*smile*... as they say..give a bloke enough rope and he will hang himself.

Poor David F... if this was a game of 'hangman' you would have constructed about TEN sets of gallows for yourself at the moment.

DAVID F.. reminder.. rephrase.. and/or apologise "Evangelicals may MURDER" is incitement to hatred.

DAVID F said (almost)
Elitism is a we/they idea. However, I see no way to ensure that superior (Germanic/Aryan) people govern. As a practical matter since we can't assure that superior (Germanic/Aryan) people will govern we must resort to other means to select our governments.

Only a tiny word change..and the true nature of David's post is highlighted.

For a worrisome moment, I thought I was reading in Volume II of Mein Kampf, "Race and People"but no... it really was David's post

By the way.. David's thoughts follow virtually analoguously with those of Edward Bernays about the 'stupid masses'. *interesting*

DEAR SHINTARO... time for your therapy :)

WE/THEY can be a negative or a positive thing.

If "WE" regard 'THEY' as God's creation, equal, and deserving of compassion, love and care..... is this a bad thing?

If "THEY" regard "we" as an easy political/military prize for conquest...is this a good thing?

There are many dimensions to 'we/they' But best summarized by the Gospel "For God so loved the world...that He gave His only Son,that whoever believes in Him, might not perish but have everlasting life"

Yes..there is a 'WE'..(the saved) and a 'THEY'..(the Unsaved)
Can we saved hate the unsaved when God saved us through his love?
I think not.

Exclusive Brethren

Love those they exclude so much

They won't eat with them

At least they do not

Incite murder of gays like

Evangelicals

Dear Squeers,

I have never heard of Ernest Mandel. I know there is a monumental pile of Marxist theory. I know with all the theory they have had an opportunity since 1917 to produce a decent society. All they have produced are dictatorships which are not too different from the fascist dictatorships and a lot of corpses. Some Marxists call names. When a person sees the crap for what it is he can be said to sound like a rabid fascist. When I started this string I thought there might be nonsense from you and AGIR.

There is hope. Some people see the fundy crap and the Marxist crap for what it is.

davidf:

<I know there is a monumental pile of Marxist theory. I know with all the theory they have had an opportunity since 1917 to produce a decent society>

The fact that you can say this shows that you are both one-eyed and don't know what you're talking about. And btw, I read and think well beyond Marx. I'm no kind of "fundy"!

<When I started this string I thought there might be nonsense from you and AGIR>

You are the one who was offensive first. Since no retraction or compromise in your tone has been forthcoming, I have responded in kind.

I responded to your thread with thoroughly considered, and in my view important, observations that I was prepared to elaborate and defend (which were actually in answer to Lexi), but you rudely closed me down with this:

<Your real world is not a real world but a world defined by ideology>

<There is hope. Some people see the fundy crap and the Marxist crap for what it is>

There is some hope people see through your crap as well. Certainly you don't!

Tor Hundloe asks some interesting questions in his book, "From Buddha to Bono: Seeking Sustainability." I thought they might be relevant to this discussion. He tells us that there is much relevance that we must take from Aristotle. For Aristotle, humans were social animals needing to live together, and hence the need to find "the mean" between extremes, otherwise they would live in continual dispsute, or even worse, warfare. Hundloe tells us that," ... in most industrialised democracies "wedge" politics" deliberately creates a division between sectoral interests - that's the name of the game.
Hence interest group self-interest and antagonism between citizens permeates policy-making. The much-touted notion of liberal democracies that governments govern for all, is not believed by significant numbers of voters. It's all too obvious that governments actually don't do this. This destroys social capital, that is, trust, togetherness and the tender feelings of a caring society. There is "them" and "us", rather than simply "us," and much effort is employed in partisan politics which could be much better utilised in positive pursuits."

The concept of "the mean" (the middle ground) is common to Buddhists, Aristotle, Confucius, and according to Hundloe - modern Scandinavians. Hundloe tells us that consensus-building of the Buddhists (Thailand is probably a good example of a country where the principle, if not the practice, is to seek consensus) and the Scandinavian countries are the best examples yet of attempts to put Aristotle's consensus-building concept into practice. The question needs to be asked - how much patience does one have to have to function in a world managed by consensus? A lot, would be my educated answer. And it is worth it. The Scandinavian people apparently think so. It works in practice there. There is hope, as David f., says.

david f.,

You wrote in your introductory post to this thread:
"Can we recognise the problems that we have as humans, recognise our common humanity and work together to solve these problem?"

You have demonstrated precisely the failings that you claimed you were attempting to address. Your closed-mindedness and narrow viewpoint is well and truly welded into a uncompromising position.
Anyone aiming to move beyond a we/they attitude must first remove the mind forg'd manacles of their own entrenched antipathies.