> ! You simply can't believe that some people really want peace, huh? > > No I just don't believe every two-bit leftie who wins a > "Nobel Peace Prize" these days is the next reincarnation of > Mahatma Gandhi, considering how lowered standards and > expectations have become. > > Carter? Arafat? This dim-wit with murder on her mind? What, > it's OK to speak of such desire to snuff out another human > life when you have a Nobel Peace Prize in your pocket and the > target is a Republican, or you are a member of some > supposedly oppressed Arab group and your target happens to be a Jew? > > You have got to be kidding me.
See below > I believe people are for peace who want genuine peace---not > that "let's keep a bottle on it" phoney-baloney so-called > "peace process", which seems to be defined as never-ending, > low-grade conflict confined to an occasional suicide bomber > or katyushka rocket killing Jews in Israel. Your neocon-fried brain truly believes the Israeli rap that "we want peace" without any attention to the operative appendage: "it must be our way". It's the 'who is in charge' part that your brethren fails to see as even a question that has us up to our asses - so far. You see, of maybe someone will see, that being in charge implies being the victor. This is the never-mentioned part. > Like everyone else who is human, I desire peace and would > never wish the hardships of war on anyone. But I don't let > the desire for a wish cloud my vision of reality on the ground. That is to say "we want peace alright, but on our terms". You might not be able to distinguish this thinking from "we are the victors, so you'll do as we say" part, but I sure do. > I am for real war over phoney peace any day. Because peace > will come in its time and then everyone will appreciate The Real Deal. See above. > You mentioned in another post what we need to do is reconcile > them. I think really what they need is to be separated. They > cannot be reconciled anymore than you can be reconciled with > Leo Strauss. But I can reconcile with Leo Strauss, just as I can understand Machiavelli. Understanding both good and evil is important because to some degree we all feel both. > ! You need to stick your head into a brutal, savage war for a > while, and ! then you can come back and tell us all about > your views on > ! peace. Until > ! you do that, your authority on the subject is about as useful > ! as any of > ! the other string-pulling, send-other-peoples-kids, > ! chickenhawk neocons. > > Before you tell us with authority about neo-con ideology, > then, I suppose you'll need to become a Straussian. Until > then shut up. Again, I have picked through the garbage heap of Strauss's thinking. > ! > All someone has to do apparently is talk the talk of peace > ! > and love, and they have a whole band of collectively > ! > unconscious choir boys and girls who coo and guffaw over > ! > their every witticism and defend their hate on supposedly > ! > "humanitarian" grounds, even as they make the wildest most > ! > libelous accusations about Bush and the dreaded neo-cons > ! > (simply "tags" for the dirty, conniving, omnipotent Jew > ! > archtetype, to use Bill's Jungian wanna-be terminology). > ! > ! > ! In your rabid lust to spin everything I say into the vilest possible > > Rabid lust? Please. I merely apply your method from a > different perspective and all of a sudden you're repeating > yourself, like I didn't hear you the first time. Nonsense > ! re-interpretation you completely overlooked the most important > point: > > Here we go... > > ! the Arabic/Muslim archetypes are connected at the collective > ! unconscious > ! level and will join with their brethren to oust the > occupier (at the ! least!). > > Bill I read what you write more carefully than you do. Is it > not obvious that you are guilty of the same "tagging" and > archetype-izing you accuse everyone else of? > > Is it not obvious that you have blinded yourself to the > opposite perspective so completely you cannot even entertain > the possibility that your framing of the issue is subject to > the same human frailties mine are, and in fact might be wrong? In hindsight, my only regret is that I was not shrill enough. I tried to be reasonable while the warmongers were plastering Saddam's photo on every wall and TV set day in and day out. > Your attempts to use Jung to justify your wacky theories are > amusing though, and I'm grateful for that. So we can both fiddle while Rome burns? > ! Modern communications serve to grease the path and widen > the ! scope of this connection manyfold, like never before. > > How futuristic-sounding of you. But what did you actually say? It's not futuristic, isn't happening now. > What if all that technology is in fact dis-connecting the > collective unconscious, making it as it were overtly > conscious---thus, dissectable by reason... Thus, no longer > collective but, as it were, individuated, so to speak? Think > for a moment about what I'm saying before you accuse me of > playing-with-words. Ah, the "individuated" word. Lest this word be trampled, some references: I use the term 'individuation' to denote the process by which a person becomes a psychological 'in-dividual', that is, a separate, individual unity or 'whole'. (the archetypes and the collective unconscious, CW 9,I,p.275). "individuation means becoming a single, homogeneous being, and, in so far as 'individuality' embraces our innermost, last, and incomparable uniqueness, it also implies becoming one's own self. We could therefore translate individuation as 'coming to selfhood' or 'self-realization' (two essays on analytical psychology, CW 7,p.171) "but again and again I note that the individuation process is confused with the coming of the ego into consciousness and that the ego is in consequence identified with the self, which naturally produces a hopeless conceptual muddle. Individuation is then nothing but ego-centredness and autoeroticism. But the self comprises infinitely more than a mere ego ... It is as much one's self, and all other selves, as the ego. Individuation does not shut one out from the world, but gathers the world to oneself" (the structure and dynamics of the psyche, CW 8, p.226). Since I took the time to type this, I'd ask you to take the time to read the last sentence again. "Individuation does not shut one out from the world, but gathers the world to oneself" And, though it's all connected, this is tangential to the collective unconscious. > You act like the Arab/Muslim "achetype" has some excuse for > not seeing the absurdity of his position in the world today, I'm talking about the bonds that tie, and you're talking about how absurd their position is; two different subjects. > yet we, somehow, have only neo-con perfidity and apparently > infinite mass gullibility to blame for ours. And we are > uniformly in the wrong, which he is, if not in the right, > certainly so numerous we have no hope of winning any > straight-up battle with him. A fair and unbiased analysis of 'media impressions' cast during the build-up for the invasion will reveal the depth and breath of the manipulation that occurred. I very much hope to see this analysis, because I expect it to be the very catalyst we need to sort out how "news" should work versus how it does work. Find me a single sentence where I've ever said the enemy is right. What I have said is that their sheer numbers MUST be respected. Most importantly of all, I've said that war must be obsolete, that it is no longer an option, and that if we treat mankind with dignity and respect, we can find ways to live together without war. Lastly, I've been saying that, if, despite it all, there is still war, then we must turn to the UN to put out the fire. You don't believe this - yet. > All this "the arab masses will righteously rise up" claptrap > ignores the inhumanity, absurdity and outright stupidity of > _their_ ugly passions and prejudices with regard to the > Christian/Jew archetype, which by the way has at least as > much right to "rise up" against the threat to _its_ existence > as they claim whenever they strap a bomb on a teenager and > send him to a pizzaria to murder women and children in the > name of intifada and jihad. 2,000 year ago, Christ gave birth to a new archetype. Call it the 'new convent', the 'new testament', whatever you wish, but it was a course correction at the least. I don't have a problem with building on common wisdom, but to think that Christ would support a preemptive war is absurd. > Hence, some of us see this as an inevitable clash of civilizations. > > ! > ! A tiny little example of the impact of modern communications: > ! nobody in America has seen the photos of a mangled child being pulled > in pieces ! from the wreckage in Beirut (owing to the handful > at the top of our ! media feed), but those photos have been > circulated throughout the ME > - > ! overnight. We're being "protected" from feeling their rage > on the ! misguided belief that we can kill them all before > they can act on it. ! Wrong answer, as usual. ! > ! I've said that soldiers-of-Israel are one leg of a triad, the > ! other two are the MI Complex and Big Oil. Jung would say there must > be four. ! Perhaps that leg is the duped people, such as yourself. > > I don't know what to make of that nonsense so I'll just let > it stand on its own as such. What I understand is that if you understood, you wouldn't call it nonsense. Bill > - Bob _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
