How would you describe your foreign policy philosophy? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Ongoing wars and conflict resolution, international agreements or lack thereof. Nationhood, secessionist movements, national 'home' government versus internationalist trends and globalisation.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14825619
Pants-of-dog wrote:If the UK wants to stop glorifying the murderers, rapists, and slavers who comprise thier imperial history, fine by me.

It would be better to learn from history than mindlessly supporting it.


Yes, I believe Orwell had some comments about changing the writing on the wall.
#14825620
One Degree wrote:Yes, I believe Orwell had some comments about changing the writing on the wall.


You do realise that that book was a metaphor for the Russian revolution and does not have any relevance to the discussion about the UK no longer glorifying rapists and murderers, right?
#14825624
Pants-of-dog wrote:You do realise that that book was a metaphor for the Russian revolution and does not have any relevance to the discussion about the UK no longer glorifying rapists and murderers, right?


Your inability to see the relevance speaks volumes. Orwell's lessons go beyond the Russian revolution. I hear some Oligarchs may have escaped Russia and set up shop in other countries where their propaganda has received much better reception. Oligarchs are versatile. The type of government is irrelevant to them.
#14825627
So, Russian oligarchs have secretly taken over the UK government and have enacted a policy to get rid of statues commemorating the UK's imperialist past. They did this in order to weaken the UK by making the UK judge its history by modern morality, and this is all clear to anyone who has read Animal Farm.

No, your weird conspiracy theory makes no sense.

I prefer my idea that they are learning from history by no longer glorifying rapists and murderers.
#14825635
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, Russian oligarchs have secretly taken over the UK government and have enacted a policy to get rid of statues commemorating the UK's imperialist past. They did this in order to weaken the UK by making the UK judge its history by modern morality, and this is all clear to anyone who has read Animal Farm.

No, your weird conspiracy theory makes no sense.

I prefer my idea that they are learning from history by no longer glorifying rapists and murderers.


If a person had major accomplishments in the past and adhered to their current moral code, why should they be denied a place in history because moral codes changed? You are simply trying to erase history to justify some misguided feeling of moral superiority. You realize the future will judge you the same way and find you wanting? Current moral codes will be seen as barbaric. Should they erase you?
#14825643
If a person had major accomplishments in the past and adhered to their current moral code, why should they be denied a place in history because moral codes changed? You are simply trying to erase history to justify some misguided feeling of moral superiority.

Every generation imagines itself to be the culmination point of history, rather than merely one more link in the chain of the historical process. The modern bourgeois liberals, however, seem to be the first generation to have elevated this conceit into an ideology.

You realize the future will judge you the same way and find you wanting? Current moral codes will be seen as barbaric.

All moral codes are historically and socially conditioned, and are therefore bullshit to a greater or a lesser degree. But what else can be do except judge the past by the moral code of the present? It is, after all, possible to see how it could be that that person would have that moral attitude at that point in history, but still condemn it as being 'immoral' and unacceptable. By celebrating these people, we are implicitly endorsing their outmoded moral code as being acceptable or even as something to aspire towards. But history has moved on, and we should move on with it.

Should they erase you?

Not erase, but certainly not glorify. It may have been necessary to glorify murderers, rapists and thieves in order to advance the cause of the British Empire (in fact, I would submit that glorifying such people is necessary if one's aim is to increase the power and influence of one's own nation-state or empire). But once the empire is gone, why continue with the lies?
#14825649
@Potemkin
I guess what I really object to is...
seem to be the first generation to have elevated this conceit into an ideology.

I simply don't understand how someone can acquire this degree of self importance and self entitlement. :?:
I am reminded that, "you won't find a fortune without a criminal act being instrumental". Who is immune to this moral criticism? This is why I see it as an irrational attack on history.
I really don't care if they want to tear down a statue, it just seems silly to me.
pause, true thoughts catching up with me...
No, it is scary. These are the same people who would say they object to burning books, but that is exactly what they are doing. They willingly give up rights in the name of human rights. They see no reason not to censor those who disagree. This is a pretty familiar story and we should be more frightened and stand up to these early indications of future oppression.
#14825674
Realpolitik

The purpose of our foreign policy should simply be to maximize our security, power, and wealth.

The USA has pursued a foreign policy directly opposite of those aims since the mid-1930s.

As I've grown older I've become very skeptical of military aggression, as even if our assaults on foreign countries were carried out in the national interest (they're not) the theoretical benefits are almost never worth the cost.
#14826058
Potemkin wrote:All moral codes are historically and socially conditioned, and are therefore bullshit to a greater or a lesser degree. But what else can be do except judge the past by the moral code of the present? It is, after all, possible to see how it could be that that person would have that moral attitude at that point in history, but still condemn it as being 'immoral' and unacceptable. By celebrating these people, we are implicitly endorsing their outmoded moral code as being acceptable or even as something to aspire towards. But history has moved on, and we should move on with it.
How do you know this is true? We can read Shakespeare today and connect with him.

What you display is "Progressive" thinking, you believe that morality is tangible and can "evolve", (perhaps that is true but not to a degree you seem to believe, I believe). "Liberal Progressives" appear to imagine that we have "evolved" to some sort of "new society" and human beings, and now everything pre-WWII is "outmoded" way of thinking. How come?

What happened, that made us "progress" and "evolve" from the past? Who did it? What changed? I believe if you analyzes this with honesty you will see that nothing has changed, we did not 'evolve' and the past is not "outmoded". What simply has been happening is that there is a sect of radicals and ideologies that took over power, that now push down these unrealistic ideals and ways on the rest of us.

It reminds me of how Peter the Great introduced a soul tax on his people. Or Catholic church making business out of indulgence.
#14826133
Albert wrote:How do you know this is true? We can read Shakespeare today and connect with him.


And when we read Shakespeare, we can clearly see his society was sexist and anti-Semitic compared to ours.

What you display is "Progressive" thinking, you believe that morality is tangible and can "evolve", (perhaps that is true but not to a degree you seem to believe, I believe). "Liberal Progressives" appear to imagine that we have "evolved" to some sort of "new society" and human beings, and now everything pre-WWII is "outmoded" way of thinking. How come?


While I am not exactlyncertain as to what Potemkin believes, I think P was saying that morality is inherently subjective, and thus it changes over time and distance. It is definitely not tangible, and it is almost certainly not evolving or progressing to some point.

Certain ways of thinking are not necessarily outmoded. It would be more clear and correct to say that they no longer make sense given our historical context. Back in Shakespeare's day, history was such that it made sense to think Jews and women were inferior. Now, it does not. But this is not "progress" or "evolution" in any objective sense.

What happened, that made us "progress" and "evolve" from the past? Who did it? What changed? I believe if you analyzes this with honesty you will see that nothing has changed, we did not 'evolve' and the past is not "outmoded". What simply has been happening is that there is a sect of radicals and ideologies that took over power, that now push down these unrealistic ideals and ways on the rest of us.

It reminds me of how Peter the Great introduced a soul tax on his people. Or Catholic church making business out of indulgence.


Yes, people like women and Jews did not like being treated as inferiors, so they did something about it. That is what changed.
#14826956
Decky wrote:Giving resources to God's one true church is a perfectly good way of saving your soul. You Orthodox weirdy beardy almost Muslims understand nothing about the true nature of Christ.

The true nature of Christ? :eh:
DUDE! Christ died a long time ago. Unceremoniously tacked to a crucifix.
Not you, nor no living being knows "the true nature of Christ".
Ur as bad as those "Orthodox weirdy beardy almost Muslims".

Is that Blues Brothers scene where they run the na[…]

Election 2020

Immigration and the environment are unnecessary i[…]

Trump's Dumb Economics

Oh really, and what would those reasons be? Keepi[…]

The Evolution Fraud

Why did 99% of the species that your god supposed[…]