According to Joseph Duncan, an active serial killer at the time he wrote this, the founding fathers were sex offenders and criminals are victims. The resident Marxist-Leninists who contribute their angle to this blog should love this guy. After all, this is class conflict.
http://fifthnail.blogspot.com/2004/01/610-pm-i-just-updated-this-blog.php

I just updated this blog template to show the Fifthnail image. I’m working on a web site that I hope will be a voice for oppressed “criminals.” I’m not sticking up for their crimes; I’m sticking up for the human being inside, and trying to get people to see that punishing a scapegoat does only creates more vicitms, mostly innocent ones. I believe—I know—there are no bad people in this world, just people who do bad things. I was one once. I was ignorant. Now I know better, and the only reason I do is because I am not a bad person at heart. I care about people, and my only solace is in knowing that if I had understood how I was hurting my victim I would not have done it. Our society needs to understand this. You take any criminal, even the worst, and underneath all the crappy thinking is a battered and tortured heart that cares. I’ve lived and loved these people, murderers, rapists, child molesters, you name it. Every one of them is a human and a victim of their own messed up thinking. Every one of them is capable of remorse. Even if most hide from their remorse by denying it, or by burying it in the rage they feel toward society for denying their existence as a worthwhile human being. And now instead of confirming their existence society is denying it in the worst way yet. By requiring them to register, and directly implying that they are not valuable human beings, but instead they are monsters that must be watched closely and tolerated only because some long dead person wrote (for some long forgotten reason) that they have rights. How soon we forget that the Fathers of this country were criminals, even sex offenders by today’s standards. Study your history people; it’s all there waiting to be repeated.

Some people remark that I do not really have an ideology, but just a collection of prejudices. That I act on intuition but could never explain my logic. I admit to not explaining myself well enough.

My worldview has a fundamental building block in the same way that a house may be made of a certain material:
1) I think that man is born a natural animal.
2) I think man must overcome nature for civilian society.
3) fanatical devotion to ideals is required to overcome nature
Part 1 is realism. Part 2 is idealism. Part 3 is means for the second to overcome the first. I believe strongly in setting goals and reaching them.

I acknowledge the existence of nature, but think man can master nature. Hitler had the opposite view and ridiculed the idea that man should overcome nature while Marx believed strongly in material determinism. Religious people believe in unscientific determinism. But I believe man can and should conquer nature.

I believe creating group identification systems – classes, nations, social constructs, gender awareness, race awareness etc. is good rather than bad. Liberalism intentionally trolls the groups which hold society in existence to ruin society, though some liberals believe they are decent people. Part of overcoming nature is group consciousness. Marxists are for using existing classes to destroy society, not for intentionally creating and preserving classes. Hitlerites think that group identification occurs automatically. I do not, I think it has to be programmed, which is rooted in my belief that man must overcome nature. Society can be engineered for improvement, but whoever dictates society must know what he/she is doing. I understand man thinks individualistically, but think man can be made to operate collectively through ideological agreement (Preferable) or through bribery (not as effective).

Because I believe man must overcome nature, I believe that man should create a social contract to preserve order between nations and individuals. But I believe that the contract has its limitations and therefore perpetual peace is not possible or desirable. There is some level of global group identification – we are all humans – but I think we should be broken up into smaller groups too – races, tribes, language groups, sexes etc. That means there are separate nations and separate social contracts. To argue for globalization is like arguing against modularity. The populations of earth should be breakable into smaller pieces. One would not design a house without modularity, and earthly society should not be designed without modularity.

In order to overcome nature, man must first acknowledge nature. Religion is a perversion of this process, a problem for techno-progression and competition for the state worship which I advocate due to the social contract. Man must totally worship collectivism if man wants to overcome individualism. Ideology is a transforming force, but religion is a perversion of ideology which replaces the truth with falsehoods. Man can be programmed (depending on intelligence and open-mindedness), but religion abuses the concept.

Because of all of this, I gravitate towards the bureaucratic state and think that it should be used to push people into nationalism. I believe in big government, but because I am a realist and a conqueror, I believe individual initiative and competition should be an important part of that government. Currency should exist, but Government should be harassing you like big brother. In other words, you can start your own business, but you better use it for the good of the state, not the bad of the state. And the state will watch you.

Pragmatic people argue against imperialism when it is useless, counterproductive and perhaps “immoral” depending on the way which one perceives morality philosophically. Geroge Washington for instance argued against foreign entanglements, but he never had anything resembling a Marxist empathy for the third world.

That, I believe, is the difference between me and the Marxist/Islamic posters here. I argue against America’s actions, but not FOR everyone who opposes America. There are ideological standards that I judge regimes by instead of only material conditions. Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein and Hugo Chavez pass the standard; Osama Bin Laden or Robert Mugabe do not.

My line is not an official fmp line. It is just my line. Being fairly pragmatic, I know how to agree to disagree with other people. That is why FMP works. We agree to disagree about certain issues so that the mission of alternative media can be constructed in the real world instead of an ideologically Utopian world.

On FMP, one major theme has been arguments against “revisionism” in Marxist circles. I’d like to play devil’s advocate.
Imagine if Galileo was accused of revisionism (he was) and listened when he said the world was flat. Imagine if Einstein was and listened, and therefore did not create the A bomb.
The idea that one should not revise is not the thought of a rationalist. It is the type of thinking that resembles the mind of a religious person. If you read the texts of Christianity and Islam, both try to claim the line of Moses. I expect this type of thinking out of a religious person but I have to say, my expectations are higher for atheists. Atheists are too cynical and intelligent to accept a line without questioning it.

If 100 years later, Marx has still not been revised by his followers, then something is wrong. If 250 years later this is the case, then something is REALLY wrong. Nobody is perfect and everybody must evaluate and adapt. Being inspired by Marx is one thing. I believe Marx did advance human thought in his time. But he passed the baton long ago. Still following Marx word for word is like analyzing modern warfare with the logistics that were used before modern technology.  Surely strategy chances as technology advances from swords and shields to nuclear bombs.  This is as true in the field of economics as it is in the field of warfare.  New philosophers have stepped on his shoulder and analyzed the world with a more current sense of precision.

It seems the extremist left cares more about ideological purity than the extremist right. Though the marginalized extremist right is just more deceptive, and denies its Hiterlism. Third positionists are the only thinkers who analyze and stay current in their thought.  That’s why they do not march in step, and that is a good thing.  National anarchism is different from national bolshevism, which is different from corporatism, etc. Marxists do not stay current and Nazis do not stay current.  Both are stuck in the past.  Republicans and Democrats both make appeals to traditions too; though Republicans are more guilty.  Do I really care what the founding fathers said in the year 2009?  They were good thinkers in their time but it isn’t 1776.  I respect old thinkers, but I put them into context.  Anti-revisionists do not.

Those who argue against revisionism in a nostalgic dogmatic sense get the scientific method backwards.  The scientific method dictates that you base a hypothesis off of the evidence.  If it fails the evidence, you drop it and revise the hypothesis.  The mentality of one who philosophically opposes critical revisionism is to make a hypothesis based off of tradition, and then to revise the evidence to fit the hypothesis.  That’s the kind of process that lead to claims that the world was flat.

http://www.utexas.edu/features/2005/murder/index.html

“People might mistakenly assume that the theory of adaptations for murder implies approval or acceptance of killing,” Buss said. “It doesn’t. I would suggest instead that those who create myths of a peaceful human past, who blame killing on the contemporary ills of modern culture, and who cling to single-variable theories that have long outlived their scientific warrant tread on dangerous moral ground. The problem of murder cannot be solved by wishing away those aspects of human nature that we desire not to exist.”

“As an evolutionary psychologist,” he added, “I’ve become accustomed to critics who confuse what is with what ought to be. We can prevent murder, in principle, through a deep understanding of its underlying psychological circuits and designing environments that prevent their activation.” – Michelle Bryant

This reminds me of people who blame things like professional wrestling or gangster rap for murder. They blame the media and outside influences instead of the mind and internal influences. I have noticed a correlation between belief in these bullshit answers to questions and church attendance. It sounds like the original sin doctrine. Man was good, then man eats from the forbidden fruit, then man turns bad. How about just accepting that reality is different from idealism? Humans do not have to “be mislead” in order to behave in ways that counter the ideal; they just have to not care about it. The people who depend on single variable causes and cling to them are the people who want an answer but lack the dedication and desire to really dig for one. They settle for any answer that explains a problem because it may take extra effort to discern the correct answer.

What this also reminded me of, in a political sense, are people who blame the media for the death of Western Civilization. These people blame the media because they do not have what it takes to understand that people have to care about an ideal for it to be maintained.  It’s easier for simplistic people to believe that America is spiritually perfect but ruined by an external influence than it is for them to believe that America is not perfect.  People often keep their beliefs within a comfort zone, but this can prevent them from identifying the true nature of a problem.  Even if people on some level understand that these beliefs are untrue, they do not make a serious effort to eliminate them from their belief system.   These people get a hypothesis but have trouble testing and truly examining it and just accept it.  Until we realize that freedom of choice leaves the door open for appalling decisions and that those bad decision can be made for a million different motivations, we will always have clowns who claim that changing a single cause could have made a difference.  Clowns who claim that if this one variable is changed, then everyone can leave their door unlocked at night.

Unfortunately, Understanding a problem is directly relevant to understanding the solution.  This means arguments are inevitable.  It is important to nitpick what is wrong with society if we are interested in fixing it.  And it is important to point out when people incorrectly identify the cause of problems and promote false solutions.  Stupidity has consequences and I don’t want to experience them.  If we do leave our doors open at night after this one variable is changed, we still open ourselves to potential danger.  People who claim to have the answer to every problem with a single key deserve to be questioned.  The problem is not a single cause, but a culmination of small causes.  A more totalitarian effort is the solution, rather than a simplistic modficiation to society.

It is a legitimate point that many people who claim an ideology functionally act in a way that does not fit the ideology they claim. For example, many people who claim to be Catholics support abortion. Many people who claim to be against racism support racism against Whites. Many people who claim to be individualists are really collectivists and vice versa. These people claim an ideology as a means to enter into a movement but then advance an agenda that counters the movement’s agenda.

Perhaps the best way to discern a given person’s true ideology is to observe the disposition other people have towards the individual with proper methodology. Differences exist between good methodology and bad methodology. Statistically representative samples (in an academic sense) using the correct inductive authorities would have to be observed instead of disorganized opinion. Perhaps methodology similar to this can tell more about a person’s true motives than the ideological flag a person waves. For instance, Trotsky claimed to be a Bolshevik himself but the inductive authorities who were qualified to judge overwhelmingly disagreed when surveyed.

A final note is that qualification of inductive authorities must be based on credentials, not public opinion. Otherwise the system of ideological examination could never properly work. If the public can vote standards on a whim, then the standards of ideology cease to have meaning.

Most people on some level know that they are members of ethnic groups, family lines, industrial classes and political movements. On the other hand, only the slave walks in the shadow of the greater collective and only the coward refuses to pave his/her own path. Hyper-individualism can be taken to an extreme of danger – child pornography, car accidents due to reckless driving, sadistic serial murder, etc. On the other hand, hyper-collectivism is essentially putting the breaks on those who are ambitious, motivated and capable of critical thinking. It can lead to obsessive scapegoating.

What I suggest is a “collective conscious” society with energized individuals. Individual motivation exists, but enough maturity is present to the see the bigger picture too. Individuals should not be viewed as equals merely because they are members of a larger group. Attempts to downplay variation of any type- class, ethnic, sexual or individual may result from lack of detail-orientation, lazy thinking and sometimes adherence to ideological philosophies to the point of ignoring observable fact. However, attempts to promote hyper-individualism eat at the core of civilized society. They are downright destructive.  Abortion, drug addictions and sexual perversity are such examples.

A realist is aware of the complexity of the question and forms his/her position with full knowledge of the facts. A realist is also aware of the political effects that the answer to the question has on society. Certainly, I would trust a sophisticated realist to manage such issues before I would trust a hyper-ideologue. A healthy society is designed in a way in which the relationship between the individual and collective entitles are symbiotic and mutually beneficial. A flawed society unethically favors one part over the other.

Whether or not one longs to be a part of something or is focused more on measurable goals is simply a matter of introvert/extrovert personality types in a myers-briggs sense. Within reasonable limitations, the mature introvert and extrovert should learn to understand and respect each other while minimizing unnecessary hostility. With hyper-ideologues who take either extreme to a dangerous point, it is a different story. Those who take the courageous risks of reasonable individualism should reap the rewards while simultaneously suffering the drawbacks. Those who prefer to go with the crowd can play it safe. Analogously, a runner in a footrace who runs in front of the pack takes a risk of running out of gas, but may very well hold the lead. The merit of the decision will be judged on its results. Such pragmatic logic should be applied to introverts in an extroverted society.