#ideology — Public Fediverse posts

RE: https://loops.video/v/fEtbtYpD6e

Some people want to believe the far right is about hate. But I have maintained this not the case for a long time: The hate is only a tool, not the core.

Hate functions as an enabler of an ultra-strong group #identity. It is the wedge that pushes people into one unified hierarchy of violence under one leader.

The unity is the point, hate only carries the water.

#fascism #farright #ideology

I think it is important for anyone looking to understand the world we live in to have not only an #OpenMind, but to be able to see things from another perspective. So here is an interesting summary of where this world of ours might be in the next 10 years, written by Thomas des Garets Geddes, of crystal ball gazing from the #Chinese perspective (Source: Sinification on substack Follow the link to the article in James Farqharsan’s restack here. https://substack.com/@jamesfarquharson186716 )

1. US–China bipolarity will become firmly entrenched. The US will maintain an overall lead, dominating cyberspace, services and international influence, whilst China will dominate the physical economy, manufacturing and military scale.
2. Middle powers, including the EU and India, will reject ideological camps in favour of pragmatic, “issue-based alignment” [问题性结盟], navigating between the two superpower ecosystems.
3. Fuelled by populism, trade protectionism and the normalisation of “might makes right”, the current “counter-globalisation order” [逆全球化秩序] will reach its peak during the second Trump administration.
4. By 2035, prolonged political fragmentation and widespread popular dissatisfaction with almost two decades of counter-globalisation will generate global demand for a new international order grounded in basic moral principles.
5. AI-driven excess production and entrenched protectionism will fracture global markets, pushing states towards “club-style” coordination and cause a long-term shift away from the dollar towards gold and other currencies.
6. Cyberspace will supersede physical territory as the primary geopolitical arena, stratifying the globe into three tiers: intelligent technology standard-setters (the US and China), innovators and AI application economies.
7. The mutual estrangement of the US and Chinese R&D sectors will result in two distinct global digital standards and market spheres, while also reflecting a pattern of “homogenised development” [同质性发展] as the US increasingly mimics Chinese industrial policy.
8. The growing lethality of intelligent weapons, combined with nuclear deterrence, will constrain major powers to cyber operations. Yet the lower immediate lethality of such operations may increase the frequency of unmanned cyberattacks and conflict.
9, China should transition its diplomatic focus to cyberspace, encouraging enterprises to “go out” [走出去] via a “produce locally, consume locally” [当地生产当地消费] model to bypass protectionism and internationalise its tech standards.
10. To secure its global standing and achieve “high-quality opening up” [高水平对外开放], China must actively mitigate domestic populist currents and attract foreign research talent through institutional reform.

#InternationalRelations #Economics #RulesBasedOrder #China
#GeoPolitics #SuperPowers #Ideology #Politics #ProfYanXuetong

📰 Collaborative Imagination Synchronizes Representations of the Future and Fosters Social Connection in the Present (A free, 12-page article from 2024)

Tags: #Imagination #NonmaterialCulture #Relationships #Ideology #Art #Future
https://buddhistuniversity.net/content/articles/collaborative-imagination-synchronizes-representation_fowler-zoe-et-al

RE: https://republik.social/@republik_magazin/116544052826172922

@ANosthoff hat zusammen mit Felix Maschewski wieder einen richtig guten Essay am Start. Klare Leseempfehlung. 👍

#techfascism #darkenlightenment #dunkleaufklaerung #techfaschismus #SiliconValley #techbros #ideology #ideologie

RE: https://republik.social/@republik_magazin/116544052826172922

@ANosthoff hat zusammen mit Felix Maschewski wieder einen richtig guten Essay am Start. Klare Leseempfehlung. 👍

#techfascism #darkenlightenment #dunkleaufklaerung #techfaschismus #SiliconValley #techbros #ideology #ideologie

RE: https://republik.social/@republik_magazin/116544052826172922

@ANosthoff hat zusammen mit Felix Maschewski wieder einen richtig guten Essay am Start. Klare Leseempfehlung. 👍

#techfascism #darkenlightenment #dunkleaufklaerung #techfaschismus #SiliconValley #techbros #ideology #ideologie

RE: https://republik.social/@republik_magazin/116544052826172922

@ANosthoff hat zusammen mit Felix Maschewski wieder einen richtig guten Essay am Start. Klare Leseempfehlung. 👍

#techfascism #darkenlightenment #dunkleaufklaerung #techfaschismus #SiliconValley #techbros #ideology #ideologie

RE: https://republik.social/@republik_magazin/116544052826172922

@ANosthoff hat zusammen mit Felix Maschewski wieder einen richtig guten Essay am Start. Klare Leseempfehlung. 👍

#techfascism #darkenlightenment #dunkleaufklaerung #techfaschismus #SiliconValley #techbros #ideology #ideologie

A quotation from Orwell

I think one must engage in politics — using the word in a wide sense — and that one must have preferences: that is, one must recognise that some causes are objectively better than others, even if they are advanced by equally bad means. As for the nationalistic loves and hatreds that I have spoken of, they are part of the make-up of most of us, whether we like it or not. Whether it is possible to get rid of them I do not know, but I do believe that it is possible to struggle against them, and that this is essentially a moral effort. It is a question first of all of discovering what one really is, what one’s own feelings really are, and then of making allowance for the inevitable bias.

George Orwell (1903-1950) English journalist, essayist, writer [pseud. of Eric Arthur Blair]
Essay (1945-05), “Notes on Nationalism,” Polemic Magazine (1945-10)

More about this quote: wist.info/orwell-george/46470/

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #orwell #georgeorwell #bias #cause #endsandmeans #ideology #jingoism #moralcharacter #moralduty #nationalism #objectivity #politicalopinion #politics #prejudice #selfawareness #selfexamination #selfimprovement #subjectivity

A quotation from Orwell

I think one must engage in politics — using the word in a wide sense — and that one must have preferences: that is, one must recognise that some causes are objectively better than others, even if they are advanced by equally bad means. As for the nationalistic loves and hatreds that I have spoken of, they are part of the make-up of most of us, whether we like it or not. Whether it is possible to get rid of them I do not know, but I do believe that it is possible to struggle against them, and that this is essentially a moral effort. It is a question first of all of discovering what one really is, what one’s own feelings really are, and then of making allowance for the inevitable bias.

George Orwell (1903-1950) English journalist, essayist, writer [pseud. of Eric Arthur Blair]
Essay (1945-05), “Notes on Nationalism,” Polemic Magazine (1945-10)

More about this quote: wist.info/orwell-george/46470/

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #orwell #georgeorwell #bias #cause #endsandmeans #ideology #jingoism #moralcharacter #moralduty #nationalism #objectivity #politicalopinion #politics #prejudice #selfawareness #selfexamination #selfimprovement #subjectivity

A quotation from Orwell

I think one must engage in politics — using the word in a wide sense — and that one must have preferences: that is, one must recognise that some causes are objectively better than others, even if they are advanced by equally bad means. As for the nationalistic loves and hatreds that I have spoken of, they are part of the make-up of most of us, whether we like it or not. Whether it is possible to get rid of them I do not know, but I do believe that it is possible to struggle against them, and that this is essentially a moral effort. It is a question first of all of discovering what one really is, what one’s own feelings really are, and then of making allowance for the inevitable bias.

George Orwell (1903-1950) English journalist, essayist, writer [pseud. of Eric Arthur Blair]
Essay (1945-05), “Notes on Nationalism,” Polemic Magazine (1945-10)

More about this quote: wist.info/orwell-george/46470/

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #orwell #georgeorwell #bias #cause #endsandmeans #ideology #jingoism #moralcharacter #moralduty #nationalism #objectivity #politicalopinion #politics #prejudice #selfawareness #selfexamination #selfimprovement #subjectivity

A quotation from Orwell

I think one must engage in politics — using the word in a wide sense — and that one must have preferences: that is, one must recognise that some causes are objectively better than others, even if they are advanced by equally bad means. As for the nationalistic loves and hatreds that I have spoken of, they are part of the make-up of most of us, whether we like it or not. Whether it is possible to get rid of them I do not know, but I do believe that it is possible to struggle against them, and that this is essentially a moral effort. It is a question first of all of discovering what one really is, what one’s own feelings really are, and then of making allowance for the inevitable bias.

George Orwell (1903-1950) English journalist, essayist, writer [pseud. of Eric Arthur Blair]
Essay (1945-05), “Notes on Nationalism,” Polemic Magazine (1945-10)

More about this quote: wist.info/orwell-george/46470/

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #orwell #georgeorwell #bias #cause #endsandmeans #ideology #jingoism #moralcharacter #moralduty #nationalism #objectivity #politicalopinion #politics #prejudice #selfawareness #selfexamination #selfimprovement #subjectivity

A quotation from Orwell

I think one must engage in politics — using the word in a wide sense — and that one must have preferences: that is, one must recognise that some causes are objectively better than others, even if they are advanced by equally bad means. As for the nationalistic loves and hatreds that I have spoken of, they are part of the make-up of most of us, whether we like it or not. Whether it is possible to get rid of them I do not know, but I do believe that it is possible to struggle against them, and that this is essentially a moral effort. It is a question first of all of discovering what one really is, what one’s own feelings really are, and then of making allowance for the inevitable bias.

George Orwell (1903-1950) English journalist, essayist, writer [pseud. of Eric Arthur Blair]
Essay (1945-05), “Notes on Nationalism,” Polemic Magazine (1945-10)

More about this quote: wist.info/orwell-george/46470/

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #orwell #georgeorwell #bias #cause #endsandmeans #ideology #jingoism #moralcharacter #moralduty #nationalism #objectivity #politicalopinion #politics #prejudice #selfawareness #selfexamination #selfimprovement #subjectivity

#341: How Radical Should You Be In Your Belief?

https://youtu.be/mOoLMJQRrQY

How radical should you be in your belief? If you believe in something, shouldn’t you aim to believe in it more? So, let’s discuss.

All of us have our ideas that we prefer over others. All of us may have our political, religious, cultural preferences. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what we do. That’s what makes us human.

If we believe deeply that something is correct, that something is good, should we not think also that more of that is better? It’s a seductive idea and it seems logical initially. If you are X, if you believe in X, shouldn’t you believe in it more so? That seems to be the case because otherwise why would you believe in it? Is your belief really that weak that you can’t strengthen it?

So that’s the idea. And if you for some reason don’t want to fully commit, maybe you really never believed it completely. Maybe you’re not really a true believer. That’s the other part of the idea.

However, I would say this ignores certain facts about ideas, because every idea — whether it’s a religion, a philosophy, a cultural preference — typically has safeguards. When you look at all the big religions, they have some sort of clause, some sort of warning against taking it too far. Because that’s what the very idea of divinity is. That’s what the very idea of God is: that which we as human beings cannot completely understand. God is that which we cannot even approach so much that we can be certain of what God is. Because if we could, wouldn’t that mean in some way that we could become God? And that’s the very warning that most religions promote.

Believe, but don’t assume for a moment that you have all the answers.

There’s this joke that camels always look at humans in a specific way. The joke is that God has 100 names. We know 99 of them. But the camel knows all 100. And that’s why the camel looks so superior.

But that is the idea of religion. The idea of religion is a combination — as strange as this may sound — of belief and humility. We are not God. We are not everything in the universe. We are not all-knowing. We are not omnipotent. And we will never get there. So whatever you think of as God — whether you think that’s a religious idea, whether you think that’s nature, whether you think that’s the universe, whether you think that’s just the ultimate good — this idea is clear: do not pretend to be all-knowing yourself. Have some sense of humility.

Now that also goes for philosophy. You may say, I follow philosopher so-and-so. But philosophy is an ongoing conversation about wisdom — the love of wisdom; that’s what philosophia means. Each idea in philosophy lives in interaction with other ideas. Philosophy is more than just footnotes to Plato. Plato can be footnotes to Plato — if you look at the Laws and the Republic, there are two very different ideas there, and more than two.

Philosophers are typically smarter than those who follow a specific philosophy. Because every philosopher knows that in order to put out the strongest version of their idea, they have to leave some of the complications out. But there are always complications. And philosophy X always lives in some form of exchange with philosophy Y or Z or however many there are. Every idea lives in an ecosystem of ideas. It lives in relation with others.

Philosophy X may be good or better in certain respects than philosophy Y. Maybe philosophy Y is good in other aspects. But the truth emerges in the interaction between the two.

So you may believe that the individual is the source of all morality. But how far do you want to take this? Do you believe this to the complete abdication of responsibility for others? Do you believe this to the complete rejection of the state? Similarly, if you believe the state is the authority over everything else, at which point does this have to stop? At which point does the state have to even question itself as to how far it should go?

Everything costs money. Does this mean that everything should be judged by its price tag? Even though price is not a static thing — it depends on a lot of factors. Is the price tag always the value of something, or is it just our momentary expression of our social and cultural priorities? Of course there’s supply and demand which regulate that. But is that still everything? Aren’t there things where we should find some difficulty putting a price on? Aren’t there some things that we can’t really measure very well? So isn’t there a limit to this kind of positivist, materialist way of looking at things?

Equally, if we say the materialistic world doesn’t matter and we need to live in a more spiritual, contemplative state of mind — that may be true to a point, but eventually bills will have to be paid. You do live in some form of reality, and that reality means that resources typically are limited and there needs to be a prioritizing. How do you organize that?

The material and the spiritual belong together. They will always have friction between each other, but they will always complement each other. If you’re too materialistic — if you believe that only that which can be measured, only that which can be owned, only that which can have a price tag matters — you should maybe think about some more spiritual components of life. If you’re too spiritual, maybe you need to be rooted more in the fact that there’s also a materialist component of life.

If X drowns out Y, sides of X may appear that make it wrong, because you need that balance. And there are more than just two — X and Y is easier, but you could say XYZ or whatever.

So in fact the saying may be true that too much of a good thing is indeed not good. It distorts what it is.

This is why you see me frequently call for moderation. You could argue that too much moderation is also wrong — you need some passion and some intensity and some belief. Well, yes. But moderation can also be just a middle ground between these different poles. All these different ideas around us lead us to negotiate our space within them. Moderation does not mean you don’t have convictions. It means that you question at which point your convictions turn into such a radicality, into such an extreme version, that they become wrong — that they are undermined by their own conviction.

Is radicality the truest expression of an idea? No. It may be the most flamboyant, the most interesting. But it can’t survive well. If you turn too radical, too extremist, your idea may be more attractive to people who really think like you. But then look at history. Every time an idea became too radical, it fails. It has failed. No matter what the idea — because in its radicality, in its extremism, it loses its power of conviction towards those who don’t agree with you. And the number of people in the world who agree with you is always going to be punctuated by the number of people who disagree with you.

If you want to build a successful movement, if you want to build a successful approach to politics, to religion, to whatever your cultural or social idea may be, you need to convince others. You need to find ways of integrating aspects of the other into your own.

Which is why this very familiar symbol of yin and yang — masculine, feminine, black, white, dark, light — shows you these two parts, but there’s always something of the other in the bigger part. You know the symbol.

If we don’t find a way to integrate that with which we disagree — as some sense of doubt, as some sense of humility within our convictions — then our convictions will be nothing but arrogance, nothing but self-congratulatory pose, and turn out to be nothing else than solipsism: centering on yourself and that which you think defines you as the only thing that matters.

[This was originally posted to YouTube as a video. This post is a slightly abbreviated transcript, preserving the oral style of the video.]

#341: How Radical Should You Be In Your Belief?

https://youtu.be/mOoLMJQRrQY

How radical should you be in your belief? If you believe in something, shouldn’t you aim to believe in it more? So, let’s discuss.

All of us have our ideas that we prefer over others. All of us may have our political, religious, cultural preferences. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what we do. That’s what makes us human.

If we believe deeply that something is correct, that something is good, should we not think also that more of that is better? It’s a seductive idea and it seems logical initially. If you are X, if you believe in X, shouldn’t you believe in it more so? That seems to be the case because otherwise why would you believe in it? Is your belief really that weak that you can’t strengthen it?

So that’s the idea. And if you for some reason don’t want to fully commit, maybe you really never believed it completely. Maybe you’re not really a true believer. That’s the other part of the idea.

However, I would say this ignores certain facts about ideas, because every idea — whether it’s a religion, a philosophy, a cultural preference — typically has safeguards. When you look at all the big religions, they have some sort of clause, some sort of warning against taking it too far. Because that’s what the very idea of divinity is. That’s what the very idea of God is: that which we as human beings cannot completely understand. God is that which we cannot even approach so much that we can be certain of what God is. Because if we could, wouldn’t that mean in some way that we could become God? And that’s the very warning that most religions promote.

Believe, but don’t assume for a moment that you have all the answers.

There’s this joke that camels always look at humans in a specific way. The joke is that God has 100 names. We know 99 of them. But the camel knows all 100. And that’s why the camel looks so superior.

But that is the idea of religion. The idea of religion is a combination — as strange as this may sound — of belief and humility. We are not God. We are not everything in the universe. We are not all-knowing. We are not omnipotent. And we will never get there. So whatever you think of as God — whether you think that’s a religious idea, whether you think that’s nature, whether you think that’s the universe, whether you think that’s just the ultimate good — this idea is clear: do not pretend to be all-knowing yourself. Have some sense of humility.

Now that also goes for philosophy. You may say, I follow philosopher so-and-so. But philosophy is an ongoing conversation about wisdom — the love of wisdom; that’s what philosophia means. Each idea in philosophy lives in interaction with other ideas. Philosophy is more than just footnotes to Plato. Plato can be footnotes to Plato — if you look at the Laws and the Republic, there are two very different ideas there, and more than two.

Philosophers are typically smarter than those who follow a specific philosophy. Because every philosopher knows that in order to put out the strongest version of their idea, they have to leave some of the complications out. But there are always complications. And philosophy X always lives in some form of exchange with philosophy Y or Z or however many there are. Every idea lives in an ecosystem of ideas. It lives in relation with others.

Philosophy X may be good or better in certain respects than philosophy Y. Maybe philosophy Y is good in other aspects. But the truth emerges in the interaction between the two.

So you may believe that the individual is the source of all morality. But how far do you want to take this? Do you believe this to the complete abdication of responsibility for others? Do you believe this to the complete rejection of the state? Similarly, if you believe the state is the authority over everything else, at which point does this have to stop? At which point does the state have to even question itself as to how far it should go?

Everything costs money. Does this mean that everything should be judged by its price tag? Even though price is not a static thing — it depends on a lot of factors. Is the price tag always the value of something, or is it just our momentary expression of our social and cultural priorities? Of course there’s supply and demand which regulate that. But is that still everything? Aren’t there things where we should find some difficulty putting a price on? Aren’t there some things that we can’t really measure very well? So isn’t there a limit to this kind of positivist, materialist way of looking at things?

Equally, if we say the materialistic world doesn’t matter and we need to live in a more spiritual, contemplative state of mind — that may be true to a point, but eventually bills will have to be paid. You do live in some form of reality, and that reality means that resources typically are limited and there needs to be a prioritizing. How do you organize that?

The material and the spiritual belong together. They will always have friction between each other, but they will always complement each other. If you’re too materialistic — if you believe that only that which can be measured, only that which can be owned, only that which can have a price tag matters — you should maybe think about some more spiritual components of life. If you’re too spiritual, maybe you need to be rooted more in the fact that there’s also a materialist component of life.

If X drowns out Y, sides of X may appear that make it wrong, because you need that balance. And there are more than just two — X and Y is easier, but you could say XYZ or whatever.

So in fact the saying may be true that too much of a good thing is indeed not good. It distorts what it is.

This is why you see me frequently call for moderation. You could argue that too much moderation is also wrong — you need some passion and some intensity and some belief. Well, yes. But moderation can also be just a middle ground between these different poles. All these different ideas around us lead us to negotiate our space within them. Moderation does not mean you don’t have convictions. It means that you question at which point your convictions turn into such a radicality, into such an extreme version, that they become wrong — that they are undermined by their own conviction.

Is radicality the truest expression of an idea? No. It may be the most flamboyant, the most interesting. But it can’t survive well. If you turn too radical, too extremist, your idea may be more attractive to people who really think like you. But then look at history. Every time an idea became too radical, it fails. It has failed. No matter what the idea — because in its radicality, in its extremism, it loses its power of conviction towards those who don’t agree with you. And the number of people in the world who agree with you is always going to be punctuated by the number of people who disagree with you.

If you want to build a successful movement, if you want to build a successful approach to politics, to religion, to whatever your cultural or social idea may be, you need to convince others. You need to find ways of integrating aspects of the other into your own.

Which is why this very familiar symbol of yin and yang — masculine, feminine, black, white, dark, light — shows you these two parts, but there’s always something of the other in the bigger part. You know the symbol.

If we don’t find a way to integrate that with which we disagree — as some sense of doubt, as some sense of humility within our convictions — then our convictions will be nothing but arrogance, nothing but self-congratulatory pose, and turn out to be nothing else than solipsism: centering on yourself and that which you think defines you as the only thing that matters.

[This was originally posted to YouTube as a video. This post is a slightly abbreviated transcript, preserving the oral style of the video.]

#341: How Radical Should You Be In Your Belief?

https://youtu.be/mOoLMJQRrQY

How radical should you be in your belief? If you believe in something, shouldn’t you aim to believe in it more? So, let’s discuss.

All of us have our ideas that we prefer over others. All of us may have our political, religious, cultural preferences. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what we do. That’s what makes us human.

If we believe deeply that something is correct, that something is good, should we not think also that more of that is better? It’s a seductive idea and it seems logical initially. If you are X, if you believe in X, shouldn’t you believe in it more so? That seems to be the case because otherwise why would you believe in it? Is your belief really that weak that you can’t strengthen it?

So that’s the idea. And if you for some reason don’t want to fully commit, maybe you really never believed it completely. Maybe you’re not really a true believer. That’s the other part of the idea.

However, I would say this ignores certain facts about ideas, because every idea — whether it’s a religion, a philosophy, a cultural preference — typically has safeguards. When you look at all the big religions, they have some sort of clause, some sort of warning against taking it too far. Because that’s what the very idea of divinity is. That’s what the very idea of God is: that which we as human beings cannot completely understand. God is that which we cannot even approach so much that we can be certain of what God is. Because if we could, wouldn’t that mean in some way that we could become God? And that’s the very warning that most religions promote.

Believe, but don’t assume for a moment that you have all the answers.

There’s this joke that camels always look at humans in a specific way. The joke is that God has 100 names. We know 99 of them. But the camel knows all 100. And that’s why the camel looks so superior.

But that is the idea of religion. The idea of religion is a combination — as strange as this may sound — of belief and humility. We are not God. We are not everything in the universe. We are not all-knowing. We are not omnipotent. And we will never get there. So whatever you think of as God — whether you think that’s a religious idea, whether you think that’s nature, whether you think that’s the universe, whether you think that’s just the ultimate good — this idea is clear: do not pretend to be all-knowing yourself. Have some sense of humility.

Now that also goes for philosophy. You may say, I follow philosopher so-and-so. But philosophy is an ongoing conversation about wisdom — the love of wisdom; that’s what philosophia means. Each idea in philosophy lives in interaction with other ideas. Philosophy is more than just footnotes to Plato. Plato can be footnotes to Plato — if you look at the Laws and the Republic, there are two very different ideas there, and more than two.

Philosophers are typically smarter than those who follow a specific philosophy. Because every philosopher knows that in order to put out the strongest version of their idea, they have to leave some of the complications out. But there are always complications. And philosophy X always lives in some form of exchange with philosophy Y or Z or however many there are. Every idea lives in an ecosystem of ideas. It lives in relation with others.

Philosophy X may be good or better in certain respects than philosophy Y. Maybe philosophy Y is good in other aspects. But the truth emerges in the interaction between the two.

So you may believe that the individual is the source of all morality. But how far do you want to take this? Do you believe this to the complete abdication of responsibility for others? Do you believe this to the complete rejection of the state? Similarly, if you believe the state is the authority over everything else, at which point does this have to stop? At which point does the state have to even question itself as to how far it should go?

Everything costs money. Does this mean that everything should be judged by its price tag? Even though price is not a static thing — it depends on a lot of factors. Is the price tag always the value of something, or is it just our momentary expression of our social and cultural priorities? Of course there’s supply and demand which regulate that. But is that still everything? Aren’t there things where we should find some difficulty putting a price on? Aren’t there some things that we can’t really measure very well? So isn’t there a limit to this kind of positivist, materialist way of looking at things?

Equally, if we say the materialistic world doesn’t matter and we need to live in a more spiritual, contemplative state of mind — that may be true to a point, but eventually bills will have to be paid. You do live in some form of reality, and that reality means that resources typically are limited and there needs to be a prioritizing. How do you organize that?

The material and the spiritual belong together. They will always have friction between each other, but they will always complement each other. If you’re too materialistic — if you believe that only that which can be measured, only that which can be owned, only that which can have a price tag matters — you should maybe think about some more spiritual components of life. If you’re too spiritual, maybe you need to be rooted more in the fact that there’s also a materialist component of life.

If X drowns out Y, sides of X may appear that make it wrong, because you need that balance. And there are more than just two — X and Y is easier, but you could say XYZ or whatever.

So in fact the saying may be true that too much of a good thing is indeed not good. It distorts what it is.

This is why you see me frequently call for moderation. You could argue that too much moderation is also wrong — you need some passion and some intensity and some belief. Well, yes. But moderation can also be just a middle ground between these different poles. All these different ideas around us lead us to negotiate our space within them. Moderation does not mean you don’t have convictions. It means that you question at which point your convictions turn into such a radicality, into such an extreme version, that they become wrong — that they are undermined by their own conviction.

Is radicality the truest expression of an idea? No. It may be the most flamboyant, the most interesting. But it can’t survive well. If you turn too radical, too extremist, your idea may be more attractive to people who really think like you. But then look at history. Every time an idea became too radical, it fails. It has failed. No matter what the idea — because in its radicality, in its extremism, it loses its power of conviction towards those who don’t agree with you. And the number of people in the world who agree with you is always going to be punctuated by the number of people who disagree with you.

If you want to build a successful movement, if you want to build a successful approach to politics, to religion, to whatever your cultural or social idea may be, you need to convince others. You need to find ways of integrating aspects of the other into your own.

Which is why this very familiar symbol of yin and yang — masculine, feminine, black, white, dark, light — shows you these two parts, but there’s always something of the other in the bigger part. You know the symbol.

If we don’t find a way to integrate that with which we disagree — as some sense of doubt, as some sense of humility within our convictions — then our convictions will be nothing but arrogance, nothing but self-congratulatory pose, and turn out to be nothing else than solipsism: centering on yourself and that which you think defines you as the only thing that matters.

[This was originally posted to YouTube as a video. This post is a slightly abbreviated transcript, preserving the oral style of the video.]

#341: How Radical Should You Be In Your Belief?

https://youtu.be/mOoLMJQRrQY

How radical should you be in your belief? If you believe in something, shouldn’t you aim to believe in it more? So, let’s discuss.

All of us have our ideas that we prefer over others. All of us may have our political, religious, cultural preferences. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what we do. That’s what makes us human.

If we believe deeply that something is correct, that something is good, should we not think also that more of that is better? It’s a seductive idea and it seems logical initially. If you are X, if you believe in X, shouldn’t you believe in it more so? That seems to be the case because otherwise why would you believe in it? Is your belief really that weak that you can’t strengthen it?

So that’s the idea. And if you for some reason don’t want to fully commit, maybe you really never believed it completely. Maybe you’re not really a true believer. That’s the other part of the idea.

However, I would say this ignores certain facts about ideas, because every idea — whether it’s a religion, a philosophy, a cultural preference — typically has safeguards. When you look at all the big religions, they have some sort of clause, some sort of warning against taking it too far. Because that’s what the very idea of divinity is. That’s what the very idea of God is: that which we as human beings cannot completely understand. God is that which we cannot even approach so much that we can be certain of what God is. Because if we could, wouldn’t that mean in some way that we could become God? And that’s the very warning that most religions promote.

Believe, but don’t assume for a moment that you have all the answers.

There’s this joke that camels always look at humans in a specific way. The joke is that God has 100 names. We know 99 of them. But the camel knows all 100. And that’s why the camel looks so superior.

But that is the idea of religion. The idea of religion is a combination — as strange as this may sound — of belief and humility. We are not God. We are not everything in the universe. We are not all-knowing. We are not omnipotent. And we will never get there. So whatever you think of as God — whether you think that’s a religious idea, whether you think that’s nature, whether you think that’s the universe, whether you think that’s just the ultimate good — this idea is clear: do not pretend to be all-knowing yourself. Have some sense of humility.

Now that also goes for philosophy. You may say, I follow philosopher so-and-so. But philosophy is an ongoing conversation about wisdom — the love of wisdom; that’s what philosophia means. Each idea in philosophy lives in interaction with other ideas. Philosophy is more than just footnotes to Plato. Plato can be footnotes to Plato — if you look at the Laws and the Republic, there are two very different ideas there, and more than two.

Philosophers are typically smarter than those who follow a specific philosophy. Because every philosopher knows that in order to put out the strongest version of their idea, they have to leave some of the complications out. But there are always complications. And philosophy X always lives in some form of exchange with philosophy Y or Z or however many there are. Every idea lives in an ecosystem of ideas. It lives in relation with others.

Philosophy X may be good or better in certain respects than philosophy Y. Maybe philosophy Y is good in other aspects. But the truth emerges in the interaction between the two.

So you may believe that the individual is the source of all morality. But how far do you want to take this? Do you believe this to the complete abdication of responsibility for others? Do you believe this to the complete rejection of the state? Similarly, if you believe the state is the authority over everything else, at which point does this have to stop? At which point does the state have to even question itself as to how far it should go?

Everything costs money. Does this mean that everything should be judged by its price tag? Even though price is not a static thing — it depends on a lot of factors. Is the price tag always the value of something, or is it just our momentary expression of our social and cultural priorities? Of course there’s supply and demand which regulate that. But is that still everything? Aren’t there things where we should find some difficulty putting a price on? Aren’t there some things that we can’t really measure very well? So isn’t there a limit to this kind of positivist, materialist way of looking at things?

Equally, if we say the materialistic world doesn’t matter and we need to live in a more spiritual, contemplative state of mind — that may be true to a point, but eventually bills will have to be paid. You do live in some form of reality, and that reality means that resources typically are limited and there needs to be a prioritizing. How do you organize that?

The material and the spiritual belong together. They will always have friction between each other, but they will always complement each other. If you’re too materialistic — if you believe that only that which can be measured, only that which can be owned, only that which can have a price tag matters — you should maybe think about some more spiritual components of life. If you’re too spiritual, maybe you need to be rooted more in the fact that there’s also a materialist component of life.

If X drowns out Y, sides of X may appear that make it wrong, because you need that balance. And there are more than just two — X and Y is easier, but you could say XYZ or whatever.

So in fact the saying may be true that too much of a good thing is indeed not good. It distorts what it is.

This is why you see me frequently call for moderation. You could argue that too much moderation is also wrong — you need some passion and some intensity and some belief. Well, yes. But moderation can also be just a middle ground between these different poles. All these different ideas around us lead us to negotiate our space within them. Moderation does not mean you don’t have convictions. It means that you question at which point your convictions turn into such a radicality, into such an extreme version, that they become wrong — that they are undermined by their own conviction.

Is radicality the truest expression of an idea? No. It may be the most flamboyant, the most interesting. But it can’t survive well. If you turn too radical, too extremist, your idea may be more attractive to people who really think like you. But then look at history. Every time an idea became too radical, it fails. It has failed. No matter what the idea — because in its radicality, in its extremism, it loses its power of conviction towards those who don’t agree with you. And the number of people in the world who agree with you is always going to be punctuated by the number of people who disagree with you.

If you want to build a successful movement, if you want to build a successful approach to politics, to religion, to whatever your cultural or social idea may be, you need to convince others. You need to find ways of integrating aspects of the other into your own.

Which is why this very familiar symbol of yin and yang — masculine, feminine, black, white, dark, light — shows you these two parts, but there’s always something of the other in the bigger part. You know the symbol.

If we don’t find a way to integrate that with which we disagree — as some sense of doubt, as some sense of humility within our convictions — then our convictions will be nothing but arrogance, nothing but self-congratulatory pose, and turn out to be nothing else than solipsism: centering on yourself and that which you think defines you as the only thing that matters.

[This was originally posted to YouTube as a video. This post is a slightly abbreviated transcript, preserving the oral style of the video.]

#341: How Radical Should You Be In Your Belief?

https://youtu.be/mOoLMJQRrQY

How radical should you be in your belief? If you believe in something, shouldn’t you aim to believe in it more? So, let’s discuss.

All of us have our ideas that we prefer over others. All of us may have our political, religious, cultural preferences. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what we do. That’s what makes us human.

If we believe deeply that something is correct, that something is good, should we not think also that more of that is better? It’s a seductive idea and it seems logical initially. If you are X, if you believe in X, shouldn’t you believe in it more so? That seems to be the case because otherwise why would you believe in it? Is your belief really that weak that you can’t strengthen it?

So that’s the idea. And if you for some reason don’t want to fully commit, maybe you really never believed it completely. Maybe you’re not really a true believer. That’s the other part of the idea.

However, I would say this ignores certain facts about ideas, because every idea — whether it’s a religion, a philosophy, a cultural preference — typically has safeguards. When you look at all the big religions, they have some sort of clause, some sort of warning against taking it too far. Because that’s what the very idea of divinity is. That’s what the very idea of God is: that which we as human beings cannot completely understand. God is that which we cannot even approach so much that we can be certain of what God is. Because if we could, wouldn’t that mean in some way that we could become God? And that’s the very warning that most religions promote.

Believe, but don’t assume for a moment that you have all the answers.

There’s this joke that camels always look at humans in a specific way. The joke is that God has 100 names. We know 99 of them. But the camel knows all 100. And that’s why the camel looks so superior.

But that is the idea of religion. The idea of religion is a combination — as strange as this may sound — of belief and humility. We are not God. We are not everything in the universe. We are not all-knowing. We are not omnipotent. And we will never get there. So whatever you think of as God — whether you think that’s a religious idea, whether you think that’s nature, whether you think that’s the universe, whether you think that’s just the ultimate good — this idea is clear: do not pretend to be all-knowing yourself. Have some sense of humility.

Now that also goes for philosophy. You may say, I follow philosopher so-and-so. But philosophy is an ongoing conversation about wisdom — the love of wisdom; that’s what philosophia means. Each idea in philosophy lives in interaction with other ideas. Philosophy is more than just footnotes to Plato. Plato can be footnotes to Plato — if you look at the Laws and the Republic, there are two very different ideas there, and more than two.

Philosophers are typically smarter than those who follow a specific philosophy. Because every philosopher knows that in order to put out the strongest version of their idea, they have to leave some of the complications out. But there are always complications. And philosophy X always lives in some form of exchange with philosophy Y or Z or however many there are. Every idea lives in an ecosystem of ideas. It lives in relation with others.

Philosophy X may be good or better in certain respects than philosophy Y. Maybe philosophy Y is good in other aspects. But the truth emerges in the interaction between the two.

So you may believe that the individual is the source of all morality. But how far do you want to take this? Do you believe this to the complete abdication of responsibility for others? Do you believe this to the complete rejection of the state? Similarly, if you believe the state is the authority over everything else, at which point does this have to stop? At which point does the state have to even question itself as to how far it should go?

Everything costs money. Does this mean that everything should be judged by its price tag? Even though price is not a static thing — it depends on a lot of factors. Is the price tag always the value of something, or is it just our momentary expression of our social and cultural priorities? Of course there’s supply and demand which regulate that. But is that still everything? Aren’t there things where we should find some difficulty putting a price on? Aren’t there some things that we can’t really measure very well? So isn’t there a limit to this kind of positivist, materialist way of looking at things?

Equally, if we say the materialistic world doesn’t matter and we need to live in a more spiritual, contemplative state of mind — that may be true to a point, but eventually bills will have to be paid. You do live in some form of reality, and that reality means that resources typically are limited and there needs to be a prioritizing. How do you organize that?

The material and the spiritual belong together. They will always have friction between each other, but they will always complement each other. If you’re too materialistic — if you believe that only that which can be measured, only that which can be owned, only that which can have a price tag matters — you should maybe think about some more spiritual components of life. If you’re too spiritual, maybe you need to be rooted more in the fact that there’s also a materialist component of life.

If X drowns out Y, sides of X may appear that make it wrong, because you need that balance. And there are more than just two — X and Y is easier, but you could say XYZ or whatever.

So in fact the saying may be true that too much of a good thing is indeed not good. It distorts what it is.

This is why you see me frequently call for moderation. You could argue that too much moderation is also wrong — you need some passion and some intensity and some belief. Well, yes. But moderation can also be just a middle ground between these different poles. All these different ideas around us lead us to negotiate our space within them. Moderation does not mean you don’t have convictions. It means that you question at which point your convictions turn into such a radicality, into such an extreme version, that they become wrong — that they are undermined by their own conviction.

Is radicality the truest expression of an idea? No. It may be the most flamboyant, the most interesting. But it can’t survive well. If you turn too radical, too extremist, your idea may be more attractive to people who really think like you. But then look at history. Every time an idea became too radical, it fails. It has failed. No matter what the idea — because in its radicality, in its extremism, it loses its power of conviction towards those who don’t agree with you. And the number of people in the world who agree with you is always going to be punctuated by the number of people who disagree with you.

If you want to build a successful movement, if you want to build a successful approach to politics, to religion, to whatever your cultural or social idea may be, you need to convince others. You need to find ways of integrating aspects of the other into your own.

Which is why this very familiar symbol of yin and yang — masculine, feminine, black, white, dark, light — shows you these two parts, but there’s always something of the other in the bigger part. You know the symbol.

If we don’t find a way to integrate that with which we disagree — as some sense of doubt, as some sense of humility within our convictions — then our convictions will be nothing but arrogance, nothing but self-congratulatory pose, and turn out to be nothing else than solipsism: centering on yourself and that which you think defines you as the only thing that matters.

[This was originally posted to YouTube as a video. This post is a slightly abbreviated transcript, preserving the oral style of the video.]

A quotation from Hannah Arendt

The only man for whom Hitler had “unqualified respect” was “Stalin the genius,” and while in the case of Stalin and the Russian regime we do not have (and presumably never will have) the rich documentary material that is available for Germany, we nevertheless know since Khrushchev’s speech before the Twentieth Party Congress that Stalin trusted only one man and that was Hitler.

Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) German-American philosopher, political theorist
Origins of Totalitarianism, Part 3, ch. 10 “A Classless Society,” sec. 1 (1951)

More about this quote: wist.info/arendt-hannah/41599/

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #hannaharendt #authoritarian #dictator #ideology #mutualrespect #respect #strongman #totalitarian #trust #tyrant

#israel #lebanon #syria #canada #australia #uk: #settlement / #occupation / #ideology / #zionism / #deceive

„Religiously inspired Jewish #settlers are working to expand 'Greater Israel' not just to Damascus but to Lebanon and much of the Arab world.“

https://thecradle.co/articles-id/37497

#usa #israel #palestine #iran : #gaza / #genocide / #westbank / #religion / #nazism / #history / #nuclearweapons / #uno / #zionism

„Never before has a race of people generated so much sympathy around the world and then, in the space of a lifetime, succeeded in turning that sympathy into hatred and revulsion” (The World After Gaza p. 40). Israel, today, with its #ideology of Greater Israel, should not and must not possess nuclear weapons.“

https://www.transcend.org/tms/2026/05/israels-nuclear-arsenal-and-us-silence/

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/apr/30/eu-entry-exit-system-ees-queues-missed-flights-readers. The dubious "benefits" of #Brexit displayed for even its most ardent #supporters to see, one would have thought - but then, there's nothing like #ideology to conquer #reality, is there? "False consciousness", indeed!

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/apr/30/eu-entry-exit-system-ees-queues-missed-flights-readers. The dubious "benefits" of #Brexit displayed for even its most ardent #supporters to see, one would have thought - but then, there's nothing like #ideology to conquer #reality, is there? "False consciousness", indeed!

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/apr/30/eu-entry-exit-system-ees-queues-missed-flights-readers. The dubious "benefits" of #Brexit displayed for even its most ardent #supporters to see, one would have thought - but then, there's nothing like #ideology to conquer #reality, is there? "False consciousness", indeed!

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/apr/30/eu-entry-exit-system-ees-queues-missed-flights-readers. The dubious "benefits" of #Brexit displayed for even its most ardent #supporters to see, one would have thought - but then, there's nothing like #ideology to conquer #reality, is there? "False consciousness", indeed!

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/apr/30/eu-entry-exit-system-ees-queues-missed-flights-readers. The dubious "benefits" of #Brexit displayed for even its most ardent #supporters to see, one would have thought - but then, there's nothing like #ideology to conquer #reality, is there? "False consciousness", indeed!

Centrists are actually like this

@humor

#politics #meme #memes #PoliticalMemes #uspol #USPolitics #centrist #centrism #centerleft #centerright #leftwing #farleft #left #leftism #leftist #fascism #rightwing #antifascism #libertarian #libertarianism #liberalism #liberal #PoliticalIdeology #ideology

Centrists are actually like this

@humor

#politics #meme #memes #PoliticalMemes #uspol #USPolitics #centrist #centrism #centerleft #centerright #leftwing #farleft #left #leftism #leftist #fascism #rightwing #antifascism #libertarian #libertarianism #liberalism #liberal #PoliticalIdeology #ideology

Centrists are actually like this

@humor

#politics #meme #memes #PoliticalMemes #uspol #USPolitics #centrist #centrism #centerleft #centerright #leftwing #farleft #left #leftism #leftist #fascism #rightwing #antifascism #libertarian #libertarianism #liberalism #liberal #PoliticalIdeology #ideology

Centrists are actually like this

@humor

#politics #meme #memes #PoliticalMemes #uspol #USPolitics #centrist #centrism #centerleft #centerright #leftwing #farleft #left #leftism #leftist #fascism #rightwing #antifascism #libertarian #libertarianism #liberalism #liberal #PoliticalIdeology #ideology

Centrists are actually like this

@humor

#politics #meme #memes #PoliticalMemes #uspol #USPolitics #centrist #centrism #centerleft #centerright #leftwing #farleft #left #leftism #leftist #fascism #rightwing #antifascism #libertarian #libertarianism #liberalism #liberal #PoliticalIdeology #ideology

RE: https://meow.social/@chirpbirb/116455392979879012

Productivity can be so many things: tidal ebbs and flows, flooding creeks & coursing rivers, steady seeps, cyclical incrementation and revision.

We need not let silly ideas about work get in the way of the work itself.

#productivity #work #ideology #trabajo #travail #arbeit #yearly #weekly #daily #habits #flow

A quotation from Hannah Arendt

Caution in handling generally accepted opinions that claim to explain whole trends of history is especially important for the historian of modern times, because the last century has produced an abundance of ideologies that pretend to be keys to history but are actually nothing but desperate efforts to escape responsibility.

Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) German-American philosopher, political theorist
The Origins of Totalitarianism, Part 1, ch. 1 “Antisemitism as an Outrage to Common Sense” (1951)

More about this quote: wist.info/arendt-hannah/46497/

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #arendt #hannaharendt #excuse #explanation #historiography #history #ideology #justification #responsibility #theory #bias

https://www.europesays.com/iran/75859/ Iran at the Edge: How Revolutionary Regimes Unravel #EconomicCrisis #EliteDivisions #ideology #Iran #IslamicRepublic #MiddleEast #PoliticalCrisis #Reform #RegimeDecline #resistance #Revolution #Sanctions #Tehran #USIsrael #War

#MMT versus #Neoliberalism
#economics #inequality #poverty #ideology
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2026/04/15/mmt-v-neoliberalism-there-is-only-one-winner/

"Out of these options, which is the One thing people in the West are Most Proud of?"

Democracy, Freedom of Expression, Liberty, Equality before the Law, Modern Amenities, Healthcare, Education, Women's rights, & Separation of Church from the State.

#Question #AskFedi #West #opinion #thought #blog #democracy #Liberty #Healthcare #education #womenrights #ideology #belief #politics

pagão（パゴン）
この単語はクリスト教徒で用いられる物です。
This word is used by Christians.

https://note.com/poison_raika/n/n271a7316b0d0

<>

#word #use #christians #discriminatory #term #derogatory #people #believe #other #religion #short #ideology #accept #have #may #idea #perception #incorrect #remains #strong #reality

Fringe to frontline ideology on the net

https://negativepid.blog/from-fringe-to-frontline-the-internet-as-an-ideological-battleground/

#Internet #Ideology #conspiracies #socialMedia #radicalization #politics #hoaxes #extremism #fringeTheories #misinformation #disinformation #negativepid

Fringe to frontline ideology on the net

https://negativepid.blog/from-fringe-to-frontline-the-internet-as-an-ideological-battleground/

#Internet #Ideology #conspiracies #socialMedia #radicalization #politics #hoaxes #extremism #fringeTheories #misinformation #disinformation #negativepid

A Scientist's View of War

Neil Degrasse Tyson

IMHO a well presented view on war in general

I won't interpret the video. Neil has done a good job on the presentation

Sources

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI9NG068TwI

#war #death #from #above #ideology #resources #theft #Neil #Degrasse #Tyson #technology #nuclear #Iran #Iraq #World #physics #chemistry #mathematics

A Scientist's View of War

Neil Degrasse Tyson

IMHO a well presented view on war in general

I won't interpret the video. Neil has done a good job on the presentation

Sources

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI9NG068TwI

#war #death #from #above #ideology #resources #theft #Neil #Degrasse #Tyson #technology #nuclear #Iran #Iraq #World #physics #chemistry #mathematics

A Scientist's View of War

Neil Degrasse Tyson

IMHO a well presented view on war in general

I won't interpret the video. Neil has done a good job on the presentation

Sources

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI9NG068TwI

#war #death #from #above #ideology #resources #theft #Neil #Degrasse #Tyson #technology #nuclear #Iran #Iraq #World #physics #chemistry #mathematics

A Scientist's View of War

Neil Degrasse Tyson

IMHO a well presented view on war in general

I won't interpret the video. Neil has done a good job on the presentation

Sources

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI9NG068TwI

#war #death #from #above #ideology #resources #theft #Neil #Degrasse #Tyson #technology #nuclear #Iran #Iraq #World #physics #chemistry #mathematics

A Scientist's View of War

Neil Degrasse Tyson

IMHO a well presented view on war in general

I won't interpret the video. Neil has done a good job on the presentation

Sources

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI9NG068TwI

#war #death #from #above #ideology #resources #theft #Neil #Degrasse #Tyson #technology #nuclear #Iran #Iraq #World #physics #chemistry #mathematics

I just got called a #Nazi by someone who mentioned me in a post then later deleted it.

So I will call that person a #coward because they can't stand by their convictions the way the Nazis did.

Name calling is so over rated and stupid. Insecure people shouldn't have to be able to influence diversion like this on a constant basis.

this exact response is the reason why centralized platforms target you now.

Here's a fact for you guys.

#Hitlerian ideology existed far longer than the #European attempted #colonization of everything into a #German #Reich which effectively makes #Nazism prone to regional difference, all be it one with the potential #historical #power to have long lasting consequences on the people who at the time, didn't see it coming as satellite states emerged from it.

So let's face it. I'm not #German I'm #Canadian and speak #English and no other #language as such.

For anyone who really wants to know, the term #neonazi exists for people who #self-identify as being simpathetic to Hitlerian doctrine.

I've #studied this extensively, because I think in a lot of ways, we never concluded #WWII completely from the #human #psyche and that is very frustrating to see this #tribal resurgence come back into #living #memory again.

So let's say that the year is 1940 something and not 2020 something. And let's point out the fact, that #National #Communism is an idea that got exported 80 some odd years into the #future to now.

Even if that's the case, the world has changed a lot since that time. And we've gotten stupider as a result of being primarily lazy with our own ambitions.

This is how dumb you guys are for doing this. And I know what you try to #suggest as such. That we are in such a #state of irreparable #disagreement, that this is the best you can come up with to #distance yourself from any sort of wider #context that doesn't fit your #narrative of #people who disagree with you.

So what? Can we not have an honest conversation about a few things without making solutions barred by political disconnectivity? That's exactly what the Nazi's proposed to do accept their solution wasn't just silence, it was death and destruction on a scale that has never truly went away ever since subsequent governments around our world, came into power and upgraded weapons systems continuously while operating elite networks from the shadows. In an effort, to instigate things like the #world #economic #forum and other big #thinktank organizations into a much broader sense of hostility than any of us individually call for as citizens of any and every nation.

I will say it loudly and #proudly as such. I am not someone who wants any group of people to face a premature end of their life on this planet, based on factors that nobody can control. And even if we can, I still want us to live our lives unimpeded by political #violence of any kind. And that includes #faith based groups to get along within #community spaces that do not challenge monomorphic #dominance at every step of the way.

I am disgusted at the #tribalism going on infecting every aspect of a normal #life facing my generation. And to just throw words like this out there, without any existential #planning or forethought on how this entire wretched #ideology can finally meet the dustbin of #history as such, to put it to #rest has no basis in #reality at all.

Look. I'm against people controling my life in ways I don't want them to. But that's true for all of us. So if you're going to name call, just remember that not everyone will take that lying down with a straight face and not move a mustle in the direction of a #fighting stance your way afterward.

I will not react in that manner, because I do put #peace and #prosperity first. And I don't censor people if they have opposing views to my own. But that's me. It's not you, and if you're that much of a coward to the point where you essentially do the same thing, only after you #feel #safe behind a cyber void, all the power to you.

But I bring this up publicly because reputations like this, although they're not supposed to, they actually do effect how highly you rank as a content provider. And on a shared internet, that carries more weight than you might think. Especially in today's toxic divided world where prayer is so much needed more so than ignorance and stupidity, where none can be found.

I don't want to live in a world where people start literally weaponizing eternity over a personal choice of faith. Nor do I want to live in one, where not choosing faith of any kind, let alone mandated ones, will land you as a person who is a continuous victim of statelessness by your actual neighbor in kind.

The Abrahamic religions are a perfect example (one of many in context) that have done more harm to divide people, than any other group in human history combined. And I am not one to book ban, but if those religions want to continue spewing their vile trash all over the place, it's time to set a precedent. But even still, that requires rethinking your approach to lead by example, and not paying attention to the example someone else can't lead by. Which again, makes book banning, the thing the Nazi's did, utterly archaic and barbaric to me

Wake up people. We don't live in a world that's so hard done by, that it can't be repaired. And it starts with refusing to use a tool at your disposal against someone you barely even had words with, because you can, in a way that significantly challenges their right to coexist alongside you.

The only way you'll learn discernment, is by understanding this as a core concept. I have all the tools at my disposal as a server instance owner to really stick it to people if I choose to. But so too does the US government own nuclear weapons to stick it to us if they chose to. And I count my blessings every time I wake up, and we haven't regressed that far into mass destruction to which there is no return. So likewise, because and due to that, I practice discernment out of choice, even when I can legally get away with being a lot harsher. I do not do so out of pity, but out of respect.

So let's take a second and thank the Nazi's for coming into our lives. Not for their ideology, or their vile addiction to power and hatred. But because they taught us, to be better people to not be like them because they failed at suppressing the human spirit.

I don't want to see you pull some shit online you wouldn't in get away with in real life. Not because I want you to be oppressed, but because the more we treat our communities like bridges connecting real people together, the less likely we'll respond to situations with outlandish and stupid methods of containment until and unless we have no other choice but to defend against systematic collapse.

Please know the power of your presence and use it. I don't want to have to be the only one who does. I'm fully aware that I'm not in control of what someone else does. But so long as they're not doing something to you that you wouldn't want, let them be and move on. That's what being responsible gets you in 2026.

I wish I didn't have to spell this out. But honestly, what hurts me more so than the accusation of something that isn't even real. Is that, you use that as a justification to do something that is real, with lasting consequences on not just reputation, but disinterest without a trail of provocation to go along with it. It'd be not unlike setting your neighborhood ablaze because the pizza delivery guy was 5 minutes late.

If this kind of antisocial behaviour isn't course corrected, our 30 something year old generation will be the last to have known the meaning of true freedom as we know it, because people like you, will get more attention by being underhanded, rather than straight up and honest about where we stand. And as such, would force the natural rather than enforced suppression of sudden unpredictability, back where it rightfully belongs. In the could have been moments of our lives, but not in the never were enactments of them.

Or in other words, focusing on the self you become not as a hot headed entity, or a cold calculating monster. But the one in between, that sees both sides, and not just the one you embody because you think it's going to matter to a fault, rather than a cause.

Stay informed, and know you are not alone in caring for the same things I do. History doesn't always get things right, but that's why we talk about it, rather than remaining silent and hoping it goes away on its own.

For some situations, that can happen. But this isn't one of them.

Thank you for all that you are. I appreciate you.

I just got called a #Nazi by someone who mentioned me in a post then later deleted it.

So I will call that person a #coward because they can't stand by their convictions the way the Nazis did.

Name calling is so over rated and stupid. Insecure people shouldn't have to be able to influence diversion like this on a constant basis.

this exact response is the reason why centralized platforms target you now.

Here's a fact for you guys.

#Hitlerian ideology existed far longer than the #European attempted #colonization of everything into a #German #Reich which effectively makes #Nazism prone to regional difference, all be it one with the potential #historical #power to have long lasting consequences on the people who at the time, didn't see it coming as satellite states emerged from it.

So let's face it. I'm not #German I'm #Canadian and speak #English and no other #language as such.

For anyone who really wants to know, the term #neonazi exists for people who #self-identify as being simpathetic to Hitlerian doctrine.

I've #studied this extensively, because I think in a lot of ways, we never concluded #WWII completely from the #human #psyche and that is very frustrating to see this #tribal resurgence come back into #living #memory again.

So let's say that the year is 1940 something and not 2020 something. And let's point out the fact, that #National #Communism is an idea that got exported 80 some odd years into the #future to now.

Even if that's the case, the world has changed a lot since that time. And we've gotten stupider as a result of being primarily lazy with our own ambitions.

This is how dumb you guys are for doing this. And I know what you try to #suggest as such. That we are in such a #state of irreparable #disagreement, that this is the best you can come up with to #distance yourself from any sort of wider #context that doesn't fit your #narrative of #people who disagree with you.

So what? Can we not have an honest conversation about a few things without making solutions barred by political disconnectivity? That's exactly what the Nazi's proposed to do accept their solution wasn't just silence, it was death and destruction on a scale that has never truly went away ever since subsequent governments around our world, came into power and upgraded weapons systems continuously while operating elite networks from the shadows. In an effort, to instigate things like the #world #economic #forum and other big #thinktank organizations into a much broader sense of hostility than any of us individually call for as citizens of any and every nation.

I will say it loudly and #proudly as such. I am not someone who wants any group of people to face a premature end of their life on this planet, based on factors that nobody can control. And even if we can, I still want us to live our lives unimpeded by political #violence of any kind. And that includes #faith based groups to get along within #community spaces that do not challenge monomorphic #dominance at every step of the way.

I am disgusted at the #tribalism going on infecting every aspect of a normal #life facing my generation. And to just throw words like this out there, without any existential #planning or forethought on how this entire wretched #ideology can finally meet the dustbin of #history as such, to put it to #rest has no basis in #reality at all.

Look. I'm against people controling my life in ways I don't want them to. But that's true for all of us. So if you're going to name call, just remember that not everyone will take that lying down with a straight face and not move a mustle in the direction of a #fighting stance your way afterward.

I will not react in that manner, because I do put #peace and #prosperity first. And I don't censor people if they have opposing views to my own. But that's me. It's not you, and if you're that much of a coward to the point where you essentially do the same thing, only after you #feel #safe behind a cyber void, all the power to you.

But I bring this up publicly because reputations like this, although they're not supposed to, they actually do effect how highly you rank as a content provider. And on a shared internet, that carries more weight than you might think. Especially in today's toxic divided world where prayer is so much needed more so than ignorance and stupidity, where none can be found.

I don't want to live in a world where people start literally weaponizing eternity over a personal choice of faith. Nor do I want to live in one, where not choosing faith of any kind, let alone mandated ones, will land you as a person who is a continuous victim of statelessness by your actual neighbor in kind.

The Abrahamic religions are a perfect example (one of many in context) that have done more harm to divide people, than any other group in human history combined. And I am not one to book ban, but if those religions want to continue spewing their vile trash all over the place, it's time to set a precedent. But even still, that requires rethinking your approach to lead by example, and not paying attention to the example someone else can't lead by. Which again, makes book banning, the thing the Nazi's did, utterly archaic and barbaric to me

Wake up people. We don't live in a world that's so hard done by, that it can't be repaired. And it starts with refusing to use a tool at your disposal against someone you barely even had words with, because you can, in a way that significantly challenges their right to coexist alongside you.

The only way you'll learn discernment, is by understanding this as a core concept. I have all the tools at my disposal as a server instance owner to really stick it to people if I choose to. But so too does the US government own nuclear weapons to stick it to us if they chose to. And I count my blessings every time I wake up, and we haven't regressed that far into mass destruction to which there is no return. So likewise, because and due to that, I practice discernment out of choice, even when I can legally get away with being a lot harsher. I do not do so out of pity, but out of respect.

So let's take a second and thank the Nazi's for coming into our lives. Not for their ideology, or their vile addiction to power and hatred. But because they taught us, to be better people to not be like them because they failed at suppressing the human spirit.

I don't want to see you pull some shit online you wouldn't in get away with in real life. Not because I want you to be oppressed, but because the more we treat our communities like bridges connecting real people together, the less likely we'll respond to situations with outlandish and stupid methods of containment until and unless we have no other choice but to defend against systematic collapse.

Please know the power of your presence and use it. I don't want to have to be the only one who does. I'm fully aware that I'm not in control of what someone else does. But so long as they're not doing something to you that you wouldn't want, let them be and move on. That's what being responsible gets you in 2026.

I wish I didn't have to spell this out. But honestly, what hurts me more so than the accusation of something that isn't even real. Is that, you use that as a justification to do something that is real, with lasting consequences on not just reputation, but disinterest without a trail of provocation to go along with it. It'd be not unlike setting your neighborhood ablaze because the pizza delivery guy was 5 minutes late.

If this kind of antisocial behaviour isn't course corrected, our 30 something year old generation will be the last to have known the meaning of true freedom as we know it, because people like you, will get more attention by being underhanded, rather than straight up and honest about where we stand. And as such, would force the natural rather than enforced suppression of sudden unpredictability, back where it rightfully belongs. In the could have been moments of our lives, but not in the never were enactments of them.

Or in other words, focusing on the self you become not as a hot headed entity, or a cold calculating monster. But the one in between, that sees both sides, and not just the one you embody because you think it's going to matter to a fault, rather than a cause.

Stay informed, and know you are not alone in caring for the same things I do. History doesn't always get things right, but that's why we talk about it, rather than remaining silent and hoping it goes away on its own.

For some situations, that can happen. But this isn't one of them.

Thank you for all that you are. I appreciate you.

"Cool story, I don't give a fuck"

https://piefed.social/c/historymemes/p/1866674/cool-story-i-don-t-give-a-fuck