What Causes & Amends The Abuse of Power

K

Kaiduorkhon

Registered Senior Member
The Abuse of Power. TheTrashing of DomesticTranquility

What Causes & Amends The Abuse of Power

Just about every social injustice is reducible to the abuse of power. In accord with a large majority of authorities on destructive human aggression (Including Eric Fromm - The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness), the most sought out and pursued objective is reducible to psychological and/or physical security.

Enter the hubris of the psychologically or physically cruel mentality, accompanied by the variously applied anecdote that 'the best defensive is the best offensive'. Resulting in a posturing of aggressive thoughts, followed by words and/or deeds.

Other motives for destructive aggressive behavior are sado-masochism, an obsession for control, and fear - 'defensive aggression': falsely anticipating a threat where no threat exists and acting upon that false premise as though it were true ('I thought he was going to hit me so I hit him first'. Refer 'unjustified preemptive strike').

The primary purpose of this thread is to inquire what other motivations - and especially case histories of specifically applied methods - there are for the abuse of power. Almost all of which is under the category of the real or imagined need for the acquirement of psychological or physical security - typically at someone else's expense; the empowerment of self via what has become an artform of verbally and physically disempowering others.

What are fellow forumite's experiences and thoughts on this critically important issue which ranges from inciteful, bellicose words, to pushing, shoving, poking, slapping, punching, kicking, rat packing 'domestic' - socially 'trashing' - scenarios, to what is becoming an ever more ominous international threat to the neighborhood, and, the world?

Where is the Constitutional Preamble's promise of the 'assurance of domestic tranquility'? Are not all encouragements and indulgences in unnecessary violence unconstitutional? On this TV GUIDEd note, where is the 'protection of the constitution of the United States from all of her enemies, be they foreign or domestic (in the cauldron of superviolence in Baghdad, or Hollywood), whomsoever?

(Second to petroleum, the weapons industry is the most wealthy and powerful industry in the world - from small arms to transcontinental missiles. What causes this domestic and international 'arms race'? The obsession with maiming and killing more accurately at greater distances; from spoken words to 'star wars' satellites? Is all of this answered in the real or imagined need for personal and nationalist security? Is this the best we can do? <'In order to save the village, we had to destroy it'>).

What actions might help to reduce, defuse and otherwise minimize this growing menace? Yes, the enormity of this issue itself is intimidating - how might these problems be better understood and consequently diminished? Will humanity put an end to war, or war put an end to humanity? Can this problem be alleviated or is it foreordained to continue and maintain itself as the apparently pejorative - domestic and global - paradigm?
 
Last edited:
The great paradox of violence is that violence somewhat limits itself. That is to say, the threat of violence can, oddly enough, deter violence from happening. MAD was the gratest example of this, where it was only logical to presume that, should one be attacked by nuclear missiles, one would themselves be attacked, and therefore the world would end as we know it. Moreover, even if this isn't the case, it is thought that even a few dozen nuclear warheads going off simulteneously could produce a nuclear winter, thus even a small-scale nuclear war is potentially life threatening, and tantamount to shooting oneself in the head.

The greatest danger to humanity could come from pushing pacifism only on a sector of the world populace which, in turn, would change the necessary conditions for MAD.
 
Thoughtful and controversial replies.
The fragile consideration of anything principled on the balance of MAD - Mutual Annihilation Deterrent - is that there are an increasing number of individuals and organizations (if not entire nations) which have made an agenda, an objective, of 'fulfilling the prophecies' of world's turmoil, chaos and even eventual ending. Individual suicide bombers (of every stripe and plumage, from all over the world), who wish to destroy themselves and take many people with them.

On a larger scale it is now said to be culminating in leading facets of Iranian government, regarding nuclear weapons and delivery systems for example. Rush Limbaugh's WABC N.Y. City talk show has repeatedly featured callers-in who are talking about a preemptive strike on Iran (for example), before it fulfills it's charter (published agenda) to destroy Israel and commence WW III (per se).

The problem in some cases (most broadly exampled with rogue governments ) is that sometimes the objective of the amok individual or organization is in fact to self destruct while destroying others (often and especially, more recently, including their own families or people - this mentality of a predestined end of the world is apparently escalating - in Iraq).

Controlling factors of the exemplary Iranian government are said to be highly resilient to negotiation because it is not their wish to respond to diplomacy or peace talks. Is a 'preemptive strike' the only solution in such cases? How are such self destructive mentalities negotiated with (in an individual or a large organization)? In many cases there is no time or allowance for 're-education'. There is a very realistic pallor of apprehension throughout Western Civilization that 'the politics of 911' have only begun. Islam is not to blame, but (the Rush Limbaugh employed term of) 'Islamic Fascism' is the apparently intractable problem here.
 
Possibly the most common and universal abuse of power is child abuse. Every parent has dictatorial power over their children, and a few use it to become despots.
 
Kaiduourkhon:

"The fragile consideration of anything principled on the balance of MAD - Mutual Annihilation Deterrent - is that there are an increasing number of individuals and organizations (if not entire nations) which have made an agenda, an objective, of 'fulfilling the prophecies' of world's turmoil, chaos and even eventual ending. Individual suicide bombers (of every stripe and plumage, from all over the world), who wish to destroy themselves and take many people with them. "

Suicide bombers are incapable of leading the world into chaos. They have a limited scope and capacity. Similarly, even if they use a nuclear bomb, the level of destruction would be localized. That is to say, terrorism does not allow for a MAD scenario, unless they hijack the entire arsenal of the United States, Russia, or perhaps China.

"Controlling factors of the exemplary Iranian government are said to be highly resilient to negotiation because it is not their wish to respond to diplomacy or peace talks. Is a 'preemptive strike' the only solution in such cases? How are such self destructive mentalities negotiated with (in an individual or a large organization)? In many cases there is no time or allowance for 're-education'. There is a very realistic pallor of apprehension throughout Western Civilization that 'the politics of 911' have only begun. Islam is not to blame, but (the Rush Limbaugh employed term of) 'Islamic Fascism' is the apparently intractable problem here. "

I would argue that indeed, Islam is to blame. Islam has been a hostile force to the West for 1,400 years. We met them on the fields of Frankish France, struggled in 7 crusades in Palestine against them, faltered at Constantinople when they drove our armies to dust, and finally threw them out of Spain after 800 years of domination. We crushed the last caliphate only as soon as 1914! The Saracen, the Moor, the Turk? They are the spiritual enemies of the West. Islam fuels their drive to destroy us, and our bastard hybrid of Christianity, older paganism, and modern humanism drives us.

Now the silent invasion of immigration, where the malcontents can hide for years before manifesting, is our great threat. The only way may be to utterly expell Moslems from our lands and criminalize the practice of the religion.
 
Prince James said:
Suicide bombers are incapable of leading the world into chaos. They have a limited scope and capacity. Similarly, even if they use a nuclear bomb, the level of destruction would be localized. That is to say, terrorism does not allow for a MAD scenario, unless they hijack the entire arsenal of the United States, Russia, or perhaps China.
Click to expand...

Chaotic elements can easily disrupt complex systems. The cost to run a terrorist organization is tiny compared to what it costs to stop terrorism. The damage that a single terrorist can inflict would be catastrophic, not in simple infrastructural terms, but political and economic ones. Imagine attacks like 9/11 ever year. What would happen to us as a country? An economy? We'd fall into paranoia and war.

I would argue that indeed, Islam is to blame. Islam has been a hostile force to the West for 1,400 years. We met them on the fields of Frankish France, struggled in 7 crusades in Palestine against them, faltered at Constantinople when they drove our armies to dust, and finally threw them out of Spain after 800 years of domination. We crushed the last caliphate only as soon as 1914! The Saracen, the Moor, the Turk? They are the spiritual enemies of the West. Islam fuels their drive to destroy us, and our bastard hybrid of Christianity, older paganism, and modern humanism drives us.
Click to expand...

You're aware that the Crusades went West to East, not the other way around, yes?
 
Roman:

"Chaotic elements can easily disrupt complex systems. The cost to run a terrorist organization is tiny compared to what it costs to stop terrorism. The damage that a single terrorist can inflict would be catastrophic, not in simple infrastructural terms, but political and economic ones. Imagine attacks like 9/11 ever year. What would happen to us as a country? An economy? We'd fall into paranoia and war."

We simply have to abandon the notion of total safety and we're fine. The world is a dangerous place. War and devestation happen every single second on Earth. That this should sometimes strike America or the West in general? Not a huge deal. Throughout history, people have dealt with such things. We, too, will deal with those things, whilst making sane, rational decisions, on how to combat the greater impacts of terrorism, and other violence, against us. For one, utterly destroying terrorist organizations is an excellent start. In fact, if we were struck with more terrorist attacks, perhaps we'd be more serious in dealing with the root causes of terrorsim.

What we need is some good old Western stocism. You know, stiff upper lip. But at the same time, ruthlessly crush our enemies.

"You're aware that the Crusades went West to East, not the other way around, yes?"

The above examples were a mix of Western and Moslem aggression. The crusades were a great example of Western aggression, whereas the attacks on Europe stopped in France are a prime example of Moslem aggression. History has pitted two titans against one another, and only time will tell whom shall win.
 
Kaiduorkhon said:
Just about every social injustice is reducible to the abuse of power.
Click to expand...

Hmm? In the first place, just who is it that decides what's "social injustice"?

Kaiduorkhon said:
Yes, the enormity of this issue itself is intimidating ...
Click to expand...

Is it? On what evidence do you base that monumental statement?

Baron Max
 
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Just about every social injustice is reducible to the abuse of power. ”



Hmm? In the first place, just who is it that decides what's "social injustice"?

Social injustice is as social or any other injustice self evidently does, including questioning the meaning of injustice.


“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
Yes, the enormity of this issue itself is intimidating ... ”



Is it? On what evidence do you base that monumental statement?

Baron Max"

Dear Baron Max:
Your lofty queries appear as supplementary solutions to - evasive sobriquet echos of - themselves.
(Refer, The Digressive Art of Missing The Point:
When You Cannot or Choose Not to Catch On.) :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top