It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
At the center of all psychological denial is a hidden agenda. That agenda is usually not completely conscious--meaning that the denier has not thought through the issues surrounding his denial; and may not even be aware of what his motivation is in asserting something is true when it isn't; or false when it isn't…
The hidden agenda or underlying motivation behind the denial is very frequently related to the potential adverse consequences that could ensue if the denial was eliminated and reality acknowledged. That is where the unacceptable feelings, needs, and thoughts come in. The denier (or part of him) has made an unconscious decision that awareness of certain feelings, needs, or thoughts is more threatening to his sense of self than the act of denial.
You have two choices at this point. You can engage the denier in rational argument in the hopes of breaking through their denial; or you can work around them and let them suffer the consequences of their denial. The second strategy may be the best in some cases, but is obviously more difficult if your own fate is tied to theirs.
Originally posted by LeeannaHolland
They voted for Obama, and really want the changes he is out to accomplish. Distribution of American wealth to other countries is one of those.
Freedom is not going away, it is just changing.
Originally posted by SGTChas
Denial means “unconscious suppression of painful or embarrassing feelings"
The only difference between Marxism and corporatist fascism is one of semantics. In corporatist, fascist states, you have a power partnership between private corporations and government run by the same group of elitists. In Marxist states, you have a power partnership between corporations created and operated by the government, which are sometimes associated with certain "ministries," and the main body of the government itself, both again run by the same group of elitists. The final outcome is the same in both cases - a system of feudality. Marxism should be distinguished from communism and socialism, both of which technically involve the "dictatorship of the proletariat," meaning the rule of the working class. True communism and socialism are never the forms of government that are actually used anywhere in the world. The forms of government that other countries call communism or socialism are really just Marxism at their core, which involves the dictatorship of a ruling class, and which is sometimes referred to as the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie."
True communism and socialism always fail because hard work and varying degrees of effort and skill are not adequately and proportionately rewarded, which leads to mediocrity and inefficiency. The system implodes on itself because people have fallen natures as described in the Bible. Because their lot in life cannot be improved beyond that of all the other slaves to the bourgeoisie-run state, the people of the proletariat fall back to doing the absolute minimum to get by, plunging the state's economy into a situation characterized by inefficiency, corruption and incompetence which send it down the road to Zimbabwe. In order for true communism or socialism to work, everyone must be perfectly altruistic in nature, which is completely and totally impossible. In fact, the precise opposite is true. Few, if any, can truly claim to have a thoroughly altruistic nature. Marxism and corporatist fascism fail because they are inherently unfair, creating power and privileges for monumentally undeserving overlords who think they know what it best for the rest of us. Unlike corporatist fascism, however, which is usually based on some form of capitalism and private enterprise, Marxism has the added disadvantage of an economy that is run on communistic principals which lead to near zero incentive to excel at anything, plunging the economy into a state of lethargy and poverty. All political systems, save the one our Forefathers gifted us with, are in the end nothing but glorified forms of dictatorship, that place wealth and power in the hands of a few.
By contrast, our republican form of government coupled with a capitalist economy succeeds because it is based on two Biblical principals. The first principle is that you ought to reap what you sow. This is the opposite of moral hazard, such as where banks reap bailouts at public expense when they have sowed the destruction of the entire financial system in an orgy of fraud. The second principle is that men have been given free will by their Creator to make decisions for good or for ill. This is the opposite of a dictatorship where your decisions are made for you by Big Brother.
In true communism and socialism, everyone is treated equally regardless of skill and effort, a sure loser because people by their nature will not tolerate such nonsense unless it is forced down their throats by the Marxist dictators and ruling class who are treated more equally than their suppressed subjects. Our form of government, when run correctly instead of being transformed into a corporatist, fascist state, creates an open market of ideas and the freedom to choose any of those ideas as each person sees fit. Since not all ideas can be implemented, we have what are supposed to be wise, honest representatives who are elected to help choose which ideas should be adopted based on a majority rule, which the people agree to support and abide by as part of their social contract with our government, that social contract being our Constitution and Bill of Rights. This creates efficiency when you have honest government, as mostly good ideas are adopted by honest, hard-working public servants. Contrast this with having a dictator's tunnel vision, based only on self interest, shoved up the public's collective derrieres. Currently, we can think of many colorful adjectives to describe our corrupt government, but honesty is not one of them, unless of course you were searching for an antonym.
Originally posted by nenothtu
These two parts of your post make it appear to me that you equate taking away from people the freedom to defend what they worked for, then taking said substance and giving it away to strangers in what amounts to a government sanctioned theft, with true 'freedom', albeit of a 'changed' nature.
Have I misunderstood your meaning?