To answer a question for RealUT;

#26
#26
gsvol said:
I notice none of you even make the slightest attempt to answer my question.

"My philosophy has always been to attack the post and not the poster."
Volfreak

I would say that philosophically I am closer to freak than you and your ilk.




Sumthin a select few can agree on:

"In times of universal deceipt, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
1984

His post is nothing more than than obfuscation and sophistry.

Those are his specialites.
Click to expand...

Bolded portion is bull****. Well, it is all bull****, but the bolded portion is just laughable.

Also, you realize that George Orwell was a socialist? Funny how you will borrow from the socialists when you think it benefits you.
 
Last edited:
#27
#27
therealUT said:
It is not ludicrous and laughable; the only reason that Christianity and Judaism do not promote the same amount of killing in the name of their deity is because the European Enlightenment reigned in the radical aspects of these creeds. Of course, now Christianity is railing against science, reason and logic, and many other fundamentals of the Enlightenment so that Christians can return to simply accepting the Bible as pure Revelation as they look forward to the Rapture and the extermination of the Muslims.

The 'Christian West' is ready to attack Iran (or hopes that Israel attacks Iran) simply because Iran might have a nuclear weapon. Why is it okay for France, Germany, the UK, Israel, Russia, and India to have nuclear weapons; yet, it is not okay for Iran and Pakistan to have them?

Iran might make plenty of bellicose statements; however, they have not sent any regular troops to war since the 1980s; in that time, we have sent our regulars to two wars that each lasted over eight years. If you want to compare irregular troops, like Hezbollah, we have plenty of irregulars fighting wars in S. America simply because our puritan culture thinks it is our right to kill individuals grow and produce narcotics.
Click to expand...

Seriously?

And your last paragraph is nonsense, considering we (and all the countries listed in bold) would adhere to the notion of mutually assured destruction. A nutjob extremist believing in the metaphysics of martyrdom cares nothing of national loyalty, and even less for his own life. Daily bomb blasts in the ME and 911 proved nothing if it didn't prove this.

I have said this before and I will say it again, not all beliefs, national loyalties, and religions are created equal. Islam, with its widespread militancy and promises of paradise in the afterlife for those who die "defending" Islam should be at the top of our nuclear worry list. Iran wouldn't launch a nuclear attack, they aren't that stupid. Giving it to a nutjob as a proxy to walk in downtown Jerusalem or NYC is another story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#28
#28
emainvol said:
Bolded portion is bull****. Well, it is all bull****, but the bolded portion is just laughable.

Also, you realize that George Orwell was a socialist? Funny how you will borrow from the socialists when you think it benefits you.
Click to expand...

Orwell backed off his socialist beliefs, that's why he wrote 1984, to warn us of what the real plans of the socialists looked like.
 
#29
#29
gsvol said:
Orwell backed off his socialist beliefs, that's why he wrote 1984, to warn us of what the real plans of the socialists looked like.
Click to expand...

516-poker-face.jpg
 
#32
#32
gsvol said:
You don't know that much about Orwell do you?

Oh well, I havn't found anything you know all that much about yet. :loco:
Click to expand...

It appears that I know more about him than you do.

Also, you are resorting to that liberal style of argument again.
 
#34
#34
emainvol said:
I invite you to read this piece from Orwell, written during his work on 1984.

George Orwell: Toward European Unity

Please highlight the section where Orwell renounces Socialism.
Click to expand...

How has the EU worked out?

Bankrupt and begging?

You are clueless as to who is promoting socialism aren't you?

Eric Arthur Blair (aka George Orwell) became a fervent anti-communist.

Anyway, he probably did a good bit of opium in his life.
 
#36
#36
gsvol said:
How has the EU worked out?

Bankrupt and begging?

You are clueless as to who is promoting socialism aren't you?

Eric Arthur Blair (aka George Orwell) became a fervent anti-communist.

Anyway, he probably did a good bit of opium in his life.
Click to expand...

Yes, he became an anti-communist, and remained a socialist. He even touches on that in the piece from the link I shared. The good thing about that piece is that it was written by him, so we can safely assume that the words and thoughts are his own. So, what about Orwell not being a socialist again?
 
Last edited:
#37
#37
emainvol said:
Yes, he became an anti-communist, and remained a socialist. He even touches on that in the piece from the link I shared. The good thing about that piece is that it was written by him, so we can safely assume that the words and thoughts are his own. So, what about Orwell not being a socialist again?
Click to expand...

OK, so George was neither a menshevik or a bolshevik, what kind of socialist was he then, a fascist socialist?

From my notes on the openmindedness of Orwell.

He (George Orwell) was also open to arguments from the free-market libertarian right. In a review published in the Observer in 1944, he accepted some of the criticisms of the tyranny of collectivism put forward in Friedrich von Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. While arguing Hayek failed to recognise that "a return to 'free' competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the state", he added that "in the negative part of Professor Hayek's thesis there is a great deal of truth. It cannot be said too often--at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough--that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of".
Click to expand...

FWIW, H G Wells walked away from the Fabian socialists while still holding on to some of the socialist dogma.

So do you consider yourself a 'socialist?'

If so, then a question about socialism, if we can't trust the achievers who end up with most of the money to administer their power justly, how can we expect some head of geovernment to do the same?

In each and every case where socialism has been tried, it has failed miserably.

It's a nice little dream world for some but it isn't going to happen and one of the reasons is that those who promote socialism are using bait and switch tactics and what they really mean to do is recreate a feudal system.

Again, this is merely philosophical, Socrates said a benevelent oligarchy would be the best form of government.

If he was right then I would suggest following the advice of Hayek would be much better than following the fabian socialist keneysian path upon which we now find ourselves.
 
#38
#38
Where, in any of that, is your proof that Orwell backed off of socialism? Are you telling me that Communism is the same as socialism? Then what of democratic socialism? How about tribal collectivism that existed, and continues to exist, for the better part of human history? Are these simply a veiled totalitarian regimes/communities?

As far as I am concerned, it seems very unlikely that the man who still championed socialist ideals less than 3 years before his death (and while writing 1984) had his "come to Jesus" moment on his death bed, after he completed his masterpiece.
 
#39
#39
emainvol said:
Where, in any of that, is your proof that Orwell backed off of socialism? Are you telling me that Communism is the same as socialism? Then what of democratic socialism? How about tribal collectivism that existed, and continues to exist, for the better part of human history? Are these simply a veiled totalitarian regimes/communities?

As far as I am concerned, it seems very unlikely that the man who still championed socialist ideals less than 3 years before his death (and while writing 1984) had his "come to Jesus" moment on his death bed, after he completed his masterpiece.
Click to expand...

The best evidence is his anti-socialist lean novel '1984.'

There can't be democratic socialism, that's an oxymoron because socialism requires extreme amounts of centralized political power which is inherently anti-democratic.

obamaballandchain.jpg


issues2.gif


issues.gif


obama_must_go_the_price_of_greatness_is_responsibility_churchill.jpg
 
#40
#40
The best evidence is a work of fiction that he wrote in the same time period that he was calling for a united Europe and pimping socialism. Is that what you are saying?

And please spare me the graphics and cartoons in this response, I want to know what YOU think, not what some crackpot, politically motivated artist thinks.
 
#42
#42
emainvol said:
The best evidence is a work of fiction that he wrote in the same time period that he was calling for a united Europe and pimping socialism. Is that what you are saying?

And please spare me the graphics and cartoons in this response, I want to know what YOU think, not what some crackpot, politically motivated artist thinks.
Click to expand...

You are a lot like unreal in that you demand answers but habitually sidestep questions.

Do you consider yourself to be pro socialist or not?

FWIW, his writings, particularly 1984 seem oddly prophetic, do they not?

You speak of his call for a unified Europe, well what is happening to the EU?

Is that not just one more example of the failure of socialism?

Two questions:

1. Did you ever stop to think that the socialists and the capitalists at the highest levels are one in the same?

2. Have you read (or even thought of reading,) 'Tragedy and Hope?' (Quigley 1967)

Even three questions.

3. We've ventured far afield from the topic of the thread, do you have any comment at all on the original topic?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top