Far Right in response: "Radical ISIS members hold event recruiting new members"

Centrists, neocons and neolibs are to blame for the whole Iraqi ordeal. They all have blood on their hands for their involvement in the Iraq War. Several U.S. Democrats need to be held accountable for voting for this needless war in the first place, along with Republicans. (As much as I criticize Nancy Pelosi for being too soft, I have to give credit for her voting against the Iraq War) Phil Donahue was fired for speaking out against the Iraq War in 2003. The New York Times tried to sell the Iraq War to people, then realized how much they fucked up a year later.

There's also the Yemen War, which is a holdover from the previous presidency. The U.S. deserves to leave the Middle East and never involve themselves in there again. They've done enough damage in the Middle East that will likely be felt for generations.

6 hours ago, Magic Note said:

Centrists, neocons and neolibs are to blame for the whole Iraqi ordeal.

Centrists and neolibs are honestly one and the same in my book. Neolibs just pretend to be lefties when in all actuality they really aren't.

This whole thing is the reason why we need actual left-wing representation in our government. It's pretty much entirely been held by the right for decades.

Idk much about neocons or neolibs, or centrism and their dynamics.

I view things as personal motivations for individuals. I mean I guess you mean centrists who lack spine are progressing the issue from being a status quo upholder? Also is a centrist someone who coincidentally is near middle (like guns and abortion r good, a problematic centrist?)? Or people who identify with middle?

But yeah I would personally blame America's religiosity. It hinders critical thinking so even if you break out of it, you become a centrist. Then it justifies global domination really. And most military families (by demographic, not by >50%(but maybe that too)) are Christian. Then most rich people are kind of hand-me-downs, which means traditionalists more likely which means higher religiosity.

And in genesis it even says take from the earth what you will. They don't care about nature, like western civilization overall, but thatss justt a coincidencee. Granted it would be inevitable, they can still hold blame for doing it. Like, bad dictators are more successful than good because they take more money from the people, similarly those exploiters will naturally have more success than non-exploiters.

And some people just, who assume god is real and good, and assume god is with them, just could give less than an iota of what others think. They would laugh. Because their entire ego is already internally justified because god is justified and a projection of the ego.

It doesn't even matter if the majority of Christians are good people. Because the ones that aren't are more likely to be sociopathic, and sociopaths are more likely to run larger groups because it gets their ego off more.

And it used to be evolutionarily beneficial because if you had to decide between for instance exiling a family member because they have a plague, to go die in the woods so your tribe may live, so you justify they have it because of black magic n they are cursed don't go near them. A person who isn't sociopathic would never do that without hurting themselves emotionally severely.

But to be more on topic and my point.  Like I admit I may be mistaken. But, to me the behavioral dynamics align with Christianity, but it doesn't exist because of Christianity, but Christianity can be used to quite readily ignore ANY and all emotional arguments. Even if it doesn't do it for the average good Christian. Sociopaths(psychopaths?) see it as enabling their megalomania and making them clearly right and superior.

Then you have the extremists, I mean alot of military bois do think 'lets just nuke them n save us the trouble'. Or 'its dirty work but someone has to do it'. Or 'guns guns guns', or a mixture, so even non-extremists can justify their actions internally, and justify the system.

But when you are talking about executive decisions, its about belief before money. Because money is a motivator, but belief is who we are, and thus what actions we are permitted to take. Political beliefs are too impersonal, and don't cut into the root of the matter. They are like dissociations of the personal, to try n figure out whats optimal, but subconsciously is chosen based on pre-existing beliefs.

Like you can't justify the suffering a monopoly may cause, if you don't think others are inferior or its 'the right thing to do'. Sure you could feel good making alot of money. But what good is it, to sacrifice the world, to accumulate something? So its always tied to belief.

Belief is also used to rationalize bad behavior, and justify. But that's someone not making the executive decision usually, one who does the action first and justifies it after. Those making the executive decisions thus already have personal beliefs justifying their actions.

And when a hugeee amount of America thinks 'god is clearly on my side' team psychology comes into play, even if people don't want to admit it. Even priming a topic with religion on a sports discussion, causes more arguing rather than attempting to figure out what the latest news on x player could mean for his team, it becomes a 'x is better!' thing.

And people always rationalize away their actions as being moral. Like a moral dilemma appears. But you can't have a moral dilemma, because you are obeying god(which means, you are going to heaven, which means, you aren't doing something bad)? So its justified. All actions are permissible through god. Therefore, personal belief is the problem.