>>> Is Liberalism A Mental Illness ?<<<

[Frank V]

I just wanted to comment on this little part here...

Posted by Oouthere (here)
I do not see any difference in drone bombings/missile attacks and fully manned aircraft.

Well, call me cynical, but there is a difference. With a manned aircraft, the pilot/aircrew may lose their life when shot down, or - from the sociopathic vantage of military command - even worse, the pilot/aircrew may fall into enemy hands, and could then possibly become a liability, i.e. they might reveal classified information when tortured. And of course, the US government knows all about torturing, so they expect no less from the enemy, whoever that enemy may be - there's always at least one, and there are so many to choose from, right?

On the other hand, with a drone, all that's lost when it gets shot down is just the taxpayer's money - not that the government cares about the taxpayer either. No liability, no required personnel retrieval operations behind enemy lines. No fuss in the media.

So drone strikes - and possibly drone dogfights, should it come to that [*] - are a more cowardly manner of killing people.


[*] There was an episode of Stargate: SG-1 which was dedicated to this issue. To summarize, Jack O'Neill and his team arrive on another planet by way of the Stargate and are asked to assist in an air combat situation by way of drones, and they are assured that this is how wars are fought on that particular planet, but when O'Neill shoots down an enemy plane, he notices that it was not a drone and that it was manned by real live people, which results in an ethical conflict between the SG-1 team and the people among whom they had arrived via the Stargate.

[NancyV]

This pretty much says it all... In my opinion, of course.

[ExomatrixTV]

• How neoliberalism broke economics | Dr Abby Innes:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zb07GSYG_sY

Abby Innes goes in-depth into how neoliberalism has 'Sovietized' Britain, and the field of economics itself. Is Keir Starmer a Brezhnev or a Khrushchev?

Abby Innes is Associate Professor of Political Economy at the European Institute, London School of Economics. Her research focuses on state theory, post-communist transitions, and the political economy of the UK. She is the author of Late Soviet Britain: Why Materialist Utopias Fail.

Interviewed by Harry Carlisle at HowTheLightGetsIn London, in September 2024.

• 00:00 Introduction
• 00:33 How did you make the connection between the modern
• British government and the Soviet Union?
• 05:06 Why has the field of economics been led so astray?
• Why is there still such an appeal to utopianism?
• 11:27 Why does the Left have a blind spot to economic methodology?
• 16:17 Is there a way we can navigate past this methodological rabbit-hole?
• 23:43 Keir Starmer: is he a Brezhnev or a Khrushchev?

While Innes masterfully exposes neoliberalism's Soviet-like pathologies—its utopian dogmatism and institutional failures—she arguably overlooks a broader, more insidious framework: the technocracy movement. This perspective, articulated by researcher Patrick M. Wood, positions neoliberalism not as an isolated ideology but as a transitional phase in a century-old push for expert-led global governance, now advancing through entities like the World Economic Forum (WEF), UN Agenda 2030, and Transhumanist visions. Wood's work, including Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and The Evil Twins of Technocracy and Transhumanism (2023), traces this back to the 1930s Technocracy Inc. movement in the U.S., founded by engineers like Howard Scott.

• more here

[sdv]

Posted by Oouthere (here)
I do not see any difference in drone bombings/missile attacks and fully manned aircraft. The trigger is still pulled by a human and the result is the same.

Communism (which is liberalism imo) sounds great, but until each person feels a need to help society as a whole it will not and cannot work. There are simply too many sociopaths, psychopaths, drug damaged brains, religious freaks, and any number of other issues that cause it not to work.

Brainwashing/conditioning to react to words and phrases, such as communism, socialism, democracy, terrorist, Islam, Hamas, Third World ... is very apparant to me, and people end up living in a box.

What struck me in your comment is that you get to the heart of the problem of any system ... the diversity and complexity of human nature. Every system has its weaknesses: democracy assumes that groups will make rational choices and that politicians in office will behave like extrememly competent civil servants. In reality, that does not happen. Communism/socialism assumes that everyone will work for the common good and ignores selfishness in human nature.

My only answer to that problem is that we must embrace complexity and have different approaches and use different tools for different situations. Politics is expensive and corruptible, so that must go. Those who serve in government should have a high level of competency to manage shared projects and tasks required by the country as a whole. The people can express their opinion through referendums, but with no persuasive advertising or political rhetoric ... discuss the facts and then vote for what is important to you.

Supposedly we are approaching the Age of Aquarius (so much disagreement about when it actually starts!). Parts of the old always carries through to the new (like Vatican City as a still influential relic of the Roman Empire), and the Age of Pisces will probably operate alongside the Age of Aquarius, but Aquarius will become much stronger and end up dominating. What kind of Aquarius though? And how much violence and suffering will there be as we move from one age to another?

Aplogies if my thoughts tend to be scattered and rambling, but I think that there are people here on PA who are already living in the Age of Aquarius but have not cut themselves off from those living in what they think is the height, rather than decline, of Pisces.