A world in a grain of sand

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Politics humble beginnings ↑ oft go unheralded within the annals of history.


The chronological oversight may be attributed to a lack of surviving eyewitnesses to verify the end result of political economic policy.


These political contexts have been inherited heriditarily through genetics. Our innate, instinctive, drives are the end product of millions of years of wild animals trying to get along and agree on something. Politics are insanity, yes!


This defines the scalability and easy exchange of terminology between differing species. Wolves, lions, people. All harbor an innate, intrinsic, drive to follow an 'alpha male'. Perhaps, a genetic, behavioral trait handed down over millions of years.


The current 'alpha male' of the republican party which recently voted to boycott barber college graduates in favor of 24 karat toilets.


Back on-topic: human instinct is the net sum of millions of years of animals licking their genitals, scratching at fleas, blood and violence everywhere. Such represents the driving appeal for many supporting totalitarian, leader centric, political hierarchies. Kim Jong demonstrates.


The moral of a story about an illegitamite rebellion developing into a world beating, superpower, illustrates the advantages of discarding instinct for reason. Progress is often counter intuitive in relation to instinct. Democracy not being something commonly found in nature has a tendency to feel un-intuitive and confusing to many.

Before man evolved: he thought as an animal, lived as an animal and governed as an animal. But, now that man has the capacity to evolve beyond his animalistic ways, he need not be ruled by primitive, base, political systems.

Communism is an up scaled version of the social hierarchy utilized by a pack of dogs. A pack leader rules all until he is out-maneuvered or de-throned by one who is more able. The entire collectives success or failure is hinged upon the decisions of a single person. No matter how intelligent, capable, or educated a single individual, there are great advantages in delegating authority. Divide and conquer strategies which harness the intelligence, imagination and creativity of numerous individuals will always defeat a centralized approach whereby the genius of a single individual defines progress.

History warns of the horrors associated with concentrating too much power and authority within a single individual. Power corrupts. Too much power and influence within a small sphere creates an exploitive environment condusive to cirvumvention of laws, rules and ethics. The success of trust based system like politics lies within distributing power and authority to barr any single collective from granting itself power or authority to abuse the system.

In this, we can see reflected the inherent superiority of democracy and freemarkets in contrast to nationalism, socialism, and other centralized power structures.

America, fuck yeah!

Comments

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

This was brilliant. I loved it. Especially this part:

Back on-topic: human instinct is the net sum of millions of years of animals licking their genitals, scratching at fleas, blood and violence everywhere. Such represents the driving appeal for many supporting totalitarian, leader centric, political hierarchies. AKA -- there isn't a difference in the level of sophistication separating a wild pack of mangy dogs from the communist party.

Well done for the effort you put.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Thank you. Ack, I edited that part, sorry. I'm surprised someone didn't write this post before I did. It was almost begging to be written.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Your professors also favored brute-force assertion?

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

Not really. And by the way appreciating the form of an exposee is not the same like agreeing with everything it says.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Exposé? So you read the OP as a piece of investigative journalism?

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

Not really. Is that how you read it? =0

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Not at all. That's why I was a bit surprised at your use of the term "exposé."

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

Sorry about that. I'm not very interested in semantic quibbles so allow me to correct myself. Is "presentation" a more approrpiate term? =)

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Words have actual meanings. I'm not sure that the difference between the proper and improper use of any given word constitutes a "semantic quibble."

But, sure, if you appreciate "presentations" that consist of unsubstantiated brute-force assertions -- and gratuitous, punctuation -- so be it.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

OK.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Maybe at some point you'd make a hugely superior presentation without unsubstantiated brute-force assertions and without gratuitous punctuation (example for gratuitous punctuation: "gratuitous , punctuation"). ;)

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Are you new here?

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Obviously.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

That's why you don't know that Lenny never responds directly to questioning.

It's a very ancient and traditional method of maintaining a presumption of social authority, even when its completely bogus, which they no doubt still teach at the seminary.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

This is the second time in the last days that a third person jumps into a conversation between me and somebody and starts explaining to me how that someone is such and such. And in not a very nice way, that apparently aims to offend the person I'm talking to. Please don't. I may be disagreeing with Lenny here but I certainly wouldn't go that far.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

I doubt Lenny would even deign to notice what I said, but I appreciate you asking me nicely, and seeing as you did I may well refrain. However I wouldn't expect most of the others not to. Few of the regulars here are shy about sharing their opinions on anything or anyone.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Well, if you're going to crucify me for things I may not even be serious about, you can at least try to give me a valid reason for it?

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Crucify?

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Maybe, it'll make more sense if you know some of the exposition. The US government & FEMA say the founding fathers were the first "terrorist organization" in the United States. Watch 0:55.

Now, I'm not going that far, but don't mind touching upon it if in a very small way.



I don't know what you disagree with, but if you focus on a specific, I'll try to elaborate or explain if possible.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Technically speaking in one sense they *were* terrorists. The Patriots were a minority of the overall population in the 13 colonies and the Continental Army was anything but a legitimate auxiliary of the British Empire. Too, guys like Francis Marion and some of the other more hardline Patriot leaders definitely verge into outright terrorism. They won, that's why we call them heroes.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Wait, not 0:55. Its a few seconds before that.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

If they are anything like the professors I've had... yes.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

The moral of a story about an illegitamite rebellion developing into a world beating, superpower, illustrates the advantages of discarding instinct for reason.

What would constitute, a rebellion to make it legitamite?

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Hm, duno. Revolutions and rebellions look a lot alike?

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

(http://s265.photobucket.com/albums/ii239/policraticus/?action=view&current=Machiavellicopy.jpg)

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Apparently, the OP did not.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No, the communism of Marx envisioned something like modern social democracy turning into the gateway to an anarchistic utopia, a State of Nature that was entirely a positive, as opposed to negative thing. The communist states in the real world represented as a general rule victorious sides in civil wars that correlated also with major foreign intervention, subverting Marx's belief his ideas had to happen in industrial states and giving those Marxist regimes an image of the West that it never likes to realize how thoroughly Western and grounded in Western Christianity Marx's ideas were.

History speaks to the past, it is a piss-poor guide to the future, and the reason that it is so is that historical events are entirely unpredictable. A tanner's son proving a Mary Tzu and then the only leader of a country to try to untangle issues not fully untangled today for a century, a former history teacher turning into the founder and creator of an army that would go on to lose almost every battle it fought but to defeat first a Great Power and then a Superpower, a bank-robber and triple agent of a grand empire becoming the greatest leader of that empire in its history, bringing it to its geopolitical peak but before that coming within a whisker twice in two years of nearly destroying said empire, a young man born in Hawaii going on to be editor of a major university law school newspaper and rising in an unprecedented amount of time to defeat an inevitable successor to a disliked President and going on to be a Magnificent Bastard......

History is unpredictable. The only lesson of history for the future is that 100% of historical predictions are bullshit until events happen and then the 10% that got it right are embellished into prescience and the 90% that got it wrong are completely ignored.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

illustrates the advantages of discarding instinct for reason.

I didn't know you supported communism.

pack leader rules all until he is out-maneuvered or de-throned by one who is more able. ect ect

This has nothing to do with communism. Communism is the reason of instinct argument you tried to make. Everyone who supported communism believed this.

Unfortunately they found out how hard it is to operate a system on pure reason and it ended up being a pack of dogs.


Exactly like libertarianism would be if anyone ever tried it on any real scale.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

You're confusing communism, an economic system, with authoritarianism, a political system, and then placing it in a false dichotomy against democracy (political), rather than capitalism (economic). You can have democratic communism just as you can have authoritarian capitalism.

History warns of the horrors associated with concentrating too much power and authority within a single individual. Power corrupts. Too much power and influence within a small sphere creates an exploitive environment condusive to cirvumvention of laws, rules and ethics. The success of trust based system like politics lies within distributing power and authority to barr any single collective from granting itself power or authority to abuse the system.

I agree with that. But that's why democracy is awesome as a political system. I would argue that the capitalism we have these days (what is referred to as 'late capitalism') is concentrating more and more power in the hands of a smaller and smaller elite; that democracy is being corrupted.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I think China is a good example of how powerful authoritarian capitalism can be; I'm sure many in the US are jealous of the Chinese Politburo.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I don't, it's still a Communist state and the state has far too much control over the private sector to call it that. The Gilded Age USA is a much better example. Or Pinochet's Chile. ;P

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

If you can't call it capitalist then you sure as hell can't call it communist. I'm quite cool with coming up with other definitions though; in fact it's going to be necessary. What China is doing doesn't really fit with our existing labels.

And yes, two fine examples, I nearly went with Pinochet myself :P