The Power of Nightmares-Part1

Realizing the benefits of social solidarity and planning over the corruptive individualism, the conservatives are good. Yet, they often turn into crazy evil movements when start 1) to fight socialism and communism worldwide and 2) spread freedom and democracy, these false western values.

I believe this idiocy is caused by capitalists, who control the western world and benefit from individualism and corruption. Capital demonizes the communism to scare people to go left but fight it as fascists.

This film is a great exposition of evilish conservative character. Unfortunately, exposed, it justifies the destructive effect of individualism on society. Yet, conservatives are 100 % right when point this corruption out. It is a private interest that is a source of cricises, of which ecology is the most dangerous. This video also mistakenly claims that science can proove to the blind obsessed consumers that their activity affects environment.

okay. i admit. i didnt watch the series yet i commented. i will be the first (or the third) to admit: dumb move on my part.

i will watch the series and get back to you.

madrid bombings were an illusion?
london bombings were an illusion?
the london bombings that failed to detonate were an illusion/
the scotland airport incident was an illusion?
911 in america was an illusion?

i love my country.
i dont trust my government
but some conspiracy theorists have their head too far in the clouds. terrorists do exist. explain how they dont.

I'm afraid you've neither watched the series, and quite likely have done very little research into terrorism. Adam Curtis does not deny the events you reference; but he does an excellent job of showing that the threat of terrorism in the West was vastly overstated. And he's absolutely right.

Way to miss the point. Perhaps watch the films next time, yes?

Also, you never demonstrated that talking out a compromise DOESN'T mitigate conflict. For instance, my aunt once talked her way out of a rape scenario. Clearly non-violent means DO work in individual scenarios. They've also worked in "national" scenarios, see the Indian independence movement that overthrew British rule.

I'm not saying that you HAVE to use non-violent means of conflict resolution. But I am saying that institutionalizing a solution, particularly violence, does not work.

I'm not doubting your honesty but how on earth could she talk her way out of a rape scenario? It never hurts to try to 'talk something out' but when that fails and you are still attacked you must use force. The only reason Gandhi's non-violent method worked is because he was dealing with a level headed democracy, not crazy fundamentalists, and as we all know democracies are much more prone to sue for peace, see the Democratic Peace Theory. I had a personal experience where I was

about to be jumped by three people, did I try to talk it out? You bet I did. Did it work? Hells no. You see talking is by far the best alternative, but often fails, depending on the foe. But you are right in that institutionalizing violence is not a good alternative, but it has to be on the table at all times. This world is not one of More's utopias, if you simply turn the other cheek you won't survive. Speak softly and carry a big stick." - T. Roosevelt.

Here's the thing though, when you institutionalize violence, it's going to be payed for by extortion, taxation, they come to me, and take the resources I have earned voluntarily, and they do it by force. Naturally, this is destructive to the social order.

Now, non-institutional violence will always be on the table, I can't do anything about that, people have free will, so it goes. But at the very least I don't have to fund it.