Patriotism is always striving to live up to the ideals of your nation and its way of life. So ironically, many nationalists make the worst patriots!

crap! since it was shown on a tv show with no other comments about it, i thought it was legitimate...

How about this then?

Look at second 6. Doesn't speak much about his intelligence though...

It's more that any label you can find is abused to make things look better, or worse. Which is somehow an effective way to further political, scientific, religious and personal goals in every aspect of life, in spite of the fact that people do have educations that at the very least teach them how to read and write.

Because for some reason a lot of people continue to be impressed by people claiming they know what they're talking about, while people who are not full of shit tend to be complicated and subjectively exhausting. And therefore unappealing compared to people who exude a cloud of sedate indifference whenever they open their mouths.

Seriously, though - you haven't really grasped what is wrong with things lately until you meet a philosophy-major who just studies for the questions on the exam, because thinking about things is so exhausting and depressive. Or a "conservative" politician, who genuinely and honestly believes that all political issues have already been worked out, forever, and that the current political battle is about the ownership of and association with the at any moment positive terms used to describe political issues.

See, I used to think that people just didn't know better. Until I was.. 13, at least. And then it turns out that what's driving the current version of authoritarianism in particularly the US and Europe, is simply indifference and a wish that "we have people" who can fix things without us knowing about it. It's not love for Big Brother, and an acceptance of having to gulp down at least some propaganda, in an effort to create unity for the sake of survival, or something of that sort. Instead it's a genuine appreciation for Big Mother, who fixes things so you don't have to worry about anything.

So you meet up with some diplomats, they have a talk about what's on the agenda, there's always something half-way interesting and some information going around that gives people something to discuss. And you realize at some point that no one in the room, including the ones who are working professionally as envoys, actually have any inkling of an idea about where or how any form of legislation even incidental to the subjects will be created.

You might wonder about it at the time, and silently be grateful for how off-hand the approach seemed to be.

Until you get involved in local politics, and realize that 90% of the legislation you're working on has been printed out by the same PR-companies and foundations that printed the handouts for the slightly woozy envoys from earlier. It's not necessarily bad work, of course, and the conspiracies are nowhere to be seen, and so on.

But the point is that practically none of the public figures you have ever spoken to or seen on television will ever actually come up with something on their own. Or if they did, the actual process to getting something through parliament is not actually on their hands. And if you have a disinterested parliament, overcrowded with other people who would rather compete for attention or bargain for seats, etc., over actually debating real things - then you can literally blame yourself when stupid attention-whores fill the parliament, and have enough political power to actually push through legislation that might fit with their populism-strategies.

I mean, make no mistake about it - quite a lot of "political work" tends to be about appearances, about presentation of an already agreed upon goal. And when that doesn't work, a fair amount will go to presenting the failure in such a way that it will appear politically advantageous. Very little - although party folk will disagree violently, and perhaps even honestly in their subjective opinion - will be about actually shaping practical solutions, or to for example find issues to focus on to shape your own platform as a whole.

Because, like I said: it turns out (as has been demonstrated by several governments around the world) that appearing to have control over things is more appealing and easier to sell than actually knowing what the fuck you're talking about.

And the current "right" in for example the UK, Germany, US, and several other European countries where that "right" has or has not ended up in government has learned this bitterly in the past. By being defeated from attempting to strike deals and compromises to further their policies as far as possible. When they then fail to deliver, not only do they lose the voters, they lose their supporters as well. Not because they fail to deliver unicorns and eternal rainbows, but because they have given out the appearance of giving up that goal.

Conversely on the left, "we" (so to speak, in the sense that I'm not a fascist, which makes me more aligned with labour parties than the sheer anti-regulation movement on the "new liberal"/conservative base) have experienced that if we do not actually know what we're doing, then our voting base - at least in relatively larger amounts than those who literally vote for "hope" and "the future" - will punish us.

And this is just some context to explain how we've ended up where we are right now - where we have ended up in a situation where new-liberal leaning or associated parties are becoming very adept at creating self-reinforcing narratives that cannot actually expire. Because they won't really be tested, and this is critical, by the voting population that actually votes for them.

In other words, bullshit has become sufficiently popular to allow an entire government period survive while dealing with nothing else.

And the crisis, as it may be, is that as a consequence of that, a very large amount of people with government influence don't care in any way what's actually legislated. As long as it fits with a narrative that fits with what their PR-managers can demonstrate is popular.

Which... is how we got a war with the wrong country, the UN is practically disbanded, racism has somehow become an accepted and respected public position, and fascist parties got representation in several parliaments, and torture is apparently all right. Not because people are assholes (although many are that), but because the disinterest in actual public affairs (over the theater performance) is at an almost critically low point.

I mean, it sounds a bit crazy to say that the US went to war with both Haiti during Clinton, and Iraq and Afghanistan (and almost Iran several times, as well as North Korea and China, while managing to get the Japanese to seriously reconsider unbanning nukes as a deterrent /in place/ of a US army contingent in the North China Sea), for purely solving a domestic political difficulty. Or that a very large amount of legislation that would have made even McCarthy stall has been put in place over having a political appearance of having actually done something.

But unless you actually believe in fairies and faerie-land, none of these efforts that have been put in place over the last couple of years would actually impress you, or make you feel safer. Because trust me, it is utter bullshit.

And then again, being a firm believer in democratic principles, I certainly cannot complain when people want that.

As in, I literally can't complain, or else I'll be accused of being a leftist, liberal douchebag, elitist pussy-homo-bitch who are so weak-minded and wishy-washy I'd rather use a national defence force for ... you know.. national defence. You know, I'd be laughed out of the room.

Seriously, though - that's actually what you will be if you're someone with a short military career, who can shoot 20 shots inside a 9 on 200m with a G3, and runs marathon for fun. Because if you don't believe in the "transformative power of military force" (<- actual quote), while hating muslims with a vengeance for no reason -- then you're a passive loon who at best is a threat to the existence of our culture and all that it stands for by your own admission.

So this passive-aggressiveness (haha) does actually shape what is being legislated. Not because people are specially belligerent when they argue from their personal beliefs. But because insistent rhetoric that causes confrontation, while being removed from what is an increasingly larger space politically that is invisible to the voting population, is popular as candy.

I mean, imagine Hitler getting elected for being a short, unpopular guy with no special skills that nevertheless managed to get somewhere in life. And then just happened to haphazardly get involved with some guys who really liked uniforms for some reason. And you're getting the picture about what sort of leaders we're electing nowadays.

Agreed, only Trump could possibly outdo him.

Speaking of which.. holy Trump of text!

You are right.

That was depressing.

Wall O' Text strikes again.

George W. Bush, easily. Though if we're allowed to throw in monarchs then Tsar Nicholas II gives him a run for his money.

Exactly. The real men duo. Oh, those Bunga Bunga parties, those 17 years old luxury escorts, yummmm! Ave Cesar Berlusconi, perverturi te salutant! Poor grandpa Silvio in hospital now, to get a heart operation... Jesus save the grandmaster!

He thought she was Mubarak's nephew! And she looked 18+!

Obviously! I myself have dated 15 year old before and she was as tall and as busty, even if MORE, than my own university student classmate girls, back at that time! Such mistakes are common-placed and easy to do, today they grow so much faster, it's really amazing!

Because there are only THREE politicians of modern history i ever liked. One deceased and highly virtuous, assassinated, too.

Second is Putin.

Third is Berlusconi.

I have never liked ANY politician EVER, those 3 aside. AC era talking, of course...

I also know of them drinking up a very expensive wine, event which cause quite a commotion, it was so funny!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/18/grapes-of-wrath-crimea-fury-as-putin-and-berlusconi-drink-240-year-old-wine

Bush.
Any of them.


/thread.

Wha.. no, I won't make any comment O_o'

What do these have in common exactly?
I don't dare ask who the first was.

1) They are pals.

2) As i said, *this* man was virtuous. Only politician who was genuinely interested in actually HELPING his own country and even donated ALL his fortune to it, instead of stealing a fortune from tax-payers' "nose". He was assassinated by the machinations of British and French intelligence agencies of the time. First Governor of this fine mess of a hellhole, i currently reside in. RIP. He even created the "saboteur" division of our pitiful army which exists to this day, intact...