Hello & Welcome to our community. Is this your first visit? Register

Thread: psychobabbling

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    692

    Default

    quote:I didn't know a Kennedy was involved. In the 60's, the only thing that could have prevented their political dynasty was an assassin's bullet, which is what happened twice. Opposing a Kennedy meant certain defeat regardless of the evidence etc. Let's face it, had he not been murdered, JFK could have been elected "King" of the US! His days in the White House were, and still are, referred to as Camelot.
    this shows how right i am to compare politics to wrestling...all those angles, feuds, kayfabe, but it is ultimately a choreographed comedy, a fake in spite looking so real.
    I have problems with JFK hailed as sort of messiah...
    1 Vietnam war
    2 Pig's bay
    3 orgiastic adulterous weekends with sleazy actresses
    4 tentative of WWIII with the Cuban missile crisis

    Damn, is this a hero?
    This is a public enemy and a scumbag, forget pretty plump faces and gut-wrenching speeches written by ghost writers...
    Hell, after the USA helped split Berlin in 2, he even went there to mock them...

    quote:I think it's funny, you don't blame the Americans, and I being an American, do. Certainly England's, and thus Churchill's policies toward Italy, in hindsight, proved to be the wrong decission. But as for his alliance with Stalin, a quote from Churchill, "If Hitler were to invade Hell, I should find occasion to make a favourable reference to the Devil."

    The fact is that by the end of the war in Europe, without the full support of FDR and the US army, Churchill had no choice but to make "deals" with Stalin. As battered as the English forces were, had Stalin wished, he could have made Buckingham Palace his winter retreat at that point. So the devil got eastern Europe.
    Well, Churchill was pleading for soviet intervention well before Hitler invaded the USSR, and that is the problem. Churchill was a mid-carder as Chamberlain, but believed he was a genius or something.
    He's famous for repartees like:
    LADY: Churchill, you are drunk!
    CHURCHILL: And you are ugly, but in the morning I will be sober again.

    LADY: Churchill, if I were your wife, I'd be tempted to put poison in your tea
    CHURCHILL: And if i were your husband, I'd be tempted to drink that tea

    Great presence of mind and a good standup comedian, but unfortunately international politics cannot be mastered as those cheap jokes. He was probably - and all more criminally - convinced that he could play both USSR & USA to his advantage, leaving them -just like Italy in WWI- "empty handed" ( to secure Italy's intervention in WWI, they subscribed an agreement full of promises of future rewards, most of which were denied in the end ).
    Never mind the huge disparities in economic and military power.

    He orchestrated the play well before americans entered the war.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    623

    Default

    quote:I have problems with JFK hailed as sort of messiah...
    1 Vietnam war
    2 Pig's bay
    3 orgiastic adulterous weekends with sleazy actresses
    4 tentative of WWIII with the Cuban missile crisis
    1)When JFK was elected, Vietnam was already going on. During his brief time in office, US invovlement was still generally limited to the "advisory" role. It was during the LBJ administartion that things escalated.
    2)As president, JFK bore the burden and embarrassment of that fiasco. The truth is that the CIA let him down big time with bad intelligence which led directly to bad planning. John McCone should have been fired!
    3)His fallandering is well documented and I also have a personal problem with it.
    4)WWIII... Maybe closer than you actually know. Still, there were cards to be played. On the advise of his brother Robert, then Attorney General, JFK made his stance with Khrushchev. The younger Kennedy was carrying on secret communications with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin, while the elder brother maintained a strong image for the country. RFK's tactful negotiations are the secret of the eventual outcome. Had he not been murdered in 1968, this would be a much different world today.

    You also need to understand that JFK was more than a man. He was a symbol of promise and hope who then became a martyr and thus a legend. At that time, he was the youngest man to become president. He was the first president born in the 20th century. He began some of the social reforms of the 60's. He kick started the space program. He started the Peace Corps, ?to promote world peace and friendship through a Peace Corps, which shall make available to interested countries and areas men and women of the United States qualified for service abroad and willing to serve, under conditions of hardship if necessary, to help the peoples of such countries and areas in meeting their needs for trained manpower.?
    I could go on, but there have already been a couple of biographies written.

    As for the "dynasty". Only a bullet could have prevented his re-election in 1964. It would have been interesting to see how Vietnam would have turned out without 5 years under LBJ? In 1968, RFK, who I believe to have been the brightest of the Kennedys, would most certainly have won that election. Although not quite the rousing public speaker that JFK was, his ideals were what many were moved by.
    quote:Well, Churchill was pleading for soviet intervention well before Hitler invaded the USSR, and that is the problem.
    I again refer to this quote from Churchill, "If Hitler were to invade Hell, I should find occasion to make a favourable reference to the Devil." It was a matter of immediacy. The Brits were simply NOT going to defeat Germany without some help. Turning his back on Italy was certainly a mistake and seems to be a real sticking point with you. But, anyone who studies military strategy knows that having a second force approach your enemy from behind is beneficial. Churchill needed Stalin's armies to open a second front to relieve some pressure from his armies in the west. The thought was beat Hitler now and deal with Stalin afterward. Unfortunately, he didn't have FDR's support when the time came to deal with Stalin.



    Train returns

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Maybe some of our passive readers have, in spite of their keeping our popularity-index high, thought: "Oh, those psychobabblers, they will never get anywhere. They let their minds wander aimlessly from one subject to another, with no order or purpose; using a lot of words. Most of the time, they don't even seem to communicate with each other".


    I once boasted of a talent for being able to see patterns, and I will now try to justify my megalomonia, by trying to tie everything said sofar into a nice little knot, showing that Ham, PeopleS and I are making a pattern.


    We have here roved around with such topics as politics, dating, psychology, cultural differences/similarities, evolution-theory etc.


    In all this, there seems to be a recurrent theme, described by different names: Reptile thinking, predatory systems, hierachy systems, parasitism, power, manipulation and egotism. All these words defining one specific situation from different angles. We have also talked about how to relate this.


    The situation in a predatory system is as follows: The only relationship between two different parts of the universe functioning together inside this frame is, that one part (by being "stronger" in one way or another) eat the other (weaker) part, or use this other weaker part in similar ways for personal, and completely egoistic, gratification. The weaker part will have no beneficial effects from this process. This system functions both between different species, and also inside the same species. Not only in the case of animals, but also plants compete, even with their fellow plants. Eg trees competing for light and nourishment.


    Most human societies are build upon predation, no matter how elevated the theories behind them are. The political bosses feed people a bunch of lies, and later use them for cannonfodder in some private war. The organised religions make people into fundamentalists, with "right to kill", and big business makes people into braindead consumers.


    The other extreme choice of relating is: Symbiosis, a situation where both parts benefit. It does happen sometimes in nature, by special twists in evolution, but it's not the most usual method. Sufficiently complex organisms can construct/create such symbiosis functions, because they learn from experience, that it pays. Eg human social engineering (wellfare, charity etc), birds picking the teeth of crocodiles, free flow of information.

    I've put the sitauation in black/white. Usually it's a bit of this and a bit of that.


    The predatory system is very quick, both at the individual level and as a factor in evolution, but it implies a lot of inconvenience for the weaker parts, and generally it creates a background feeling of paranoia. You never know, when YOU will meet YOUR predator.


    Symbiosis is slow, both for evolution and individually, but it's generally more pleasant for everybody involved. And in any case, what's so wonderful about quick evolution? Symbiosis is the method for mutual gain, and represents functional interaction and communication.


    Symbiosis does NOT mean, that you have to turn the other cheek, being a blue-eyed pacifist or offer your body to a tiger. It means making fair deals.


    Until now, we have mainly discussed the predatory principle/symbiosis as the relation between two different individuals. But it can also be used to describe the inner functioning of an individual, specially a complex one as a human being. Complex beings have so many different bits of "machinery" and more abstract functions inside them, that a certain organisation is necessary to make all this work together. We can here (in the inner organisation of an individual) also talk about the predatory principle or symbiosis as possibilities. But that is a post by itself.



  4. #94
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Cit PeopleS:


    "They have families. They love their children. They put on their pants one leg at a time. They laugh and they cry. They have hopes for a better life."

    For that matter, so does a welltrained chimpanzee. In the spirit of GENERAL humanitarian, symbiotist and almost-but-not-quite-buddhist attitude I know, that a measure of tolerance is important. Also charity and social levelling. But I have no pity or compassion for crooks. They have no right to hide behind a "do-good" system, excusing themselves with various idiotic theories about bad potty-training or repressions under a horrible political system. To be active part of a symbiotic exchange, you'll have to take responsibility for your actions and be honest. The average crook is a camouflaged predator, pretending to be the "victim" of this or that.

    And the attitude in FSU and satelite areas is, that you just grab. A big part of the untold zillions pumped into the area as support or as business-investments went directly into private pockets of the topdogs, and then slowly filtered down to the general population. I've seen this in my 18 years in Poland, and Poland is "civilized" in this respect, compared to many of the other countries in the area. At least at the economical level, the whole system is one big predatory machine, with "glamour" (status) as an outer indicator of your success (thus the example of secondhand shops).

    I know, that I maybe sound like a hard case of republican rightwing individualism. "Bad luck, mate. But god (or whatever) ordained you to be starving to death, so please get out of my way". But no, there ARE many cases where real help is needed and justified. And I would be (and sometimes am) the first to respond to such (as Brunods would have said: Just in case, it's your ticket to heaven).

    But this a big step from this to having sleepless nights, if you can't afford the latest fashionclothes. And while I help as much as I can (or almost), I react very negatively to be a scam-victim. I do not suffer from the common handwringing about what is right or wrong. Theoretically everybody should have the chance to survive with a minimum of food, shelter and personal safety. If an individual wants MORE than that, it's his own business how s/he does it, as long as it doesn't infringe on other individuals or the planet in general.


  5. #95
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    692

    Default

    quote:I again refer to this quote from Churchill, "If Hitler were to invade Hell, I should find occasion to make a favourable reference to the Devil." It was a matter of immediacy. The Brits were simply NOT going to defeat Germany without some help. Turning his back on Italy was certainly a mistake and seems to be a real sticking point with you. But, anyone who studies military strategy knows that having a second force approach your enemy from behind is beneficial. Churchill needed Stalin's armies to open a second front to relieve some pressure from his armies in the west. The thought was beat Hitler now and deal with Stalin afterward. Unfortunately, he didn't have FDR's support when the time came to deal with Stalin.
    You still miss my point.
    Hitler was (stupidly) enamoured with Britain; he wanted peace at all costs with Britain. I start from the official standpoint that Britain did all it did for the sake of Poland. Now I think it is false as USSR had invaded Poland along with Germany, yet Germany was the only one to blame. Second, they had no western armies since that idiot Hitler let 250.000 of them save their butt at Dunkerque (again: enamored with Britain. Pay back will come with the Churchill-orchestrated Dresden mass bombing ). Now the official standpoint is bunk since not only Poland was gone, but half Europe as well. The camel got into the tent starting from the head, but it was too late. Suggesting that Churchill could not appreciate USSR's military power TO THAT POINT (along with ideology ) would make him look all the more silly and amateurish.
    Americans did not care until 1941 and even thereafter were not too concerned with Europe, leaving contenders to fight to death to sell weaponry and supplies first.
    Later it was honestly too late to contain the USSR.
    Part of Churchill's master plan was to let the USSR bear the most weigh in the struggle to hopefully kill the beast in action.
    Yes, while the beast conquered one country after another.
    Americans came near to confrontation with USSR in Berlin, but at that point, what for?
    Stalin was still complacent enough to make him look tame enough not to warrant such measures; only with the invasion of Budapest & Prague did Americans fully realize the beast had not only not died, but was flourishing and far from tame.
    Roll-back doctrine by Foster Dulles later exemplifies this new awareness: ROLL-BACK, alas too late since USSR had atomic bombs too.
    My point, however, is purely technical: WWII happened basically because a portion of "nazified" Europe was too much to bear for Churchill (whose hallucinating speeches are on par with the most exaggerate Nazi propaganda, albeit on different wavelenghts ); well, after WWII they had a bunch of soviet regimes in a broader geographical area, and worldwide unrest (Vietnam, Cuba ).
    Who felt sorry for Prague and Budapest?
    Churchill later described Mussolini as a monster, but did nothing to help him stay out of the war but empty promises (Mussolini was in love with Britain as well ).
    Again, I think Churchill was a self-pompous mediocrity who thought he could handle Stalin like the ladies in his sarcastic repartees.
    Big mistake.
    Yes, he had 37 countries colonies of Britain to help, yet still he failed miserably.
    Churchill was busy with the mental masturbation he would "write history", but he led his country to disaster, the empire collapsed and the end result is that USA & USSR shared the lot.
    As i said, while France still managed to stir some troubles in Africa, Britain literally vanished as world-power, becoming only "America's dear ally" in a balance much weaker than between Italy and Germany.

    quote:1)When JFK was elected, Vietnam was already going on. During his brief time in office, US invovlement was still generally limited to the "advisory" role. It was during the LBJ administartion that things escalated.
    2)As president, JFK bore the burden and embarrassment of that fiasco. The truth is that the CIA let him down big time with bad intelligence which led directly to bad planning. John McCone should have been fired!
    Well, WWII was supposed to be over in 18 months; Bush blames the CIA as well for his "mass destruction" hoax, but who are they kidding?

    Castro is another example: bastard of a wealthy proprietor himself, Castro was forced by US embargoes & severity to sell himself to the one able to buy his sugar & bananas pronto: the USSR, wearing their colors; much like Albania did later (in the communist diaspora ) collaborating with China.
    Again: suitable mediation was not even attempted.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    381

    Default

    No matter the interpretation of historical developement, one thing stands out.

    Top politicians are not especially wise, they are just good at playing the predator game.


    But who (if any) orchestrates the play?

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    623

    Default

    ham Posted - Jan 20 2008 : 10:12:25
    quote:You still miss my point.
    Hitler was (stupidly) enamoured with Britain; he wanted peace at all costs with Britain.
    And is it therfore believed that had Hitler conquered all of Europe that he would have said, "Okay, I love England so gosh darned much that I'll just leave them be?" Wartime politics is THE most bastardized form of propaganda possible. Again I will point you toward the dastardly doings of the FDR administration. Japan had sent multiple envoys to the US to negotiate peace before hostilities broke out, but were brushed aside because FDR needed an excuse that he could "sell" to the country for entering the war. Every man and woman who died at Pearl Harbor on December 7th, died by FDR's hand.

    So you see, war really does make strange bedfellows doesn't it?
    quote:My point, however, is purely technical: WWII happened basically because a portion of "nazified" Europe was too much to bear for Churchill (whose hallucinating speeches are on par with the most exaggerate Nazi propaganda, albeit on different wavelenghts ); well, after WWII they had a bunch of soviet regimes in a broader geographical area, and worldwide unrest (Vietnam, Cuba ).
    How big would that "portion" of nazified Europe have been had they won? At what border would they have stopped? Italy maybe? Heck, the Nazis were in north Africa! They were fighting to control sand, camel dropping and absolutely NO natural resourses. No, Hitler was a maniac and had to be stopped at all costs. Can you imagine what might have happened if he had control of "the bomb" prior to his defeat?

    Unlike the USSR and the US, I believe that this man would have deemed millions upon millions as "acceptable" losses in an all out nuclear war, as long as he thought he would win. Churchill's dealings to bring Russia into the war was the only thing he could do, viewing Stalin as the lesser of two evils. Hitler himself helped this along by building his forces along the Russian border and presenting himself as a threat to Stalin who was hesitant to commit. Hitler also made the mistake of underestimating Russian strength, thinking he would be in Moscow in months. Having not planned on a lengthy battle in the east, when winter came, supplies were low and thus the Russian resurgeance and push toward the west.

    With "the bomb" in hand, had FDR supported Churchill in trying to get the Russians to leave the countries they occupied, all of this would be a moot point. I should also point out that good old Gen. George S. Patton also presented a plan to Gen. Omar Bradley (his direct superior) to push the Russians back if they didn't go willingly, which included taking Moscow if necessary to drive home the point. His plan evaluated the Nazi failure and took into account the weather and supply logistics. Eisenhower canned the idea and Patton himself soon after.

    As for Dresden... a major mistake that should have never happened. I agree that it was inexcusable and I have no clue, evidence or theory to support what Churchill did there.

    Castro and Cuba are a mistake of the Eisenhower administration that JFK inherited. Personally, I have a big problem with US policy toward Cuba and have for a long time, particularly since the fall of the Soviet Union. In this area, I feel that US policy still punishes a former satelite of the FSU long past time to do so, and is by doing so, contributing to the problem that should no longer be a problem. Each concurrent US administration that comes to power finds it easier to maintain the status quo than to do what is right.

    For the CIA agent who may be monitoring this, these statements were made under Cuban mind control and I am a loyal American!

    swede, to expand on what I had said before, you need to understand the fear propaganda that was spread in the US for so many decades. The SU, and thus the people, were presented as without feeling or true emotion. SU children were "bred" to fight against... us! That was their purpose in life as we were told by our "trusted" gvernment. Any and all humanistic characteristics of Soviet people were removed! Clearly the intent was to foster hatred through fear.

    Once again we go to politics and power as being the origin of the problem. Stalin's quest for power, in the abence of the vanquished Hitler, gave the world and particularly the US a new focal point to rally against in order to promote nationalism. (Here we have a prime example of an individual who has adversely affected the whole) His tactics and brutality rivaled those of Hitler in many ways, but with the introduction of a new weapon into world society, the approach to him had to be modified.

    Again I refer to decades of "programming" which we have discussed. This occured on both sides of the Iron Curtain I am sure. Cultural differences aside, with the fall of the SU and the "newly discovered" eastern European states, Americans like me are able to see that these are people like us, who were to some extent "brainwashed" into mindless and unfounded hatred toward the people as opposed to the real problem which was the opposing government/ political philosophies.
    quote:And the attitude in FSU and satelite areas is, that you just grab. A big part of the untold zillions pumped into the area as support or as business-investments went directly into private pockets of the topdogs, and then slowly filtered down to the general population. I've seen this in my 18 years in Poland, and Poland is "civilized" in this respect, compared to many of the other countries in the area. At least at the economical level, the whole system is one big predatory machine, with "glamour" (status) as an outer indicator of your succees (thus the example of secondhand shops).
    GREED and POWER! The haves want more and will tread upon the backs of the have-nots without remorse. You help to make my point that people in the FSU are really no different that people any where else, especially in the US. Perhaps, the FSUs take things a bit to the extreme from time to time and in certain areas, but I attribute this to their new found freedom. We here in the US, Sweden and Italy take the "ability" to be greedy for granted because we have had such ability for the passed 60+ years. FSUs haven't. The freedom to be greedy is new to the common man or woman! Prior to 1991, greed was excusive to the Soviet elite. These people are like kids with a free pass in a candy store. To some extent, it's the responsibilty of those of us to try to understand their fervor. FSUs are like children to the world society. They're only 16 or so years old and deserve tolerence to some extent.
    quote:I know, that I maybe sound like a hard case of republican rightwing individualism. "Bad luck, mate. But god (or whatever) ordained you to be starving to death, so please get out of my way". But no, there ARE many cases where real help is needed and justified. And I would be (and sometimes am) the first to respond to such (as Brunods would have said: Just in case, it's your ticket to heaven).
    There are those who have said it is the "responsibility" of those who can, to help his fellow man. Others believe in the adage, "God helps those who help themselves". Like you have done, it sometimes must be realized that there truly are those who for whatever reason are in a socio-economic postion where they cannot do anything for themselves without some kind of help. Those who can, but don't try, deserve their fate. Those who try, but fail for whatever reason, deservre help and guidance toward self suffience.

    As I have read here and on other sites, scamming is actually considered to be an honest living in many areas of the FSU. Again, I say they are children of world society and some degree of tolerence must be shown, along with proper disiplinary action of course. The problem is disiplining the child. How???[V]

    Train returns

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    623

    Default

    quote:No matter the interpretation of historical developement, one thing stands out.

    Top politicians are not especially wise, they are just good at playing the predator game.


    But who (if any) orchestrates the play?
    The one with the most toys!!!! Be it guns, bombs, or bodies to throw with total disregard!!!

    Train returns

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Or maybe my favorite:


    Cit Ham:


    "Americans did not care until 1941 and even thereafter were not too concerned with Europe, leaving contenders to fight to death to sell weaponry and supplies first."

    It's at that level, we FIRST meet the silent players. For the really bad cases of sheepwalking: Maybe the X-file theme wasn't just a good story, but an allegory of what's going on. Or Orwell's "1984", where allegiances are constanly changing, and "history" is being re-written all along. All in the interests of a small power-elite.

    Religious dogmas express the options well. The "western" organised religions fundamentally telling you: "Bow to the topdog, shut up, and don't ask questions". And this game can be played through different outlets: Politics, economy, religion, philosophy etc., adressing themselves to different types of people.

    Some of the eastern saying: Find knowledge, wisdom, and act as if you are responsible.

    That's the next level silent players.

    In the end, it's up to the individual to choose his/her direction. It's not where you are, it's where you're going, that's important. Change is necessary. Remember the overall topic for psychobabbling is "Scam or not". Is that question asked for idle curiosity, or as an incitement to take consequences?

    There are scams inside scams inside scams.


  10. #100
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Cit PeopleS:


    "For the CIA agent who may be monitoring this, these statements were made under Cuban mind control and I am a loyal American!"

    Wellcome to my little world. Only in my case, I'm the victim of reptiles from Draconia. If I believed it would function, I would wear an aluminum hat. (Anybody detecting any irony in this statement: Such irony is directed towards myself, not PeopleS).

    "swede, to expand on what I had said before, you need to understand the fear propaganda that was spread in the US for so many decades."

    Pleeease, PeopleS. Even peasants like me have so much knowledge of US. I always found the McCarthy regime on par with the sovjet's worst exaggerations.

    "Perhaps, the FSUs take things a bit to the extreme from time to time and in certain areas"

    With all respect, your and my definition of what a "bit" is differs radically. I consider these people to have passed over the border to criminal behaviour. But this standpoint of mine is ofcourse no surprise by now, and I shall refrain from threshing on the subject.


    "There are those who have said it is the "responsibility" of those who can, to help his fellow man."

    I have my own "almost-but-not-quite-buddhist" approach, this is a personal thing, I will not mission for. But the utilitarian principle seems to be sensible to me: It could be you or me tomorrow, needing a helping hand. It's at that level just insurance, and don't mind Brunod's or moral philosophy.


    "As I have read here and on other sites, scamming is actually considered to be an honest living in many areas of the FSU"

    Soap-opera Elena does. And she's not completely fictive.

    "along with proper disiplinary action of course. The problem is disiplining the child. How???"

    What about enforced freudian psychoanalysis for 20 years. Or reading this forum two hours every day. What I tried to do in my own situation with my "fianc?e", was to stop her as much as I could. I had the possibilities to a certain degree to mess with her private live, but I abstained. I believe, that her humiliation by being exposed was a heavy blow, but it wouldn't crush her. She continued a year or two after being put out as a scammer, then she disappeared from the scene, when her new clients started contacting me (recognising her through sites like this. It DOES pay to be here).






Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT. The time now is 07:57 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3
Copyright © 2016 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Username Changing provided by Username Change (Free) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Skin By: PurevB.com