Who should be held responsible for selling the West down the river?

 
Dumaya
 
Avatar
 
 
Dumaya
Total Posts:  124
Joined  04-05-2017
 
 
 
23 July 2017 04:25
 

“You cannot enrich a country by impoverishing its people.”
Imperative viewing: Charlie Rose: Sir James Goldsmith Interview - 15.11.94 (YouTube)

In my opinion, it’s the progeny of those who pave the path to perdition, who should pay for the turpitude of their profligacious progenitors (NB: Provided the culprits themselves are unavailable / unreachable / untouchable — almost always a given, in the context of the real world.)

My rationale for this—on face value—Draconian view, is that those who are afflicted with pathological greed, are the economic equivalent of fundamentalist religious zealots — lunatics that would martyr their families to further an insane, ideological bent.  In other words, and to quote the U.S.‘s esteemed current wordsmith-in-chief —
“You have to take out their families.”

There is no reasoning with nihilism; and so, the prospect of future punitive action — much less, the non intimate repercussions of their actions — is no deterrent whatsoever.  In the same way that those who reach a certain threshold of wealth accumulation, automatically abrogate their societal responsibilities (...anyone found those anthrax-producing, “mobile chemical weapons” labs yet?), so too do they divest themselves of any possible comeuppance they should duly attract (*implying the airy-fairy hypothetical, that any of these vampires would ever even be revealed in time to punish; let alone, actually be subjected to punishment in this legislatively corrupted society which we suffer in).

We must create a disincentive to this species-immolating, myopic greed, which so many use to wreak havoc with impunity — protected by the mendacious cloak of “free market” and “globalism”.  We cannot continue down this path to oblivion and expect everything to “be alright in the end”... because it won’t.  Even a dumb, deaf, blind mute, who’s afflicted with Dumbf DNA, could see that the canaries are all dead and that the stench of hydrogen sulphide is becoming overbearing.

Do we want to live long and prosper, or to get rich quick and die in the process of trying?

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6364
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
23 July 2017 11:19
 
Dumaya - 23 July 2017 04:25 AM

Who should be held responsible for selling the West down the river?

That’s easy: the voters.

But actually, “Who” is the wrong question. The right question is, “What should be held responsible for selling the West down the river?” Because the “what” in this case leads inevitably to the “who.”

The answer to “what” is, clearly, democracy: “The worst form of government except for all the others.”

 
 
Poldano
 
Avatar
 
 
Poldano
Total Posts:  3295
Joined  26-01-2010
 
 
 
23 July 2017 21:04
 

Greed is like the proverbial ten-pound turd in a five-pound bag. If you manage to keep it from squeezing out in one place, all you do is push it out another place.

 
 
ImaginaryNumber
 
Avatar
 
 
ImaginaryNumber
Total Posts:  14
Joined  16-07-2017
 
 
 
23 July 2017 21:50
 

I’m unclear if your concern is for the West or for the rest of the world in interacting with the West. The title of the thread suggests the former, the contents suggest the latter.


I agree that sometimes one gets the comical feeling that we listened to Taylor Swift’s “Blank Space” song and thought “You know, that would be a great template for foreign policy. Let’s do it.” (I’m kidding, of course, but I do get the sense that the US is sometimes seen as ‘flakey’ on the world stage.) That said, I won’t deny that I am subject to the pull of familiarity bias and the devil we know. You say there is no reasoning with nihilism, and yet, there is no reasoning with the craving of addicts either, and all ideologies are ultimately based on craving. For what? Sometimes money, sometimes righteous ideals, sometimes power, sometimes the bizarre and esoteric (as is the case with cults,) and so on, but they all end with the idea that we should value this or that Because Reasons. Try to stamp out greed and the free market and odds are you’ll just replace it with something worse (ask all those Communists who lived under Stalin how enforced idealism went, in practice not theory.) Without a good alternative, where is the motivation to rail against an ideology that, if nothing else, we are at least acclimated to already?


If you are interested in my armchair quarterback two cents, I think the answer to this conundrum is a focus on character development in whatever form that takes (secular or religious,) and the maturity to realize that a proposed utopia of any stripe is a trap. Pure rationalism is inherently nihilistic, in regard to the relative worthiness of various human goals and pursuits. From the point of view of pure reason and the workings of the universe at large, they are all arbitrary creations. Pure emotionalism is the purview of wild eyed fundamentalists, a subjective ‘locked in syndrome’ wherein one’s individual goals are so primary that they become reality itself. I think one can either view this as a dynamic tension that can never be fully resolved, only balanced - or, alternately, look to love and subjective connection as the key to bridging these gaps. I don’t have to love athletic prowess or “success as measured by money” or musical talent or leadership skill or any of those things to connect with the fact that other people value them - when caring about people’s goals is a natural, secondary result of caring about people in general, the equation gets a bit easier. An analogy might be having a job as an event planner. The details of the event you are planning can be interesting and fun, certainly, and they will vary widely (poker night, princess birthday party, elegant charity ball, sporting event, and so on,) but the ultimate goal is always the true happiness of the client you are working for. With that in mind, the details are important but only to the degree that they impact the subjective state of another - they are not a matter of life and death, something to wage wars over. I think this is a good compromise between the “anything goes” nihilism and fundamentalist ideologies. Whatever our goals, subjective experience is the one thing that unites us all.

 
Dumaya
 
Avatar
 
 
Dumaya
Total Posts:  124
Joined  04-05-2017
 
 
 
24 July 2017 04:14
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 July 2017 11:19 AM

the voters.

Forsooth —

“The best argument against democracy, is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
—some crotchety fatso

Perhaps I should have worded it different… Instead of “held responsible”, “punishëd”, might have conveyed the underlying meaning more succinctly.  Because no ‘house’ can be sacrosanct from the recompense our sinful shortcomings condignly attract.

You see, I am long past diplomacy.  The broadsword is being gnashed against the grindstone — scalpels no longer have effect here.  We need BLOOD... And there will be blood—if we do not stop this rancid rot.

Poldano - 23 July 2017 09:04 PM

Greed is like the proverbial ten-pound turd in a five-pound bag. If you manage to keep it from squeezing out in one place, all you do is push it out another place.

This is because we inculcate the children we “love” (*cackles Avrahamically*) in its tenets—from the moment their formative brains can cogitate enough to comprehend what it means.  It starts with “My dad’s car is bigger than yours” / “My shoes are a better brand than yours”, and graduates to “29-trillion-dollar bankster bail-outs” / “What missing trillion$ in DoD funding?”.

“We have to be smarter than this… We have to be more forward-thinking.”
—Don Rummy

ImaginaryNumber - 23 July 2017 09:50 PM

Try to stamp out greed and the free market and odds are you’ll just replace it with something worse (ask all those Communists who lived under Stalin how enforced idealism went, in practice not theory.)

That’s the “too hard | don’t try” / Homer J. Simpson philosophy of ‘addressing’ a problem — in effect, little different from martyrdom in tribute to a delusion.

Moreover, only Siths think in absolutes — no one is asking for Stalin era despotism.  But, when is enough, enough: One million dollars per person?  One billion?  One hundred billion…?  And how many can be trodden on to maintain the wealth disparity that creates relative affluence, before the means no longer justifies the end$?

Nietzsche, of course, was right: we have killed “God”... And it drove him clinical mad—having consumed this ‘reddest’ of ‘pills’.  What he did not augur, however, was the much more zealous our worship of the new god we install — Mammon— will be, and the resultant Pandaemonium that would ensue.

the maturity to realize that a proposed utopia of any stripe is a trap.

Well, nowadays, some [men] may argue that a “trap” is a manifestation of [a kind of] utopia…(!)

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6364
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
25 July 2017 14:26
 
Dumaya - 24 July 2017 04:14 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 July 2017 11:19 AM

the voters.

Forsooth —

“The best argument against democracy, is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
—some crotchety fatso

Perhaps I should have worded it different… Instead of “held responsible”, “punishëd”, might have conveyed the underlying meaning more succinctly.  Because no ‘house’ can be sacrosanct from the recompense our sinful shortcomings condignly attract.

Then you get your wish. The voters are both responsible and being punished.

That crotchety fatso is probably my favorite historical figure of all time.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  2524
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
25 July 2017 14:55
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 25 July 2017 02:26 PM
Dumaya - 24 July 2017 04:14 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 July 2017 11:19 AM

the voters.

Forsooth —

“The best argument against democracy, is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
—some crotchety fatso

Perhaps I should have worded it different… Instead of “held responsible”, “punishëd”, might have conveyed the underlying meaning more succinctly.  Because no ‘house’ can be sacrosanct from the recompense our sinful shortcomings condignly attract.

Then you get your wish. The voters are both responsible and being punished.

That crotchety fatso is probably my favorite historical figure of all time.

Mine too ... and I think he deserves to be properly credited for his quotes.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” — Winston Churchill

 

[ Edited: 25 July 2017 15:00 by Jan_CAN]
 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6787
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
05 August 2017 08:45
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 25 July 2017 02:26 PM
Dumaya - 24 July 2017 04:14 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 July 2017 11:19 AM

the voters.

Forsooth —

“The best argument against democracy, is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
—some crotchety fatso

Perhaps I should have worded it different… Instead of “held responsible”, “punishëd”, might have conveyed the underlying meaning more succinctly.  Because no ‘house’ can be sacrosanct from the recompense our sinful shortcomings condignly attract.

Then you get your wish. The voters are both responsible and being punished.

That crotchety fatso is probably my favorite historical figure of all time.

Greed has indeed undone our checks and balances. It could well be that the least painful solution at this point would be the surgical spilling of blood. The oligarchs and politicians have repeatedly demonstrated their lack of morality. Sadly, it might be our only leverage is to make them very, very afraid to continue to pillage the planet and the population.