The world's foremost problem

[Winston]

Normal people cannot beat people who have demonic intelligences on their side. However I do not say to "join them", but destroy them using the same method they use to put humans under their influence. You should know what it is by now. Evil is a category we put people who dominate us in an extreme way into. If we stop them from doing that, what do we call ourselves? GOOD!? The programming on TV of children to "do the right thing" to stop evil is but a lie to stop people from FIGHTING evil. You need to beat people at their own game. And the game is too hard for most people to comprehend.

I'm ceasing to discuss this matter further however, as you're simply insufficient for discussion on a higher level. I know you're capable of better though. But I won't bother to waste my time.

I don't understand what you mean. How does teaching children to fight evil prevent them from fighting evil?

Also, why doesn't the elite make movies so that the bad guys usually win? Why do they let the good guys usually win?

Also, I was wondering, could it be that the reason you guys call the elite evil, is because you guys are jealous of their power and status, and so you prefer to see them as evil in order to validate why you are not one of them? Could that be a subconscious reason? I'm not making accusations. Just thinking of possibilities.

[fschmidt]

I was using that word in a different context but I still disagree with him. Individualism (being free) has nothing to do with egoism/egotism nor with living on a communion with 100 other people versus by yourself in the woods. Evil on a mass scale is impossible unless individuality is suppressed. If it were not the natural order of things, why would we have a soul that needs to be killed before conformity is possible.

Individualism is not the same as freedom. As de Tocqueville says:

"Individualism is a mature and calm feeling, which disposes each member of the community to sever himself from the mass of his fellow-creatures; and to draw apart with his family and his friends; so that, after he has thus formed a little circle of his own, he willingly leaves society at large to itself."

And de Tocqueville's point is that despotism is the natural outcome of individualism. The only way to prevent evil is for men to cooperate, which is contrary to individualism.

[Adama]

I was using that word in a different context but I still disagree with him. Individualism (being free) has nothing to do with egoism/egotism nor with living on a communion with 100 other people versus by yourself in the woods. Evil on a mass scale is impossible unless individuality is suppressed. If it were not the natural order of things, why would we have a soul that needs to be killed before conformity is possible.

Individualism is not the same as freedom. As de Tocqueville says:

"Individualism is a mature and calm feeling, which disposes each member of the community to sever himself from the mass of his fellow-creatures; and to draw apart with his family and his friends; so that, after he has thus formed a little circle of his own, he willingly leaves society at large to itself."

And de Tocqueville's point is that despotism is the natural outcome of individualism. The only way to prevent evil is for men to cooperate, which is contrary to individualism.

I'm sure you're right, but your argument lacks the supporting facts. The quotes you posted don't do a very good job.

[odbo]

What de Tocqueville is talking about is how to view concepts like personal property. One could build a house for himself or for the group and not even see himself as apart from that group. This utopia is similar to some parts of Native American culture. There is a certain kind of happiness that comes with living in a setting where the group is priority #1 and the self is somewhere at the bottom. There are clearly positives in letting go of the illusions of the ego and liberating yourself from the myth that attaining material pocessions or personal aggrandisement will make you happy. And I have experienced a selfless lifestyle and communion living. But I disagree that emulating a bee hive or an ant colony is the solution to humanity's problems. Such a society essentially keeps people in a child state. A person always has to be concious that he is different. A harmonous, selfless society is a good goal but attaining this does not require the eradication of self-awareness. A group should be united by individuals not united through one consciousness that does not even recognize the existance of the individual spirit.

Like I said I was using the word in a different context. There is no question that we are divided and made to think we are very different from eachother for the purpose of disempowering us. Nowhere is every man an island as much as in the USA. If you go to a healthy society people view others, even if they are a different age and sex and live totally different lives, as the same species.

True individuality doesn't exist in American society. People are nonconforming conformists or conforming nonconformists. Everyone is running an identity program they got from the media (whether it's goth, punk, guido, sci-fi nerd, yuppie, etc) and non of these people are geniune or unique. Individuality to me means doing your own thinking, not being systematically fed belief systems. In modern society we are told to acquiesce to everything and leave the thinking to the elders and experts. People should come to their own conclusions instead of accepting what is fashionable for their identity group.

When you shed the fascade you get down to the fact that we as people are all very similar. But we are not the same and that should not be forgotten.

Humanity will benefit when every person's conscience is allowed to come out, not when it is surpressed. That's basically what we have now and we are ruled by conscienceless psychopaths. If you think freedom would cause greed and other tendancies to naturally come out and ruin everything you need to watch Adam Curtis's "Century of Self."



Despotism came about when a population accepted that some people are better than others. It did not come about because people realized we are all individuals.

[fschmidt]

I'm sure you're right, but your argument lacks the supporting facts. The quotes you posted don't do a very good job.

How can one get supporting facts? Individualism isn't measurable, it's only an impression. But if you accept impressions, then examples can be found in The Fate of Empires.