Am I A Quasi-Fascist?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by knightchildish
Idc what you are, clearly you believing that the west is entitled to invade countries shows what kind of mentality you have, grow up and get in check with reality
Not an argument I'm afraid.
And idc whether the West has the "right" or not, because we don't need one. We should do it for reasons of self-interest and for the betterment of mankind. And we should have no qualms about killing thousands to make that happen.
Read "The Prince" by Machiavelli and "Thus Spake Zarathustra", "The Antichrist", "On The Genealogy of Morals", "Beyond Good and Evil" and "The Gay Science" by Nietzsche.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Cato the Elder
Not an argument I'm afraid.
And idc whether the West has the "right" or not, because we don't need one. We should do it for reasons of self-interest and for the betterment of mankind. And we should have no qualms about killing thousands to make that happen.
And idc whether the West has the "right" or not, because we don't need one. We should do it for reasons of self-interest and for the betterment of mankind. And we should have no qualms about killing thousands to make that happen.
You kind of remind me of the guy from fight club.
I mean look, you've spent so much time writing paragraphs on paragraphs to justify what seems to be a reenactment of movies and sensationalist novels. I think you're miserable and your life is mundane and coming up with silly political ideologies that are sort of hilarious for the rest of us to cover your dissatisfaction in life.
Don't worry, you'll grow out of it. Hopefully.
Original post by knightchildish
You kind of remind me of the guy from fight club.
I mean look, you've spent so much time writing paragraphs on paragraphs to justify what seems to be a reenactment of movies and sensationalist novels. I think you're miserable and your life is mundane and coming up with silly political ideologies that are sort of hilarious for the rest of us to cover your dissatisfaction in life.
Don't worry, you'll grow out of it. Hopefully.
I mean look, you've spent so much time writing paragraphs on paragraphs to justify what seems to be a reenactment of movies and sensationalist novels. I think you're miserable and your life is mundane and coming up with silly political ideologies that are sort of hilarious for the rest of us to cover your dissatisfaction in life.
Don't worry, you'll grow out of it. Hopefully.
Lol, ad hominem attacks. The response of someone who has nothing intelligent to contribute to the discussion.
Please, leave this thread if you aren't going to say anything useful and beneficial to humankind.
Original post by Cato the Elder
Lol, ad hominem attacks. The response of someone who has nothing intelligent to contribute to the discussion.
What I find hilariously ironic is that i've seen you here being very critical to say the least about places like Saudi Arabia and yet you advocate the violation of international borders and the killing of people for the Western world's gain. You're nothing short of a hypocrite.
This was never a discussion, this was me giving you a wake up call.
Original post by knightchildish
What I find hilariously ironic is that i've seen you here being very critical to say the least about places like Saudi Arabia and yet you advocate the violation of international borders and the killing of people for the Western world's gain. You're nothing short of a hypocrite.
This was never a discussion, this was me giving you a wake up call.
This was never a discussion, this was me giving you a wake up call.
So my ideal state is the moral equivalent of a hellhole like Saudi Arabia? All this tells me is that your narrow and unfurnished mind cannot even begin to comprehend the degradation, poverty and misery in said country. For you to compare my ideas with totalitarian Islamic theocracy is to trivialise it, and is, in effect, a form of apology for Islamism, because you're basically saying that Saudi Arabia isn't that bad. Good to know that you're an apologist for Islamism.
Thank you for your perspicacious and indispensable insights. Goodbye!
Original post by Mathemagicien
Are you actually being serious?
Yes.
Original post by Cato the Elder
So my ideal state is the moral equivalent of a hellhole like Saudi Arabia? All this tells me is that your narrow and unfurnished mind cannot even begin to comprehend the degradation, poverty and misery in said country. For you to compare my ideas with totalitarian Islamic theocracy is to trivialise it, and is, in effect, a form of apology for Islamism, because you're basically saying that Saudi Arabia isn't that bad. Good to know that you're an apologist for Islamism.
Thank you for your perspicacious and indispensable insights. Goodbye!
Thank you for your perspicacious and indispensable insights. Goodbye!
Well you have thrown all morals out, given that you advocate genocide for the purpose of gain for the west. Even the Saudis aren't indiscriminately murdering everyone for the West's gain. I'm saying that the Saudis are vile but you're worse. Im not an apologist. Your whole ideology is based on the fundamental principle that the people of the West are superior to the rest of the world and that's how the slave trade began.
However I am struggling to see how you're trying to justify your own ideology which has no morals at all for victim countries but then say that the Saudis are bad. It's purely hypocritical. It's like you're cherry picking which morals we throw away and which we keep. It's not one rule for the west and another for the rest. There needs to be consistency.
Original post by Cato the Elder
Not an argument I'm afraid.
And idc whether the West has the "right" or not, because we don't need one. We should do it for reasons of self-interest and for the betterment of mankind. And we should have no qualms about killing thousands to make that happen.
Read "The Prince" by Machiavelli and "Thus Spake Zarathustra", "The Antichrist", "On The Genealogy of Morals", "Beyond Good and Evil" and "The Gay Science" by Nietzsche.
And idc whether the West has the "right" or not, because we don't need one. We should do it for reasons of self-interest and for the betterment of mankind. And we should have no qualms about killing thousands to make that happen.
Read "The Prince" by Machiavelli and "Thus Spake Zarathustra", "The Antichrist", "On The Genealogy of Morals", "Beyond Good and Evil" and "The Gay Science" by Nietzsche.
Would it not simply be better to endorse isolationism in your society? You don't really even have to interact with other civilisations if you wish not to, but there's no need to wage war. Although, I imagine war would be inevitable at some point as you would no doubt pursue the same resources as another state. In this respect, I guess colonialism would further your goals most effectively. Still, if there's no need to come into conflict with one another, then I see no need to attempt to dominate another society.
Like I said before, your proposals make logical sense from a perspective of self-interest, with a strong attachment to the state. There are obvious criticisms to this as well, which are plainly obvious to identify (mainly in regards to disregards for human rights and the 'right' to invade other nations). You could counter this by saying these are both human constructs with no tangible value, which is true, but I assume that you at least want some degree of moral standards and respect for others within your own society, which are just as intangible. It may also serve your own long-term interests to cooperate with others in the world, as this increases the number of potential 'great' people who may bring about a positive change, and avoids conflict that risks periodic mass destruction of your own society (if the enemy has similar strength to your own). It's an interesting thought-experiment though. Tomorrow, when I'm on my computer, I might go through the whole OP and respond to each part in more detail, listing what I think are the pros and cons of all the things you've described, if you'd like?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Cato the Elder
Not an argument I'm afraid.
And idc whether the West has the "right" or not, because we don't need one. We should do it for reasons of self-interest and for the betterment of mankind. And we should have no qualms about killing thousands to make that happen.
Read "The Prince" by Machiavelli and "Thus Spake Zarathustra", "The Antichrist", "On The Genealogy of Morals", "Beyond Good and Evil" and "The Gay Science" by Nietzsche.
And idc whether the West has the "right" or not, because we don't need one. We should do it for reasons of self-interest and for the betterment of mankind. And we should have no qualms about killing thousands to make that happen.
Read "The Prince" by Machiavelli and "Thus Spake Zarathustra", "The Antichrist", "On The Genealogy of Morals", "Beyond Good and Evil" and "The Gay Science" by Nietzsche.
Mate no matter what you political aims ideally you shouldn't need to kill people to achieve them, and if you do eg bombing an enemy city during wartime said course of action shouldn't be taken frivolously.
An initial post of more than 1,200 words (which is essentially an essay) really needs an expanded tl;dr to get the most responses, don't you think? Even if those words are beautifully assembled 
Original post by Mathemagicien
The youth of today... no attention span. 
lol - I did try, but it started to feel like I was being hit over the head a bit.
Winston Churchill, the man who sent 200,000 men to their deaths in Turkey because of ego and his selfish fears of having the Navy be 'marginalized' in WW1 is a worthy 'heroic' leader of state? Even he himself predicted that the operation would fail long before he pushed for it to be put into action.
I would understand having a state ruled by a person raised and perhaps even bred (for traits such as intelligence, not bogus 'racial purity') for the ruling of a state from the ground up... but giving Churchill as an example? Even barring his apparent thirst for blood (and white supremacy views) he was not a particularly efficient head of state. Effective? Sure, but many horribly bad leaders were, in the end, effective.
Besides, the reason as to why Napoelon might have been an overall force for good in Europe and perhaps the world as a whole, would be that he was eventually crushed and shooed out of power.
I would understand having a state ruled by a person raised and perhaps even bred (for traits such as intelligence, not bogus 'racial purity') for the ruling of a state from the ground up... but giving Churchill as an example? Even barring his apparent thirst for blood (and white supremacy views) he was not a particularly efficient head of state. Effective? Sure, but many horribly bad leaders were, in the end, effective.
Besides, the reason as to why Napoelon might have been an overall force for good in Europe and perhaps the world as a whole, would be that he was eventually crushed and shooed out of power.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
