Thread: Did my country really plan this????

Originally Posted by Crocodile

No proof is possible. You said it's all subjective, remember?

Don't be silly! There is nothing subjective about women and children being killed by raids in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Don't be silly! There is nothing subjective about women and children being killed by raids in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.

There's nothing subjective about women and children dead from hunger as a result of the Collectivization of the 1930s. Nothing like that ever happened in the evil Capitalism. However, you still find a way to call the Politics a subjective thing and ignore all proofs. Basically, you prefer to ignore anything that does not match your perception of reality. All I want from you at this point is to take your word back and openly declare that the Politics is not subjective and there are proofs and there might be facts that could serve as objective proofs. We'll take it from there.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

There's nothing subjective about women and children dead from hunger as a result of the Collectivization of the 1930s.

If you say so. I don't know anything about that. But if they clearly died from starvation as a result of colllectivization, then there is nothing subjective about that either.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Nothing like that ever happened in the evil Capitalism.

Of course it does! Most countries in the world are capitalist and people have died of starvation in such countries ever since capitalism started.

Originally Posted by Hanna

If you say so. I don't know anything about that. But if they clearly died from starvation as a result of colllectivization, then there is nothing subjective about that either. Of course it does! Most countries in the world are capitalist and people have died of starvation in such countries ever since capitalism started.

Here's the thing. The first and the most important plank of the Communist Manifesto is the abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. That's an objective think. That's the definition of the communism. There could be no subjectivity whatsoever about that. That was being achieved in the USSR by means of the collectivization process. The people who had the land ownership and the crop ownership were deprived of it by the physical force. The choice the farmers faced was either to join the 'collective farming' in which all crop belonged to the state or being starved to death. There were so many deaths that the various estimates differ in MILLIONS of people! So, I think it's relatively safe to conclude that an implementation of a real communism in any country would result in LOTS of deaths. Do you find that subjective?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

The choice the farmers faced was either to join the 'collective farming' in which all crop belonged to the state or being starved to death.

And they choose death?!

And I am NOT going to be drawn into a long debate about a topic that I have limited knowledge of (communism) and no particular passion for.

But I would say that if anyone was going to implement communism now, they'd have the benefit of being able to avoid repeating the mistakes of Russia and China, like heavy-handed collectivization.

East Germany for example, did not do this. They collectivized, but in a civilised way, and those who didn't like it had plenty of time to readjust, and farm owners where given compensation. After 1990, all the collective farm workers there became unemployed and many are now at the bottom of society, longing for the good old days when they were respected workers with job security. All the while East Germany is importing its wheat and beetroot from the USA or elsewhere in the EU.

That is another way of looking at this matter.

Originally Posted by Hanna

That is another way of looking at this matter.

Ok, let's get down to one specific question I was trying to ask you so many times without any meaningful reply: Do you support the notion of private property? Yes or no?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

There's nothing subjective about women and children dead from hunger as a result of the Collectivization of the 1930s. Nothing like that ever happened in the evil Capitalism. However, you still find a way to call the Politics a subjective thing and ignore all proofs. Basically, you prefer to ignore anything that does not match your perception of reality. All I want from you at this point is to take your word back and openly declare that the Politics is not subjective and there are proofs and there might be facts that could serve as objective proofs. We'll take it from there.

Give me your formula, Crocodile. It's absolutely not only incorrect, but impossible, that ALL OF POLITICS IS OBJECTIVE. Man alive! - thousands of years of human history show that it is a largely subjective field, and the amount of witness testimony to that fact across the face of the earth is GARGANTUAN. From the Sun Tsu to Machiavelli to the 10,000 writers on the subjects of politics and economics that have put pen to paper since... Not one has been able to transmute the subjective into the objective... There is no more way to enumerate the immeasurable than to perpetuate finite motion. Both have been tried, but never succeeded at.

So, you want Hanna to take back her opinion. First, *I* want to see a mathematical formula. I want to see the objective nature of politics. Show me how all elections, all human leadership, is a foregone conclusion that a chess computer could predict. While you're at it, maybe you could use your magical objective formula to calculate for me who the next ten presidents of the us and prime ministers of the uk would be. Then we could all make a mint by placing bets.

I have a feeling your answer will be somewhat less than what I'm expecting. But then, that's my opinion... which is subj-- well, I'd better not say.

And even in your example there IS something subjective. People died: Objective. "As a result of " --> SUBjective. I could create an argument, also subjective, by saying that those people died as a result of their not violently rebelling against those who were in the way of their acquisition of survival. I could say they died as a result of not foreseeing the future adequately and preparing for it. (I won't, because I don't believe those things; they are only examples.) But they are valid arguments in that they are as non-objective as your own, and so impossible to numerically nullify like one would the remainder in a division problem. The interpretation of a human mind, who seeks a responsible cog in the machine, biases and prioritizes his information such that he can fulfilll his own prophesy, and see it as objective. It doesn't make 'x' become '4' just because you will it to be so.

But even in those words it's obvious. If you can SEE it one way, and I can SEE it another, how is it objective? If we both SEE the number 4, neither of us can argue that it's really not 4, but 230,000. We SEE the objective. You, my friend, look at the subjective and you SEE objective. But you're misleading yourself.

And there IS no 'objectively correct' policy. All the objective variables are defined by and dependent upon SUBjective ones.

The future is always subjective, because it is not limited to numerical influence, but also receives direction from emotional, psychological and spiritual human input. Any man who could objectify this into a formula, and calculate the future of politics, would wield a power nigh unto clairvoyance.

Originally Posted by kidkboom

Give me your formula, Crocodile.

The causes are mostly objective. The effects are mostly objective. The interpretations are mostly subjective. An objective study of the politics includes closer examination of the causes and the effects, not the interpretations. The more the causes and effects have similarities in a defined domain, the more degree of certainty you could have as to the objectivity of the analysis you performed.

Originally Posted by kidkboom

From the Sun Tsu to Machiavelli [...]

I think we could have a fruitful discussion here, but I would prefer not to let myself be distracted by this at this point and keep focused on the objectivity/subjectivity. You see, the strategemas are an excellent example of what in IT is referred to as the 'design patterns' and I think gives more credibility to the scientific approach to politics rather than the artistic/religous one.

Originally Posted by kidkboom

While you're at it, maybe you could use your magical objective formula to calculate for me who the next ten presidents of the us and prime ministers of the uk would be. Then we could all make a mint by placing bets.

Hey, I guess you expect the formula not only be specific, but also assert the deterministic nature of the world! That would be a way too much and a little bit against the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by kidkboom

I have a feeling your answer will be somewhat less than what I'm expecting.

I sincerely apologize for that.

Originally Posted by kidkboom

People died: Objective. "As a result of " --> SUBjective.

Yes and no. People died during the collectivization - objective. People died because they didn't want to join the collective farms - objective. People died because the communism implies collectivization - objective. It was ok to let those people die because they were exploiting other people - subjective. Can you see the switch when it becomes subjective? It's at the point of assigning the priorities. That process is subjective.

Originally Posted by kidkboom

The future is always subjective, because it is not limited to numerical influence, but also receives direction from emotional, psychological and spiritual human input.

That means that the future is objective, but non-deterministic.

Originally Posted by kidkboom

Any man who could objectify this into a formula, and calculate the future of politics, would wield a power nigh unto clairvoyance.

Not that it's impossible, but it could probably be done to a certain degree of certainty. You see, we have those quantum physicists who have some magic around a similar kind of things. Perhaps, the sociology would at some point apply some of those methods, not sure. That's a speculation point anyways.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

The causes are mostly objective. The effects are mostly objective. The interpretations are mostly subjective. An objective study of the politics includes closer examination of the causes and the effects, not the interpretations. The more the causes and effects have similarities in a defined domain, the more degree of certainty you could have as to the objectivity of the analysis you performed.


I think we could have a fruitful discussion here, but I would prefer not to let myself be distracted by this at this point and keep focused on the objectivity/subjectivity. You see, the strategemas are an excellent example of what in IT is referred to as the 'design patterns' and I think gives more credibility to the scientific approach to politics rather than the artistic/religous one.


Hey, I guess you expect the formula not only be specific, but also assert the deterministic nature of the world! That would be a way too much and a little bit against the laws of physics.


I sincerely apologize for that.


Yes and no. People died during the collectivization - objective. People died because they didn't want to join the collective farms - objective. People died because the communism implies collectivization - objective. It was ok to let those people die because they were exploiting other people - subjective. Can you see the switch when it becomes subjective? It's at the point of assigning the priorities. That process is subjective.


That means that the future is objective, but non-deterministic.


Not that it's impossible, but it could probably be done to a certain degree of certainty. You see, we have those quantum physicists who have some magic around a similar kind of things. Perhaps, the sociology would at some point apply some of those methods, not sure. That's a speculation point anyways.

Well, reading back what I wrote earlier, I owe an apology for a tone that I myself don't like, upon re-examination. I apologize for my tone.

I think we can mostly agree, if we can agree that there is subjectivity and objectivity involved in this issue. I feel that is true. And I think we agree on the point at which the subjective becomes the objective - during interpretation of the human mind.

But it breaches a dangerous point, because the model of subj. and obj. in leadership can infer an absolute right/wrong about leadership.. and I'm hard pressed to believe in an absolute right or wrong. I think some people, just to make an arbtitrary example, need a capitalistic society to seek their happiness.. others are barraged by the same environment, and would be better able to pursue happiness in a community-centered or even communist situation.. And when the day comes that someone feels that there's an objective solution to the poliltics problem, to the leadership of mankind, and they ALSO happen to be in a position of influence or power... Well, Hitler thought there was an objective solution, though his mindset was drug-addled and basal and reflective of his childhood prejudices... But the danger was not those things, it was his absolute mindset of an objective solution. If a person like that gains a little control, then a little more.. we may paint our world into a corner we can not escape.

One thing I think we can all agree on, though, is that when a leadership is a Dictatorship, only the Dictator truly benefits; the rest suffer. This is what I was saying when I put up the Clark video, or what I meant to convey anyway, and I think it's what hanna may have meant as well, when she asked how much more proof we all should need.. at least that's how I received it.

I guess my "button" (and i'm ashamed, on re-examination, to find I was so reactionary) was the concept that someone's opinion should be invalid, and that someone should request they take it back. Hell, to make sense of this world, we're all going to need models of obj & subj.

Earlier, I had written a formula for you, it took me two hours to write it and you would have been quite entertained.. variables to explain most of the factors behind political ascension and action.. but it got deleted when I timed out, and I didn't try to re-create it. Castles made of sand.

What I wish I knew (assuming there is any answer to give) is how we should, or even how me might, react to news like this. I am disheartened and vaguely frightened by the "Oh well, what can you do?" response that many of my countrymen have shown in response to this deception topic. See, the deception is appalling to everybody, but it seems I'm the only one, or the only one I've found, who would be willing to put some effort into righting this wrong. And would that we could, there might still be some good to come of it.. Us US, we're in Libya now, but the last couple on the list I don't think we've gotten to yet.. I have some vague hope that, armed with this bit of knowledge, we might offset the societal manipulation required to wag-the-dog on two more countries.. and man, if there's one thing america would benefit from right now, it would be NOT having MORE blood on our hands. None of what could come from this is good: we don't need richer Rumsfelds and such people at the top, fed by oil (acquired Roman-style, by military conquest) with oil-gleam in their eyes, looking towards more third-world countries... and we don't need to pave the path of pretense, that these people at the top of the US want us to help them pave - which leads to them being claimed forever innocent of these crimes, because the history books say so.. An uncontested lie, left alone for long enough, can grandfather itself in as "truth," and then we've crowned the devil himself. This is my fear.

Mr. Crocodile, I should mention that I always find your objectivity enlightening, and I envy your feverless demeanor, quite contrasted to my own.. but as for me, I feel I learn a lot about the world through the subjective. It's an approach that a good scientist would throw tomatoes at me for. I shouldn't blame anyone for doing that. It means things are as they should be.

To Seraphim - My apology should extend to you to, since I believe I was overly vitriolic on the same topic with you a couple days back.. Not my intention.. Your words ring true, and your intentions are good. Far be it from me, when I know what I'm doing, to want to interfere with that. My respects to you.

And to ms. hanna, and anyone else who's interested.. if ever a pathway appears, by which we can begin to right these wrongs, or even if you have any advice.. Call me first. I'm willing, if there is a way. My engine runs best on constructive action, and I'll be glad to work at it, if anyone knows what can be done about things like this.

Originally Posted by kidkboom

I guess my "button" (and i'm ashamed, on re-examination, to find I was so reactionary) was the concept that someone's opinion should be invalid, and that someone should request they take it back.

Yes, I admit it was a bit extreme. I've only done it for the consistency reasons. I guess I just got sick and tired of some people blaming the US for just about anything without considering the alternatives. As soon as they hear anything negative about the US - voila! - they are caught like a fish on a hook and start crying some blanket statements. You know, it became so fashionable these days to be over-critical of the US that all the positive factors are forgotten. And usually those very people are very vocal, but unfortunately have not that much clue of what's going on...

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Yes, I admit it was a bit extreme. I've only done it for the consistency reasons. I guess I just got sick and tired of some people blaming the US for just about anything without considering the alternatives. As soon as they hear anything negative about the US - voila! - they are caught like a fish on a hook and start crying some blanket statements. You know, it became so fashionable these days to be over-critical of the US that all the positive factors are forgotten. And usually those very people are very vocal, but unfortunately have not that much clue of what's going on...

I respect this. I should mention that the reason you hear me cry about this, is not because I'm caught on a certain idea, but because I DO love my country. There are plenty of things about capitalism and American freedom that I love dearly.. As a case-in-point, I've been allowed to say and think things about my country that would have had me, if I were a Chinese citizen, whisked away into whatever unknown dungeons their dissidents go to.. (1984-style: Weiwei, an artist, was just freed.. because he "confessed" to his crime of dissidence) .. And I'm very vocal because I'm disheartened by the general US opinion that we should ignore it all, there's nothing we can do, that we should focus on being workers and consumers of functionally-obsolescent electronic goods and trust the leaders to lead.. I'm not really frightened or appalled by the IDEA of corruption - it's part of human nature, in our current iteration - but that corruption can snowball out of control when no one's watching the store.. Sometmies it feels like the curtain has been pulled around our poltical Oz for so long that no one can say what he's been up to. I'm no revolutionist. I like this place. I would just like to encourage people to have a mind for cleaning it up a bit.. And when I have an opportunity to bounce things like this off of people like you all, I feel like I learn more about it, from every angle.. so hopefully one day I WILL know what can be done constructively.. I'm no good at "Oh well, what can you do?" =)

Originally Posted by kidkboom

...To Seraphim - My apology should extend to you to, since I believe I was overly vitriolic on the same topic with you a couple days back.. Not my intention.. Your words ring true, and your intentions are good. Far be it from me, when I know what I'm doing, to want to interfere with that. My respects to you.

No harm done. Any landing you walk away from is a good one. Cheers

No, your country did not plan this. This was planned by the Global Elites! Google Aaron Russo and watch the interview with Alex Jones. In this he explains how his ex friend Nick Rockefeller told him that they had already planned the wars in the Middle east. Why do you think that Obama, who said he would end the wars, has now accelerated them and started another? Obama is not in control, and neither was Bush.