Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Beskar:
I know @Kagemusha highlighted this earlier, but is it possible to give clarification on what you mean by this statement, @Philippus Flavius Homovallumus ?
Just so it is clear.
Our Society has moved onto a war footing, we have been that way since 2001 to a greater or lesser degree. Despite this we have not geared our economy for war and as a result we do not have the manpower to wage war effectively oversees against the likes of IS. What IS wants is for us to go over there and fight them so they can label us "Crusaders" but instead of indulging them we draw down our Forces further, so they continue to poke and prod us.I know @Kagemusha highlighted this earlier, but is it possible to give clarification on what you mean by this statement, @Philippus Flavius Homovallumus ?
Just so it is clear.
They're trying to goad us into war and by not indulging them we invite ever more heinous attacks at home.
It's exhausting, and our society is still suffering the social repression of being "at war" without war being declared.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
Our Society has moved onto a war footing, we have been that way since 2001 to a greater or lesser degree. Despite this we have not geared our economy for war and as a result we do not have the manpower to wage war effectively oversees against the likes of IS. What IS wants is for us to go over there and fight them so they can label us "Crusaders" but instead of indulging them we draw down our Forces further, so they continue to poke and prod us.
They're trying to goad us into war and by not indulging them we invite ever more heinous attacks at home.
It's exhausting, and our society is still suffering the social repression of being "at war" without war being declared.
The enemy isn't "over there", they're "over here". Unless we define things so that we can isolate the enemy, we can't properly fight a shooting war. One step we can take that would move towards this is to recognise IS, so we can have something "over there", that we can deport problematic individuals to without running into the problem of leaving them with no nationality. Then it becomes a relatively clear issue of moving problematic individuals out of "here" and moving them over "there", whilst reducing the instance of problematic individuals "here". Note that none of this necessarily involves shooting or dropping bombs.Our Society has moved onto a war footing, we have been that way since 2001 to a greater or lesser degree. Despite this we have not geared our economy for war and as a result we do not have the manpower to wage war effectively oversees against the likes of IS. What IS wants is for us to go over there and fight them so they can label us "Crusaders" but instead of indulging them we draw down our Forces further, so they continue to poke and prod us.
They're trying to goad us into war and by not indulging them we invite ever more heinous attacks at home.
It's exhausting, and our society is still suffering the social repression of being "at war" without war being declared.
The closest lesson we can draw from previous wars isn't the declaration of war, but internment. That is, the redefinition of our society into a clear us/them divide, with "them" all accounted for. There are any number of degrees on that scale, but declaring war, going onto a war economy, etc. is irrelevant to the problem.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
I still think we should formally recognise IS and strip UK citizenship from those who go there.
That would create problems for the desired national order, most acutely with respect to Russian irredentism. On the most basic level, we don't recognize just any band of rebels and renegades, and certainly not one whose imminent eradication is guiding policy. I still think we should formally recognise IS and strip UK citizenship from those who go there.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
Our Society has moved onto a war footing, we have been that way since 2001 to a greater or lesser degree. Despite this we have not geared our economy for war and as a result we do not have the manpower to wage war effectively oversees against the likes of IS. What IS wants is for us to go over there and fight them so they can label us "Crusaders" but instead of indulging them we draw down our Forces further, so they continue to poke and prod us.
They're trying to goad us into war and by not indulging them we invite ever more heinous attacks at home.
It's exhausting, and our society is still suffering the social repression of being "at war" without war being declared.
This is a quasi-fascist sentiment of course, and the only saving grace is that you might claim democratic agents would eventually demand a reassessment under the weight of prolonged war mobilization. Our Society has moved onto a war footing, we have been that way since 2001 to a greater or lesser degree. Despite this we have not geared our economy for war and as a result we do not have the manpower to wage war effectively oversees against the likes of IS. What IS wants is for us to go over there and fight them so they can label us "Crusaders" but instead of indulging them we draw down our Forces further, so they continue to poke and prod us.
They're trying to goad us into war and by not indulging them we invite ever more heinous attacks at home.
It's exhausting, and our society is still suffering the social repression of being "at war" without war being declared.
But there isn't money for it anyway, the cost is unjustifiable for projected results.
Military response is unlikely to have a dampening effect on local attacks, arguably the opposite.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
That would create problems for the desired national order, most acutely with respect to Russian irredentism. On the most basic level, we don't recognize just any band of rebels and renegades, and certainly not one whose imminent eradication is guiding policy.
This is a quasi-fascist sentiment of course, and the only saving grace is that you might claim democratic agents would eventually demand a reassessment under the weight of prolonged war mobilization.
But there isn't money for it anyway, the cost is unjustifiable for projected results.
Military response is unlikely to have a dampening effect on local attacks, arguably the opposite.
If the above is what matters more, then you just sucks up what yer given, and stop complaining. Or, as AFAIK you don't live here, since that's what matters more to you, then we just sucks up what we're given, and we should stop complaining.That would create problems for the desired national order, most acutely with respect to Russian irredentism. On the most basic level, we don't recognize just any band of rebels and renegades, and certainly not one whose imminent eradication is guiding policy.
This is a quasi-fascist sentiment of course, and the only saving grace is that you might claim democratic agents would eventually demand a reassessment under the weight of prolonged war mobilization.
But there isn't money for it anyway, the cost is unjustifiable for projected results.
Military response is unlikely to have a dampening effect on local attacks, arguably the opposite.
Biggest attack?
The media love this. The 24 news stations are desperate for content. They don t care that hyping these things makes them more likely.
The media love this. The 24 news stations are desperate for content. They don t care that hyping these things makes them more likely.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
This is a quasi-fascist sentiment of course, and the only saving grace is that you might claim democratic agents would eventually demand a reassessment under the weight of prolonged war mobilization.
But there isn't money for it anyway, the cost is unjustifiable for projected results.
Military response is unlikely to have a dampening effect on local attacks, arguably the opposite.
The desire for a "stand up war" we can fight and win vs this interminable situation where we are prodded and pecked at, this is quasi-Fascist?This is a quasi-fascist sentiment of course, and the only saving grace is that you might claim democratic agents would eventually demand a reassessment under the weight of prolonged war mobilization.
But there isn't money for it anyway, the cost is unjustifiable for projected results.
Military response is unlikely to have a dampening effect on local attacks, arguably the opposite.
Politically, socially, rhetorically, we are at war - but we are not fighting a war.
Shades of 1984.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
2-1 home grown Muslim
5-1 foreign muslim
10-1 disgruntled pro brexiter
25-1 leftist upset about brexit
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...polices-radar/2-1 home grown Muslim
5-1 foreign muslim
10-1 disgruntled pro brexiter
25-1 leftist upset about brexit
5-1
Radicalised local, white mother, black father - original name "Adrian Elms".
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...polices-radar/
5-1
Radicalised local, white mother, black father - original name "Adrian Elms".
Maybe the place to fight would be the home of the Wahhabist, Saudi-Arabia, which is yours and US key ally at Middle East. Likelihood to that to happen.....http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...polices-radar/
5-1
Radicalised local, white mother, black father - original name "Adrian Elms".
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...polices-radar/
5-1
Radicalised local, white mother, black father - original name "Adrian Elms".
IMHO, we should automatically monitor anyone who's converted to Islam since 11th September 2001.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...polices-radar/
5-1
Radicalised local, white mother, black father - original name "Adrian Elms".
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
The desire for a "stand up war" we can fight and win vs this interminable situation where we are prodded and pecked at, this is quasi-Fascist?
Politically, socially, rhetorically, we are at war - but we are not fighting a war.
Shades of 1984.
But...there is no stand-up fight, so desiring a war footing for the economy is indeed a fascistic impulse.The desire for a "stand up war" we can fight and win vs this interminable situation where we are prodded and pecked at, this is quasi-Fascist?
Politically, socially, rhetorically, we are at war - but we are not fighting a war.
Shades of 1984.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
But...there is no stand-up fight, so desiring a war footing for the economy is indeed a fascistic impulse.
I do not desire a "war footing" for the economy, I desire a "peace-footing" for society in the absence of a war.But...there is no stand-up fight, so desiring a war footing for the economy is indeed a fascistic impulse.
That is not a Fascistic impulse, and nor is the desire to face your enemy in the light of day across a battlefield.
I observed recently that throwing the term "Fascist" around with abandon cheapened it, clearly I was right if you believe I am a Fascist.
You noticed only recently?
When a gutmensch is out of arguments and takes out his magic wand and casts FACISMUS it only amuses us here really, that spell has the negative perk of becoming less powerful when cast too much
The word Gutmensch is completely overused by fascists, it's almost like the words have lost their original meaning (good person).
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
Our Society has moved onto a war footing, we have been that way since 2001 to a greater or lesser degree. Despite this we have not geared our economy for war and as a result we do not have the manpower to wage war effectively oversees against the likes of IS. What IS wants is for us to go over there and fight them so they can label us "Crusaders" but instead of indulging them we draw down our Forces further, so they continue to poke and prod us.
They're trying to goad us into war and by not indulging them we invite ever more heinous attacks at home.
It's exhausting, and our society is still suffering the social repression of being "at war" without war being declared.
Here is what you said, which suggests a disoriented public consciousness (and moral diffidence?) resulting from a disturbed peace, and one which receives an erratic response. There is some tension that wants resolution. Our Society has moved onto a war footing, we have been that way since 2001 to a greater or lesser degree. Despite this we have not geared our economy for war and as a result we do not have the manpower to wage war effectively oversees against the likes of IS. What IS wants is for us to go over there and fight them so they can label us "Crusaders" but instead of indulging them we draw down our Forces further, so they continue to poke and prod us.
They're trying to goad us into war and by not indulging them we invite ever more heinous attacks at home.
It's exhausting, and our society is still suffering the social repression of being "at war" without war being declared.
You proceed by accepting the terms that the tension can be resolved through a 'traditional' battle, and that this is what the people must be driven toward to resolve the distortions made to an increasingly-brittle public by a visceral moment that has largely only been worked at in confidential government operations. So the priority is to fix the torpor, to engineer morale (or perhaps indirectly morality, even virtue), and that's what our political and economic priorities should bend toward. And this looks like a decisive confrontation at arms to properly mobilize, galvanize, and straighten out the public spirit.
I'm suggesting the idea that permanent security state is detrimental to social cohesion or institutions is not the fascistic thing, but the sentiment on how the associated ills can or should be cured could certainly be identifiable as one.
Originally Posted by :
I do not desire a "war footing" for the economy, I desire a "peace-footing" for society in the absence of a war.
That is not a Fascistic impulse, and nor is the desire to face your enemy in the light of day across a battlefield.
That in itself we can charitably say is naive or fantastical.I do not desire a "war footing" for the economy, I desire a "peace-footing" for society in the absence of a war.
That is not a Fascistic impulse, and nor is the desire to face your enemy in the light of day across a battlefield.
Originally Posted by :
I observed recently that throwing the term "Fascist" around with abandon cheapened it, clearly I was right if you believe I am a Fascist.
Why should believe I you are a fascist? Think about that.I observed recently that throwing the term "Fascist" around with abandon cheapened it, clearly I was right if you believe I am a Fascist.
Originally Posted by Husar:
The word Gutmensch is completely overused by fascists, it's almost like the words have lost their original meaning (good person).
nono, someoneone who really actually believes he's morally superior, the self-congratulating moral ubermensch. They tend to see facism everywhere but never recognise it when looking in the mirror, a gutmensch can be relentless. Like all borderlinrs his greatest fear is social exclusion, excommunication from other gutmenschen. That comfort-zone also pays well, also worth mentioningThe word Gutmensch is completely overused by fascists, it's almost like the words have lost their original meaning (good person).
Of course it pays well; Old Scratch looks after his own.
Wir schaffen das.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
nono, someoneone who really actually believes he's morally superior, the self-congratulating moral ubermensch. They tend to see facism everywhere but never recognise it when looking in the mirror, a gutmensch can be relentless. Like all borderlinrs his greatest fear is social exclusion, excommunication from other gutmenschen. That comfort-zone also pays well, also worth mentioning
So you are a gutmench for not supporting some strange fantasies of fighting an open war against an enemy you cant pinpoint and even so if that war will not directly involve one personally, but wanting to send other people to die in such "glorious" way?nono, someoneone who really actually believes he's morally superior, the self-congratulating moral ubermensch. They tend to see facism everywhere but never recognise it when looking in the mirror, a gutmensch can be relentless. Like all borderlinrs his greatest fear is social exclusion, excommunication from other gutmenschen. That comfort-zone also pays well, also worth mentioning
The Peshmerga and YPG are welcoming foreign fighters with open hands to join fighting ISIS. If the wish is so pressing, contact them and have ones war. Of course it could just be that one can live with much more ease when one can blame any hindrances life brings forth to "enemies", real or imagined.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
nono, someoneone who really actually believes he's morally superior, the self-congratulating moral ubermensch.
Are they the reason you really believe to be morally inferior, know that you're wrong and congratulate yourself for having them figured out in every second post? nono, someoneone who really actually believes he's morally superior, the self-congratulating moral ubermensch.
And how does that relate to the thread? A little bit of context, please.
How much more context than political-correctness do you need
Originally Posted by Fragony:
How much more context than political-correctness do you need
What political correctness? Is it in this thread or did you just randomly post something? There's a thread in the Frontroom for random thoughts.How much more context than political-correctness do you need
What is actually wrong with Political Correctness?
If you think about it, walking around calling someone "Overweight Fat Bitch" isn't polite or pleasant. Is it because people want to insult others, so instead of addressing someone politely as a gay male, they want to call them 'bum burgler' or 'arse wrangler' instead. I remember someone complaining about political correctness because they were called racist for addressing black people as 'Coons', more accurately putting a certain f-word infront of it too.
If you think about it, walking around calling someone "Overweight Fat Bitch" isn't polite or pleasant. Is it because people want to insult others, so instead of addressing someone politely as a gay male, they want to call them 'bum burgler' or 'arse wrangler' instead. I remember someone complaining about political correctness because they were called racist for addressing black people as 'Coons', more accurately putting a certain f-word infront of it too.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
What is actually wrong with Political Correctness?
If you think about it, walking around calling someone "Overweight Fat Bitch" isn't polite or pleasant. Is it because people want to insult others, so instead of addressing someone politely as a gay male, they want to call them 'bum burgler' or 'arse wrangler' instead. I remember someone complaining about political correctness because they were called racist for addressing black people as 'Coons', more accurately putting a certain f-word infront of it too.
I was brought up to be politically correct. Except it was called respect and regard for others back then. I also learned to respect proper Tories and small c conservatives, who practically had a similar worldview to my socialist-tending liberalism, but from a different direction. For individual rights, read respecting boundaries between people. For communities working together, read communal responsibility. That's why I have more in common with lifelong Tory voters than revolutionaries of any colour.What is actually wrong with Political Correctness?
If you think about it, walking around calling someone "Overweight Fat Bitch" isn't polite or pleasant. Is it because people want to insult others, so instead of addressing someone politely as a gay male, they want to call them 'bum burgler' or 'arse wrangler' instead. I remember someone complaining about political correctness because they were called racist for addressing black people as 'Coons', more accurately putting a certain f-word infront of it too.
Originally Posted by Husar:
What political correctness? Is it in this thread or did you just randomly post something? There's a thread in the Frontroom for random thoughts.
What's so random about it, only an idiot would deny that we are at war with an ideoligy for years and will be for years to come. There are going to more attacks and everybody knows that. Pavlov-doggies are naturally stumbling over eachother crying that it has nothing to do with islam while fully knowing that it really really does. Or they really don't understand that it really really does has everything to do with iislam.What political correctness? Is it in this thread or did you just randomly post something? There's a thread in the Frontroom for random thoughts.
@Beskar, those are just hating assholes
Originally Posted by Fragony:
What's so random about it, only an idiot would deny that we are at war with an ideoligy for years and will be for years to come. There are going to more attacks and everybody knows that. Pavlov-doggies are naturally stumbling over eachother crying that it has nothing to do with islam while fully knowing that it really really does. Or they really don't understand that it really really does has everything to do with iislam.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...houghts-ThreadWhat's so random about it, only an idiot would deny that we are at war with an ideoligy for years and will be for years to come. There are going to more attacks and everybody knows that. Pavlov-doggies are naturally stumbling over eachother crying that it has nothing to do with islam while fully knowing that it really really does. Or they really don't understand that it really really does has everything to do with iislam.
I ask you where the political correctness is in this thread and you reply with some rant about a war, it doesn't get much more random.
Originally Posted by Husar:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...houghts-Thread
I ask you where the political correctness is in this thread and you reply with some rant about a war, it doesn't get much more random.
In a topic called 'A literal attack on British democracy' what I said is random? Are you sure you are good at this?https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...houghts-Thread
I ask you where the political correctness is in this thread and you reply with some rant about a war, it doesn't get much more random.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
Here is what you said, which suggests a disoriented public consciousness (and moral diffidence?) resulting from a disturbed peace, and one which receives an erratic response. There is some tension that wants resolution.
You proceed by accepting the terms that the tension can be resolved through a 'traditional' battle, and that this is what the people must be driven toward to resolve the distortions made to an increasingly-brittle public by a visceral moment that has largely only been worked at in confidential government operations. So the priority is to fix the torpor, to engineer morale (or perhaps indirectly morality, even virtue), and that's what our political and economic priorities should bend toward. And this looks like a decisive confrontation at arms to properly mobilize, galvanize, and straighten out the public spirit.
I'm suggesting the idea that permanent security state is detrimental to social cohesion or institutions is not the fascistic thing, but the sentiment on how the associated ills can or should be cured could certainly be identifiable as one.
No, a real war with real, horrible bloodshed is preferable to this:Here is what you said, which suggests a disoriented public consciousness (and moral diffidence?) resulting from a disturbed peace, and one which receives an erratic response. There is some tension that wants resolution.
You proceed by accepting the terms that the tension can be resolved through a 'traditional' battle, and that this is what the people must be driven toward to resolve the distortions made to an increasingly-brittle public by a visceral moment that has largely only been worked at in confidential government operations. So the priority is to fix the torpor, to engineer morale (or perhaps indirectly morality, even virtue), and that's what our political and economic priorities should bend toward. And this looks like a decisive confrontation at arms to properly mobilize, galvanize, and straighten out the public spirit.
I'm suggesting the idea that permanent security state is detrimental to social cohesion or institutions is not the fascistic thing, but the sentiment on how the associated ills can or should be cured could certainly be identifiable as one.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
IMHO, we should automatically monitor anyone who's converted to Islam since 11th September 2001.
You see, we are losing the war of ideas - bit by bit, day by day.IMHO, we should automatically monitor anyone who's converted to Islam since 11th September 2001.
I am getting older, and watching my country destroy itself because it can't fight this enemy it can't pin down is, frankly, exhausting.
Originally Posted by :
That in itself we can charitably say is naive or fantastical.
Just old fashioned.That in itself we can charitably say is naive or fantastical.
Originally Posted by :
Why should believe I you are a fascist? Think about that.
I think the most charitable explanation is that you have not been paying attention.Why should believe I you are a fascist? Think about that.
Lets apply some conflict narrative analysis to this conflict (and narrative analysis is one appropriate tool as many (most) people are more "narratively" motivated than are "ratio-legally" motivated.
Questions to ask the parties to the conflict:
What would victory look like?
What routes, if any, can generate such a victory as you have defined it?
What tools and resources are available to pursue these routes?
What is your history of this conflict?
What makes the other party's (ies') view of this conflict incorrect?
Questions to ask the parties to the conflict:
What would victory look like?
What routes, if any, can generate such a victory as you have defined it?
What tools and resources are available to pursue these routes?
What is your history of this conflict?
What makes the other party's (ies') view of this conflict incorrect?
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Lets apply some conflict narrative analysis to this conflict (and narrative analysis is one appropriate tool as many (most) people are more "narratively" motivated than are "ratio-legally" motivated.
Questions to ask the parties to the conflict:
What would victory look like?
What routes, if any, can generate such a victory as you have defined it?
What tools and resources are available to pursue these routes?
What is your history of this conflict?
What makes the other party's (ies') view of this conflict incorrect?
War against WindmillsLets apply some conflict narrative analysis to this conflict (and narrative analysis is one appropriate tool as many (most) people are more "narratively" motivated than are "ratio-legally" motivated.
Questions to ask the parties to the conflict:
What would victory look like?
What routes, if any, can generate such a victory as you have defined it?
What tools and resources are available to pursue these routes?
What is your history of this conflict?
What makes the other party's (ies') view of this conflict incorrect?
see: Cervantes
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO