Aspiration Drives The World Forward & Jealousy Holds It Back

[pagetheoracle]

I believe it is the aspiration to be different from what we are now, that drives us to change the world (The poor want to be rich, the common want to have breeding, the ignorant want to learn _East chases West in development, males chase females, young chase the old).

 

So why do we kow-tow to those that hate us?  It is obvious that they are jealous of our success and need to buckle down as individuals or countries, to create and invent answers to their own problems, rather than try to pull us down to their level; that is abandon the past and move on into the future (Don't moan - think and act better than us.  Overtake us like children do their parents, replace us with a better better world, not a worse one pulled down into the gutter through mutual destruction.

[sanctus]

We needed centuries to get to where we are, why should other countries want to wait the same amount of time (or a bit shorter time since there is a clear goal, but still longer than a generations' lifetime) when they know that we would have the resources to help them make it there in a few years but prefer to keep our comfort to ourselves? Jealousy is only towards those who do not want to share, eg.: how many where jealous of the president of Uruguay ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mujica )?

 

Also, I do not think their aim is to pull us down to their level, just to get up to ours. The consequence can be that we are pulled down but that is (usually) not the aim.

[pagetheoracle]

We needed centuries to get to where we are, why should other countries want to wait the same amount of time (or a bit shorter time since there is a clear goal, but still longer than a generations' lifetime) when they know that we would have the resources to help them make it there in a few years but prefer to keep our comfort to ourselves? Jealousy is only towards those who do not want to share, eg.: how many where jealous of the president of Uruguay ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mujica )?

 

Also, I do not think their aim is to pull us down to their level, just to get up to ours. The consequence can be that we are pulled down but that is (usually) not the aim.

No not necessarily as you say.  What I've experienced is that it definitely starts off wanting to emulate us but as you say, if ignored turns to hatred and the urge for revenge ("I'll show you, you @$%£&^*%@!!!).  When two way flow exists, no this doesn't happen.

[Eclogite]

I believe it is the aspiration to be different from what we are now, that drives us to change the world

What evidence do you have for this assertion?

Do you think that most actions that change the world are intended to do so, or is change simply a by-product?

 

The poor want to be rich, the common want to have breeding, the ignorant want to learn

Sadly, only the first of these seems to be commonplace in the West.

 

males chase females, young chase the old

These are a different category from your first examples. They weaken, rather than strengthen your thesis. (And I find it immensely difficult to think of an instance where the young chase the old.)

 

So why do we kow-tow to those that hate us? 

You need to be more specific. Who are the 'we' you refer to? Who are the ones who hate us? What evidence, or at least examples, do you have of kowtowing?

 

It is obvious that they are jealous of our success and need to buckle down as individuals or countries, to create and invent answers to their own problems, rather than try to pull us down to their level; that is abandon the past and move on into the future (Don't moan - think and act better than us.  Overtake us like children do their parents, replace us with a better better world, not a worse one pulled down into the gutter through mutual destruction.

Sanctus seems to have been able to discern what and whom you were talking about, but I am lost. Will you enlighten me?

[pagetheoracle]

What evidence do you have for this assertion?

Do you think that most actions that change the world are intended to do so, or is change simply a by-product?

 

Sadly, only the first of these seems to be commonplace in the West.

 

These are a different category from your first examples. They weaken, rather than strengthen your thesis. (And I find it immensely difficult to think of an instance where the young chase the old.)

 

You need to be more specific. Who are the 'we' you refer to? Who are the ones who hate us? What evidence, or at least examples, do you have of kowtowing?

 

Sanctus seems to have been able to discern what and whom you were talking about, but I am lost. Will you enlighten me?

Thank you for a load of interesting questions!

 

I think it is unconscious in a lot of cases and where deliberate it seems to fail.  It seems to be the joy of finding something different, creating something new that drives us on.  From my perspective ideas can get no further than you, if you do not have the backing of society.  The amount of time that brilliant ideas have failed to be understand or latched onto by those in power is well known.  Brian Epstein launched the Beatles but Decca turned them down for a recording contract - he had the vision to keep trying for them, the recording company didn't.  Then of course the Wright Brothers, trains suffocating passengers if going more than ten miles an hour etc. It seems to be persistence and trying more than one avenue that generally gets things launched against opposition or failed vision.

 

The poor want breeding?  Well that is true in England or was but not America because of it being more egalitarian (class exists and even though not as bad as it was, this still fuels resentment on the one hand and the urge to join those that try to exclude you on the other).  My wife watched a TV program about The Tatler magazine and it revealed that the Russian Mafia, who have invaded London in their hoards, are wannabe upper classes, which is ironic given the Russian revolution.  Africa too seems to be following this trend (look up Nigeria's growth and overwhelming amount of scams aimed at getting rich - I received an email of this type myself - laughable "I have a million pounds, can I use your account as I have no UK bank?") and China using Hong Kong as the selling face of its global empire, again wanting to appear legitimate and using the old UK colony for this, while the dirty industrial revolution is going on behind the scenes as it did in Russia during WWII and the UK, when the industrial revolution kicked in:  Aspiring to be like the West, even in hiding its dirty linen to appear legitimate.

 

Men chase women for sex and if you see the above as true, nationally, then young nations chase older economies, to be like them.  The jealousy bit comes in when this is denied and we have terrorism, war and crime as attempts to steal what others have produced rather than put in the effort to produce it yourself:  ISIS taking slaves and crushing the views of others because they are holding onto the belief in the old order, rather than advancing towards the new world (Islam was great in The Middle ages but lost that benevolence and hasn't progressed since, even though individual scientists have and some countries now are doing so:  It is backward and the West is progressive.  It is defending the past instead of letting go of its prejudices and advancing into the future, this is what I mean about jealousy and who. 

 

I hope this clarifies the points mentioned

[pgrmdave]

So why do we kow-tow to those that hate us?  It is obvious that they are jealous of our success

Exactly who are "they"? And who is "us"?

[pagetheoracle]

Exactly who are "they"? And who is "us"?

Us is The West, they are people like ISIS.

[Eclogite]

Can you  provide examples of us kow-towing to ISIS? Dropping heavy munitions on them seems an unusual way of showing deference.

[pagetheoracle]

Can you  provide examples of us kow-towing to ISIS? Dropping heavy munitions on them seems an unusual way of showing deference.

Us in this instance is UK showing deference to Muslims.  In this country as a community they keep themselves to themselves (chosen people syndrome like Israelis).  The police continually stop black people as presumed trouble makers but with all this bombing nonsense they still don't pull up Muslims routinely.  Also UK immigration policy failure has led to a flood of immigrants because this is seen as the land of honey (They come across to Europe from Arab countries in droves, even dying in the attempt because the boats they come in aren't fit for purpose and are overcrowded (I don't know if they cover this in USA news).  Those coming by land, pour through Italy and the rest of mainland Europe, heading towards the ferry ports, again getting killed because they try to cling onto the bottom of lorries, fall off and get run over.  Then there are those who hang onto plane undercarriages and die from exposure).  This has led to the formation of a new UK political party, UKIP, that want to curb this).  Fat cat smugglers earn thousands from these illegal immigrants.  Business is happy at cheap labour (like your wetbacks?) but like this obesity epidemic, a country can only take so much without getting sick because of the overload.

 

As for ISIS, no, they are being attacked as they may once have been supported by arms as the Taliban were, by allegedly American interests.  American foreign policy seems heavy handed at best in other countries.  What really goes on I am never certain of because of media bias or censorship, so I try to read between the lines.  I try to find out myself what laws are governing what I see in the world, outside such bias - hence my theories postulated here and the evidence I try to produce to back it up (Getting old and weary nowadays (63) - my wife calls me "India (surname omitted) and the Attitude of Gloom"). You have to present to observe the truth and more and more I don't want to be, which is what makes me the rambling philosopher I am and the crumbling mind I'm becoming, sadly. In other words calm neutrality is being replaced with intolerant rant.

[pagetheoracle]

By the way Muslims have started to condemn certain amounts of their young becoming radicalized, after years of silence.  I think this is because as a community they thought it was alright for them to fight against what they saw as oppressors but not to become the oppressors as ISIS have (Israel, the Iraq campaign (I was against it too), Afghanistan I think were considered fair game and Syria, until ISIS reared its ugly head).

 

Britain at the start of WWII, tried to appease Germany because like ISIS they were seen as dangerous but too strong to take on.

 

Whether we call it terrorism or something else, this partisan action has always been carried out by those who don't have the armed resources to take on well armed and well disciplined opponents, from Rome on and maybe well before as a strategy.

[Eclogite]

Us in this instance is UK showing deference to Muslims. 

Deference and kow-towing are two quite different things. I would hope we show deference to many diverse opinions and cultures. This is wholly possible without kow-towing.

 

 

In this country as a community they keep themselves to themselves (chosen people syndrome like Israelis). 

You mean the same way people who went to Eton tend to socialise; the way some Scots felt they wanted to keep themselves to themselves so much they voted for independence; the way Geordies tend to associate with each other - and it's not just because no one else can understand them.

 

The police continually stop black people as presumed trouble makers but with all this bombing nonsense they still don't pull up Muslims routinely.

1. So, you feel they are justified in preferentially pulling up black people?

2. If they aren't carrying a Koran, or wearing a hijab, how do you recognise them as Muslims?

 

Also UK immigration policy failure has led to a flood of immigrants because this is seen as the land of honey (They come across to Europe from Arab countries in droves, even dying in the attempt because the boats they come in aren't fit for purpose and are overcrowded (I don't know if they cover this in USA news).  Those coming by land, pour through Italy and the rest of mainland Europe, heading towards the ferry ports, again getting killed because they try to cling onto the bottom of lorries, fall off and get run over.  Then there are those who hang onto plane undercarriages and die from exposure).  This has led to the formation of a new UK political party, UKIP, that want to curb this).  Fat cat smugglers earn thousands from these illegal immigrants.  Business is happy at cheap labour (like your wetbacks?) but like this obesity epidemic, a country can only take so much without getting sick because of the overload.

I am going to pretend that you didn't say any of that and are actually quite a rational bloke, who doesn't have strong racist tendencies.

 

My wetbacks? It's true I've lived in Texas, but I've also lived in Mexico. And I find the term offensive and your ready use of it to be revealing.

[pagetheoracle]

Deference and kow-towing are two quite different things. I would hope we show deference to many diverse opinions and cultures. This is wholly possible without kow-towing.

 

 

You mean the same way people who went to Eton tend to socialise; the way some Scots felt they wanted to keep themselves to themselves so much they voted for independence; the way Geordies tend to associate with each other - and it's not just because no one else can understand them.

 

1. So, you feel they are justified in preferentially pulling up black people?

2. If they aren't carrying a Koran, or wearing a hijab, how do you recognise them as Muslims?

 

I am going to pretend that you didn't say any of that and are actually quite a rational bloke, who doesn't have strong racist tendencies.

 

My wetbacks? It's true I've lived in Texas, but I've also lived in Mexico. And I find the term offensive and your ready use of it to be revealing.

Yes that kind of nonsense (Eton, Scots - I live here and voted for independence too as I'm getting more irrational with age and yes, Geordies are hard to understand and like Glaswegians (not all of them in reality) are in your face:  Another ship building area (I liked Auf Wiedersehen Pet)).

 

Do I feel the police are justified in pulling up black people?  No, I'm saying they find it an easier option, just like they fear taking on the Muslims because of the Dutch Cartoonist being killed for his picture of Mohammed and that film maker killed because Muslims again saw his film as an attack against their religion. 

 

You can't pick them out except for those wearing traditional garb - honour killings are about not following the rules and this includes Hindus as well as Muslims:  Thank God for those that do rebel and live their lives according to how they want to live, like the schoolgirl shot in the face for trying to learn (This is what I mean by the insular, defensive section of Muslim society that doesn't want to integrate, who are afraid to grasp the future, in the same way Luddites smashed machinery or their French equivalents threw their shoes into machinery, hence sabo-tuers).  It's like they said in Star Trek 6, The Undiscovered Country, some people are afraid of change (the future) and will do anything to stop progress).

 

The use of wetbacks wasn't meant to be offensive but explanatory (Those who crossed the border illegally to work).  Sorry it offended you.  Am I rational?  Used to be.