Originality Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) |
Interest Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) |
Scholarship/Prose Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) |
carldiesturmer
Minister of Truth
Post #50854
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4355
Total Words: 715,812
Average words per post: 164.37
PoliMatch: n/a
|
Posted: Fri 2008-01-11 21:43
|
 |
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Is your Forum being attacked by Internet Brigades?Memoryhole |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
...
_________________
What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism
DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM
Last edited by carldiesturmer on Thu 2008-05-22 07:27; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #50870
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3015
Total Words: 1,173,420
Average words per post: 389.19
PoliMatch: n/a
   
    
|
|
Posted: Sat 2008-01-12 05:45
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Is your Forum being attacked by Internet Brigades |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Q wrote: |
The following is an extraction from Wikipedia's article on Internet Brigades, related to information warfare practices of government targeted at dissidents with the intention of suffocating free and open debate of people and ideas. This is the modus operandi(MO). Replace the name Russia with America and see the methodological process in action.
| From Wikipediao-Internet Brigages |
Behavior
According to Polyanskaya and her colleagues, the behavior of people from the Internet brigades has distinct features, some of which are the following:[2]
[…]
|
|
The invention of the printing press eventually brought about the enlightenment, and the subsequent destruction of monarchism and the diminishment of the power of organized religion. Likewise, the wikification of knowledge presents a similar threat to current corporatist elites.
I've been observing with keen interest certain events which have unfolded on Digg.com.
First, take a look at which candidates are enjoying the support of Digg community....
If you look at the "Political news" section of digg, you will find plenty of positive stories about Paul, Obama, and Kucinich. You will also see a lot of negative press about Hillary, Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani. But, given the political makeup of the digg community, this shouldn't be very surprising.
None of this was really a problem back when Paul "didn't have a chance". But following Paul's Nov 5th "money bomb", a Ron Paul "Bury Brigade" swung into action. This small group's stated purpose was to help remove all of the Ron Paul "spam" found on Digg, and to stem the tide towards silly notions such as "Laissez-faire", "states rights/anti-federalism", and the Constitution.
This group has been using some of the same tactics outlined above in the "Putin Brigade" article. This group seems to be primarily made up of supporters of Huckabee and Thompson. But they never offer any substantial reasons to support any of Paul's opponents, not do they feel the need to explain why they disagree with Paul's position. When they hit a thread, they will piggy-back each other's comments and will bury the comments of anybody who offers a substantive critique of their activities.
Given the nature of this group's anti-intellectual campaign, I have to believe that it isn't really made up of "real people", but rather is part of some other campaign's psyop against the r3volution.
I say this because when real people support a candidate, they are typically able to explain why they support him. But this "bury brigade" typically hides their support, and never explains why they think their candidate would make a better president than Paul. Basically, their arguments are as follows:
1) Ron Paul can't win. And you want to support a winner, right?
2) Paul is crazy
3) Paul's followers are like a cult.
4) All stories about Paul are spam.
5) Paul is secretly a neo-nazi racist.
This group takes great care to cover their tracks as well. If you search for "Bury Brigade" on digg, you will only find about 10 results. But if you perform the same search after checking the "Include Buried Stories" option, you will find about 70 stories.
The first rule of the bury brigade... bury stories about the bury brigade.
One user compiled a list of the 40 or so accounts used to methodologically bury stories about Paul (and also identified three of the "ringleaders").
The story was promptly buried.
This sort of thing isn't limited to Digg either. I recently visited the Wikipedia page on Austrian Economics (a strain of Laissez-faire thought, which Paul has cited as a significant contributor to his limited government views). In horror, I found that the article labeled free-market economics as a "pseudoscience". I looked at the edit history, and found that on January 10th, a user had altered the page to remove the list of economist which agreed with the Austrian school, and had added the un-referenced statements which tried to give the impression that any political opinion other that Keynesianism was "unscientific" and that all economist regarded it as a "pseudoscience".
I promptly reverted the article. And then reverted it again after this user re-reverted my revert. And at this point, I stopped checking the page to avoid a violation of the "3-revert rule". But I just checked back today and found that other editors had carried on the battle after me and had eventually won.
In a strange coincidence, it appears that Meph visited the Wikipedia article during this 4-hour window in which the article called free-market capitalism a "pseudoscience".
| Mephistopheles wrote: |
| From External Site |
| Ron Paul is a believer in Austrian school economics; criticism of the Austrian school is its rejection of the scientific method and empirical testing in favor of supposedly self-evident axioms and logical reasoning and rejecting on principle the use of mathematics or econometrics |
|
Or possibly, Meph quoted from a different site which in turn quote from the Wikipedia article. in any case, he should have realized something was amiss when a political ideology was called "unscientific".
The beliefs held by the Austrian school was summarized in Friedrich Hayek’s book, The Road to Serfdom.
| From Wikipedia: The Road to Serfdom |
Hayek’s central thesis is that all forms of collectivism lead logically and inevitably to tyranny, and he used the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany as examples of countries which had gone down “the road to serfdom” and reached tyranny. Hayek argued that within a centrally planned economic system, the distribution and allocation of all resources and goods would devolve onto a small group, which would be incapable of processing all the information pertinent to the appropriate distribution of the resources and goods at the central planners’ disposal. Disagreement about the practical implementation of any economic plan combined with the inadequacy of the central planners’ resource management would invariably necessitate coercion in order for anything to be achieved.
Hayek further argued that the failure of central planning would be perceived by the public as an absence of sufficient power by the state to implement an otherwise good idea. Such a perception would lead the public to vote more power to the state, and would assist the rise to power of a “strong man” perceived to be capable of “getting the job done”. After these developments Hayek argued that a country would be ineluctably driven into outright totalitarianism. For Hayek “the road to serfdom” inadvertently set upon by central planning, with its dismantling of the free market system, ends in the destruction of all individual economic and personal freedom.
Hayek argued that countries such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany had already gone down the "road to serfdom", and that various democratic nations are being led down the same road. In The Road to Serfdom he wrote: "The principle that the end justifies the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule."
|
It is a political belief that government intervention in the economy would lead to further interventions, and that every action by the state would require more actions in order to correct the mistakes of previous government actions, and that this slippery slope would eventually lead democracies to the "road to serfdom".
Out of sheer laziness, allow me to cut this potentially long (and off-topic) rant short by resorting to an "Argument from authority"…
| From The Master |
In his 1944 book review, George Orwell called The Road to Serfdom "an eloquent defense of laissez-faire capitalism" and praised Hayek's criticism of contemporary left-wing and conservative thought.
|
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The-Eurasian-youth
Committee Member
Post #51029
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
Posts: 289
Total Words: 22,534
Average words per post: 77.97
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2008-01-15 18:12
|
|
| Politics: Ignorant Prole |
Country: Eurasian Dynasty |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| In his 1944 book review, George Orwell called The Road to Serfdom "an eloquent defence of laissez-faire capitalism" and praised Hayek's criticism of contemporary left-wing and conservative thought. |
Rather funny coming from a man who wanted all major industries nationalised.
_________________
Non mi interessa, sono uno schiavo!
FASICSM IS THOUGHTCRIME!
Look, a New World Order! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ygeon
Committee Member
Post #51699
Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 421
Total Words: 39,238
Average words per post: 93.2
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2008-01-20 14:30
|
|
| Politics: Progressive |
Country: Netherlands |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
In Nationalist Russia, Establishment campaigns against YOU!
_________________
Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ygeon
Committee Member
Post #51888
Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 421
Total Words: 39,238
Average words per post: 93.2
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2008-01-21 19:39
|
|
| Politics: Progressive |
Country: Netherlands |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
No, it's not relevant. So what? There's always time for a nice little Russian Reversal.
_________________
Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The-Eurasian-youth
Committee Member
Post #51890
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
Posts: 289
Total Words: 22,534
Average words per post: 77.97
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2008-01-21 19:43
|
|
| Politics: Ignorant Prole |
Country: Eurasian Dynasty |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Screwtape wrote: |
| The-Eurasian-youth wrote: |
| Quote: |
| In his 1944 book review, George Orwell called The Road to Serfdom "an eloquent defence of laissez-faire capitalism" and praised Hayek's criticism of contemporary left-wing and conservative thought. |
Rather funny coming from a man who wanted all major industries nationalised. |
I'm going to agree with Eurasian. George Orwell was a Democratic Socialist, emphasis on "Socialist", not a laissez-faire capitalist. I don't see how, as Eurasian says, an economic socialist would be supportive of von Hayek/Hayeck (I forget how to spell his name).
. |
Especially one who wanted the British Empire remodelled on the Soviet Union.
_________________
Non mi interessa, sono uno schiavo!
FASICSM IS THOUGHTCRIME!
Look, a New World Order! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #51896
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3722
Total Words: 368,198
Average words per post: 98.92
PoliMatch: n/a
 
  
|
|
Posted: Mon 2008-01-21 20:10
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: Evil Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
---
Last edited by Ingsoc Officer on Wed 2008-05-21 20:56; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #51933
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3015
Total Words: 1,173,420
Average words per post: 389.19
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2008-01-22 02:53
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| The Two Roads to Serfdom |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Screwtape wrote: |
| The-Eurasian-youth wrote: |
| Quote: |
| In his 1944 book review, George Orwell called The Road to Serfdom "an eloquent defence of laissez-faire capitalism" and praised Hayek's criticism of contemporary left-wing and conservative thought. |
Rather funny coming from a man who wanted all major industries nationalised. |
I'm going to agree with Eurasian. George Orwell was a Democratic Socialist, emphasis on "Socialist", not a laissez-faire capitalist. I don't see how, as Eurasian says, an economic socialist would be supportive of von Hayek/Hayeck (I forget how to spell his name).
|
That's what I get for being "lazy".
No, Orwell was not a free-market capitalist, and he did not share Hayek's economic views. But, as the quote states, Orwell thought that Hayek wrote a good book. Orwell was a bit of a Marxist, but that didn't stop him from writing critiques of Marxist systems. Have you ever read Animal farm or 1984? He certainly agreed with Hayek that a socialistic system can easily grow into a totalitarian one.
Take a look at what Orwell actually said....
| From yawiki.org |
George Orwell, a democratic socialist, responded to the book with cautious praise. While arguing Hayek failed to recognise that "a return to 'free' competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the state," he added that "in the negative part of Professor Hayek's thesis there is a great deal of truth. It cannot be said too often--at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough--that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of".
|
Here is Orwell's full book review of Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.
| From msnusers.com |
Review: The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek, The Mirror of the Past by K. Zilliacus
Observer, 9 April 1944
Taken together, these two books give grounds for dismay. The first of them is an eloquent defence of laissez-faire capitalism, the other is an even more vehement denunciation of it. They cover to some extent the same ground, they frequently quote the same authorities, and they even start out with the same premise, since each of them assumes that western civilization depends on the sanctity of the individual. Yet each writer is convinced that the other's policy leads directly to slavery, and the alarming thing is that the may both be right.
Of the two, Professor Hayek's book is perhaps the more valuable, because the views it puts forward are less fashionable at the moment than those of Mr Zilliacus. Shortly, Professor Hayek's thesis is that Socialism inevitably leads to despotism, and that in Germany the Nazis were able to succeed because the Socialists had already done most of their work for them, especially the intellectual work of weakening the desire for liberty. By bringing the whole of life under the control of the State, Socialism necessarily gives power to an inner ring of bureaucrats, who in almost every case will be men who want power for its own sake and will stick at nothing in order to retain it. Britain, he says, is now going the same road as Germany, with the left-wing intelligentsia in the can and the Tory Party a good second. The only salvation lies in returning to an unplanned economy, free competition, and emphasis on liberty rather than on security.
In the negative part of Professor Hayek's thesis there is a great deal of truth. It cannot be said too often -- at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough -- that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamed of.
Professor Hayek is also probably right in saying that in this country the intellectuals are more totalitarian-minded than the common people. But he does not see, or will not admit, that a return to "free" competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the State. The trouble with competitions is that somebody wins them. Professor Hayek denies that free capitalism necessarily leads to monopoly, but in practice that is where it has led, and since the vast majority of people would rather have State regimentation than slumps and unemployment, the drift towards collectivism is bound to continue if popular opinion has any say in the matter.
Mr Zilliacus’s able and well-documented attack on imperialism and power politics consists largely of an exposure of the events leading up to the two world wars. Unfortunately the enthusiasm with which he debunks the war of 1914 makes one wonder on what grounds he is supporting this one. After retelling the sordid story of the secret treaties and commercial rivalries which led up to 1914, he concludes that our declared war aims were lies and that ‘we declared war on Germany because if she won her war against France and Russia she would become master of all Europe, and strong enough to help herself to British colonies’. Why else did we go to war this time? It seems that it was equally wicked to oppose Germany in the decade before 1914 and to appease her in the nineteen-thirties, and that we ought to have made a compromise peace in 1917, whereas it would be treachery to make one now. It was even wicked, in 1915, to agree to Germany being partitioned and Poland being regarded as ‘an internal affair of Russia’: so do the same actions change their moral colour with the passage of time.
The thing Mr Zilliacus leaves out of account is that wars have results, irrespective of the motives of those who precipitate them. No one can question the dirtiness of international politics from 1870 onwards: it does not follow that it would have been a good thing to allow the German army to rule Europe. It is just possible that some rather sordid transactions are going on behind the scenes now, and that current propaganda ‘against Nazism’ (cf. ‘against Prussian militarism’) will look pretty thin in 1970, but Europe will certainly be a better place if Hitler and his followers are removed from it. Between them these two books sum up our present predicament. Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war. Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship, and war. There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect, which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics.
Both of these writers are aware of this, more or less; but since they can show no practicable way of bringing it about the combined effect of their books is a depressing one.
|
Orwell was a socialist, but he also understood human nature.
Socialism is a good idea, as long as you can keep people from fucking it up. The primary goal of Socialism is to create an egalitarian society. An egalitarian economy requires power to be centralized within a state. But any such concentration of power will inevitably attract people who crave power. And these power-hungry individuals will always end up destroying the socialist utopia, and will lead their country down the "road to serfdom".
Modern Marxist often try to distant themselves for the communist systems of the 20th century by claiming that "their" for of communism has never really been tried. They claim that the communism practiced by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and the rest was not "real" communism, but rather some sort of perversion of communist theology. But Hayek's point is that all Marxist systems will eventually succumb to the ambitions of those who crave power. And in this article, Orwell lamented that Hayek just might be right.
To be fair, Orwell was worried about the same sort of thing happening under a "free market" system as well. He was worried that unless corporations were restrained, they would eventually grow into monopolistic monsters. And as Orwell acknowledged, it looks like BOTH were correct.
Socialism leads to Soviet totalitarianism. Free markets lead to fascist corporatism.
(Help us Ron Paul. You're our only hope!!!)
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roderic
Outer Party
Post #51934
Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 192
Total Words: 34,029
Average words per post: 177.23
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2008-01-22 03:08
|
|
| Politics: Technocratism |
Country: Holy Roman Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Back on topic, it seems Anonymous Legion is going at it against Scientology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCbKv9yiLiQ
They've waged a decent fight so far; the scientology home page has been down for at least two days (last time I had heard) thanks to them. I don't think they've given this much opposition since the eBaumsworld raid, or the FOX one, but I haven't heard much, if anything about their FOX raid.
_________________
| Edward Bernays wrote: |
| The engineering of consent is the very essence of the democratic process, the freedom to persuade and suggest. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Post #51935
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
 
|
|
Posted: Tue 2008-01-22 03:11
|
|
| Politics: Liberal |
Country: United States |
|
| Re: The Two Roads to Serfdom |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
| That's what I get for being "lazy". |
I was about to say "anyone could've made that mistake" until I noticed what you said below in the first equote, that Orwell did not support Hayek, so I suppose you should've read more carefully, but I make mistakes, too, so don't take it personally which I doubt you will.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| No, Orwell was not a free-market capitalist, and he did not share Hayek's economic views. But, as the quote states, Orwell thought that Hayek wrote a good book. Orwell was a bit of a Marxist, but that didn't stop him from writing critiques of Marxist systems. Have you ever read Animal farm or 1984? He certainly agreed with Hayek that a socialistic system can easily grown into a totalitarian one. |
No, I haven't read Animal Farm or 1984, could you explain what their plots involve?
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Orwell was a socialist, but he also understood human nature. |
Just what is human nature? There is no human nature, aside from basic instincts. Behavioral patterns aren't "naturalistic" because behavior is learned. I'd love to engage you in a debate on this.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Socialism is a good idea, as long as you can keep people from fucking it up. The primary goal of Socialism is to create an egalitarian society. An egalitarian economy requires power to be centralized within a state. But any such concentration of power will inevitably attract people who crave power. And these power-hungry individuals will always end up destroying the socialist utopia, and will lead their country down the "road to serfdom". |
Actually, I don't think that's right. Socialism is not a good idea. Egalitarian politics, okay. Egalitarian economics? No fucking way. Read my "Economic Discourse" thread in Political and Economic subforum for a detailed explanation which I will summarize here: as collective purchasing power increases by many multitudes, supply decreases because demand increases, causing economic disaster. Egalitarian politics, like civil rights, issues, things of that nature are certainly a good idea because they make people happy and content, but socialism which is just economics, not really much in the way of politics exclusively, is not a good idea whatsoever, and I will maintain that stance for a long time until someone convinces me I'm somehow horribly wrong, which no one has even tried so far.
An egalitarian economy doesn't necessarily require centralization, but it requires a fuckload of regulation, too much, if you ask me. And once the regulations are in place, power will become centralized, but not immediately in some cases. In Venezuela, power isn't yet centralized completely, but it's pretty damn close, BB.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Modern Marxist often try to distant themselves for the communist systems of the 20th century by claiming that "their" for of communism has never really been tried. They claim that the communism practiced by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and the rest was not "real" communism, but rather some sort of perversion of communist theology. But Hayek's point is that all Marxist systems will eventually succumb to the ambitions of those who crave power. And in this article, Orwell lamented that Hayek just might be right. |
I agree with you here completely, that's my thoughts exactly. Many modern Marxists do indeed claim their style of socialism has never been tried, or that it never worked out the way they wanted. Well, the world's imperfect, fucktard, so get over it Mr Marxist.
On the other hand, go to www.soviet-empire.com/ussr and most everyone there claims socialism DID work, despite the mounds of evidence to the contrary. I had to leave that forum because I was banned and because no one there tolerates the fact socialism fucking sucks.
| Big Brother wrote: |
To be fair, Orwell was worried about the same sort of thing happening under a "free market" system as well. He was worried that unless corporations were restrained, they would eventually grow into monopolistic monsters. And as Orwell acknowledged, it looks like BOTH were correct.
(Help us Ron Paul. You're our only hope!!!) |
He was indeed right that laissez-faire capitalism is a load of crap and proven ineffective back after 1900.
_________________
Yippykiaye motherfucker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #52222
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3722
Total Words: 368,198
Average words per post: 98.92
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2008-01-24 17:56
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: Evil Empire |
|
| The Socialist Strikes Back |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| --- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
