Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (184664)	4/6/2006 3:18:57 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Huh? I don't think any totalitarian regimes have much stability at all. They topple like nine pins. I predicted a 110 minute war against Saddam and so it came to pass. Iran would be a bit more tricky as they have religious fervour and that's the main basis of the power base of the current government which I understand was elected more or less. Totalitarian regimes work on eons-old chimpoid rules which these days is nicknamed Stockholm Syndrome [usually reserved for individual hostage-takings but applicable on a grand scale in my opinion]. Plenty of people go along because a peaceful life within a totalitarian regime is usually preferable to the alternative. Life can even seem quite good within them if the regime isn't too horrendously greedy and brutish, which they usually become as there's no bound to megalomania. But because totalitarians are always useless in getting things done compared with Libertarian principles applied in large tribes [even if applied only haphazardly and to a very limited extent], it takes only a prod from the outside for them to fall over. That's how the British Empire worked. Maoris in NZ were horrific totalitarian slave driving cannibals based on found wealth and a spot of kumara growing. The British backed one, or the other and the tribes toppled with their members figuring life under the Queen was better than being eaten by a neighbouring tribe. Similarly, the huge Indian population came under British sway. As did many totalitarian barbaric regimes whose members were only too happy to get out from under. Unfortunately, during independence in the 20th century, the local yokels were conned by the local power grabbers to think that they were getting freedom from the yoke of the evil British. In fact, they got Idi Amin, Mugabe, and all sorts of horrors along with poverty and early death. Maybe the USA will be able to do in Iraq much like the British did during empire building. So far, it's a bit messy, but doing okay [as these things go]. Meanwhile, you misunderstand me if you think I think that any totalitarian regime is long for this world. It fascinates me to see rows and rows of humans like sardines in a can, [with comparable freedom and individuality], arrayed pointing to Mecca when instructed to bow like mindless iron filings in a magnetic field. To mix a couple of metaphors. Anyone who disobeys will be guilty of apostasy and we know what happens to them. Weirdly, most or nearly all of the sardines/iron filings, are in favour of their treatment. That seems to be how Stockholm Syndrome works. They love their captors. Big Brother is wonderful and love is the right feeling. See "1984". But lurking in the hostages' minds is anger and instinct for self-determination when escape is certain and freedom is experienced. The religious bosses of a billion Moslems will NOT give up their power, cash flow, and girls, without an all-out war and total carnage if needs be. Mqurice