Where did I go? Nobody killed me yet . . .
And I was serious about “TRL not being in Time Square” on Mar. 14th. America is not going have its monopoly on culture forever. Especially after 1999.
Technology is connecting hundreds of millions of Chinese, Indians, Brazilians, Russians, etc to ideas and ultimately art and entertainment. These people were once very poor and socialistic, today they are capitalistic. They work like Americans, thus they play like Americans.
Already, technology is breaking down American culture; the wall between professionals and the amateur is being demolished with blogs, YouTube and Wikipedia. Even with a simple message board different people can be connected-- you wouldn’t be reading this 10 years ago. Different people at play, different people at work.

Yes, Europeans and Americans basically are dominant compared to the 3rd world. And yes, the U.S. will continue to be the world’s most powerful nation for decades to come.
But its lead over everybody else is getting shorter.When rock n’ roll came out in the 1950s, it was the product of a fast-growing, optimistic state of postwar America. Like Shakespeare in the prosperity of the Renaissance.
Today the U.S. is divided, the economy stagnant, birthrates are low, and the rock n’ roll generation is dying out. The New York Times on Sunday wrote about how unstable and problematic the U.S., France, Britain, and Italy is. Believe me, it’s there.
Like Elvis in 1955, look out for the next big star in Guangzhou in 2055.

Wire Speak profile

THE WAR IS RIGHT OUTSIDE YOUR DOOR
SAVE CAPITALISM
READ |<>| THE IDENTITARIAN MANIFESTO

Oh great, you're back

I have no where else to place my messages, that's just how it is when I have no friends

Though I did try to "spam" The Corner blog and huffingtonpost.com with my manifesto on March . . .

|<>| |<>| |<>|

I don't if this about being"back". All I know is that I was *proudly* commerating the 1-month annversary of posting "You Read It First".
2:33PM March 4, 2006

Why am i not surprised.

China, India, Brazil and Russia have had art and entertainment for a long time, 3 out of 4 of those a hell of lot longer then Modern America. The first three had ancient cultures full of art, entertainment and different types of social policy and rule, not just socialism... wait, socialism hardly figured into it much at all. Once very poor? Are you on something? China and India had major empires full of wealth and monumental architecture, and pre-Brazil - the Incas, Mayans & Olmecs had a major civilisation as well. It was later, Byzantine, the Greeks, Romans and later what became the British, took over and stole everything from everywhere making most of the known world poor and then pushing them in debt by pretending to give them charity and pay outs which they pay back through the nose. It's those ancient and then later peoples that created and revelled in art and entertainment and it's modern America and Europe that whilst still cultivating great art and entertainment also harbour most of what is controversial, tacky, tasteless and useless in a negative way.

Plus India has been on the on and up since Ghandi and hardly importing anything, choosing to manufacture and grow everything they need themselves for self sufficiency whereas many, many countries export from them. Yes, they still have a lot of poor people, same as anywhere else but probably worse but it's changing, and even with the negative parts of their culture i.e. oppression of women (same worldwide but worse in some places), they and surrounding countries has had female presidents who are very respected and do a fantastic job, something our 'modern world' is still incredibly backwards about and finding a joke with a few one off European exceptions, whereas plenty of 'third world' countries have managed it. India is becoming richer by the day again and as for entertainment, they are technically far more productive then Hollywood, Bollywood makes more films and more people watch them everyday - it's only the language barrier that keeps them from being more internationally famous but yet they are very popular in the UK with non Indian sub continent people as well. China and its surrounding areas have a similar thriving film/cartoon industry and are a major music market. China and South America are slightly behind India because of their blatant lack of human rights in places and hence less investment and international relations. India is also the top country in intelligence scores in the world and has been for a long time regardless of the 'superior' modern world educations that are worth a lot more on a cv. They make up a high percentage of doctors, lawyers, accountants and business owners in the modern world and their own country. Then, China, their world standing at the forefront of technology with Japan is obvious, their ability to keep spirituality up to date with modern principles and discipline is globally admired. Brazil is on the up and up in modern entertainment and fashion and like the former two, is in an area of high levels of manufacturing.

America, or more specifically, the US, has never had a monopoly on culture, in terms of having it and others not or parading around other people's culture and then trying to make bits of it their own (like Britain) before finally developing their own, which has too much of a balance of gems and crap to be as culturally refined as China, India and Russia. As for capitalism, yes of course, like any financial model it has its benefits and flaws and it may work well or to the advantage of those who want it or know how to use it in many places but it isn't right for everywhere, look what it did to Russia. It crippled it and brought it down to a level where it became far more easier to control, which was the point, they were in better shaped when communist (other then the main cities which are the only places to have benefited from capitalism) but had the wrong regimes in power. As for those countries playing like Americans - how exactly? You're talking about art and culture -those countries don't steal everything from a place and then hoarded it in their own museums, they don't dig up the graves of other people without permission and say it's in the name of science, they treat their sacred much more respectfully rather then all out tourist sites. Of course their are exceptions to this but the scale is completely different. They don't try to monopolise the art and entertainment industry, their attitudes are actually as if they could care less really and run fine on their own - I actually think they could do with being a little less 'exclusive'.

As for technology breaking down American culture, it's more like their business practise, their crude international practises, the decrease of manufacture, the desecration of the areas they did manufacture e.g. GM food, the fall of the dollar due to many reasons including that the Euro has been higher then it for most of it's lifespan and looks to just rise. However, that said, America, or really the US, is of course a major world player, and has been the dominant superpower for a long time and with change it could stay that way but it's unlikely, but then again look at history - titles and ranks change hands, better empires have faded then the US. The US has a lot of problems but it still a much better place to live then many areas and has many benefits not available to others, and still has a choke hold over many other countries.

If you're talking about globalisation, well that's a totally different subject and there are many arguments for and against it. As for the line between professional and amateur breaking down - I would consider any such effect minimal - now there is more information available to more people yes, but try presenting or going up against a professional body as an amateur and see if the attitudes have changed. In regards to the not being the world's most powerful nation for much longer, the lead on everybody else getting shorter, and the birth rates being low (really?) - does that really matter? What's wrong with the countries that have suffered more then the richer (through stealing and destroying and then the pretence of trade & industry with charity handouts that are taken straight back off the people and regular people in modern nations for that matter) trying and some successfully getting on their feet? Why shouldn't they? Afraid of more competition or something? Why shouldn't the countries of the world be able to socialise more as peers and partners - the big thing people are afraid of is warfare, what happens if these 'poor' and 'lowly' nations have more weapons (yeah, who do they get much of them off in the first place when there is war?) and then different governments argue? How can 'we' keep safe and in control if everyone has out benefits, money and power? Bull ****, act responsibly work out and enforce arms treaties, it's a look at how backwards we still are that we are socially as humans, we still can't do that or at least very well and yet our progress in technology is far more rapid and out of proportion to our social skills. IF 'third world' and mid card countries manage to rise even in the face of their obstacles and their is interaction, help and communication between those and modern world nations, then it will force people to have work together better politically because of the apparent higher risk so many are afraid of, they will have to change and evolve to function more efficiently and with less rashness especially on such big decisions - is that such a bad thing? As for birth rates - there's something like 6.6 Billion people on the planet (or perhaps it's increased), many of which die unnecessarily everyday due to lack of resources and many which would not have been born if the parent(s) had had a choice, plus population rates rise all the time in modern nations too, not to mention teen pregnancy rates and in the case of the US with a much more active anti-abortionists in larger numbers, unsatisfactory sex education and the pressure from abstinence groups (having the opposite effect in many cases) there are still many, many people having children, all the time and not always because they want to. Rape is also a crime that increases statistically year by year even with all our supposed human progress, and a large proportion of which goes unrecorded, it causes unwanted pregnancy, and many women from their own perspectives and from the influence of previous mentioned groups/attitudes decide to keep them. Hence exactly how is the birth rate getting lower? Even if it was, is that such a bad thing? Like I said, 6.6 billion people and counting, plenty out there are orphans are have been given into care because the parent/guardian(s) can't cope and need adopting in good homes - why not try to address that balance, if apparently low birth rate bothers some people and they want kids - there's plenty out there that need help and love.

That said, it would take a long time since the social and political machines for such things are slow and many are unwilling. You're post sounded like many responses I've seen before in many areas where people/issues are moving in such a way that is trying to make a situation more balance, fair or equal and hence some people will inevitably 'lose out' i.e. lose some or all of their control, status, power, perhaps wealth and/or other assets which they may have unfairly had in the first place, in order for things to be more evenly distributed and they fear losing advantages. They see it as making sacrifices which are unfair to them, it happens all the time in many ways, from sex, race, age, disability, class, animal/human dynamic, environmental/human dynamic, to things we make ourselves e.g. financial models. Strange isn't it how when some kind of tax break or relief scheme comes out which should really benefit the poorer people are quickly taken up by those with much more money, and how the rich end up paying less (a lot less) then the poor. Yet when any of these incentives come out or new taxes it's the richer who complain the most until their accountants find and are informed of the loop holes which allow them to pay a lot less and save most - they don't seem to realise that a percentage of a rich person's money taken out for tax, whilst being more (maybe much more) in actual payment then a poorer person's but it has much less effect on what those people have left over and how they can use it. A person taxed 45% on a million will have a hell of a lot left over in comparison to a person with a hundred to live on but people can only see figures in amounts and not proportion. Plus that person with the million or more will have plenty of tax free savings, accounts, offshore accounts, limited companies offshore perhaps, SIPS AND make use of all the government schemes made for poorer people in mind and hence actually pay the absolute minimum tax and the poorer people will pay all the tax that applies and if not, will see the bailiffs and law enforcement much quicker and easier and wont end up in resort/hospitality jails. Again, of course everything is open to abuse and plenty of 'poor' people take advantage of the system but generally the aforementioned is how the gap between rich and poor seems to always get bigger rather then smaller. It's that attitude - the greed and fear of losing to others whilst wanting all the benefits to oneself and one's own even at other's expense - that your post reminded me of. The points were so inaccurate that it couldn't really be used as an argument for a country retaining its individuality and autonomy in terms of culture and identity and more resembles a fear of losing unfair prestige and status. Especially since the US isn't losing any art or entertainment through technology, unless you want to count downloading or something (the effects of are still undecided), but through technology US art and entertainment has spread, gained and converted many. Technology has created more platforms for it on the whole, not hindered it. If anything, even though some countries, particularly the countries you mentioned, strongly retain their own cultural identities they have at the same time, along with the rest of the world - become more Americanised. Maybe it wont last forever, maybe it won’t last decades, or a few years, but then again, maybe it will. You seem to fear change, and seem to think it will be negative or to the downfall of the US, it's too early to tell, maybe it wont be a downfall, if it did happen maybe it would have an effect whereby which the problems that caused it will be address and rectified. Maybe the US would rise again. Change can be bad yes, but maybe, just maybe, it might be good.

Oh and btw - delve abit into the Shakespeare controversy before using him as a definitive positive product of the Renaissance .

I think the US was the first to start what is now the entertainment scene and make it a sellable world wide product. India's Bollywood has been going on for a long time, and is actually even bigger than Hollywood.

I agree with Pandora, never has America had a monopoly on culture; but adopted alot of other nation's culture and blended it together. Today America does have a culture, but you can see the strong influences from other nations. A great example is St. Patricks Day. Obviously an Irish holiday, infact its Ireland's 4th of July so to speak. So why is it so hugly celebrated worlwide? Because America is an immigrant country, it has a lisence to 'borrow' holidays and culture from other nations. America has a brilliant PR machine, its very good at telling the rest of the world how great it is. Weither its true or not is a different story.
-
If the piont your making is that the internet is blending cultures together, id have to say your wrong. Nations are becoming more and more independant and nationalistic these days. National pride is on the downslide in the US, but worldwide its on the rise. Here in Ireland, times have never been better. Irish people have the highest average income in the world; the Irish language itself has been intirely re-vamped and can now truely be the 1st language of Ireland, and the love of all things Irish is at an all time high accross the world. With the formation of the European Union, I feel people feel that their national identity may be at stake.Which has in turn led to a huge rise in national pride and culture. In the UK, they even tried to make St. Georges Day as big of a celebrated as St. Patricks Day just to showcase their culture.
-
The US is crumbling, the government is seen as a farse worldwide, and the self proclaimed pedastil that America was once on is sinking. The more American a nation is, the less desireable it is nowadays. Even US stars are leaving for European nations. such has Madonna, Paltrow, etc.
-
The fact that 3rd world nations and pooer countrys now have more money and have more access to the internet and other world-connecters is a good thing. Most of those nations are very steeped in their own culture, and seeing Ashlee Simpson dressed up as a horse jockey is not going to inspire anyone to become American.

Nope. I once wrote a reply to Phoenix that took four posts, it was about the mechanics of language in comparison to something else, I think...

Your posts seem to be very random and eratic in content, it's like you're trying to say a number of different things but don't do it well enough to have proper discourse or clarity. There's a lot to say and I can see that but it's not going anywhere like that. I read your other thread a while ago in regards to your maifesto and it seemed like a cut and paste juxtaposition of different conspiracy theories without any connection. It's like you just make statement after statement without any reasoning and inaccurate facts. Now, I've read so many titles by many authors in the 'unexplained/supernatural/conspiracy' section you get in bookstores and libraries (even if that's not really the right title for them) and hence I understood and agreed with some of that post but seriously, there are forums for that.

As for your above reply:

Of course the countries you mentioned are much older and hence have more history and are actually very well known for art and entertainment and other things, so why did you imply that current technology was giving that to them and as if it was from the US?

As for the income per capita, you've just taken a firgure of 'a few thousand $' and applied it without even thinking about demographics or class culture or the even the exchange rate and what that means!

No, what you said was that those countries were now getting art and entertainment due to technology and that would hence somehow help in the downfall of the US. You didn't say their own entertainment industries would break into the US market or take away some of it's consumers - why - because you just implied that they only got art and entertainment with nowadays technology. You didn't acknowledge that they had their own industries at all, but now you're saying differently? See, this is what I said above, you're not coming accross very clearly and in that case perhaps we are misunderstanding you. If I have, my apologies.

No, America - or if you really mean the US - has never had a monopoly on culture because culture isn't all about music and TRL artists. If that's what you are talking about then, the US has a monopoly on the supply and distribution of commercial music and film along with certain other countries in syndicate. But since there are competing industries in the same area, and one that is even bigger film wise - it's not a monopoly and since culture is more then that commercial music and film, it does not have a monopoly on culture. Mr.Hollywood also put it well in his post.

If everything I write is coming out of nowwhere, with no proof to back it up, well, don't focus on technicals. Nobodys likes lectures. Like if Country X has a culture, per capita income, etc.
This is supposed to be a entertainment and popular culture message board.
My basic point is the people who had it bad in the 20th century are going to own the 21st century. To put in a pro wrestling way, Americans and Europeans are going to have to "pass the torch" and be scripted to loose the championship one day. After holding the title for 650 years.
It's all only analogies and cultural references, peoples.
What's so bad in comparing how Britney Spears was born with good looks to how the average African was born with poverty and war? Aren't people born with things, for good or bad, that they CAN'T change? Some people are born to be janitors or lawyers, to be smokers or own a Porsche.
My Identitiarian |<>| Manifesto's goal is for everyone to find their God-given job and God-given personality and stick to them. And make sure their work is for society 1st; friends, family, leisure come 2nd (they can distract from work). Subjective desires and leisure are minmized so person buys fewer things.
With less distractions, a person channel their fullest amount of energy towards their job. Working harder means more productivity, more benefits for all of society. This idea will save capitalism, as the poor will recive better products instead of being given welfare (which has no incentives).
Less consumption means less demand for oil. In times of hardship like war and economic troubles, Americans will endure because they are not depednent on suburban luxuries and gagdets.
If you disagree with that last point, then imagine this question: If you got drafted, would you go to Iraq? Remember, no one wants Iraq to be a haven for al-Qaeda like Afghanistan was in the 1990s. How bad do you want victory and peace?

1) The randomness is *pure *globalization. The books "The Tipping Point: How Little Things Make A Small Difference" and "Freakonmics" are widely popular for erraticness. How buying Hush Puppies shoes affected a gonorrehea epidemic. Or owning a swimming pool is more dangerous than owning a gun.
Things are interconnected, of course, like this keyboard I'm typing on was made in Indonesia, programmed in India, markerted by Europeans, etc.

2) Another point of randomness. I'm not trying to be holier than thou, but again know that you may have more in common with your enemy that you think you do. Unimportant, random events may have more of impact on you than you think. Who was paying attention in 1998 to bin Laden declaring that every American civilian should be killed?

3) And "monopoly" was purely for figurtive purposes, to show how to U.S. is like ancient Rome. There are ^always^ other players in the game.
Like Google may be dominant but it still has competition from Yahoo. Coke has been No.1 but pesky Pepsi is always on its tail. "American Idol" is tops, but don't forget about "Dancing With The Stars".

4) A*D*O*R*A claimed, with other countries, I "implied that they only got art and entertainment with nowadays technology." Now I was talking about technology being a platform, a medium to express one self.
The Bollywood industry has existed and been strong long before the World Wide Web. Ziyi Zhang is a star of a well-established tradition. Technology is making them stronger, it doesn't make the star all by itself. Well, except for plastic surgery.
And technology is a platform for you and I; look it how AIM and MySpace have given millions of young people a voice.

I'm too lazy to read all this. Can someone sum it up in like a paragraph or less. Adora, wow!!!!!!! that's the longest post i've seen so far. Did you write that, and how much did it take you to write it, like an hour. It's almost like doing HW.

EDIT - didn't reply to XJ properly: Yes XenaJoxer03, of course I wrote it, no it didn't take long, a few minutes - it's not like doing homework to me really.

Wire Speak, you keep changing your tune every post, you say something and then see my reply and pretend you meant differently. You're chatting **** and do you know why, because yes even though most sequences of events are actually connected but made to look random and blame pinned on scapegoats, you are making blind correlations. Comparing Britney Spear's looks with a poor African (they are not all poor btw just in case that's another misconception you are under) being born poor has no connection whatsoever, what's wrong with it is that is has no bearing whatsoever on anything. You wouldn't get past get past a coherent thesis let alone intelligent, complex article that has evidence and proper thought out theory in any established publication for these types of subjects or even a forum for them. Don't get hung up on the technicals? I'm not - it's you spewing out rubbish and using totally inaccurate examples and 'facts' to back them up - which are then shown to be false and hence you say they don't matter, it's the general idea you're talking about but even your general idea doesn't follow - the points don't interconnect the way you claim they do. You were shown to be inaccurate and because of that call them lectures that no one likes - reality check - grow up and learn from your mistakes, if you're shown something is inaccurate and can be proven so think about it again, you may still come up with the same conclusion but at least you can base it on something rather then **** you pull out of your ass. The primary basis of your first post was based on claiming certain countries didn't have a culture and now you say so what? It was also about how America (and it's not even America that connected to your idea, its the US) has a monopoly and leash over other countries on culture and then when that is shown to be inaccurate you say it was just figurative? How ridiculous is that, and then you make claims about income that you know **** about and when your ignorance is highlighted you say it doesn't matter. Bull ****, you backtrack falsly, you can't philisophise but stubbornly clinging on to mistakes, you are more akin to a sophist.

Oh and btw - having people work to bone and restricted in specific job areas which are 'god given' to them will not help society and will not help capitalism - but since you are the one claiming it, you are the one who needs to explain it instead of just making a statement as if it's true. You also take bits from my posts, using the terms I used and pretend that you said them e.g. I said technology was creating platforms, NOT you and yet you pretend that was what you said when it was against the claim of your first post. I am the one who said there are other forums for this and just because your 'evidence' is shown to be incorrect you try to use my own words and say this is a TRL messageboard, when I'm the one who that said and it applies to you. Using other people's words that everyone can see in their own faces to try and cover up your mistakes, when they apply to you... devising and postulating on theories takes more then just thinking you know something or have the right idea without wanting to even check its validity.
As for your Identitarian theory, it's already been done, and it's bloody famous too. It was called Utopia written by Thomas More and it had some really questionable points too but was on the whole a lot better written, thought out and clearer then you; stop plagiarizing and doing it badly.

Oh and btw - passing the torch was an Olympian reference and actuality before it was used in pro-wrestling plus you confuse globalisaton on one hand trying to use my points (and Mr.Hollywood's) which showed your inaccuracies to try to backtrack and make it sound good, make it sound as if you agree and that they are actually positive facts but then totally go back to what you were saying initially and what you are really saying in your manifesto, that it is bad and will bring the downfall of the US or somehow... capitalism. All you do is go back and forth, and get nowhere. It's a shame, because some of the points in your maifesto would actually be interesting and eligable for empirical examination if you stopped the cut and paste effect, cleaned up the nonsenical order and stopped contradicting yourself.

- Wire Speak, you keep changing your tune every post, you say something and then see my reply and pretend you meant differently.

If I flip-flop like Kerry, then why did I repost my theory?
*** THEMES OF MY POSTS (if anyone wants it simple)
1st post: More music, movies, and entertainment will come out of China and India.
2nd: Don't use the Democratic Party, Labor Party, Bono, LiveAid, etc to help the world's poor. A person in the 3rd world is actually happier than many in the suburbs, the Desperate Housewives indeed,in America.
3rd: It is good to write randomly b/c culture is fragamented and capitalism is interconnected. The patttern is broken. Little things or bad people can have a big, positive influence.

- Comparing Britney Spear's looks with a poor African (they are not all poor btw just in case that's another misconception you are under) being born poor has no connection whatsoever, what's wrong with it is that is has no bearing whatsoever on anything.

Everybody:

Imagine you live in a village in Congo. The year 2006. You earn pennies growing rice, a public life of bandits robbing you, and a private life of malaria fears.
What would you do next?
Now imagine you live in West Hollywood, same year in 2006. You have a multi-millionare contract with Jive Records, a public life of making movies, and a private life that the media and everbody elses is obsessed over.
What would you do next?
Back to reality. You inherited things. You were born with things. In other words, and this one goes out to 6.5 BILLION people on earth:
If life throws you lemons, are you going to make lemonade?
Don't worry about changing. the lemons (don't give tax cuts to rich + read Star and US magazine). Just worry about the lemonade each single ^solitary^ human being is making.

- You wouldn't get past get past a coherent thesis let alone intelligent, complex article that has evidence and proper thought out theory in any established publication for these types of subjects or even a forum for them.

I did my writing from Feb 28-Mar 3. I feared that someone else would publicize something similar, so I posted at ATRL on Mar 5 just to say "I was here first." Hopefully I'll never have to take any legal actions.
Obviously, the place is not "Foreign Affairs", "Science" or any other scholary journal.
But I did in send several e-mails to the liberal Huffington Post and the conservative National Review; I sent a written letter to the National Review two weeks ago to their offices in New York.
Once I meet my sister on Easter, then I'll try somewhere more formal, uh hem, a little more scholary.

- You were shown to be inaccurate and because of that call them lectures that no one likes - reality check - grow up and learn from your mistakes, if you're shown something is inaccurate and can be proven so think about it again, you may still come up with the same conclusion but at least you can base it on something rather then **** you pull out of your ass.

Well, I may be wrong (even worse-I'm not studying + I have 2 Fs in college and may drop out), but do I have to curse to express my feelings?

- It was also about how America (and it's not even America that connected to your idea, its the US) has a monopoly and leash over other countries on culture and then when that is shown to be inaccurate you say it was just figurative? How ridiculous is that, and then you make claims about income that you know **** about and when your ignorance is highlighted you say it doesn't matter.

Don't swat the flies-drain the swamp instead. If you don't like the numbers, then at least I have themes at top of this post which more valuable to hunt.

- Oh and btw - having people work to bone and restricted in specific job areas which are 'god given' to them will not help society and will not help capitalism - but since you are the one claiming it, you are the one who needs to explain it instead of just making a statement as if it's true.

If my theory is ignored I'll just person who thinks about human nature and the world we live in:
Don't worry so much about al-Qaeda, the EU, George W.Bush, abortion, education. These problems are important, but the one problem of capitalism is supreme. Fight the sinner, yes, but don't worry so much about your enemy b/c he is a brother or sister of capitalism too. Being a conservative or a liberal means nothing when your country is having the balance of power shifting towards the group of China/India/Brazil/Russia/South Africa in the 21st century.
As for me, I know in my free time, as I write this, right *now* some student in Asia is learning political science to work at the same job I would do but for less money and less escapism and leisure.
Break down the line between work and leisure, because you need all the time to innovate and compete with billions of new rivals. Find out if you're good at Calculus or biology, and really practice in your free time. Try to innovate and be the best damn whoever at what you're doing.

Are you doing your thing and doin it well?
Are they lookin at you and saying 'Ooh'
. . . Do your thing (Believe that nobody can do you)
* NSYNC- Do Your Thing

Don't just work for the wage first. You're losing that battle already.
Because of the competition, oil is expensive, college education is ovecrowded for your children (b/c of rural and ghetto children finally gettting educated in the next 50 years). You will have less money for pensions and Social Security when you retire; America is too developed and birthrates are too low to raise money for pensions.
Live is great today, but other people want to have fun too. It's hard to have enough for everybody.

- You also take bits from my posts, using the terms I used and pretend that you said them e.g. I said technology was creating platforms, NOT you and yet you pretend that was what you said when it was against the claim of your first post.

If thats true, then I take responsiblity. You had it first, you get credit for the facts.

- As for your Identitarian theory, it's already been done, and it's bloody famous too. It was called Utopia written by Thomas More and it had some really questionable points too but was on the whole a lot better written, thought out and clearer then you; stop plagiarizing and doing it badly.

I just *have* to save that for another post. Just wait . . .

You've contradicted yourself in ever one of those paragraphs, again, you've said one thing, had it countered and hence said another as if you made the counter argument.

You not having done well in school has nothing to do with me cursing and it has nothing to do with me having done well or not well either. I curse all the time, just not in front of small children and parrots, and as you can see; unless you've got convenience based sight I can express myself fine with or without but I choose to say **** because it suits me fine. If you can't find any other defense - since you haven't and just use my posts as a springboard to pretend you already said what I'm saying and manouvre away from being shown as inaccurate - then that's you problem. I don't care about school grades, they don't make a person intellectual to me, they don't define a person and so just in case you may be thinking I'm looking down on you or whatever, I'm not. A person who gets through uni could be one who just rolled out of bed to lectures, and got through drinking and partying and then did some cramming or lucked out on the quesitons or they could be someone who work hard and consistently. Or, they could have been someone who just didn't respond well to that kind of teaching system, or perhaps they were naturally good at what they did (there are many more circumstances). It takes more then grades to show how intellectual a person is and how intelligent they are.

Why did you repost your theory? You're self advertising and you have no idea how to write upon such themes or how to open them up for discussion hence you're being ignored by most of this board (as well as the fact that not too many here are keen on long posts like my own in this thread). I'm only replying to you because the explorations of such topics was a big interest of mine a few years ago, but all you are spouting are convoluted statements from different theories that aren't your own and you have no evidence of making them your own because you can't extrapolate on them and your examples are extreme and unrelated to each other. You think you're repeating yourself but each time you post you say something different based on the reply you got backtracking but on the same issue and yet think that by somehow reposting your manifesto, which isn't actually a manifesto, just incoherent statements prophesising and making assumptions, that you've somehow pulled it altogether and are talking from your standpoint. Find out where your theory is going, first you act like what you see as the future is bad, then it is good, if you think both, seperate them clearly, rather then saying one thing and then the other and making blanket statements doesn't help because then when you take the other side it looks like you're contradicting yourself. Clean it up and you might have something decent to work with. But, you have reposted your 'manifesto'' and are using threads to advertise it and yourself so this it is now definitely spam and I'm not going to bother with someone using what really are important issues which deserve more individual respect, research and objective discussion rathen then as a soapbox to get attention.

THEMES

Major Theme

Perfection in society in matters of kingship, councilors, laws, justice, property, work, wars and religion is the main theme of the book.
|<>| Each person is a nation-state in my theory. A person can be a perfectionist in purpose, but we can't gurantee perfectionism in OUTCOME.
The concept of a perfect state is very clear in Utopia. The perfect king is an elected king with very limited powers.
|<>| The "king" in America, George W. Bush has very, very little to do with my Identitarian lifestyle. That's a product of postmodernism where suburban life can be insulated from many pains. There is no "ruler" in Identitarianism, like there was Lenin for Communism.
Philosopher-councilors who advise the king to tread the right path even at the cost of personal favor are the best. Laws should be simple and clear, which every citizen can understand.
Justice is tolerant and not excessive.
|<>| Again, the manifesto cannot prove everything by outcome. But if you have a core groups of subjective desires (small group of movies, music, hobbiees you like-- and you exclude all other leisure as *********), and you do something bad, then you wouldn't be so afraid of the consequences! You could serve your punishment, knowing that in 5, 10 years you'll be doing what you like then. Even in an utopia, someone has to sin; someone has to be guilty or innocent. Just find things you can like until you die, then all the obstacles can seem a little more minor.
Prevention of crime by good examples is definitely better than harsh punishment. Private properly and money are the two great sources of inequality. These are abolished in an ideal commonwealth and everything is free and easily available.
|<>| That's pure communism in abolishing private property. We saw that the Soviet Union owned all the businesses, and it collapsed. I won't go on, but doing that to private property is flat-out impossible.
To enable this everybody should work; Utopia does not tolerate drones.
|<>| That's one point me and More agree on.
Nobody can live off the labor of others.
|<>| Ah, hem, why is there a big debate right now about the how gardens are fixed, building are built, homes are tended by immigrants doing the dirty labor for us?
There is nothing glorious about war and it should be avoided.
However, the rights of a state are of paramount importance and if these are transgressed, the state should go to war. But in war, bloodshed and destruction of land should be avoided.
|<>| Listen, that is not just wrong but it is also subject that you and I learn from. Military science, that is. Think of war as a chess, think of going to war as a gamble. A sacrifice. Or the "easier road to take". I know I'm preaching, but think of yourself as a general or a commander but without using any skills from school, like science or politics or math. Use your knowledge of warfare, of chess, of decision making sometimes. Use your gut thinking not your college degree.
The ideal religion is peaceful and tolerant. The people have a sense of belonging.
|<>| No one needs to "belong" to one group. The Identitarian way to first understand that everybody's different. We can't be freindly to everybody. But if everybody focuses on what they're born with, then we won't be so supicious of strangers so much because we know everybody 's intentions.
They are very proud of their state and do their best to sustain the ideal conditions.

|<>| This "Utopia" is like what I wrote? No.
Just to know,that we live in a world of indivdualism. Just 50 or so years ago, the individual would have worked in the same factory, interact with the same race, watch the same 3 channels on TV as many, many other people.
People have so many choices today, but in solving capitalism, one choice most Americans would not make would be to use communimsm. Identitarianism, is from Identity, communism is from Commune (or group). No one wants a group, a minority to call the shots for the rest of society.
The War Is Right Outside Your Door, indeed. Saving capitalism starts with each single person, with me, with you, with the people around me in this computer lab right now. With each celebrity, each average Joe.
In the U.S., how hard each of us works and how much each of us consume will determine the future, one out of 300,000,000 people.

Oh well done, you used a summary of what would be good for basic school notes rather then reading it for yourself and hence would have seen exactly the part (and not just one sentence mentioned in the summary you quoted) that correlated with your own words on summary of your manifesto and in your manifesto and what I pointed out: WORK. Your theory on work and how people should partake in it and why and the effects of such on society.

Honestly

That section of Utopia is exactly like what you wrote. I'm not even going to bother to explain it to you if you can't be bothered do the research. Go read it yourself and see what I mean if you even care to see how your theory corresponds and how you'd need to adjust it in order to give credit where it is due. People have the same ideas all the time, and sometimes you come with something totally on your own or with help but then find someone already did/said the same thing. But whatever, I replied this time because you said in your previous post that you were going to post again and to be fair I waited to see it. But to now be fair to what I said in my last post - you are spamming, so goodbye and perhaps you'll find a board more suitable for this, they are there.

Oh and btw - I do think of war as chess when it comes to analogy, as strategy, and chess is a game I am good at and I didn't need a university degree (which you are assuming I'm using) to be good at it. I learned it at 10/11, not at general university age.

Pandora ^_^