by Canada's Charter of rights and freedoms!) believe it or not, Pierre Trudeau specifically drafted the word 'autonomy' AS A RIGHT written into Canada's constitution (circa 1982). Thereby, autonomy as we discuss it not relating to fascism. In fact, one could argue the direct anti-thesis to fascist thought is autonomy on a much smaller scale. Basically, fascism is the abolition of autonomy within any living society made of political rule(s).
I'd have to agree that merk's argument is fundamentally sound. However, it is better known the lesser between two evils of fascism, that complacency is an issue that stems from merk's form of government. Which is to say that the complacency within a system, whether it is left-wing or right-wing bias, is a reflection of the entire citizenship of an autonomous state. Therefore, complacency can be identified as the insurance to maintain a status quo, thereby is a form of assembly (e.g. the citizen) within a country. What this means is that merk's assertion as it were true, that complacency to abide by such principles within an autonomous state can only be described as representing the Will of the Majority (i.e. status quo). Essentially this is an accurate view as Merk pointed out of man vs. state.
Complacency is thereby the main issue when instead, fascism as we know it can no longer hold the balance of power?
What this above statement signifies. . . is that if the balance of power is compromised, it is only because the will of the status quo has shifted against the norm, or as we can elude to it is in fact a revolt against the states power.
However, we must ensure that fascism cannot be confused with as a power struggle. It is my opinion that so many people within the status quo should be held accountable for their ignorance toward what fascism really is; when in reality people have no idea they take their personal freedom for granted by playing as puppets to the states ideological power. Truly, there is a ratification to be had, when people in general have no idea that they cause a power struggle against their fellow man: only helps reinforce the states power against the will of joe-public.
Furthermore, I articulate these as my own findings which I pass is based on fascism. A hero like Che Guevara was a true liberal.
====================================
re; mike
I am just going to say it; my argument word for word is not only fair but as close to fucking flawless as it gets when it comes to fascism (without the bull-shitting) no strings attached.
Therefore, I feel it is my duty to address your point of view, which I am quite positive details a somewhat, more or less, apathetic tolerance toward fascism. Apathetic in terms of how ignorance plays a part in the roles of individuals who have no idea what fascism really entails? You know it, I know it, vagrants have no clue about these details.
Fascism is not the source fighting against complacency. In order for you to make sense of what that actually involves, is that you cannot "help" a complacent individual, because they're in a sense always ignorant, not so much as deviant, to the norm(s) inherent in life or for sake of argument their daily misgivings upon passing to each other as individuals in society. Therefore, "fascism is not the source fighting against complacency" is in fact a true statement. If any individual is complacent, going through the motions, comfortable with what they live for, lead ordinary existence without challenge. So to speak of a fascist ideology is in fact the truth I am telling you, that is, any complacent individual that keeps the wheels turning, in a reality that is of capitalist interest, can only be labelled as 'enemy'. It is thereby important to remember, any individual in society no matter what rank they have be it stature, status, or position of authority, cannot impose their will on any other living sentient human being. This would include but not limited to all legal, law enforcement or high ranking government officials. This is relevant both in theory and practice, checks and balances, attributing to the method of a true fascist mentality.
^The above demonstrates if you can decipher + depict the medium behind the message the perception of a true fascist movement. In fact, fascism is a form of working within the system against the individuals (a blind status quo if you will) that act complacent for their own self-interest.
That was for you mike.
And yes I am a true fascist, a true fascist in my own idea is simple. If you act against the norm, you must act on charity to bring about change, the principle being: to act only toward an end(s) but never using any means necessary to achieve that end. You must always be on the defense. I know it, because I choose to live my life this way, in a manner of asking oneself "what is the most honorable thing to do?". Anyone who'd speak of fascism on any other terms only are lying to themselves.
========================
I honestly felt I was responding to the broader category of fascism, focusing on the rights of individuals as the cause against fascism. Therefore, without construing the original focus of definition, my approach was more so made to uncover, discover, and explain what fascism is in general? Therefore, I fully understand my intent was drawn to infer from another question other than what you implied.
=========================
I hardly think of fascism, in my opinion, as a viable form of concept hitherto ideology vis-a-vis "political" attribute. I look at it as an attitude based on a persons perception, which can only be based on observation. For example: in a constructive universe built of models which range in different rights, privileges, or hierarchy, there are extreme personalities that resemble the idea of a fascist leader and/or diatribe (of course) configuring to the totalitarian regime. This kind of a state cannot be singular, nor can it provide autonomy (as is protected by Canada's Charter of rights and freedoms!) believe it or not, Pierre Trudeau specifically drafted the word 'autonomy' AS A RIGHT written into Canada's constitution (circa 1982). Thereby, autonomy as we discuss it not relating to fascism. In fact, one could argue the direct anti-thesis to fascist thought is autonomy on a much smaller scale. Basically, fascism is the abolition of autonomy within any living society made of political rule(s).
Thursday, April 17, 2008
bitter enemies for desperate rivals
I find it particularly amusing, when I see some former peers of mine in a public place. The pretension I gather when encountering such an experience brings me a truly false dynamic. A couple of patrons at a local night club, seem to have made eye contact with me, but carefully pretending their best not to acknowledge my existence. It is nearly painful to watch, but I just smile back and give a heart felt smile. I suppose certain types of individuals you remember from the past you thought would be special? However, as time progresses you find out who your friends really are - or aren't - for that matter.
Part of my self-awareness used to plague me with self-contempt or feelings of regret which no longer will apply; I suppose it is a stronger more solidified sense of self-concept. Not however so confused or self-disposed basing my emotions on fear. Being self-absorbed is anti-social the deeper truth that lies beneath the skin and bones of value and self-worth. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as result, I've refused to exploit myself in trying hard to please others unlike myself.
Part of my self-awareness used to plague me with self-contempt or feelings of regret which no longer will apply; I suppose it is a stronger more solidified sense of self-concept. Not however so confused or self-disposed basing my emotions on fear. Being self-absorbed is anti-social the deeper truth that lies beneath the skin and bones of value and self-worth. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as result, I've refused to exploit myself in trying hard to please others unlike myself.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
I am normal, more so than most people I know. . .
Something in me, I believe, has grown confident in who I am as a person. So much of my personal self internally I feel a need to express through heritage. It is a matter of conviction, more so than a dogma of my own. I truly think through so much of my growing up I've done, that my natural identity is worth a lot to be thankful for. It begins with where I come from, my place of origin which is in Portugal. I've been brought up in a country, where I try to become something of myself, although emotionally I struggle with. It is my duty to be a compassionate individual who has considerable intelligence, and uses my strength for good. However, in order to create this sense of awareness, I dare to increase my opportunity with sensibility, which I choose to operate within mind, body and spirit. It is this kind of edifice in being able to uncover how important I am as a Portuguese man. This kind of thinking is not narcissistic nor is it blinded by neglect. What I feel today, is a matter of principle and isn't superficial nor is it subjective analysis. What I care about revealing requires of me to infer just how simple my life has been without concealing the nature of my true self.
As time has come and gone, I report this as my virtue over triumph. To redeem myself rather than deplete my courage to succeed.
As time has come and gone, I report this as my virtue over triumph. To redeem myself rather than deplete my courage to succeed.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Taking back the sunshine
I had a walk with Tanya, when I sang a song. . . it lifted my spirit. It reminded me of my innocence in life. It helped heal something I thought wasn't there, but I only needed the time to experience. The greatest thing I have in living, with honor, is my dignity. I would fight for what is most important to me.
This week, I had an inspiring rejuvination of sorts with a person who I care about very much. She was a person that I admired and to this day brings me a warmth like no other. She gave me her courage, to admit she failed me, and that is worth dying for. For everything I have in life, I recall the last time I saw my godmother, and our embrace before I caught my flight. Our eyes said something that meant, "We will meet again."
My sister has bought her first house together with her boyfriend. I understand how much it means to my sister to have something so important to her.
This week, I had an inspiring rejuvination of sorts with a person who I care about very much. She was a person that I admired and to this day brings me a warmth like no other. She gave me her courage, to admit she failed me, and that is worth dying for. For everything I have in life, I recall the last time I saw my godmother, and our embrace before I caught my flight. Our eyes said something that meant, "We will meet again."
My sister has bought her first house together with her boyfriend. I understand how much it means to my sister to have something so important to her.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Honor
I believe to've made progress in the ability in being honest with myself, most of which I've turned into positive thoughts. I suppose this is a bizarre way of looking into myself with integrity? However, it is clear I've been having thoughts that certainly take on new meaning for me. I am speaking in the past tense, because my focus is on the future. My future events, which in turn, reveal what I choose to leave behind as I must. For the most part, the best things I have done up to this point in my life I describe as self-trust. To completely pursue the obstacles, without premeditating any potential outcomes, I can seek the truth in any situation I desire. That is an essential life skill, in and of itself, that requires happiness as a virtue of my own. Furthermore, let it be my fortune that no man can surmise his only benefit in underestimating or undermining my vestige.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)