The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
but they haven't figured out how to make centralized organization being representative of the people...
Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"
Exploitation requres both someone willing to exploit and someone willing to be exploited. We can never change the first, but we can change the second easily.
WEird-- I always thought you maintained that the exploited (all those wage-slaves) really had no choice in the matter as they were FORCED to work for the evil capitalist or starve.
Leaving that aside, why would it be so easy to change and do you think its easy everywhere?
I just look around at my city and people that work are experiencing tremendous affluence in material things combined with lots of time off and other benefits. Why would such people give up that on the basis that they are being exploited
"yes the state will give you half the pay you get now but since its the state owning the means of production, you will no longer be exploited" just doesn't seem to resonate well
You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto Luongo
Which by the way, most internet discussions are not. Of course the word "Communist" has been loosed from its real world moorings since 1991. Its become as loose as fascism. To folks who like it, "Im a communist" means "I am socially idealistic in some fashion, and not like all the greedheads at my high school waiting for the next PS3 pricecut, and, Im against the guys who beat up on gays, and Im an atheist" To the folks on the right "Hillary's a communist" means "Hillary supports something my dad says will make his taxes go up, shes some kind of lesbian, and I dont like her" (of course folks on the right have been playing loosey goosey with left wing terminology for a long time)
Kind of the way fascist has come to mean "Something on the right, that I dont like"
None of which has anything to do with mature political discussion.
Best post ever.
And like Islamofascist has come to mean "someone with a beard, that fascists don't like".
The undeserving maintain power by promoting hysteria.
And like Islamofascist has come to mean "someone with a beard, that fascists don't like".
Quite, though, like Communism and Fascism, Islamofascism had a more specific meaning thats become obscured by its loose application.
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
Quite, though, like Communism and Fascism, Islamofascism had a more specific meaning thats become obscured by its loose application.
Did it really ever have any meaning whatsoever? I thought it was just George Jr's speechwriters jamming together two "bad" words to make an ***EVIL*** word meant to draw false comparisons between islamic theocracies and WWII era fascism.
The undeserving maintain power by promoting hysteria.
Did it really ever have any meaning whatsoever? I thought it was just George Jr's speechwriters jamming together two "bad" words to make an ***EVIL*** word meant to draw false comparisons between islamic theocracies and WWII era fascism.
For a good, serious discussion, I recommend Paul Berman's "Liberalism and Terror"
The basic point being that much of the ideology underlying the AQ and its immediate predecessors is much less like tradional Islam, and much more like Western fascism, which did have followers in the muslim world, and was influential on at least some strands of secular arab nationalism, and either directly or via secular arab nationalism, on Qutbist groups emerging out of politicized Wahabi-Deobandi Islam.
Bermans controversial assertion is that the essence of fascism is its worship of cleansing violence, its hostility to liberalism and modernity, its adoption of technical modernity in the service of a simplified view of the past, etc, and NOT nationalism (since if nationalism were essential, Qutbism couldnt be fascism, since it is supra nationalist islamism) Berman suggests that nationality was the natural focus of fascism in secularized Europe, but that it can use religion just as easily, and cites Francoism as a none muslim example. When this was brought up here a couple of years ago, we had a long, arcane discussion of whether Francoism really WAS fascism, at least to the extent that it was more catholic traditionalist than ultra nationalist. Bernard Lewis discusses similar issues.
The idea is politically very controversial because it has been used to establish at least a conceptual link between Baathist ideology, and Qutbist ideology.
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
For a good, serious discussion, I recommend Paul Berman's "Liberalism and Terror"
The basic point being that much of the ideology underlying the AQ and its immediate predecessors is much less like tradional Islam, and much more like Western fascism, which did have followers in the muslim world, and was influential on at least some strands of secular arab nationalism, and either directly or via secular arab nationalism, on Qutbist groups emerging out of politicized Wahabi-Deobandi Islam.
Bermans controversial assertion is that the essence of fascism is its worship of cleansing violence, its hostility to liberalism and modernity, its adoption of technical modernity in the service of a simplified view of the past, etc, and NOT nationalism (since if nationalism were essential, Qutbism couldnt be fascism, since it is supra nationalist islamism) Berman suggests that nationality was the natural focus of fascism in secularized Europe, but that it can use religion just as easily, and cites Francoism as a none muslim example. When this was brought up here a couple of years ago, we had a long, arcane discussion of whether Francoism really WAS fascism, at least to the extent that it was more catholic traditionalist than ultra nationalist. Bernard Lewis discusses similar issues.
The idea is politically very controversial because it has been used to establish at least a conceptual link between Baathist ideology, and Qutbist ideology.
Thanks, I'll admit that much of that went right over my head, but I'll check it out. I even wrote it down on real paper.
The undeserving maintain power by promoting hysteria.
Originally posted by Flubber
WEird-- I always thought you maintained that the exploited (all those wage-slaves) really had no choice in the matter as they were FORCED to work for the evil capitalist or starve.
Leaving that aside, why would it be so easy to change and do you think its easy everywhere?
I just look around at my city and people that work are experiencing tremendous affluence in material things combined with lots of time off and other benefits. Why would such people give up that on the basis that they are being exploited
"yes the state will give you half the pay you get now but since its the state owning the means of production, you will no longer be exploited" just doesn't seem to resonate well
Many people have a false conscience, which is an effect of the capitalist system. Therefore they do not need to be FORCED to do anything. But they are under control.
That being said, I'm sure that those around you are very affluent, and I wasn't refering to them.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Many people have a false conscience, which is an effect of the capitalist system.
Could you elaborate on this? Is it simply a belief/acceptance in the legitimacy of the government/economic system or is it something else? Regardless why is this an effect of the capitalist system? More specifically why would not similar things occur in a communist system?
Originally posted by Kidicious
Therefore they do not need to be FORCED to do anything. But they are under control.
Hmm -- every larger society has a form of governance and I don't see any centrally planned system reducing that. Whenever you expound your idea I see a society where I would have less freedom to choose what I do and how I live. Could you explain how I would be less "under control" AFTER the revolution.
Originally posted by Kidicious
That being said, I'm sure that those around you are very affluent, and I wasn't refering to them.
Western society as a whole is pretty affluent. LOts and lots of people live very comfortably. I would say that three quarters of Americans and Canadians live comfortably enough that they have not the slightest interest in upsetting the order of society. While I suspect that this very thing is what you would refer to as false conscience, I am curious why you think that you and your views represent some sort of "greater truth".
You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto Luongo
Originally posted by Flubber
Could you elaborate on this? Is it simply a belief/acceptance in the legitimacy of the government/economic system or is it something else?
This is the values that people hold, their sense of right and wrong, principles and religion. The implantation of the false conscience puts the victims under the control of the masters. This happens in all the institutions of the capitalist system; home, school, work, market, media etc...
Regardless why is this an effect of the capitalist system? More specifically why would not similar things occur in a communist system?
In a true communist system everyone would have a true conscience. That is, they would not have a false conscience implanted within them. They would all be enlightened.
Hmm -- every larger society has a form of governance and I don't see any centrally planned system reducing that. Whenever you expound your idea I see a society where I would have less freedom to choose what I do and how I live. Could you explain how I would be less "under control" AFTER the revolution.
Marx's idea was that, and I hold the same, that all the people living under that communist system would have the same interests. There would be no class, race, sexual, religious, national etc. divisions in interests.
The interest to exploit markets to gain advantage over others and seperate your interests from them is a product of the capitalist system and the false conscience.
Western society as a whole is pretty affluent. LOts and lots of people live very comfortably. I would say that three quarters of Americans and Canadians live comfortably enough that they have not the slightest interest in upsetting the order of society. While I suspect that this very thing is what you would refer to as false conscience, I am curious why you think that you and your views represent some sort of "greater truth".
Affluence simply reaffirms the false conscience. That's why many people have higher incomes in industialised capitalist societies. The false conscience has to be more effective in industial societies.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
This is the values that people hold, their sense of right and wrong, principles and religion. The implantation of the false conscience puts the victims under the control of the masters. This happens in all the institutions of the capitalist system; home, school, work, market, media etc...
Interesting-- so pretty much everything 300 million people ( taking -- canada and the US as an example) would be a false conscience. Can't you understand how patronizing that seems to the 300 million people? Its as if you are saying that only the enlightened few actually understand.
Originally posted by Kidicious
In a true communist system everyone would have a true conscience. That is, they would not have a false conscience implanted within them. They would all be enlightened.
I don't want to get too sidetracked on this but what is a "true communist system" and has it ever existed on earth in anything beyond hunter-gatherer societies.
Beyond that , isn't your assumption based on nothing but your belief? Would not a true comminist system still have schools, mediaand work that could influence belief depending on how they were run?
Originally posted by Kidicious
Marx's idea was that, and I hold the same, that all the people living under that communist system would have the same interests. There would be no class, race, sexual, religious, national etc. divisions in interests.
That seems unlikely since you can have two people of the same race, nationality, class, gender-- heck even in the same family that end up with divergent viewpoints on almost everything. You seem to assume a homogeneity of people that I just cannot understand.
Originally posted by Kidicious
The interest to exploit markets to gain advantage over others and seperate your interests from them is a product of the capitalist system and the false conscience.
This just seems like jargon. I don't know any non-commies that think in that way .
Originally posted by Kidicious
Affluence simply reaffirms the false conscience. That's why many people have higher incomes in industialised capitalist societies. The false conscience has to be more effective in industial societies.
Why not simply say that affluence can breed apathy? I believe thats true since in any system . .. . if people perceive things are "going ok" they have little reason to examine the workings of that society. I doubt there have been very many people's revolutions when the majority of people are experiencing relative affluence.(there may be coups where one elite replaces another)
BUt why does a "false conscience" have to be more effective in industrial societies?
I actually find this interesting . Your worldview is so very different than mine that it is amazing we share a planet. The difference is I don't just smugly assume that your worldview is the product of some false conscience.
You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto Luongo
Originally posted by Flubber
Interesting-- so pretty much everything 300 million people ( taking -- canada and the US as an example) would be a false conscience. Can't you understand how patronizing that seems to the 300 million people? Its as if you are saying that only the enlightened few actually understand.
There are a lot of things that only “the few” understand.
I don't want to get too sidetracked on this but what is a "true communist system" and has it ever existed on earth in anything beyond hunter-gatherer societies.
A communist system has an economy that is fully developed (read: does not require further development). Capitalism, on the other hand, always requires development to function properly. Also, a communist system requires a democratic system and citizenry or else it is totalitarian. For example, the USSR was a pre-industrial society that attempted to implement a communist system (at least at first they did). They also industrialized (at the point of a gun). That resulted in a totalitarian, authoritarian and exploitive system. The key is surplus labor. Workers must be controlled in order to get them to produce surplus labor.
Beyond that , isn't your assumption based on nothing but your belief? Would not a true comminist system still have schools, media and work that could influence belief depending on how they were run?
There would be no need for these schools to perpetuate a false conscience, because the continuation of the system would not require, exploitation and surplus labor.
That seems unlikely since you can have two people of the same race, nationality, class, gender-- heck even in the same family that end up with divergent viewpoints on almost everything. You seem to assume a homogeneity of people that I just cannot understand.
But they would have the same economic interests, and more importantly they would not have such divergent viewpoints that they could be pitted against each other in conflict.
Why not simply say that affluence can breed apathy? I believe thats true since in any system . .. . if people perceive things are "going ok" they have little reason to examine the workings of that society. I doubt there have been very many people's revolutions when the majority of people are experiencing relative affluence.(there may be coups where one elite replaces another)
It’s more than just thinking that things are going ok. When you receive a promotion at work you start to identify as an insider and with your higher bosses more and less with your previous fellow workers. Also, when you start to accumulate wealth you have different economy and political views that you did not previously have. Your conscience has very much to do with how you put food on your table to feed your family, and not so much on how you think things are going.
BUt why does a "false conscience" have to be more effective in industrial societies?
This aids the rulers in imposing world control. With dollars they can control one part of the world, and with military they can control another part of the world. They can not easily control the whole world militarily.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
There are a lot of things that only “the few” understand.
and I am guessing that you would place yourself among "the few" on these types of issues.
While I agree that there are many many many things that are barely understood, isn't it arrogance in the extreme to assume that you are blessed with an understanding that the majority lacks in these matters?
You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto Luongo
and I am guessing that you would place yourself among "the few" on these types of issues.
While I agree that there are many many many things that are barely understood, isn't it arrogance in the extreme to assume that you are blessed with an understanding that the majority lacks in these matters?
I don't believe in "blessed." Why do you believe what you believe? Because that's what your Daddy and you boss believe?
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Tweet
Comment