Big election victory for Hamas

[Skybird]

Politicians most times ARE isolated from their country's realities, or ignore it intentionally, or are kept away from it by the other great player in the game: the bureaucracy and ministries (that sort the facts and infos before they ever made it to the working desk of a ministre and hereby form a stupid crowd themselves - have you ever noticed some cases when a single man stood up with some critical info, valid for public interest - and was brought down by his own ministry because he disturbed the usualy routine? I have several such stories from Germany on my mind, I see no reason why it should be different in other countries).
Politicians are more busy to twist and turn reality so that it matches their lobby's intentions (, I think of the way reality is descroibed by the German SPD now, in the great coaltion, whereas before reality was the same - but as government they made it sound something completely different; or just think of the story that I made a thread of, NASA, by command of official policy, silencing it's chief scientist on climate change, and in that article other examples of scientists beeing called back not to question the administration's official interpretation are quoted, too). That lobbyists (like politicians) make maximum use of the phenomenon of stupidity beeing the greater the bigger the crowd is, is no surprise, is it. Especially people who put blind trust in the democratic system and the personell that got elected by it are vulnerable to this manipulation. Telling them that usually is a complete useless affair.

I have a text by Bonhoeffer which I already have quoted one or two times in recent years here. I will look for it and give it again. The best analysis I have ever red on this matter, brief and right to the point.

Intelligent politicians - it's been some time since I listend to one qualifying for that description. The kind of politicians i see on TV are clever, and that is something different than intelligent. Clever in promoting their own egoism and the interests of the lobbies they are controlled by. they are not statesmen, but managers.

Nazi's vision was not to annihilate their country, but to rule the world. during the war they just folund out that they took a bigger bite than what they could swallow. I find your way of arguing confused. You take the ending for the beginning.

Immidiate treatements for symptoms are preferred to long-term and lasting solutions of problems. That'S why people vote for the same corrupt parties time and again, instead of sending them to hell.

[TteFAboB]

I agree with most of your points, I have many examples too, from more than one nation, I believe I actually hold the ultimate example to base your ideas into, I could share it, but first I'll blackmail you, and ask you to consider my 3rd World-Europe comparison which you ignored:

It was Europe who taught the world about Democracy, the world learned the lesson and now it seems it is the other way around, Europe seeks out to the world (besides from within itself, but it has been doing that for decades) to try to ask the right questions and find the right answers.

If the NASA scientist got censored, it is a great example of stupidity, because the conclusion was obvious, he would go out to the media, as he was already influencial was he not? Like I said in the Google-China thread, state censorship is stupid, hence the people who censor are stupid people and you can usually get around them, the NASA scientist got around and made the fuss, if he was in Cuba or China he might've been shot, but he's alive and spreading his word, is this not a virtue of a Democracy? Is it not harder to kill dissidents in a Democracy? Is it not easier to keep a government in check in a Democracy? For the last question, consider ideal circumstances, ie. less dumb, more aware masses.

On the subject of intelligent politicians, it's possible, but difficult, if there is an intelligent politician indeed he may be clever enough too to earn a chance to rise to power, but it is not a good word because it is indeed hard for politicians in general to earn that adjective.

I can refrain and substitute intelligent for not-dumb, not necessarily bright, but not a manipulative usurper.

I mentioned the Nazis because there was even hope for them, Hitler made it clear that he was the only way, the only chance, I don't offer a revisionist alternative, I just denounce he definitely wasn't honest and didn't had the desire of the people in his heart. Which means he had his own interests, even though he was democratically elected he could give a damn to Germans as long as they enlisted in the Army and kept their heads down. Far from the ideal of a Democracy, just trying to demonstrate an election doesn't mean anything by itself.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Immidiate treatements for symptoms are preferred to long-term and lasting solutions of problems. That'S why people vote for the same corrupt parties time and again, instead of sending them to hell

I agree entirely with his, I only dispute the part about the corrupt parties being voted for time and again, because we can find contradictory examples, be it the rule or the exception, and I guess we take "the people" for the majority, then we shouldn't ignore the minority, what if the minority is large enough, not too far from the majority? This grey blend might not be necessarily bright, but not necessarily dumb either.

This is also the reason why so many dictatorships survived in the past, why they were "tolerated" by the majority, but when the minority rises, they fall. There was never so much opposition to Fidel Castro in Cuba as there is today, I thought he would fall last year, maybe he will fall this year, maybe the next year, as long as the minority is large enough, but not to the point they form a dumb mass, Democracy can shine.


EDIT: Or translating that to make it easier to digest: A Democracy is the government of the majority kept in check and alive by the minority.

[Skybird]

Hitler: look at his plans and concepts to change the architectural appearance of Berlin. As it is often the case with megolomaniac emperors, his wish to give his political ideas a representation in architecture as well is key to understanding. That's why his relation to Albert Speer is said to have been closer than to anyone else of his Nazi buddies.

Don't know what timeframe you mean when talking of europe and democracy. But I can clearly remember what politician it is to propagate the spreading of demcoracy even by force, and war - and that somebody is no European at all...

That NASA guy has nothing to do with Castro or China.

Claiming democracy for oneself is a perfect setting for an oligarchy to hide itself behind. when you said in the last sentence that it means the minority keeps in check the government of the majority, it is a contradiction in itself. actually, you are describing an elite oligarchy, not a democarcy. It is the minority's self-definition of beeing superior to the will of those who vote, that make this minority turning democracy into an oligarchy. And I think it is inevitable thata demcoracy turns into this, as Aristoteles also said it is. Because when crowds act silly, as I claim, they cannot escape to allow persons beeing elected that turn their beloved democarcy into oligarchies - that's why it is inevitable.

Democracy only would function with small communities, and if people made their votes basing on reason and logic, knowledge and awareness of what the previously elected people have acchieved, or failed to acchieve. These condtions are not fulfilled. Most votes given base on family tradition or habit, or a personal calculation what party promises to earn the voter higher income/advantzage, profit of whatever a kind. Hence our dilemma. In this way an election can decide only one thing: which selfish, tradition-driven egoist is the stronger one in manipulation, intimidating and/or seducing the public.

Your thoughts on what to do if the minority is large and close in size to the majority I consider to be hairsplitting or extreme thought experiment. Wasn't it you beeing amongst those attacking me when I reminded people after the last US election, that the voting was a very close call in results, roughly 51:49, voters split into two halfs almost exactly? wasn't I critizised for mentioning this, telling me that a majority is a majority - no matter how close the vote has been? If I identify you wrong here, my apology then.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/27/news/eu.php
A nice example how a small minority of people, actually a small group of people only, tries to work around the public opinion of at least half of Europe's residents. Those ten coiuntys that have ratified it: most of them never asked their own people. Germany has ratified it as well. but german people never got asked, although saying that they want to have a say in it (a majority of Germans appears to be against it).

[Hitman]

What majority? Palestinian majority? French majority? Universal majority?

Any majority

[TteFAboB]

The timeframe for Europe is today, how can Europe (France, Germany, Italy) move forward and abandon their "state capitalism" left over from the end of WW2 for a schumpeterian model, à la carte to prevent the social models from being shattered. Europe holds many advantages over the rest of the world, yet the rest of the world advances leaving Europe behind, Europe once owned the world, now the world is divided between the USA and China, Europe must rise again as a 3rd dominant force, that won't happen without drastic changes, if that means Germany needs a suicidal politician to climb to power and push through his reforms, burning himself and maybe even his party forever, so be it. And that's why Europe can learn from the rest of the world.

Argentina still exists because a few bold presidents decided to burn themselves to save the country, today the country is in terrible hands, the president does whatever suits him on each particular day, I guess when he wakes up with his left foot first, he chooses to speak against "neoliberalism", when he wakes up with his right foot first, he chooses a Nazi stance and speaks against globalization and how Argentina should shut its borders. This man is temporary, but the country was saved from extinction and social chaos by the kamikaze politicians who managed to do what needed to be done, at the time it was uncertain, would it be worth it? Would it work? Angela Merkel doesn't have the strength to do anything similar, so here we go again spend a few more years with palliative bluffs.

We fail to reach an understanding on the majority/minority deal, the point is: Without a minority, there is no Democracy, without someone to contest instead of consent, there is no Democracy, if everybody agrees on everything, there is no Democracy. I'm scared when I agree with SubSim members, I expect to disagree whole-heartedly from almost everybody, and if I agree with someone, I have to stop and check myself again, because I tend to think I'm probably wrong.

So, even if one majority elected "democratic" government is not democratic at all, but oligarchic, without a minority complaining and denouncing it there is not even a mask of Democracy, so it is the minority that keeps alive an oligarchy indeed, by action (being active, giving the impression there is opposition or freedom) or inaction (by joining in and being the oligarchy itself).

Originally Posted by Skybird

Democracy only would function with small communities, and if people made their votes basing on reason and logic, knowledge and awareness of what the previously elected people have acchieved, or failed to acchieve

I agree with what follows below these lines, to some extent, what I contest is this quote, with a small community anything works, I don't think that's fair, you have hippie anarchich or communist camps, you have kibutz, and even democracy afterall. But if we are to have a larger scale Democracy, we have to make concessions indeed, most people are not ready, informed or prepared to vote on technical or some juridical subjects, though examples would be highly regional, such as the Death Penalty, because if people are concerned and angry because of crime and they are seduced with a quick "solution", they might aswell vote for it due to what we already agreed upon, short-term magical solutions are much more appealing than long-term plans that usually require "sacrifices" or hard work.

So, a death penalty, for instance, is probably unconstitutional or illegal in most nations today, those who have it are, often, left-overs from the past decades. So the anual budget, the death penalty, immigration policies, might be better left for representative Democracy, because if you ask directly, you can get a result that represents the instant unthought desire, without further consideration into the future, or forgetting the past. These examples are only examples, and should differ significantly from nation to nation.

I don't remember attacking you on the American election, but indeed you are correct, it was split in half, a majority is still a majority, it's up to the winner to be the president of everybody or ignore half the nation. There are different electoral procedures around the globe and there isn't really one single "best" model, the American model worked for centuries, it's not the latest fellow who's going to ruin it.

I can't open the link you offer, but I believe you are speaking about the European constitution, thank you, we can go back to Castro now, did you knew some European figures travelled to South America to discuss the European constitution with people who believe they can build a socialist utopy in the 21st century? Inspired by the Cuban example, led from the backstage by Castro himself.

http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/

I can't find the transcripts, I spent hours translating Spanish, printed it and deleted that abomination from my hard-drive, but I remember watching the live transmission from one of the seminars and in the end some French man said he was very happy with the collaboration of the organizations to help improve the constitution, I don't remember what they added after this meeting, but they did added something and it's there in the ratified constitution, aided by the most radical self-entitled socialist organizations from South America, a gift from the new world, I suppose.

But I agree with you, I believe a constitution must be voted, if it takes 6 months for the people to learn what they're dealing with and discuss it, so be it.

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

And who said dodos are extinct?!

Um yea I agree..the ole "Head in the sand" routine is getting old.Even Bush really surpirses me while trying to walk both sides of the politically correct fence. I don't really understand his approach in even considering to deal with these guys.We can hope and pray ,and wait and watch, the dice keep coming up snake eyes with these guys...

Zero humanatarian aid should go to ANY country that is controlled by ...can I say...Killers...terrorists maybe.Is there a difference?

Democracy is a process, elections are a mere tool to bond the past and future. It's the results and continuity that makes a Democracy, not a single election, not an instant in time, not a referendum, it's what comes after the election itself and what remains or changes from before that characterizes a Democracy.

Good definition in my opinion...the election is not what is important but the act of excersising a freedom...well see what is done with it.

[August]

Originally Posted by Type941

AH... what the heck are you even on about? Why did you qoute me with that response? I never said anything about that rat Arafat, and my single point is that now you got this new terrorist government in power officially and the rest of the world has to put up with it because it has been elected according to the ways, the US is forcefully ejecting into every little country in the world it's interesting in. I know you are american and all, but when will you get that things done not american way are not wrong.


If you are so fond of democracy, you need to at least open up your eyes a little to what's happening in the world (georgia, ukraine for instance). And as the poster above said, Hitler was elected democratically, by majority. This all goes to this idiotism that's going on around the world these days on how communism and fashism are the same thing (first is a form of ideology exploited by the monsters in power while the latter is a purely anti-semetic, racial, ultranationalistic and disgusting idiology). The world is a funny thing these days.

Yeah i'm "fond" of Democracy and as an American i see things with American eyes so deal with it. Democracy, for all its flaws which are constantly bemoaned by some of the denizens of this board,, is still the best form of government that humankind has ever invented. Do you have a better way? What is it?

As for Hitler, yes he was democratically elected, but so what? That did not stop the rest of the world from removing him and his henchmen from power, now did it? Nor will it stop the rest of the world from removing Hamas from power, if it becomes necessary.

If anything that is the true essence of government by the people. The freedom to make mistakes, and the freedom to live or die by those mistakes. I personally wouldn't have it any other way.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

And who said dodos are extinct?!

C&F hit the nail on the head again.



Democracy is only as good as the people that implement it.

[The Avon Lady]

To HitMan, with love.

[Skybird]

Good one, AL.

[Hitman]

So what?

What is so remarkable about an Islamic radical group claiming to have Seville back under islamic domination?

What is remarkable about zionists claiming their right to the land of Israel?

What is remarkable about Morocco willing the territory of Ceuta and Melilla?

What would be strange is that neither radical muslims demand Al-Andalus back, zionists the land of Israel or Morocco demand Ceuta & Melilla :hmm: But it is in the nature of their respective ideology to request those things. Shall I be shocked or amazed by a terrorist saying openly that his goal is to kill people?

What we can however discuss a lot about, are the METHODS to achieve their purposes and how much they respect others who do not think equally. I do not accept Hamas methods of achieving their purposes. But I would not mind against their goal of Israel dissapearing if they achieved that through peaceful conversion of all jews to islam and voluntary elimination of Israel through democratic election. Same with Seville going under muslim domination. As long as they achieve that by peacefully converting everyone, I have nothing to argue against it.

It is not the religious or political goals or aims but the methods and lack of respect for minorities what I am against.

Note that to any palestinian the creation of the state of Israel where formely Palestinians were settled is as much a threatening political goal as it is for you the elimination of the state of Israel by Hamas. Where is the difference? I think that the methods are the difference. Israel has not always been 100% clean, but overall has acted more legally and peacefully than Palestinians in achieving their goals, f.e. obtaining UN resolutions and recognizement of their state and the legitimate character of many of their goals, plus also acting 99% of the times in self defence against a violent, terrorist agression. Thus Israel deserves some credit to my eyes, unlike Hamas.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Hitman

So what?

What is so remarkable about an Islamic radical group claiming to have Seville back under islamic domination?

What is remarkable about zionists claiming their right to the land of Israel?

What is remarkable about Morocco willing the territory of Ceuta and Melilla?

What would be strange is that neither radical muslims demand Al-Andalus back, zionists the land of Israel or Morocco demand Ceuta & Melilla :hmm: But it is in the nature of their respective ideology to request those things. Shall I be shocked or amazed by a terrorist saying openly that his goal is to kill people?

It is remarkable because Islam can make these claims, unhidden, in the public - and we in the West still ignore them, find excuses for them, seek reasons that let them appear as harmless symptoms that are not representative. That we still believe in our own folly, saying that Islam is about mutual tolerance, peaceful coexistance - this is what makes these claims so remarkable. Even when we get hurt by them, if our people get killed, our homes get bombed - soon after we are more concerned with moralizing that all this is not Islam, and that we let not allow anything to be said that could make Islam feel offended, and we must move even closer towards Islam to get it's sympathy for us infidels.
We really believe that we have an obligation to help them to overcome us. I am sick and tired of Islam. And I am even more sick and tired of Europe's wishful thinking and rejection to see the hard reality. This time Islam may not come with military force, trying to overcome christian Europe, as it did in the last threee attempts that it started to conquer Europe by force. This time it is coming with a smile on the face and the irresistable power of demographics and the "peaceful movement" of millions of Muslims to Europe, knowing all to qell that we cannot counter this ofgfensive without giving up some of our own precious legal values and democratic ideals and humanistic ideas. But it is a clash of two civilizations, Europe under siege, Islam attacking again for the foruth time now, trying to make it all it's own. It's a strategy that is planning with centuries, not with decades. AND IT IS INTENTIONAL, and fully known by Islam.

I said it in the past, and I say it again: Islam does not know or accept peace as long as there is anything non-Islamic left. Peace, in Islam's true inner understanding, means the unconditional, undisputed, unquestioned, invulnerable total and complete dominance of Islam over all the world. It only knows phases of cease-firing or stopped expansion, in the face of too stroing oppositon. When this opposition has been weakend, it presses on the expansion. Contemporary phases of non-expansion (no matter if violantly enbforced, or softly acchieved) are not because of tolerance, or ratio, or interest in coexistence. It only is the deep breathtaking before the effort, the concentrating before going to action, the silence before the race, the training before the new season starts.

Two weeks ago I had a private talk with a board member, and I exchanged a long letter with him. I quote one passage, describing one certain event from it, because I do not want to re-formulate it, and it holds no personal content at all (because this is so I think he will not feel offended that I bring this part of my letter to him to the public).

" [...]

The folly leads as far as that the Vatican even remains silent about the yearly mass killing of up to 150.000 christians in Muslims countries, who get murdered in local progroms each year. That says the Vatican’s own secret service, three or four years ago. To say that is considered to be politically uncorrect. It threatens the folly one is trying hard to keep alive: that there is interest for dialogue and tolerance on the other side.

When Paul II visited Sudan in 1983, or was it 86, he also met Hasan Al-Turabi, a known radical, whom he embraced and praised him as a great man, stressing the mutual tolernace and similiarities between both religions – the very same man that in the twelve months before had slaughtered one million christians in southern Sudan by sending Muslim marauders, and a man who just waited until the pope was back to Rome and then spend another year or so with murdering another two million Christians there – this time by using more efficient massbombardement from bombers and fighter planes, until he fell out of favour himself.

[...]

Later Pope II. said that „if we allow women for priesthood, this will block our ecumenical contact to Islam“, and explained that for the latter reason the first shall not be. If that is not revealing.

What is acchieved by this? A new form of monologue is created, that labels itself a dialogue, that by renunciation of analysis and reason uses highly irrational criterias, illusions and wishful thinking, nevertheless searches for a truth that nevertheless it already has limited in advance (dialogue with Islam MUST be successful), this is enforced with highly dogmatic power inside the church, and at the same time accepting massive deformation of the church’s spiritual contents that already were hollowed out before and have lost so much attractiveness that churches today are empty and young generations are driven away – while mosques are crowded and their numbers almost exploded in the last three decades. Today, Islam in europe just needs to pick up those people that were driven away from the churches, that felt disgusted, and saw no convincing orientation in Christian religion, as interpreted by corrupted churches, anymore. Some fall victim to spiritual mass-tourism. Some fall victim to Buddhist sects that have not adopted their teachings to Western living surroundings. Some fall victim to islam that promsies them to be striuct and strong in giving them orientation by total regulation of all levels of life. Most people fall victim to materialism and nihilism, beeing no thrwad to Islmaic expansion into the West anymore – they are weak.

During the bishop’s synode 1999 in Rome the Bishop of Izmir risked open confrontation with the Vatican when ignoring orders to shut up, and gave the assembly a report on the massive discriminations Christians in his diocese are facing, and I quote from one of my books here (my translation):

„During an official meeting about the ‚dialogue‘ between Christians and Muslims, a high representatives of the Muslim community raised and adressed the Christian participants of that assembly, saying: ‚Thanks to your own democratic laws we will overcome you, thanks to your own religious rules we will rule you.‘ Their rulership already has begun with the petrodollars, that are not used to fight poverty in the poor countries of Northern Africa or to create jobs in the middle east, but to raise mosques and ‚culture centers‘ within Christian countries with a very high quota of Muslim immigrants beeing send to the construction sites. How can we fail to see a clear intentional program in this, that is directed at expansion, taking over, and ultimate ruling...?“

The Bishop continued to describe that all the intercultural meetings always, always are organized and created by Christians, never initiated by Muslims, and he described how another high ranking Muslim representative was asked why this was so, that Muslims never initiated cultural exchange and interreligious meetings. That Muslim representative answered, and I quote again:

„ Why should we do that...? You cannot teach us anything, and we DO NOT NEED TOM LEARN ANYTHING.“

The Bishop continued:

„It is a fact, that terms like dialogue, justice, mutuality (Gegenseitigkeit), or terms like human rights and democracy have a completely different meaning and understanding for Muslims than for us. But it is absolutely inevitable that we are united in our understanding of these principles. We may never again offer a Christian church to a muslim community for celebrating a Muslim religious festivity in there, because for them it is a most convincing signal for our own apostasy.“ "

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Democracy is only as good as the people that implement it.

As President, Jimmy Carter was a very competent nuclear engineer.



Unfortunately, not many Americans remember that he is a nuclear engineer...

[STEED]

The Middle East has got a whole lot more dangerous.

[Hitman]

@Skybird: All religions I know about, specially the catholic, try that their followers have as many sons as possible. It is a form of brutal demographic expansion and thus hopefully an equal expansion of their religion. When Spain was governed by Franco, and the Opus Dei was able to rule the public life, population was continually encouraged to have more sons, resulting in what we know here as the "Baby Boom" generation in the late 60s and early 70s. There are still various religious ultracatholic organizations in Spain and latinamerica that still operate like that and try that their followers act accordingly. The Islam tries that, as well as the chritians and jews, so this is still something way usual in our lifes already.

You have set a premise you won't be willing to change: That there is no possible peaceful and tolerant interpretation of Islam. And as long as you start from that argument and it remains unchanged, obviously it does determine the result of any other argument constructed upon it. Same as the Avon Lady did before, you are confusing the methods with the pursued result. Radical Islam is not doing anything different than what other religions do in terms of will to expand and dominate. If it would depend on Rome's will, I can assure you that many things would change in the world RE public and private life. Those of us who have lived under the national-catholicism of Franco know well that. There were rules about how women should dress, what they should do in their life (Be loyal housewifes and have sons like rabbits) and much more. All this blessed by Rome, who labelled our country as the perfect catholic estate.

What is different in Islam is that it also has groups of radical terrorists that draw all atention.

I can agree with you in that currently there is no will to make a tolerant interpretation of Islam in most of Islamic ruled countries like Arabia, Iran, etc. But I can't agree in that there is no chance of doing a tolerant interpretation of Islam. Millions of muslims in Europe show daily that it is certainly possible, even if other millions don't want to. It depends upon us to mark the limits and allow those who respect them to cohexist with us. Otherwise we would be acting as the radical muslims we critisize so much.

Today, Islam in europe just needs to pick up those people that were driven away from the churches, that felt disgusted, and saw no convincing orientation in Christian religion, as interpreted by corrupted churches, anymore. Some fall victim to spiritual mass-tourism. Some fall victim to Buddhist sects that have not adopted their teachings to Western living surroundings. Some fall victim to islam that promsies them to be striuct and strong in giving them orientation by total regulation of all levels of life. Most people fall victim to materialism and nihilism, beeing no thrwad to Islmaic expansion into the West anymore – they are weak.

I couldn't agree more with that, Skybird!

It is obvious that the human being has a terrible tendency to deny his dignity and allow others to set the rules for him. Probably since thinking is the most energy consuming activity of the body, it is sistematically refused. Dostojewsky prtrayed this beautifully in the Karamazov's brothers, through the parabole or monologue about Christ meeting the general Inquisitor in Seville.

People who throw themselves in the arms of any religion are many times people who have refused to asume the responsability of their actions and want someone to take it for them. Since you are following a set of rules created by another or by God, you are free of the moral responsability. If those rules also do legitimate your hate and the explosion of violence acumulated in your interior, the better for many.

The only thing that can save Europe and the whole world from radicalisms is the education and teaching the people to think. This is a huge effort, and I understand that it looks easier to cut any attempt of a "foreign" religion to get those disenchanted people who step out of the church. But the alternative to radical Islam in our lifes today is only consumism and lack of morality, and that ends up burning a human sould sooner or later. We can't pretend that this alternative is much better than radical Islam, Skybird.

Cheers