how does it feel like for both parties?
:popcorn:
:popcorn:
↧
SLE-EII conflicton
↧
Another Attachment Style Test
Here you go.
Attachment styles allude to the specific way in which an individual identifies with, and relates to, other individuals. A person's attachment style was most often formed at the absolute beginning of their life, most likely during their first two years of life. Once settled, the individual's attachment style tends to stay with them throughout the course of life and to manifest today in the way they relate to others in close relations (including in the way that the person rears their own children). Hence, understanding your own particular attachment style can be immensely useful as a way of gaining insight into how you originally felt about yourself and others during your childhood, and how you may be predisposed to live out these patterns again as an adult.
Quote:
Attachment styles allude to the specific way in which an individual identifies with, and relates to, other individuals. A person's attachment style was most often formed at the absolute beginning of their life, most likely during their first two years of life. Once settled, the individual's attachment style tends to stay with them throughout the course of life and to manifest today in the way they relate to others in close relations (including in the way that the person rears their own children). Hence, understanding your own particular attachment style can be immensely useful as a way of gaining insight into how you originally felt about yourself and others during your childhood, and how you may be predisposed to live out these patterns again as an adult.
↧
↧
type this photo
What type would somebody be that constantly has this expression/looks a lot like this:
science-resting-bitch-face-IKZ.jpg
science-resting-bitch-face-IKZ.jpg
↧
Promoting The New Anime/Manga Group
Bonjour, bonjour, now listen! We got a new sassy project :oops:
![]()
My cute queen @ApeironStella and I have come up with creating an Anime/Manga forum group for y'all to join.
I invited people from the Anime typing thread knowing they're interested, yet still we need more members :biggrin: I created plenty of threads for diversion, discussion, recs, pictures, vids, music, and whatnot so visit us if you like!
![]()
See you there. :hello:
My cute queen @ApeironStella and I have come up with creating an Anime/Manga forum group for y'all to join.
I invited people from the Anime typing thread knowing they're interested, yet still we need more members :biggrin: I created plenty of threads for diversion, discussion, recs, pictures, vids, music, and whatnot so visit us if you like!
See you there. :hello:
↧
Manchester by the Sea
Lee: Delta ST
Patrick: EIE
Patrick: EIE
↧
↧
Fanfiction - Fi or Fe?
Fanfics certainly are an ethical (type) topic since they deal with people's sentiments and emotions. But what would you say is more pronounced, :Fi: or :Fe:? Of course, both are intertwined, Alice in Wonderland style where we discussed whether it's :Ne:or :Ni:.
But I suspect that :Fi: is predominant. :Fe: is the collective fandom spirit and wanting to express oneself freely before others making them experience the same. Penning your inner turmoil so your readers can get on the same level. You know you bawl your eyes out when the author knows what impacts the fandom emotionally, when they cause you to express what the characters do. But! What fanfiction is famous for - or infamous, you certainly know all the prejudice and I'm sure it will show in the comments here - is the self-insert, most annoyingly but understandably personified by the Mary Sue. That is true for all other stories in general but here it's really polarizing.
You read fanfiction because of how you like or love the character, or how two/more characters like and love each other. Or the other way around, how they detest one another, or how it goes up and down, you get the concept. Most fanfics use couple or friendship plots. It's relationship ethics. You individually identify with some person(s) in there. And then you can relate to the figures you could never truly relate to in reality since fanfics deal with fictional people or celebs. Alternative realities. That's their appeal, to have someone you can't reach close to you because you love them so damn much. Or you have people in there loving or liking one another how you want to be loved or liked. Or someone is hated, that can also pick up the reader's personal experience cathartically. From that perspective, it can't get any more introverted ethics here.
Since I'm from the love x hate :Fi: tribe my private take on it could help. I find that I can lose myself in these stories with ease since I adore the characters and how the authors put their lifeblood in it, and how they indirectly position themselves toward the characters. It feels like I and they can close the distance, it's intimate. I'm SX first, I love nothing more than deeply felt intimacy. That's why I think fanfics are so popular and beloved, they're extremely personal. There's much more first-hand involvement and investment on the reader and writer side. I feel that when reading, this stuff can consume my heart like in genres of hurt/comfort or breakups. I'm sensitive already and that often gets to me because I relate, or put myself in a character's shoes when I feel like I compare/match/vibe with them. I always pick a favorite. Always, always, always. I don't think I look up fanfiction because I wanna get emotional or see how the fandom does. I tend to be conservative sticking to authors I like and characters I like and it's hard to change that unless I get disappointed/butthurt or discover something really striking, which again I have high expectations and right-wrong measurements for which are personal and not objective, and usually hard to understand for someone else which is why I said "private" in the first place.
Now what would you say, :Fi: > :Fe: when it comes to these stories? Are these good arguments already, or am I going into the wrong direction, is :Fe: way more important here? If you like please give accounts of your experiences, too, I'm very curious of how you understand the topic.
But I suspect that :Fi: is predominant. :Fe: is the collective fandom spirit and wanting to express oneself freely before others making them experience the same. Penning your inner turmoil so your readers can get on the same level. You know you bawl your eyes out when the author knows what impacts the fandom emotionally, when they cause you to express what the characters do. But! What fanfiction is famous for - or infamous, you certainly know all the prejudice and I'm sure it will show in the comments here - is the self-insert, most annoyingly but understandably personified by the Mary Sue. That is true for all other stories in general but here it's really polarizing.
You read fanfiction because of how you like or love the character, or how two/more characters like and love each other. Or the other way around, how they detest one another, or how it goes up and down, you get the concept. Most fanfics use couple or friendship plots. It's relationship ethics. You individually identify with some person(s) in there. And then you can relate to the figures you could never truly relate to in reality since fanfics deal with fictional people or celebs. Alternative realities. That's their appeal, to have someone you can't reach close to you because you love them so damn much. Or you have people in there loving or liking one another how you want to be loved or liked. Or someone is hated, that can also pick up the reader's personal experience cathartically. From that perspective, it can't get any more introverted ethics here.
Since I'm from the love x hate :Fi: tribe my private take on it could help. I find that I can lose myself in these stories with ease since I adore the characters and how the authors put their lifeblood in it, and how they indirectly position themselves toward the characters. It feels like I and they can close the distance, it's intimate. I'm SX first, I love nothing more than deeply felt intimacy. That's why I think fanfics are so popular and beloved, they're extremely personal. There's much more first-hand involvement and investment on the reader and writer side. I feel that when reading, this stuff can consume my heart like in genres of hurt/comfort or breakups. I'm sensitive already and that often gets to me because I relate, or put myself in a character's shoes when I feel like I compare/match/vibe with them. I always pick a favorite. Always, always, always. I don't think I look up fanfiction because I wanna get emotional or see how the fandom does. I tend to be conservative sticking to authors I like and characters I like and it's hard to change that unless I get disappointed/butthurt or discover something really striking, which again I have high expectations and right-wrong measurements for which are personal and not objective, and usually hard to understand for someone else which is why I said "private" in the first place.
Now what would you say, :Fi: > :Fe: when it comes to these stories? Are these good arguments already, or am I going into the wrong direction, is :Fe: way more important here? If you like please give accounts of your experiences, too, I'm very curious of how you understand the topic.
↧
Rorschach Inkblot Test
What are your results?
http://rorschach-inkblot-test.com/
meaning of each card
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test
http://rorschach-inkblot-test.com/
meaning of each card
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test
↧
Aaron Bruno (AWOLNATION)
What's his type? Enne and instincts too please.
489501386.jpg
aaron-bruno-awonlnation-interview.jpg
Aaron Bruno.jpg
489501386.jpg
aaron-bruno-awonlnation-interview.jpg
Aaron Bruno.jpg
↧
How to communicate with LIE
So my new boss is a LIE and I see some potential problems arise that I had with my previous LIE-boss: communication.
Previous boss: We could talk to each other, form complete and accurate sentences but no one would understand the other. We needed an ESI for translation. Sometimes when the LIE asks me a question and when I start talking he is frustrated after a second. It's like I can't say a word without crossing some invisible line.
I don't have similar problems with other types although it can happen that I talk to much.
I worry that the same could happen again this time and screw everything.
My questions are - how do I successfully communicate my thoughts to a LIE.
What should I never say.
Same goes for emails.
help me please I'm so lost :cry: @Adam Strange, @Anglas, @Zero, @FDG
Edit: Some backstory:
I have a completely different philosophy than LIEs when it comes to productivity and life in general.
At my previous workplace the LIE wanted to teach me the necessary skills. Sadly his teaching methods were destructive to my learning curve. His approach was to tell me everything bit by bit or suddenly give me another project to condition me to a fast changing environment (web-dev.). He disliked (or couldn't) giving me important details, hoped that somehow everything would turn out well, underestimated my learning ability or withheld information because then I would "just worry about it".
I tried to tell him that I absolutely need the details, need to concentrate, prefer to have all the information at once so I can build my own understanding of it and plan the project. That would speed up the whole process but there was no way I could convince him that meticulous planning at the beginning saves time on the long run. All he wanted was results results results...
He even insisted that I read a book that "changed his life" - Getting Things Done http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...ng_Things_Done
But the book that helped me most is - Mastery http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8...om_search=true
Also, I'm still not sure about my type so if there is anyone who has an idea/ explanation - that would be wonderful
Previous boss: We could talk to each other, form complete and accurate sentences but no one would understand the other. We needed an ESI for translation. Sometimes when the LIE asks me a question and when I start talking he is frustrated after a second. It's like I can't say a word without crossing some invisible line.
I don't have similar problems with other types although it can happen that I talk to much.
I worry that the same could happen again this time and screw everything.
My questions are - how do I successfully communicate my thoughts to a LIE.
What should I never say.
Same goes for emails.
help me please I'm so lost :cry: @Adam Strange, @Anglas, @Zero, @FDG
Edit: Some backstory:
I have a completely different philosophy than LIEs when it comes to productivity and life in general.
At my previous workplace the LIE wanted to teach me the necessary skills. Sadly his teaching methods were destructive to my learning curve. His approach was to tell me everything bit by bit or suddenly give me another project to condition me to a fast changing environment (web-dev.). He disliked (or couldn't) giving me important details, hoped that somehow everything would turn out well, underestimated my learning ability or withheld information because then I would "just worry about it".
I tried to tell him that I absolutely need the details, need to concentrate, prefer to have all the information at once so I can build my own understanding of it and plan the project. That would speed up the whole process but there was no way I could convince him that meticulous planning at the beginning saves time on the long run. All he wanted was results results results...
He even insisted that I read a book that "changed his life" - Getting Things Done http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...ng_Things_Done
But the book that helped me most is - Mastery http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8...om_search=true
Also, I'm still not sure about my type so if there is anyone who has an idea/ explanation - that would be wonderful
↧
↧
Ann Lamott
EIE or IEI, I think, sometimes; other times I question that and even wonder if IEE fits. She's a tough one for me to type, for some reason. What say you?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8fpOShNfeHI
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Lamott
Quotations:
"Perfectionism is the voice of the oppressor."
"I loved every second of Catholic church. I loved the sickly sweet rotting-pomegranate smells of the incense. I loved the overwrought altar, the birdbath of holy water, the votive candles; I loved that there was a poor box, the stations of the cross rendered in stained glass on the windows."
"Life is really pretty tricky, and there's a lot of loss, and the longer you stay alive, the more people you lose whom you actually couldn't live without."
"No one tells you that your life is effectively over when you have a child: that you're never going to draw another complacent breath again... or that whatever level of hypochondria and rage you'd learned to repress and live with is going to seem like the good old days."
"Bananas are great, as I believe them to be the only known cure for existential dread. Also, Mother Teresa said that in India, a woman dying in the street will share her banana with anyone who needs it, whereas in America, people amass and hoard as many bananas as they can to sell for an exorbitant profit. So half of them go bad, anyway."
"I don't want something special. I want something beautifully plain."
"My parents, and librarians along the way, taught me about the space between words; about the margins, where so many juicy moments of life and spirit and friendship could be found. In a library, you could find miracles and truth and you might find something that would make you laugh so hard that you get shushed, in the friendliest way."
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8fpOShNfeHI
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Lamott
Quotations:
"Perfectionism is the voice of the oppressor."
"I loved every second of Catholic church. I loved the sickly sweet rotting-pomegranate smells of the incense. I loved the overwrought altar, the birdbath of holy water, the votive candles; I loved that there was a poor box, the stations of the cross rendered in stained glass on the windows."
"Life is really pretty tricky, and there's a lot of loss, and the longer you stay alive, the more people you lose whom you actually couldn't live without."
"No one tells you that your life is effectively over when you have a child: that you're never going to draw another complacent breath again... or that whatever level of hypochondria and rage you'd learned to repress and live with is going to seem like the good old days."
"Bananas are great, as I believe them to be the only known cure for existential dread. Also, Mother Teresa said that in India, a woman dying in the street will share her banana with anyone who needs it, whereas in America, people amass and hoard as many bananas as they can to sell for an exorbitant profit. So half of them go bad, anyway."
"I don't want something special. I want something beautifully plain."
"My parents, and librarians along the way, taught me about the space between words; about the margins, where so many juicy moments of life and spirit and friendship could be found. In a library, you could find miracles and truth and you might find something that would make you laugh so hard that you get shushed, in the friendliest way."
↧
Koro Sensei
↧
Open Sex Role Inventory
Another Gender role test. ^_^'
The questions/statements themselves are rather silly, but the results seem to be surprisingly accurate?
What do you think.
The questions/statements themselves are rather silly, but the results seem to be surprisingly accurate?
What do you think.
↧
Master of None
Dev: Ne-ILE
Rachel: SEI
Dev's dad: SEE
Dev's mom: ILI
Arnold: ILE
Denise: Fi-SEE
Brian: IEE
Brian's dad: Alpha SF
Francesca: SEI
Jeff: ESE
↧
↧
LIE-ESI Duality and Subtype
I am hesitantly typing as LIE-3Ni, and I have some questions about how duality would work with this subtype. I'm introverted and have no energy for relationships, I find myself instantly drained if I have to be the one making contact and sustaining the conversation. Are there ESIs who prefer to initate and lead conversation? Who take an active interest in the other person's feelings in the manner that I've seen from SEEs? Perhaps ESI-Se?
↧
What are your goals?
This thread is for stating and updating your progress on your current goals. It can be from a new year's resolution you are currently fulfilling or something you're going to start in the near future. It can also be academic e.g. finish in Top 5% of class etc.
Other members are free to chime in and offer advice or even suggest goals for other members, but please refrain from anything other than constructive criticism when doing so. This thread is to encourage participating members to make real growth in at least 1 area of their life.
Members are also allowed to describe their current situation at any point and ask for achievable goals to aim toward, and are also allowed to post articles and motivational posters in moderation.
You can choose to continuously update your first post on this thread containing your goals or choose to post updates.
Good luck in achieving all of what you aim for!!!
![]()
Other members are free to chime in and offer advice or even suggest goals for other members, but please refrain from anything other than constructive criticism when doing so. This thread is to encourage participating members to make real growth in at least 1 area of their life.
Members are also allowed to describe their current situation at any point and ask for achievable goals to aim toward, and are also allowed to post articles and motivational posters in moderation.
You can choose to continuously update your first post on this thread containing your goals or choose to post updates.
Good luck in achieving all of what you aim for!!!
↧
Self-Perception vs Group-Perception
How do you reconcile how someone perceives themselves with how you perceive them? Which is more important and why? Does it have anything to do with Socionics? Does anyone care? Does it even matter? Why do the fuck do people keep logging in to post about this stuff when they could be living their lives instead? And does it even matter? And should there be a poll for all the questions?
↧
America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group
Controversial article ahead. Written by Garikai Chenga, a research scholar at Harvard University.
Updated on January 23, 2017.
Incisive article originally published by GR in September 2014. Terror attacks or mass shootings allegedly perpetrated by the ISIS, the question that should be asked: who are the State sponsors of Al Qaeda and the ISIS? (M.Ch. GR Editor).
Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region.
The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.
The CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era. Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms: on one side, the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a Soviet tool; on the other side, Western nations and militant political Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union.
The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”
During the 1970’s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.
Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980’s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.
America’s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.
The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.
In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.
There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.
America’s Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s neighboring enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.
ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran.
The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the U.S. has been engaged in over 53 military invasions and expeditions. Despite what the Western media’s war cries would have you believe, Iran is clearly not the threat to regional security, Washington is. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.
America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance.
By rapidly increasing both government secrecy and surveillance, Mr. Obama’s government is increasing its power to watch its citizens, while diminishing its citizens’ power to watch their government. Terrorism is an excuse to justify mass surveillance, in preparation for mass revolt.
The so-called “War on Terror” should be seen for what it really is: a pretext for maintaining a dangerously oversized U.S. military. The two most powerful groups in the U.S. foreign policy establishment are the Israel lobby, which directs U.S. Middle East policy, and the Military-Industrial-Complex, which profits from the former group’s actions. Since George W. Bush declared the “War on Terror” in October 2001, it has cost the American taxpayer approximately 6.6 trillion dollars and thousands of fallen sons and daughters; but, the wars have also raked in billions of dollars for Washington’s military elite.
In fact, more than seventy American companies and individuals have won up to $27 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last three years, according to a recent study by the Center for Public Integrity. According to the study, nearly 75 per cent of these private companies had employees or board members, who either served in, or had close ties to, the executive branch of the Republican and Democratic administrations, members of Congress, or the highest levels of the military.
In 1997, a U.S. Department of Defense report stated, “the data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement abroad and an increase in terrorist attacks against the U.S.” Truth is, the only way America can win the “War On Terror” is if it stops giving terrorists the motivation and the resources to attack America. Terrorism is the symptom; American imperialism in the Middle East is the cancer. Put simply, the War on Terror is terrorism; only, it is conducted on a much larger scale by people with jets and missiles.
Updated on January 23, 2017.
Quote:
Incisive article originally published by GR in September 2014. Terror attacks or mass shootings allegedly perpetrated by the ISIS, the question that should be asked: who are the State sponsors of Al Qaeda and the ISIS? (M.Ch. GR Editor).
Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region.
The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.
The CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era. Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms: on one side, the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a Soviet tool; on the other side, Western nations and militant political Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union.
Quote:
The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”
During the 1970’s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.
Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980’s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.
America’s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.
The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.
In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.
There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.
America’s Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s neighboring enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.
ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran.
The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the U.S. has been engaged in over 53 military invasions and expeditions. Despite what the Western media’s war cries would have you believe, Iran is clearly not the threat to regional security, Washington is. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.
America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance.
By rapidly increasing both government secrecy and surveillance, Mr. Obama’s government is increasing its power to watch its citizens, while diminishing its citizens’ power to watch their government. Terrorism is an excuse to justify mass surveillance, in preparation for mass revolt.
The so-called “War on Terror” should be seen for what it really is: a pretext for maintaining a dangerously oversized U.S. military. The two most powerful groups in the U.S. foreign policy establishment are the Israel lobby, which directs U.S. Middle East policy, and the Military-Industrial-Complex, which profits from the former group’s actions. Since George W. Bush declared the “War on Terror” in October 2001, it has cost the American taxpayer approximately 6.6 trillion dollars and thousands of fallen sons and daughters; but, the wars have also raked in billions of dollars for Washington’s military elite.
In fact, more than seventy American companies and individuals have won up to $27 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last three years, according to a recent study by the Center for Public Integrity. According to the study, nearly 75 per cent of these private companies had employees or board members, who either served in, or had close ties to, the executive branch of the Republican and Democratic administrations, members of Congress, or the highest levels of the military.
In 1997, a U.S. Department of Defense report stated, “the data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement abroad and an increase in terrorist attacks against the U.S.” Truth is, the only way America can win the “War On Terror” is if it stops giving terrorists the motivation and the resources to attack America. Terrorism is the symptom; American imperialism in the Middle East is the cancer. Put simply, the War on Terror is terrorism; only, it is conducted on a much larger scale by people with jets and missiles.
↧
↧
Waddup Wikisocion
What's going on there and why, did I miss something? Thanks in advance! :biggrin:
↧
Socionics was created by America for the Soviets
I have no idea either way but a lot of things about it just seem suspicious. For one, Soviet Russians didn't exactly have glam rockers or 50s housewives, and for another thing, it looks suspiciously similar to MBTI in how it's formatted. I read an article a while back saying "the need to put everything into neat categories is characteristically corporate America" although it was just referencing MBTI and not socionics at all. So, discuss.
↧
What's in the box?
A friend knocks on the door to your home. You open a door and they have a box in their hand, saying they have a new object they have acquired and that the object is completely new. So your friend opens the box, and you see for the first time the contents of the box. You form an initial impression of the object. You notice that it shiny, that it has wings, wheels, bolts, screws, nuts, joints, etc etc. The moment you see it, you create this gestalt working knowledge of the object. You've created something new in your head, but you've done it using the old knowledge that you had stored in your mind. As you see the object work, you start adding even more of your knowledge to restructure your idea of the object, creating new gestalt points.
Say that we hit the rewind button, and go back through each individual novel moment that we experience just like the contents of what is in the box. Each moment we take parts of ourselves, and combine them into a new idea. Let us go all the way back to the beginning to the origin point of our existence? What came before this point? The only solution to this is that we came into existence with a preconceived perspective. What is this preconceived perspective... I'll leave that up for people to debate, but the notion of Tabula Rasa is essentially impossible.
Now imagine from the origin point, every moment is a novel experience, being painted in your preconceived perspective. As you grow, your working universe grows. The entire universe essentially becomes a reflection of the self to you. So the question is, what is really in the box?
Say that we hit the rewind button, and go back through each individual novel moment that we experience just like the contents of what is in the box. Each moment we take parts of ourselves, and combine them into a new idea. Let us go all the way back to the beginning to the origin point of our existence? What came before this point? The only solution to this is that we came into existence with a preconceived perspective. What is this preconceived perspective... I'll leave that up for people to debate, but the notion of Tabula Rasa is essentially impossible.
Now imagine from the origin point, every moment is a novel experience, being painted in your preconceived perspective. As you grow, your working universe grows. The entire universe essentially becomes a reflection of the self to you. So the question is, what is really in the box?
↧