in the way of catholic thought (...so truly legalizing)

A person of intelligence takes instruction; the person who is demanding and gives orders has no brains.

A person of intelligence gives instruction; a demanding person giving orders has no brains.

A person of intelligence gives instruction; provided that a person who gives orders has no brains.

======================

How does this: (It's sad that Canadians) + (have to be subjected to) + (modern day nazi-archetype warefare.)

Not make sense.

Honestly? You could have suggested replacing the "have to be" with the word "are" but that's it.

====================
maybe you could explain the nazi archetype warfare thing.

========================
that's what I was driving at...


its like saying it's a mega-enhanced Springfield vs Shelbyville confrontation, the war for the lemon tree
========================
only there's no lemon tree. not for us anyway.

========================
Alright then. I used 'archetype' thinking in terms that American ideology is a model of = therefore it is an archetype of what? If you classify something as an archetype it is to imply there is a connection to it, therefore, one might ask 'what' in modern terms (e.g. american ideology) is such-and-such an archtype of? I equated nazi-ism as a model that we can infer only as an archetype; remembering that an archetype can only be something in resemblance to (something else other.). Therefore, if you've followed the logic present: it is not a label, it is in fact a description of what one may imagine (if it were in fact true.) I honestly cannot put it any clearer than that.

warfare has everything to do with what the archetype denotes. warfare on a scale that contributes to the dehumanization of a civilization present in our modern age.

If that fails to allude the issue, god help you both.

===================
The load of bs coming from "the pm's office" is how 'irrelevant' the mistress is in this matter. Truth of the matter is she's acting far more credible than our own government is. It's great to see how she single-handedly made our government fall to it's knees.

===================
The only security risk in this whole affair was putting an incompetent hack in a top cabinet post

====================
Colin, if we're honestly referring to Couillard what she did took guts. I take nothing away from her. It's great to see Harper dressed in an XL clown suit, he's the closest thing to a closet-Hitler we'll ever come to see in this country.

=======================
What a joke the CBC is. The average canadian that fails to see how a public broadcasting corporation uses its media-image as propoganda is mind boggling to say the least.

What a fucking J-O-K-E. I hate these white collar hypocrites.

reply (quote):
What's amusing with CBC's broadcasting is it's push for more american made tv and not giving extra grants and funding to Canadian programming. What's American shows doing on this network anyways? I'd be curious to see how much they paid for shows like The Simpsons and Arrested Development to be aired


=======================

if this guy weren't such an asshat

. . .you have the terrible fortune of reading about him. This weekend, our mystery fellow started hitting on my woman. Needless to say, he's written a script about doing it in the past and Marco said enough. So, I told the guy exactly what i thought, and in typical machismo fashion he shoved his tail between his legs. You would say shit hit the proverbial fan.

A big fat - pumped up to the ceiling fan.

So my weekend turned out rather interesting, i also enjoyed having a good time. i see a lot of familiar acquaintances of the sort you don't have to deal with on a regular basis as time goes by.

The factor in all of this is simple, I make intelligent posts, you guys read and then carry on with how much less interesting things are going for you at the moment, then come back and be notified of real posts (like mine).

Genius, just genius.

Also, on another related arsefarting note: it is of curious measure merk has drifted. i took the time to look at this and figured some recourse on his part. He usually berates mike about being a hypocrite for living the good life at everyone else's expense. Then it dawned on me, how is it so convenient of a man to accuse another man of "doing the same thing" makes it right for (in this case merk) feel fully justified, goes into his withdrawal from the board, embarking on his journey of 'priceless freedom' only boomerangs the same redundant pattern. Truly absurd.

P.s. let's not free america.

Not overly impressed with Euro 2008

The day portugal advanced into the euro 2008 championship, began yesterday in Geneva switzerland. Today, I am reminiscing about an important night I had after the portuguese national team won their first match of the opening day qualifier for european football supremacy. The game wore on leaving much little to be expected, the first goal came only in the second half by a solid effort from pepe. Not much to celebrate this early on in the tournament for any of the teams, let us remind our better intuitive behaviors, that we inform sometimes fate might be an enemy of the will we share before things actually happen for a reason. We've involved our senses to be trained in a manner that act toward conditional responses, or for that matter trivial yet uncompromising. Perhaps it is an illusion we think of, as if fantasy or creative instinct after the fact we performed this action with such and such delight, the truth never really revealed itself until then, that place in time we thought of it in a personal affliction, where scenarios emerge as if prophets were telling us something told in the room the same room from which we breath as if ghosts were whispering its conclusion from one tainted lie to the unfortunate recipient that tolerates such incongruencies. But I digress, the mind is a wandering eye, that at times like these such as a split decision due to lack of discretion or a paradox that unassuming yet unexpected becomes the latter of what interference might cause the brain to commit it into memory. However, such memories have a place. And this place, at this time exists to such a large degree the extent from which is real it has not identified concretely, but discreetly intimate with detail. Details that one cannot dial for over the telephone lines, where wires communicate in an intricate balance of methods and interception. But I digress, if the portuguese haven't already won euro 2008, there is inspiring alternatives that bring about change.

However, happiness is not a performance. It is a karma. At this moment in memory, perhaps the truth is a threat to such correspondence. Though throughout history, some grave battles haven't materialized, they've been struck, as if sunk into an abyss of temperamental thoughtful memory, without the actual truth being exhibited into a focus. There must be some form of memory without repeating it, due to repetition, or a class conscious that collects artifact after artifact as if some Deity mummified for lack of depth during civilization. History has a funny way of revealing itself. There is no demonstration for history or that favors the intellect, but we've arrived at a conclusion precisely due to convention or otherwise individual abnormalities.

We've made very true challenges that decipher fiction from the actual truth in times gone by, as children in corn fields of advancing the contenders from the pretenders. Through and through the time of a childhood, into memory, and back from the memory that very well may never end so to become a child born from stars in the heaven above which the earth looks as if to say it.

the learning curve of a scoundrel

At a stand still I am quite non-negotiable.
In times of greater good things;
my noble self takes notice.
I heed to such notes of honor:
my desire is quenched with the thrist.
I am not negotiating a pardon,
to see the woman's womb set up
on my shoulders.
As if some pornographic expose,
we dance in exhibitionist type behavior.
However, I am not a tentative individual,
for that I can see. . .
but cannot do without.
I cannot do without my tears,
found in a pool of pure warm blood
gushing through my veins.
This is the release I experience in real time.
A perfect kind of vision,
that sparks dynamite in ruin.
Which speaks of prisoners held victim,
to their own property.
I feel encouraged by such things.
So is my bravery in a dramatic fashion.
I take as long as I Want.
As I want it.
Black eyes,
blue eyed,
clues to my heart.
It aches,
it breaks,
for no fear of biting nails in finger,
after finger,
after. . .
finger.
Nibling the mouses teeth and spine.
Grow a spine, you fiendish mouskateer.
You've earned the help,
so well deserved.
I itch,
I scratch,
I bite,
I claw.
All to impress upon me,
the bribery with my gall.

double duty on the fringe to nowhere

Well I think she should be happy such a nice person like her gets to work as unfortunate that may be. Seriously, becky. I don't have the misfortune of telling people what I actually think of half as highly as you. As individuals, I wish I could treat everyone this way, but the world isn't built on it the way we all should be.

====================

That's great! (It reminds me of why the artist wanted to keep my change.) He wanted a tip, as though expecting ME to offer him it. . . needless to say that I was happy to decline. (
On the other hand, if I put myself in the position of the "I want a tip for my art" bracket, I can be guilty of using it myself. I always thought of sadie as someone I wanted to meet in person instead of delusions over a computer screen. I only wish she understood what that meant, and I found it hard to accept. But, (due to my own stubborness) or lack of sensitivity thereof - I'd get mad at her. It's my own fault for not seeing myself through her shoes, though I can respect it now much differently than before.

In fact: the nicest truly open compliment I've recieved over the internet recently, was from a person I care about in real life, said she wishes we'd meet more in person. I suppose it means something, because the internet is a place we connect, but she showed me it really doesn't matter who we are on screen. We portray ourselves in every way we can think of. She even presents herself in a way I am used to sadie over the internet. But, we didn't force each other to do anything. This person is married and has a child, but I trust she sees passed the screen, it doesn't mean we have to. My only wish is that sadie realizes that's the kind of person I am as well, without so being defensive about herself, but at the same time we all have life besides the internet. I think everyone is guilty of our participating over internet, not as a right or a privilege.

in my honest opinion

as a person that has grown, I've decided to become someone that prefers seeing how making a difference in life qualifies myself, Into a more well rounded idealist, And a better idea of over-rationalizing what ones expectations are in life as a question twice removed from absurdity.

Stealing without cheating

Here - you can take my advice. . . First off, you don't need to bother with a "list" of credentials based on how good you are. Just focus on a few (2-3) core ones and that should cover it. Also, never let your guard down in an interview, when I'm asked what bad things might others say about me? It's a trick question: the answer I give is not unusual. I'll without hesitation say 'nothing'. If they insist, usually the first thing that comes to mind so that it appears relevant yet somehow truthful at the same time will do. Think about your favorite politician so that it comes across open, honest, intellecutaly sound (. . . in a sarcatic manner of speaking.) Basically, the rule of thumb is true for everyone, what they don't know won't hurt them. In my opinion of myself, I will not sell myself out to any organization strictly based on principle. It is easy to get a job if you sort yourself out through the prototypical bs. My participation is based on creative freedom + control. It's a take it or leave it mentality. The rest is up to you.

Sometimes they don't even ask a stupid question, because they already know if they've hired you or not. It depends on the job or type of person you're presenting yourself to. Again - the most important thing to me in every potential case is I refuse serving status quo and I will not model myself under a slave mentality.
=============================
quote:

is it bad that i couldn't think of anything negative my co-workers would say about me?

=============================

As if there's even any doubt they'll take notice. That's what those dead-beats are doing, we're talking about the ones who get a job to shuffle through who gets the next interview, then, they look at what words make some impression on their ego so they can pretend to act smart with whomever is supposed to actually do the hiring. The person who consults the adminsitrations "decision" makes a brave effort to solidify the idiot rearing position within that mess. Yeah, one of the worst jobs in the world is in a bureaucracy. Tax money is evil. Remember?

The sleep that drives me. . . a law of luxury.

It takes a genius to know me. The fact of the matter is simply that I am an individual. I recognize in myself that I like being in control. A part of me that I will never part with. I have become the type of individual that admits to my failure, or concede a mistake. However, it is in my choices that reflect the most of who I am. I put in my best effort the cost of my self-improvment. I've always been a person that imagines himself, with a door open, to a workplace that if I cannot be open, or creative to it. . . then I will not hesitate to leave such an unfriendly environment. It is how I establish my own set of ideas. My desire to keep my options open.

Machiavellian: recourse of the dead

I said: on the subject matter re; "debate" (i.e. proper forms of discussion)

Unless a debate registers in the forum of public opinion it serves no purpose. . . that is what the Internet is for.

quote:
We're not getting marked on this.

It's as if the scriptures were a trail of abstract logic in order to purge us of our "divinity". Oh wait, after all that was the idea, you know. . . "we tell you this but you can't debate it back to us." Therefore, we're evil in the sense we're getting marked for abiding no objectionable amount of truth to something in a plausible manner but still "damned if we do, damned if we don't." You debate - then go to hell or suffer the consequences - blah, blah.

I think what debate really entails, is not proper language or misuse of ground-rules as sadie thinks. I believe debate is nothing other than human communication with intelligent understanding of what's in effect taking place no matter what seems "undesirable." There is a place for everything that happens resulting in clarity.


========================

Appeal to ignorance? Merk, you've got to stop this.

quote:

Thanks for effort Hap.Based on everything you provided you have issues with Christians. And everything else you blab about is a crap shoot. Congrats.

quote: colin said

Versus rational apologetics.

=========================

hahaha. . . that was nice work colin. Gold.

It kind of reminds me of facebook's branding.

"A social utility that connects you. . . " Most people on facebook would never exist otherwise, making you wonder what will they think of next. . .

=======================
quote:

cheap and stupid yes, but it boils the whole neo-con platform down to a tidy soundbite: smaller government, bigger army, every man for himself. but you know, republicans actually like big government, as long as it doesn't serve the interests of the people. they don't mind shoveling trillions into public projects as long as they benefit their pet corporate interests and not the collective interests of the people. better to shrink the parts of government that enable people to work together. As long as the people are atomized into millions of "big individuals" they pose no threat to the powers that be.

hap, i apologize for not reading this sooner then I have. But that response was equally pragmatic as it was truth. Took gusto to write, pleasure to read. Bravo.

The 'big individuals' part, reinforces my disbelief in why I've asked how can people actually allow themselves to be subjected, that a presidential candidate uses the WWE as it's vehicle to launch a campiagn add? Then, it struck a cord with me that it is accepted.

human communication ergo intelligent understanding

quote:
On the other hand, I heard it argued in the movie The Counterfeiter that individualism - a focus on personal survival - "is what makes Fascism work." Because individuals were concerned primarily with self preservation, he suggested, the Nazis had no need to fear popular revolt in their camps, ghettos, etc.

============================
my response:

If we're both trying to read from the same dialogue (verbatim) that you also presented: I'm reading it based on my own interpretation of what it appears to illustrate.

My idea of it (as it reads) is that "individualism" because it's a focus bases personal survival as the one true human desire that drives us - is what makes fascism work - therefore primal-instincts (i.e. self-preservation etc.) as the author suggested as were the Nazis incurred for it's domination. There's a glaring discrepancy that seems to weigh without any sort of collateral. There is an issue which needs be attached in order to effectively present the nature of identifying that definition of individualism. For the most part I do agree with that idea in its context. However, the void risks undermining the true element of fascist thought, being, in repeating the same kind of individualist ideology in reality speaks in favor of "individuals without rights". I fear that would be left undetected if not corrected properly.

======================

I gather that we can agree on one thing amidst merks fallacy, imperialist ideology may be a type of argument which has held American's idea of democracy together. What imperial dynamics involve whether it be a psuedo-totalitarian manner of thinking, I'd suggest that America in its history has combined the democracy they live with a make-shift version of colonial rule. I have no idea why merk keeps insinuating a slippery slope and bases it entirely on accusing someone else along the line of treason. It's too absurd to digest.

determining

The lion's barber has a challenging task to face.
So exquisite is the haircut.


==================


Re; corky

Rest assured those are actually interesting points given by corky. McCain will be very lucky to become president. The press McCain has, has been brought upon by those that venture within the conservatives rank. They know he doesn't have the superstar status coming off Bush's presidency. However, the gains in popularity are a non-factor depending on what wish-bone you crack. The media makes a de facto mock democracy: it only prints what sells newspapers. Strictly based on principle the eyes and ears of an election cannot be run along side the false pretense of propoganada.

Decomposing life

What is it about true friendship that speaks to you, will be different for everyone. To be sure of what one sees, compared to a vast majority of people is too broad in defining it. But the key to dynamics in a friendship, a mature one to be in fact, might be agreeable within a common perception of it.

If you have certain things that act as definitive intangibles (i.e. very important) which must be involved to determine what makes a friend -"friend". In fact, it might be inconceivable to the other person as to how high of an esteem you voluntarily give to a friend, provided they match your suited criteria? It becomes a question worth answering.

My reason for asking myself this question is simple. Do I have an answer for it? Yes, I do.

The naive part of me has all but vanished into thin air, literally. Speaking of valuing friendship is an undertaking task, the challenge in making friends is not the answer, what it is then that makes a true friend a "friend" must not exclude elements of their behavior toward me. That is to say, for instance, you are not typically being cynical toward other people, you are nice (e.g. friendly, not stuck up, etc.). That is the easy part, the hard part is this: what measures people apart from a simple minded "that's a nice guy/girl" from "that person connects with me on a very sincere/unsuperficial level." Think about that for a moment, those are 2 distinctive possibilities, however only one of those - not like the other - can enter the kind of ritual in friendship you credit.

Part of me used self deception in a manner that I created. In turn I would act against my better judgement, sometimes feeling abused, unsure of my wellbeing, and blame myself feeling as if a victim. If it were not for my lack of self-worth (in someways selfish ends) I had felt I were a target stamped on my forehead. It was borderline absurd insofar I had no boundaries that I'd protect myself with, and subconsciously albeit voluntarily give everything I had - unselfishly. I used to put everything I had into wanting the other person to like me, as if I would be validated in the experience. Somehow what would result automatically make me magically disappear!?

Therefore, I looked at myself with consideration that hardly enough I began to realize the good things. That I have exceptional qualities.

My reason for sharing this is quite something cumbersome, but I digress it's importance. You know the type, "I really like it that people know me, I am not aware of you completely, but I pretend to be my shallow best in my vain attempt to determine how you see me." To give a person the benefit of the doubt when they're only trying to impress themselves. It's a mask that deceives the other person you meet with when encountering another person for the first time. Perhaps, it lasts into a meaningful rewarding relationship, which is what brings me to this point.

There are independant variables contingent to how one could introduce meaning into a relationship, which would include confidence, trusting that person will be someone that remains unconditionally open to human desires, emotionally available, endearing, without deviating from the norm poses no threat to you.
What eliminated my false beliefs to this day re; true friendship has mostly to do with my sensitive nature, which most people like me might fear being rejected by other people. It is a common trick within the brain, a block against your real nature that prevents you from becoming what you really are, or worse self-deprecating. You might even deprive yourself of making friends. . . but instead you feel that you can release inhibitions, expressing yourself for who you truly are, and not have a care in the world what other carefree types similar to you or not.

Then you begin to think about which of the ones that "stick" to your mind for lack of a better term will they shelter?

That's what will inevitably happen. . . as I have resonated.

Then - the next part is what to make of such things we take for granted in life - or for that matter - that people may have taken for granted in yourself.

I examine how many people I believe I had influenced to a degree in my life, then, I found how astronomical (for lack of a better word) the greater the number of people dropped off the face of the earth. I actually forgot who my ambivalence was directed to or lack of reciprocal animosity toward others rose in uniformly desensitizing myself (to former colleagues). For example, I see people in my distant past, that recognize me, and who I recognize, we'd associated at some point in our lives, but under no direct set of boundaries (which is what we would really want in this world of unimposing freedom.) Ideally, the unilateral position which I take has virtually no meaning to that "significant other person" in other words that person no longer exists 'significantly' because it was only an illusion or construct of my figment imagination.

The archetype for true friendship should look like this as follows:

A person that is kind and considerate, will not use you and on no uncertain terms wants to make your life better with generosity, kindness and altruism which never ends as a result of conditions within that relationship.

True friends will not devalue, degrade, decensitize or be impartial no matter the tolerable cost.

The better knowledge that you acquire in becoming an individual, will ground oneself, enabling you to see such interesting dynamics as they occur.

calculating the heart of a lion

kew. point taken. i'm just glad someone gets it.

I said calculating things, doesn't make you smart especially if you can't do it for anything positive, stupid people who think they're smart are one in the same. What I meant was to give sadie a compliment. Who doesn't like hearing that they're adored?

quote:
They're definitely tired of the war. Last poll I read had 60% thinking the Iraq invasion was "a mistake." The trouble is, they don't have a choice because both candidates will want to continue the war and maybe even blunder into an even bigger "mistake" by invading Iran. McCain, as the openly pro-war candidate, doesn't have to worry about any anti-war sentiment. Even if 70% of the population is dead-set against the war, he only needs the support of about 30% of eligible voters to win the presidency. That's about what Bush got. Clinton's main obstacle is the fact that people don't vote for women. Even women don't vote for women.

If you follow this line of reasoning, this is where I become doubtless, or in the least bit confused? My reason for saying that, is in a historical context, there is no denying that every empire in history do not attempt to rest on their laurels when it gets to world dominating the political stage. The alluring aspect of war is romanticized throughout world-civilization through the centuries. However, here we listen to these present day leaders - to a lesser degree we must face adversity due to inevitable issues, such as control of a stabalized econmy no matter what the cost. To furthering solutions, there is no room for pragmatic gestation of what voters will rely on. In other words, war is contingent to any vote joe-american casts to engage in his or her democracy. The point being it is not against there will that wars will be waged, the truth is when they realize there's nothing they can do to prevent war? To be an American comes with the territory I would feel fair to say so myself as Canadian living in a country born out of free will. I guess the question now becomes, what truly is independence if it means you have to essentially accept on terms that you nor I can be blamed for when it comes to something as certain as war. They will elect a leader, no matter what the outcome, war is a measure of that vote for the price of freedom, correct me if I'm wrong.

re; Vegas

you know, Obama sounds really good.

. . . yes, however when you think about what I wrote means^ above. . . that's precisely how we perceive American politics, and American voters at the polls are happy with just believing that is true without really knowing the difference besides what they hear given to them. "Obama - might - be good". Are we sure, based on what exactly? We don't know.

See. I got your back, and you refuse to acknowledge it unless it's the 'safe' thing to do. You try to stay neutral, and you fear people will hate you back for it or in the least assume. That's why I love you so much. I wouldn't let anyone hurt you. Bad intentions abound. Mike was only being honest.

True you see. I would also agree that what you finished emphasizing, however, is in need of being emphasized. . . if you see where we're heading with that context. It's abysmal if otherwise. People might not be in touch with that form of thinking or unhypothesized control.

It simply reinforces this part of the argument. . .
I guess the question now becomes, what truly is independence if it means you have to essentially accept on terms that you nor I can be blamed for when it comes to something as certain as war.

When you contain that piece of information in the context of human history, then on so many levels we'd be asking, what kind of individuals are we if we call political leaders liars in deceiving what the polis-ergo-democracy truly want? If we wanted to vote for something other than war, in other words, the wool is being covered over our eyes. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Unelected leaders.

I found this an intersting read

Think about it guys - even the bravest man in the world still gets nervous when he is talking to a hot chick? WHY? Why does this fellow get nervous? Is he afraid of being killed? Being decapitated? Being humiliated?

Fact of the matter is that none of those things will happen. Most girls are pretty nice, they don't go around humiliating men. So why this nervousness?

I'll tell you the big secret - it's in your biology. It's an evolutionary trait, because frankly, most girls are easy.

Yes, I said it, most girls are EASY. Most girls want to mate, and indeed, most girls will mate with almost everyone. However, this is not of advantage to evolution, as it will cause poor genes to propagate themselves.

So what did evolution do? It has implanted a block in your head that makes you measure the value of a girl, and if you percieve her as being far above your value, your biology is going to tell you to not go to her. It does this by implanting nervousness in you. If you feel she is about your value, or a bit less, you will have no problems. If you percieve her as being well below your value, you will talk without caring to her - and any girl you speak to that way is going to love you madly. That's why girls love the bad boys, it's because the bad boys don't care for them, so they trick the girls dna into believing that they are going up in the evolutionary ladder.
Population control in the human animal is achieved by putting this block in mens minds from actually approaching the woman. This is because evolutionarily speaking, the girl will go with whomever speaks to her.

The more stable a society is, the more men will get this block. The less stable a society, the more aggresive the men will be. Stability means population should flatten, instability means children are needed.

How to get laid

It's simple, you have to trick this block. What you do is this - continuously tell yourself about what sluts the girl you like is, and how you will mistreat her. Make yourself hold her in contempt, you need to see her as something far below you in intelligence, ability and potential. Then with that attitude, go to where there are chicks. Don't smile at them when you talk to then, treat them like you would treat a slave - a bit stand offish so that they do not feel they have the right to mingle with a superior being.

Women love that shit. I used to read a lot of Mills and Boons when I was younger (NO YOU ARE A FAGGOT), and the men are invariably described as Arrogant and self asssured. You never hear of the man with the soft voice and gentle smile. It's always that man that assumes he is god that frustrates, yet spreads the legs of the heroine.

Speaking of Mills & Boons, I remember this one episode where some guy washes ashore and is resqued by a serving wench. He wakes up in the night (in some cave if I recall correctly), and proceeds to fuck the living bejeesus out of her. At the moment, I found that okay, but right now, I'm thinking to myself - WHAT A SLUT! You don't just sleep with men who wash up on beaches!
Anyways, I digress. The secret to attracting women is just pure and unadultareted arrogance. Let them shrivle under your aristocratic gaze, and they will come crawling to you with their pantyhose already dropped.

deliverance in struggling without suffering?

There is a part of me that knows about misery all to well. I suppose it happens to do with vulnerability, or the reason for me to suggest it?

In a thesis of this kind, I take for granted the maturity process one learns how to cope,
with undertaking why suffering makes us struggle for a greater good that we may establish our own free will.

So much that impacts the course of ones history, we manage to survive the outcomes in several factors.

Much more important is that in recovering from beneath the struggle, of our hardships, we punish ourselves in a trial of self-inflicted demoralization.

What we rely on is not a phantom menace of the sort we feel the need to be saved or rescued from such agony. To recognize the pain that causes you - yourself - to cope with what the solution might be.


an off the record type of truth but nevertheless truth

Do you ever get so mad, that it confuses the hell out of you why you got mad, so in doing so (the real reason for whatever the cause was) you realize it's because you needed to get that off your chest on no uncertain terms. That's exactly the kind of idea, when getting mad is 'a healthy' constructive thing rather than just hate fueled anger? What do you do (other than come on to the Internet) to recover? Is there such a thing as recovery time, or once it happens, do you just say 'did that just happen' - 'oh yeah I guess it did. . . whatever.' then you move on with your life. I think that is the best kind. It says you've come full circle as an individual is my point.

quote:
Sure, mostly when I get mad it is because I am failing to cope with a situation (most of the time not even the situation at hand).Thankfully I have learned to recognize this fact and I rarely get mad anymore.

The better question to ask is: can there be a moral or immoral type of suffering? What strategy can one presumably deploy into action, taking with it an effective method to concentrate itself focused. If there is a moral or immoral kind of suffering in the universe as a model, then could we also hypothetically eliminate religion as a dogma, then also pursue our own judgment that devises a strategy to cope with suffering? As result: immoral or moral suffering is a struggle of the will in itself, all things being equal to this device that exists as goal oriented behavior. The answer could in fact be true; that device which acts as a 'switch' as if turning on a light bulb. The light bulb is plugged into the device, only the device must be activated for it to work! Therefore, once you deploy the device, it is to act, in a manner that you create both an internal and external conflict. Which is the type of suffering you think of if your device is plugged or unplugged? Is it internal or is it external? This kind of reasoning would suggest: you have the choice to pursue the options simultaneously. There is no infinite variable, or supreme form of justice be it right or wrong, because the choice is only one to make/ thus it can only be yours to take it in a paradox. You cannot devise a strategy without taking on the choice you make. . . it becomes automatic. The target of such goal oriented behavior is to cause the will of suffering, then to extnguish it as a struggle, which can only depend upon the type of ellicit response in changing your potential to create devoid decision into reliable solutions. Therefore, you divide the suffering mixed together with emotions, it is then blended, transfered, and transformed into a free thinking system of opportunity to unlock the device tapped within you.

So again, we are left with the same choice repeatedly, although it may seem redundant, as though there is no point to find an answer. The question can only be which type of suffering are you? An immoral kind or a kind of moral victim of the question making you apparently indifferent to the cause. Can beauty be recognized in kind of a sense that - misery can be had - without avoid feeling it as a consequence. If you are an accomplice to such an act of fearing the most basic human emotion you can think of, misery is probably the last choice you would figure to have in mind. Therefore, we can also bare in mind that keeping to a certain set of valid beliefs with the purpose of benefiting oneself is almost utilitarian in perspective. However, it is quickly learned that any human emotion cannot be fully appreciated without the opposite of it. Instead, we learn that suffering is a healing process, other then it being seen, is such an opponent to inertia of the will.

The end (result) g-o-a-l looks like this in principle:

struggle : model

1- victory

2- device= goal oriented behavior

3- devising strategy (Moral or immoral suffering)

4- defiance of your actions (misery)

5- paradox =suffering =moral =immoral

What does one speaks of in determining fate? Is misery never an option? If we follow that course of reasoning, then pure logic will tell you something different, the difference being what some people less-recognize "gods will" ask themselves what is it known as. Gods will is not something that makes one divine, or contrite, or more attentive to such immaterial things such as we experience feeling in our everyday lives. Instead, a rather contemporary view for lack of a better term, we can define what in gods will can one participate? The meaning is simple, that insofar as you recognize misery is a force that allows you to heal itself within. It is a duty, not so much in the spiritual sense, but in the dynamic from which you place yourself in a context in our everyday life. In other words, the existence you carry on with is not dependant on one thing but to grow.

do you ever get one of those days

Where you reach a certain unexpected sense of relief where 'finally' nothing feels to be going wrong? Yeah, it's one of those days alright.

fornicating self interest

Perhaps, a quieter response would subdue my
sense of feeling inadequate?
My sense rise up,
then fall immediately into despair!
But, such silence requires a question of thought. . .
dare I think about the truth being told
that often dares to challenge my virtue.
Intelligence of such great perfection,
so excellent,
I confess to everything.
Such a return to my nest of sorrow,
for the birds to gather upon
union of natural upbringing.

Then I imagine,
how sweet the smell of sea salt.

How aroused I become,
and the world is pure in every way.
I mind this with my utmost love,
it spreads like the heaven above.

The friends zone

quote: Don't get me wrong. I hope to see a democrat back in the white house. And i would prefer Obama to Clinton. Hilary is musing about attacking Iran while Obama is talking about scrapping star wars and steering America toward a more sane nuclear policy. America would still rule the world with an iron fist, and the most we can expect from Obama is that he might put the fist back in the velvet glove. Nevertheless, the fisting will continue.

Simply because a democrat makes it to the whitehouse may as well equate whereas Obama-itis / re-branding of American democracy. Seriously speaking about Hillary is like thinking of an American Margret Thatcher carries substance to it, seeing that American's are coming off 2 successive Republican presidency's. (Ronald Regan loved Thatcher's conservative policies.) I honestly think Hillary has lost her edge, be it by media and lost confidence in her fellow democrats for office. That is in observing what you make of a soft-style campaign, because John Kerry wanted to put the screws down when running against Bush. Guess what? Kerry totally backfired, because American's didn't want a loud message coming across. I think about it as hyper-sensitive focus on Kerry's part, but he had guts, and I liked that about Kerry even though it cost him the presidency. As for Al Gore before Bush became president, the minds of American's were built on Clinton, and Hillary just can't work that kind of democratic campaign today as Gore did running against Bush. Bush heading into office was a blind-sided victory, and it changed the course of history. Mind you if it weren't for Hillary-iron-lady image I think American's would actually vote for Hillary if the Clinton-esque magic hadn't worn off. For Hillary this is about bad timing, because the brain-trust aligning democrats forces are focused on delivering: "American's from being targetted as vermin of the free world" campaign. Therefore, democrats won't repeat the same campaign trail as Kerry did marching to the beat of his own drum, American's didn't buy into it, they wanted to be lullabied. . . Kerry probably would have been president. We can be sure that Obama is winning only because Hillary had to mimic Obama's acting "softer" approach to politics, however, it doesn't mean that Obama is smarter than she is. Hillary is losing this battle against Obama's status-quo image. You can be sure it's not the way Hillary intended to run for president.

branding through generosity

an off the record type of truth but nevertheless truth

Do you ever get so mad, that it confuses the hell out of you why you got mad, so in doing so (the real reason for whatever the cause was) you realize it's because you needed to get that off your chest on no uncertain terms. That's exactly the kind of idea, when getting mad is 'a healthy' constructive thing rather than just hate fueled anger? What do you do (other than come on to the Internet) to recover? Is there such a thing as recovery time, or once it happens, do you just say 'did that just happen' - 'oh yeah I guess it did. . . whatever.' then you move on with your life. I think that is the best kind. It says you've come full circle as an individual is my point.


quote: aw, that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me

I've always liked you and you know it. You've just always been super protective over your emotions, because that's what people in pain do, a built in mechanism that's not their own fault. I've always been a person that fights for a certain cause that people don't have the resource to do themselves. It drives my ego, it sparks my will, it fuels my desires. My heart says yes, and my head says no.

You're opposite sadie, you use your head in wise manner, you project things that if you choose to act on it means = 'yes'. You don't blow caution into the wind. On the other hand you're heart says 'no' when it comes to something you might really want but you're too afraid to feel the fear if it risks being hurt. As for me, I know this about you, and it drives me crazy because you would never let me in the way I'd want. I'm not stupid, only human.

Calculating risk in the absent age of reason

Failure: this is congruent to the belief I encounter if seeing one's true faith were blind in gods eyes.

Failure is something that is not testing the will or facing fear. It is a virtue. The meaning behind failure, is a difference that exists, most people that deny failure in their everyday lives hold impartial against it.

In order to see a clear and vibrant way of living, to lead one's life is to feel that failing in anything is a opportunity to grow. Yet, in a world dominated by fear of failing, so much of it depends not upon rate of success, but, rather it depends on the willing to fail. Mistakes are not independent of failure. When you slice into a fraction - part of the fraction is failure, with other half - the will to succeed - in what you believe will make you better, what fraction could possibly make you decide which is the denominator to cause you from failing? Can you prevent failure? Should you increase that imaginary power to prevent it? What if you took the part of the fraction you were sure was the 'success' piece of the fraction, that it'd ensure you unending success without failing? You probably would take the piece of the fraction that denominates failure from success.

The main point being that even if such a fraction did in fact exist, you could not possibly get to it without accepting failure in the due diligence of gratifying success.

Therein lay the difference between seeing people in life that are determined to succeed, but completely reject the idea that failing has none if any place in determining what measure of success is. Failure becomes their fear in a situation, whereas one's own worst enemy.

taking my life back again

Earlier this week I saw my family doctor in a public place, which I was happy to greet him. The moment I shared was genuine and sincere. I always admired my doctor since I was a boy. It's been over 30 years since our family doctor has taken care of my family.

Dr. Fuzeta reminds me of what it means to be in the position I am today. If it weren't for him, I am very grateful for his kindness toward me. Dr. Fuzeta is more than a Phd. he is a friend I can trust.

Today I look at my life in a renewed manner. My doors are set wide open. I can feel my sense of wanting to be the person I always thought I could be. When I needed someone to help me find a way, Dr. Fuzeta was the man that was there to guide me.

Dr. Gordon has allowed me to re-train that part of me within the past. There was a time I had the wrong friends and grew intolerant of others. However, today Dr. Gordon has helped clear my mind in living a better life. I still have flaws, but nothing I can't control.

magical pistons

There is a dichotomy of sorts that I need to express:

The paradox is as follows:

Great things come to those who wait?

The meaning in the above rests in a decision of mind. . .

it can be divided into 2 independent variables.

x = the past

q = the present

if q, therefore y.

y ~ future.

The clearest example of this paradox can be explained in a dichotomy. The dichotomy presented herein is an example of mystery in being. To be or not to be, is the classic most read and perhaps least understood of Shakespeare's Hamlet. Hamlet is dealing with the death of his father, and subsequently trying to overcome the melancholy of an identity crisis. Hamlet's struggle is based on a dichotomy in being. The question, as Shakespeare intended its meaning was actually a paradox in reasoning whether the truth of being as opposed to rejecting the self entirely. Therefore, an identity crisis is Hamlet's ultimate resource in what answer might possess the future, essentially, Hamlet is asking himself what will happen to him nor does he knowingly predict it.

The most profound distinction of this mystery in being, relates to my own sense of self in the matter of my personal history that I illustrate. My example, as per my own heightened awareness in hindsight, that past events somehow have shaped my life? The true answer that I can reveal, is in the choices that I made in past events, in no way shape my future events. It is the nature of my virtue contingent with my own personal being. My question, ultimately follows, a path I parody my trip backwards into a time gone by. That as I created in experiences throughout my life, I relate with my being into a present state of mind.

In conclusion to the paradox of being, much the same way we've learned from Shakespeare's question in relation to being, everything you do as an observer of there is a dichotomy of what you do as an end resulting in being.

bad habits in the same context

There's a myth that tells us, something about the way we react in certain situations, whereas the metaphysical world which is our own.

Perhaps, the world appears as it does a fair modesty? In the actual reality I live, sometimes
the meaning of the faith nourishing me gets indisposed of, as if a metaphor were in place, that is to say the opening of doors leads me to understand my inner being as if opposite were an image of myself, telling me to say different things or take action based on my perspective as result of an event in actual time. Nothing can refer back to the memory, it is a purpose touching down toward gravity all the same. This is what I propose as my interior exposing itself onto a greater good, an end that nothing else in its place can decipher, that only time will tell what in effect can actually happen. The becoming of such a methodology, I am speaking of in terms of a very perceptive individualizing of the self into a complex information, the psyche depicts what is going on in its surrounding area. This I can describe is an awareness of intimate proportions. A level of significance in the idea of living with a sixth sense, thereabout the apparatus of mind if taking in voluntary responses knowingly succeeds the effort in its place. The presumption of an incoming message to the brain activating on an acute knowledge to that end in sight, views the projected inference of mind, without realizing the consequence of the body that has weight as a gravitating independent piece of the reality I face.

This is a special kind of awareness, a certainty of metaphysical knowledge that only few possess, and I have become aware of in the process and portrayal of me being aware of it - in itself.

Metaphysical orientation within the reality of this physical world, is a realm of possibility tying together the body's reflecting of a world within doubt, not a world reflecting on its own. The metaphysical aspect of this is not a method or control, it is an offspring of probable causes that remain in tact and spiral into a known yet unknown variable. The variable does not change, the depiction of the variable is only familiar to the objective desire, an end result is not the change in and of itself.

This in theory works to manifest a challenge of creating will, disposition, concentration, and the decision to work out every moment that exceeds the common interest of man, which is to say for every unknown variable the idea that demonstrates the variable in itself, then, will turn toward a greater good known only to the self.

It is of a conceding interest that metaphysical union of mind, is a inertia of the will.

Also, to illustrate the inner dynamic between outer intervention, the form of these variables take shape in a construction of duality. That is to say, the double of you, becoming the singularity of vision taking place is simultaneous. You are happening in the event in time in everywhere possible in a fraction of ultimate proximity only you can merit.

Once this is a reality of testing variables, the truth can only surmise into knowing what is in the universe as a model, awareness is in knowing what virtue.

As character x, I am q. Character x. Therefore q.

In the following story:

x = q.

q ~ is an independent variable.

You are the independent variable.

If q. Then x. Therefore q.

The goals of intent, achievement, awareness, perception, intuition, pure reason, autonomy, judgment, genius, instinct, judgment, all of these are things directly associate with material imposition.

faith in testing

I imagine a thing. This is a world if we did not brand. What if instead of jesus, instead there was another. The point being, would we recognize this if it were true? Probably not. Therefore, in misguided effort, what if in reality everything we saw had no name, such as the make of a car that had nothing to identify it other that what we saw.

Are you king of the jews?

Jesus: You have said so.

(Both share in laughter. . .)

Jesus: no war.

(further laughter continues.)

The wool over our very eyes

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Dearest Hosanna

god help me.
This I love.
I have found my achilles heel,
as the narcissist runs blind.
Better fortune in time.

Easter Sunday confessional

I feel an irony of this year's Easter weekend happening for me all over again, as if a ghost summoned from my past? Perhaps, my senses are at a new found heightened level of awareness that has been found. I can be certain it is an emergence of some sort, a kind of renewal actively seeking itself. A part of me has grown exponentially over the years, more specifically due to my recent awakening, as I find myself in a place of peace within my soul.

For this much to have in my life, at this moment, I believe nothing will change that. All I can look forward to is how everything I share seems to be perfectly in sync with my world view.

Easter can mean many things such as chocolate covered Easter candy, to many different people, I see myself taking what life brings for chance unlike anything I've experienced ever before.

Negative thoughts

In the past six months I've gone through what has been a significant increase in my self-perception. Judging from my previous experience, this radical awareness that I've become more in touch with my true sense of self. My self-image is kept under serious scrutiny in how I feel about myself and my responsibility to myself as an individual in managing those emotions, or in other words, I'm not as self-critical when examining my own insecurity. When in the past the results of meaningless details would make up my entire world-view, now, I realize my mistakes allow me to focus on why I may have failed on a particular task.

I credit my therapy with Dr. Gordon.

What's helped me come to terms with the false beliefs I might otherwise had felt overwhelmed, such as, my pursuit in acting was important. I can be satisfied with being in control of my future whatever the chances are; if my destiny in this case is to work with my dad in his cleaning business I am not living in a fantasy world or feel guilty of a unfulfilling fantasy.

My desire is not to be telling fairy tales, but happier to make positive chioces in my life. I know in my heart that I can count on the present manner I'm expressing is about action.

Matrix Evolution

One of the more intriguing aspects of the movie The Matrix Revolutions is what this film represents. In the movie there is a tribe of renegades (humans) trying to combat hostile forces dominated by machines (super-cyborgs-nation). In order to infiltrate the superior autonomous race of machine, the human race had been reduced to supplying the machine world with energy resources. Humanity was extinguished due to the inhabitable conditions of planet Earth, which were caused by humans immoral consumption (by virtue of greed) destroying the planets renewable fossil fuels, as result, through nuclear warfare against the machines. In turn, the machines adopted humans as the primary energy source through use entropy, which the human body can only produce it's own electric property.

I titled this 'evolution' because of the significant changes that I see in the movie, however, subjected to my interpretation are independent therefore in no way have mention within the story. (note: Because this is my adaptation of the actual story, it serves as a critique relating to it in a positive manner.)

There is irony in the quasi-factual metaphor of a world dominated by machines, which is not stated clearly enough. In reality the film is made to make-believe that machines have the power to reverse the entire course of humanity, based on a pseudo-modified perspective that machines (not humans) are autonomous therefore have civil rights, ecetera, hitherto pertaining to laws, regulations, and all that there is in command. Essentially, the human race is nothing, whereas the weather has no implications on humanity, waging war, and have no respect to resolution or settling indifference, impartial to all human activity.

There is no after-life, as only death seems immanent remains as the one true course of all ‘rejected’ humans that live in a subterranean world called ‘Zion’. In the movie, everything is backwards given only to alienate a known non-fictional world of possibility.

In the movie the machines appear only to destroy Zion. The desperate situation is to make peace with the machines. The machines created a program where the factory of non-living sentient, benign, pro-creating humans are linked. There are agents, which the program deploys to ensure order is maintained against any hacking that may disrupt the machines system in the matrix.

Only once a hero emerges to combat the machines agents, can the program be saved from agent-Smith developing its own regenerating super-race. The matrix is destroyed once and for all, after Neo joins the machines to preserve a model of self-awareness that can save humanity. The moral of the story is the classical perseverance of human sacrifice and emotion. This allows the machines to interact with all things in the matrix being equal. The question is of blind faith, and whether or not humanity can extinguish itself, or continue to live freely in the capacity it once had established? Neo becomes part of the machine world, completely unaware of the matrix. Neo - now a part of the machine, Neo enters the matrix in order to destroy agent-Smith. Agent Smith represents an internal conflict that replicates itself as if a virus, which the external cause of humanity must overcome.

Coffee. . . over exceptional quality

A buried supernatural intensity -
discovery?
Blended,
rich,
distinct flavor
of a distant memory.
A passion fulfilled with delicacy
it drips to the core.
The human mind is in perfect company,
drowning into that silky-latte.
Please -
please remember me dark pool of soul,
as my lips brace for the fine entry of this substance.
A shinning glimmer in my eyes.
A sense of vision which is reminding me to savor
such bold flavor.
A taste so entranced.
Magnificantly smooth.
I do admire how I must savor every last word,
delicate in nature.
How I hate not to draw from such attention.
However, I am quite a marvelous fanatic
when it comes to sharing.
Alien canary sing!
Style over Starbucks,
and potential philosophies we reveal.
A choice it sounds misread,
a choice it sounds misheard,
a choice it sounds mistunderstood.
Today I celebrate my passion.
A voice uninterrupted.
A life more misinterpreted.
I represent no superficial union.
To calculate my connetion of a shadowy figure.
No cure,
no cares,
no concern.
Only the cost of living with change in my pocket.
A finite paradox of paradise once lost is found,
and for a brief moment in history I am entitled to benefit.
From this recourse of imagination,
I enter a feast without starving.

There is something incredibly unattractive about life, that being, I am desperate for an answer. My inhibitions might seem unfair or too hard on myself for that lack of knowledge? However, I am completely unaware of what I need to do for myself. After 8+ years of doing everything in my power to transform my life, I feel, that I've failed in doing. It is a self-defeatist mentality that seems I am ready to give-in to. I seriously feel lost in the recent episode that is my life. I have done everything not to feel sorry for myself, but to try and prevent this kind of thing from happening. Yet, here I am dealing with my worst fears. The one thing I feared the most, which is, to be unhappy with my life. I have nothing. It is my worst fear come true, instead of the world I imagined that might be worth living in.

Unfortunately, there's not much I can say that puts a smile on my face lately. The one positive I might confess to is about taking a new lease on life? Recently having quit my first full time job would be the reason. On a side note: I took it upon myself to stand on a weight scale. As of this week I weigh as much as I did over 8 years ago. More importantly what am I going to do next? I've tried so hard to do the best that I can. What I feel is completely undeserving, unwanted, failure as result of my efforts. There is no better way to describe it to myself at this point. It is terribly difficult not to be negative during this time; I should be trying everything to keep things positive. I feel that faith in myself is all I have left in me. Nothing else.

If I were to present reality as I see it, I am not qualified to do something that requires skill. My actors training is all I have. I sit here without any satisfaction to lead my life. It is a terrible - terrible feeling. However, I have no choice but to be honest.

I am not going to be somebody who cuts himself short, by settling for any type of job "that nobody else wants." I want to work, but with a clear sense of independence. I care to be somebody that enjoys getting up in the morning. The past 8+years of my life just haven't added up to it, yet I've done everything in my power trying to realize it without success.

arrested development

There are only four questions of value in life, What is sacred? Of what is the spirit made? What is worth living for, and what is worth dying for? The answer to each is the same: only love.

I simply cannot comprehend myself in such a moment of seizure within my soul. I read the last entry and it speaks so much of me that is true. I needed peace and the kind of self-acceptance that I seeked seems so far out of reach right now? My grief is so intense I forget about life.

Maturity

If I am a fighter, I am not weak.
If I want a laptop, it does not make my life complete.
If I care about the questions I ask, answers do not matter.
If the truth is very confusing, there is still my self respect.
If the worst insult I can think of were true, it only adds to my injury.

All of these are things that money cannot buy.
I wish enemies admired.

I am glad about the things that I am not.
The things that no longer apply to me.

Depression is one of those things.

For the longest time, I was afraid to move due to my illness.
Today, I look back at the debilitating part of my life and it scares me.
I feel sadness and empathy for myself due to the unhappiness of my experience.
Experience which I did not deserve, but failed to be aware of it.

Those are scary thoughts.