Subj : Re: Most memorable modern
To   : Jimmy Anderson
From : Boraxman
Date : Sun May 11 2025 11:04 pm

-=> Jimmy Anderson wrote to Boraxman <=-

JA> @MSGID: <[email protected]>
JA> @REPLY: <[email protected]>
-=> Boraxman wrote to DaiTengu <=-

Bo> Depict whatever you like in fiction, but be clear of the difference
Bo> between what works in fiction and what works in reality.  Anyone can
Bo> make their ideals work in fiction and convince people that real life
Bo> would work according to their rules. *Atlas Shrugged* *cough* Trouble
Bo> happens when people insist that the fictional ideology WOULD work, if
Bo> only it were for said "bad" people ruining it.  Therein lies danger,
Bo> and issues which younger people today are having to bear the brunt of,
Bo> and future generations are going to be emisserated by.  I think it is
Bo> quite likely that in some Western countries, blood will literally be
Bo> shed as a result of these social experiments of the 20th century going
Bo> wrong.

JA> I see where you are coming from. It did depict a utopian future, and
JA> might have been meant as an 'encouragement' for what we can accomplish
JA> if we only work together. That's nothing new, as you pointed out...

The irony is that in trying to bring people together, it pushes people
apart.  Animus between races always seems to occur at the interface
where they meet, and the more places you create for this interface to
occur, the more animus.  It seems to me, those who hold the ideal,
tend to not live with the reality, whereas those who live with the
reality, don't subscribe to the ideal.

I honestly believe that to have more peace, mutual understanding and
tolerance, we actually need LESS "openness" and "love".  The world
would be better off, I think if we actually dialled back the openness,
the desire to come together.


Bo> Communism was already a proven deadly failure, and the dream of a "one
Bo> world" is an old one with a bad history.

JA> Goes back to Nimrod. Babylon, of course, was an early attempt to bring
JA> everything under one empire. Fast forward to Alexander the Great,
JA> and then REALLY fast forward to the British Empire. They didn't manage
JA> to take in the whole world, but as the saying goes, "the sun never set"
JA> on it. :-)

JA> Then came the war to end all wars (later renamed World War I), followed
JA> by the League of Nations - an attempt to prevent future conflict. But
JA> America wouldn't give up its sovereignty. After WWII, we got another
JA> shot with the United Nations.

JA> Even Reagan said that an alien attack would bring the world together
JA> like nothing else. And George Bush Sr. was VERY New World
JA> Order-centric.

JA> So it's not just the Democrats - it's the establishment in general.
JA> That's one of the reasons I like Trump's "America First" sentiment.
JA> I know global unification will still happen eventually, but
JA> I'm fine with delaying it. LOL

Bo> The hippie ideals didn't pan out, but they insist its not they
Bo> who were wrong, but everyone else.  Its always the "idealists" that
Bo> cause trouble.  The most deadly belief system of the 20th century was
Bo> "utopian".

JA> Yep. Which, as I've said before, the Christian way is one soul at a
JA> time! :-)


Actully, this idea that we could unite, is a particularly Western
idea, probably British.  See, *we* assume that. Because we are
projecting our values system onto the rest of the world.  We believe
there can be universal values, that we can share, but really, this is
us projecting our own *parochial* values.  See, this idea is us
pushing OUR values onto the rest of the world!  So for the world to
"unite", it actually means they must accept and subscribe to OUR
values at the expense of theirs.  Western arrogance just assumes the
rest of the world will see the supremacy of *our* ideas and follow
*our* path.  Universal ethics is a predominantly Western invention,
with some elements in Abrahamic religion.  Islam does have something
like this (hence the clash, but much of the rest of the world doesn't.
Their values system doesn't work that way.

Hence why it was alway a pipedream, and why this experiment will end
in tears.  Its a vision that never really will exist outside of the
Anglosphere, because its a specifically Anglosphere idea, with some of
Europe kind of half heartedly following the lead.

In short, what Captain Kirk was saying, was essentially only going to
work, if we could be culturally imperialistic enough to force our
Western values on the rest of the world, which paradoxically, only
works if you are NOT tolerant of other beliefs! (which leads to
resentment and conflict).

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
� Synchronet � MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org