Osama Wins! Americans Lose!

We played by Osama bin Laden’s rules. Even in killing Osama, we lose. Osama knew that, but Americans were stupid enough to play right into Osama’s agenda. We Americans (as a country and as citizens) have lost money, lives and our moral highground. Like Osama planned, we are going the way of the USSR.

The more I think about this, I don’t think it was an accident. I know the average American isn’t as well informed and thoughtful as they should be. But I was wondering how the political elite were also so clueless as to not understand Osama’s agenda when he spelled it out very clearly and in great detail.

I just now realized that the political ruling elite (i.e., corporatists, plutocrats, and the military-industrial complex) share the same basic agenda with Osama bin Laden. They both don’t like nor trust the populist ethos of American democracy. The reason is because only a functioning democracy (that actually represents the public and where the population isn’t disenfranchised) can challenge the authoritarian power structures represented by corporatism and by fundamentalism.

Because of corporate media, most Americans don’t comprehend that the corporatists are at least as dangerous if not more than the terrorists. Now that Osama is gone, will Americans see the enemy in their midst?

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “Osama Wins! Americans Lose!

  1. this is a mighty fine nutshell, dear Marmalade-kitty!

    I just now realized that the political ruling elite (i.e., corporatists, plutocrats, and the military-industrial complex) share the same basic agenda with Osama bin Laden. They both don’t like American democracy. The reason is because only a functioning democracy (that actually represents the public and where the population isn’t disenfranchised) can challenge the authoritarian power structures represented by corporatism and by fundamentalism.

    • Thanks for the appreciation, Om-lady! 🙂

      It was somewhat of a casual contemplation, casual for me anyway. I haven’t fully thought out its implications.

      I’m still a bit perplexed by what the ruling elite hoped to achieve by by the War on Terror, especially considering the plans to invade Iraq preceded 9/11. Part of me suspects it was a simple need for having a new bogeyman to replace the Cold War Commies.

      It’s hard for me to get into the mindset of those who seek world dominance. I understand that there are massive profits in the military-industrial complex. And I understand power corrupts. But, in today’s world, building a military empire seems like such a silly idea.

      From my view, such an endeavor seems doomed to failure. Do those seeking wealth and power even care? Are they simply counting on the assumption that they won’t still be around when the whole house of cards collapses?

      • Haha, I get it: Marm a lad e, Om a lad y !!!

        Well just ask yourself what HAS resulted from the War on Terror. Heck, you know that as well as I do, and it isn’t just a new bogeyman… or it’s the effects of having a new and even more useful bogeyman….

        The tentative answers to your last questions which are in my mind are not explicable in writing…..

        • I find it odd that it’s easier for me to get into the mindset of Osama bin Laden than to get into the mindset of Dick Cheney or Karl Rove. Osama was a true believer who was misguided, but he had some genuine insights about Western society. The ruling elites of Western society, however, seem like very strange creatures to me.

          I intellectually understand that pretty much everyone finds a positive way to spin their own self-justifying story. My lack of understanding comes from not clearly seeing the story being played out with the military-industrial complex and global military empire. I just don’t get it.

          I suspect part of the problem is that the real story is behind several layers of official stories. My sense is that Osama was being very straightforward, but the political ruling elite are more devious and conniving than the greatest terrorist could ever hope to be.

          I agree with you about asking what HAS resulted. Reasons given are deceiving, but actions speak louder than words. Still, my confusion persists. I can see some of the results of the past decade, but I’m not able to put it into a larger context. My sense is that the military-industrial complex and the global military empire aren’t ends in themselves but means to some other ulterior agenda(s).

          I see several tangible results of all this. The War on Terror (and the administration that started it) has led to:

          – decreasing protection of civil/human rights,
          – constant state of fear justifying an endless security state,
          – a democracy that barely functions,
          – an increasing alliance corporate interests (including corporate media) & political interests
          – profiting of the rich at the expense of average Americans & future generations.

          I’m sure I could go on. To interpret this in the most direct manner. I’d say the end goal is the creation of a militarized, fascist banana republic. But that hardly creates a desirable society even for the rich. Gated communities can only protect one so much from a society of vast poverty and desperation. I just came across data showing that the areas directly around Washington, DC are the wealthiest in the country and that most of the wealth has to do with military and intelligence contractors. So, are the richest of the rich eventually planning on turning all of DC into a gated community and let the rest of the country go to hell?

          Am I naive and simpleminded for not understanding why the wealthy ruling elite would want to live in a militarized, fascist banana republic? Even for the richest of the rich, such a society would be a horrible place to live.

  2. Even for the richest of the rich, such a society would be a horrible place to live.

    Right. And therefore the only logical conclusion is……

    And are you sure you’ve really identified the characters in this little drama all the way through the hall of mirrors to the source?

    • “Right. And therefore the only logical conclusion is……”

      I assume you’re implying that people in wealth don’t plan on or won’t choose to continue to live in this country if it ever becomes that horrible. I suppose it’s always been true, at least in the past, that if you have money almost any social problem can be escaped. Why deal with a social problem, even if you helped create it, when you don’t have to?

      I had considered that possibility, but the US seems representative of what is happening all around the world. In a globalized society, the places to escape to are becoming fewer… unless the rich plan on colonizing space.

      “And are you sure you’ve really identified the characters in this little drama all the way through the hall of mirrors to the source?”

      I can’t be sure of anything. Technically, we all are characters in this little drama. I wouldn’t pretend to know the ultimate source, though. Just various individuals and groups, some of which have the audacity to think they’re in control.

      You are inciting my gnostic tendencies, but I was intentionally staying away from cosmic paranoia. To me, it’s a rabbit hole. It just keeps going down and down with no bottom. People pulling the strings of other people while also having their own strings pulled. Story on top of story, ad infinitum.

  3. P.S. That’s a mighty sharp and complete list. Kudos!

    Definition of “the rich” bears looking into. I suspect that’s a true rabbit hole…..

    • Well, ‘rich’ is a relative term. It depends on one’s perspective and one’s overriding narrative (which is usually the overriding narrative of one’s culture).

      People feel rich in comparison to perceiving others as not rich. And people perceive others as rich in comparison to not feeling rich. This is why poor people feel better off in a poor society than they do in a rich society, despite their poverty being the same.

      Wealth merely represents what can be done with wealth, represents power and authority… or rather perceived power and authority, the trick being to get others to also perceive your power and authority… and thus submit to it. 🙂

      Real power is about persuasion. And the most fundamental or central aspect of persuasion is narrative. Those who control a society’s collective story will control that society. That is why the most key factor to look at are the storytellers, i.e., the mainstream media: radio talk shows, tv & cable news, Hollywood, etc.

      But I look at the mainstream media and I see the ultimate hall of mirrors. I’m not sure the reporters and pundits themselves really understand the stories they tell. They are simply talking heads, but they aren’t the ones who make the decisions. I’d love to see what goes on behind the scenes of mainstream media… the meetings, the private calls. Oh, to be a fly on the wall.

  4. “I’m not sure the reporters and pundits themselves really understand the stories they tell. They are simply talking heads”

    Talking heads or ‘jobs’. People like that usually are played (by their relying on it) by their overriding narrative which is usually pandered – underline ‘pandered’ – to them.

    You do have your fair share of crackpot theories :-). I cannot say what ‘Osama intended to do’, I prefer staying out of people’s minds to guessing their intentions. What I can say however is your theory has merit when we proceed from the premises as pertain to America’s image. As well, it has merit when looking at the actions of classes, politicians and the other ‘powers’. As for Osama’s intention (as well as the powers’ intentions), at best, I’ll say ‘he probably plotted the whole thing’

    However, these people might have given you indication for this deduction of their intention, judging by previous posts, conversations and the data supplied in them

    Cheerio

    But, you Americans have enough terrorists in your midst to feel insecure, what makes you guys unaware of this easy fact? Osama is dead ain’t no celebration or I’m being to critical? I’m saying this cos I saw some people on the tv on the day it was announced jubilating as I was passing (not of much interest to me)

    • “You do have your fair share of crackpot theories”

      I’m not a fan of paranoid fear-mongering, but I’ve always had a soft spot in my heart for crackpot theories.

      “I cannot say what ‘Osama intended to do’, I prefer staying out of people’s minds to guessing their intentions.”

      Neither can I say what Osam actually intended to do. But I can say what he stated that he intended to do. I suppose it’s somewhat of a guess to assume that what he states is what he actually means. The videos he released did have the purpose of being propaganda and so he might not have been entirely truthful. Even so, my intuitive sense is that he was more or less speaking truthfully about his intentions.

      I’m less clear about the ‘powers that be’ within the US govt and within the military-industrial complex.

      I’m also less clear about Osama’s connection to 9/11. I’ve never had any strong opinion about whether he was or was not actually linked to that terrorist attack or merely was taking credit for it. The US intelligence agencies have charged Osama with various terrorist attacks but they have never claimed he was responsible for 9/11 (because of lack of confirming evidence).

      “However, these people might have given you indication for this deduction of their intention, judging by previous posts, conversations and the data supplied in them”

      Here is one example of intentions. According to news reports:

      I know that the Bush administration was interested in attacking Iraq prior to 9/11. I know that those within the intelligence agencies were telling the Bush administration that there was no evidence Saddam Hussein had any WMDs. I know that most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. I know that the Bush family is personal friends with the Saudi royal family. I know the Bush administration allowed the Saudi royal family to fly out of the US directly after 9/11 even when all American flights were grounded. I know that only a handful of Osama’s fellow ‘terrorists’ were in Afghanistan. I know the US govt invaded and occupied an entire country for a decade over those handful of people who almost immediately went to Pakistan which we didn’t invade and occupy.

      So, according to what I do know, it can be deduced that the US govt’s stated intentions weren’t the true intentions (whatever the true intentions may have been).

      “But, you Americans have enough terrorists in your midst to feel insecure, what makes you guys unaware of this easy fact?”

      Not all of us are unaware of this easy fact. There are websites dedicated to listing all of the homegrown terrorism in the US, most of which isn’t Islamic. The reason most Americans are unaware is because most of the media ignores it. Only a few reporters/pundits ever acknowledge the vast amount of homegrown terrorism. Rachel Maddow did an in-depth piece on it which was very informative.

      “Osama is dead ain’t no celebration or I’m being to critical?”

      From my perspective, you aren’t being too critical. I too have been critical of this incident. And I’m not alone. There actually has been a fair amount of criticism in the media (such as Michael Moore) and in comments on US media websites (such as Huffington Post).

      Death is no reason for celebration, especially when it apparently involves assassination which is illegal according to both US and international law. It’s pretty fucked up that the US govt thinks it can go into any country it wants and assassinate anyone it wants. They don’t think they even have to ask the govt of that country. American cowboys ride alone and carry big guns.

  5. “assassination which is illegal according to both US and international law”

    That is precisely what we discussed at a gathering I attended yesterday. What I said there was extempore, practically just letting the words lead me, after all, I have a lot to say. Here’s the key point which you will be familiar with:

    The law is just a concept. It’s pretty spineless. What we have is people to criticize, it is they who can check these injustices and it is they who vivify the law because the law represents the agreement of people. In the end, it is only people who can do anything. But, when people fail to realize this, when they cower for their lives, at once, the law is defeated. No organization can do anything. Sanctions are just blather, they, in themselves, are useless. Besides when the US is big Uncle Sam, the giant with the big gun tucked under his big moustache, do we not have a bully? Then, there is that obnoxious self-aggrandizement, the G20. Fuck my ass and let me die. G20? Shit. I remember there was a prison in Great Britain in the great 19th century called Gladstone (the great) or something like that. Maybe these where the 20 cons who broke outta there in 1875, the great Gladstone 20.

    The power has finally got to go to the people. Kings and queens, heads and their ears, they’ve all got to go. The people must finally rise. I didn’t realize how much this flame burned in me till I attended the program y’day.

    Me Against the World

    Astonishingly, I don’t want to be part of even that new world

    • “The power has finally got to go to the people. Kings and queens, heads and their ears, they’ve all got to go. The people must finally rise.”

      I do think we will see a global transformation of sorts, eventually, who knows when, but it won’t be pretty. In some ways, the upper class elite has more power than they’ve ever had before. On the other hand, if the people of the world collectively rise (even if only briefly), the elite will have no where to escape to… as they had in the past.

      “I didn’t realize how much this flame burned in me till I attended the program y’day.”

      You do seem a bit worked up over all this… and for good reason.

      “Me Against the World”

      Tell me how that works out for ya.

      “Astonishingly, I don’t want to be part of even that new world”

      Yeah. I can see that way of thinking. But I don’t have much of an opinion about wanting or not.

      Whatever the future may bring, I doubt it will be for my generation. I expect to spend most, if not all, of my life seeing the world get worse and worse. If I live long enough I might begin to see the dawning of a new era.

      Those being born right now will live in a very different world when they gain the reigns of power. Good luck to them.

  6. “On the other hand, if the people of the world collectively rise (even if only briefly)”

    That is just my point

    “Astonishingly, I don’t want to be part of even that new world”

    I say that because I’ve never really wanted to be part of this place. There are interesting things here but can’t hold my attention. I’m a hermit, I’m a wanderer. I’ve been caught between the two for a long time esp ever since my first mental revolution, staying or going, group or alone. One saying I learned that stuck with me because it accurately described myself was in class 6, an English language course book (I’ve always loved literature too): I was with them, but I was not of them. I always had my own mind and religion made me feel bad about it, not at that time, but later.

    I’ve had two mental revolutions, one between the ages of 8 and 9 resulting in a 10yr sickness, a total loss of self, a total loss of place and then a depression that began about 13-14y old. The second one was between 18 and 19. That left me even more lost. That presented me with the complete absurdity of everything. The person who met you was that lost person, critical of everything, nihilistic too.

    When filling the questionnaire at Keirsey’s site, I’m always in two minds. There’s one question that sums it all:

    Which do you wish more for yourself?

    a) Clarity of reason
    b) Strength of compassion (something like that)

    It seems easy, but I can’t choose, both belong to me. I want my reason to be pristine but I also want my passion to be mighty. All at the right time though and none of them leading me. Initially, I thought it was more of a question assessing your lack but I came to realize it was more of which do you like more

    A lot of my complexity can be traced back to that mental revolution of 8y-9y, that really set me about turn. I was really an optimist (about my family in this case), I thought my family would never break but that happened and I began to mistrust everything including myself, my judgment. I became more scientific, more scrupulous. But, with it also came a want to comfort others because I saw what pain, hurt could do. Even at the time I didn’t feel particularly pained, I thought something was wrong with me. I practically forced myself to be able to feel what was happening and that took a long time to kick in. My emotions too were very volatile when they showed and they stayed so for many, many years, I’ve only recently acquired some stability, even then it’s by reason that I do it, what they call philosophical. I’m stoical because I’ve experienced a lot of hardship, I don’t really have many needs, I can always find a way around or through things and simply, I can take it

    It was by this MBTI thingy that I came to find that I really like reason more than compassion. I don’t like people very much but when I go out, when I see some faces, when I see pain, tears well in my eyes. That’s what gets me. And I love woman, I really do, I’m very aware of the depth of passion I’m capable of with her but I always have an uncanny apprehension of her. I’ve always loved woman more than man esp after what my mom went through. Let us put to the side my oversexed nature for this because I really do love woman

    • “That left me even more lost. That presented me with the complete absurdity of everything. The person who met you was that lost person, critical of everything, nihilistic too.”

      Yeah, I of course didn’t know that at the time. I’m sure it gives me a skewed sense of you as a person since I didn’t know you prior to that shift.

      “It was by this MBTI thingy that I came to find that I really like reason more than compassion. I don’t like people very much but when I go out, when I see some faces, when I see pain, tears well in my eyes.”

      I love reason, but I realize it’s not necessarily my natural predisposition. As a relatively intelligent fellow, I have the capacity for reason and that capacity became manifest because of being raised by an intellectual father.

      Nonetheless, it’s not the core of my being. Fi is the core of my being (and it’s funny that Fi types seem to be the ones who tend to care the most about what is at the core of their being). My reasoning is a reaction to and a defense against the world. It’s my sword which I’ve learned to use proficiently, but it isn’t my heart and even when given the opportunity I’d rather not finish off my opponent.

      To an outside observer, my reason seems to predominate. Even to myself, reason is never far from my mind. It’s hard for me to be my natural self in this world.

      “That’s what gets me. And I love woman, I really do, I’m very aware of the depth of passion I’m capable of with her”

      That might be one difference between you and I. In my experience, compassion and passion aren’t exactly the same. I feel passion but it’s directed more toward my values than to people. Or, to put it another way, it’s concerned with people by way of values.

      My Fi is a very personal experience, but there can be an impersonal quality to my passion. My compassion is a combination of the Fi’s personal/impersonal with Ne’s ability to imagine. I use the latter to imagine the experience of others and I use the former to enter that experience. But Fi taken on its own terms can be an isolated experience in that it requires nothing outside of itself.

      • “That might be one difference between you and I. In my experience, compassion and passion aren’t exactly the same”

        I’m sure. For me, I can be passionate about compassion itself and simply passionate about other things while being simply compassionate. This is part of the reason I think my feeling resembles Fe more closely whatever position it’s in.

        Between the INFP, INFJ, INTP and INTJ, I’ll take INFP as the most fearful followed closely or side-by-side even by INTJ because both have Te in their funtions and Te is a monster while their only feeling is Fi which can be pretty impersonal and selfish, they’re my fears, I tell ya. In fact all who have as part of that Te-Fi combination as part of their conscious functions, they are to be feared.

        “I love reason, but I realize it’s not necessarily my natural predisposition. As a relatively intelligent fellow, I have the capacity for reason and that capacity became manifest because of being raised by an intellectual father”

        I don’t know why I like reason so much. It usually is how I make decisions. If I’m an INFJ, I don’t know whether it’s because I’m an introvert thus my introverted functions will be strongly combined developed too. I only use feeling in relation to people and for artistic purposes but making decisions uses reason.

        “I feel passion but it’s directed more toward my values than to people”

        This is exactly why I think INFPs should be feared as you even said before. Besides, you don’t love woman as much as me, that’s why she broke your heart 🙂

        • “I can be passionate about compassion itself and simply passionate about other things while being simply compassionate. This is part of the reason I think my feeling resembles Fe more closely whatever position it’s in.”

          I was just now trying to figure out exactly what compassion means within my own psychological makeup. I know it’s very centrally important to me.

          There is an inherent tendency toward compassion within Fi itself and many INFPs (myself included) have a tendency to make compassion one of their (if not THE) core Fi value. I’d argue that INFPs are one of the most compassionate of all types, but their compassion isn’t always obvious because they defend their values. When you’ll see the INFPs compassion most clearly is when an INFP feels the need to defend an underdog. There is something about underdogs that INFPs sympathize with in a way I don’t think any other type does to the same degree.

          INFPs can take everything too seriously including their own compassion, but what compassion means for an INFP may not make sense to other types or may just seem naive and silly. An Fi core value can be impersonal in that it’s universal (which lends itself to the melodramatic and the archetypal). An INFP isn’t likely to feel compassion just for this or that person but for all of humanity, maybe even all sentient life, maybe even for all of existence with its inevitable suffering. It’s an absolutist compassion. It’s not that the INFP won’t feel compassion for individuals. It’s just the individual human, to the INFP, always points to the universal human condition.

          For an Fe type, compassion has more to do with basic human relationships, relating well to others, social norms, valuing a healthy society, etc. The compassion is elicited more from outside and isn’t as much felt within. Fe compassion is a social act or even a social role. It’s probably more concerned with specifics and so potentially is more realistic and practical.

          Maybe here is a difference. For Fi, the value of compassion itself is being served. Everything is judged by that value. For Fe, compassion in itself might be less relevant. It’s the results that matter, the actual impact. The other aspect of this is that Fi will defy social norms willfully and nothing is above being sacrificed for the sake of the value, but it makes less sense to Fe to stick to compassion as a value no matter what the cost. Just last night, I came across of what seems like an example of INFP idealism at all costs, principle above practicality – The World As It Is by Chris Hedges:

          “I believe that the truth is the only force that will set us free. I have hope, not in the tangible or in what I can personally accomplish, but in the faith that battling evil, cruelty, and injustice allows us to retain our identity, a sense of meaning and ultimately our freedom. Perhaps in our lifetimes we will not succeed. Perhaps things will only get worse. But this does not invalidate our efforts. Rebellion—which is different from revolution because it is perpetual alienation from power rather than the replacement of one power system with another—should be our natural state. And faith, for me, is a belief that rebellion is always worth it, even if all outward signs point to our lives and struggles as penultimate failures. We are saved not by what we can do or accomplish but by our fealty to revolt, our steadfastness to the weak, the poor, the marginalized, and those who endure oppression. We must stand with them against the powerful. If we remain true to these moral imperatives, we win. And I am enough of an idealist to believe that the struggle to live the moral life is worth it.”

          It’s funny how INFP that is:
          Truth and Freedom will be our salvation!
          Losing battles must be fought…
          …for even when we lose, we win!

          “Between the INFP, INFJ, INTP and INTJ, I’ll take INFP as the most fearful followed closely or side-by-side even by INTJ because both have Te in their funtions and Te is a monster while their only feeling is Fi which can be pretty impersonal and selfish, they’re my fears, I tell ya. In fact all who have as part of that Te-Fi combination as part of their conscious functions, they are to be feared.”

          I found your comment amusing.

          Are INFPs the most fearful, the most to be feared? In a healthy ‘normal’ INFP, Te would never trump Fi. But I couldn’t tell you how many INFPs are psychologically well-balanced and well-developed vs how many are not. Even if Osama bin Laden was actually an INFP, how many disgruntled INFPs are likely to become global terrorists. LOL I’ve found that, although Te is an aspirational, most INFPs don’t use or express it that much. I’m an atypical INFP in what way and to what extent my Te has developed.

          “I only use feeling in relation to people and for artistic purposes but making decisions uses reason.”

          That would fit my above definition of Fe.

          “This is exactly why I think INFPs should be feared as you even said before.”

          More than any other type, INFPs could be said to have great potential. The question remains in individual cases in how that potential will manifest.

          INFPs are the most idealistic of all types. If that idealism develops naturally and isn’t thwarted too severely, INFPs can become great spiritual teachers, populist leaders, political revolutionaries, social reformers, and tireless defenders of all that is true and good.

          On the other hand: The greater the idealism means the greater the potential for cynicism. The more a value is idealized means the more it can potentially be transformed into its opposite.

          “Besides, you don’t love woman as much as me, that’s why she broke your heart”

          I love woman, like all of the human species, more than anyone! I love everyone and everything absolutely! My love is perfect and pure! I love love itself!

          I’m not sure why… but individual woman never lives up to my universal ideal of perfect, pure love. Woman is always yinning up my yang. My love is without flaw and so I assume it’s the fault of woman. It’s always the fault of woman, bringing the man down to her lowly earthly condition. Body and filth! As a good gnostic, I’ll have none of that!

          • “Rebellion – which is different from revolution because it is perpetual alienation from power rather than the replacement of one power system with another – should be our natural state”

            I put that a different way in a piece I might post up later, here it is:

            To live in this world, the true world, one must need be a Revolutionary. Always in a Revolution

            So, to me, it is revolution I use but the important point is that mine points to revolution in the individual so that it intersects with Mr. Hedges ‘rebellion’. I use the words differently, without context, however, the meanings would have been lost cos we mean similar ideas but use differing ways of expression

            You give me better views of the nuances of these function-attitudes. I was just thinking earlier in the day a thought I vaguely had before that the introverted function quite surely have access to the same ideas but expressed in different ways. From Ti through to Si, they have access to the archetypes and it’s only mode of expression that differs. I’m aware the way I’ve put it isn’t exactly clear but it’s not fully developed, the idea. Do you realise something with me? It looks like I’m rather concerned with the thinking of the functions, their psyches, not what it comes out as in reality.

            “I found your comment amusing”

            I knew you would. Did I put a smiley there? I wanted you to take it very seriously and see your reaction.

            “Te would never trump Fi. But I couldn’t tell you how many INFPs are psychologically well-balanced and well-developed vs how many are not”

            Good you brought that up. I think at this point, we must differentiate the real-world representation from the pure function. It is especially significantly shown for the Si function. The way I see it, the Si is a very artistic function and not basely related to banal memory so absolutely like those internet descriptions make it seem. The Si, like the Ni, however don’t make for appreciable intelligibility, their expressions being more mystical. Their language is archaic but very rich. The way it looks, the introverted functions come to put on coats that don’t quite fit em in an extraverted world so they come to appear very base in that subordinate position. Being unintelligible too, they try to be extraverted to some extent too which attenuates their true character, that is, if they’re dominant functions as well. That subordination is what moves introverts more to the periphery cos they are ‘in the clouds’, their sensibilities are ‘whimsical’, ‘men from space’. So, I think Fi, if shielded from that foolish extraverted prejudice and allowed to grow as it’s supposed to and not get caught up in useless overly rebellious stances so that it could appear neurotic will be as beautiful as you like to idealise it and I see that you know the pure Fi well. I like that. The introverts die under extraverted rule man

            “Body and filth! As a good gnostic, I’ll have none of that”

            Aww, your good man. Haha

            You know, an INXJ could also turn his/her ideation into a moral cause. And as I said, the archetypes are a commonality to the introverted functions. That’s the basic issue with the functions, they could spill into each other. Figuring them out distinctly as to which particular ingredients are involved in a certain representation is a delicate affair. Myers did a good job man. One way you can catch them is the type of neurosis (or vice, if you’re religious) they are likely to suffer from. In addition, what is often the expression, is it logic, feeling, allusive (I’m yet to differentiate Ni and Si well cos according to Jung, both have images of the archetypes, besides when reading Ni y’day, I was sleepy) but it seems Ni is more investigative than Si. Sniffing into the ‘noumenon’ or image and ignoring the image itself (just like Ne does). As for going past the object, well, we are guilty, you and I :-). Reading Jung is sweet Mwah! Licking my fingers after several hours away from that genius. Mastering the topic is not one day job at all. It’s worthy too for being that way.

            Also, the moral cause (or object of feeling) of the Ni is likely to be a singular object that Ni has brought to full fruition before him but Fi will mostly feel out these things making it that the Ni will be less often ‘feeling’ than the Fi. Besides, Ni is less sure (makes him investigative, or stems from being investigative, that is, that is how being investigative appears to the observer, less sure cos he thinks he has to look into it well enough) so would take time to warm up to the image he gets from the unconscious. But, as you said the Fi can also lose his sense of ‘knowing’ which will be in the domain of abnormal psychology then. It’s true, you’ve become an scholarly person without getting a degree.

  7. Osama was a product of US foreign policy; he is merely 1 man who had long lost significance. Survey’s by Pew shows confidence in him to have fallen steadily since 2001 among Muslims in all Muslims nations surveyed. Nonetheless, what gave birth to Osama remains – an imperialist US foreign policy. Osama simply called for withdrawal of US troops in Muslim lands, end of Israeli occupation and US support thereof and end of US support for corrupt dictators in Muslim nations. Pretty reasonable, and these issues will never go away unless Americans turn a critical mirror upon themselves, their government and accept responsibility This is something which the arrogant American jingoists refuse to do, So the terrorism, real or fabricated, continues, as will the erosion of civil liberties, as will the war on terror, as will the immense profits for US arms dealers and gas companies, as will the over extension of the US empire and its eventual death like all those which preceded it. In a way, the US needs an external force. One to arouse blind jingoism allowing the government to get away with anything, domestically and internationally. Secondly, to establish an economy favorable to the arms manufacturers and gas companies that make the political elites money. By the way, why do people say Osama was the mastermind of 911? US has no proof of it and was never charged for it. Guess when someone is declared an enemy of the US, jingoism trumps the rule of law.

    • I wish I could give you more of a reply, but all I can say is that I entirely agree. I’ve made these same kind of statements and criticisms many times in my blogs and in comments elsewhere. In your thinking just like me, I must say that you’re a very smart person. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s