Riots in the city of love

[Gary Childress]

Right. Well, you'll have to extract from that number all those caused by the RC's, because we already know they were doing that, and they're the institutional-political religion. And then you'll have to extract all those who did something their Scriptures commanded them not to do -- for then, it's not reasonable to think that it was their religious beliefs that led them to do what they did. One cannot blame a creed for those who refuse to obey it, of course. And the number left will be so vanishingly small you've got nothing to work with.

And it will always be dwarfed by the numbers of those who died in secular wars and purges...by orders of magnitude. By best estimates, not more than 4% of that total, and certainly less than that.

If, therefore, you're recommending secularism as an alternative, your statistical applications will need some revision.

Do all secular people desire war? Or does secularism necessarily lead to war? Or can it be said that only bad people who are secular desire war and that secularism doesn't necessarily lead to war?

Well, let's not be silly. Of course it's never true that "all" of any people group "desire" exactly the same thing. But it wouldn't matter much what anybody "desires" if their beliefs still "lead" them "to war," as you also put it. Certain forms of secularism do not appear to lead to war; but other forms, like Socialism, seem to lead to it more than any other single force in history, and more than most combined, as well. That should concern us; for if some forms of secularism lead to homicidal, totalitarian kleptocracies, as Socialism has, in 100% of the cases we have, there comes a time when we ought to examine why that is happening...and to understand the reasons that ideology always leads to such misery, defeat and death. And nowadays, we know at least a great part of that.

So "socialism" leads to war? Is it because socialists oppose the unfettered ownership of anything and everything an individual can possibly claim a "right" to. For example, questioning Elon Musk's right to defacto dictate what our society does or doesn't do with large amounts of resources may lead to war (revolution or civil war). Whereas, if we just let Musk have his way and keep gathering more power, there would be no war? Is that correct?

[Immanuel Can]

Do all secular people desire war? Or does secularism necessarily lead to war? Or can it be said that only bad people who are secular desire war and that secularism doesn't necessarily lead to war?

Well, let's not be silly. Of course it's never true that "all" of any people group "desire" exactly the same thing. But it wouldn't matter much what anybody "desires" if their beliefs still "lead" them "to war," as you also put it. Certain forms of secularism do not appear to lead to war; but other forms, like Socialism, seem to lead to it more than any other single force in history, and more than most combined, as well. That should concern us; for if some forms of secularism lead to homicidal, totalitarian kleptocracies, as Socialism has, in 100% of the cases we have, there comes a time when we ought to examine why that is happening...and to understand the reasons that ideology always leads to such misery, defeat and death. And nowadays, we know at least a great part of that.

So "socialism" leads to war?

And worse...to repression, death camps, death marches, economic disaster, theft, police states, starvation...

Is it because socialists oppose the unfettered ownership of anything and everything an individual can possibly claim a "right" to.

No. It's because men are wicked, and Socialism affords them very broad powers for acting on that wickedness.

[Gary Childress]

Well, let's not be silly. Of course it's never true that "all" of any people group "desire" exactly the same thing. But it wouldn't matter much what anybody "desires" if their beliefs still "lead" them "to war," as you also put it. Certain forms of secularism do not appear to lead to war; but other forms, like Socialism, seem to lead to it more than any other single force in history, and more than most combined, as well. That should concern us; for if some forms of secularism lead to homicidal, totalitarian kleptocracies, as Socialism has, in 100% of the cases we have, there comes a time when we ought to examine why that is happening...and to understand the reasons that ideology always leads to such misery, defeat and death. And nowadays, we know at least a great part of that.

So "socialism" leads to war?

And worse...to repression, death camps, death marches, economic disaster, theft, police states, starvation...

Is it because socialists oppose the unfettered ownership of anything and everything an individual can possibly claim a "right" to.

No. It's because men are wicked, and Socialism affords them very broad powers for acting on that wickedness.

Doesn't excessive wealth (as with excessive power) also give broad powers to act "wickedly"?

[Immanuel Can]

So "socialism" leads to war?

And worse...to repression, death camps, death marches, economic disaster, theft, police states, starvation...

Is it because socialists oppose the unfettered ownership of anything and everything an individual can possibly claim a "right" to.

No. It's because men are wicked, and Socialism affords them very broad powers for acting on that wickedness.

Doesn't excessive wealth (as with excessive power) also give broad powers to act "wickedly"?

Certainly. Many things do. So does having physical strength, or tools, or resources, or the power of attractiveness, or science, or knowledge, or a particular location in space. Lots of things increase power; and every time they do, they increase scope for evil.

[Gary Childress]

And worse...to repression, death camps, death marches, economic disaster, theft, police states, starvation...


No. It's because men are wicked, and Socialism affords them very broad powers for acting on that wickedness.

Doesn't excessive wealth (as with excessive power) also give broad powers to act "wickedly"?

Certainly. Many things do. So does having physical strength, or tools, or resources, or the power of attractiveness, or science, or knowledge, or a particular location in space. Lots of things increase power; and every time they do, they increase scope for evil.

OK. So should we limit the collecting of excessive personal political power of an individual but not limit the collecting of excessive personal wealth by an individual?

[Immanuel Can]

Doesn't excessive wealth (as with excessive power) also give broad powers to act "wickedly"?

Certainly. Many things do. So does having physical strength, or tools, or resources, or the power of attractiveness, or science, or knowledge, or a particular location in space. Lots of things increase power; and every time they do, they increase scope for evil.

OK. So should we limit the collecting of excessive personal political power of an individual but not limit the collecting of excessive personal wealth by an individual?

Who is "we"?

[Gary Childress]

Certainly. Many things do. So does having physical strength, or tools, or resources, or the power of attractiveness, or science, or knowledge, or a particular location in space. Lots of things increase power; and every time they do, they increase scope for evil.

OK. So should we limit the collecting of excessive personal political power of an individual but not limit the collecting of excessive personal wealth by an individual?

Who is "we"?

We are the ones who believe a person should be limited in political power. Or do you believe a person should not be limited in political power?

[RickLewis]

Come on now, the current student riots NOTHING like those of 1968 (and those certainly nothing to do with immigration). I lost all my Situationist stuff in the 2006 house fire (in the room that burned) but once had translations of The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord and The Revolution of Everyday Life by Raoul Vaneigem.

I like to think of the forum as being a little like one of those horror films where if you incautiously whisper the name of some eldritch spirit, you summon them to your presence.

Therefore, because Mike mentioned Debord and Situationism, here are a couple of relevant links to articles in Philosophy Now:

One from 1995 belatedly marking the death of Debord:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/14/Dea ... bords_Dead

One from 2015 not so much about Debord as about protests and Post-Marxist in France.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/107/Fr ... st-Marxism

[Gary Childress]

Come on now, the current student riots NOTHING like those of 1968 (and those certainly nothing to do with immigration). I lost all my Situationist stuff in the 2006 house fire (in the room that burned) but once had translations of The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord and The Revolution of Everyday Life by Raoul Vaneigem.

I like to think of the forum as being a little like one of those horror films where if you incautiously whisper the name of some eldritch spirit, you summon them to your presence.

Therefore, because Mike mentioned Debord and Situationism, here are a couple of relevant links to articles in Philosophy Now:

One from 1995 belatedly marking the death of Debord:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/14/Dea ... bords_Dead

One from 2015 not so much about Debord as about protests and Post-Marxist in France.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/107/Fr ... st-Marxism

Let's think of the forum as being like a great quest movie (Harry Potter or something), where you incautiously whisper the name of an eldritch spirit and summon them to your presence. See, I'm learning from all my psychiatric care.

Now what do we do? Do we fight it or converse with it to find out more about it?

[Impenitent]

Come on now, the current student riots NOTHING like those of 1968 (and those certainly nothing to do with immigration). I lost all my Situationist stuff in the 2006 house fire (in the room that burned) but once had translations of The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord and The Revolution of Everyday Life by Raoul Vaneigem.

I like to think of the forum as being a little like one of those horror films where if you incautiously whisper the name of some eldritch spirit, you summon them to your presence.

Therefore, because Mike mentioned Debord and Situationism, here are a couple of relevant links to articles in Philosophy Now:

One from 1995 belatedly marking the death of Debord:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/14/Dea ... bords_Dead

One from 2015 not so much about Debord as about protests and Post-Marxist in France.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/107/Fr ... st-Marxism

thanks for the links, excellent articles...

"...Debord, conceived of alienation as an essential function of consciousness, parodied Althusser, Levi-Strauss and the shibboleths of Structuralism..."

shibboleths of Structuralism was a brilliant turn of phrase...

turn of phrase... we have yet to completely evolve into newspeak, but with enough politically correct language policing, we'll get there...

"...people are being turned into robots."

education is only part of the problem... with the goal of equality, is humanity hindering itself?

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

OK. So should we limit the collecting of excessive personal political power of an individual but not limit the collecting of excessive personal wealth by an individual?

Who is "we"?

We are the ones who believe a person should be limited in political power.

The Constitutionalists? That's where the limits of political power are spelled out.

So you're not a Socialist anymore? They believe in unlimited State power (i.e. unlimited dictatorial power).

[promethean75]

Tread carefully, Gary. Consider what company you are in.

Aks the gentlman if by raising the proletariat to a position of State power, the very conditions in which one class can rule and tryrannize another are abolished, will the State, formally known, no longer exist. Aks the gentleman that.

[promethean75]

With the abolition of the bourgeois property owning capitalist class, things would be changed so drastically that society would hardly need any POleece anymore. Nine tenths of the crime that used to happen would stop happening, and there'd be very little to govern but production quotas. All the networking capitalist instituitons working against the working classes would vanish. The healthcare and housing industry changes would be the most radically progressive of them all. Hell, those two things alone would put half the money people spent in life back in their pockets.

You. Have. To. Get. Rid. Of. The. Elons. And. Dons. I will repeat this until you plug your ears. Then i will shout it at you.

[promethean75]

Elons on lawns... calm Dons with lip balm... palms full of alms, reading pslams to your moms. This is your future, people.

[Immanuel Can]

With the abolition of the bourgeois property owning capitalist class, things would be changed so drastically that society would hardly need any POleece anymore.

Yes...that's exactly what's always happened.

They don't need police in Portland, or Seattle, or Chicago, or Baltimore, or East Berlin, or Communist China...as soon as you can rob the rich and successful, the rest of the people become just lovely. Greed goes away. Brotherhood springs forth like flowers. Truth abounds. There's candy for everybody.

No Pravdas. No indoctrination schools. No gulags. No re-education camps. No struggle sessions. No death marches, or purges, or torture chambers. And no police.

Why don't we have it all tomorrow? Yaaaaaaay.