Corporation Socialism

[Alexiev]

OMG, wot an idiot! "In comparison to the Middle Ages & the second world war.."

You don't get it, do you. Perhaps a united Europe and weakening of Nationalism is one reason Europeans are far safer now than in the past. That was the question , wasn't it?

"Do you think women...remain just as safe....?"

Well no, I don't. I think they are far safer, as does anyone with a brain.

Oh, you use a brain to think do you? I wonder how an idiot like you that doesn't understand statistical data, can work out how to climb out of bed each day, let alone manage to type words onto an internet forum.

I'd engage in a battle of insults with you, but it would be like shooting an unarmed man. Victory would be easy, but there's not much glory in it.

[attofishpi]

ooo, ouch.

If I had no arms mate, i'd batter you to death with my giant cock.

[Will Bouwman]

Who of the ideologues of the EU do you consider insane?

The globalists. All the unelected bureaucrats who staff the whole thing...

It is a myth that EU policy is decided by unaccountable malfeasants. The unelected bureaucrats of the EU are there to do the work set by the elected members of the European Parliament. Every political system relies on unelected bureaucrats to run it.

...and who are more dedicated to liquidating all countries into the EU than they are to preserving any identity for any of the countries.

Then they're on a hiding to nothing. As the UK demonstrates, you can erase borders, but you cannot erase identity. You clearly have limited experience of Europe.

They're just plain nuts -- but with a kind of "insanity" that is born of being ideologically-possessed (which is rather like being demon-possessed, actually, because it deprives ordinarily sane people of all capacity to reason well).

Well, ordinarily, sane people don't refer to demonic possession

You seem to be unaware that England has long been part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (of which Scotland and Wales are also members) and Northern Ireland.

Next, you'll assume I don't know the British Empire, too.

It's not the next thing that springs to mind, but yes, I would assume so.

What is at stake is how much sovereignty a nation is prepared to share in return for free access to the world's largest trading bloc.

"Free"? Not at all. It would be access, it's true: but ever under the watchful eye and on the terms dictated by Brussels.

The terms dictated by Brussels which have negotiated and agreed by elected members of the European Parliament. Quite honestly, the more you believe the paranoid delusions of conspiracy nuts, the greater the risk of you becoming a conspiracy nut yourself. There are any number of legitimate reasons that you might dislike the EU; there is no need to make up, nor believe things that simply aren't true.

[Immanuel Can]

Who of the ideologues of the EU do you consider insane?

The globalists. All the unelected bureaucrats who staff the whole thing...

It is a myth that EU policy is decided by unaccountable malfeasants.

Actually, it's a simple fact. They're appointees who make decisions affecting people who have no vote.

Every political system relies on unelected bureaucrats to run it.

That is a huge problem. And it means that bureaucracy should be kept as small and as accountable to the people whose lives they affect as possible, or abuses of power become inevitable.

...and who are more dedicated to liquidating all countries into the EU than they are to preserving any identity for any of the countries.

...you can erase borders, but you cannot erase identity. You clearly have limited experience of Europe.

Wrong. But I didn't say it was going to work. And I certainly didn't say it was a good idea. All I said was that that is what they're trying to do.

They're just plain nuts -- but with a kind of "insanity" that is born of being ideologically-possessed (which is rather like being demon-possessed, actually, because it deprives ordinarily sane people of all capacity to reason well).

Well, ordinarily, sane people don't refer to demonic possession

If you meet some Leftist ideologues, you'll start to wonder which is worse.

The terms dictated by Brussels which have negotiated and agreed by elected members of the European Parliament.

Ummm...

"Such grand claims [of "democracy"] might make sense if the EU were a fully-fledged federal state with a truly sovereign parliament — in other words, if it were truly a parliamentary democracy. Yet it is anything but. In fact, the European Parliament has very limited powers: for starters, unlike national parliaments, it doesn’t even have the power to initiate legislation. This is a power uniquely reserved for the EU’s “executive” arm, the European Commission — the closest thing to a European “government” — which avows itself “completely independent,” promising “neither to seek nor to take instructions from any government or from any other institution, body, office or entity.” (The Jacobin)

[Will Bouwman]

It is a myth that EU policy is decided by unaccountable malfeasants.

Actually, it's a simple fact.

That they are all malfeasants?

They're appointees who make decisions affecting people who have no vote.

Do you understand how they are appointed?

[Immanuel Can]

It is a myth that EU policy is decided by unaccountable malfeasants.

Actually, it's a simple fact.

That they are all malfeasants?

That was your word, not mine. You'll have to justify your use of it to yourself. I said, "unelected," "unaccountable" and "ideologues," which would be the precise descriptors.

They're appointees who make decisions affecting people who have no vote.

Do you understand how they are appointed?

https://commission.europa.eu/about/orga ... pointed_en

[Gary Childress]

Well, ordinarily, sane people don't refer to demonic possession

If you meet some Leftist ideologues, you'll start to wonder which is worse.

I think in the long run, there are some things about human society that just don't change a whole lot from one world view to the next. There always seem to be those who are ostracized for not meeting certain standards of conduct, whether it be they are "possessed by unholy demons" or they're "psychologically messed up psychopaths." And there are always the "model" citizens, who are to be elevated or revered. And, finally there are always those who want to see people get what they deserve in life one way or the other, and those who mind their own business, whether they be religious or secular in their beliefs.

It's like, take a human monkey and dress him or her up with the latest beliefs that amount to the same beliefs the previous generation had. I wonder if anything really changes in a fundamental way.

[Immanuel Can]

...There always seem to be...

In fact, there will always BE psycho cases, not just "seem to be." But if I may say so bluntly, that's not a very interesting observation, Gary. We all know that will be the case.

What's more important is to question why there are so many Leftist ideologues doing radical things today. And the answer has to do with bad ideas that go unchallenged and untested. In the worst cases, rational opposition is shut down, "silenced," "de-voiced," "de-platformed," censored, and dubbed "hate speech" or "disinformation/malinformation" or "divisive" or "polarizing," or "conspiracy thinking," or "right wing," and thus rendered impermissible even to be aired, so that the bad ideas can continue to go unchallenged.

[Gary Childress]

...There always seem to be...

In fact, there will always BE psycho cases, not just "seem to be." But if I may say so bluntly, that's not a very interesting observation, Gary. We all know that will be the case.

What's more important is to question why there are so many Leftist ideologues doing radical things today. And the answer has to do with bad ideas that go unchallenged and untested. In the worst cases, rational opposition is shut down, "silenced," "de-voiced," "de-platformed," censored, and dubbed "hate speech" or "disinformation/malinformation" or "divisive" or "polarizing and divisive," or "conspiracy thinking," or "right wing," and thus rendered impermissible even to be aired, so that the bad ideas can continue to go unchallenged.

I think bad ideas are being challenged. Things like genocide, murder, war, ecological destruction are very much being challenged. It seems to me that, given circumstances, those are things that are worthy of being challenged. Whether someone has sex with their own gender, the next door neighbor's wife or believes in the right God is not so much challenged these days and it seems kind of silly to challenge those things, at first glance.

[Immanuel Can]

...There always seem to be...

In fact, there will always BE psycho cases, not just "seem to be." But if I may say so bluntly, that's not a very interesting observation, Gary. We all know that will be the case.

What's more important is to question why there are so many Leftist ideologues doing radical things today. And the answer has to do with bad ideas that go unchallenged and untested. In the worst cases, rational opposition is shut down, "silenced," "de-voiced," "de-platformed," censored, and dubbed "hate speech" or "disinformation/malinformation" or "divisive" or "polarizing and divisive," or "conspiracy thinking," or "right wing," and thus rendered impermissible even to be aired, so that the bad ideas can continue to go unchallenged.

I think bad ideas are being challenged. Things like genocide, murder, war, ecological destruction are very much being challenged.

That's old news. "Genocide" has been denounced widely since WW2 (but didn't stop the genocidal attacks of Oct. 7th, for example). War is being positively promoted in Ukraine and Russia. Ecological destruction is being made worse by many of the measures alleged to improve it (such as windmills, electric cars, not managing forests properly, using recycling trucks...) and is not being addressed where it would need to be -- in China, India and the Developing World. So "challenged"? Not really. Talked about, yes; "challenged," no.

But what is genuinely getting "challenged' today? What is getting censored or bullied into silence? Free speech, free conscience, the right not to be submerged in somebody else's collective, the right to achieve, meritocracy, the right to vote, national sovereignty, property rights, sexual morals and any kind of dissent, question, hesitancy, reservation, criticism or discussion from a side not 100% on board with the Left's narrative.

[Gary Childress]

In fact, there will always BE psycho cases, not just "seem to be." But if I may say so bluntly, that's not a very interesting observation, Gary. We all know that will be the case.

What's more important is to question why there are so many Leftist ideologues doing radical things today. And the answer has to do with bad ideas that go unchallenged and untested. In the worst cases, rational opposition is shut down, "silenced," "de-voiced," "de-platformed," censored, and dubbed "hate speech" or "disinformation/malinformation" or "divisive" or "polarizing and divisive," or "conspiracy thinking," or "right wing," and thus rendered impermissible even to be aired, so that the bad ideas can continue to go unchallenged.

I think bad ideas are being challenged. Things like genocide, murder, war, ecological destruction are very much being challenged.

That's old news. "Genocide" has been denounced widely since WW2 (but didn't stop the genocidal attacks of Oct. 7th, for example). War is being positively promoted in Ukraine and Russia. Ecological destruction is being made worse by many of the measures alleged to improve it (such as windmills, electric cars, not managing forests properly, using recycling trucks...) and is not being addressed where it would need to be -- in China, India and the Developing World. So "challenged"? Not really. Talked about, yes; "challenged," no.

But what is genuinely getting "challenged' today? What is getting censored or bullied into silence? Free speech, free conscience, the right not to be submerged in somebody else's collective, the right to achieve, meritocracy, the right to vote, national sovereignty, property rights, sexual morals and any kind of dissent, question, hesitancy, reservation, criticism or discussion from a side not 100% on board with the Left's narrative.

Do you know for a fact that "free speech", "free conscience" and the right not to be "submerged in someone else's collective" are any more or less challenged than ever. I mean, a gay person might say that "free conscience" means being able to love another person of the same sex without protest. Most of the "challenges" of "right to vote" seem to come from those who say that illegal immigrants are voting when they're not supposed to (in fact, there is very little evidence of large-scale voter fraud). I mean, in some cases, it's a matter of perspective. You say Oct 7 was genocide and most agree, however, most say that Oct 7 is not a free ticket to commit genocide on Palestinians.

So maybe your priorities could use some revisiting. Is that possible?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you know for a fact that "free speech", "free conscience" and the right not to be "submerged in someone else's collective" are any more or less challenged than ever.

Yep, absolutely. So do you, if you watch the news at all.

So maybe your priorities could use some revisiting. Is that possible?

Always. One should constantly revisit one's priorities. But in this case, it's not about "priorities." It's about truth.

[Will Bouwman]

Actually, it's a simple fact.

That they are all malfeasants?

That was your word, not mine. You'll have to justify your use of it to yourself.

Well, you have made your belief that EU commissioners act in contrast to the interests of the European electorate abundantly clear. If malfeasance doesn't describe that, choose your noun.

I said, "unelected," "unaccountable" and "ideologues," which would be the precise descriptors.

The page in the link you gave says this:

"The European Commission is held democratically accountable by the European Parliament, which has the right to approve and dismiss the entire political leadership of the Commission.

The European Commission is also accountable for putting the EU budget into practice. Every year, the Parliament chooses to give (or not) its blessing to the European Commission on the way it has managed the EU budget. This process is called the discharge. The Parliament bases its decision on several reports from the European Court of Auditors and from the European Commission, including the annual management and performance report for the EU budget."

What definition of "accountable" are you using that excludes the above?

[Gary Childress]

Do you know for a fact that "free speech", "free conscience" and the right not to be "submerged in someone else's collective" are any more or less challenged than ever.

Yep, absolutely. So do you, if you watch the news at all.

So maybe your priorities could use some revisiting. Is that possible?

Always. One should constantly revisit one's priorities. But in this case, it's not about "priorities." It's about truth.

When you say, "free speech" is not being promoted, what would be an example of that? I mean, I only know of the US and "free speech" is probably a bit better off today than it was as recently as the 1950s. There are people who stand up for "free speech" but some seem to worry about it because they get push back for being prejudiced against people of color or sexual deviants. I mean, if I stand up and say, blacks aren't as smart as whites, then people are going to rightfully push back because not so long ago social atrocities were carried out with that mind set.

Once upon a time, the words "commie" or "N----" were used to marginalize certain people. I mean, I suppose it's possible that "nazi" has filled that place and probably needs to be softened a bit due to overuse, but I'd say that prejudices have been around for ages but we're a little better off today than we were decades ago. There have been some changes for the better in that respect. But sure, there is reason to stand up for free speech if it isn't dangerous or disproportionately unfair.

[Immanuel Can]

That they are all malfeasants?

That was your word, not mine. You'll have to justify your use of it to yourself.

Well, you have made your belief that EU commissioners act in contrast to the interests of the European electorate abundantly clear. If malfeasance doesn't describe that, choose your noun.

I chose my adjectives. And I gave you three. Whether those amount to "malfeasance" is up to your judgment. I didn't use that particular word: I express it more precisely than that.

The European Commission is also accountable for putting the EU budget into practice.

What definition of "accountable" are you using that excludes the above?

The one in which "accountable to the local voters whom one's decisions control" is included in what it means for a politician to be "accountable." If your definition excludes that, I'd like to hear what it is.