Thought this might be worth a thread. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Thought this might be worth a thread.


Norske
04-12-2012, 10:35
(Per a previous thread discussing societal organization, so this kind of appears to be non-sequitur)

Hunter-Gatherers are family groups. They are governed by family ties. While family groups may have a "religion", they do not need "religion" so much as larger groups do.

When mankind settled down into sedentary clans, towns, nations, empires, and what have you based on agriculture, family ties were not enough to keep differing families from acting out of the needs of their families at the expense of the greater society.

"Something" was needed to keep such societies together.

That "Something" was originally Religion, and now in more modern times, it is "Government".

I break "government" down into three basic types:

(True) Monarchy
Secular without respect for individual liberty.
Secular with respect for individual liberty.

Basically, I view "Monarchy" and "Secular without respect for individual liberty" as being pretty much the same.

They differ only in that Monarchy asserts that authority has been handed down to them by "God", and Secular w/o r.f.I.L. tries to supplant "God" with some other nebulous idea like "Aryan Superiority" or "Dictatorship of the Proletariate" or some such bushwah.

Before you point out that the UK is a monarchy, I consider the UK system as being in the "Secular with respect for individual liberty" column since while your head of State is a Monarch, your head of Government (the PM) is not. And while the "Rights of Englishmen" continue to dwindle, they are not yet completely gone.

I view Monarchy as the "lowest common denominator" system.

Witness, the society of Pharoah during the time of Moses and Incan society at the time of Columbus. Separated both by an ocean and a couple of thousand years.

Rich agricultural societies, masses of serfs/slaves/peons at the bottom, above them a warrior class, above them a noble class, above them a God/King. Both put the excess energies of the masses to work building ridiculous, opulent, tombs for the God/Kings....Pyramids!.....in both cases.

This cannot be a coincidence.

It is innate human nature.

I believe that even today, mankind seeks to gravitate towards such "pyramidal" societal structures.

The Nazis and Communists were - and are! - Monarchial in all but name (note three generations of "Kim"s, grandfather, son, grandson, ruling North Korea in the time there have been 11 different US Presidents).

Warrior class (Red Army; SS/SD), Elite class (Communist party member/Nazi party members), God/King (Fuhrer; Party Secretary). Masses with no rights.

Same structure. Different names.

Here in the USA, our Democratic Party (in reality, the "Anti-Democratic Party") is trying to dismantle our Constitution and Bill of Rights and arrogate themselves into a new elite nobility from whom will eventually emerge a God/King.

If the rest of us (as they would have us be) would-be peasents/serfs/slaves don't keep them in check, of course.

The next Presidential Election in November may well determine whether the USA will remain "Secular with Respect for Individual Liberty" or backslide into Monarchy and pyramid building.

And the rest of the World, with us.

Roering
04-12-2012, 12:14
Sounds like a thread for the political issues forum. Perhaps the mods can move?

fgutie35
04-12-2012, 12:38
It is good for a paper due for extra points in your sociology class, but let me tell you of why that little pesky word you seem to despise, have to be part of every society in order for it to be a balance. One word will null all of what you just wasted soo much time in typing "Selfishness". Selfishness has even infiltrated religion at almost every level; no matter what religion we are talking about. That Eutopian World you dream off where religion does not exists and everyone holds hands and sings Kumbaya, is as real as Obama's Hope and Change.

Norske
04-12-2012, 13:16
It is good for a paper due for extra points in your sociology class, but let me tell you of why that little pesky word you seem to despise, have to be part of every society in order for it to be a balance. One word will null all of what you just wasted soo much time in typing "Selfishness". Selfishness has even infiltrated religion at almost every level; no matter what religion we are talking about. That Eutopian World you dream off where religion does not exists and everyone holds hands and sings Kumbaya, is as real as Obama's Hope and Change.

Bitter much? :supergrin:

I seem to recall singing "Kumbaya" a lot at the every-Summer Christian Mind-Control Camp the Church my parents supported was involved in.

I do think mankind would be much better off by growing up and rejecting Organized Religion for the silly superstition it is.

Just as we eventually grow up and no longer believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Monsters in our closets.

:dunno:

But I do think we need to understand the dynamics of how societies form themselves, if we are to avoid backsliding into Monarchial Tyranny.

Whether that Tyranny is Theocratic or some other nonsense like Nazi or Communist or American (Anti-) Democratic Party.

alwaysshootin
04-12-2012, 13:17
Just remember these phrases!

" Communism, isn't for the communist! "

" socialism, isn't for the socialist! " :wavey:

Norske
04-12-2012, 13:19
Sounds like a thread for the political issues forum. Perhaps the mods can move?

Religion is politics and politics includes religion.

It belongs in both.

:dunno:

Norske
04-12-2012, 13:20
Just remember these phrases!

" Communism, isn't for the communist! "

" socialism, isn't for the socialist! " :wavey:

Both are for the elites at the expense of the masses.

:faint:

alwaysshootin
04-12-2012, 13:27
Both are for the elites at the expense of the masses.

:faint:

Just as the government we are looking at now, don't you think?

Norske
04-12-2012, 13:36
Just as the government we are looking at now, don't you think?

No, we are not there yet. :upeyes:

Are Obama and his crowd moving us towards it? :shocked:

Definitely. :steamed:

This November's Presidential election may well determine whether or not "Government of the People, and by the People, and for the People" will vanish from the face of the earth or not.

fgutie35
04-12-2012, 13:45
Just as we eventually grow up and no longer believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Monsters in our closets.


We don't grow out of it, we replace them with other things like political party affiliations, or ideological organizations you feel identified with, as per the monsters in the closet, we replace them with the IRS. :supergrin:

alwaysshootin
04-12-2012, 13:52
No, we are not there yet. :upeyes:

Are Obama and his crowd moving us towards it? :shocked:

Definitely. :steamed:

This November's Presidential election may well determine whether or not "Government of the People, and by the People, and for the People" will vanish from the face of the earth or not.

I have to regrettably, disagree! There are so, many reasons, I'll just add a few.

What is the tally now of American taxpayers that are against the "healthcare bill"? Was it 85, or 65%? No matter we are stuck with it, and, for now, the only hope we have, for now, is a split scotus decision of 5 to 4. Are you kidding me? If it's anything other than a 9-0 vote, some of the scotus, have no clue of the Constitution! Which, they solemnly, swore to uphold!

What of the elected officials, if the HCL stands, will be using this health care? That's right, none!

I could go on and on, but I won't. As you can see, we're way gone, and I'm not sure we can ever get it back. Sorry to say, it was nice, and this election matters not. Romney or Obama, the path we're going down will be continued!!!!!!!

Geko45
04-12-2012, 14:46
It is good for a paper due for extra points in your sociology class, but let me tell you of why that little pesky word you seem to despise, have to be part of every society in order for it to be a balance. One word will null all of what you just wasted soo much time in typing "Selfishness". Selfishness has even infiltrated religion at almost every level; no matter what religion we are talking about. That Eutopian World you dream off where religion does not exists and everyone holds hands and sings Kumbaya, is as real as Obama's Hope and Change.

Athiesm and socialism don't go hand in hand. I'm not a godless communist, I'm a godless capitalist. I believe athiesm actually compliments a capitalistic, democratic republic as it recognizes that everyone should be allowed to find their own purpose. Selfishness is, of course, a basic human attribute within us all, but I fail to see how it is relevant here. Selfishness can certainly be cited as a failing of socialism as it removes the drive for people to excel, but I don't think Norske was advocating that.

Norske
04-12-2012, 15:07
Serious Question:

What is your definition of "Selfishness"?

Geko45
04-12-2012, 15:14
Serious Question:

What is your definition of "Selfishness"?

According to some, it's what athiests do when we reject the social paradigms they feel entrapped in and obligated to maintain.

creaky
04-12-2012, 16:27
(Per a previous thread discussing societal organization, so this kind of appears to be non-sequitur)

Hunter-Gatherers are family groups. They are governed by family ties. While family groups may have a "religion", they do not need "religion" so much as larger groups do.

When mankind settled down into sedentary clans, towns, nations, empires, and what have you based on agriculture, family ties were not enough to keep differing families from acting out of the needs of their families at the expense of the greater society.

"Something" was needed to keep such societies together.

That "Something" was originally Religion, and now in more modern times, it is "Government".

I break "government" down into three basic types:

(True) Monarchy
Secular without respect for individual liberty.
Secular with respect for individual liberty.

Basically, I view "Monarchy" and "Secular without respect for individual liberty" as being pretty much the same.

They differ only in that Monarchy asserts that authority has been handed down to them by "God", and Secular w/o r.f.I.L. tries to supplant "God" with some other nebulous idea like "Aryan Superiority" or "Dictatorship of the Proletariate" or some such bushwah.

Before you point out that the UK is a monarchy, I consider the UK system as being in the "Secular with respect for individual liberty" column since while your head of State is a Monarch, your head of Government (the PM) is not. And while the "Rights of Englishmen" continue to dwindle, they are not yet completely gone.

I view Monarchy as the "lowest common denominator" system.

Witness, the society of Pharoah during the time of Moses and Incan society at the time of Columbus. Separated both by an ocean and a couple of thousand years.

Rich agricultural societies, masses of serfs/slaves/peons at the bottom, above them a warrior class, above them a noble class, above them a God/King. Both put the excess energies of the masses to work building ridiculous, opulent, tombs for the God/Kings....Pyramids!.....in both cases.

This cannot be a coincidence.

It is innate human nature.

I believe that even today, mankind seeks to gravitate towards such "pyramidal" societal structures.

The Nazis and Communists were - and are! - Monarchial in all but name (note three generations of "Kim"s, grandfather, son, grandson, ruling North Korea in the time there have been 11 different US Presidents).

Warrior class (Red Army; SS/SD), Elite class (Communist party member/Nazi party members), God/King (Fuhrer; Party Secretary). Masses with no rights.

Same structure. Different names.

Here in the USA, our Democratic Party (in reality, the "Anti-Democratic Party") is trying to dismantle our Constitution and Bill of Rights and arrogate themselves into a new elite nobility from whom will eventually emerge a God/King.

If the rest of us (as they would have us be) would-be peasents/serfs/slaves don't keep them in check, of course.

The next Presidential Election in November may well determine whether the USA will remain "Secular with Respect for Individual Liberty" or backslide into Monarchy and pyramid building.

And the rest of the World, with us.

More pseudo-intellectual psychobabble from Norske. Doesn't the lawn need mowed or something?

Norske
04-12-2012, 16:46
More pseudo-intellectual psychobabble from Norske. Doesn't the lawn need mowed or something?

If you meant to say "Doesn't the lawn need mowing or something", No, I pay a guy to do it for me.

:whistling:

Ramjet38
04-12-2012, 17:22
If you meant to say "Doesn't the lawn need mowing or something", No, I pay a guy to do it for me.

:whistling:

Did you check his imigration status???

:rofl:

fgutie35
04-12-2012, 18:20
Serious Question:

What is your definition of "Selfishness"?

Was that question for me, or for Geko45?

juggy4711
04-12-2012, 22:46
It is both arrogant and selfish to believe one's religion is the truth and that others must believe in it also or be punished from on high.

Kingarthurhk
04-13-2012, 18:33
It is both arrogant and selfish to believe one's religion is the truth and that others must believe in it also or be punished from on high.

It is not arrogant to honestly and genuinely seek truth. It is not arrogant, once you discover truth to share it with others.

It is arrogance to determine yourself as judge over someone else's slavation. That is for God to do, and not for us who cannot see as He does. It is arrogance to force someone to believe as you do.

Hope that helps.

juggy4711
04-13-2012, 20:38
It is not arrogant to honestly and genuinely seek truth. It is not arrogant, once you discover truth to share it with others.

It is arrogance to determine yourself as judge over someone else's slavation. That is for God to do, and not for us who cannot see as He does. It is arrogance to force someone to believe as you do.

Hope that helps.

Yep that helps to prove my point. In such a matter as religion it is arrogant to think you know the truth and selfish to think everyone else should think the same because it would make you feel better about your choice.

Trying to force someone else to believe as you do is beyond arrogant. It is evil.